From: SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin)
Subject: joint post on discrimination, long!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:02:41 GMT

Here is an exchange between myself and Abner on the topic
of "the male-dominated society."  He was unable to post
his point of view, so I am posting it along with my response.
I think he makes some worthwhile points, and I think I add
some of my own.  Maybe this posting can lay the issue to rest.
I don't think Abner and I really differ much in our ultimate
goals, so it's not worth debating details.

[Marie]
Wow, you said a lot of very valid stuff, below.  I can agree
with a lot of it.  But I still say that, as a male in a male
dominated society, you have an advantage over me.  Let me give you
a personal example. [I deleted my personal example, because it
is still too personal for public broadcast.  Sorry.]

[Here come additional examples]
And this is not an isolated case.  I have had two
friends try to find jobs in Iowa after finishing school.  They
were limited to Iowa because their husbands were still in school.
However, both wanted to remain here,indefinitely.  Yet both were
asked about their husbands in their interviews.  One still has been
unable to find a job, even though she has been wonderfully
recommended and very qualified for several positions.  She lost
positions to those less qualified.  The other found a job at
way substandard pay -- employers unwilling to invest more in
someone who was undoubtedly leaving as soon as her husband graduated.

So tell me that a man would not have had the advantage in these
situations!

Now, to be fair, there has been a lot of reverse-discrimination
of men, where less qualified women have been given jobs to
fulfill unwritten quotas.  I find this to be equally repulsive.
However, I suspect it is far less common than the cases I cited,
above.

[Abner]
>Am I in a better position than you to make changes?  No!
>I think you are confusing the wolves and the sheep.  There are a few men who
>are in control (and an even fewer women) - the upper class - and the rest of
>the men don't have the power to 'dominate' that you seem to be ascribing to
>them.  This society is less male-dominated than class-dominated.  The upper
>class cares less about sex and more about peers, if you get my point.

Yes and no.  Their peers are white males.  All others suffer.
If you are a white male, you have a much better chance of success
in dealing with these people than I do.

I was overstating things by telling you to "use your endowed power
to change things you don't like."  I got a little carried away
with the 'Male-dominated' thing.  Obviously, just because society
favors men in general, doesn't mean that individual men can run
around making large changes all by themselves.  More to the point,
since men are more likely (under the current circumstances) to rise
on whatever ladder they are climbing, they can then use their power
to treat their underlings in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.
I suspect that the men (and women) who frequent Callahan's would do
just that, to the best of their abilities.  So in that sense, this
whole discussion is like "preaching to the saved".

The problem is not with a bunch of crotchety old white males.  The
problem is with the society that lets such remain in power.
Societal attitudes take time to change.  Most men (and women)
my age have lost most of their sexist attitudes.  (This is the
age group with which I am familiar.)  So I project that when
my generation reaches levels of power, changes will take place
more rapidly.  Maybe even sooner, given that the baby-boomers
are probably more liberal-minded in this respect, as well.

[Abner]
>The law is not set up to favor men.  The law is set up to favor those who
>control the law - admittedly, most of them are male, but they don't care
>what happens to the lower-class males one bit.  They can afford to hire
>high-power lawyers and private detectives.  Do you really think the law
>would turn a blind eye to me the way it did to Teddy Kennedy, or Ollie North,
>if I were to do similar actions, just because I'm male?  i doubt it.

[Marie]
I've said before, that on paper the laws appear almost
nondiscriminatory.  But another thread went on and on (and on) about
how laws on paper and laws in practice differ.  I'd be willing to
amend my claim to say that this is a *white* male dominated
society.  (Although I've heard of sexism of black men against black
women, and the same in other ethnic groups.  Women always seem to
land at the bottom of the heap.)

The elitist leaders at the top naturally get away with far more
than those at the bottom of that group.  And in the courts, I
wouldn't be surprised if women get softer treatment than men for
equivalent crimes -- although I have *no* statistics to support
this.  I just wouldn't be surprised.  (Maybe Michael knows.) This is
one of the few "perks" of being considered the softer sex.  I agree
that it's not fair.

[Abner]
>That is, I doubt you would believe that.  I do think, however, that you may
>have fallen into a trap - the upper class is just as happy to see men and
>women at each other's throats - it prevents them from teaming together.  I'm
>sure that Andrea Dworkin does more to perpetuate the system she's attacking
>than she does to destroy it - because by fanning the hatred of women for men,
>she prevents them from working together to create a more equitable system for
>everyone, not just the chosen few.

[Marie]
Are you claiming that there's no such thing as discrimination
of men against women at the "commoners" level?  Careful, that's
not true.

And I wouldn't dream of inciting hatred of women towards men.  I
agree that there can be no real solution without the cooperation
of both genders.

[Abner]
>The upper-class men do the promoting, so they promote upper-class men.  It's
>a class thing.  Yes, they try to keep women out.  Also blacks, jews, pagans,
>latinos, gays, commies, bohemians, hippies, ...  In fact, they try to keep
>anyone out who isn't exactly like them.  It's not a male-dominated society,
>it's a bigot-dominated society.  And it won't change unless we stop hating
>each other and turn our disgust on the people who have earned it - the
>people who have actually perpetuated such a system.

[Marie]
Again, there is still gender discrimination at "our" level.  It
is not limited to the upper echelons.  I agree that there is
bigotry of all kinds at work, but the topic is specifically
that against women.

