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: 30 Jul 92 00:11:43 GMT

histlib@erich.triumf.ca (Mary Olin) writes:

>In article <14odc7INN7s6@agate.berkeley.edu>, uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes...

>>	It's very easy to look at "the enemy" and see only their
>>advantages, maybe you'll find that our progress isn't very
>>different, that our problems are linked to your problems, and our
>>problems are worth your time for that reason if nothing else.

>I, personally, have found your point of view very appealing, Robert.
>I would love to be able to consider myself a humanist rather than a
>feminist. It looks as though your basic point is that if one group in
>a society is oppressed, all are oppressed, and I agree. It is
>important for us to be aware of the effects of inequality on those
>who are seen as the dominant group.

	Though I agree that what you've said is true, it isn't quite
my basic point.  You're still focussing on women as "oppressed",
making men "oppressed by side effect".
	I step back one step further than that.  The system oppresses
both of us.  It makes it difficult or impossible for either of us to
have free choice about the way we want to spend our lives.  It forces
both of us to try to shoehorn into a stereotype that may not fit our
personality or our desires; it makes us both unhappy.

	I understand why you may feel that women are oppressed; women
had their "enlightenment" 20-30 years ago, and a lot of thought by
some pretty intelligent folks has been done since then on how the
current system (labelled "patriarchy" by feminists) oppresses women.
Futhermore, most feminists have have bought into the patriarchal
mindset, i.e. political power is the only form of power that counts.
It's mostly men with political power, so they can't be an oppressed
group, right?
	On the other hand, we've only had a few years to even consider
the concept of oppression of men.  You do realize that back in the
late 60s and early 70s, when feminism was gaining momentum, that most
women had to have their "consciousness raised" in order to see their
own oppression?  That's where the men's movement is today; that
oppression is not recognized by either men or women as a reality.
That didn't make oppression of women not true in the 60s, and it
doesn't make oppression of men not true in the 90s.
	And yes, if your only metric is political power, then it's
hard to consider men to be oppressed (though it gets easier when you
realize how small the subset of me is that actually gets access to
political power).  But is that the only meaningful metric?  Do you
really buy into that patriarchal mindset?  Would *you* trade all power
in interpersonal and family relationships for a shot at the
presidency?  If you would, do you think everyone should feel the same
way, or should everyone really have the ability to make a choice that
will suit their personality?  A basic tenet of the men's movement is
that we err in considering political power as being the only
meaningful form of power, and we err even more if we perpetuate that
line of thinking...and I feel that that is what most of the feminist
movement is trying to do right now.

	Do you believe those men who are mover and shakers are happy?

	I could be wrong, and if I am, someone please correct me, but
I believe that historically alcoholism has been a much worse problem
for men than it has for women.  Certainly, more men commit suicide
than do women (though this is the current state; I'm not sure of the
historical basis).  Could this be a sign that men in general are
terribly unhappy, and don't know why?

	I'm unhappy being shoehorned into a stereotype that doesn't
necessarily match my personality, or even my capabilities.  So are
you.  Who's unhappiness is more important?  Who is more oppressed, or
is that even a reasonable question?

>What I haven't seen you addressing, though, is the fact that the
>degree of oppression is not necessarily the same. Let's take your
>ideas to more obvious cases. Would you expect the blacks of South
>Africa or the women of Saudi Arabia to be as sympathetic to the
>problems of the dominant groups in their countries as to their own?

	Well, the fact that we have to take my ideas to "more obvious
cases" shows by itself that even the perceived power imbalance isn't
extreme enough to warrant a biased approach.

	But let's do that.  Based on my understanding of human nature,
 no, I would not expect the blacks of South Africa to be sympathetic
 to the problems of the whites in power.  In fact, It would be only
 human for the blacks of South Africa to be 100% biased, to move for
 solutions to their problems that don't take the effects on the white
 population into account, to, in fact, be thinking in vengeful terms,
 to be looking forward to the opportunity to take the reigns of
 oppression into their own hands.

	Guess what?  That's exactly what the whites of South Africa
are afraid of.  So what is the result?  The whites of South Africa are
still struggling to come up with some way to turn over those reigns
while guaranteeing that they don't end up on the whip-receiving end of
them, while the blacks are insisting on getting those reigns
unconditionally.  That's all human nature, too.  So the process is
being drawn out even longer, and it makes me wonder how much sooner
the process could have been completed if this wasn't a concern?
	The inherent selfish human nature makes the resolution of the
problem difficult if not impossible.  In fact, that human nature made
the problem in the first place, so it's not surprising that people
like me note that as long as we defend and perpetuate that human
nature, we will have similar problems; the only difference will be
who's holding the reigns.

	Now for a little confession.  The people who are debating this
issue with me here, so far at least, are people I highly respect.
They are intelligent people who have different opinions, but who have
been and are willing to give real thought to the subject.
	There's a downside to that respect, though.  I hold those
people I respect to a higher standard than I do the average person.  I
believe that those people do not have to be slaves to human nature.

	That's why I'm here, pleading for the understanding that
exclusively pursuing a biased interest is counterproductive.  You're
working against yourself.  In ignoring men's concerns, feminism
produces solutions that men *must* oppose.  In not recognizing that
there are no women's issues, but just gender issues, feminism ignores
the effects that solutions to those "women's issues" has on men, and
then explains any opposition as "hatred of women".  And in permitting
hateful rhetoric against "the enemy" to be tacitly accepted as part of
your movement, you help divide the world into camps such that a man
who might have been fair or helpful finds himself shoehorned into a
new role, and stays there by intertia if no other reason.

	It's a lose/lose game, and it doesn't have to be...unless we
proclaim human nature as ruling the roost.

>There's also the ugly fact that there still exist in our culture men
>who do actively try to exclude women from their traditional power
>base.  Women, on the other hand, do not (at least not in any sort of
>systematic manner) try to exclude men from child-rearing and other
>traditionally female roles.

	In the first sentence, you talk about individual men; in the
second sentence you talk about women as a group.  You can't make any
kind of meaningful comparison between the two.
	I know women who do actively try to exclude men from
child-rearing roles.  I've read rhetoric by individual women that
states unequivocally that men are not emotionally capable of raising
children.  I've read about women who support the current unbalanced
system of child custody determinations, and others who are actively
fighting against the [very gradual] equalization of this situation.
There are even still women who oppose men at home for very traditional
reasons.  Don't you know people like these, or haven't you read about
them too?
	And there is no male conspiracy, no secret handshakes and
covert messages.  Men as a group keep women from their traditional
power base in a systemic way, the same way women keep men from their
power base by, for instance, rewarding "success" when that success is
incompatible with child-rearing, or by demanding custody in divorces,
even to using false accusations of sexual abuse to get that custody,
or by keeping men like me in fear of unfounded extra-family
accusations of sexual abuse so that I'm reluctant to change my
daughter's diapers on public, or by considering, "for the sake of the
child", guaranteeing child support to be much more important than
guaranteeing visitation rights, or by insisting that the husband be
the provider.
	I could go on for some time, but the point is that the number
of men who actively try to exclude women from the political power base
is small compared to the men who, for reasons due to societal
pressures, simply find this man to be a better candidate than that
woman, the same way a woman finds a powerful man more attractive than
a not-ambitious one.  When you compare group to group, most of the
action takes place on a subliminal level, and women are no more
innocent than men.

	You know, this is the third or fourth time in this debate that
a woman has made a claim, without even an "IMO" to ameliorate the
claim, that men do "this" bad thing while women do not.  Each time, I
can come up with examples that show that the world isn't nearly that
black-and-white, if you look through the "enemy's" eyes.  My world is
in shades of grey; is everyone else's really so simple?

>How about a compromise. When we women are talking with men like you,
>we call ourselves humanists and work together on our mutual problems.
>When, on the other hand, we're talking to those in our culture who
>are the source of the problems we both have, we women and men like
>you all call ourselves feminists. One name for dealing with areas
>where the oppression is equal, another for areas where it's not.

	I see.  And what will we both call ourselves when we're
dealing with the inequities of the child custody determinations, child
support determinations and visitation rights?  What shall we call
ourselves when we examine how many men die in order to get the
attention of women, or why men get longer jail sentences for the same
crimes than women, or what the new definition of sexual harassment
created by feminists means to men?  What will we call ourselves as we
boldly challenge draft discrimination?
	Oh, I forgot.  This whole discussion began when Muffy stated
that she wouldn't deal with these sorts of issues, and you're posting
in defense of Muffy's stance, so the question doesn't really matter,
does it?  You aren't going to *be* there for those issues.  Exactly
what issues are you volunteering to work with me on as a humanist, and
on which issues must we be feminists?  What does it mean to be
"feminists" if we're trying to examine an issue in an unbiased way?

[Moderator's note: Muffy has not stated that this is her stance,
merely that she doesn't think such a stance is sexist.  --CTM]

	Sorry, but if we're working together on our mutual problems,
we *are* working against the people in our culture who are the source
of those problems.  If we're humanist, we're humanist.  If we're
feminists or male activists, we're not being humanists, and we're busy
working on the same issues from opposite sides.  We're pushing a big
earth ball towards each other's goal lines, and whoever loses loses
everything...and think about *that* for a minute.  That's something to
give some *serious* consideration to.

	If it *has* to be a competition, someone has to lose.  It may
be men who are the losers...but then again, maybe not.

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.