From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 5 Nov 1992 20:39:43 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov5.030726.25981@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Almost all men are 
>physically stronger than almost all women of the same age 
>and size; so one usually would not use the word 
>"stereotype" to describe the perception that men are 
>physically stronger.  I speculated that this perception 
>would be a rather significant one in what situations the 
>homeless wind up in.  I was answering one speculation 
>with another.  It's a kind of warm-up.

You weren't presenting it as one speculative contribution, you were
presenting it authoritatively as the only plausible explanation.  Since
you're now backing off on this, I'll consider it settled.

>Talk about bizarre.  People had as many stereotypes about men 
>in 1970 as they have now, but there was no "homeless problem." 
>A political decision was made to abandon the poor to their own 
>devices, remember? Are you unaware of what's been going on in 
>this country?

Yes, obviously if we eliminate homelessness, there will no longer be
more homeless men than women.  But the effects of gender myths can be
dependent on the legal and economic environment, no?

>| OK, let's cut to the chase.  What you're attempting to do here is to
>| portray me as motivated not by a desire to solve the problems of 
>| homeless men, but a desire to attack feminism.  Right?  
> 
>You're portraying yourself far beyond anything I 
>could do.  By the way, is the echolalia satirical 
>or a tic?

If you can't attack substance, attack style.  Disappointing.

>ss:  
>| I'm happy to discuss psychological theory.  What I mean by 'changing the 
>| subject' is your insinuation that my true motive in this discussion is 
>| to attack feminism.  Have I mentioned feminism in this thread?  Do you 
>| see concern about men as 'anti-feminist?' 
>
>Um, this may come as a surprise to you, but the newsgroup 
>you're posting in is called "alt.feminism" and one must 
>assume you see some relationship between the subject matter 
>you're commenting on and feminism.

Equivocation.  I've been discussing gender myths, which I presume are
germane to feminism.  I -haven't- been discussing the ethical,
political, sociological, legal etc. significance of 'feminism' as a
movement, which you seem to think I'm doing.  My only motivation here
has been my concern for the homeless, especially homeless men, who seem
to be relatively lacking in concern.  If you see that as
'anti-feminist,' then so be it.

>Since you see 
>the thread otherwise, or so you seem to be implying, can 
>you tell us what _your_ point, your aim, might be?  What's 
>_your_ take on this conversation?

My opinion is that the original article posted on homelessness is an
excellent beginning on the subject of how gender assumptions help
to maintain the gender gaps among the homeless.  Its development
of the 'failed man' theme is especially astute.  I thought I made
my feelings on this rather clear.

...
>I think the proposition is too speculative and too vague 
>to deny -- which says something about the assertion of it.

The 'failed man' idea is no more vague than any of a dozen commonly
accepted attributions of a sociological phenomenon to the persistence
of assumptions/expectations about gender.  It's concrete enough to be
tested in a well-designed psychological research program.  In fact, the
authors of the article I referenced proposed exactly this.

If you're saying that all such attributions are too vague to deny,
I'd have to disagree.

>So far I have seen nothing from you that has not been 
>negatively critical of feminism except this thread -- 
>which seems to be snuffling along in the same direction -- 
>which would seem to belie your profession of cool, 
>objective rationality, wouldn't it?  Or does your cool, 
>objective rationality tell you that feminism is entirely 
>bad? Or have I missed those articles in which you find 
>something to praise?

As far as I'm concerned, the issue ended when Rini and I came to an
agreement.  The only reason it's now continuing is that you jumped in
to trivialize everything we were discussing by calling it 'too vague to
deny,' and imply that it was motivated by my (our?) agenda to attack
feminism.

Perhaps it would help if you went back and re-read my contributions in
this thread.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism