Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel From: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Men's Oppression Message-ID: <14905.2833d44d@zeus.unomaha.edu> Date: 17 May 91 19:02:05 GMT References: <1991May13.194337.3494@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <282f3194.17a3@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> Sender: news@aero.org Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 81 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <282f3194.17a3@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>, dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: > According to obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark): > > >> 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. > > Here I start to disagree with you. If you take, for example, > the use of men as military pawns, often (in the case of the > draft) against their will, I would argue that women *as a > class* do benefit from having men be the only ones on the > front lines. You make a good argument for an egalitarian draft that includes women, but you must realize that here, women are NOT AT THE SOURCE of this male oppression. Women did not make the decision that only men should be drafted. Men made this decision. If you think that this should be changed, I suggest that you write your congressional representatives (who, more than likely, will be male, since there are still few female congressional representatives.) > A woman, > because she is a woman, knows that she has no risk under our > current system of being drafted, and furthermore she knows > that should she decide to join the military she will not be > assigned to a combat position (this may change soon) First of all, let's remember that NO ONE has been drafted since the mid-seventies. Certainly, only men right now are being required to register with selective service, but I think that if push came to shove, that our congress would actually begin to draft women. I know that on January 16, when the war began, this was a worry of mine, just as it was a worry of my male friends. We spent a lot of time talking about the possibilities. In the end, no one got drafted. Instead, both male and female reservists were activated. And, if you're all upset about women not dying in combat, then please go and check and see if any women died in the Middle East during the war. I'm sure you'll find that even though women did not "officially" serve in combat, many did actually serve in positions that could be considered "combat." Some were taken prisoner. Some died. Also, according to my family's recent copy of the Air Force Times, the first major barrier to women serving in combat has been removed. So, what are you going to do to effect an egalitarian position for women once women are draftable and eligible to serve in combat. Let me tell you, if I'm draftable and eligible to serve in combat, I damn well want ALL my equal rights. > >> 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. > > My position is that sex roles are oppressive, and that feminism > ought to consider this fact the absolute root of their movement. > Feminists should neither contribute to this oppression, nor deny > inconvenient aspects of it. Women have no obligation to deal with > men's problems, nor vice versa, but people who are concerned with > ending oppressive sex roles should take on this task nonetheless. Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. Her contention was very similar -- that we have to focus on the problems of men if we are going to ever solve the problems of women. Feminism involves giving /both men and women/ the ability to make their own choices and live with those choices. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~