Conference turris::womannotes-v2

         Mr.Carter,
    
    I, as a woman believe we need all the help we can get. I do not
    wish to exclude myself from the mainstream. (Neither, by the way,
    did Martin Luther King.) I hear a lot from black people badmouthing
    liberals as though, because we believe in the same things they do,
    we are weak and insincere. My skin may be white and yours black,
    but your heart pumps the same red stuff that mine does.
    
    Remember What was said in Nazi Germany: (I forget the real version
    I'm sure I'll be corrected)
    
    First they came for the Jews, I did not speak up because I was not
    a Jew.
    
    Then they came for the Poles. I did not speak up because I was not
    Catholic.
                               
    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for
    me.
    
    Thanks,
    Kate
    
    

    Well, I've been told by more than a few people (esp. in my more
    radical, younger days) that I had a significantly stronger "feminist"
    philosophy than "most" women.
    
    I think that men can be feminists, since feminism is simply a
    philosophy advocating the complete equality of men and women.  I
    don't do the "front lines" stuff any more for the very reasons you
    gave; I learned to feel uncomfortable in that role since it does have
    a little bit of a "paternalistic" flavour to it.  I also think I'm
    wrong in this synopsis.  Having men advocating the goals that the
    majority of the "feminist movement" wants helps, not hinders, since
    those men can influence the males that they associate with.
    
    Having men show up at events etc. helps because it should make other
    males less wary of the philosophy and maybe more willing to espouse it. 
    And since white males *are* the power structure today, getting that
    support can help move things along faster.  As opposed to trying to
    keep the movement "pure" and not getting very far fast.

>feminism is simply a
>    philosophy advocating the complete equality of men and women.

 You'd never be able to figure that out just by reading this file.

 The Doctah

>    wish to exclude myself from the mainstream. (Neither, by the way,
> did Martin Luther King.) 

        Martin's  leadership  in  the  Civil  Rights  Movement  was   a
        challenge to the mainstream.

        >I hear a lot from black people badmouthing 
        >    liberals as though, because we believe in the same things they do, 
        >    we are weak and insincere. My skin may be white and yours black,

        Excuse  me?  Could  you  please  be more specific here? Exactly
        which black people  are you talking about. If I didn't know
        better,  I  would  think that this was a generalization.

    Martin Luther's goal was to provide a place for everyone. He wanted
    everyone own a piece of that mainstream.
    
    I certainly don't mean to generalize. Your Malcolm X analogy gave
    the message that whites would "weaken" the coffee. I don't think
    that is necessarily true. I can not take that as a racist remark
    because it was taken out of context.
    
    I've heard some pretty racist remarks from the mouths of black people.
    If you think that is a generalization, you don't know me.
    
    Whether it be race or gender, this is one world, and one set of
    problems. Let's solve them together.
    
    March is Women's Month at Dec. I hope to see you at some of the
    planned events. We need all the help we can get.
    
    Kate  ^   ^
          0   0
            ^
          \___/
    
    
    
    

    I don't know if Malcolm said that or not. I do know that several Blacks
    I know think that the movement should be spearheaded by Blacks while
    assistance from Whites is needed. However, they do think the cause is
    "weaken" when headed by Whites since they believe that often "the
    movement", when headed by Whites, is towards assimilation rather than
    equality regardless of color.  I also know a few Whites who share this
    view. 
        
    While we are on the subject, what do you think of Black power? Or Woman
    power? This may be one area where it may make a difference whether one
    is Black or White, female or male.
    
    _karen

    RE: .6 What's the difference between assimilation and equality and
    why is one better then the other?
    
    			Alfred

    I was raised in the "good old bad days" of segregation in the south.
    I hated it from as early on as I can remember.  My mother was a
    dyed in the wool yankee from Vt. and I guess it rubbed off very
    early.
    
    I carried my share of the load during Civil Rights movement, and
    have the emotional scars to prove it.  And *no where* was it written
    that what I and other whites did was not really wanted.  We were
    in this together, as we still are.  Frankly, I would rather see
    James Baldwin or Dr. King quoted than Malcolm X.  He came late,
    too late, to see that his form of apartheid was ugly and devisive.
    
    Anyway...as a born not made feminist, I believe that any man who
    really and deeply commits himself to the idea of equality for men
    and women alike cannot be all bad.  And he is more than welcome
    at the table.  During any big social movement, one crawls into bed with
    a lot of different souls, but generally they are all aiming for
    the same results.  
    
    Marilyn
    

        For  the record, I not exactly an ardent supporter of Malcolm X
        or the Nation Of Islam. I take issue with many of their views. 

        But, I did find the analogy fitting to illustrate my point. 

        I don't think that Blacks exclusively spearheading the Blacks
        Civil  Rights Movement   or   Women   exclusively  spearheading 
        the  Women's  Movement  is  racism though. As I tried to detail
        in the base note, I think when  outsiders  join  the  movement,
        the original intent can become distorted. 

        And  I look forward to attending any women's movement activity.
        However, don't expect me to get up on  the  podium  and  direct
        everyone  in  where  *we*  are  going  next.  I'll  stay in the
        background and yell, 'RAH!', 'RAH!'

        However, again I will  state  that  I  am  openminded  on  this
        issue. I am amenable to reason.

    Alfred, generally assimilation means that one has to lose or adopt
    another characteristic in order to fit in. For example, assimilation
    would mean adopting to standards set by the majority, rather than
    being accepted as is. On the other hand, if it is truly equality,
    everyone would be valued as is, and no one would have to bend to
    what the majority figured is "natural." 
    
    But we digress. :-) 
    
    _karen
    

    re .10 
    
    Frankly, Roger, I don't understand why you felt it necessary to go on
    record as not being an ardent supporter of Malcolm X. What if you
    were an ardent supporter of Malcolm X? Is that a felony? 
    
    _karen

re .1

>	Then they came for the Poles. I did not speak up because I was not
>	Catholic.

	Many, but not all Poles are Catholic. I believe the correct line
	was:

	Then they came for the Catholics. I did not speak up because I was not
	Catholic.

re .0

	Men can't be Feminists? That hardly sounds like equality to me.

							Tom_K

.8 looked like it was completed except for the line count. So, I've rescued it
and moved it here.
	Mez

================================================================================
Note 475.8                      MEN AS FEMINISTS                         8 of 13
CLEVER::POPE                                          0 lines   1-MAR-1989 16:23
                             -< The Other Pontiff >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Good note!  Although I don't mind if men call themselves feminists,
    I do have a problem with men (or women for that matter) who are
    more-feminist-than-thou.  Over the years men and other woman have
    tried to make me wear the straitjacket of their definition of woman,
    It's bad enough from another woman, but from a man it's out of line.
    
    I am a long time civil rights supporter and appreciate what you're
    saying.  The civil rights struggle has many aspects;  it is for
    African Americans, women, children, Asian Americans, and Chicanos,
    too.  While we can lend one another support and the common cause
    promotes empathy, one shouldn't presume and patronize.  Being a
    woman of Indian descent and less than a second class citizen in
    my own land gives me, hopefully, some insights into the situation
    of Black Americans, but not a license to pontificate {thought my
    name does ;-)} about how you should feel and act.  I cringe when
    the well-meaning tell a woman how she should feel or that woman
    and African Americans should be happy now that we have equality.
    & maybe I can guess how you enjoy the compliment about rhythm and
    how well "you people" dance, because it's probably similar to the
    feeling I get when told how Indians are so close to Nature and at
    one with the Universe.  Give me a break!
    
    You'll probably get blasted for your note, but good for you.  Some
    day perhaps we will value differences.
    
    A pale yellow woman

    The feminist struggle is for the benefit of men as well as women.
    Men have gained more than they've lost by being in power, but they
    *have* also lost a good deal.  I think a feminist man is one who
    recognizes that the "women's movement" benefits both women and men
    and so he supports it out of enlightened self-interest, rather than
    *just* in a paternalistic manner -- just as white need to learn
    that racism is an illness that hurts them, too.
    
    There are some battles women need to fight for themselves.  But
    men need to realize that they are significantly more involved, and
    have more at stake personally as well, than to just cheer from the
    bleachers.
    
    Nancy

    re:.15
    Very well said, Nancy. 
    
    re:Tom K
    I meant to say Poles twice in one stanza and Catholics in another.
    Sorry about that. I hope the point was clear.
    
    Kate

    re .15, Nancy-
    
    > The feminist struggle is for the benefit of men as well as women.
      
    You reminded me of some correspondence I exchanged last summer before
    I was active in =wn=, on whether or not men "benefit" from sexism 
    practised against women.  Call this a related tangent, (and I agree
    with your point.)
   
    > SKYLRK::OLSON "green chile addict, going cold turkey!" 21-JUN-1988 12:14
    >
    > In my previous letter I was referring to how men both benefit
    > (your original contention) and lose (my addition) by the sexism
    > of others.  In your response, I see I didn't quite make the
    > point I was trying to make.  [...]
    >
    >                                  ... I'm not saying we (men) lose
    > from overt sexism of others, practised against men (although, since
    > you point it out, I guess it happens).  I'm saying we (men AND women) 
    > lose from overt sexism practised against women.  My first letter put
    > it like this:  "I lose every time some ape supresses the potential of
    > one of my sisters."  Let me expand that.
    > 
    > Suppose an individual has been born, with the right potential and
    > background and interests, to have become a premier physician-researcher
    > and to cure cancer; but sexism blocked her path, 40 years ago.  Or,
    > suppose one exists with the natural instincts for political abilities
    > and intrigue, to have avoided the Cold War, or to have avoided the
    > Versailles Treaty disaster, or to have made the UN a viable body at
    > its founding 40 years ago, or more recently, to have gotten hostages
    > out of Iran in 1979, or to have somehow preempted the Invasion of
    > Afghanistan, or prevented the aftermath of the Prague Spring; but
    > when she was growing up, sexism blocked her path.  These are the
    > dramatic examples to make my point.  But every one of us on this
    > planet is making a contribution, or at least, likes to think so.  I'm
    > not a shuttle diplomat, but I do a good job at what I do.  How many
    > women have been supressed from making that kind of contribution?
    > 
    > THAT is my point.  I, and all other people, lose her contribution to
    > making this a better world for all of us, every time sexism supresses
    > her potential.  Sexism makes ME lose.  It is not acceptable to me.
    > You said sexism victimizes men's humanity, but women in both human
    > and economic ways.  I say the costs in *all* ways are too high for
    > all of us.  Thats why I originally took you to task for your claim
    > about "sexism benefitting men".  It really, truly doesn't, from where
    > I'm sitting.
    
    DougO            

        The semantics here are really not very important. 

        Ok, so you think men can be called feminists. Fine!

        But,  the  issue I am trying to address is what *role* men
        should play in the movement? Does you find it counterproductive
        for a  man  takes  a leadership role in the advancement of
        women's issues? I do.

        						Roger

    I heard what you are saying, Roger, and I agree with you that women
    should control the feminist efforts for the same reason that people of
    color should lead and control their rights efforts.  Men can certainly
    be feminists, whites can certainly be committed to equal rights for
    people of color...but in both cases, the movement is weakened and
    diluted by a non-oppressed person in a leadership position. 
    
    Now, what role?  Very visible supporters.  Be there to convey the
    message that we're all in this together, and the rights movements
    cannot be dismissed as "just a bunch of radical c*nts/n**gers" by
    the mucus wads in the population.
    
    						=maggie

    I would like to see men take a larger role in changing the attitude
    of the workplace toward parenting and the needs of children.  It
    bothers me tremendously that child care is *still* viewed as "a
    woman's problem."  (I recognize the very real and painful fact that
    there is such an increasing number of single mothers.)  I think
    men *ought* to be just as concerned about these issues as women,
    both in terms of their *own* children and in terms of the kind of
    society we have.  
    
    Both men and women do a disservice to our entire society if/when 
    women want the sole leadership role in this issue!  This is one
    issue I would like to see men claim as their own and fight for,
    not because it is a *women's* issue, but because it also affects
    *men* and *their* children!

    RE:.19
    Maggie, This is the first time I think I have disagreed with you
    on a point. I think John Kennedy helped Martin Luther King while
    Kennedy was in position of power. I think Bill Baerd (sp) has helped
    advocate a woman's reproductive rights. 
    
    Although it is impossible to know 100% what any other person is
    going through, many people seem to know intuitively what is fair.
    
    Kate                  
    

    re .21 
    
    I think that one of the bigger myths is that John Kennedy "helped"
    Martin Luther King. John Kennedy HAD to do what he did because of the
    forces which were driving this country at the time.  The time was
    right. Any president in his right frame of mind would have done
    what Kennedy did, even Reagan. He had little or no choice if he
    wanted to continue to be popular, and if he wanted to continue to
    be in control of the country.
    
    Just my opinion. You don't have to agree.
    
    _karen

    in re .23 _karen
    
    I agree that the times were right and that who ever was president
    would have 'had' to do something. I do think tho that Kennedy pushed
    things more than just force of public opinion would have required.
    I'm not saying that he did all that could have been done, but that
    he did more than might have been expected from a more conservative
    person.
    
    Bonnie

    Using another analogy. Mother Teresa isn't Indian. Or is she?
    
    Since, from infancy, people have a tendancy to distrust what they
    don't know, familiarity breeds credibility. For example If saw someone
    who looked really strange but my best friend said, "She's OK." I
    may take a second look. I generally hate overly simplified analogies
    but I'm having a hard time getting my point across.
    
    Kate

        And,  John  Kennedy  didn't *lead* the Civil Rights Movement by
        anyone's account. He entered  kicking  and  screaming  in  fear
        that he would lose the support of  the  South.  He  stepped  in
        when  the  leaders of the movement and the country made demands
        that  only  a  president  could  fulfill;  such  as  dispensing
        federal troops to accompany Blacks to newly integrated schools.

        However, LBJ  is  the one that enacted the most significant
        Civil Rights Legislation as the Civil Rights  Bill  and  the
        Voting  Rights Bill. Just the same, he wasn't a *leader* in the
        cause either.

        Anyway,  why  is  the  Civil  Rights  Movement constantly being
        referenced  as  though  it  was  perfectly  executed  and  100%
        successful .  It  wasn't  as far  as  I  am  concerned.  In this
        very file there seem to be people  who want to do away with
        Affirmative Action or programs that are targeted towards helping
        minorities to  catch up. After our ancestors (including our
        parents) were blatantly restrained from making conditions better
        for themselves and consequently for their children, for hundreds
        of years, people want to know why we haven't caught up in less
        than TWENTY YEARS, and why we may need a little help in the
        process.

        Ever  since we've gained some semblance of equality people keep 
        using  our  strides  towards equality as a political pawn and
        threaten to take it away  when it becomes politically convenient
        to do so. Many  attempts to strip of us our gains have been very
        successful. Reagan did away  with  that EEO  office  ( I  forgot 
        the  name),  the supreme court ruled against minority quotas in
        an area where little or no  contracts were  being awarded  to 
        minorities  although there is a heavy concentration of Blacks in
        that  area,  the  supreme  court  is considering overturning 
        Roe  vs.  Wade which will potentially cause many of our minority
        women to resort  to  back alley abortions  that will threaten
        their lives, the president is putting *token* Blacks in key
        governmental positions who have no  intention  on furthering 
        the Black agenda, we have a drug czar who has shown no empathy
        towards people living in poverty and therefore will focus on
        eliminating drugs as opposed to the conditions that are causing
        people to turn to drugs, we have a chief  of  staff who  comes 
        from  a  state where Blacks are few and far between ,  a 
        political  party  that  used  racist ads to win a presidential 
        election. We have a country, gaining less and less media
        attention, who's Black citizens are being overtly oppressed by a
        few governing whites.   We  are   spending   less   money   on
        education  in urban areas; where there is a high rate of Blacks
        living in poverty, the most  promising  presidential  candidate
        was  rejected  because  of  his  color  before  he could redeem
        himself, in New  York  and  Chicago,  prominent  politicians 
        are pitting the blacks against the Jews.....

        And  that  is  what I could come up with in fifteen minutes! So
        things are not all peaches and cream  since  a  few  key  bills
        have been passed!

        					roger

    re .25
    Bonnie,
    
    I don't mean to sound argumentative, but what did he do that went
    beyond what he "had" to do?  By sending in the National Guard here
    and there? Take for example the time when he sent out orders and
    Wallace refused to obey, what was Kennedy suppose to do? Back down?
    Maybe he didn't have to send out orders to Wallace, who knows. But
    seriously, what did he do that went over and beyond "call of duty"?
    I'm not really challenging you or anyone, just seeking information.
    
    _karen        

    Karen,
    
    I'll have to review my current history, it was certainly my
    impression at the time that he got actively involved in
    the process. I know that he put the full weight of the
    attorney general's office into civil rights and went against
    Hoover (or so I believe). I also think that he made personal
    phone calls at least once when King was in jail to get him
    released. Most of this tho is from my memory of 20 years ago
    and could be faulty. Certainly the impression at the time
    was that he was actively and personally involved and supportive.
    
    Bonnie

    re .29 
    
    Bonnie, you are right. He did all of those things you said he did. (As
    far as my memory can recall.) Yet, I submit to you that it wasn't his
    hatred of segregation, or his drive for equality for all people, which
    made him do what he did. He made calls to MLK, etc. *He* got more good
    publicity for doing that that the call did good to MLK. He got involved
    in the struggle because he had to as President. Americans were seeing
    Black people gunned down with water, Americans were seeing dogs being
    used to restraint peaceful marchers, etc. As unconcerned as you and I
    may be under normal circumstances about race relations, those violent
    images moved us. Everyone wanted to do something or to have something
    be done, even those who may not have wanted Blacks to be their
    neighbors thought that the treatment they were receiving was
    unnecessary. There was growing sentiment among Whites (and among Blacks
    also) that something needed to be done. Kennedy was no fool! He did
    what the people wanted. It was all in his political interest to make
    those moves. For that he should be credited. But he should not be
    glorified as the god of the civil rights movement, as having helped
    Martin Luther King, etc. He never did, IMHO, a thing which jeopardized
    his presidency nor a thing which didn't have positive backlash on
    his popularity. He took no chances.
    
    Roger is right, he was dragged into the movement kicking and screaming,
    not out of the goodness of his magnanimous heart as we are so often led
    to believe. (Please, I'm not saying that he was a bigot, etc.) Maybe we
    all should take an unbiased trip down history lane and really analyze
    what he did and why he did it when he did. I suggest that we would find
    three things: he did everything under extreme tremendous pressure from
    outside; he was very concerned about with TIMING (why? do you
    suppose?); and he didn't move mountains as people generally are led to
    believe. Yes, Kennedy was a good man, but let's not get carried away.
    He was not a mythical figure. We should look at his contributions with
    clear eyes and forget all of the sentimental feelings. 
    
    Thanks for listening to me.
    
    _karen

        re Mississippi Burning

        A perfect example of what we are talking about. Hollywood  took
        it upon itself to knowingly  falsify historical facts and make
        White Men out to be the hero  in  order to make a buck. Somehow
        they shifted the credit of the movement from the *helpless*
        blacks to the *heroic* FBI. Everyone knows the FBI was working
        against the movement.

        Now they have the  nerve  to  be nominated for Academy Awards! 

    I wouldn't  make  JFK out to be a hero, but he did a lot more than
    he had to. Similarly LBJ went way beyond what he had to do. If you
    saw  (or  read)  "Eyes  on  the Prize" you saw that LBJ saying "We
    shall overcome" had a tremendous effect on people on both sides of
    the fight. He had to maintain order, he didn't have to say that we
    shall  overcome  racism.  In fact the Democrats lost their grip on
    the south at this time, probably because of their unwillingness to
    embrace  racism,  so  they did pay a political price. But the real
    heros were people like Rosa Parks and groups like CORE and Snic (I
    don't  remember  the spelling, the Students Non-violent organizing
    committee?)

    As for  Mississipi  Burning, I haven't seen it because the reviews
    said  that  it  gives  the  FBI  some credit for helping the civil
    rights  movement.  In  fact, they tried to blackmail Martin Luther
    King  into stopping his efforts. The FBI were real villians in the
    early  part  of the civil rights movement, and to give them credit
    for helping (even accidentally) is nonsense.

    All of this ignores the real racism of the "civil rights murders",
    which  is  why  was  there  so  much concern about those two white
    people who were killed, when there were blacks being killed almost
    routinely who we never heard about. In fact, while looking for the
    civil  rights workers' bodies, many other bodies were found. Since
    they were black, they didn't generate any publicity.

--David

    I am going to address Roger's initial question; the recent
    discussion on civil rights is not something I feel qualified to
    comment on.
    
    One of the problems I see with a discussion of this nature is that
    each of us has our own personal definition of the word "feminist".
    Some people say it means "supportive of women's causes" (equal
    rights, equal pay, etc.), while others think of it as "placing
    women's interests first".  Roger would appear to side with the
    latter definition, I tend towards the former.  While I don't
    think it's IMPOSSIBLE for a man to be a "feminist" by the latter
    definition, I'd agree that it's probably rare.  I fully believe
    that men can be and are feminists by the former definition.
    
    Roger then goes on to say that he'll "stand behind" women and
    "cheer from the sidelines".  If one views the struggle of women
    to be akin to walking a minefield, Roger's position starts to seem
    more sacrificial than supportive.
    
    My major objection to Roger's position is that I don't feel that
    women can do everything on their own.  This is not meant to be
    a put-down of women, but rather a realization that men are part
    of the problem; it is their attitudes that hold women back in
    many areas.  And if men are part of the problem, they must also
    be part of the solution.  Being part of the solution means actively
    working and fighting for women's causes, with the understanding that
    men ultimately benefit as well.  It means MORE than simply saying
    "I won't oppress women", it means working to get OTHER men to stop
    their oppression.  (And it also means working to get women to stop
    oppressing other women, which may ultimately be the more difficult
    task.)
    
    I see a vast difference between fighting "in the trenches" and
    being "in a leadership" position.  Indeed, women should and must
    lead the efforts, but I see no reason why men and women can't fight
    the actual battles, shoulder to shoulder.  If a man wants to call
    himself a feminist, why not let him?
    
    The matter of "dilution" and the rallying cries of "we women"
    are connected.  I was present at a meeting of men who expressed an
    interest in supporting the Spit Brook "Stone Center Project" (see
    an earlier note on that topic).  We wanted to help, yet felt that
    the way the project had been created and the report written
    automatically assumed that men's assistance was not wanted nor needed.
    While we wanted to help anyway, we also realized that we had to
    avoid making it seem that the women by themselves had no credibility.
    We came to no conclusions at that time, but I have been asked to
    participate in some future work related to the project, so perhaps
    there will be some resolution.
    
    I have suggested elsewhere in this conference that when women actively
    seek to exclude men from the work of feminism, that they do themselves
    no favors.  The exclusion can be subtle, such as the frequent misuse
    of the term "women's issues" to describe things such as child care that
    are as applicable to men as they are to women.
    
    I think we must understand that there are many different kind of
    people, women and men, who support women's causes for a variety
    of reasons and in a variety of ways.  It is folly to try to
    create a narrow definition of "feminist" and reject any who don't
    fit into the correct pigeonhole.  Rather than argue about who should
    be active and who should be "supporting", why not let anyone who
    believes in the cause help in any way they can?  Is the task so
    trivial that it can be accomplished by only the few?
    
    					Steve

    	Getting back to the subject of the basenote for a minute...
    
    	A lot of thoughts come to mind when I see men calling themselves
    	or being described as feminists.
    
    	First off, I have no problem whatsoever with any man who is
    	willing to call himself a "feminist."  Feminism is not an
    	organized club with hard and fast rules, membership lists
    	or signatures on dotted lines.  It's a philosophical and/or
    	political position, and there are a variety of degrees of
    	commitment (not to mention intensity) that offer a diverse
    	selection of people that all call themselves feminists.
    
    	I'm also aware that feminism has a HUGE amount of "support"
    	from people who choose NOT to call themselves feminists.  I got 
    	a big kick out of the definition someone provided (awhile back)
    	about the differences between feminists and radical feminists.
    	
    	(I wish had the exact note in front of me, but from memory,
    	it was something along the lines of saying that "feminists"
    	are people who are in favor of equal opportunity for women,
    	etc., and that "RADICAL feminists" are people who believe the
    	same things but are also willing to CALL themselves "feminists.")
    
    	The only time I am ever "skeptical" of self-declared feminist
    	men is when they claim to be "MORE feminist than most women."
    	I reserve judgment on these folks until I hear more of what
    	they are saying first.
    
    	On one occasion, when I heard of a man who was declared to be
    	"more feminist than most women," his motives turned out to be
    	somewhat less than honorable.  What he did was to engage in
    	enormous amounts of research on feminism, and then tried to
    	set himself up as an expert on it with women feminists.  In
    	his attempts to "lead" women into his own highly personal
    	stand on women's rights issues, he would seek attention by
    	beating women over the head with insults.  When it didn't
    	work, he turned *against* feminism with a vengeance (and beat
    	women over the head with insults against both women AND
    	feminism.)
    
    	Of course, this didn't happen here (and the person is no one
    	that anyone here would recognize,) but I bring it up because
    	I think that on extremely rare occasions, there are men who
    	see feminism as an opportunity to "lead" women (who are assumed
    	to be easily led, evidently.)
    
    	I don't, by ANY means, automatically distrust a man who claims
    	to be "more feminist" than women feminists, but I do look carefully
    	at what they are saying (and how.)
    
    	Any man who tries to communicate with women feminists by using
    	abusive/authoritative/derogatory tactics has *clearly* missed
    	the point of the feminist philosophy.  Clearly!

    	As for the men who DO understand (whether or not they call themselves
	feminists,) I'm often impressed by the depth of their empathy
    	and by their ability to comprehend what others have been (and
    	are) going through.  They can be wonderful and are appreciated!!!

    	As with any disenfranchised group, however, it is usually the
    	most inspiring to hear the words of people that belong to
    	the actual disenfranchised group itself (because of the power
    	of personal experience behind their words.)

    
    	P.S. To prevent possible misunderstanding, reply .39 is not
    	a response to .38.  I posted it (originally) as .37, but deleted
    	it to do some editing on a couple of mistakes.
    

       Have  you ever had a man preach to you about feminist issues? I
        find it revolting. Here's why:

        Joe Schmoe is a white male. He loves apple pie, mom,  Chevrolet
        and  Ronald  Reagan.  He is the all-American athlete, goes to a
        first rate college, and gets a job at DIGITAL as an  Electrical
        Engineer. Occasionally he has a few beers  with  the  boys  and
        has had a few flings in his life. Soon he has 1 wife, 2.5
        children  and  1.2  cars.  He also buys a dog and buys a house
        in the suburbs of Mass.

        After  a  while,  Joe gets tired of his mundane life and starts
        seeking other alternatives to spend  his  time.  Joe  discovers
        computer  noting at DIGITAL and stumbles upon WOMANNOTES. As he
        reads of the injustices directed against  women,  he  nods  his
        head  and  agrees that women have been getting the short end of
        the stick in society. It all seems so common sense to him.

        As Joe participates more and more  in  WOMANNOTES,  he  becomes
        more aware of their issues and  begins  taking  his  new  found
        knowledge  elsewhere  as  he  begins  educating  his  friends  on
        diseases such as misogyny and sexism. They are enlightened and
        somewhat  impressed  by  Joe's new knowledge.

        Soon  Joe buys books on sexism and decides he is a feminist. He
        starts  quoting  feminist  philosophies  and   preaches   equal
        justice  for  women to everyone; including other women. After a
        while Joe starts correcting other  women  that  they  shouldn't
        allow  men  to  hold  open  doors for them, that they shouldn't
        allow men to buy their  meals,  that  they  shouldn't  be  home
        cooking  or  cleaning,  that they should be totally independent
        of men! Suddenly Joe feels he is more aware of equality for 
        women  than most women and he lets everyone know it. 

        People like Joe make me sick! 

        I have issue with people like Joe spearheading the Civil Rights
        Cause for Blacks, women  or  anyone  else  who  is being 
        treated  like second class citizens in this country. I was BORN
        a black male. I don't need  to  be  preached to on  how  to 
        fight oppression  in my life! I've been doing it all my life;
        whether I want to or not. Every success I attain is an
        achievement  for my  race.  Every  time I mess up, *someone* is
        going to perceive it as Roger, the black male screwing up. The
        same is  true  for women.  It  doesn't  make a difference if she
        wants to admit it or not, women in this company and all across
        America are  often seen by someone,  not  as  individuals,  but 
        as  representatives of their gender.  No  matter  what  they 
        do, minorities *can not* shake that attachment. Every single
        one of us knows it is  there  at all times. The woman engineer,
        the black attorney....etc., etc.

        But,  people  like  Joe  can't  relate.  He  is  sincere. He is
        definitely  against  discrimination  against  women,  but   his
        motivation  is not coming from a stigma that has been within him
        from birth. Joe was bored! Joe picked up a new hobby. Joe can
        drop this cause  and  go  on to  something  else when he tires
        of it, with no skin off his back! Joe can be a supporter of
        woman's rights when it is  convenient  for  Joe! If  Joe's boss
        turn's out to my misogynistic, Joe can keep his pro-female views
        to  himself  (Joe  wouldn't  want  to  thwart  his chances for a
        promotion!)! And even if Joe chooses not to  capitalize  on  his
        ability to do such things,  that they are alternatives prevents 
        him  from  being  able to totally empathize and represent the
        cause. 

        Women are going  to have  to  fight this battle all of their
        lives; like it or not! I still say to leave them in charge of
        their own battle.

        						roger

    	RE:  .41
    
    	Roger, I can see what you are saying, but I guess I don't really
    	find people like "Joe Schmoe" harmful *until* the point where
    	he is shoving women's views of their own causes aside because
    	his perspective is more correct.  :-)
    
    	Over-zealousness is always a risk among people who newly discover
    	a movement, whether they are members of the minority or not.
    
    	Another thing is that many, many people overlap minorities.
    	Black women see two similar (but *distinct*) sets of prejudices
    	(and have a deeper understanding of the *combination* of the two 
    	more than any white woman or black man could have, for example.)

    	When people who belong to one minority (but not another) start
    	working on programs that span across different groups, is it
    	"better" to only advocate the programs for their OWN group (as
    	if they don't care about anyone else,) or is it better to mention
    	ALL the groups in their advocacy (since all the various minorities
    	would be affected if the programs were abolished)?

    	Sometimes, there ARE no easy answers to questions like these.
    
    	So, my feelings about "Joe Schmoe" would be that I have no problem
    	with his attempts to advance my cause as long as he doesn't
    	hit me over the head telling me that he knows more than I do
    	about what it's like to be a woman.  If he wants to preach my
    	cause to other men (who seem to think that there *is* no discrimina-
	tion against women and are arguing along the lines that women
    	have always had equal rights, or whatever,) I don't have a problem
    	with his setting those other people straight in the absence
    	of a woman who might be able to state the case with more personal
    	experience.
    
    	Compared to people who think that women have NOT ever suffered
    	from any kind of discrimination (and there ARE people who feel
    	this way,) Joe probably DOES know more about what it's like
    	to suffer from mysogyny than they do.  I don't have a problem
    	with his trying to speak up for us in that situation.
    
    	Perhaps he even *recognizes* that he doesn't really know first
    	hand what it's like to be a woman or to be black, but wants
    	to stand up for us anyway (when one of us isn't coming forward
    	at that moment from a more personal perspective.)
    
    	It's not that I think we always "need" the help.  I just don't
    	think it is harmful for non-minorities to bring up (or fight
    	for) minority causes as long as they aren't knocking over the
    	REAL members of the minority by telling them (personally) what
    	they should think or feel.  Telling OTHER non-minorities what
    	minority members have SAID (OURSELVES) about our perspectives 
    	or about our feelings doesn't seem like a problem to me.

    	I would rather that Joe continue to speak out for his beliefs
    	on fairness for minorities than sit back and say nothing (letting
    	bigotry have the last word, in some situations.)
    
    	In the movie "Gentlemen's Agreement," one of the biggest points
    	that came out was that many good people who hate bigotry sit
    	by and say nothing in the presence of bigotry (and that saying
    	or doing nothing against bigotry can become almost as big
    	a problem as engaging in it actively.)
    
    	I'd rather see non-minorities stepping forward against it (even
    	if their knowledge of it isn't as great as minorities' knowledge
    	might be,) because if they stay silent, perhaps bigots will
    	think that their opinion is being silently supported.

    um, Roger
    
    Is that really how most Blacks see whites who are involved
    in civil rights?
    
    With me it was not and has never been a hobby. I was there
    when my high school was integrated and felt my impotence
    when a young black woman was trown out of the bathroom.
    
    and then I moved to a state where there were Blacks in the
    high school, but I never made friends with them..I was too
    shy and too ignorant and still prejudiced.
    
    and then I went to college and met Blacks who I could connect
    with an relate with and the whole 60s civil rights movement
    grew up/blew up around us. and I did what I could.
    
    and I remembered what had happened to me in 10th grade and 
    vowed I'd never keep quiet in the presence of discrimination
    /personal nastiness/ meanness again.
    
    So now I'm the mom of 4 kids with white moms and black dads..
    
    is this more than a hobby for me? is it more than a hobby
    for other whites who have not married or adopted or made
    close friends or what ever of Blacks..
    
    
    is it possible that some people react because they think
    that racism and discrimination and minority disenfranchisment
    is *TOTALLY WRONG*?
    
    Bonnie

	Bonnie,

	I think that people like you who enter a movement and make
	a REAL life-time committment are not in the same category as
	the person (I think it was) Roger was describing.  Where
	there was no personal life changing committment just philosphy.

	You have made the ultimate committment to raise children who
	are non-mainstream individuals so in fact you are part of the
	non-white community now.  Do you see the difference?  I may
	not be putting it quite right (too early in the morning with
	no coffee and a uVAX what keeps asking for attention).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			I am finding more and more that I can
			understand the problems of Black Women
			being Black and being Women - but I still
			don't comprenhend what it means to be a

    re .43
    um, Bonnie,
    
    Was that a fair question to ask of Roger? Suppose he says, "Yes, that
    is how most Blacks see Whites who are involved in civil rights." Then
    what? "Well "Roger" said that that's how Blacks feel..." But is "Roger"
    qualified to speak for most or all Blacks? Are you qualified to tell
    how most or all Whites feel about any particular issue? I don't think
    so... 
    
    _karen

    _karen, that was a good point, I should rather have said something\
    to the effect of 'to your knowledge' or among the people you
    have talked to..
    
    Bonnie

    
    I can sort of see how you feel, Roger. When I was at Tufts, I sometimes
    felt that a lot of the anti-racism activity that was going on among
    the students was more for their own egos than anything else, and
    it put me off. 
    
    Sol Gittleman, the provost at Tufts, once made a statement to some
    anti-apartied demonstrators, that created a storm at school. He
    said "Go to Roxbury!" This angered a lot of people, but I think
    he had a good point. To me he was saying that it is easy to sit
    outside on a spring day, among the grass and trees, and listen to
    speakers, etc, but how about getting off our butts and actually
    going into a local community that is the way it is because of racism.
    
    Although I don't think everyone is in it just to sit outside and
    hang out, I think maybe these are the types of people Roger is referring
    to. Am I on the right track, Roger?
    
    Roberta
                                                   
    P.S. Suzanne, I think that was my definition of feminist. Thanks
    for noticing it!

        <---

        Yes,  I  am  talking extremists here. I agree with Suzanne that
        Joe Schome was fine  until  he  started  *preaching*  to  other
        women about the woes of being an oppressed female.  At  that 
        point  he became a nuisance. Bonnie, I wasn't describing you as
        I know you. 

        But, when non-minorities  become *obsessed*  with a minority
        issue, I have found that *sometimes* that non-minority is
        filling a void in that  person's  life  as opposed  to genuine
        passion towards the issue. Notice I used the word  *obsessed*. 
        I  think  that  type  of  obsession  can  be counter-productive. 
        People  start  wondering, "Why doesn't Joe get off his high
        horse and stop preaching to us?"  and  I  feel the  true  spirit 
        of  the  movement  gets  lost  and becomes a personal crusade on
        Joe's part  to  fill  that  empty  void in his life. The
        substance of Joe's cause no longer is important; as Joe  is 
        merely  seeking attention.  Those of us who have a true
        understanding to the cause know when it  is  appropriate to  try 
        to  heighten  other's  awareness.  Sometimes,  it isn't
        appropriate. I've had people say to me, "I can't believe  *you*
        let  that  person  get  away with saying that!" To which I have
        responded, "Why bother?" I think we  naturally  know  when  the
        person is salvageable.

        I  have  found  those people who become obsessed with these
        issues usually are amongst those that are  not  part of  the
        oppressed minority. Ok, so they may be only 1% of them, but  my 
        own  personal  survey  has  noticed a definite pattern here. 

        I  have  been  part  of  organizations  where people were
        advocates for causes they had not resolved within themselves.
        The  one  that  immediately  comes to mind is, AIDS advocacy. I
        have heard people preach concerning being around a person with
        AIDS, to later discover that person  had  never  been exposed 
        [I don't mean sexually] to  a  person  with  AIDS in any way
        shape or fashion him/herself.

        Knowing that AIDS is a disease that kills, you have to be  able
        to  face  a  person with AIDS yourself before you can go around
        preaching  to other people about the proper way to act around a
        person  who  has  AIDS.  But  instead some of these people have
        found a new cause to champion.  They  are  just  as  afraid  to
        touch  a  person  with  AIDS  as  the  next  person  who hasn't
        resolved this issue through personal experience. But  they  can
        easily  march  and protest and gain attention fighting for this
        noble cause. Whereas most of  us  do  this  kind  of  stuff  in
        reaction  to an inner frustration over the way this epidemic is
        being handled, some others just want glory.

        And the same is true for the Civil Rights Movement. Sure,  many
        people felt in their  hearts  that  Blacks  should  have  equal
        housing,    and   even   joined   in   the   protests   against
        discrimination. But, many of  those  same  people  didn't  want
        those  Blacks  moving into their neighborhoods. 

        How many of you have dated a Black man or a Black woman? Or
        asked one out on a date? Before we start  preaching  to  others
        about  Rights, don't you think we should resolve our own
        racist quirks before lecturing to others about theirs?

        						Roger
         

	You are what you do.

    re:.15
    
    � I think a feminist man is who recognizes that the "women's
    movement" benefits both women and men and so he supports it
    out of enlightened self-interest, rather than *just* in a
    paternalistic manner... �
    
    While it's true that men benefit from the equal treatment of
    men and women, and thus have a "self-interest", I have a problem
    with that term only because it conjures up a feeling of "what's
    in it for me?"  Some of us support women's rights or gay rights,
    or people-of-color's rights because it's *right*, regardless of
    whether we "get" anything out of the deal. I suppose it's still
    a moral or ethical self-interest, though. Sort of like, is there
    really such a thing as an altruist, since that person helps
    others because it makes him or her feel good to do so?
    
    re:.41
    
    I agree that the Joe you describe is hardly an ideal picture of
    a feminist man. The problem I have is that you appear to me to be
    saying that all men approach feminism from this direction, or at
    least that because some men approach feminism as a "hobby", that
    no men should be in leadership position.
    
    What it really boils down to is: do you see feminism as a *women's*
    issue or as *people's* issue?  While women certainly have the most
    to gain from the equal treatment of men and women, I still see it
    as a people's issue. For men to be in the front lines doesn't mean
    that they are being patronizing, and if you think that, I think
    you're doing those men a disservice. If they felt that women couldn't
    get anywhere without their help, *that* would be patronizing, but
    that women don't need their help doesn't mean that the men shouldn't
    give whatever they can give.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: ALL
    
    *Good lord as a white male what am I doing in THIS note? :^)
    
          I have seen, in this note, what I see as two issues.
                     1. women vs a male dominated society
                     2. blacks vs a white male dominated society
    
          While these two issues are by no means the *only* equality
    issues, I would like to state "my" views on these two.  I do relize
    that the issue is the "white males" role in the fight for total
    equality!
    
    #1. Since white males *do* hold the reins of power in this society
    it only makes sense to seek the help of those who can help the quickest
    and the one with the least bloodshed.  Historicaly, those in power
    are the ones who can effect change most rapidly and perminantly.
    In my mind it makes no sense to eliminate 51% of the population
    from the decision making process.  But since most "men" are not
    willing to change on their own, they must be convinced.  Who better
    to "convince" them than another man.  Thus what I believe the role
    of men needs to be.  Not out front leading the cause, but right
    beside the women. After all is not the issue "equality"?  
    
    
    #2. Roger, I have not expierenced the kind of discrimination that
    you have.  I admitt to having led a very sheltered life.  I grew
    up as an Army "brat" and witnessed no discrimination of "blacks".
    Yes, It was there, but I did not witness it.  My belief,the one
    I was taught by my parents, is that we are ALL different shades
    of "brown".  So I grew up thinking that all people were equal. 
    Now i am not trying to "invalidate" your cause..quite the contrary.
    I believe your cause only makes sense...for many of the reasons
    stated in #1.  Now while I have not expierenced the inequality that
    you have, I have expeirenced many other kinds as most of us have.
    That is the reason why your cause IS very important to me and should
    become "MY" cause. Hence it is "OUR" cause!
    
    Dave

I sense a lot of agreement on the issues of women's rights and black rights
and what role white males should play. What I am hearing Roger say is that
he does support and is all for men supporting the women's movement. He is
also saying that women MUST lead the women's movement. I am in 100%
agreement with him on that.

I have always considered my husband a "feminist" man. He doesn't call himself
that, but I think of him that way. The reason is that he believes in an
equal relationship with me, and acts upon it. He treats women as equals and
is willing to listen and look at himself when someone points out to him
a "sexist" attitude. He is also willing to talk to other men about his
beliefs. 

What I can't stand is a man who calls himself a feminist, espouses all the
proper words and treats his wife as if she was meant to be at his beck and
call. When Roger described Joe Shmoe I wanted to know how Joe treated his
wife! 

My father was all for women's rights. He encouraged me to do what I wanted to
do, and he is still is supportive. BUT not my mother!! Women's rights applied
to other women, not to his wife.

So I look at a man's actions towards women before I decide if they really
support the women's movements.

I think the same would be true of whites and blacks. There are  many whites
who never admit prejudice, and say all the right words, but would be horrified
to have their son or daughter date a black. 

I agree the women's movement needs all the support it can get. We should all
work towards helping women's rights in our lives. But the only way the leadres
can have impact is if they are women.

Muggsie
    

     
    
            While we talk this thing to death, day after day goes by
    without anything being done!  It seems to me that we may very well
    be "flogging a dead horse" here.  Who cares what color or sex does
    what?  Just as long as the job is DONE.  What most of you don't
    seem to relize is that we ALL have a stake in this freedom issue.
    What one group does not have now we all may not have in the future!
    
    
    Dave

      Topic:      You guessed it - Misogyny, and some of what's
                  been said in this topic
                  (after hearing on CNN about the man that killed 13 (14?)
                  women in Rochester, NY; they showed body-bag after
                  body-bag being taken out of a house last night)

		  [following a summary of what some here have said
                   and what I agreed with]
                  
      Tim:  	  Do you *have* to be so damn opinionated?

      me:	  Yep.

      Mark:       You mean women say those things in a place that men
                  can read also?

      me:         Yep.

      Tim:        I bet the men just want to pummel them!
               
      me:         No.  They love us!   They see our anger and
                  think, "Wow, what in the world in the experience of
                  being a human female would ever cause them to feel
                  that way?"  Then they listen and perhaps understand.
		  A lot of the men who read the file are mature enough
	          to recognize the anger and make a *real* attempt at 
		  empathy with where we're coming from, instead of
	 	  being blinded by the anger or just getting miffed.

       Mark:	  [skeptically]  Hrumph.

       Tim:       [sarcastically]
		  Yea, it sounds like they (the men) want to pummel 
		  them (the women).    

       		                     [later...]

        Mark:	   [general question not directed at anyone in particular]
		   What's for dessert?

	me:	   If you'd go to the store to get an egg I'll make
		   some brownies.

	Tim:	   You're a woman... **lay one** !!

		    {I know that sounds awful out of context, but considering
		     the discussions we'd just had I thought it was pretty
		     funny}
		   
								nancy b.

    
    nancy, you have weird friends.
    

	re: .60 (Joe White)             -< ;^) >-

	>    nancy, you have weird friends.
 
	:-) 	Nah, they're OK, they just don't have benefit of being 
		able to read =wn= !!   Really!

						    nancy b.   

    Nancy, are you suggesting that people who read =wn= aren't weird?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    you fishing for compliments again?
    
    
    :-)
    
    or do you define weird like I do...i.e. I'm *weird* and proud of it!
    
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, I knew perfectly well that there was no use fishing for
    rebuttals to the assertion that I'm weird.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    	re: .62 (Mike Valenza)
    
    	Mike, sometimes I know what to think of you.
    
    	Other times, I don't know what to think of you.
    
    	I'm not sure which state I prefer :-).
    
    						nancy b.
    

.65>    	Mike, sometimes I know what to think of you.
    
.65>    	Other times, I don't know what to think of you. ---
    	 							  -
.65>   	        I'm not sure which state I prefer :-).            -
								  -
re: 931.12  (Mike Valenza)					  V
					
>    I'm looking for a cave to dwell in, where I can contemplate my navel,
>    alone, for the rest of my life.
    

    (The following was also brought on by the "What is a feminist?",
    "Personal is the Political", "How feminism has changed your world",
    and "Lesbians <> Strate Women" topics.  To summarize, I first explain
    why I'm a feminist, then why I'm not a feminist, then why men are but
    shouldn't be feminists.  (: >,)

    I often call myself a feminist because it's a label that fits; it describes
    something about my interests, the way I think and the company I keep, the
    books I read and the films I watch, and how I interpret them.  Even the
    reverse-sexism that some people see in "feminist" as opposed to "humanist"
    applies.  Like any accurate label, it's a short-cut explanation of
    character.

    If, as a male, it's often not appropriate for me to invade women's
    events; or if I get into shouting matches over porn or "PC sex"; or if
    my motives are (sometimes rightfully) suspect - these don't change the
    usefulness of the label.  As far as I might diverge from any supposed
    party line, it would still be futile to deny such a large part of my
    life and my thinking.  It probably just proves that I was a child of my
    times, but feminism _feels_ like a natural result of being a
    heterosexual man.  (This is a purely personal feeling and I mean no
    offense to the gay men who read this conference.)

    But this brand of feminism is heavy on theory and heavily on the left side
    of the "personal = political" equation.  It's an attempt to abstract and
    expand on one's own feelings and experience, and has little to do with
    marching or stuffing envelopes.

    A feminist could also be defined by the amount of energy she puts into
    feminism as a political movement.  When I take the word that way, it's as
    insulting for me to call myself a feminist as it is for a rich kid who
    spends his parents' dough on Black Flag albums to call himself an
    anarchist.

    And then there's the matter of motive, not just the "more womanly than
    thou" game that Roger mentions, or attraction to outspoken women in
    loose clothes and no makeup, but the "having it all" syndrome - the
    white-boy-sings-blues-and-gets-rich story - where not only does the guy get
    all the advantages of entrenched power, but also the thrill of identifying
    with the oppressed (and expecting their praises), of self-righteousness
    without suffering. 

    There's also the Uncle Tom problem, in which the activist is attracted to
    what is really a symptom of the condition to be eliminated (e.g., the
    humility of the slave Tom).  To take an extreme pre-feminist example, in
    many scenes in his films, Hitchcock portrays the mechanics of sexism with
    biting clarity.  But his biography shows that this sensitivity was due to a
    sadistic fixation on female suffering - a man who wasn't looking for scenes
    of women in pain wouldn't have noticed sexism as readily.

    Then again, maybe this is just an example of the self-directed misandry that
    someone surmised the male feminist might have...

    Ray

    Re: Ray, have you been going to the Woody Allen school of thought
    processing? ;*)

    Jokes aside, I find your description of the "problem" to accurately
    portray the mixed and rather confusing debates we can get into when
    we try to delve too deeply into motivation. All of us have personal
    agendas as well as political ones. To try and separate the two
    becomes (IMO) an exercise in futility. We are what we do. If men
    support women in their endeavors (or sometimes just abstain from
    preventing them doing something) I can say they back the feminist
    cause and have a right to the label (if they want it) of feminist.

    The more I try and decipher what I am, the more confused I get.
    Perhaps we have reached the time when actions are the determinant
    of who we are and our inner doubts, fantasies and dreams are mere
    phantasm. It seems anymore that the thought is NOT what counts, its
    what you DO. liesl