From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Men's vs. Women's Is  1/2
Date: 20 Aug 1992 03:38:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I realise that this a long post, but I feel that Robert Coleman has made a
brave and courageous stand, and has been attacked many times, sometimes
rather unfairly, and I would like to respond to some points which were made
by Diane Bailey...


Diane Bailey <dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk> writes...
DB> Robert Coleman writes...
DB> >In not recognizing that there are women's issues, but just
DB> >gender issues...

DB> You entirely deny that there are women's issues?????

No, he did not.  I believe that you may have unintentionally taken his post
out of context here.  He was merely stating that women's issues and men's
issues should be dealt with, within a framework of *Gender* Issues, rather
than within the current framework of most feminists, ie., that "gender issues"
means only "women's issues".

In the small piece that you have quoted, it *does* seem as though he is
ignoring that there are women's issues.  I most confidently assure you that
he said no such thing.


DB> >       And there is no male conspiracy, no secret handshakes and
DB> >covert messages.  Men as a group keep women from their traditional
DB> >power base in a systemic way...

DB> Is this not a women's issue?

Of course it is ... He did not deny that it was.


DB> >...the point is that the number of men who actively try to
DB> >exclude women from the political power base is small compared to
DB> >the men who, for reasons due to societal pressures, simply find
DB> >this man to be a better candidate than that woman, the same way a
DB> >woman finds a powerful man more attractive than a not-ambitious
DB> >one.  When you compare group to group, most of the action takes
DB> >place on a subliminal level, and women are no more innocent than
DB> >men.

DB> But, in your own paragraph, you talk of women being excluded from
DB> jobs or power whereas the women are only making personal choices
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DB> with regard to their own lives, which men certainly do too.

I have read all of Mr. Coleman's posts with great interest, and he did not
say or even imply that women only make exclusionary judgements against men
in personal circumstances.  I believe that you have unwittingly set this
particular part of your argumentation as a strawman.

Some quotes from him, stating that he said this, would have been quite
helpful.


DB> This is no equivalent or balance for the exclusion of women from jobs
DB> and power.  It is phoney reasoning.

I agree that it *would* be phony reasoning, but Robert *never implied this*,
so although this is bad reasoning, Robert never made it!


DB> >What shall we call ourselves when we examine how many men die in
DB> >order to get the attention of women...

DB> Have you ever wondered how women feel when men try so hard to get
DB> attention?  Especially lesbians, but by no means only lesbians?
DB> Are women seriously supposed to take this up as a human rights
DB> issue?????

Yes!  Again, you have deleted much of Robert's post here, and he was
attempting to make a larger societal point that men have been socialised
to be the ones who fight and *die* while defending the country, and this
pursuit in itself has been socialised as an icon of being attractive to
women.  (You've heard all the jingles about "I love a man in uniform"...?)

*This* is what Robert meant when he said that men were dying in order to
get the attention of women.  Indeed, part of the attraction of the military
is the expectation that hoardes of women will find them attractive.  Right
or wrong, appealing to sexual desire is a prime method used in advertising,
and while I disagree with it, *it works*.


DB> >...or why men get longer jail sentences for the same crimes than
DB> >women...

DB> Actually you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT here.  It is very clear
DB> indeed that women get substantially heavier sentences than men
DB> (on a same race basis) for similar offences.  This is typical of
DB> the quality of your argument.                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I see no need to make insults, even if they *are* directed at his argument
and not at his person.  At any rate, Bronis Vidugiris (I believe) posted
some statistics stating that men do indeed get heavier sentences than women,
for the same offenses.  This is likely due to the societal expectation of
women to be innocent and nurturing, and that women are *very* unlikely to
commit crimes without great extenuating cicumstances.

Mind you, I am going to state for the record that I am not sure which one of
you is correct here.  I am going to ask Bronis about the stats (again, I
*think* that it was Bronis...), but if you, Robert, or anyone else has those
statistics, they would be much more well-received than "you're wrong" from
either of you, or myself.


DB> If we are seeking a term for issues that are gender-common, may I
DB> suggest "social" or "societal".  Or is there a fear of being
DB> thought (heaven forefend) "socialist"?

I prefer "Equalist" or "Gender Equalist" better.  It seems to fit a great
deal better than "Humanist," which appears to be too broad.


DB> >  If we're feminists or male activists... we're busy working on
DB> >the same issues from opposite sides.  We're pushing a big earth
DB> >ball towards each other's goal lines, and whoever loses loses
DB> >everything...and think about *that* for a minute.  That's
DB> >something to give some *serious* consideration to.

DB> This seems a clear declaration that feminism is your enemy.

He never said that at all!  He was attempting to state that many in the
feminist movement consider the Gender Equalist Movement to be *their* enemy,
which is certainly true, especially where more radical feminist groups are
considered.


DB> >                            ...what he's afraid of isn't failing
DB> >to  get a date.  What he's afraid of is losing his job or going
DB> >to jail, or being sued, all without having a reasonable chance of
DB> >defending himself, or without any understanding of where the
DB> >lines are drawn (feminist judicial theory, supported by the
DB> >Supreme Court, being that the determination of a crime should be
DB> >based on the "rational woman" standard, meaning, of course, that
DB> >men can't know the rules because of their gender).

DB> This falatious reasoning makes me so CROSS!  Of course the proper
DB> standard is that of the victim group.
>>> Continued to next message
---

You are clearly calling women "the victim group".  In what position do you
see men as being?   As Robert has very eloquently stated, "the oppressors"
would *not* at all be a reasonable answer, although it is the one that best
fits many of the more radical and separatist feminist groups who very clearly
paint women as victims and men as oppressors.

Also, the "proper standard" should be one that fits HUMANS, and not just the
beliefs and opinions of the plurality of one gender.  That the previous
standard was based upon the rational "male" was unfair, but to make a rational
female the standard is just as ridiculously unfair.


DB> All that is changing is that our rules are becoming a little more
DB> rationally based and less determined by the strong and aggressive.

Are you saying that a standard based upon women's expectations is more
"rationally" based than one based on men's?  This seems to be an  attempt to
claim female moral superiority.


DB> And what your example reminds me of is how a woman, in the
DB> workplace or in politics finds herself in fear of losing her
DB> position (and so her very means to live) without having a
DB> reasonable chance of defending herself, or without any
DB> understanding of where the lines are drawn (male judicial theory
DB> being that the determination of a crime should be based on the
DB> "rational man" standard, meaning, of course, that women can't
DB> know the rules because of their gender), and there usually being
DB> no access to any representation, tribunal, court or process of
DB> justice.

Clearly, it was wrong to expect women to understand "male judicial theory,"
but somehow you have no problem with "female judicial theory," and treat it
as though men should understand and follow it as though it were scripture.


DB> >       Every step you've made forward has been against the
DB> >resistance of *and* with the help of men.  It was a male court
DB> >that asserted Roe vs. Wade.  It was a strongly conservative male
DB> >court that asserted it again.  It was a male political body that
DB> >ratified the right of women to vote.

DB> How do you think it makes capable women feel to be reminded of
DB> their unwilling and apparently utter dependence upon men in this
DB> way, Robert?

You are very quick to pervert his argument once again.  When he said these
things, he was refuting the argument that men are generally not supportive
of women's issues.  He was *not* attempting to argue that women should be
dependent upon men.  Granted, you were not saying this yourself, but to
some degree, it seems as though this could be inferred.



DB> >       You're so quick to point to the small subset of men who
DB> >wield power and assert that therefore men, as a group, are
DB> >powerful.  That's really poor logic, but if you must use logic
DB> >like that, perhaps you could apply that same thinking to the
DB> >minority of men who have helped the cause of feminism over the
DB> >years.

DB> If you read the histories of the women's movement I think you
DB> will find that those small number of men who put themselves out
DB> on a limb to help are fully credited.  Unfortunately it does not
DB> seem that you have any wish to see yourself given similar credit
DB> in future histories.

DB> We do not blame only the "small subset of men who hold power",
DB> since there is ample evidence that that power is held by the
DB> grace of a majority of men who hold similar views and support
DB> those rulers.

What you are saying, is that the majority of men hold the same opinions as
the aristocrats and politicians who were and may be sexist?  Is this a way
to be able to blame *all* men, as opposed to just the ones in power?

I sincerely hope not, since I am *not* one of them, regardless of what some
people might believe.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Bad Command:(A)bort (R)etry (S)hove foot up COM port.


-- 
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.