From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:00:29 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
| > This is an issue I've tried to raise occasionally, and
| > reflects the "revaluation of the feminine" aspect of
| > feminism I mentioned in another thread.  Clearly, women
| > have, to some extent, been permitted to act "like men",
| > whereas men are not permitted to act "like women."  For
| > instance, if I, a man, wear lipstick and a dress, I will
| > find it difficult to get an ordinary job and may even be
| > attacked on the street on the way to an interview.

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King):
| Possibly, but the example is extreme.
| Better, what if you're passive and deferential ?  (ie. a "yes man")  Sounds
| like the ticket to (almost) the top of the corporation to me.

It's correct that an important element in corporate
success is deference to authority, but one must do it 
without appearing to do it too much.  An overtly 
deferential man (or woman) is discounted -- maybe 
despised.  Instead, it's necessary to be an (ahem) 
"_team_ player."  I think this area is one where the
role of spectator sports is important -- people can
talk tough about the Giants, and bristle, and then
go suck up to the boss without looking too bad.

gk:
| Also:  years ago, a woman in male clothing, or acting "masculine" could
| have found herself fired from her job (and attacked ?) for projecting the
| "wrong" image.

True.  Until quite recently, in fact -- the 1950s or '60s,
I would say.  The permission for women to masculinize 
themselves is a new thing.

gf:
| > The structure of this prejudice lies, I think, in the
| > retention of a "masculinist" or patriarchal system of
| > values.  A person who adheres to traditionally masculine
| > practices is raising her or his value; a person who
| > goes the other way is devaluing herself or himself.

gk:
| No.  It's the result of only partial collapse of bipolar expectations for
| men and women.  The screws are pretty much off for women, but possibly a
| little tighter for men.  Men who performed greatly masculine deeds like
| fighting in Vietnam or tough physical labour would be venerated if the
| masculine was preferentially valued.  They ain't.  

They're venerated in some quarters.  If you're thinking
of the Net or corporate management, the deprecation of
physical prowess or military accomplishment has a strong
class component.  In those subcultures where physical
strength is highly regarded, it's also becoming 
permissible for women to exhibit it -- look at the 
bodybuilding magazines.

You're correct in saying that the screws are more off for
women in this regard than men -- although we may soon see
the screws applied to women on the other side.  That is,
masculinization may become desirable or even required.

gf:
| > Ironically, the result is that men are more constrained
| > than women are, culturally.  In other important areas, 
| > such as business management, they may retain an 
| > advantage as being more representative of that which
| > is traditionally the "better" or "stronger" or more
| > "normal" mode of being human -- the masculine.

gk:
| As has been mentioned in another thread, the "masculine" is only valued
| when it is demonstrably successful.  Otherwise, it is a major disadvantage
| (eg. homeless women sleep in shelters, homeless men sleep in the street).  

Well, you could regard the homeless as a political class
in conflict with the rest of the community.  In that case,
the homeless men might be regarded as more "effective"
members of their class, that is, more aggressive, more 
offensive, less subject to discipline, better able to 
survive rejection.  In that case, the same characteristics
which would be appreciated within the dominant or acqui-
escent classes of the community would be deprecated in the
homeless class -- because of the state of conflict.  I 
think it's true that the further you go down the social 
ladder, the more likely those who exhibit masculine 
characteristics will be devalued by the community as a 
whole, and especially by the leadership, but as I say, I 
think we're seeing the effect of class war.  

gk:
| The $64 question: so why should men be more constrained after generally
| supporting or acquiescing in changed expectations of women ?  I Dunno.
| I might speculate later.

The question is: who's constraining them?  And also, which
expectations of women changed?  If the expectations for
women became masculinized, this wouldn't alleviate the
constraints on men at all because what they were constrained
from was femininity.

gf:
| > You can get considerable insight into the situation by
| > asking how the restraint is enforced, and by whom.  But
| > what motivates them?  Do they, perhaps, think that
| > femininity is catching?

gk:
| I imagine you mean that other men do the policing here, which is generally
| true if you think of gross enforcement like gay bashing, but not so much if
| you consider typical female preference.  There's an awful lot of young men
| wandering around upset with their categorization as "nice guys" and hence
| not suitable mating material (not until they have substantial $$$ or a
| clearly high-status future, anyway).  

I think this is a good point.  So the valuation of the
masculine, usually called "macho" in the mating game, is
enforced by many members of both sexes.  Does anyone 
disagree with this?  I realize that there are many other
elements in how mates are selected, but all we need to
observe is that macho tends to contribute positively to 
one's mating success in most subcommunities.  This was
my observation thirty years ago; today, I tend to 
socialize in relatively marginal groups, so I will have
to rely on the observations of others.

gk:
|                                      Think of the proportion of couples
| you know where she has a higher income or social status - feminine
| enforcement definitely contributes here too.  Also, an ancient example:
| women handing-out white feathers to young men who were not away at war, and
| a newer one: women who view Bill Clinton as a draft dodger.

I don't have much data on these.  Draft-dodging is
presently more a sign of class privilege than lack of
masculine virtues; when I was in the Army (1961-1964)
only one enlisted man in my company (140+ men) besides 
myself had spent more than zero days as a college 
student.

I continue to think that the situation we're discussing
reflects a higher regard for the traditional masculine
over the traditional feminine characteristics, although 
as you note there is an exception for certain classes of
people.  There is some praise for certain feminine values
like "caring" and "nurturance" from some quarters, but
generally only when they are exhibited by women or thought 
of as an inherent characteristics of women.  In any case
they do not translate into money, power, political
influence, or a nice life, as far as I know.  Certainly
they get you nowhere in the business world when they
are practiced prominently.

There hasn't been much of a movement to allow men to
feminize -- I discount the hippies, who were really only
a small minority and whose feminization was mostly of
appearance only.  (Guys with long hair and flowers in
their pants smoked dope while their "old ladies" did
the dishes.)  There was a sort of flurry of media 
interest in feminizing men back in the 1970s, but like 
most things in the mass media it was superficial and 
highly banalized, eventually becoming absurd.  

It appears to me that there is a still very strong bias 
against the traditionally feminine characteristics in 
our culture, although these characteristics are not 
necessarily less useful or desirable than others -- for 
instance, as you noted at the beginning, deference or 
receptivity, and a sense of community, is very important 
to the functioning of a large organization.  Yet look at 
how we feel about the people who exhibit the necessary 
characteristics.  (I was tempted to go back and change 
"suck up to" and then I decided to let it stand; I'm not 
exempt from the faults I see in others, and I'm certainly
not going to hide them when I can use them to make a
point.)
-- 

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