From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:20:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.180029.25616@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote: 
[lots deleted throughout]
> gk:
> | No.  It's the result of only partial collapse of bipolar expectations for
> | men and women.  The screws are pretty much off for women, but possibly a
> | little tighter for men.  Men who performed greatly masculine deeds like
> | fighting in Vietnam or tough physical labour would be venerated if the
> | masculine was preferentially valued.  They ain't.  

gf: 
> They're venerated in some quarters.  If you're thinking
> of the Net or corporate management, the deprecation of
> physical prowess or military accomplishment has a strong
> class component.  In those subcultures where physical
> strength is highly regarded, it's also becoming 
> permissible for women to exhibit it -- look at the 
> bodybuilding magazines.

I was thinking more of the general culture, and "deprecation" is way too
strong.
Bodybuilding is more about beauty than strength (and even more about beauty
for females than for males).   

> gk:
> | As has been mentioned in another thread, the "masculine" is only valued
> | when it is demonstrably successful.  Otherwise, it is a major disadvantage
> | (eg. homeless women sleep in shelters, homeless men sleep in the street).  

gf: 
> Well, you could regard the homeless as a political class
> in conflict with the rest of the community.  In that case,
> the homeless men might be regarded as more "effective"
> members of their class, that is, more aggressive, more 
> offensive, less subject to discipline, better able to 
> survive rejection.  In that case, the same characteristics
> which would be appreciated within the dominant or acqui-
> escent classes of the community would be deprecated in the
> homeless class -- because of the state of conflict.  I 
> think it's true that the further you go down the social 
> ladder, the more likely those who exhibit masculine 
> characteristics will be devalued by the community as a 
> whole, and especially by the leadership, but as I say, I 
> think we're seeing the effect of class war.  

If we agree that "feminization" is not the cause, we are getting somewhere.
 
gf: 
> The question is: who's constraining them?  And also, which
> expectations of women changed?  If the expectations for
> women became masculinized, this wouldn't alleviate the
> constraints on men at all because what they were constrained
> from was femininity.

The expectations for women *expanded*. 

[gk: men bash gays, women date and marry *successful* men]

gf: 
> I think this is a good point.  So the valuation of the
> masculine, usually called "macho" in the mating game, is
> enforced by many members of both sexes.  Does anyone 
> disagree with this?  

"Macho" overstates the issue.  *Successful* or potentially successful would
do.

> gk:
> |                                      Think of the proportion of couples
> | you know where she has a higher income or social status - feminine
> | enforcement definitely contributes here too.  Also, an ancient example:
> | women handing-out white feathers to young men who were not away at war, and
> | a newer one: women who view Bill Clinton as a draft dodger.

gf: 
> I don't have much data on these.  Draft-dodging is
> presently more a sign of class privilege than lack of
> masculine virtues; when I was in the Army (1961-1964)
> only one enlisted man in my company (140+ men) besides 
> myself had spent more than zero days as a college 
> student.

It wasn't framed that way in the recent elections.  It was framed as a
failure to fulfill a uniquely masculine responsibility (sure, there's also
a bit of class contention). In all the coverage I saw, no-one ever turned
to a woman complaining about Clinton and the draft and say "So, what
happened when *you* were drafted ? 

gf:
> I continue to think that the situation we're discussing
> reflects a higher regard for the traditional masculine
> over the traditional feminine characteristics, although 
> as you note there is an exception for certain classes of
> people.  There is some praise for certain feminine values
> like "caring" and "nurturance" from some quarters, but
> generally only when they are exhibited by women or thought 
> of as an inherent characteristics of women.  In any case
> they do not translate into money, power, political
> influence, or a nice life, as far as I know.  Certainly
> they get you nowhere in the business world when they
> are practiced prominently.

Your exception "for certain classes of people" is artificial.
Do "feminine" qualities prove advantageous in the workplace ?  Yep.  

How about the nurturing and promotion of proteges ?  
The training, encouragement and sheperding that lies behind many successful
careers, community-spirited actions which also increase the support and
influence for the "boss" (usually male) who is responsible.  You can say
that this is a purely self-interested activity, but it's no more
self-interested than motherhood, and probably less so.  Actually,
definitely more altruistic - all bosses appreciate that they may be
nurturing an Oedipus (or an Anita Hill).  The best Western science is
conducted under this model.

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism