Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 00:49:37 CST
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
 <92345.182213U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>

Oh, one other thing (and flames are still going to bounce, whether Beth Weiss
likes it or not) : while there are some women here who pose as being concerned
with men's rights, generally, that stance does not bear inspection. For example
, we have one who claims that the current child support system is unfair to men
, only to support every specific policy that system operates under. Her
opposition to it is thus meaningless - but she hides behind it. Since she has
stated her opposition to this system, she argues, those men who are opposed to
it must not be listening to her if they criticise what she has to say. Not a
very honest, or a very subtle ploy. I hope that it doesn't work.

Elizabeth herself, somewhile back, argued for unrestricted divorce, allegedly a
pro-male position. After making a hysterically funny attempt to argue that it
was sexist of me to suspect that she was a young woman (ignoring the first
paragraph where I mentioned the possibility that she was faculty), she went on
to argue that female grad students (who, BTW, like male grad students, are
usually in their 20's : that young enough ?) weren't generally young women, and
that she was dating someone in his 40's. Can you say self-serving hidden agenda
? She attempted to cover her tracks by diversion : arguing that my previous
argument would imply that her lover's age would put her in fear of being dumped
(a non sequitir of the 1st order - my argument was that a wife's age would do
so). Again, no concessions offered here - someone is out for what she can get,
and not too principled about how she gets it. She affects a concern for men's
rights as a way of getting men's support for her own wants.

Some have argued that one can find women who express concern for men's rights
and needs. Maybe in a few cases - but how is that expressed concern translated
into concrete action ? What specific changes do they advocate ? Look, listen.
Generally, there is nothing there. What ever actually changes in our favor ?
Nothing.

The snow job attempted after I mentioned anti-male discrimination in the
workplace showed the true colors of some of these "pro-men's rights females".
Affirmative action policies, under which the admissions/hiring standards are
set lower for female and minority applicants have been in place since the 60's
(prior to Bakke referred to as quotas). They are in place openly, officially,
and effectively. This whole thread began when some one mentioned a salary
survey that came out showing female recipients of new PhD's in Mathematics
making about $1K/yr. more than male recipients - a discrepancy immediately
defended by some female posters (equal pay for equal work, unless we can get
more ?). Even more meaningful would be a survey of how many of each get work,
and where. Affirmative action is there - it's in black and white, and I am
beyond amazement when I behold the chutzpah of these women who try to pretend
otherwise.

Of course, when you're talking to someone so dishonest that she could look at a
clear noontime sky, and deny that it's blue, where can you go from there ?
Nowhere, and that's my main point. We have policies on the books mandating
different standards for male and female applicants, and we have women here
arguing that they are victims of discrimination because the competition isn't
completely fixed in their favor - just overwhelmingly biased. To support their
point, they average the salaries of new employees in with those of senior
employees (most of whom are male) to give a distorted picture of a male entry
level employee's salary expectations. Is this fair or reasonable? No.

Past performance tells us a lot about what to expect in the future. Complaints
about antimale sexism in law have been blown off by women in the past, we can
expect more of the same in the future. They block vote on feminist issues, they
make up 52 % of the electorate, so, politically, that's that. Men's liberation,
as a political cause, is finished from the beginning. Its' goals are just, but
it is an exercise in futility.

The answer ? What alternative is there ? As for job discrimination, having
resigned ourselves to the fact that we will never be allowed to compete on a
level playing field in large organizations, going into business for ourselves
is probably the best option open for those of us seeking work. Note that I
don't call it a good option. But at least it gets you past the (overwhelmingly
female) personnel offices, and if you provide a service that isn't in abundance
(I didn't choose an Engineering major as my 2nd major on a whim), you may get
business DESPITE your race and gender. Sorry, for those of us who don't wish to
participate in violence, that's probably the best we can do.

As for the social inequities, no-one in history has ever solved that kind of
problem peacefully. Avoidance as far as possible is probably the best way to go
. It may seem a bit lonely - but given the sorts of attitudes one often hears
expressed - being with them can be even lonelier.


                                                 J. Dunphy