Conference turris::womannotes-v3

	I have received several requests for information on our REAL MEN group,
	so  I  decided  to post this broadsheet based upon our REAL MEN printed
	material  with  some  of  my personal impressions of our group added as
	well.

	-Erik (a REAL MEN member)

   -----------------------------------------------------------------


	** REAL MEN WORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN **


   REAL MEN  is  an  anti-sexist  group  in  the  Boston area.  Why do we call
   ourselves  REAL  MEN?  Because  we  are  attempting  to contribute to a new
   understanding of what it means to be a man.

   We believe  that,  contrary  to  the popular stereotype about 'real men' as
   tough  macho  guys,  it  is important for MEN to rethink and work to change
   traditional masculinity, which is often more difficult to do and takes more
   courage.   [We also chose our name to help reclaim the word 'real man' from
   its  negative  macho  image  that  adversely affects and enforces society's
   thinking of how men are 'supposed to act'].

   We are  a political/educational group committed to PUBLIC ACTIVISM.  We are
   a  direct  action  group  committed  to  action.   Our principle goal is to
   encourage  more  MEN to take responsibility for our personal sexism as well
   as the overwhelming level of violence against women in our society.

   To this  end  we  sponsor  forums, provide speakers, organize informational
   pickets,  sponsor  demonstration  protests and walks [eg, our recent Andrew
   Dice-Clay  protest],  promote  our  views  on radio and television [eg, our
   recent  CEASEfire  week  media  blitz],  distribute  media packets, conduct
   speak-outs,  and  do whatever else we can to raise men's awareness of their
   need to work actively against sexual INEQUALITY and VIOLENCE.

   While we  encourage  men  to get involved in organized political action and
   especially  to  join our group, there are many ways for men to work against
   sexism and sexual violence in their personal lives.

   SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT *MEN* CAN DO:

   - Speak  up in disapproval at a party or sporting event when some guy makes
   a joke about rape, demeaning women, or some other sexist remark.

   - Refuse  to  purchase  magazines  and  other  material  that portray women
   sexually  in  degrading  and  violent  ways.   Refuse to listen to music or
   condone comedians and others who demean and verbally assault women.

   - Support  candidates  for  political  office  who are committed to women's
   equality,  and  who  will  introduce  and support legislation to strengthen
   women's legal protection against male violence.

   - Donate  money  to  battered women's shelters, and support increased state
   and  federal  spending on services for battered women and children.  Donate
   volunteer time/money or otherwise support area rape crisis centers.

   - Listen  and learn from women's experiences, read articles and books about
   masculinity  and  the  root causes of sexual violence, and EDUCATE yourself
   about  the  connection  between  larger  social forces and the problems and
   conflicts of individual women and men.

   - SUPPORT  WOMEN AND WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE ALREADY DOING THIS WORK.
   This  not  only  helps  women's issues, but is a key step in the process of
   realizing men's issues as well.


   -Erik
                                                                     

[This is a broadsheet from our REAL MEN planning core group meeting last night]

			BIG-DICK DIPLOMACY

  The crisis  in  the  Gulf is about oil, U.S.  power in the post-Cold War era,
  and diverting attention from pressing domestic problems. It is also about...

			* MASCULINITY *!!

  The politics  of masculinity are inextricably linked with issues about power,
  the  need  to  control,  political "strength", and militarism.  Statements by
  Bush, his congressional supporters, and in the media clearly demonstrate that
  MASCULINITY is a critical factor in this crisis.

  Bush has  repeatedly  used  MACHO  rhetoric  in  his  efforts  to sway public
  opinion,   "scare"   Saddam  Hussein,  and  justify  his  own  intransigence.
  Statements  like  "he's  going  to  get  his ass kicked", talk about who will
  "blink"  first,  and  ridiculing  Sen.   Paul  Wellstone as "chickenshit" are
  telling.

  A SAMPLING OF QUOTES:

  - "The  party  of  death...has  since  August  2  seen sanctions as a kind of
  ritualistic  foreplay  to  the violent penetration of an entire region of the
  globe."  -- editorial, (The Nation, 12-24-90)

  - "There's  a  misguided  MACHISMO  mentality  in  America  now, a John Wayne
  attitude,  that  says...this is the way we should conduct foreign policy.  We
  ought to be the bully boy." -- Rep.  Joe Kennedy 2d (Boston Globe, 1-12-91)

  - "I  feel like you're listening to a fight between two three-year-olds.  'No
  I  will  not.   No  I  will.   Na  na  na"  -- Rep.  Pat Schroeder (Newsweek,
  12-31-90)

  - "I  am  very  disappointed  with the protesters...I am appalled by what I'm
  seeing  in  Boston and around the country...I suspect these people are afraid
  of being drafted.  Well I'm sorry, but they're just a bunch a wimps as far as
  I'm  concerned."  --  parent  of  25  yr  old Army infantryman (Lynn, MA Item
  1-18-91)

  - "Manhood  and  face,  that is what this confrontation is now about." -- Pat
  Buchanan (Boston Herald, 12-19-90)

  Bush's use  of  schoolyard  rhetoric  suggests  that  he has personalized the
  conflict as a test of his manhood.  THE HUGE "GENDER-GAP" IN ATTITUDES TOWARD
  OFFENSIVE  MILITARY  ACTION  SUGGESTS  THAT, IN 1991, TRADITIONAL AND VIOLENT
  NOTIONS  OF  STRENGTH  AND  MASCULINITY  STILL RESONATE DEEPLY WITH MANY U.S.
  MALES.  Recent polls have shown the gap between women's and men's support for
  Bush's aggressive posturing to be between 18 and 25 points.

  Some important questions are raised by this crisis:

  - Will tens of thousands of children, women, and men dies because George Bush
  sees negotiation as "backing down"?

  - Why  is the gender-gap so high? Does the projection of U.S.  military power
  make  American  men  feel  more  secure  about  their  masculinity? Does U.S.
  military  prowess  enhance their self-image? Does national power translate to
  feelings of personal power?

  - What  role  has  the  U.S.  defeat in Vietnam played in damaging American's
  men's collective self-confidence? Is "kicking Saddam's ass" a big step toward
  reclaiming  the  old  "USA  is #1" feeling that was ingrained in the American
  male psyche after WWII?

  - What  role  do  sports  and  video  game  metaphors  play in Bush's and the
  Pentagon's propaganda efforts? 

  - Does  fear  of the "wimp factor" drive Bush's obsession with "bringing Iraq
  to its knees"?

  - Why  should  U.S.  soldiers die to defend the gender-apartheid dictatorship
  of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

  - If  the  war  is  "successful",  will  that  help  to  reaffirm traditional
  masculine  values such as physical aggression, competition, proving strength,
  and  hierarchies  of  power?  Traditionally  in  war,  men  are the important
  players,   and   women   are  relegated  to  dependency  on  their  "powerful
  protectors." What long-term effect will this have on gender relations?

  - What  does  it  say  about  our  national  priorities that we are diverting
  billions  of  dollars  from  domestic  social  programs  to a war intended to
  restore a regime that has proven itself to be violently oppressive to women?

  *** Sponsored by REAL MEN, a Boston-based anti-sexist men's group ***

[This is a broadsheet from our REAL MEN planning core group meeting last night]

  "There's a  chance  [Hussein's]  playing  chicken.  But each day that goes by
  leads toward the conclusion that he thinks we don't have the balls to do it."
  -- Senior Bush aide (Newsweek, 12-31-91)

  <picture of  two  MEN standing on opposite sides of a line drawn in the sand,
  each  with  thousands of other men and tanks behind them.  One saying "I DARE
  YOU!" and the other "I DOUBLE DARE YOU!!">

  GEORGE: HOW MUCH BLOOD WILL IT TAKE TO PROVE YOUR MANHOOD?

