From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Living in a State of Siege, and how men deal with it
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:25:53 GMT
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang

>julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

First off, thanks for the reply.  After seeing so many flames and knee-jerk
responses to points I didn't make in my post, it's very heartening to read
from someone who took what I had to say seriously -- even if you don't agree
with much of it.

>>Feminists like these act as though they don't have any idea of the
>>extent to which violence commands a man's attention and forms his upbringing.
>
>Hell, most MEN don't seem to have any idea of this either, wouldn't you
>say?  I don't mean that your points are wrong -- quite the opposite.  I
>mean I agree a men's movement is necessary to point out that things we
>accept as "normal" are warping men's lives unnecessarily, because most
>people in our society aren't used to thinking about these questions.

You've hit the nail on the head here, and your answer here may help answer
some of your own questions later on.  I don't think men are aware of the extent
to which masculinity is enforced by violence -- it's not that this awareness
has been repressed, or that it is unconscious, but more that it is all-
pervading and most men don't realize it could be any other way.  Part of
being a man is having a penis; part of being a man is being tough so as to
ward off attackers.

Men don't question the violence in male socialization any more than most of
us question language in human socialization -- it just seems natural that
speech is part of the human condition, similarly if men are formed by
violence, well, that's just the way of the world.

>I agree completely that most (maybe all) of these things are evidence of
>serious problems (or are themselves serious problems).  However, in day-
>to-day life, which is what Karen was talking about, the majority of _men_
>(not boys) _I_ know are past worrying about circumcision or elementary school
>bullying; did not try out for football or think of it with fondness rather
>than fear; are past the age to be drafted or don't worry much about it,
>according to them, though this was not as true during the Gulf War; let
>the fear of murder affect their behavior far less than the fear of violent
>crime affects the behavior of women in the same circumstances; don't
>watch boxing on TV, or, if they do, argue vehemently that it's not a 
>problem; and do not themselves have much fear of dying in a war.

That they are past worrying about these things is not evidence that they
have not absorbed these fears and experiences -- rather it is evidence that
they have accepted and moved through them.  It is this process that shapes
a man.  Part of the byproduct of this accumulative acceptance of the violence
associated with being male are the gender roles that we in the men's movement
join with feminists to attack -- e.g. man as dominator, man as stoic ("just
a scratch"), man as aggressive, man as violent, man as unemotional.

>Many of these men feel far more safe and free than their female friends, and
>some of them aren't very sensitive about taking that into account.  _Are_
>they more safe and free? -- well, it depends on how you evaluate it,
>apparently; I've seen compelling cases either way.  

Do these men feel more safe and free, or has the threat of violence been such
an integral part of the formation of their masculinity that it's old hat by
now?  They know how to deal with it.  They know what it feels like to be beat
up, and they can survive.  They know the postures of aggression and of defense
from wide and various practice -- and may be able to use these postures to
defend against potential attackers.  They know the landscape of violence 
(because they have lived in that landscape all their lives) and feel more
comfortable negotiating it than their sisters.

Of course, we can't avoid discussing the male gender role here and how even
if a man does feel fear or does feel threatened, he is not supposed to let on
that that's how he feels.  God only knows how many men have died to prove that
they aren't chicken.

>Uh, you never explained why this was rejected from soc.feminism this time...

(Same reason, I think -- inflammatory, "hysterical?")

>Doesn't it seem to you that a _large_ subset of men lives in less fear of
>violence than women of the same economic status, age, neighborhoods, etc.
>feel?

(Warning:  I'm starting to think with my typing fingers here, putting words
together because they look right that way.  These are ideas that have a lot
of sense in them, but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking them out).

I think it is probably true that a woman, faced with the same threatening
experience as a man, _feels_ more fear.  Not just expresses, but _feels_.
So it's not just the stoicism of the male gender role at fault here, there
is a difference in the subjective.

I see it as two people experiencing helplessness in two ways.

The woman feels helpless because she is being attacked and threatened and that
helplessness turns into hopelessness because she doesn't feel that she can
help herself.  The man feels helpless because he is being attacked and he can
expect no help -- he is literally help-less -- but he does feel, though, that
he can help himself (self-reliance being another male sex role), or that
even if he can't realistically come to his own aid, that that is the only aid
he can ask for so he'd better take advantage of it.

Why are men more successful than women (by a great margin) in their suicide
attempts? -- an unsuccessful suicide is often a cry for help.  The woman feels
helpless, so she cries for help; the man feels helpless, but doesn't feel that
he can cry for help, or that it will mean much if he does.

So what does the traditional woman do when attacked in an alley?  Scream.  And
her brother?  Grab something to use in defense, bend the knees slightly, feet
about shoulder-width apart, and try to fight them off the best you can.  (Like
you did back in junior high, with varying levels of success, when they wanted
your lunch money, or didn't like your clothes, or called you "skinny," or
"faggot.")

>This is not meant to be a flame; this really is my impression, and
>it's what Karen seemed to be talking about.  Some have argued that women
>are at no greater risk than men, but just _think_ they are, though I believe
>that women live much more cautiously to achieve the same safety men have,
>and if women acted like men do they'd be in more danger.  (That's a quick
>summary; the original thread's on soc.feminism.)  

I think women look at situations of great violence, that men stoically
accept as just part of being male, and are unprepared by their own sex-role
upbringing to look at it that way.  Their way of looking at violent situations
may make much more sense, but it should not be used to deny that men are
victims of violence.

Recently posted to soc.men was an article about a group of women suddenly
forced to choose between unemployment (they had been office workers) and work
underground in a mine.  They were flabbergasted, some called it discrimination
against women, others railed about how women should be able to choose their
place of employment, other said that mine work was dangerous (!!!).

And the men that had been working in the mine all that time...  Stoic as usual.

The women were at no greater risk than the men, but just _think_ they were.
The women previously (as office workers) lived much more cautiously to achieve
the same *subjective* feeling of relative safety that the men had.  If the
women acted like the men, they would be in more danger.  (A paraphrase of your
earlier paragraph).

But the expectations of safety are different for men and for women.  Apparently
the phrase "don't go out there, you might get mugged" pushes things right to
the top of the female "intolerance of danger" scale but barely registers on
the male "intolerance of danger" scale.  Clearly, the phrase "get into the
ring and try to hold on for at least five rounds" means something different
on this scale to men and women.

>But how can we know about these fears if men won't tell us?  Am I wrong
>to believe the men I know when they say they feel safe walking home at
>3 at night, but they don't think I should?  I can't offer any evidence
>to them that they're wrong to feel that way; quite the contrary, around
>here.  

You can know about these fears because you feel them.  When you feel fear
going out to a dark parking lot at night to get to your car -- be aware that
men feel it too, but just don't let it get to them (that darn sex role again).
Men quite simply take more chances -- and it shows in the higher murder,
assault, traffic accident, and on-the-job injury rates (among others) for men.
Not because men don't feel pain, but because that's just what men are supposed
to do.

>I don't know; maybe they're lying because they're afraid to admit their
>fears to me or to themselves.  (I'm not being sarcastic.)  If you believe
>this, what do you think I can do about it without being patronizing?  I
>can hardly say, "I know you're afraid and you just won't admit it," 
>because I _don't_ *know* any such thing.  I _have_ said at times, "I think
>you should be more careful" to men, and I've _never_ said or implied,
>"Oh, you're silly to be afraid."  But they are adult human beings and I
>tend to accept their descriptions of their own lives and feelings.

This is a tough one.  How do you help men who feel that they can't expect or
rely on help from other people?  One way we could help as a society would be
to stop relying on men to do the dangerous jobs (military, mine worker, etc.)
A way we could help personally would be to share the burdens of fear (meaning
if a woman feels afraid to walk to the mailbox, she doesn't say "honey, could
you go get the mail?").  I don't know, this is a tough one.

I think you can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.  You can
avoid contributing to the man's sturdy-oak persona, but still not break through
it.  The consciousness-raising of the women's movement, as difficult as it
was, was probably a piece of cake compared to what it is going to take to
break through the iron layers of the male sex role and communicate with the
person inside.

>I expect them to do the same for me when I say, "I'm going to call the
>Escort Service to walk me home because I've been followed before at
>this time of night."  When you, Dave, say you feel your life is constrained
>by violence, I believe you feel that way, but until I hear the men around
>me expressing these sorts of thoughts and see them calling the Escort
>Service at night or going home early so they'll be safe, I'll assume they
>feel safer than I do.  And when they aren't followed or threatened the
>way I am, I have to assume they're safer behaving the same way I do --
>which is exactly what they conclude, too.

Hold off on your assumptions.  Don't expect to see men calling Escort services
any time soon -- and it's not because they aren't being followed or threatened.
The Escort service on my campus is advertised by women's groups and is run
by fraternity men.  Men are going to feel very uncomfortable (just on the
chivalry level) calling a service they think has been set up to protect women.
Also, when the agents of the service are from fraternities, these men may
feel further threatened by performing an unmasculine act (calling for help)
in front of men who are traditionally the keepers and enforcers of the
masculine ethic on campus.  The worst that could be expected would be hostility
and the best condesension.

Frankly, I think most men would rather wade into an army of armed thugs than
ask an escort service to help them.  We men have a real problem here.

God, I think of myself as fairly "enlightened" in this regard, and I still
would hesitate to call the escort service to protect me from a threat.  I
would have to wrestle with feelings of "wasting their time" or that they
could be protecting somebody who needs it more than me (read: a woman) or
that they might harass me themselves for my violation of masculinity.  I
would see right through the harm and the irrationality of these thoughts, but
I would still have them and still have to wrestle with them.


-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
 When a street procession reenacting the crucifixion was halted by traffic in
 west London, a group of local youths surrounded the actor playing Jesus, cut
 loose his ropes, told him to run for it and said they would cover his getaway.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism