From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:21:35 GMT

In <robert.711919690@labyrinth> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:

Robert, you write a very nice article, but I do have a few comments.
Also you should note, when you ask why we can't accept that men are as
affected by these issues (yes, that's a gross oversimplification of
what you said) as women are, that there are *very* *few* men who ask
the questions you do.  If most men I met had the kinds of questions
and concerns you did, you'd find that we were much more receptive.  As
it is, you have what appears to be a rather naive opinion that many
men share your opinions and I assure you that they do not.

*I* would call you a feminist.  You ask many questions that men and
women would be threatened by.

>	As for whether "some" feminists want to be dominant or not,
>again, I think that you miss the dominant overtures completely,
>perhaps because your preference is towards feminism instead of
>humanism.  For instance, there are a number of ways we can balance the
>current power that a unilateral choice to motherhood gives women over
>men; endless discussions on the net suggest that very few feminists
>are interested in even considering the idea.  Since the ideas do not
>have anything to do with the right of women to their own bodies, I can
>only interpret that as an attempt to maintain the current power that
>women have.

I have seen these discussions, and my interpretation of the results of
such discussions differs: I see the problem, but have seen no "good"
solution to it.  The inherent problem is that one sex bears the child
and the other does not: this difference results in a very real
difference in what each sex can do about becoming a parent, I think.
But I don't wish to get into this debate, I simply wanted to point out
why it seemed (that some, at least) feminists "aren't interested."

I also would not say that women have any kind of "power" over this.
Men that do not wish to pay child support (whether or not they wanted
the child at the time it was born) simply do not and evading the law
is fairly easy.  I know many women who are unable to collect any money
from their ex husbands for their children even though they know where
the men are.

>	Additionally, in this very posting your responded to, I
>described the war in California over the new Child Support law; you
>definitely read this, yet you apparently did not see that part of the
>attempt to implement a form of alimony using child support was an
>attempt to assert power over men.  Isn't alimony the correct avenue
>for deciding on this money transfer?  Why should both alimony and
>child support serve this purpose?  What is the motivation?  Could it
>be...power?  Why, in general, can we garnishee wages for child support
>but are generally not interested in some simple way to deal with
>withholding of visitation?

Child support, visitation, and related issues are much more complex
than this.  I don't think that it boils down to a "power struggle"
over men.  Women, when they (yes, rarely) have to pay child support,
have equally poor records of forking over the money.  The real problem
is elsewhere.  That is to say, I support much more equitable splits in
who gets custody and who pays support, but the problem of "deadbeat
parents" will not go away with equitable splits.  There is some other
problem here.

>	How about feminist judicial concepts?  They insist that the
>determination of a crime should come from how the victim "felt" at the
>time, rather than by some testable evaluation of the situation.  This
>concept, though written as victim, seems only to be applied if the
>woman is a victim; for instance, a defence similar to "I thought she
>was sending me signals that she wanted a proposition" would not
>considered to be a reasonable defense.  Doesn't this give an
>extraordinary amount of power to women?

This is untrue.  The question being debated is "what is a reasonable
person likely to consider a danger to his/her life?"  Historically, it
has been the men's POV: when actually under attack, etc, because men
are assumed to be about equal in abilities.  Women on the other hand,
frequently strike back when the other is incapacitated, because they
know from bitter experience that *when* the other wakes up, then they
will be beated, that if they leave the other will track them down, etc
-- and because of the physical disparity between them, the women will
not survive or be able to head of the attack if they fight back during
an actual attack.  It is not setting up "reasonableness" on the basis
of how women "feel."  These cases are being decided on an individual
basis: the history of that particular person beating her up, following
her, threatening her, plus the real physical imbalance.

I see no reason why they couldn't apply to men: a slight boy that gets
beaten up regularly by an older man.  In fact, a local case here was
on just that -- and the boy (actually 18 at the time he killed his
guardian) won.

Let me point out that I study martial arts, and the more I know, the
more acutely I realize that if I'm ever attacked by a man, I have to
take him out on the *first* try.  I will not have a second chance, no
matter how good I am.

>	Take Back The Night movements that suggest a curfew...for men
>only?

This has a history behind it.  Of course the suggestion is facetious.
The absurdity of it is used to point out the absurdity of a curfew for
women in order to avoid rape by staying at home (which is the
traditional response).  There is a wonderful anecdote (true) about
Golda Meir, when she was PM of Israel: they were discussing a curfew
for women to help reduce a recent spate of rapes when she said
something like, "But it is the MEN doing the raping, why not put a
curfew on THEM?"  The proposal was dropped.

I remember seeing a letter to the editor some time ago.  The person
was angry at the increased crime in LA and said something like "we
will not be able to walk on our own streets unless we do something
about these criminals."  Which was perfectly reasonable -- except we
never seem to have a similar reaction when the crime is increased
rape.  "Oh, stay at home!" is the advice given instead.

>Circumventions of the legal system, for women, such as writing
>alleged rapists names on bathroom walls?

I do not condone this, but I understand the rage that inspired it.
Some universities are notoriously poor at handling charges of sexual
abuse between students.  Even here, our administration tends to keep
quiet about rapes and beatings that have occured on campus.  If there
were well respected and fair protocols for handling rape and similar
complaints, I bet you would not see this kind of protest.

>Abused wives who burned
>their husbands having an actual legally accepted defense "Abused Wife
>Syndrome" that is hardly, if ever, applied to men even if they
>qualify?

See above.


I think you fail to consider much of the context that these things
occur in.  I agree with the hiking analogy recently posted, because of
the behaviour of many men that I have experienced.  It is a very rare
man who waits at the cliff or even heads back to the woman stuck in
the ravine.  More often, they try and trip the woman as she's climbing
out.

I welcome you.  I like your ideas, they are thought provoking.  But I
think you would do better to listen for a while and try to understand
the reasoning behind much of feminist thought.  It is easy to pick out
a few examples as being unfair to men while ignoring the larger
context.

One last note: I found it interesting that you kept using men as the
normative: that is, when you pointed out the ways in which problems
for women (eg, not being able to vote), you talked about them in terms
of how they affected men (a vote might have gone better w/women
voting), rather than in terms of how they affected society.  And half
the time you were talking about consequences large and general enough
to really be affecting society, not just men...

--Cindy
--
	"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what
	feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist
	whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a
	doormat, or a prostitute."  -- Rebecca West, 1913
--
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.