Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!aero-c!nadel From: sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Isn't it time to start treating men like human beings? Message-ID: Date: 9 Feb 91 00:24:20 GMT References: <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb8.165736.24726@aero.org> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 143 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.EDU (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >It doesn't make sense to me either and I sympathize, but at the same time >I feel I ought to point out that *NOBODY* from "back then", whenever that >"when" is, as a gender, was worthy of applause by modern standards. [And lots of other stuff I agree 100% with.] I was merely pointing out that men have contributed to our society and that their actions were not entirely motivated out of "oppressive" feelings or whatever. Take into account that this was in response to a feminist who wrote that AA was needed to make up for "centuries of discrimination". The problems with that statement are obvious and that was what I was argueing against. >But someone has to be guilty. Someone has to have been responsible for >forcing these men and women to participate, to feel they *had* to do >what they did, don't they? But who? >Maybe it really wasn't anyone. Maybe no-one is to blame but ourselves. >Scary thought. I know a lot of people who will fight that tooth and nail .. >people who will say, "Oh but just look at So and So --- look what they've done >to repress us!" And then So and So's children will say, "Oh no! So and So >hated what he/she did. They were a product of their sociiety and times ... >how can you possibly blame them?" And so it goes. Agreed. I couldn't (well maybe I could :-) have said better. In any case, witch hunts for the past is a _bad_ precedant to set. We should care about what women and men go through today. BTW: To the other poster who mentioned men's contributions filling the screens. I agree. But I think the problem is that men are _expected_ to do these things and such acts including getting shot and killed are seen as just daily business. (Well, maybe not, but certainly less than if women were involved.) While a woman is going to have her own point of view and see things from that focus, I'm only pointing out that men are people too and a lot of the bull**** you gals have to put up with is a direct offshoot of what we go through. Any movement is going to have some egocentricism to it, but I don't think that's healthy in the long run. Comments? >Yup. Your father's is, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean *all* men's jobs >were more stressful than the womens'. Don't lose sight of the whole when you >plunge into emotional validation of a single example. There are just >*tons* of people/books/statistics waiting to prove you wrong. And at least >as many waiting to prove *them* wrong. Why do you think I quoted mine? To demonstrate this to Valerie so that she could see that as well. >I guess this is where I disagree with you. I don't think *ANY* of our >forparents "selflessly contributed and suffered" to tell you truth. If they >did, then I think they were brain-dead and not worth bothering much about. Well... Many of the men (and some women) who died for our country would disagree with you there. _Someone_ has to do it. Don't take this cynicism too far. >The thing is, when you get down to it, they all took advantage of as many of >the positive benefits of their gender roles as they possibly could -- as >pretty much all people (men and women) have and will ... and now we look back >and say .... what? How do we judge these people? What standards shall we use? >I say none. >Why should I care what So and So did 30 years ago? *He's* not trying to >marry me. He's not my boss/perspective boss. So why should I care? I couldn't agree more. The only problem is that other people use standards to judge you. It's one of feminism's goals (isn't it?) to further appreciation of women and their interests in our society and judge people based on their ability rather than their gender? If this is to be accomplished, _some_ amount of cooperation is warrented. I agree, I don't care what happened 30 years ago as well. >The only thing that matters is how people conduct themselves now, right >here in 1991. This is the society that I grew up in and this is the one, >the *only* one that I can understand enough to pass judgement on. Agreed again. >I'm not sure if I'm parsing this sentence correctly. I'll assume you >meant "But if a woman is harrassed because she's trying to do something >outside of the traditionally defined female roles everyone gets upset and >thinks her harrassment was unjustified." >And you are saying, then, how can people who say "We're all free (or should >be!) to make choices to go along with the traditional roles or not ..." >object to the harassment the woman gets for making her "free" choice? >If this isn't what you meant, I'm very sorry for misinterpreting you. That isn't what I meant. The statement "We're all free to make choices to go along..." is not applied equally to men and women. Men are still expected to either take abuse due to their gender or shut up in many cases. I know you go through this too, but feminism has made many strides in recent years while men's rights have not. I just wanted to point out that this should be taken into consideration when considering the long term effects of something like AA when the situation that caused the disparities in the first place (men being expected to be breadwinners) still exist and nothing's being done about it. It's not just a matter of "fairness" towards men, but giving men a stake in it would help grease things a little. >Anyhoo, I can't see the contradiction you see. Why shouldn't people be >regarded as individuals and allowed to perform any role they wish? How >does the objection to restrictions placed on people who share your own desire >to be a human being offend you? It seems that they are fighting to make >that desire of yours reality. I doesn't, somehow you switched my train of thought at the wrong station. :-) >Lighten up! The rest of us enlightened ones are doing just fine, and don't >really appreciate being lumped in with the "everyone -- what jerks! ugh" scene. "Everyone" was said in terms of the majority of "educated" people I've come across. Your experiences may differ. >But I'm not a historian, and I am not interested enough in women's history >to wish to devote a major portion of my life to digging it up and >bringing it to the public's attention. Me, I just find it hard enough >getting from day to day and getting myself accepted for what I am ... and >there are millions of other people (men and women) like me ... Don't we count >for anything? You bet. As I said, this was in response to something else. Just because I discuss a subject and respect it, doesn't mean I'm overglorifying it. You seem to have a _very_ pragmatic view of life. Wonderful. But I feel that some awareness of what goes on in our society as well as consideration for other people's needs is necessary for a healthy working relationship with people. I don't dwell on things, but I do consider them. You want the right to go on with your life and accomplish what you want free of limitations on you based on your gender. Right? Us men would like the same as well. That's all I'm saying. -- "S&M Consciousness Raising" by: Mark Sobolewski sobleski@cs.psu.edu (814) 867-4367 Bitnet: sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu -- "Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are software." - Richard P. Brennan nadel@aerospace.aero.org