From: rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:59:47 GMT
Organization: SunPics -- A Sun Microsystems Business
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Jul21122131@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Analogy time: I live in a two-bedroom apartment.  I have one bedroom,
>my roommate has the other, we share the living room and kitchen.  One
>morning, I notice the place is a real mess.  I only have an hour
>before I have to go to work.  My roommate's room would take an hour to
>clean (but two hours for me, because I don't know where everything
>goes), mine will take two hours, and the living room and kitchen will
>take two hours.  Ther eis simply *no way* that I can get the entire
>place clean.  Where do I concentrate my efforts?  Chances are very
>good that I will spend the time on the areas that I use and which I
>have therefore more contorl over and more interest in/understanding
>of.

Yes, I agree, chances are very good that you will do just that; it's
normal human motivation.  But we aren't always motivated by short-term
interest to do what would be best in the long term.

The major thing I disagree with about this analogy is that it ignores
the presence of your roomate.  When there's work to be done, one plus
one ls usually more than two; at the very least one of you could move
furniture out of the way while the other vacuums, and be done in less
than half the time.  Working together allows synergy to happen, and
builds a good relationship; working separately does not.  And while it
requires some trust to begin working together on *each* *other's*
problems, the process and the shared successes magnify that trust many
times over.


>On the other hand, if I decide to spend the time in the living
>room/kitchen, I'm not going to clean around my roommate's stuff; I'm
>going to consider it and deal with it as well as I can.

Yes, of course!  All I'm saying is the world is shared living space,
Muffy.  By definition (of the word "social"), where social problems
are concerned nobody has "A Room of One's Own."

>I do not believe that concentrating on issues that specifically affect
>women means that you must ignore the effect of those issues (or the
>possible solutions) on men.

Generally we're in agreement.  It's not the theory that's the problem,
it's the practice of maintaining that focus for prolonged periods;
over time it causes perspectives to rigidify and leads people to
devalue and invalidate each other's struggles. (This is what first
inspired the thread, isn't it?)  There is a world of difference
between "These causes are important to me and I want to see to it that
a certain amount of effort is directed towards them" vs "Don't bother
me with your problems, I have my own and they're much worse (or more
important) than yours."


>>It is equally absurd to work to change womens' rights and roles in
>>society without paying any attention to mens' intimately related
>>rights and roles.  Gender justice is as indivisible as any other
>>kind.
>
>That's odd, because it does not seem that gender *IN*justice is
>indivisible.

Good, we see this differently.  Why and how is it divisible?

-- Rich
--
===============================================================================
Richard.Berlin@Eng.Sun.COM   |   The significant problems we face cannot be
			     |   solved at the same level of thinking we were
			     |   at when we created them.  -- Albert Einstein


-- 
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.