From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: FeminIseultIsm
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:08:55 GMT


This was supposed to be a followup, but the machine I'm posting from played
a trick on me.  Forgive the new title for an old thread (but at least it
isn't an old title for a new thread, is it?).

> Iseult writes:
>
>I do think that because mens experiences growing up in soceity are
>very different to womens, that men cannot fully appreciate the depth
>of hurt women are caused.  So I will continue to claim that you
>can not truly understand.  However I would never claim to understand
>what it is like to be male.  I believe society causes men a very
>great deal of pain as well - the pressure to be strong, to succeed,
>to be non-emotional.  I guess in an evaluation the material results
>are better for men than for women - and I can`t claim to understand
>the emotional impacts.

My personal belief is that society has created a rigid system where many
people are forced to play roles that fit so badly that it actually
damages them.  It has become a juggernaut beyond individual and even
to a large extent political control (on both levels the tendency is
to entrench social attitudes, rather than effect change).

That certain social conventions encourage power inequity and abusive
behaviour is not an excuse for them.  One negative thing that does seem
to happen is that people become obsessed with trying to pin the blame
for this on some social group (it is almost endemic among social defects)
to distance themselves from the phenomena.  Consider, despite consistent
evidence, the common mistake of linking homosexuality and paedophilia.
Perhaps people need to wash away their own guilt, but instead we should
be concerned with the social dynamics that produce these defects in our
society, *AND* be aware in our part in supporting them, even if that
support is passive.

Personally, I think the most effective model from which to begin a study
of these social dynamics to understand why what happens does happen.  The
ignorant and reactive solutions of politicians and lawmakers have always
proven dismal failures because they insist on characterizing behaviour
by roles (you are an abuser, you a victim, you a criminal) rather than
recognizing the active and living mechanics that guide human interaction.
(As one might guess from previous posts, I favour a 'contract model' of
human interaction).

I doubt an emotional understanding of another person's situation is
possible at all (I won't say men cannot understand women, nor women
men, because 'man' and 'woman' and indeed social roles -- as soon
as you are labelled with either contracts are forced upon you that
enforce further gender-dependent roles -- mother, father and so on).

>But what bothers me most, in discussions with anti-feminists, is
>a constant insistence that feminism is an anti-male movement.  To
>me, feminism is a movement about women, for women. It cannot
>be defined in terms of men.  Why do I so rarely here men countering
>perceived attacks on themselves, with the parallels in their own
>lives, as opposed to dismissing feminism and feminists.

My personal view is that a good number of people who are anti-feminist
do not understand the concept.  That, in fact, was the largest hurdle
for me.  At one time I thought feminism meant 'anti-male pro-female
politics'.  Now I understand it as a method for understanding and
correcting some of the most striking social defects with which we are
plagued, such as power inequity and social violence.

Unfortunately some choose to concentrate on the obvious and facetious
elements of feminism.  I mean, even the word 'feminism' offends some
people.  Why not 'humanism'?  (For which there is a good answer.  If
you can use 'mankind' to refer to the whole of the human race, 'feminism'
can be used to describe a social theory about all of 'mankind'.  The best
reason for using the word 'feminism' is its absolute irony.)

And equally unfortunate are debates about language and the words we use,
as if these had a great social impact, rather than the meaning which is
attached to those words.  Words have no power, whereas the meaning we
attach to words is part of a social contract of language and that meaning
*does* have power.  Its not really a subtle distinction, but it would seem
so for the number of people that miss it.

So people are getting hung up on the word 'slave', as if all the power
was vested in that word or concept.  There are people who are more
effectively enslaved by economic, social or racial (and so on) systems
than is Roy's 'slave'.  This 'slavery' is an artifice, an acting out
of power politics.  What is the real meaning used when one speaks of
a 'slave' in this context?  It is more akin to 'actor' than 'oppressed'.
What are the real politics of power being acted out in this situation,
and are they dangerous?  And please note in that in trying to explain
it and attach a social interaction model to it, I am *not* condoning it.

>I will re-iterate, I felt that Vikkis attack on Roy was unwarranted,
>but I was equally annoyed by the counter attacks, that seeked to dismiss
>Vikki as a feminist, and as a separtist, as opposed to simply countering
>Vikki as a feminist, and as a separtist, as opposed to simply countering
>her views as a person.

But there is a real topic here, but as you say . . .

>Why so much anger... I would like this to be a place that I too feel
>comfortable.  We all know how tough it is to find a sense of bi
>community.  Increasingly in the last months, I have found that I
>do not feel comfortable here as a woman, and naturally that is a
>very important part of my identity.

. . . its hard to see the connection to bisexuality.  Unless one wants to
get deep into the theory and discuss why women, queers, and non-whites
are disenfranchised in our society.  Maybe people just prefer to bicker.
Two posts I made in a more theoretical 'let's understand this' tone
warranted only one reply that limited itself to one word I used.

>I would like to see evidence that there are more men, as you
>would have it, that do understand womens issues.  I do not
>find this evidence on this group in general, though there are a number
>of notable examples, who I believe would have enough confidence in
>their own views, that they would know who they are, without my spelling
>it out.

'Women's issues' if by that is meant 'feminism', are in fact issues for
the whole of the human race.  I would like to see evidence that more
humans can overcome gender roles and take an interest in society at
large, rather than entrenching damaging systems of politics and tacitly
supporting role enforcement.  In my experience society as a whole
abstract entity is to blame, but as individuals we play the role of
abuser, or victim, or martyr as it is mandated to us.

I do not think men are particularly dense and unable to understand such
concepts.  I do believe they have been exluded from far too much dialogue
in the past because of role sensitivity.

>And this is my last word ......
>
>
>Iseult.


Brad

Newsgroups: soc.bi