  Dear George,

  If you  and your supporters think that BEING A MAN means launching a needless
  war killing hundreds of thousands of people, costing billions of dollars, and
  potentially  devastating  the environment, you need to think again about what
  it  means  to  BE  A  MAN.  In the meantime, if you really need to prove your
  masculinity, here are a few items that will help you to do it without causing
  death and destruction:

  A TOY SOLDIER - so you can play war without really hurting anyone

  A RULER - in case you ever doubt the true measure of your manhood

  SPINACH - so you can grow big strong muscles

  A SHERIFF'S BADGE - so everyone will know that you're in charge

  CAMEL NO-FILTER CIGARETTES - for that cool, death-defying look

  A TIGHTLY SEALED BOTTLE - so you can impress us all by opening it

  A BARBELL - so you can pump iron like Arnold Schwartzenegger

  BUNDLE$ OF TOY MONEY - because you can never be too rich and powerful

  A TOY PLANE - to recreate your heroic days as a WWII fighter pilot

  *** REAL MEN, a Boston-based anti-sexist men's group, in cooperation with the
  MIT Initiative for Peace, is sending these items to the President and members
  of Congress. We encourage others to do the same. ***

  I have mixed feelings about the war, and have some strong feelings about REAL
  MEN and what response we should make to the war.

  As a  core  member,  I  strongly drove the opinion that REAL MEN should *not*
  attach  its  name  to the anti-war movement, despite the fact that several of
  our members are strongly anti-war.  I feel we have many important women's and
  men's  issues  to  handle  that  we  didn't  need  to water down our image by
  becoming  'another  anti-war'  group.  Personally I have mixed feelings about
  what  the US should do and when it should have done it, agreeing with several
  sentiments on both sides of the issues.  [FWIW, I do believe there are *some*
  select  things  which  require  men *and* women to go to war for, so I am not
  completely anti-war].

  However I feel that this crisis has made many men's issues and women's issues
  rise to the surface.  I think we should capitalize on it.  Like we did in the
  past.   Our  march  on Super Bowl Sunday last year did not have us with signs
  "REAL  MEN  AGAINST  FOOTBALL",  but  capitalized  on the fact that the event
  causes  a  tremendous  jump  in  assault  and abuse of women - and challenged
  people with that.  At the ADC protest, we did not have signs "REAL MEN CENSOR
  ADC",  but  capitalized  on  the  fact that his 'humor' encourages sexist and
  degrading  attitudes  in  his  crowds  -  and  challenged  people  with that.
  Likewise,  I  hope  we  do not have sighs "REAL MEN ARE AGAINST ANY WAR", but
  capitalize  on  the fact that many men's and women's issues are rising to the
  surface  in  this time of crisis.  I hope to challenged people to examine the
  possibilities  of  having these masculine concepts influence their opinion on
  the  war.   Luckily  the founder also feels this way - ie, our broadsheets do
  not  endorse either the pro-war or anti-war side of the issue.  It challenges
  people  to  examine their own feelings about it, from our unique anti-sexist,
  women's issues, and men's issues perspective.

  SOME MEN'S (connected to women's) ISSUE QUESTIONS I FEEL RAISED BY THE WAR:

  - I  feel the military is built around the concept of BEING MACHO.  That it's
  macho  to  be  in  the  war.   It's macho to leave and protect the "women and
  children." If women are in combat, it "ain't so macho anymore if women can do
  it  too."  This  is  a sentiment I often here behind reasons from men who say
  "Women  should  not  be  in  combat." It also threatens the 'strong macho men
  protecting the women' concept.

  - In  fact, I feel this attempt to retain the ability to attract men to fight
  via  this  "be  a  macho  male  hero  of  the  country  <like  all the other,
  exclusively  MALE,  heroes>"  image is the prime reason why the military will
  not  allow  gay  men  to  join  -  it won't be a macho 'real man' thing to do
  anymore, if gay men are doing it too.

  - I  think  having women involved in the military conflict (as it is, even in
  'support'  roles)  challenges  people  many  ways.   It's  not a 'male thing'
  anymore  if  women  are  there  too.  Even though we still have "It's a man's
  thing to do combat" for macho men to cling to, the big change I see is:

  - I can imagine a range of reactions when (and I can just see it happening) a
  female  pilot  in a support aircraft is shot down and taken hostage and shown
  on  TV  along  with  the  male  crew.   The  outcry  against  the war will be
  increased.   It  will  be  'much  worse'  now that they have a woman hostage.
  Sentiments  will rise that it is detestable if women are held, but it is 'not
  so  bad'  when 'only' male soldiers are abused.  The outcry will be increased
  by angry men now that women are held. The rescue effort will be increased.

  - I  can  imagine  a  huge anti-war sentiment in the country exploding if and
  when  they  hold  a  draft.  ESPECIALLY if women are to be drafted too.  THAT
  will  be 'terrible' and 'devastating' and 'unfair', whereas a draft of men is
  'not  so  bad'.   There is something acceptable in our male psyche I call the
  "Son of Abraham" sentiment - where we feel it is OK and much easier for us to
  'sacrifice' our sons, but our daughters must be protected at all cost.

  - It  will  be  said  how  'sons  are  brought up be physical and aggressive,
  whereas  daughters are brought up to be passive to men'.  The fact that there
  are  many  men  who  are non-aggressive as well will not even come into their
  cognizance.  Neither will the fact that not all women are passive either.  Or
  that  some  women  are  more  aggressive than many man.  The gender roles are
  further enforced.  [And will strongly affect life *after* the war too].

  - I  find  it  interesting that people in the 'there should be no protesters'
  camp  scream  "SUPPORT  THE TROOPS".  Since *when* does supporting the troops
  mean 'sending them to battle?' Fathers are you 'supporting' your daughters by
  sending  them  to  war?  To me, "SUPPORTING THE TROOPS" means working to make
  sure  they  get brought home safe and secure as soon as possible.  Especially
  where  it  is  not  100%  sure  that other options have been given their full
  chance.   Screaming  "we support you!" while in an glib and patriotic extreme
  rush  to  send them to war before making sure war was 100% unavoidable is not
  'support' in my book.

  - I  find  it  very telling that there is such a gender-gap in opinions about
  the  war.   Why is this so? What does it say to you? How do you explain it to
  yourself?   It  says  very  loudly  to  me  (personally)  that  machismo  and
  masculinity  are  heavily  involved here.  And when I examine my own internal
  feelings  about  the matter (which I have to an intense degree these last few
  days),  I  realize that many of my feelings revolved around 'being a man' and
  being  respected  -  as a man.  IE, the view that being anti-this-war is seen
  (especially by other men) as being 'wimpy' and 'un-manly'.

  - I  find  it  curious  that anyone who is not 100% pro-this-war is now being
  called  'anti-Semitic'.   It's  interesting  how  so many people are all of a
  sudden  so  concerned about anti-Semiticism.  Where were they before the war?
  Debate over our current best actions is not being anti-Semitic.

  - I find it curious how people are so concerned about rape (in Kuwait) all of
  a  sudden.   Where  were all these men who are so concerned about it, when we
  deal  with  sexual  assault  and  rape  issues  here.   Does  this  mean  our
  anti-sexual  assault  men's groups will grow after the war with this all 'new
  awareness' from men? Does the unseldom men raping conquered men bother people
  as  much?  If so, why not? Would you go to war if 'just' captured Kuwaiti men
  were being raped?

  Interesting men's issue sentiments being forced to the surface in public here
  out  of this rush to war...  a great chance to challenge people's assumptions
  of  men's  and  women's gender-role issues.  Very telling attitudes about our
  expectations of men, and about our expectations of women.

  -Erik

    I've moved an interesting set of notes from this string, where they
    had at most tangential relevance, to 674.*

EDP,

>    Looking at .2, .3, and .4, it is clear that .2's thesis that "The
>    politics of masculinity are inextricably linked with issues about
>    power, the need to control, political 'strength', and militarism" is
>    unsupported by the evidence given.

	I think  you  missed the point of the pamphlets.  They weren't meant to
	be  conclusive  evidence or to be a thesis paper leaving unquestionable
	conclusions.

	They were  one  page pamphlets that offered questions to nudge people a
	little  bit  and  have  them think about masculinity in their own mind.
	IE,  when  the pamphlets gives the 'kick their *ss' quote from Bush, it
	wasn't meant as proof positive that masculinity is involved in war.  It
	was  meant  to  nudge  people  into personal introspection.  For me, my
	reaction  was  "Wow.   That  phrase  really  does  tug at my notions of
	masculinity.   That  phrase  elicited  a reaction from me that was much
	more  than  what  'attempt to restore world order' would have made.  It
	made  my  first male reaction of "Yeah! Kick their butt!".  Wow.  How'd
	he  do  that to me? Why did it erupt like that? What does it have to do
	with any of my notions of masculinity?"

