From: Diane Bailey <dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Kill and Inter the Draft, and "callousness"
Date: 12 Aug 1992 15:53:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

This was originally emailed to soc.feminism late on Sunday.  For
some reason it has not appeared.  In the meantime a series of
hurtful attacks on me as "callous" have been posted, which this
would perhaps have forestalled.  I'm hoping that this does get on
to the conference.

Robert Hartman quotes me (too selectively) as saying:
>>For those of you who still hang on to this draft issue,
>>pretending that male draft registration balances women's
>>issues, may I be permitted to kill the argument by pointing out
>>that in other parts of the world (which do exist, even on the
>>net) there is no draft, and no registration.

Whereas I actually concluded:
>... The women's issues in society (very similar to those in the
>US) are not apparently any nearer to solution in Britain as a
>result of men not being subject to a draft.

He continues:
>As I understand it, the topic was introduced as one example of a
>"men's issue" that feminism appears to be callous to.  By
>claiming that men cite this issue mainly to show that it balances
>women's issues, you digress from the original argument.

In fact the original mention that I responded to was by Tom who wrote:

>>>>In particular I understand when I see the Japanese plan to
>>>>compensate 100,000 women for being forced into prostitution
>>>>during the war, when everyone dismisses the fact that millions of
>>>>boys were seized, taken from their homes, and forced to become
>>>>murderers (soldiers).

To which Joanne M. Karohl had replied:
>>Keep in mind for this particular example that the Japanese are
>>compensating *Korean* women for being pressed into service in this
>>manner to accomodate Japanese men.  Without stating my position on
the
>>ethicality of either action in this comment, I question Tom's choice
>>to equate the requirement for military service to one's country with
>>the requirement of "comfort woman" service to a conquering army.

And I stepped in to further correct:
>Tom was being even more unfair - after trying every which way to
>avoid admitting any connection with the sufferings of these
>women, the Japanese government has had to admit the connection
>but has actually refused to consider any compensation.  This may
>reflect the lack of influence women have in the Japanese
>establishment.  I understand many Japanese women have been very
>distressed by the revelations.

Since this awful subject regarding treatment of Korean and other
women had not, to my knowledge been previously mention in this
conference, I saw its being first used to raise the suffering of
Japanese soldiers as extremely callous, as well as clearly
inaccurate, and grossly insulting to the women. It would seem
that it is not I that have strayed from the subject.  Perhaps I
might receive an apology?

>By refusing to acknowledge the threat of a draft as a real issue,
>you confirm the impression that you are callous to it.  And, you
>give credence to the idea that you may be callous to other men's
>issues as well.  Also, since I saw no disclaimer stating that you
>don't speak for the feminist movement, if I were a suspicious
>sort of male who'd been bashed a few times by newly-awakened
>feminists who hadn't yet dealt with their rage, I might be
>tempted to interpret your views as the feminist party line, and
>your approach as all too typical.

I am not aware of any requirement that everyone post a disclaimer
that one does not speak for the Women's Movement.  How do you
envisage the Movement that one might ever be considered to be
doing that?  And, since I see no disclaimer that you don't speak
for the men's movement...  I am forced to conclude that you are
simply inventing grounds to bad mouth me, as you do by calling me
callous in the manner you do.

Why is it that certain men on this conference use every
opportunity to raise the idea of women physically attacking men?
As an eminent film critic said on tv tonight, introducing 'Play
Misty for Me' and referring to the frequent use by Hollywood of
the theme of violent women, it is a perversion of the normal
reality in society that, by implying that bright and assertive
are dangerous, or that women are no different from men serves the
purpose of preventing the advancement of women and to preserve
the status quo.

Read my words:  THERE IS NO DRAFT IN MY COUNTRY, OR YOURS.

The largest and oldest established organisation for sexual equality
in this country, of which I was for several years on the
Executive Committee, has a constitution which is strictly gender
neutral.  Membership is open to anyone.  Men form less than one
percent of the membership, and they are virtually all husbands of
women active in the organisation.  The fortunate (ie draftless)
men of this country do not care (or worse) about women's issues
and I see no convincing evidence that there are any terribly
difficult specifically "men's problems" (apart from in the
medical or psychiatic sense) of interest to them.  That seems to
be the clear opinion of British men and it would seem foolish for
me to disagree with them.

