From: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: denial
Date: 9 Oct 1992 01:07:21 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In passing, I'd just like to say that it seems to me that a more
pressing issue for feminism is the widespread and longstanding denial
among men about the situation for women as _women_ see it.

I also believe that there is a certain amount of denial among women
(both feminist and otherwise) about the situation for men as _men_ see it.

As far as which side has it worse, well, that debate is seldom
productive, since even if some things appear objectively worse, other
things my _feel_ worse subjectively.  There's plenty of pain involved on
all sides.

In article <1b1d9hINNbnh@agate.berkeley.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct5155429@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.203548.144919@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>>I realize that me-too-ism has irritated many people in soc.feminism,
>>>but I couldn't help but respond to this post.  Denial and
>>>insensitivity is yet another sexism complaint that turns out to be a
>>>two-way street.

So far so good.

>>Well, first of all, you have not proved this at all (see below).
>>Second, so what?  I never said whether or not this happened to men.  In
>>fact, I don't think that it does happen all that much, though.

This could easily be construed as either further denial or a legitimate
dismissal.  The problem when one is dealing with denial is how to tell the
difference.

>>Certainly, I have not seen it on the net (note, however, that I do not
>>read soc.men or soc.women, so I could have missed it).  I see people on
>>the net saying that they don't want to work on men's problems first, but
>>I have not seen many saying that they do not *exist*.  I could go out
>>and find at least a hundred articles right now on my system saying that
>>various problems of women's do not exist.

I've seen a few who say that certain problems as perceived by men don't
really exist.  I've seen a lot who say that certain problems as perceived
by women don't really exist.

>Actually, a large percentage of the draft debate tends to be:
>"What's the problem?  There is no draft!"  That's denial.  
>Or consider the imbalance in custody decisions: "What's the problem?  
>Men get custody when they fight for it, just ask Phyllis Chesler."

Two good cases in point.

>>In addition, this posting of yours is just another example of the sort
>>of thing I was talking about.  Someone says "here's a problem that women
>>have."  Someone else comes back with "actually, this is a big problem
>>for men (which is usually attributed to oppression by feminists)."  What
>>this does is to attempt to hide the problem for women by turning it into
>>a problem for men.  Every once in a while, someone instead says that it
>>is a problem for "people," which is often reasonable.  However, it still
>>tries to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem specifically
>>for women.

I think that this is a very good point.

>Your characterization of "objections" to women's issues is not
>something I'd agree with, and perhaps this is a source of misunderstanding.
>
>A negative statement about feminism shouldn't necessarily be taken 
>as you say: "usually attributed to oppression by feminists," or an 
>"attempt to hide the problem for women."

I think that both things go on.  A lot of complaints vis-a-vis feminism are
in fact attempts to reframe issues so that they'll fit within the male
perspective.  The meta-issue here, of course, is the feminist objective of
maintaining their own point of view.  There are times when I think feminists
do a rather poor job of translating for the men who's support they would like.
But that's another story, and getting support from men is typically a secondary
objective for most feminists in any case.

Men who don't bother to adopt the feminist perspective, even
provisionally, can see a great deal of threat in a lot of what women
have to say.  To say that there is no "real" threat in letting women
have their say would be precisely the wrong answer about now.  (But if
you just did that, then I just caught you.  The appearance of threat is
real, even if there's nothing behind it.  No sense in denying that.)

>The natural complaint against feminism, when there is a "big problem
>for men" that remains unresolved and ignored by feminists, is that
>feminism sold (and sells) itself as a movement for equality.  When 
>feminism fails to address inequalities against men (and indeed fights
>for powers that exceed equality), then it lays itself open to criticism.

I both agree and disagree.  I agree insofar as some feminist tout the
movement as moving toward equality while others fight for any and all
advantages.  In far too many cases, some women appear to do both.  And
this hypocrisy, when it occurs, can and should be criticised.

>This complaint is the wrong response, IMHO; the better conclusion 
>is to realize, as Muffy has often said (and contrary to much of the 
>general perception of feminism), that feminism focuses on gaining 
>"equality" and rights for women, not for all persons.  
>
>If feminism were to stop advertising itself as an equality movement,
>these claims that it failed to secure rights for men or that it
>ignores men's issues would be irrelevant.
>
>
>>However, it still
>>tries to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem specifically
>>for women.
>
>I think it's too much to state categorically that any claim that a problem
>applies to "people" is an attempt to obscure women's problems.

If such a statement is made in the form:

	"I understand that X is a problem for women, and I'd like to add
	that it is also a problem for other people."

that's fine.  That shows that the listener recognizes that the speaker
is discussing a problem rather than a non-problem.

>Sometimes it is true.  Sometimes it works in the other direction.
>Is saying that women have died in war (hence war is a problem for "people")
>an attempt to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem 
>specifically for men?

Yes.  Some of that went on in the draft debate a while back.

>>Honestly, I wish that all problems *were* just problems for people, but
>>they aren't.  Some problems *are* focused on people of one sex or the
>>other, because our society *does* treat people differently according to
>>their sex.  It is important to recognize it when a problem is more
>>specific to members of one sex, especially as it may be a factor in why
>>the problem exists and how to fix it.
>
>I agree.

So do I.

>I realize that there are a lot of feminism-bashers, so I can see why
>you seem to come down so negatively against opposition to feminism,
>but there are also people who would like to understand feminism --
>which can't be done without looking at its one-sided aspects as well.

Correct.  However, they must be seen in context to truly understand.
And while it is natural to sieze upon apparent inconsistencies, in this
case it plays into the perception that denial is what's going on.

My suggestion for men who want to understand feminism is first to
recognize that many women have a different frame of reference than that
of many men.  So, a woman can say something that appears perfectly
innocuous within her frame of reference, but sends up red flags all
over the place for men.  This happens with men as well (and women might
do well to consider that also), such as when women talk about the
patriarchy, and it hurts so deeply.  For many women, the hurt men feel
over that seems incomprehensible, because they just don't see if from a
man's perspective.  This is just one case in which something that seems
innocuous to some can prove quite difficult for others.  In such cases,
the path toward understanding does not lie in deconstructing the other
person's frame of reference, but in deconstructing one's own.  Actually,
it works best when both sides deconstruct their own, and in so doing,
translate for one another.

>>>[story of Women's Studies  professor telling offensive joke about male
>>  anatomy]
>>>The real punchline, though, came the following quarter, when I
>>>had the same professor again for a different WS class.  She
>>>was doing a unit on sexual harassment and made the following
>>>comment:
>>
>>>"There are still some professors here at Poly who
>>> don't realize that making jokes about womens' anatomy
>>> constitutes sexual harassment."
>>
>>>So there you have it.  Denial from a professor of the New
>>>Sensitivity.

I think this, along with the comments made elsewhere about how the joke
wasn't so much about male anatomy as about a novel response to an
inappropriate behavior, illustrate my point quite well.

>Whether it's "denial" or "double standard," it is hypocrisy.
>
>"New Sensitivity" is a flammable remark, and it seems to me, too,
>that it disparages Women's Studies.  That's unfortunate also because
>the flames hide a valid point:  those who demand greater "sensitivity"
>(and feminism has been strong on this) should hold themselves to the 
>same standard.  Being human, they often preach better than practice.

Well, here again.  Sensitivity to what?  Does this increase the
resolution on issues we're (respectively) already aware of?  Or does it
mean removing conceptual filters that prevent us from appreciating the
other person's viewpoint?

-r


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.