Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: what feminism has done FOR men
Message-ID: <0dzH02jze8ja01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 17 Nov 90 19:29:17 GMT
References: <18940@oolong.la.locus.com> <657517070@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: Greg Bullough <greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.COM>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 41
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In article <657517070@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>We still have the situation where men live 10% less; it seems to me as
>a result of cultural pressures on men.  She is absolutely sure that
>men are *better* off and just ignores a piece of *hard* data that does
>fit in.

First, a 10% shorter lifespan *could* be because of cultural
pressures.  Or, it could be because of behavioral differences; if men
live shorter lives because they more often choose to smoke, or to
abuse alcohol, or to partake of unhealthy practices of any kind, I
don't think that that makes them less "better off." After all, they
did have a choice in the matter. Culture or no culture. In fact, it is
arguable that what has, historically, made men "better off" is that
their range of choices has been greater. Men have historically had
more of a choice as to whether or not they bowed to cultural pressures
than have women. There, is, too, the distinct possibility that the 10%
difference is at least partially accounted for by little-understood
biochemical factors.

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that a greater span of years, by 10%,
necessarily makes one "better off." Certainly in many cultures
(notably in Judaic theology, where we frequently see age equated with
prosperity) it is so. However, it seems to me that it is the richness
of the life which is lived, not its span, which makes one "better
off." The fruits of that greater span can be most bitter and lonely.

Of all of the aged widows whom I've known, none have considered
themselves "better off" for having outlived their husbands. In fact,
most seem to have considered themselves just the opposite. They have,
by and large, have had an abiding sadness at having had their life
partner taken from them. Added to that, there has been a sense of
despair of ever finding another person to fill that void, even if they
have wanted to (and it is very difficult for most of them to even
think of loving another with the same depth).

So I have serious reservations about Hillel's arguments concerning
women being "better off." The data does not strike me as being quite
as *hard* as all that.

Greg