From: SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:16:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.211028.21483@midway.uchicago.edu>,
mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.195025.24102@news.iastate.edu> SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin) writes:
>>I never said men weren't hurt by the views of a male-dominated
>>society.  I'm only saying that I think it's a different problem.
>>Afterall, if men are in control, aren't they in a better position
>>to make changes?
>
>        "Well, are they?  Let's see... I'm a white male (though not
>Anglo-Saxon or Protestant :-) ).  Now, what should I do in order to
>make changes which cannot be done by someone who isn't?  What
>capabilities do I have?  There may well be _advantages_ allocated to
>me by virtue of this status, but what, if any, _control_ do I have
>over this?"

Obviously not in big ways.  But, as you say below, if you get
into a position of some power, you can use your influence to
be fair and equal in your treatment of your underlings, and
you can use whatever political influence you gain over the
years to promote equality.  Given the current state of affairs,
you are more likely, given equal motivation and talent, to
attain a position of power than I am.  If all men, as well as
all women (there are plenty of male-chauvinist pig :-) :-)
women out there, too), were fair-minded, the problem would
eventually disappear.

(Note: long ago, there were logical reasons for the gender roles.
I am not complaining that they came into existence and I am not
blaming anyone for the inequalities.  I just feel it's past time
for a change, and that a change *is* taking place, and that the
change is not yet complete.  Please don't think I'm trying to
attack anyone on this issue.  I don't think there's really
a cause for debate, given the stands various people are taking.
I was just stating a point of view in my original post.  People
have been a bit quick to assume there is an attack where there
is not, of late.)

>>Obviously not.  However, in times of trouble, blacks will stand by
>>blacks, whites by whites, etc.. (Generally, not specifically.)  Not
>>necessarily a good thing, but you have to admit that this is how
>>it works, more often than not.  This is also what has taken place
>>in the work-force.  The men do the promoting, so they promote men.
>>This is changing, slowly, but it's a painful struggle.
>
>        "Fine.  So it's my moral responsibility, when and if I'm in
>any position of authority, to bend over backwards to avoid acting in a
>discriminatory manner.  I do attempt this, insofar as I can manage
>it-- not that I've ever had much in the way of authority."

Bingo!  Yea!  There is no debate here.

>>True.  But oppression occurs when one group discriminates against
>>another.  In this case, we are talking about the oppression of
>>women by men.  It doesn't sound right to say that men oppress
>>men in the same context.  I think the oppression of men by men,
>>(or of men by a male-dominated society) could be called
>>peer pressure.  This is sort of a different thing, isn't it?
>
>        "Is it?  I can only control my own actions.  Am I more
>responsible for the oppressive actions of men whose opinions I don't
>share than I am for oppressive actions by women?  How so?  They don't
>ask me my opinion of date rape or sexual harassment before engaging in
>it, and when the subject comes up in conversation I think I make my
>own opinions fairly clear."

You have a point, here.  But you are also part of the cure, as it
is difficult to over-come oppression without support from members
of the group that traditionally does the oppressing.  For
example, it is difficult for South African blacks to gain
equality without some cooperation from the minority rule.  It may,
and probably will, require violence in South Africa.  Fortunately,
there are many men, such as yourself, who are supporters of
equality.  They realize it will benefit both men and women, in the
long run.

>>>>>If in the course of such a fight, a woman accuses a man of child abuse, she
>>>>>      is automatically believed, and he is put in jail (and loses all chance
>>>>>      of getting the children unless the woman is obviously mentally ill).
>>>>
>>>>Aren't these a penalty of a male dominated system?
>
>        "Are they?  If males were rationally plotting a course of
>domination, would they deliberately create any disadvantages for
>themselves?  Isn't it more likely that it's the result of a flawed
>system, the fault for which cannot easily be traced to a group of
>villains, but simply developed as a result of a myriad decisions by
>widely seperated people?  Yes, part of that system resulted in the
>people with authority being mostly men for a long time-- but note the
>distinction between "all rulers are men" and "all men are rulers"--
>the two are not at all the same, nor are the implications."

I explained my thoughts on this in another post.  And I have *never*
accused anyone of villainy or of doing any plotting, rational or
otherwise.  Please, I only want words in my mouth
that I put there myself.  And I understand the distinction you  made
in the last sentence and agree.  I don't think you've said anything
that conflicts with anything that I've said.

>>>You're saying that if women dominated the courts and the legal system, men
>>>would win about half of the custody fights?  Can you give me the reasoning
>>>behind this, or did you mean something else?
>
>>Ah, no.  I'm not saying this.  I'm saying that if men don't
>>like this outcome, then why did they arrange for it, and why don't
>>they change it?  After all, this is a male dominated society,
>>isn't it?
>
>        "Then someone failed to send me my union card.  :-)  Honestly,
>no one asks _me_ how to run society any more than they do you-- by
>asking political support, votes, money, etc., none of which I have a
>disproportionate line to.  There are things about this male dominated
>society I don't like-- now, how can I, as a member of the alleged
>ruling class, alter things?"

See my response to a similar question, above.

> It strikes me that the women's equality movement
>>prompted the change that it is occuring in the court system, where
>>men are now starting to have better luck in custody battles.
>
>        "Very likely.  The idea of sexual equality is a good thing for
>many reasons-- after all, if it _only_ benefitted women and _only_
>harmed men, then a society with absolute power vested in
>self-interested males would hardly have allowed it to succeed, now
>would it?  :-)  This is an important thing to consider, actually-- if
>things were simply a matter of a ruling class imposing its monolithic
>interests, then a male-dominated electorate would never have voted in
>the 19th amendment, giving women the vote.  Not that it was an easy
>struggle, but the suffragettes did convince a majority of men that
>justice could only be served by giving women the right to equal
>electoral representation, which in turn has led to a significant
>increase in women's political power.  (And if women were agreed
>upon goals, it would be greater-- remember, women are a majority in
>the US, which translates to electoral victory on any issue on which
>women can develop a consensus.)"

Like I said in another posting, legal equality and equality-in-fact
are two different things, and it takes a while for the second to
catch up with the first.

Goodness gracious.  I really feel like some people feel like
I'm making an attack on men.  When a woman makes a statement
about the unfair state of things, people are often quick to
assume she is attacking men personally and thinks all men are
scum.  It really bothers me to have people make assumptions about
my unstated attitudes based on the comments I've made.  I don't
feel like my comments have been an attack on men, but rather
on the male-dominated society that we live in, which holds
disadvantages for both men and women.  Perhaps I didn't make
myself clear enough with Abner, and I can see how some things
I said may *seem* like accusations against him if one is
quick to judge, but they certainly were not intended as such.

--
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:39:58 GMT
Subject: Re: joint post on discrimination, long!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA