Conference turris::womannotes-v3

        Seeing someone suffer from violence or denied oppurtunity
        is hardly a benefit.  It's something that you want to see
        stopped, that you want to stop.
        
        Is it a benefit to be exposed to that only vicariously
        instead of directly?
        
        Dan

    Do you care to discuss short-term versus long-term benefits?
    
    In the short term, I benefit if I get a job because the man
    hiring would rather hire another man than a woman. In the long
    term I wind up spending many years working at a company that
    is not as profitable as it could be because of illogical
    hiring practices. So, the answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Our society
    is inclined to look at short-term benefits and ignore long-term
    consequences. Companies seldom look past the next quarterly 
    statement. Politicians don't look past the next election. People
    rush into things based on superficial considerations and instant
    gratification. 
    
    IHNSHO the most stupid quote of this century was John K. Galbraith's
    "In the long run we're all dead." That (deleted) set the tone of 
    economic thinking and perhaps thinking in general in this world. 
    I despise it. *The long run counts.* 
    
    There is a ray of hope. Those who are active in environmental 
    concerns are focusing more on long-term consequences. That
    energy and forward-looking needs to extend to the social world, 
    and not get stranded in the physical world. The long term effects
    of sexism (and racism) are as disastrous as deforestation.

    Yes.
    
    next?
    
    

    That is much like asking:
    
    "Does a team benefit from having all their games played at home."
    
    The environment is for them.  The bulk of the individuals root for
    them.  They have the refs, know the confines of the field, and
    the announcers hype them up overly much.
    
    The answer is, IMO, yes.
    
    Cindi
    
    P.S. As for the race part...  Did the south benefit from slavery?
    Same thing.
    

    
    Or like asking, does the beneficiary benefit from the benefits?
    
    Dorian

I'm sure there are answers to this one on many levels.  Here's one cut, at one
part of .0 that jumped out at me.

>What I'm trying to figure out is whether an "innocent man" contemplating the
>statement might reasonably feel guilt at having benefited from an unfair system
>not of his own making,

I find I cannot express myself well on this aspect of .0's question.  It touches
too closely to the skeletons in my own family closet (we all have them).  Let
it suffice to say that I was in the position of "having benefited from an
unfair system not of <my> own making", and I spent years feeling that since I
got favored treatment through no merit of my own, the guilt I felt was rightly
placed.  It's very like the feeling when you are praised for something someone
else has done, except that there's no one to shift the praise to.  To this day
I have trouble accepting a compliment.

I reject the role as best I can, as an adult.  I didn't begin to feel better
about it until my brother told me that he and my other siblings never resented
me for being favored, because I never tried to take advantage of it and often
tried to mitigate the negative effects on them.

So I guess for me it comes down to individuals.  (You probably have gathered
that about me anyhow, =wnoters.)  Does the "innocent man" in .0's posting try
to help others?  Does he attempt to strengthen the favored position of men in
our society, at the *expense* of women, to the detriment of women?  Does he, in
his own life, act in a way that enhances the lives of others, without detracting
from his own (which no one should be required to do)?

Sara

No, Dorian, the question is whether men are the beneficiaries.

I think the basenoter has some good points.  I think men, in general, do
benefit from sexism, because of a wider range of opportunities.  However,
it's still not *all* opportunities, and a man who wants to stay at home
to raise his children has a tough swim upstream.  I would not describe
this man as benefitting from sexism.

Men benefit from sexism only if what they consider most valuable and desirable
fits the role societal traditions would have them play.  If men value good
salaries and prestigious jobs, they benefit.  Similarly, some women benefit
from sexism, too(!).  But saying that all men benefit from sexism gives
legitimacy to the idea that the traditional roles for men are "more valuable".

    Sharon

    Perhaps, putting two thoughts together from previous replies, we might
    ask:
    		Did the south benefit from slavery in the long run?
    
    - Vick

    .7 -                  
    
    Maybe this is a semantic problem. To me it's obvious that men benefit
    from sexism, but this isn't the same as saying that *all* the effects
    of sexism are beneficial to men. When I get upset with the Globe for
    their recurrent images of women grieving, for example, I'm thinking
    those images are bad for men as well as for women, imprisoning both in
    gender roles (men don't cry; women do).
    
    Still, to me, the bottom line is, men benefit a whole lot more from
    sexism than women do. 
    
    Dorian
         

    There are always apportunists in either sex, who take advantage of
    whatever comes their way... and there also are wise people who make the
    most of what there is available to them... 
    Their feelings would depend on their own values.  You can bet that
    there are individuals who feel guilty, and individuals who don't.

>...but only because of an unjustified
>faith in classical economics.
[...]
>I don't see how men benefit from it.  They just suffer less.