[Abner]
>I'm all for equality.  But let's make sure that we don't define equality by
>numbers.  I wouldn't be any happier if the upper class just got around to
>giving their females equal treatment, but didn't change anything else.  That
>wouldn't give you or me any better chances, or more fair treatment ...
>That's why I think numbering schemes are doomed.  The upper-class is beginning
>to sort itself by additude ... so that non-traditionals such as Clarence
>Thomas get added despite not fitting the stereotype - but only by first
>adopting the additude of the old-boys network they join.  I doubt that Leona
>Helmsley, for all she was born poor, could be considered to have treated the
>poor people (or the women) working for her very well - because she absorbed
>the additude of the people who raised her up from being poor when she married
>a rich man.  Let's have a society dominated by none, rather than a society
>dominated by both sexes instead of one!

[Marie]
Quotas are a short-term patch that will do more harm than good.
Education is a slower but more effective method.  There will always
be a dominating class (unfortunately).  I can't think of a society
where this wasn't true.  But we can try to put continuing pressure
on this class to be fair and honest and to do what *we* want ;-).

[Marie, before]
>>True.  But oppression occurs when one group discriminates against
>>another.  In this case, we are talking about the oppression of
>>women by men.  It doesn't sound right to say that men oppress
>>men in the same context.  I think the oppression of men by men,
>>(or of men by a male-dominated society) could be called
>>peer pressure.  This is sort of a different thing, isn't it?

[Abner]
>Peer pressure implies that, since we are both male, myself and one of the
>leaders of this country are peers.  That isn't true.  We wouldn't be peers,
>and such a man would probably be insulted to be considered a peer of mine
>(if he was a politician, he'd hide it).  A governor, or senator, or CEO,
>or executive vice president, or head manager, or tenured professor, is
>obviously far superior to a mere grad student ...

[Marie]
True, you are not a peer of the President.  But you *are* the peer
of men at your social level.  Let's use a very trivial example.
I play volleyball.  I'm okay at it.  I have female friends who
are excellent players.  When they play with men, most of whom
are not as good at it as the woman, many men will virtually push
the woman out of the way so they can hit the ball.  It seems
obvious to the man that his bad play on the ball *must* be better
than anything the woman can do.  He assumes this as a man.  He
would not do this to a fellow man.  This is a trivial example,
but it gives you a clue as to ongoing attitudes among your peers.
I have seen this very example happen more times than I can count.

[Abner]
>Not all people have that additude.  But the higher up the chain you go, the
>more likely it is to find the belief of innate superiority.  And it affects
>both males and females.

[Marie]
True.  This is class discrimination, not sexual discrimination.
Equally unfair, but a different topic.

[Abner before]
>>>You're saying that if women dominated the courts and the legal system, men
>>>would win about half of the custody fights?  Can you give me the reasoning
>>>behind this, or did you mean something else?

[Marie before]
>>Ah, no.  I'm not saying this.  I'm saying that if men don't
>>like this outcome, then why did they arrange for it, and why don't
>>they change it?  After all, this is a male dominated society,
>>isn't it? It strikes me that the women's equality movement
>>prompted the change that it is occuring in the court system, where
>>men are now starting to have better luck in custody battles.

[Abner]
>We men who have to worry about such things are generally not able to change
>the laws.  There's no candidates running on the platform of making the
>laws more equitable ... none.  To fix it, we'd have to go into politics ...
>and to succeed at politics, we'd have to adopt the system.

[Marie]
Well, there are candidates that promise some changes.
Unfortunately, these promises get lost among the "large" issues.

[marie before]
>>I'm not saying that *you* are responsible.  I'm just saying that
>>there is a difference between peer pressure and oppression.  As a
>>male in a male dominated society, aren't you (generically speaking)
>>in a better position to do something about these problems?  Aren't
>>you in a better position to defend yourself?

[Abner before]
>There is a difference between peer pressure and oppression.  Clarence Thomas
>feels peer pressure.  You and I feel opprssion.  And no, I'm not in a better
>position.  I'm just not.  Remind me to tell you about how a professor, about
>two months ago, used me as a scapegoat because his project wasn't working
>and he was being reviewed for tenure soon.  He didn't hold off because I was
>a man ... and what he did was inexcusable.

Again, your situation with your professor was unfair, unfortunate,
upsetting, and not isolated to you and that professor.  This is
an abuse of power.  But it is a different thing than sexual
discrimination.  Not every wrong committed is due to sexual
discrimination.

(Note:  some of the "unfairness" of society against men that you
originally claimed -- the sports thing and the fighting thing,
really are peer pressure, aren't they?)

[Oops, accidently deleted a paragraph of yours.]

[Abner]
>The fact is, being treated unfairly hurts everyone.  Men may have been told
>that they should feel it less ... but, unless they've been emotionally
>cauterized, they feel it every bit as hard.  At least, it seems likely to me.
>I wouldn't know for certain, having never been female!  =8)

[Marie]
Yes, you are undoubtedly right.  Just because an act of unfairness
has a different label doesn't mean the effect on the individual
is different.  My mistake.

[Abner]
>I'll be glad to, but I seem to be having trouble posting.  (I tried to post
>this twice, then gave up and rewrote it as email.)  Would you please post
>us having a drink together, then toasting to the fireplace?  My toast, of
>course, would be 'To Equality and Understanding!'

[Marie]
Sure!  And I'm going to try to post this message, complete with
yours and my responses (except for the part I accidently deleted).
I think it makes both of our points well, and maybe we can drop
the subject  :-).

[Abner]
>I didn't really think you were anti-male.  I just had the impression that
>you saw society as working in the favor of all men, which I don't see.

I hope I gave you some evidence that sexual discrimination still
exists at all levels of society.  Along with other forms of
discrimination, of course.  To a certain extent, society *does*
work in favor of all men versus all women -- if you match other
characteristics one-to-one.

Cheers!
--Marie