From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: denial
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:32:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Oct5155429@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.203548.144919@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>I realize that me-too-ism has irritated many people in soc.feminism,
>>but I couldn't help but respond to this post.  Denial and
>>insensitivity is yet another sexism complaint that turns out to be a
>>two-way street.
>
>Well, first of all, you have not proved this at all (see below).
>Second, so what?  I never said whether or not this happened to men.  In
>fact, I don't think that it does happen all that much, though.
>Certainly, I have not seen it on the net (note, however, that I do not
>read soc.men or soc.women, so I could have missed it).  I see people on
>the net saying that they don't want to work on men's problems first, but
>I have not seen many saying that they do not *exist*.  I could go out
>and find at least a hundred articles right now on my system saying that
>various problems of women's do not exist.

Actually, a large percentage of the draft debate tends to be:
"What's the problem?  There is no draft!"  That's denial.  
Or consider the imbalance in custody decisions: "What's the problem?  
Men get custody when they fight for it, just ask Phyllis Chesler."
Dave Gross's example below is one of insensitivity.


>In addition, this posting of yours is just another example of the sort
>of thing I was talking about.  Someone says "here's a problem that women
>have."  Someone else comes back with "actually, this is a big problem
>for men (which is usually attributed to oppression by feminists)."  What
>this does is to attempt to hide the problem for women by turning it into
>a problem for men.  Every once in a while, someone instead says that it
>is a problem for "people," which is often reasonable.  However, it still
>tries to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem specifically
>for women.

Your characterization of "objections" to women's issues is not
something I'd agree with, and perhaps this is a source of misunderstanding.

A negative statement about feminism shouldn't necessarily be taken 
as you say: "usually attributed to oppression by feminists," or an 
"attempt to hide the problem for women."

The natural complaint against feminism, when there is a "big problem
for men" that remains unresolved and ignored by feminists, is that
feminism sold (and sells) itself as a movement for equality.  When 
feminism fails to address inequalities against men (and indeed fights
for powers that exceed equality), then it lays itself open to criticism.

This complaint is the wrong response, IMHO; the better conclusion 
is to realize, as Muffy has often said (and contrary to much of the 
general perception of feminism), that feminism focuses on gaining 
"equality" and rights for women, not for all persons.  

If feminism were to stop advertising itself as an equality movement,
these claims that it failed to secure rights for men or that it
ignores men's issues would be irrelevant.


>However, it still
>tries to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem specifically
>for women.

I think it's too much to state categorically that any claim that a problem
applies to "people" is an attempt to obscure women's problems.

Sometimes it is true.  Sometimes it works in the other direction.
Is saying that women have died in war (hence war is a problem for "people")
an attempt to obscure the fact that there is a serious problem 
specifically for men?


>Honestly, I wish that all problems *were* just problems for people, but
>they aren't.  Some problems *are* focused on people of one sex or the
>other, because our society *does* treat people differently according to
>their sex.  It is important to recognize it when a problem is more
>specific to members of one sex, especially as it may be a factor in why
>the problem exists and how to fix it.

I agree.

I realize that there are a lot of feminism-bashers, so I can see why
you seem to come down so negatively against opposition to feminism,
but there are also people who would like to understand feminism --
which can't be done without looking at its one-sided aspects as well.


>>[story of Women's Studies  professor telling offensive joke about male
>  anatomy]
>>The real punchline, though, came the following quarter, when I
>>had the same professor again for a different WS class.  She
>>was doing a unit on sexual harassment and made the following
>>comment:
>
>>"There are still some professors here at Poly who
>> don't realize that making jokes about womens' anatomy
>> constitutes sexual harassment."
>
>>So there you have it.  Denial from a professor of the New
>>Sensitivity.
>
>This isn't denial at all.  Where did she *deny* that there was a
>problem for men?  It does seem that she has not thought this out very
>well and is therefore applying a double standard, but that is not the
>same as denial.
>
>Also, I could have sworn you said she was a professor of "Women's
>Studies."  What, exactly, is "New Sensitivity," and where do they give a
>degree in this?  It seems to me that you are simply trying to disparage
>Women's Studies with this remark.

Whether it's "denial" or "double standard," it is hypocrisy.

"New Sensitivity" is a flammable remark, and it seems to me, too,
that it disparages Women's Studies.  That's unfortunate also because
the flames hide a valid point:  those who demand greater "sensitivity"
(and feminism has been strong on this) should hold themselves to the 
same standard.  Being human, they often preach better than practice.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.