If we are using the word "callous" and backing people who say
there should be only "human's issues", where is your concern for
the millions of female babies that are murdered in India so that
their fathers will not have to pay a dowry, and which is
concerning me at present?  About the millions of girls forced to
suffer clitoridectomy every year, in various places round the
world, which is also one of my concerns.  Where is your concern
for the girls of Burma who are kidnapped into forced prostitution
then executed when they catch AIDS, indeed about the WWII
"comfort women" whose lives are still so scarred?  Nearer home,
what are you doing about America having one of the lowest
proportion of women in its legislature of any country? What about
the women of America who have to brave crazed fundamentalists to
obtain an abortion?  Where is your concern that there are so few
women on this network, and nowhere warm and welcoming to attract
them?  While you are taking my time here, couldn't you be doing
something valuable?

And while you are still unconvinced about the "draft", will you
tell me why able-bodied and capable men should _not_ be prepared
to defend those who cannot defend themselves, or are less able,
if there are adequate alternatives for those with genuine moral
grounds to abstain (which surely there are, or should be since
women and men spent much energy fighting for those rights earlier
this century)?  I personally believe very strongly that women
should have the equal right to fight too, but a lot of men in the
military seem convinced that women count as among the "less
able".  To serve under the UN flag in a peace bringing situation,
as a member of a national armed service with some of the best
equipment in the world, would be for me a privilege (I mean that;
give me a truck and send me to Sarajevo).  Which is not to say
that there is not a deal of brutality, sexism, racism, homophobia
and various other stupidities which need rooting out of those
services (which *is* a concern of mine) in both your country and
mine, and *some* political work to be invested (also a concern of
mine) to prevent more Granadas, Panamas, Falklands, Northern
Irelands and Kuwaits, not to mention Vietnams.  But bleating on
about the "draft" doesn't deal with those; in fact I think, as
priorities and courses of action go, it is totally wrong-headed,
IMHO.

As for women working on "men's issues", with regard to men in the
armed services, I would like to list some extremely important
actions women have carried through.  They are British but
certainly affected US soldiers, if only by example.

Florence Nightingale, a major individual feminist, devoted a
large part of her long life to improving the living standards and
health care of soldiers.  She designed barracks and hospitals,
did endless statistical work, radicalised hygene, diets and food
standards.  People think of her as the saviour of thousands of
injured soldiers in the Crimea and the inventor of modern nursing
but she was much more than even that.  Also she was a major
advisor to US soldier-care campaigners during and after the civil
war.  This was all unpaid.

During the first world war (which included many US men), despite
the Crimean example, British women were told that their work and
services were not needed anywhere near the battle areas.  Nurses
and doctors instead organised their own field hospitals, raising
all the funds themselves, and went to France, often very close to
the front.  They saved tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of
lives and forced the acceptance by the military authorities of
women's nursing and other support units in the armed services.
Many of those women died, especially in the flu epidemic that
spread through the troops before they could be returned home.
None of the women who served received any of the pensions or
concessions that men received.

Women, including such feminists as Vera Brittain and Winifrid
Holtby, were extremely active between the wars, through the
League of Nations and other international organisations, firstly
to try to prevent war, but also to bring about genuine
international acceptance of standards for the treatment of
prisoners of war, the banning of some weapons and the acceptance
of conscientious objection as a valid, non-criminal position.

As you may recall, feminists have been very active in the
anti-war and nuclear disarmament movements.  I would have thought
that these were beneficial to men.

The large proportion of feminist effort that currently is devoted
to environmental, anti-racist, anti-AIDS, anti-poverty and other
movements should also count, I would have thought, as work with
and somewhat to the benefit and against the oppression of men.

And, to be completely up to date, I think you may find that some
of the prime reporters who are saving lives in the former
Yugoslavia, exposing the treatment of captive or minority men, in
a situation where many jounalists have been killed, are women.
Would anyone suggest that they are not also feminists?

So where on earth is the evidence that feminists are not
concerned about issues other than specifically those of women?
It is just such a self-serving defamation of millions of good women.

>However, I expect feminists who've had their political
>consciousness raised....

Actually mine has always been high, and gets higher with what I see
and experience.  The idea that women should raise other women's
political consciousnesses went out round here about fifteen years
ago, or earlier.

>...to be able to distinguish patronizing and divisive approaches
>from those that actually work.  I found your entire line of
>argument to be misdirected and patronizing.....
>
>It seems that men aren't the only ones who need to do their
>homework when it comes to understanding the oppression of others.

Please do not patronise me.

Diane
dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2030 news.answers:2482