X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:45:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Sexism, etc.

On 12 November, Rick writes:

>There =are= problems which exist for =both= men and women,
>which are based on inappropriate behaviors by members of the
>other sex. Those problems, however, will not be solved by
>groups consisting solely of men *OR OF WOMEN*. They will be
>solved by groups of =people= who recognize both the equality
>and the unique differences inherent in the sexes.

        I agree.  You might be interested in reading _The
Mismeasure of Woman_, by Carol Tavris.  It's about a year old
now, I think.


>Neither "female-bashing" masculinists nor "all sex is
>rape" feminists are doing anything positive for their sexes,
>the former are perpetuating myths which disempower women
>while the latter are preaching hatred and prejudice under a
>guise of supporting women. Both are equally sexist and
>bigoted.

        And so are these two sentences.  At least, they
reflect a bias which is so close to home that Rick, bless his
heart, doesn't even see it.  And it is a bias that disturbs
me very much.  The bias is present in the examples used to
describe and define both groups.  In these sentences,
masculinists are people (presumably men), who do "female-
bashing," which means that they "perpetuate myths which
disempower women," while feminists are people (presumably
women) who claim that "all sex is rape," which means that
they are "preaching hatred and prejudice under a guise of
supporting women."  To say that "masculinists perpetuate
myths which disempower women" implies that women are
currently disempowered by those myths (otherwise, how could
the masculinists be "perpetuating" something?)  However, I
don't understand the linking of "feminists" to sex (as an
_act_, for the etymologists in the audience).  First of all,
I've never heard any feminists (men or women) that I know say
that "all sex is rape," though I've heard much "female-
bashing" by both men and women.  And I can imagine some
feminist lesbians who actually like sex as an act and do not
view "all sex as rape."  In fact, I can imagine some
HETEROSEXUAL feminists, like myself for instance, who like
sex and do not view "all sex as rape."
        Secondly, how is it that feminism is all about sex?
In my view, this SERIOUSLY trivializes the issue of equal
opportunity regardless of sex (the _noun_ that we use to
denote the category under which one may find the
subcategories "male" and "female"), which is what I thought
feminism was about.  There's the first bias presented in what
is otherwise a thoughtful series of statements.

        The second is apparent in the assertion that to claim
that "all sex is rape" (assuming somebody does, albeit
whether or not that somebody is by necessity a feminist
remains to be demonstrated) is "preaching hatred and
prejudice."  One cannot be preaching hatred of men (I assume
of men, since the closer to this line is "under the guise of
supporting women") by claiming "all sex is rape" unless the
sex one is speaking of involves men (otherwise the two are in
no way linked--men and sex, that is).  So in this statement,
it appears that the assumption is that there are people who
when they have sex are actually raping,and that those people
are men.  In other words, Rick, you're perpetuating the
stereotype yourself in labelling what you claim these kinds
of feminists are doing!  I could go further but I think you
catch my drift....


>Years ago, as an undergraduate at the University of
>Michigan, I enrolled in a women studies class called "Women
>and the Law" which examined the effects of sexism on women
>in today's society. At the time, I felt it important to my
>growth to more fully understand the subtilities of the
>issue. The class had a discussion group element - and I was
>the only man enrolled (I believe women's studies are
>important for men to participate in).

        I admire your thinking in this regard, and I agree--
men should participate in women's studies.

>In the first meeting of the discussion group the question
>was raised as to the appropriateness of a man participating
>in the class. I assumed the consensus would be that it was a
>positive indicator that at least =some= men were interested
>in the issues. It turned out that the consensus was that it
>was disgusting that a man was present, that it would prevent
>free discussion of the issues...

        This might be true--data indicate that in mixed
conversational groups, women do not talk as much as they do
in groups of only women.  This is a problem for us at Wheaton
right now, as we see what is happening to classroom dynamics
now that we've gone co-ed.

>...but that the regulations of the University permitted it
>so there was nothing that could be done other than to
>tolerate my unwanted presence. The discussion leader (an
>Assistant Professor, as I recall) was as hostile toward my
>presence as any student. I left the discussion group and
>dropped out of the UM....

        Not before writing an accurate and seething letter of
complaint to the department and University President about
this situation, I hope!  It sounds highly illegal and
inappropriate to me!

>This type of behavior is all too frequent in academic
>settings...


        I wouldn't limit it to that setting only....

>...and it underlines a basic problem with the women's
>movement - an unwillingness to involve men in the issues -
>and a very strong tendancy to stereotype men as inaccurately
>as we are accused of stereotyping women.

        Rick, I understand your frustration, but no group is
going to suddenly throw open the doors of welcome to the
group which they perceive has wronged them without venting a
little anger first.  It happened in other civil rights
movements.  This one is no different.  Patience, patience....

>Those who point their fingers at "Playboy" as proof that men
>view women as sex objects rather than as individuals might
>want to consider the literary merits of "Playgirl" as well!

        Point I:  There is only ONE "Playgirl."  There is,
however, in addition to "Playboy," "Penthouse," "Hustler,"
"Esquire," and a whole host of others.

        Point II:  The data are available which show that
"Playgirl"'s largest readership and the one that keeps them
in print consists of gay men.


My $1.50,

--Kathy Morgan
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU