From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman)
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:40:32 GMT

muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <144vfkINNcft@agate.berkeley.edu> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:
>>muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>Why are we "feminists" rather than "humanists"?
>>Why indeed?  I ask myself this question all the time...Why *are* you
>>feminists instead of humanists?

>Interesting, because then you say:

>>I've thought a lot about this over the last couple of days.  I am a
>>"humanist", in the sense that I really care about both men's and
>>women's issues.  I spend most of my time talking about men's issues,
>>because women's issues are already taken seriously by a substantial
>>portion of society, and because there already exist a large body of
>>"feminists" who pursue women's issues in a unilateral way.  Men's
>>issues don't have society's respect or understanding yet; I find
>>myself spending time on men's issues because they need my time where
>>women's issues do not.

>>From talking with other men's rights activists, [...]

>Well, I think that expresses very clearly why we are "feminists," just
>as you are a "men's rights activist."  We each see a need and apply
>ourselves to it, we just see different needs.

	"We each see a need and apply ourselves to it"?  Interesting
what extraction can do.  You could as easily say "Nazis and black
activist are similar; they each see a need and apply themselves to
it." If you extract far enough, we're all exactly alike.  (Note that
the analogy is intended to show how extreme the extraction is, not to
paint either yourself or myself with the overtones of black or Nazi
causes).
	You see a need through glasses tinted with the sexual
discrimination you use to determine if a cause is important; I see
causes of equal importance, where because someone else has used sexual
discrimination to determine what to address, I have to unwillingly use
sexual discrimination to see what I will address.  You choose your
course, I feel mine thrust upon me by your choice.  I'd prefer to be
addressing gender issues; you prefer to address women's issues.  I'm
addressing men's issues because you're addressing women's issues;
you're interested in addressing women's issues whether or not I
address men's issues.

>>But they also believe that that right needs to be balanced in some
>>manner to be fair, to keep women from having dominant power over
>>their lives.

>Although you do not seem to believe this, as the rest of your post
>and your other posts indicate, there are many feminsts who believe
>that rights should be balanced, as well.  I am one of them.  However,
>I do not believe that women (in general, there may be a few who are,
>as there are probably a few people who do anything) are trying to
>become "dominant," while I do think that men are dominant and there
>are many of them who are trying to stay that way.

	No, you're painting me with the wrong brush.  I am not making
generic statements about feminists.  I am pointing out that there is
nothing about being a feminist that requires fairness, as opposed to
"humanist", which may be open to unfairness to, say, animals, but is
unbiased wrt human beings.  Feminism covers a wide range of folks.
Oh, wait, I see where I misspoke.  I should have said "Why do the
subset of feminists who want to be humanists call themselves
feminists, when so much of feminism is at odds with humanism?"

	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.
	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?
	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?
	Take Back The Night movements that suggest a curfew...for men
only?  Circumventions of the legal system, for women, such as writing
alleged rapists names on bathroom walls?  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?
	I think you're insensitive to the degree of female dominance
attempts that are occurring today...possibly, in part, because you
don't read the papers or see the news.  I am not insensitive to the
amount of power that men have and abuse, however...I *know* it's
happening.  But a lot of this stuff ends of on the net; for instance,
I learned about the Steel Clay stuff on the net (among other sources).
I know you read the net; it's hard for me to imagine that you haven't
been exposed to these kinds of issues.  Since you have a desire to be
a humanist, I can only conclude that you haven't seen this because of
your "feminist" side.

>>But, participants in a movement that has claimed for years to be
>>interested in gender equality apparently instead find their time so
>>limited that they can only work for women's causes, and must needs
>>ignore men's causes, and even ignore the aspect of women's causes
>>that might unfairly affect men, altogether.

>The first part is true, the second is not.  If I am working on, say,
>greater accessiblity of childcare, I *am* concerned about how it
>affects men, as well as how it affects women.  However, I might not
>work on the issue if I did not see it as one that was of great concern
>to women, assuming that I have decided to concentrate my efforts on
>women's issues.

	I'm glad to hear this.  Note that in a part you deleted, I
specifically stated that I was not saying that you were personally
unfair; I don't know you well enough to make a general statement like
that about you.

>>The basis of the problem is that men's issues and women's issues are
>>co-dependent.  You can't fix a women's issue without affecting men in
>>some way; one of the ways that some feminists have dealt with this is
>>by saying that men are powerful and therefore any negative
>>consequences for men are positive towards equality.  Then they don't
>>have to consider whether a solution for a women's issue is actually
>>*fair*, on a case by case basis.

>>That's where the sexism comes in.

>What about us feminists who *don't* say that?  But we still want to
>concentrate our efforts on women's issues?

	You're just not getting this.  There is no such thing as a
woman's issue.  If you say you want to concentrate on women's issues,
that means you want to deal with gender issues in a biased manner, by
assuming that the victims are women.  There is no women's issue that I
cannot be a victim of, including breast cancer.  If my wife isn't
properly educated about breast cancer, there are at least two victims:
my wife, who dies, and myself, who lives on without her.  Who is the
greater victim?  Why should we even play "greater victim" games?  It's
a *gender* issue.

>>In fact, there is only one issue, and two points of view.  You ask
>>why there are men's issues and women's issues; so do I, but I'm not
>>asking rhetorically.  The reason we pretend there are two issues is
>>so that we don't have to consider what is fair for the other side.
>>And when we don't care what's fair for the other side, and the sides
>>are divided by gender, that's sexism.

>I was not asking it at all rhetorically.  In fact, I answered it in my
>post, which I made after some thought about that question.  The issues
>*are* different; you claim that they are all co-dependent (I think you
>mean interdependent, actually),

	Thank you for the correction.

> but they are not.  The fact that women
>are paid less than men for the same job is an issue about women.

	Yes, women are victims.  So are men.  If my wife is paid less
than I for the same work, then it falls upon me to be the primary
provider for the family, a role I neither approve of or want.  If my
wife is paid less than I, I must worry about her future should I die,
a worry I would not have if she was self-sufficient.  If my daughters
cannot make as much money as men, I have to worry about raising them
with a specific goal to get married, instead of simply raising them to
be self-sufficient.  If my wife makes too little to survive on, and we
both agree that it's important to have a parent at home during a
child's first few years, and I'm the best choice personality-wise, I
still have to be the provider.  It's a *gender* issue.
	(Incidentally, my wife makes more than I did at the same job.
The statistics, analyzed correctly, suggest that the problem is not in
payment for the same job but in women's choice of careers and biases
in family and the educational system, and the solution is to raise my
daughters to know they can accomplish high-paying jobs.)

>Solving it may affect men and I do believe that that should be
>considered, but men are *not* the ones who are getting screwed over,
>so it is specifically a women's issue.

	See above.  If you look at the whole picture, everyone is
screwed.  Early feminists saw that, but it has apparently been
forgotten.

>Breast cancer is a women's
>issue.

	My Grandmother, my mother, my wife and my children are women.
I assure you, should one of them die of breast cancer, I will suffer.
Deeply.  Is my victimization less than theirs?  I read, the other day,
about a woman who's father, husband and son had all died in three
different wars.  Of course, in America at least, it's only our men who
die in wars, which by your line of thinking makes war a "men's" issue
(never mind the draft!).  I think about how I'd feel as that woman,
and I know it's a *gender* issue.  I'm not sure if in her position I'd
have the will to live anymore.

The stereotype that a woman is a "slut" if she sleeps with X
>number of men is a women's issue.

	...which is part of a sexual power system maintained and
supported by women.  Surely I, a sexually powerless male, only stand
to benefit from a relief in the artificial scarcity of sex?  I assure
you, the sexual power issue, of which this is but one small part, can
very easily be considered a men's issue, as it is men that are kept
powerless by it.  (In fact, one has only to look at who makes the
"slut" determination, a determination done almost exclusively by
women, to see who benefits from this stereotype).

	But why think like that?  Aren't we both victims?  Isn't it a
human problem?

>The stereotype that women can't do
>math is a women's issue.  The silencing of girls in classes while boys
>are encouraged to speak up is a women's issue.

	...Both of which affect men negatively!  I don't understand
why you can't see this!  Do you think men only benefit from their
provider roles?  How many men have died wondering when their children
grew up and who they were, because those men were the only ones
allowed to do math?  How many important ideas are squashed because
women are not encouraged to speak?  How many men are socially
castigated because it is not within them to speak, and yet they are
expected to?
	If you view these as women's issues, you cannot see the whole
picture!

>Even if you can find
>equivalent men's issues, these things can be worked on separately,
>without *requiring* any oppression of men.

	Yes, there are definitely solutions to these problems that
don't "require" oppressing men.  But if men aren't active in
determining those solutions, what are the chances that those are the
solutions that will be chosen?  And I can say the same thing of
women's involvement in "men's" issues.

	I mean, *think* about this.  You've presented all these issues
as issues where *only women are victims*.  You can't even see the
victimization of men inherent in these issues, but you assure me that
you'll find solutions that aren't inimical to men???
	You just aren't used to thinking about things from a men's
point of view, and that's the problem.  You're well meaning, but you
*need input from men, because you don't have any practice in looking
at things from their point of view*.

	And guess what?  We need you too.  Because it isn't easy to
step into someone else's shoes.  The first step, though, is the
willingness to try.

>>>Each person has limited time to try to change society.  People
>>>attempt to allocate this time so that the issues they are most
>>>concerned about get the most time and effort.  Therefore, some
>>>feminists choose only to work on the women's side of gender
>>>inequalities.  Generally, they then narrow it even further and work
>>>only on certain issues, such as abortion rights, child care, or
>>>equal pay.
>>All three are *gender* issues.

>Note that I said "gender inequalities" and then "the women's side
>of..."

	Yes, but you've stated elsewhere that you're primarily
interested in "women's issues".  You've described gender issues as
"women's issues".  I'm not missing your message here.

>>a humanist should look at the possible solutions and find the one
>>that is best for everyone.  A feminist doesn't have to go to that
>>extra trouble, because that person is working on a "women's" issue.

>YOUR version of a feminist may not have to, but my version certainly
>does.

	But there are many, many versions of feminist.  There is
nothing about feminism to constrain a feminist to find the best
solution to a problem.  A feminist may be biased towards a best
solution for women, and that feminist may not; a humanist is biased
towards a best solution for humans.

>>>Certainly, it is not "fair" to give more of your time to one cause
>>>than another, but it is only discriminating in the sense of choosing
>>>one thing over another, not in the sense of oppressing one group in
>>>favor of another.

>>Your discrimination is based on the gender of the victim.  Outside of
>>insisting on the secondary definition of sexism, how can you say that
>>that isn't a sexist action?

>The person is only a victim because of her gender, though.  If you
>accept (you may not, of course), that it is not possible for one
>person to work on all issues, then everyone needs selection criteria.
>Do you consider people sexist who only date people of one gender?

	They are definitely being sexually discriminatory.  I would
hate to use the word "sexist" because of it's negative connotations;
society considers it to be perfectly reasonable to be sexually
discriminatory for some things, but not for others.  I don't believe
it is unfair to the female gender for an individual to prefer males; I
think it is quite unfair to the male gender for feminists to pretend
that gender issues are women's issues.

>[I say I haven't heard feminists trying to stop men working on their
> issues.]
>[newspaper and radio example.]

>>It's definitely out there.  You're just not sensitive to it; could it
>>be because you're a feminist and not a humanist?

>Well, since I *am* a humanist, as well as a feminist, I don't think
>that's it.  Could it possibly be that I do not read the newspapers or
>listen to the radio (I don't)?  Ahh, but then it wouldn't be because I
>was sexist, and you're sure that I am, so I guess that can't be it,
>either, eh?

	Actually, I didn't say you were sexist; I specifically said I
*wasn't* saying that you're unfair.  It's a little discourteous of you
to delete that part and then accuse me of something I don't believe.
	I believe *some* of your actions to be sexist.  It is
inconsistent to be a humanist who's only interested in "women's"
issues, so I don't believe you to be a humanist.  That you are
interested in a humanist stance in those issues is wonderful, but it's
only half-way there.

	(Incidentally, if you don't read papers or listen to the
radio, you should probably present opinions like the two you've
presented in these past postings, "Men want women to stop working on
women's issues, but women don't want men to stop working on men's
issues" and "Men have and keep power, but women aren't trying to
dominate men" with the disclaimer that these opinions are based on
your own personal experiences.  Otherwise, folks will assume, as I
did, that you had a normally broad basis for these opinions.)

	I'm spending a lot of time on you, because you've presented
yourself as an example of a humanist feminist.  But the fact is, I
don't think you're a terrible person.  This is a very small thing,
relatively speaking.  It is an example, though, of how even at the
humanist extreme of the feminist movement, the movement is decidedly
not humanist, decidedly not an equality movement.  And my real point
is, that that is very sad.  We could all get so much more done if we
really tried to see the other side, deal with gender issues and make
humanist decisions.

>>>Unfortunately, some people who are concerned about men's rights *do*
>>>try to tell feminists that they should spend less time on women's
>>>rights and more on men's.  I'm not sure why this is; it may be
>>>because there is not a large, obvious effort for men's rights.

>>Strictly IMO, I think it's because those men *do* believe in human
>>rights and gender equality, and are dumbfounded, as I was at first,
>>to discover that the "gender equality" movement was really a "women's
>>rights" movement.

>So, of course, they say to stop working on women's issues and start
>working on men's.  Makes a lot of sense, if they're interested in
>people's rights, eh?  Sorry, but I don't have such a rosy view of
>men's rights activists as you do.  (Perhaps much like you don't have a
>very rosy view of feminists.)

	Well, it's amusing in a way.  I have definitely been told, on
the net, that I should stop working on men's issues *altogether* and
work only on women's issues.  Have you ever really been told that you
should stop working *altogether* on women's issues and work only on
men's issues?  Or have you been asked to balance your choice of
issues?  There is an important difference between the intent of the
two...

>>I don't think anyone was talking about *forcing* anyone to do
>>anything.  They're merely pointing out sexist bias where they see it.
>>If a woman is only interested in "women's" causes, she's operating on
>>a gender bias

>But if she works on men's causes, she's a humanist, right?

	If she works on "gender issues", she's a humanist.  It's the
bias that matters. If she works on "gender issues" she's unlikely to
exclude either "men's issues" or "women's issues". It's not a
complicated concept.

>Hah.  I'll
>tell you what my bias is, and it's quite a selfish one.  I work on the
>issues that directly affect me, and the issues that I happen to be
>interested in.  Oddly enough, the various forms of oppression of women
>directly affect me.

	Oddly enough, the various forms of oppression of women
indirectly, but in equal amounts, affect me too.  At least as much as
some men's issues, such as the draft, which I'm a couple of years too
old for, or custody and child support, when my marriage appears as
solid as Gibralter.  Do you know for sure that you are payed less for
the same job than your male peers?  Do you have a child who would be
covered by the better childcare issues you've mentioned?  Are you one
of those sexually active women who get called "slut"?  (No, I don't
really want to know).  Were you told that you couldn't do math?  Have
you failed to succeed because of your co-ed school experience?  Or are
you affected indirectly by at least some of these issues, the same way
that I am?

	You put me in an interesting position, because if I respond by
pointing out that I don't just work on issues that directly affect me,
I come off sounding "Holier-than-thou".  I end up the villain for
being unselfish, and you end up the hero for your selfishness.

	Instead, I'll only say that whatever the "Me" generation may
have taught you, selfishness isn't a positive quality.  In some cases
it's a necessity, when the need is great, the same way war and killing
have, in some times of history and in some circumstances (like
self-defense), been a necessity.  But it's one of those qualities
people should exercise unwillingly under duress, not as a way of life.

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.