Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Men's Oppression
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.173821.17382@MDI.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 91 17:38:21 GMT
References: <15266.283c2ad5@zeus.unomaha.edu> <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@MDI.COM
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Lines: 162
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu> jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes:
>In article <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes:

[I answered this article once already, and my machine crashed just as
I submitted the respose.  Since I didn't have a .article copy, I fear it
is in the bit bucket.  My apologies if these ideas appear twice]

>Well, I'm not Sharon, and I *hate* it when men post some blah-de-blah
>about men's oppression and "challenge the feminists to refute it"
>because it always seems to lead to flame wars, but thinking about this
>one led to some food for thought I'd like to share...

I challenged Sharon because I respect her opinion as a lucid supporter
of women's issues.  I neither partake in nor take responsibility for
flame wars.  Indeed, I found this article to be one of the most
insightful contributions made to this group in several weeks, with the
exception of the above paragraph.

>For each example of men's opression cited, there is a social norm to
>which women are oppressed to conform, sometimes more strongly and
>sometimes less strongly, depending on the situation, which is the
>"other side of the coin," so to speak.

Granted.

>>1.  The draft (this one is more like oppression).
>
>Women showing strength and agression are seen as "unfeminine" at best,
>and dangerous/insane at worst.  Women who might otherwise exhibit such
>behavior more often are oppressed by social stigma.
>
>By changing the view of what types of behavior women can/should
>exhibit, violent, agressive behavior by women will be seen as
>possible, even normal in certain circumstances, and in fact, this type
>of behavior can be *demanded* by the state in times of dire need.  As
>long as society perceives women as incapable of doing the dirty work
>of military service, it perceives men as the only ones worth drafting.

Quite true.  How do you propose to overcome these "social stigma?"

>>2.  Parental choice (Women have it, men don't).
>
>Actually, my response to this one is going in the opposite direction:
>The current trend it to *take away* women's parental choice as much as
>possible (e.g. recent supreme court decision, half a dozen states
>considering anti-abortion laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, etc.)
>Although the law says one thing (women have choice), social norms
>still say the opposite (abortion is wrong, or at least of questionable
>morality).

More precisely, I contend that our society supports a notion referred
to as "family values."  Tax law encourages marriage, child support and
alimony punish the divorced.  It is not just abortion that is scorned;
abandoning children is just as, if not more so, taboo.  I agree that
the systemmatic erosion of Roe v. Wade is very alarming.  I support
strengthening Roe v. Wade and adding companion legislation for men.

>Working towards
>freely accepting choice for women will make the opportunity for men to
>have choice possible: i.e. as long as women "have no choice" (and that
>is what child support seems to assume), why should society consider
>giving such choice to men?

I'm not sure I understand this.  How does the existence of child
support preclude the existence of choice for men?

>["Choice for men" meaning a male has some sort of opportunity to
>legally absolve himself of the financial and moral responsibilities of
>parenthood during the same period that the woman could choose "no" and
>have an abortion.  I'm not sure what exact form this would take.

The proposal I have supported works like this.  When a woman receives
a positive result on a pregnancy test, the medical examiner will be
required to inform the woman of her obligation of making a legal
disclosure of the pregnancy to the father.  This disclosure requires the
signatures of both parties and a legal representative.  At anytime within
30 days of disclosure, the father may legally waive his rights and
responsibilities of fatherhood with the signatures of the same 2 other
parties.

>Also, I cannot envision the time when a man can choose "yes" over the
>objections of a woman choosing "no", because it is too great of an
>invasion of individual privacy and freedom to force a woman to have a
>child against her will.  But, perhaps someday babies can be grown in
>incubators for these men?  Or it will be possible for them to hire
>surrogate mothers who freely choose this occupation without being
>coerced by economic desperation? I don't know.]

No, the father should not be allowed to choose "yes" over the objections
of a woman choosing "no."

>Once again, by changing the gender roles, society will perceive men as
>potential nurturers, and women as potential breadwinnders.  By
>fighting the female-gender-stereotypes (and I freely admit many
>branches of feminism *don't* fight the women-as-nurturers stereotype),
>society will begin to rethink these laws.  Society only sees what it
>wants to see: if it doesn't want to think that non-conformists exist,
>they won't be reflected in the law.

It does not necessarily follow that feminisim, by breaking the barriers
of gender roles for women, is providing a corresponding service to men.
The crux of my argument is that women have *legal* support in their
quest for equality, while the men's movement has rallied few, if any,
legal advocates.  Men who wish to become nurses have no AA to support
them.  Men who do not wish to assume parenthood have no legal
recourse.  In general, straight women and some minorities enjoy several 
advantages not shared by gays, lesbians, Asians, and straight white men.

>>4.  Rape and domestic abuse law.
>
>The law comes from the gender-roles of women-as-weak and
>men-as-powerful, sometimes too powerful.  When the roles expand so
>that men can be seen as sometimes vulnerable, and women as sometimes
>too strong, as well, then the laws can be reconsidered and
>legislatures can talk about women raping men.  Once again, due to
>gender-roles which oppress both men and women, society only sees what
>it wants to.

Quite correct.  Again, how do you propose to alter these gender roles?

>>5.  Affirmative Action for only women and minorities.
>
>Eventually, AA will outlive its usefulness.  This will happen when
>there is no gender-based and ethnic-based discrimination.  Feminism
>and civil rights movements are clearly trying to end such
>discrimination.

I contend that AA will *never* outlive its usefulness.  A good study has
shown that hiring agents tend to hire and promote people of the same
race and gender as the hiring agent.  White men hire white men and black
women hire black women.  This indicates that discrimination is not *male*
nature, it is *human* nature.  I propose extending AA to cover white males
as well as other disadvantaged groups.

>While I *do* believe that men hold power (because society-enforced
>gender-roles have kept women from this power), I *don't* believe that
>the gender-roles which underlie your 6 points were created solely by
>men.

This may be our only real disagreement.  It is true that men hold a
disproportionately large number of legislative, judicial, and
corporate offices, most of which are elected positions.  They have
achieved these positions within the dictates of gender roles supported
by both men and women (if women did not accept these gender roles, our
government would be dominated by women).  As you most astutely point out,
it is the gender roles *themselves* that hold the power, and dictate
the lives of men as well as women.

>[I say "certain men's movements" because there are a lot of men's
>movements, just as there are a lot of women's movements: I'm thinking
>here of movements to *change* gender roles, not movements to
>*reinforce* traditions and let men who are being 'emasculated' by
>current changes "be men again".  While the term "feminist" does not
>encompass reactionary women such as Right to Lifer's, I don't know of
>a term which distinguishes progressive men's movements from regressive
>ones.]

Neither do I, but I'm also unfamiliar with this regressive men's movement
of which you speak.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste.         INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net
"Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche.  USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon