Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Men's Oppression
Message-ID: <9106040955.aa22433@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 21:23:33 GMT
Lines: 80
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

In <675774990@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:


>In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
>jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes:

>>versa, of course.  When feminism works to expand roles for women, and
>>thereby change the notions of gender roles, men benefit because they
>>are no longer forced to do everything that women weren't allowed to do.

>This is a nice theory, but the data just doesn't support it.

>In Carter's time there was choice for women in all the states, affirmative
>action was enforced and state-ERA was passed in several states.  After
>three years Carter renewed the men-only registration for draft.

Let me see if I understand this.

Janet says that when feminism expands roles for women, that helps men
in the sense that they are no longer forced to do what women couldn't
do before.

You then say that women had "choice" (which you don't clarify,
abortion rights?), that there was AA and state-level ERA's in Carter's
time, but he went ahead with the men only draft.  But this confuses me
because it doesn't address Janet's argument.

In Carter's time, indeed in all of American history, women have been
prohibited from combat roles if not from the military entirely.  How
can you institute an all-person draft if all of your draftees are not
potentially eligible for combat?  So you still haven't refuted Janet's
argument.  Women don't yet have combat roles in the military, so the
discrimination that men face in the military stands.  If women are
allowed into combat positions *and* the men-only draft registration is
*not* scrapped, then this would be a valid example to counter Janet's
argument.  But we have to wait and see what happens on that one, as
women are not yet allowed combat positions.

I think there are better examples to try and argue Janet's point.  I
would have pointed out, for example, that the expansion of women into
the work force has not resulted in men being freed from the pressure
or expectation to always be the breadwinner.  Or that women's
abilities to wear men's clothing has not translated into men being
able to wear what they want.  Women's expansion into traditionally
male professions (such as doctors, lawyers, etc) has not made it
easier for men to go into traditionally female professions.  Women's
expansion into taking on masculine characteristics has not made it
easier for men to display feminine characteristics.

>NOW had
>nothing to say about that because it did not care about men.

(Please note that I do not necessarily support NOW's positions, or
even that I know what all the positions are for certain.)

As for NOW, it would make no sense for it to attack a male-only draft
registration (because there are no or few women clamoring for a draft
to include them).  It would make every sense for it to attack the
refusal to allow women into combat roles in the military (because there
are women clamoring to get into those roles) -- as it indeed has.  I
bet that if there were a women+men draft registration, NOW would work
to end the draft registration.

NOW is an advocacy group for women; it seems silly to expect it to go
after male concerns.  And, for women, the draft is not (yet) a
concern.  Any "good" lobby listens to the concerns of its
constituents.  I think you should just say that you disagree with NOW
instead of expecting it to listen to other groups.  That sounds like
arguing that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League should listen to the
concerns of non-Jewish people ("You point out all the instances where
Jews are discriminated, well how about BLACKS or HOMOSEXUALS??  What
kind of organization is this that looks only at JEWS, huh?")...

--Cindy

--
``Gender is a category that will not go away.  As Goffman put it:
`it is one of the most deeply seated traits of man.' ''
                                       -- _You Just Don't Understand_, pg 287
tittle@ics.uci.edu