Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel From: obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Sexism vs. Men's Oppression Message-ID: <1991May13.194337.3494@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 13 May 91 19:43:37 GMT Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: Math Dept., University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Lines: 71 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org This notesfile seems to see lots of contention about whether it is possible to be sexist toward a man, and I am finding myself so confused at the moment that I am wondering what this has to do with feminism. Most folks here seem to be of one of two opinions regarding this issue, either they believe that men are not oppressed *as* men, or they believe that somehow the oppression of men offsets the oppression of women to some degree, and that feminism must concern itself with addressing all oppression based upon the division of sexes. I find myself reacting rather violently to both of these positions, and reading the information that supposedly supports either of them usually only convinces me of the writer's lack of understanding of the opposite sex's oppression. Let me first explain my use of the term oppression. To be oppressed, one need not have an oppressor, only have others consistently act on untrue assumptions about you based on some irrelevant criterion in a way which harms you and alienates you from them. When there is an oppressor this is easy to identify. The oppressor spreads lies which "defend" their harmful actions and alienate them from the oppressed so that they don't have to deal with the direct effects of those lies or those actions. But this is not the only mechanism for oppression. Men are in fact needlessly hurt by our society in ways that women, in general, are not. We are trained in violence early and are expected to treat each other brutally, without sympathy (I have never seen girls forced to wrestle, or allowed to "fight out" an argument that could easily be addressed otherwise "because it is good for them.") We are expected to be completely self-sufficient in all ways except emotionally (I have seen *many* more 16 year old boys thrown out on the street than 16 year old girls, and three- quarters of the homeless are men.) We are used as tools, with no concern for our willingness or personal safety (contact sports, dangerous industries, and military service are domains where men predominate currently. And in the past hunting and warfare have been *mandatory* parts of "manhood." The work required of women at the same time may have been as hard or harder, but was generally less dangerous.) We are indoctrinated into a compulsive, performance-oriented sexuality... And I could go on, but a tally of men's woes is not my point, and doesn't belong in soc.feminism anyway. This list is only to show that things happen which hurt men *as a class*. But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom are women its source. And though individual women can use it to their advantage, so can individual men. So that women *as a class* gain nothing from its existence. The oppression creates "handles" that allow men to be used as efficient, dispassionate, expendable tools without any obligation of actual human contact on the users part. But these handles are open to male hands as easily as to female hands, and men tend to abuse them more often than women do. The oppression of women is of a different order. It creates a definite privilege state for men and works largely, though not exclusively, through male hands. Using a definition of sexism which lumps these two together creates major problems by hiding the completely different natures of the two styles of oppression. So I use "sexism" only in the sense of the oppression of women by men, because this form involves the creation of a power imbalance between the sexes, parallel to the power imbalance racism creates between races. And I understand feminism to be concerned only with sexism in this definition. Men often choose the compound definition of sexism, however, because it puts them in a better light. They can claim that sexism is somehow "equally unfair all around." This is obvious bullshit, but it floats down this stream quite often. And discouragingly enough, it seems to be the conviction of some of the folks writing here. On the other hand, the problem *does* exist. And feminist writers often disbelieve in the oppression of men as a class. The only feminists I have read who think men are hurt at all by the division of the sexes label men's oppression as a side effect of the oppressor role, denying that men can be hurt as a class other than by themselves. (Sorry, I just thought of an exception -- Barbara Deming. The generality fails, but the trend remains.) This is blaming the victim, and leads to a complete disregard for the truth of men's lives and the limits on their power. My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. On the other hand, actively insisting that women are "the ones oppressed" and that men's oppression is either self-inflicted or trivial is buying into the oppression of men, which is just as real as sexism.