Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1993 06:25:48 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers

From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
-
-
-Mr. Name ( may I call you The?), you inform us that "95%" of all
-feminists hold "a core set of beliefs," with which you vehemently
-disagree; and yet, aside from all that paranoid bullshit about
-how good women had it in The Olde Days (which makes me wonder if
-you've ever read even a page of any book about... well, anything),
-the only specific element of this hideous doctrine that you've
-mentioned is that men should pay child support.  If you plan to
-hold feminists to this rigid standard, perhaps you should tell
-us exactly what this "core set of beliefs" comprises, so that we
-may debate your point in an informed fashion.
-I've known quite a large number of people who call themselves
-feminists, and aside from a concern with issues affecting women
-and a desire to remove barriers to equality between the sexes, I
-can't think of a single element common to the viewpoints of all
-these people.  Hence my curiousity over what actually is required
-by this creeping conspiracy of harridans- obviously, some of my
-friends are going to have to be informed that they're out of the
-club, and I need to know which ones.
-Thanks ever,
-Bill
-

   I have to express sympathy for this intellectual point of view if not for
the sarcasm.  The fact is that for men seeking fairness, traditional women,
traditional men and feminists are all opponents and feminists the least.
At least  they are intellectually committed to fairness to both sexes since
their premiss is that only equality is just. Even if they do not  ALWAYS
practice fairness, at least they sometimes do.    On the other hand, trad-
itional men are quite capable of sending millions of other men to their deaths
in Vietnam or Korea or wherever and traditional women are the ones who
are likely to think of men as walking wallets whose job is to supply them
with charge cards and then keep out of the way, unless they want instead
to pay big bucks in child support and alimony.  (I am exaggerating, of
course many people in both these categories are perfectly nice, but what I
have said does happen).

  However, I disagree with the sarcasm because it is true that there are many
many ways in which men are treated unjustly in this society.  Anita Hill's
concern with talk of pubic hair receives more attention than hundreds of
thousands of men who are raped in US prisons every day.  There is a clear
feeling behind this that men have to take the rough with the smooth and not
think of their bodily integrity as something worth protecting, unless they
want to be thought of as wimps.  Also we take an under-representation of women
in the congress as prima facie evidence of discrimination against women but we
do not take the preponderance of men in prisons as prima facie evidence of
discrimination against men.  So there is a lot of sexism against men,
practiced quite often by men against other men.

  A second point is that there are many feminists who do in fact detest men.
Feminists who do not share these hostile feeelings still do refrain from
denouncing this man-hatred.  When there is a political alliance of people
who are savory and others who are unsavory, then all of them are a threat
to SOME extent.  Those who stand by and do not speak up for justice do
share some of the blame for injustice.

  My last point is however that there ARE indeed biological differences
between men and women (of a statistical but very significant nature) and
a plan for a good society that ignores these differnces is bound not to
work and to create at least as many problems as it solves.  Think of busing
as a way to solve the educational problems of black children.  It did not
achieve its objective and it did achieve as a by-product the white flight
from US cities and the consequent decay of most of them.  Maybe ideal
white people would not flee to the suburbs, but what use is a plan that does
not deal with people as they ARE?

         I have two relatives, two sisters, of which one
did not go to college but was married to a man chosen by her father.
The other one became a college professor.   There is very little doubt in
the family that it is the sister who got married who is happy and the one
who became a professor has a pretty hard life.  Nonetheless we have all
this propaganda about how women MUST be exploited in traditional arrangements
and what they really need is autonomy.  Of course autonomy is nice but not
everyone values it to the same extent.  Some do and some don't and that is
how life is!

  So I have to admit that I AM a little cautious with well meaning people
who come up with unrealistic plans.  For this sin, Farthing and others
have put me in their `kill' files, even though I do not abuse people
and try to present my point of view with logical arguments.

   Ultimately the problem of the relationship between the two sexes can
only be tackled well if there are enough people - hopefully a majority -
who are both well meaning and realistic.  Unfortunately, a minority of
feminists are not well meaning (I think a majority is) and a majority is
not realistic.  The truth about men and women is not going to be found
in the Book of Genesis, and neither is it going to be found in Lincoln's
Gettysberg address.  We have to keep our eyes open and out wits about us
and remember that all of us are here for a short time.  Nothing is gained
by harming others.  Nor is anything gained by ignoring reality.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism