Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: The "role" of men in feminist causes
Message-ID: <1268@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 89 19:06:37 GMT
References: <1234@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <17195@rpp386.cactus.org>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 78
Approved: ambar@ora.com

This thread is moved here from soc.men and alt.flame.
(Flamage deleted from included text.)

In article <17195@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
#There is no role of ``men'' in feminism.  ...
#Feminism is =supposed= to be a philosophy which promotes equality
#of oppurtunity for everyone, regardless of sex, sexual orientation,
#race, etc.  The last time I read a NOW ``platform'' this was a vitally
#important part of what they claimed their philosophy to be.
# [...]  There is no =men's=
#role, just as there is no =women's= role.  There is only a =feminist's=
#role.

Disagree.  See below.

#There are many people on the net who profess to support equality
#who agree wholeheartedly that the noise-to-signal ratio of soc.women
#and soc.men is too high for either group to be a foundation for
#discussions on the merits of feminism.

Hence this response in soc.feminism.

#Soc.feminism was created after the decision to cease carrying soc
#was made, so if this discussion is to continue it will have to be
#cross-posted someplace where I do receive the articles.

Wrong.  No one is obligated to continue a discussion wherever you
want it.  If you want to particpate you will have to get a feed of
soc.feminism.

#The rights of women and minorities are central to feminism.  It is
#impossible to discuss feminism and not discuss women, minorities,
#disadvantaged classes, etc.

#When discussing the "roles" of men in feminist causes, or whites
#in minority causes, or straights in gay causes it is crucial that
#the non-disadvantaged member accept the same burden as the disadavantaged
#member.

What does this mean?  Are you advocating "transsexualism" here or what?
I know of no way that a non-member of an opressed class can become
a member of the oppressed class, when membership in "class" is defined by
physical characteristics which are relatively unchangeable.

(Mark Smith has an interesting approach to obtaining equal status with
the dominant class, but even this doesn't change his membership in
the oppressed class.)

#This can take place by being as active a proponent of the rights
#and oppurtunities of the disadvantage class as need be to get the
#attention of the oppressors of that class.

The "activism" level of anyone, members of the class or not, is the
activist's choice, not the oppressor's.

(And btw, do you really mean to imply by this that I haven't gotten
anyone's attention?  Why are you responding then?)

#If you haven't a had a cross burned on your lawn lately either the
#fight is over and we won, or you've not been close enough to the
#action.

Who is "we", here, John?  The oppressors or the opressed?

Bottom line:

1.  Insisting that only members of an oppressed class can take up its
    cause is just another form of harassment of the oppressed class;
    it is an attempt to divide that class from others.
2.  No one who is not a member of the oppressed class itself can have
    the same standing in a movement on its behalf as those that are
    members of said class, because their experience just isn't the same.

hb
-- 
Hank Bovis  (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)

Vote YES to sci.aquaria; send votes to richard@gryphon.COM.