	The questions  on  the  pamphlet  were  suggested  areas  for  personal
	introspection.   Especially  since  they  are  just to wet the taste of
	people  reading  it  for the big panel discussion and media event we're
	planning  at MIT for Feb 20.  It will feature some experts in this area
	and  that  event  will be closer to the attempt at drawing firm "How is
	masculinity  possibly  involved  here?" conclusions that I think you're
	looking for.

	-Erik

    	Two other tid-bits on the news last night tugged at this question
    	for me too. They may apply or may not apply in your own personal
    	introspection, but I found them interesting as challenging food for 
    	thought anyway. 

	- The military censors banned a reporter reporting that Air Force
    	pilots who returned from a bombing mission came back very "giddy".
    	The military censors cut that word "because it was not keeping with
    	the suitable image of a male fighter pilot." 
                                    
    	- Another reporter had a portion of his report censored when he
    	reported how "Navy pilots watch pornography films in a ritual right 
    	before leaving on a bombing run." The reason for the forced
    	deletion of that reference was that it was "too embarrassing."

    	Is masculinity in war much different from that in peacetime?
    	Interesting food for thought anyway... 

                                            

    That's interesting that the word "giddy" was censored from the
    broadcast.  I saw a recent interview in which a U.S. soldier proudly
    stated, with a smile, that the military hardware he was operating would
    bring a lot of death and destruction to ol' Saddam.
    
    What can be giddier than smiling prouding over causing people to die? 
    
    -- Mike

If these things were censored, how'd you hear about them, Erik?

Kathy

> If these things were censored, how'd you hear about them, Erik?
  
    from .8...   -< heard on BBC WS report about military censorship... >-
    
    	I found it amusing too, Kathy. The BBC World Service reporter was
    	reporting on the things the military censors deleted from his earlier 
    	reports. But is'nt that censorship material too? Or only if seen in
    	the original report? Either way, three cheers to the reporter for
    	getting the full truth out to us instead of <whoever's> prefered
        image of it. Good show! There's always a work-around. :-)
    
    	-Erik

    
    
    RE  .2
    
    The US did not lose the Vietnam War.  The US reached its objective when
    it protected SOUTH Vietnam from communism.  Problems arose when we
    abandoned our original objectives and tried to expell the communisms
    from NORTH Vietnam.  At this point, the war became a stalemate, because
    the military was politically limited.  (ie had one hand tied up)
    
    `REAL MEN' sounds like an extremely hypocritical group.
    It seems very two-faced.
    
    It has launched a personal attack on George Bush, whilst hardly saying
    a word about Saddam Hussein.  (Remeber him?  He's the guy who let his
    soldiers rape women in Kuwait.  Under the Emir, women were oppressed. 
    Under Saddam, they were raped.)
    
    It has launched an attack on Military press censorship, whilst it tries
    to take away the first ammendment rights of the Diceman.
    
    If this is what REAL MEN stand for, then I am definitely not a Real Man
    

    The US did not lose the Vietnam War.  The US reached its objective when
    it protected SOUTH Vietnam from communism.  Problems arose when we
    abandoned our original objectives and tried to expell the communisms
    from NORTH Vietnam.  At this point, the war became a stalemate, because
    the military was politically limited.  (ie had one hand tied up)

Are we talking about different wars here?

	"it protected SOUTH Vietnam from communism"

Last I checked there was no "South Vietnam" anymore - it was all the Peoples
Republic of Vietnam - capital Ho Chi Minh city.

Yeah - we sure didn't lose that one. Uh-uh. There's a word for this kind of
stuff - "revisionism."

	-- Charles

    
    
    RE:  .13
    
    Let me clarify.  SOUTH Vietnam WAS protected, until we tried to go
    farther.
    

			  Men to End Sexual Assault (MESA)

					 is
				    sponsoring...


				 ** A HOUSE PARTY **


	       to benefit the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC).


	The party  features guest speaker John Stoltenberg who is the author of
	the  book  "REFUSING  TO  BE  A  MAN", and founder of the NY group "MEN
	AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY".

	The event is on April 26, Friday (tomorrow) from 7 PM to 10 PM and will
	be  held  at  43  Wabon  Road, Newton, MA.  A suggested donation can be
	accepted at the door.

	Call (617) 628-4802 for directions or more details.