From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 21 Jul 1992 19:08:25 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: n
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

fortran@giac1.oscs.montana.EDU (Lou Glassy) writes:

>	i agree fully with you that social problems are inextricably
>	intertwangled.  are social solutions, also?  i think not.

	Oh, I think so.  See below.

>	when i take the sheets down from the clothesline, i have only
>	two hands to grab with.  the fabric is all of a piece, but i
>	gather it and fold it with these two hands.

>	it was with that perspective i read Muffy's post.

	The trick, apparently, is in recognizing the whole sheet and not just
part of it.  Even with both hands, if you try to remove just the left side of
the sheet, you'll never successfully get it off the clothesline unless you
rip the sheet in half, thereby destroying the sheet entirely.  And what do you
then do with the half of a sheet you've got?  Make napkins and sleep cold, I
guess.

	The whole sheet is gender issues.  As I live with, work with, play with,
was born of and have reproduced females (and I use "females" only because I
have a little trouble thinking of my two year old and my 7 week old as 
"women" ;-) ), there is no "women's issue" that does not affect me; likewise, 
there is no "men's issue" that does not affect the women I know and who love 
me.  Further, as long as we insist on solutions to "women's issues" that deal 
with women as a single entity, rather than on an individual basis, solutions 
that affect "all women" will likewise affect "all men".  There is no solution 
to any women's issue that will not affect men in some way, positive or 
negative.  So why pretend that they're "women's issues"?

	Your sheet is "gender issues".  If you're talking about applying your
two hands to the whole sheet, then well and good.  But you're agreeing with
Rich's main message, however much you disagree with the way he said it or
some of the content.
	The sheet analogy could perhaps be better characterized by describing
women's issues by the front of the sheet and men's issues as the back.  If 
you want to do needlework on the front, and ignore the back as is classically
done in needlework, well, you'll end up with a very pretty front; but the 
back will be ugly and chaotic, and no one will want to look at it.  
Furthermore, if someone else is working on the other side, with their own 
pattern, you'll each be undoing the beautiful work of the other with needlework 
noise.  
	Why does this happen? Because each is pretending that they don't 
have enough hands, or attention, to deal with the other side too.  Why, if 
they did that, it would take them twice as long to finish it, wouldn't it?

	No, not if the two people worked together on "gender issues" instead
of separately on "women's issues" and "men's issues".  Each would perhaps
get half as much done...but now there are *two* people working on it, and
they're getting it done without the needlework noise.  

	(And for those anal retentive analogicical types who know something 
about needlework, yes, it's probably impossible to get both sides to look 
perfect.  But that's the real world, isn't it?  We do the best we can, and all 
we can hope for is to get the best, most balanced picture we can, and avoid the 
situation where one side is beautiful and the other is ugly.)

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.


-- 
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.