Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon From: cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: what feminism has done FOR men Message-ID: <659036541@romeo.cs.duke.edu> Date: 23 Nov 90 07:55:21 GMT References: <18940@oolong.la.locus.com> <657517070@lear.cs.duke.edu> <0dzH02jze8ja01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C. Lines: 61 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <0dzH02jze8ja01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Greg Bullough writes: >[stuff about men "choosing" smoke, and men having a greater range of choices than women] I wonder to what extent it makes sense to say that men choose to smoke. You know all the stuff about nicotine being so addictive. Also, I don't think men really "choose" to be killed in wars (about the same that women "chose" to be housewifes) or to be killed in fights with each other. >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). There was a very moving article on [please forgive me, I've forgotten her name] a famous woman lawyer activist in the first issue of the new Ms. Her husband died a while ago, and she says that while many women find the death of a husband to be a relief, she feels bereft of a great love and a great companion. >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. Pun intended? Remember the good old days when soc.feminism had people excitedly telling each other of great books to check out? I just finished "Life Before Man" by that great Canadian writer, Margaret Atwood. I sort of hated it, because I've been feeling depressed on my own, and trying to read to escape, and it's one of the bleakest books I've ever read. It seems to deny any chance of happiness in life given the wounds that growing up in our society inflicts on most people. People just drifted together and apart without wanting to or really being happy about being together/apart. People stayed together "for the kids" but lost the ability to care about them, or to comfort and hold them. Has anyone read this, and would they consider it feminist? I can't, because I don't see any life-affirming side to it. It stands in complete contrast to "Their Eyes Were Watching God", which, while sad, is sad because of lost goodness. Chris -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful. I am moving from North Carolina before the seating of the next congress.