From: SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.235945.835@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
gardner@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Jonathan Gardner) writes:
>I'll try to summarize some of the comments in this thread so I don't have
>to quote huge passages.
>
>Essentially, as I see it, Abner put up a list of "men's" issues. Marie then
>knocked them down using two types of argument: 1. That the issue is not
>true because she or someone she knows provides a counter-example, and 2.
>that the issue is the result of having a male-dominated society, and is
>therefore somehow less worthy of consideration for her than a woman's issue
>in a male-dominated society would be.
>
>I heartily apologize if my paraphrasing misses the mark. Please correct me
>if I am wrong.

Yep, you  missed the mark completely.  I grant that some my
arguments came off this way because I didn't explain myself
thoroughly enough, at first.  But I would hope you could see where
I was coming from in the later posts, which I assume you haven't
read yet.  If you *have* read them, then I don't know what to
tell you.

>The second type of argument misses the point, I think. Lumping all men
>together and saying that the "enlightened" men can easily change the
>system if they want is failing to acknowledge how the system works. In
>addition, as Caithelin said, it downplays the power of women. For example,
>the vast majority of people in this country are raised primarily by
>their mothers. Society's gender roles, along with other values, good or
>bad, are passed on by parents, and mothers in particular.

This was addressed.

>The women's movement has for a long time focussed on gaining equality
>under the law, and in the corporate power structures. Equality under
>the law has mostly been achieved, with only a few exceptions such as in
>the military. Equality within the corporate power structures has
>further to go, but I think time will help this come about. The first
>wedges have been driven into the traditionally all-male power cliques,
>and those wedges will widen. I am not saying that people should stop
>fighting for equality, only that they are, slowly, winning. The
>freshman class at Harvard this coming year has a sex ratio of almost
>1:1, up from 3:2 when I was there. In 20 or 40 years those freshman
>will be running our nation's corporations, universities and governments.
>(I think highly of my alma mater :-) 20 or 40 years ago, when the
>current crop of Senators and Corporation presidents were freshman, the
>sex ratio was very different.

Nearly everthing here was covered, as well.

>Then men's movement, however, not needing to fight for equality within
>the law or within the power structure, focusses instead on trying to
>change society's perceptions of sex roles. The women's movement has
>been working on this for a long time, of course, but here is where I
>think we still have the furthest to go. Changing the perceptions of
>the genders and of gender roles is and will continue to be a long
>hard slow process.

Yep, I believe this was mentioned, too.

>I think the absolute most important point to make here, however, is
>that the primary argument of the men's movement is that BOTH men and
>women are hurt by sexism and sexist gender roles. BOTH men and women
>stand to gain by changing them. Even in an obvious zero-sum-game such
>as a custody battle, where either the man or the woman will win, our
>society will best be served by giving the children to the best
>caretaker, and providing that caretaker with support. Remember we are
>talking about female children as well as male children here. Using
>outdated and untrue sexist criteria for awarding custody hurts both
>men and women.

Nothing new here, either.

>So what am I doing to bring about equality? Well, for one, I am putting
>forth a few of the ideas of the men's movement to a group of highly
>intelligent, motivated members of the global society. You folks.

Good.

I hope you've read the other posts by now.  Really, the phrasing
of your opening paragraph was a bit inflammatory, and I had to take
a deep breath to keep myself from digging out my well-buried flame-
thrower.  I told myself that 1) my reply to Abner's list of
complaints did *not* do a good job in getting my point across and
2) it appeared that you had not read the later posts, which covered
most of what you said in your post, and with which I assume you
would have agreed.  If you *had* read my later posts, then I don't
think you were looking for me to be reasonable and had already
decided something about my point of view, and were unwilling
to see me in a different light.

In fact, judging from your first paragraph, I think you *had*
read my other posts.  You said I used a "a few examples."  I
assume you refer to my examples of women trying to find work.
If you had read that post closely, you would have seen that
Abner was making the claim that the discrimination was originating
with the elite white males.  I was trying to demonstrate to him
that gender discrimination is alive and well at all social
levels.  If you disagree with me, I would like to hear your
evidence.

--Marie
Newsgroups: alt.callahans