From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double standards (Was Re: Living in a State of Siege)
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:04:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

As always with Hillel, we start by playing knock-off 
points.  This time I'll indulge a little, but don't
expect me to do this every time.

In article <726216009@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| | Tell me Gordon, do you ever question feminists who claim that 
| | women can be as good as men in profession X?  (E.g. doing math.)
| | ...
| | If you care so much about *hard* proofs, then why don't
| | you ask everybody to supply such proofs?
| ...
| And you also observed that men's bodies just break apart younger,
| *naturally*.

So it appears.

hg:
| I don't think that you used similar sampling methods.

No.  I don't think it's a question which can be decided
without extensive study, probably of a kind we haven't
seen much of, because the study would have to be informed
by the kind of social analysis I refer to below.

gf:
| >I'm not asking for proof, by the way, just a demonstration
| >that social factors probably account for the shorter 
| >lifespan of the average male.  

hg:
| I mentioned several social factors; you just deleted them
| without saying anything.  I wonder what you really mean
| when you say "demonstration"...

I said we could play a game with various counters or
points; you could play a social factor, I could play
a biological factor.  Then we could argue about how
much each counter was worth.  I think it's a waste of
time.  My suspicion is that the higher metabolic rate
-- you know, live fast, love hard, and die young -- is
the main factor.  But then someone could say the
higher metabolic rate was due to little boys playing
with trucks....

gf:
| >Maybe they do.  If, for
| >instance, we found that the patriarchal model of dominance
| >and control tended to decrease lifespan, which is what the
| >talk of "working oneself to death" is all about, then not
| >only would we have something to work with, but we'd have
| >a feminist critique of our social organization to help
| >us along.

hg:
| You mean that they will be willing to even consider my observation
| about men's lives as worth as much as their "analysis"?!
| 
| I wonder what gave you that impression...

Your problem is that you think of feminists as the other
team.  What I've suggested, about this topic as well
as about many others, is that you use feminist analysis
on men's problems.  For example, I've started out above
on the whole "working self to death" syndrome.  The
feminists are not your mommies, but they do publish
their stuff, and it's not, as you seem to think, just
propaganda in a crude war for the goodies.  I've never
seen a feminist suggest that anyone should work 
themselves to death.  

gf:
| >But my guess is that this avenue of approach won't serve
| >your purposes, and we won't hear about it any more.

hg:
| I think that reducing the pressure on men would help, but
| I don't think that most feminists want that very much; they
| know that they will have to pick their share in that case.

Where does the "pressure on men" come from, Hillel?
Are you saying the feminists invented it in the last
twenty or thirty years?  The pressures on my life have
come mostly from other men and especially their
institutions, their governments and corporations, and
the culture that's been around a lot longer than
feminism.  Maybe they like it?  In all the material
I read here, I see a lot of complaining, resentment
(Hi, Robert!), threats and point-making, but very
little thought about anything fundamental like the
way the society is organized.    
-- 

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