From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:07:26 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
| >| So you're backpedaling on this rather bizarre claim?

gf:
| >Which bizarre claim?  I was talking about whether a person
| >could survive on the street.

ss:
| You basically said that men receive less assistance because they are 
| more physically imposing on average; i.e., my 'repellent' you translated 
| directly into 'physically threatening.'  I'm saying the repugnance is 
| more a function of gender per se than physical size, involving 
| preconceptions both about what men are, and what they should be.  Do you 
| deny the existence of any negative stereotypes about men, or do you deny 
| that these may have a substantive effect on homeless men?  Either denial 
| is bizarre in my opinion.

It would certainly be bizarre to deny that anyone had any
negative stereotypes about men, anywhere, any time.  My
usual idea of a stereotype, though, is a fastening-upon
of some attribute of a category of persons, real or 
imagined, and imposition of it on all members of the 
category with little or no reference to actuality. It is a
commonly-held stereotype of the homeless that they were all
in mental institutions, or should be.  If the attribute is
real and is applied to only those who display it, however, 
we usually don't call it a stereotype.  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.

gf:
| >I don't have access to the literature.  I can only go on
| >what I observe in daily life, and what I read in the
| >newspapers and magazines, which is often somewhat at variance
| >with my own perceptions.  Which "general public" are we
| >talking about?  I have no doubt we can find some populations
| >that maintain stereotypes, especially those without direct
| >experience.

ss:
| Some populations have stereotypes, but not New Yorkers?  Seriously?  Are 
| you saying that stereotypes about men do not exist in New York, or that 
| they don't contribute to the homeless problem there?

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?

gf:
| >| >But let's cut to the
| >| >chase.  Let's say there is some kind of problem here:
| >| >that homeless men, for one reason or another, are not
| >| >being adequately cared for, and that their lot is worse
| >| >than the lot of homeless women.  What do you think ought
| >| >to be done about it?  What are _you_ willing to do about
| >| >it?

ss:
| >| Educate people, for one thing.

gf:
| >Educate them how?  I mean, what is the content of this
| >education going to be?  To spend more money on homeless
| >men, to spend it differently, to even the score by kicking
| >homeless women out of shelters?  And how are you going to
| >speak to New Yorkers picking their way over recumbent
| >bodies, away up there in cool, homelessless Vancouver?

ss:
| 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?

gf:
| >I don't think I'm changing the subject; theory is usually
| >developed for a purpose. The purpose of developing a
| >theory as to why there are more homeless men than women on
| >the streets could be to develop a better way of dealing
| >with homeless men, to develop a better idea of human
| >psychology and social behavior,

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.  One of our correspond-
ents, Garry King, has already drawn the conclusion that this
thread forms a telling attack on feminism; as he says in
reference to a proposition that men are treated worse than
women, "The homeless men post pretty much says it all."  
And the originator of the thread, Hillel Gazit, posts 
virtually nothing but attacks on feminism.  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?

You can call this an insinuation if you like.

gf:
| >I'm not sure which point I'm thought to have "conceded."
| >Is this a war?

ss:
| The point that the lower assistance accorded homeless men is unjust.  
| That the skewed sex ratio is a result largely of negative preconceptions 
| about and standards imposed on men, as men.  You seem to be denying 
| these; my apologies if I'm misinterpreting.

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

ss:
| War?  Don't ask me.  You're the one who seems to perceive every 
| discussion here as a conflict between feminist-bashers and the 
| enlightened.  I'm just sharing a few ideas about some issues that 
| concern me.

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?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )