Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!elroy!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!djo@PacBell.COM
From: djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: umm...silly question, but...
Message-ID: <16683@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 20:15:59 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <djo@PacBell.COM>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 111
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu


In article <whatever> Cindy Tittle wrote:

>We wish to concentrate on the problems of discrimination against
>women, and do not want the discussion to become solely a litany of
>"all the discrimination that happens against men, women aren't the
>only ones with problems."  We recognize that men also get stereotyped
>and that they can face discrimination, but we consider this a separate
>topic, not to be addressed in this forum. Discrimination against men
>may very well come up in relation to feminism (an example might be the
>charge that feminism discriminates against men), but we do not want to
>focus on men's problems separately.

I understand this viewpoint, and to a limited extent agree with it,
but only to a limited extent: you can _not_ take a problem out of
context and have even the slightest hope of dealing with it in a
useful or realistic manner.  Or, more specifically, the problems
facing feminism [a term I dislike because it *is* decontextual and
separatising] do not exist in a vacuum.  Any attempt to discuss the
roles of women in society without discussing the complementary roles
of men is futile, intellectually equivalent to an ecological
discussion of the flora of a region without any mention of its fauna.
(Which is not to imply that women are somehow vegetative or passive,
even in our culture; the analogy is only intended to illustrate the
degree and complexity of the interplay between the two sets of roles.)

To give one concrete example before I get on with my high-falutin'
theorizing: feminism has provided women in this society with a large
and valuable set of positive, and frequently non-sexist, role-models.
However, men in this society are still presented with only two
semi-viable role models: the John Wayne/ Humphrey Bogart ultramacho
role, and the Don Knotts/Caspar Milquetoast wimp.  Everything else is
presented as a variation on those two roles.  [About here, someone is
going to mention Alan Alda.  Please don't.  I just ate and I'd like to
keep it.]  And, until men of goodwill develop roles complimentary to
the positive roles offered for women, the female roles will not work:
they will be constantly and often viciously rejected by male society,
even by men of general good will toward the "feminist" movement,
because *they*will*have*no*way*of*dealing*with*women*in*these*roles*.
Ergo: the creation of nonsexist roles for men is a vital concern of
"feminism."

I could go on into other regions (e.g., gay-bashing, racism, etc.) and
demon- strate that they, two, are intimately entwined in any hope of
ultimate success for "feminism."  Or I could give dozens of other
examples of how "feminism" must ultimately deal with so-called "men's
issues" if any useful resolution of so- called "women's issues" is to
be reached.  But, in the interest of space, I'll assume my basic point
made and go on with the theory.

The problem is not sexism, or racism, or sexualism, or nationalism, or
anything else people normally point to: it is a gravitically oriented
power matrix, where power must be "over" someone else; where in order
for someone to be "on top" they must "put down" other people and
"climb over" them.  To cure (say) sexism without curing the underlying
gravitically oriented power matrix is merely to assure that
discrimination against women will be replaced with equal or worse
discrimination against some new group (left-handed people?  redheads?
Catholics?) or increasingly violent discrimination against some
already- discriminated-against group (Poles?  Blacks?  Catholics?).

Further, I'm not convinced that in such a matrix "feminist' goals
*can* succeed.  In a gravitically based power matrix, one seeking
power will use any differentiation between oneself and "others" to
force imbalance, thus pushing oneself toward the "top of the heap."

Ultimately, the only useful solution is to destabilize the orientation
of society -- perhaps Western society, but I suspect most human
societies have some such matrix -- toward hierarchical power
structure.  Perhaps it would be sufficient to replace vertical power
distribution with horizontal power distribution.  This is the idea
behind, for example, the "checks & balances" division-of-powers in the
U.S. Constitution.  Does it seem to you to be working?  If so, then
you can believe that a horizontal power distribution among the various
people in society is a workable solution.  I'd like to think so
myself.

If, however, you believe -- as many do -- that this has merely
replaced tyrannical rule by a single power center with rule by three
tyrannical power centers, then you can not believe that a society
based on a horizontally distributed power matrix will solve the
problems of conflict between identifiably "different" groups in
society.  In that case, there are only three viable solutions:

	1)  Ensure that whatever identifiably "different" groups you
            personally belong to have the greatest possible piece of
            the power pie. This is the way American society currently
            works; power belongs to whoever organizes the largest contingent
            of supporters who believe they are part of the same group as him.
	    pronoun deliberately reflective of American society.]

	2)  Ensure that whatever identifiably "different" groups you personally
	    believe will do the fairest and/or most effective job of wielding
	    power have the greatest possible possible piece of the power pie.
            This is the theory behind monarchy and aristocracy.  It also 
	    tends to break down to #1 *very* quickly.

	3)  Do away with power-oriented societal matrices altogether.
	    This is the most radical of the three solutions and may be
	    completely impossible.  However, I suggest that anything less is an
	    abrogation of the aims of social equality.  Further, it seems more
	    possible as technology increases the means of defeating systems of
	    wielding and distributing power.

Sorry to go on at such length, but the topic seemed important.

Hope this spurs some discussion.



Dan'l Danehy-Oakes