Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's ill effects on men?
Message-ID: <BFZ%9P+@rpi.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 90 15:24:20 GMT
References: <11109001:30:33RA04@lehigh.bitnet>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 61
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu

In article <11109001:30:33RA04@lehigh.bitnet> RA04@Lehigh.UCAR.EDU writes:
>
>re: "oppressed" by gravity
>
>One of the issues Doug's post brings up is the predominant view
>supported by our (white, masculine-mostly, Euro-American) culture:
>that there are Man and Nature, and nature exists for the benefit of
>Man.

First, it is possible to have the belief that some taming of nature is
good without having the belief that nature exists for the benefit of
man.  In my case, (since I'm atheist) don't believe there is a reason
nature (or humanity, or the sun, or anything else) exists.  However,
as long as humans exist, it seems that trying to have a good life is a
reasonable thing.  Consequently I will build dams to prevent flooding,
grow crops, and domesticate animals to have a reliable food supply.

Now I will concede that some of these things are currently being done
in a way that is short-sighted.  Damming the river might wipe out a
species that is interesting in some way, the pesticides used to
increase crop productions might eventually poison me, and eating meat
will shorten my lifespan.

>  So, in some very significant senses, the fact that humans are
>"subject" to "natural laws" is looked upon as a challenge and an
>obstacle.

Isn't it true?  Gravity is an obstacle if I want to get to the top of
a mountain, and the fact that I will die is an obstacle if there is
something I want to do before I die.  The fact that circumventing
these obstacles isn't trivial makes them a challenge.  (or should we
just give up if we want to do something difficult?)

>  As we "advance" and "make progress" (see, hardly anyone's
>asking about the destination of this movement), more and more of
>nature falls under our power.  We "tame" wilderness and build nice
>little ordered subdivisions; we "harness" rivers and get electricity;
>etc.  If we don't harness and tame and subdue and exploit, we won't be
>"top dog," won't be "first in the pecking order."

I dispute the usage of the word exploit.  Also in some cases, if we
don't harness and tame nature we will be dead.  What we are trying to
achieve is a state where we don't have unpredictable threats to our
life or welfare.  Is that unreasonable?

>  And quite a few
>feminists are noticing this "oppress or be oppressed" model that
>(mostly male-gender) humans have in fact imposed on everything that
>isn't mostly-male-gender-human.

1) I'm not oppressing nature, and don't think of it that way.
2) I also attempt to control "male-gender-humans", or haven't you
heard of laws?

>  The implications of the model are
>amazing,

true, but I find it difficult to believe that your model is widely
believed.

-mike