Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon From: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: what feminism has done FOR men Message-ID: <658883514@lear.cs.duke.edu> Date: 23 Nov 90 07:54:40 GMT References: 657517070@lear.cs.duke.edu> <0dzH02jze8ja01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Followup-To: soc.men Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps) Lines: 88 Approved: ambar@ora.com In some article Greg Bullough writes: >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. Go back and read the previous articles. They talked about women who starve themselves and how the social pressures destroy their lives. *No* one said that women should not complain about the social pressures, starving yourself is just "a choice in the matter". But when the talk is about men who drink too much, smoke too much, work too hard, take stupid risks just to "prove" that they are men then we get an explanation that these things have little to do with social pressures, just behavioral differences... That's what *I* call "feminism in action"... >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. I'm talking about the situation *today*. Women have a wider range of choices how to be successful, while for men have just one area - work. Women can also change course - stay home for a couple of year, and then go back to work. They can also pick professions that they enjoy while men are under pressure to "go for the gold". (I met quite a few male engineering students who were unhappy with that "choice".) >than have women. There, is, too, the distinct possibility that the 10% >difference is at least partially accounted for by little-understood >biochemical factors. \begin{sarcasm} The fact that so many women starve themselves, paint their faces, etc, may be partially accounted by little-understood biochemical factors. \end{sarcasm} Would you mind to extend your argument please? Try to fit into it some hard data like the fact that till the 20's century men lived longer, women have more hard-to-detect and dangerous kinds of cancer (men big killers, like stomach and lung cancers have little to do with hormones) and most women's death cases happen *long* after the sex hormones' production have almost stopped. >Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that a greater span of years, by 10%, >necessarily makes one "better off." Thank you so much for telling me what's good for me. My grandmother used to say that old age is the only illness that nobody wishes to his enemies; I think that she got that one just right... >off." The fruits of that greater span can be most bitter and lonely. You say all of that in a society where *many* couples get divorced, and women get the physical custody of the kids in *most* cases. But men of course should not be "bitter and lonely" because of that... >Of all of the aged widows whom I've known, none have considered >themselves "better off" for having outlived their husbands. And therefore they are not better off... >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. Is there any data that can change *your* mind about the subject? (My guess that the answer is "no".) I got one e-mail from a woman who complained that this subject has little to do with feminism, so follow-up is directed to soc.men. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu When I do it to you it's "cultural pressures", when you do it to me it's "behavioral differences".