As a student of classical economics, surely you understand that "suffering
less" is the same as "benefitting". 

Just as "getting paid more" is the same as "getting less money taken away".
In the former statement, the total amount of happiness (if happiness is
seen as the negative of suffering), and in the latter statement the total
amount of money, is greater.

If there is a total amount of suffering in the world that must be 
distributed among people, if more is distributed to women than less is
distributed to men, and therefore men benefit.

It's Econ 101.

D!

    >As a student of classical economics, surely you understand that
    >"suffering less" is the same as "benefitting".
    >
    >If there is a total amount of suffering in the world that must be
    >distributed among people, if more is distributed to women than less is
    >distributed to men, and therefore men benefit.
    
    I disagree.  I would (unfairly) classify this as Marxist economics. 
    The total amount of suffering in the world is not fixed.  Changing
    society can increase or decrease the total and not just move it around. 
    I consider it obvious that if sexism were reduced in our society that
    women would benefit (not in every case but clearly in aggregate).  I
    think it is less obvious but certainly true that society as a whole
    would benefit.
    
    My question is: would men benefit?  I believe they would, though to a
    much lesser degree than women would.  The quote I was questioning
    implied that "men's interests" would be damaged.
    
    It's interesting that most male respondents seem to feel that men (in
    general, in aggregate) would benefit from a less sexist society while
    female respondents seem to feel the opposite.

    Re .8:
     > Did the south benefit from slavery in the long run?
    
    Well, your analogy becomes more apt...
    The day women take up arms...
    ... And start the REAL war of the sexes.
    
    Because war is what it took, to change the face of that long run.
    
    Just a point-
    Cindi

No matter how you classify it, I don't understand how you can say "suffering
less" is not a form of benefitting.  

D!

    According to statistics compiled by the United Nations from
    information collected by its individual countries:
    
    Women make up 50% of the population.
    Women perform 66% of the work.
    Women receive 10% of the income.
    Women own 1% of the wealth.
    
    						Ann B.

        
    The recent book *If Women Counted* by Marilyn Waring talks all about how,
    worldwide, the work that women do isn't even recognized as work, much 
    less is it reimbursed monetarily, in something called (I think) the United 
    Nations System of Accounts. What that system does recognize as work, as 
    having value, mostly has to do with waging wars.
    
    Dorian
    
    

Of course men benefit from sexism. Just as I benefit from being
white.

Sexism and racism are institutionalized. While I don't actively participate
in racism (at least I *hope* I don't!), I still benefit from being
white in a society where white people are in political and financial
power. 

The white men who are my friends don't actively participate in sexism, and
try their best to make concientious choices about the people they vote
for and the causes they support, they still benefit from being
male in a society where white males are in political and financial power.

There are costs associated with the institutions of sexism and racism.
One of the main costs for men appears to be in the emotional realm; one
of the costs associated with racism is a blander culture.

I'd like to spend more time figuring out how to deinstitutionalize
sexism and racism and spend less time repeatedly pointing fingers.

Kathy

	I think men benefit from sexism.
	I think women benefit from sexism.
	I think men are hurt from sexism.
	I think women are hurt by sexism.
	I think men benefit from sexism more than women benefit from sexism.
	I think women are hurt by sexism more than men are hurt by sexism.
	I think men benefit from sexism more than they are hurt by it.
	I think women are hurt by sexism more than they benefit from it.

	I think this covers all the bases.

						Tom_K

This is a very in interesting question and there's a lot to to in my
view.


The first level that comes to mind for me is the question of power,
privilege and wealth in the society I live in today.  And I don't
think there's any question that in terms of externally visible
manifestations of power that men have held and continue to hold most
of the power in Amero-European (and other) cultures.  I think that is
very hard to see at a personal level if you are a straight, white
male.  It is very difficult to see directly I find.  I'm trying to be
more aware of it but when you are the default, it's hard to see how
other people are treated.  That's why I like to listen to the voices
of women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and people of different cultures.
That's for me the best way to see this phenomenon.  But in my personal
life, I don't often see directly how this stuff works because I just
assume it's all because of me personally and the stuff I have
viz-a-viz power, wealth, and status via my birth is hard to see
directly.

I would further classify this into two parts.  One is the privilege
you get just from your sex, color, age, etc.  The other is more subtle
and that's the training I have gotten.  And that has been, by and
large, starting very young to be smart, to be successful, to have
money, a family, to fit in.  In other words, to be a good little (or
big) cog in the dominant capitalist materialistic society we have
going for us.  So I got this from a lot of different directions, my
grandparents especially stressed money, security, success and marriage
as THE most important things in one's life.  Going to prep school and
a good college and getting two degrees also fostered a lot good
things in terms of how I am viewed by people (especially employees)
and also in terms of how well I function in the dominant culture!  And
I think the latter is important and not as often seen.  Because not
too many people question what the dominant culture is about.

So there are many people who only view equality in the terms of the
dominant culture.  So equality is viewed as the opportunity to have as
much money, power, and status as everyone else in the context of the
dominant culture.  Now I'm not saying that women (or another other
group) should not seek these things or be should not allowed these
things but I know that I am also interested in reshaping the dominant
culture and questioning that whole thing.  Because I believe the
dominant culture and world view is fundamentally unhealthly for the
earth and other living things because it sees things as separate and
disconnected.  So with this philosophy, it is possible to view things
in isolation and be very self-centered, possessive, and exploitative.
There's an old Native American saying that goes something like,
"Everything you should do, you should consider the effects on your
children's children's children."  It's pretty clear to me by our
actions and our emphasis on growth and wealth and "progress" that we
are pretty much focused on our own generation and selves.  Of course,
there are many folks that want to keep the dominant culture intact and
want to tweak it a bit to make in somewhat more humane.  I tend to
think a fundamental reshaping of values is needed.

So it's very distressing to me to see that the world could be
destroyed any minute by nuclear weapons, to see species going extinct
that can never be brought back, to see global warming, air pollution,
the continued destruction of forests, the continued genocide of
aboriginal people's in the name of progress.  I try and do what I can
in my own life to create a different model as best I can.  But I have
been raised in this dominant culture and carry a lot of it with me and
of course it's not all negative either.  Not to mention that a lot of
visionaries, heroes, and radicals like MLK, Jesus, the Buddha, Gandhi,
Krishnamurti have always questioned the status quo despite the pressure
not to.

So while in terms of power in the dominant culture I benefit as a man,
in the long run, no one benefits especially my children's children's
children.

And of course women and others see this today every day a lot more than
I do I'm sure in my grandiose visions and philosophical musings. One
thing I've recently become more sensitized too partly as a result of
reading this file is violence against women.  Just reading the paper
every day is enough to see this.  And I'm sure about 1/10000 ever
makes the paper.  You can read about and listen to American Indian
voices too I think to see this.  I think the book "Bury My Heart At
Wounded Knee" should be mandatory reading for all public schools.

I personally have been forces to really consider this question of the
values of the dominant culture viz-a-viz my own values and have opted
to basically reject the whole money, power, status thing.  And not
because it was not possible or available to me either.  That's what
made it so hard.  So I am heading back to school to follow my heart
and study elementary school teaching and make 1/3 of the money I am
making now.  But the best moments of my life have truly been when I
have followed my heart in the last few years and been with kids doing
what needs to be done.  The more I do stuff like this, the less time I
spend thinking about things, making up theories about how things
should be, being mad about why the world isn't the way I think it
should be and just doing what needs to be done in the things that I
can actually make a difference in.

One hears a lot about the benefits about being a man in the dominant
male culture but sometimes you don't hear as much about the negatives.
Because although you get the power and status, you also get a lot of
emptiness in terms of connection with other people (who can you really
connect with someone who you don't consider and equal or how can you
connect with someone you are in competition with).  This results in
heart attacks, cancers, and early deaths for men not to mention a lot
of empty existences.  There's a lot of pressure to follow a role.
Ironically, there some basis for rejecting the roles too (I think this
can be more acceptable for men than women because men are trained to
very individualistic in America).  I just see a tremendous absence of
feeling and connection in men's lives (or at least in my life if I had
stuck by the rules).  And it takes a lot to overcome it.  A lot of
work.  A whole lifetimes worth.  So I really admire women who are
striving to break out of the roles prescribed for them.  Since they
don't have a lot of power, it's especially admirable I think.

So yes men benefit from sexism in the short run. When you consider the
long run and the well-being of the whole planet, then everyone loses.
And of course, sexism and its side effects directly causes suffering
to women today.

An interesting questions I think is what is the underlying cause of
sexism, and racism, and other isms that are obviously causing a lot of
problems in the world today.  Because I think they are all related to
a more basic underlying problem.

peace,
john

    In a word...
    
    Heidi

    I wonder, I wonder how best to reflect my thinking on this.  My first
    two notes of response last night I deleted.  The first said simply,
    "Absolutely."  But this simple and obvious truth doesn't begin to cover
    the topic, rather, it 'covers' the topic in a Daly-esque sense of the
    word, hiding the details upon which we might profitably focus some
    attention.  Tom_K's simple approach (.18) is a good first order
    summary, yet tells us little.  I would go further.  
    
    I got the sense from the basenote that the question of guilt ("the 
    innocent man") is important.  I have certainly used this question to 
    launch my own examinations.  What I find is that everywhere I look, I
    see evidence of this sexism being used to hinder women or to prop up
    men.  I remember the UN statistic Ann quoted a few back.  I look at the
    sex of elected "representatives", and the policies they pass as
    reported to us by an unrepresentative media.  The Armed Services
    Committee of the House of Reps voted a few days ago to authorize the
    services to permit female pilots to fly combat missions.  It was buried
    on p-10A of what is considered among the leading 10 daily newspapers in
    the country, the SJ Mercury News.  Yet it has gotten no comment here
    and I conclude that the national media similarly buried it.  Such a
    simple example, yet all it takes is a thoughtful look around our media
    and our Congress to realize that 1) entrenched sexism is still revealed
    in almost any corner you care to examine closely and 2) the media
    doesn't consider evidence of change in these institutions particularly
    newsworthy.  At the national/international/large-institutional levels,
    sexism is omnipresent when you look for it.
    
    Further, I examine the personal scene, the interactions I experience
    with people every day.  There are many, many issues which have been
    brought to my attention, let me detail one; the 'smile' factor, I'll
    call it.  I work in a group of 19 people, 11 women and 8 men.  The
    women are characteristically cheerful.  They smile as we pass in the
    hallways.  The men are not characteristically anything.  Some are
    habitually cheerful, some are habitually grumpy or standoffish.  It
    doesn't "matter" to me that this is so; yet, I record it, and I
    remember hearing that women are *taught* to pretend to be cheerful even
    when they're not feeling well, that they are socially constrained to be
    ever-smiling.  Men, obviously, (to me,) are not so constrained.  It is
    surface evidence, again, of significantly different conditioning in
    this society depending upon one's sex.  And I can't really imagine what
    a pain it must be to always pretend to be cheerful.  It strikes me as
    a gross interference with the overall integrity of one's self-image and
    self-presentation.  One might never really be able to *be* cheerful if
    one so resents the fact that one must pretend to it.  Or so I speculate.
    And when I try to figure out the *reasons* women would be conditioned
    to smile and be cheerful, it isn't too hard to figure out that men,
    who've got financial clout and security and power in this culture which
    values these monetary powers above all else, prefer that women be
    cheerful, tend to reward those who reflect cheery, decorative images
    back to them, are the root power-source which perpetuates this smile
    factor which I imagine to be damaging to womens' senses of integrity.
    In the terms of the basenote, all men benefit from having cheerful
    women around to smile at them.  At what cost to the women?
    
    How does one deal with that realization?  One can no sooner tell the
    congress to remove all institutional sexism than one can tell all the
    women in one's office that its ok with you if they want to stop
    smiling when they don't feel like it.  I mean, it's kinda hard to get 
    across the understanding, because not everybody sees it the same way, 
    and not everybody would agree its bad once they did see it.  All I've
    found that its possible to do is keep looking, and keep trying to
    communicate such perspectives.  I lose patience with sexism at times.
    And I lose patience with well meaning basenoters at times.  And I have
    no doubt but that some people will find my entire note, couched in "I"
    language and mindful of assuming that what's true for me isn't true for
    others, grossly offensive and insulting, because its happened before.  
    Well, I wish my truths weren't insulting to other people, but this is 
    the best I can do.
    
    Kathy, to examine the question anew doesn't have to be a finger
    pointing exercise.
    
    DougO

    re.21 on smiling
    
    Anthropologically, smiling goes much deeper than being cheerful or
    decorative.
    
    It's more a conciliatory gesture that diffuses negative emotion in
    those of greater power that one confronts.
    
    My cousin Michael & I were both taught that 'nobody likes a gloomy
    face.'  However, it was made clear early on that my survival/success
    was based on a broader spectrum of people liking me than was his.
    
    So while I grew up smiling and looking small [not hard when one _is_
    small] to boys teachers, and adults; Michael grew up smiling at only
    the _bigger or stronger_ boys, _some_ teachers and adults, and girls
    that could do him some good -- or, hey, maybe everybody when he felt
    particularly full of himself.
    
    Once the habit of smiling became ingrained, I never resented it.
    It _is_ effectively disarming [especially when once is _not_ in
    appeasement mode].
    
    I _do_ resent all the shabby comments when I forget to smile.
    
      Annie
    

    re .19, what a wonderful note.  I wish more people felt as you do.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    You would probably claim that if (for the sake of argument) my paycheck
    is bigger than yours (you being a female, say) and you do the same
    work, and this is the result of sexism, that I am benefiting from
    sexism.  But I claim that if this were not a sexist society, that
    my wife and I together would be making more money and my standard of
    living would be higher.  Also, my two daughters would end up making
    more money and I might have to help them less and maybe could depend
    on them more in my old age.  So since my life is so tightly bound up
    with women, I don't see how I benefit from sexism.  It is only when you
    look at things very narrowly, I claim, that you really believe anyone
    benefits from sexism.  If you claim I benefit from sexism, then you
    can prove it only by using an equation that takes into account a very
    small number of variables.  And as for racism, my very humanity is
    wounded by racism (as it is by sexism).  And I can't accept any
    equation that will not consider my humanity among its variables.
    
    What are we trying to prove in this topic?  Are we trying to convince
    men that they should fight against the equality of the sexes because
    men benefit from that inequality that exists?  I would rather argue
    that no one truly benefits from sexism or racism or ageism or
    whateverism.  
    
    Do women really believe that men would lose if there were sexual
    equality in our society.  Really?  If not, then how can you say that
    men are benefiting from it now?  Frankly, I would rather stake my
    future on the health of my society, than on the dominance of my sex.
    
    						- Vick

>    Kathy, to examine the question anew doesn't have to be a finger
>    pointing exercise.
    
DougO..... I'm not against continuing to examine the question. Naming
the problem may be the first step, but it is only the *beginning* step. 
And I don't often see discussions in here go beyond the initial
problem-identification stages.

Rather than proving again and again that there is an imbalance of power
between women and men, I'd like to see more brainstorming about how
to deal with the problem.

For example, we know there is a serious problem with domestic abuse
of women in this country. I think a WOMANNOTES is a good place to talk
about why some women pick violent mates. About ways that patterns of
violence in families can be broken. About how to find the courage to step
out of the familiar and find a mate who can disagree without violence.
To learn what's involved in volunteering at homes for battered wives
and children.... As a woman, I can't make men stop battering. But there are
things that I can do to keep myself out of battering environments.

I don't think you and I are disagreeing. I'm just impatient with the
distance we've made....

Kathy

    
    smiling excessively in public gets 
    
    1) hate looks from wymmyn ("who do *you* think you're trying to pick
       up?")
    
    2) total bewilderment from everyone else
    

The title of this note is ambiguous...

When you say "Do men benefit from sexism?" do you mean Men, as a class?
Or do you mean some men, as individuals?

The answer to the former is "yes", but it seems so obvious as to be not
worth stating.

The answer to the latter (IM not at all HO) is a qualified yes - that is,
I think every man benefits from sexism, but some also suffer from it, and
some suffer enough as to negate the benefits.

D!

    re .27, I definitely agree with you.
    
    Lorna
    

> But I claim that if this were not a sexist society, that my wife and I
> together would be making more money and my standard of living would be
> higher.  Also, my two daughters would end up making more money...

OK, so sexism directly benefits men unless or until they choose to become 
involved with "those lower classes" and tie up their superior financial
situations with them in which case they *are* obviously hurt by the sexism
that results in their women's inability to help pad their lifestyles like
another man might!

Kinda roundabout, but yeah, I guess when men entwine their lives intimately
with those hurt by sexism, they too become hurt by it.  Uh, financially, 
anyway. Makes sense.  And it's a very important point.  Even the men who are 
holding back women want their own wives and daughters to succeed.  I had a 
male boss dare to complain to me one day about some injustice his daughter 
had suffered at the hand of her male boss.  He never even made the connection 
that it was *exactly* what he had done to me.

Men divide women into "mine" and "all the rest" and they tend to have 2 views 
about women, based on which category they fall into.  Think about how fathers 
"protect" their daughters sexuality.  Think they want their dates to keep 
their legs closed, too?  Do women as a class ever get to decide on male sexual 
behavior?  Nope.  A woman can only affect the man who wants to sleep with 
her and even then she's got to be circumspect, lest he get the feeling he's
"losing control" because he expects control to be his normal state in relation 
to women.  And there's another one.  The expectation of control.  You don't 
have to explicitly state, "Me Tarzan", you just have to raise your daughters 
to know who will "wear the pants" and her man gets a woman with built-in 
deference or who will blame herself if she can't or won't comply.  Man
gets to stay wide-eyed and innocent, woman goes off and punishes herself.
    
So for purposes of this discussion, I'd like to see men thinking about
"all the rest" of women - the ones who aren't making their dinners or 
keeping their beds warm - the ones who are doing *nothing* for them but
the work they were contracted to do and who never will do anything more
for them than that.

> If you claim I benefit from sexism, then you can prove it only by using
>an equation that takes into account a very small number of variables. 

Eh?  I could spend a day with nearly any man and point out probably dozens 
of ways they are benefitting that are just so "rote" to them, so expected,
so ingrained, they don't even notice.

Here's one that just happened today.  A male friend and I called about the
exact same job.  We talked to the exact same person.  He got the job 
explained to him.  I got brushed off with a claim of ignorance - she said
she knew nothing about the job.  I'd called her about an hour after my
friend so she obviously knew the info I wanted.  When I told him, he was 
shocked.  I wasn't.  Did he see the info he got as a "benefit of sexism"?  
Not at all.  Was it?  Yes.  You can't assess your life in a vacuum to
determine if you're getting the benefit of sexism, you *have* to measure
it against what a woman's experience in the same scenario would be.
    
> I would rather argue that no one truly benefits from sexism or racism or
> ageism or whateverism. 

I'd rather argue it to.  But beyond the academic, if what you say is true,
*who* isn't believing it?  Someone obviously doesn't believe this.  Who is
responsible for making sure sexist traditions continue?  People like the 
head of that airline who yesterday lost his battle to keep his female 
employees in makeup, that's who.  He lost his suit, but that's one company 
in the nation and the suit made news.  What about all the rest?  Nearly
all of them have separate, unwritten "traditions" for women.  And in 
these days, they're unspoken, too.  But they're still there.

> Do women really believe that men would lose if there were sexual
> equality in our society. 

I believe they'd lose what they believe are the benefits - making sure
women keep their appearance forever foremost in their minds, making sure
women understand their deferential position and know when they cross that 
line, etc.  True, they are benefits only to huge egos and tiny self-esteems, 
but if the shoe fits...

Sandy 
    

    Sandy,
    There are many other ways that men lose because of sexism.  And many of
    these ways are just as invisible to them as are the injustices you
    point out they can't see.  They lose because the society loses A LOT
    if half of the pool of the best people are kept out of the competition
    in whatever area of endeavor you want to talk about.  They lose because
    the women they love lose.  (I don't see how it is relevant that your male 
    boss who complained about the injustice his daughter had suffered was being
    hypocritical.  He still was a loser because of sexism, even if he was 
    helping to advance it.  It made you furious, of course, but it doesn't 
    prove your point.)  If women, as a class, were happier, then
    they would, as a whole, make men, as a class, happier, I would think.  
    So men lose that way too, even if they are ignorant of the fact.  
    
    It's interesting that the example you gave of sexism involved a woman
    discriminating against another woman (no doubt at some man's bidding,
    but still...).  
    
>I believe they'd lose what they believe are the benefits - 
    
    But which, of course, aren't benefits at all.
    
    					- Vick

    re .30, I think it's interesting that you think one of the main benefits of
    equal opportunities for women is that they would be happier and, in
    turn, make men happier.  Afterall, it seems to me that there have
    always been many men who thought that making men happy is what women
    were created for in the first place.
    
    So, remember, all you successful women reading this file.  It's not
    enough that your success may have made you happy!  Has it made a *man*
    happy?  :-)
    
    (Sure, a side affect of equal opportunities for women could be that
    ultimately more men will be happy [why?  because they don't have to
    deal with radical, castrating, glasschewing feminists anymore since
    they'll be no need for any woman to be one, if everything's equal?],
    but making men happy isn't what I think equal rights for women is all
    about.)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    Hear, here, Lorna!
    
    Also, I think you and I, Vic, are debating a version of the question,
    "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, does it
    make a sound?"
    
    Are things just what they are or do our minds make them so?  Is
    someone, (or some company),  really a "loser" if neither s/he, (the
    company), nor anyone else realizes it?
    
    I believe you're talking the philosophical and on that level I agree
    with you totally that ultimately everyone loses by limiting and
    constricting any discreet human potential.  And yes, I agree that 
    equality means men will ultimately be happier too but if they don't know 
    it...  and won't believe it when they're told... 
    
    But even that aside, Lorna pointed out that making *men* happy is neither 
    the point nor the goal of the movement toward equality.
    
    Doing what's right is the point.  Seeing the wrong, understanding its 
    magnitude in time and in women's lives, and stopping it immediately in 
    everything one does, is the point.  If one is on the winning end of an 
    imbalance, of a wrong, it can be a little more difficult to call it 
    "wrong" than it is for the person/people on the losing side.  It can be 
    easy for the winner to push that line into the "wrong zone" a little 
    further, to require stronger, more forceful evidence before declaring a
    timeout.  It can be rationalized.  Meanwhile, women are enduring lots
    of "little" injustices daily.  And it's common knowledge that little
    bits of stress like this, over time, is often more devastating than one
    major crisis.  Just don't forget that major crises happen to everyone.
    But only women suffer a general, subtle and lifelong erosion of their
    self-esteem and self-respect both in the workplace and in the social
    arena.  Sometimes it escalates to dangerous proportions, sometimes it
    stays at that "background hum" level.  But we live with it daily and
    men don't.  
    
    It takes effort to change a habit.  Those men not yet changed or changing
    are rightly suspected of simply not wanting to make the effort,
    (however much they plead simple ignorance as I've seen so many, many times
    in this file).  And I suppose the underlying question of this string is to 
    examine *why* some men might not want to make the effort.  Obviously, 
    they're not talking.  That in itself gives weight to the belief that
    they are keeping quiet because no matter how bad it may be to live life
    as a man, they know that it would be worse to live it as a woman.
    
    Sandy
    

    re: .31
    
    Touche'  :^)  
    
    But everyone looks out for their own interests.  I'm trying to paint a
    picture in which men will think it is in their own interests to
    achieve sexual equality in our society.  Of course making men happy
    isn't what achieving sexual equality is all about.  I never said, 
    thought, nor, if you are fair with me, implied that.  
    
    I'm reading a book right now (god I'm dangerous) in which a
    psychologist is saying that until there is sexual equality, none of us,
    male or female, can be truly whole.  Okay, I'll buy that.  But surely
    there is someone here who will want to talk me out of it.
    
    - Vick
    
    P.S.  This psychologist also says, in the careful language of someone
    who has battle scars, that he no longer attempts to speak for the
    women's movement, because they speak so eloquently for themselves.
    I think I should take the hint.

    Vick,
    
    Although in .33 you wrote, "Of course making men happy isn't what
    achieving sexual equality is all about.  I never said, thought, nor,
    if you are fair with me, implied that.", in .30 you wrote "If women,
    as a class, were happier, then they would, as a whole, make men, as
    a class, happier, I would think.  So men lose that way too, even if
    they are ignorant of the fact."
    
    Sandy was fair with you, although her `fairness' might have included
    a more generous assessment of your literary skills than you would
    find accurate.  :-)
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: .32
    
    >Are things just what they are or do our minds make them so?  Is
    >someone, (or some company),  really a "loser" if neither s/he, (the
    >company), nor anyone else realizes it?
    
    (If you die of some disease the doctor's don't know about, you are still
    dead.)  But, if you believe that men would be better off if there were
    sexual equality, then YOU are in the woods listening to the tree fall.
    If you believe men would be worse off, than I suggest you keep quiet
    about it  :^)
    
    >And yes, I agree that 
    >equality means men will ultimately be happier too but if they don't know 
    >it...  and won't believe it when they're told... 
    
    then that's a problem, isn't it?  I agree.  That wasn't the question
    being asked though.  The question wasn't whether men KNOW or will ever
    BELIEVE that they don't really benefit.  The question was whether they
    do or not.  
    
    >But even that aside, Lorna pointed out that making *men* happy is neither 
    >the point nor the goal of the movement toward equality.
    
    And, of course, I didn't say that.  
    
    >If one is on the winning end of an 
    >imbalance, of a wrong, it can be a little more difficult to call it 
    >"wrong" than it is for the person/people on the losing side.  It can be 
    
    Here again we get back to the philosophical question of whether men are
    really "winning" by being on the "winning side" of an imbalance.  Seems
    to me that short of the civil war that someone suggested earlier, it
    would be good to continue promulgating the notion that they aren't
    winning.  If you argue that things aren't fair or just, then you are
    saying that all men (all people) benefit from having a fair and just
    society.  You get the point I'm making, I think.
    
    >But we live with it daily and men don't.  
    
    I believe you.  That's not to say that men don't have their own,
    different set of problems.  But I wouldn't trade you, I admit.
    
    >(however much they plead simple ignorance as I've seen so many, many times
    >in this file).  
    
    Where are there men in this notesfile claiming ignorance???  :^)  I 
    thought we infuriated you guys by claiming to know something.
    
    - Vick

I find these arguments that men are hurt by sexism pretty absurd.

It's like saying "Sure, someone who is robbed is hurt by thievery; but
so is the thief!  After all, s/he will have the burden of guilt, and will
always be avoiding police and worrying about whether s/he will get caught."

I think that is *really* stretching the point.  By the same token,
*any* success always comes with drawbacks, but that doesn't make them
any less successful.

Because, when it comes down to it, the thief still has the belongings and money 
s/he stole from the thievee, and the theivee still *doesn't* have them.  
When it comes down to it, the thief benefits from the robbery and the
thievee suffers.

D!

    Ann B,
     
    Would you run that by me again.  :^)
    
    The fact that happy women might make for happier men, does not imply
    that making men happy is the goal of achieving sexual equality.  Not
    according to my training in formal logic.  So, to be fair, I didn't
    say that.
    
    - Vick

    But if you believe that the thieves control everything, and you want
    that to change, then why would you want to convince them that they 
    benefit from their thievery?  Seems to me you would either want to 
    convince them that they don't, or make sure that they don't.
    
    - Vick
    
    

    If you could stand outside a society and observe, then I believe any
    half-way logical person would come to the conclusion that sexism
    hurts both men and women (and, yes, I definitely believe it hurts women
    more).  The problem seems to be that those within the society are too
    invested in the status quo to often see what is really going on.  It's
    a pile of unconscious reactions, traditions and instincts that bury
    common sense and fairness.  The most frightening thing to me is that
    I believe the majority of people - women and men - support the
    patriarchy and work at maintaining it.  They do this because they
    can't see there is a problem, or they are afraid any changes will
    hurt them, or they have invested too much of their lives in maintaining
    the system to admit now that it's a primitive and unkind system that
    ultimately hurts us all.  I believe the same thing that Lorna said
    in another note - feminism needs to become populist, it needs
    to reach out to all classes and levels of education.  If feminism is
    only supported by a subset of well-educated professional people than
    the rest of the world can dismiss it as having no relevance, as just
    another crackpot theory, and continue to maintain sexism without
    seeing how it's hurting them.
    
                                   Sue
     
     

    
    Vick,
    
    Do you really want to answer the question, "Do men benefit from
    sexism," or do you want to convince men that sexism is awful for them,
    too, so they'll work harder at ending it?  If you choose the second thing,
    that's fine with me, but I wish you wouldn't do it under the pretense
    of trying to answer the question posed in the basenote.  I am convinced
    that our present patriarchal, sexist system limits all human potential,
    but I am also convinced that all men benefit from that inequity in
    a number of (important) ways -- otherwise, they *would* give it up.
    
    I think people have described pretty completely the
    financial/professional benefits men get from sexism, but there are
    others.  I heard a man from Men to End Sexual Assault (MESA) speak
    at the Walk for Women's Lives.  He pointed out that one way that men
    benefit from violence against women (which is, of course, a part of the
    sexism) is that the "nice guys" have an edge with women.  Women
    appreciate nonviolent men because of the beastly, vicious, violent men
    "out there."  And he suggests, and I agree, that some men can use that
    to their advantage.  If there were no (or considerably less) male
    violence against women, then a guy would have to do more than (not be
    one of the bad guys) to be considered a good guy.  He said this much
    more eloquently than I did, but his main point was that it's not enough
    for men to not be part of the problem; they have to be part of the
    solution.  Where are the men today, he asked (I'd say there were fewer 
    than 20 men present in a room with over 300).  Why do we label violence
    against women as a "women's issue?" he asked.  It's a men's issue.
    It's the men who are doing the raping, murdering, and battering.
    
    I believe that men benefit from the fact that most women are afraid of
    being hurt by those "bad" men, and so I think they accept less from the
    men in their lives than they would otherwise.  Straight women friends
    have told me that they expect less from men than from women, that they
    accept (emotional) mistreatment from men that they would never accept
    from women.  I think what's scary to men about equality is not just the
    pay equity issues but that they will have to be more emotionally
    present and responsible in their relationships with women (and, I would
    hope) with other men.  
    
    Justine                                                            

        re .36
        
>> I find these arguments that men are hurt by sexism pretty absurd.
        
        Look at it this way ...
        
        |-----------------------------------------------|
        |		sexism ledger for men		|
        |-----------------------|-----------------------|
        |	benefits	|	hurts		|
        |-----------------------------------------------|
        | xxx 	  xxxx	xxxxx	| yy			|
        | xx	  xxx	xxx	| yyy			|
        | xxxx	  xxxx	xxxx	| yy			|
        | xx	  xx	xx	| yyy			|
        | xxx	  xxx	xxxx	| yyy			|
        | xxxxx	  x	xxx	| yyyyy			|
        | xxx	  xxxx	xx	| y 			|
        | xx	  xxx	xxx	| yyy			|
        | xx	  xxxx	xxx	|  			|
        | xxxx	  xxx	(cont.) |   			|
        |-----------------------|-----------------------|
        
        All we're trying to say is, um, er, ...
        
        Dan

    
    Justine,
    
    I'm answering the question "Do men benefit from sexism."  I claim that
    any perceived benefit is out-weighed by either current of eventual
    (unfortunately frequently hard to see) deficits (what's the word I
    want there?).  
    
    I don't believe I benefit by violence against women.  The argument that
    guy gave was faulty.  Is it really a benefit to "look so good, by
    comparison to a woman-beater?"  I want a woman to look at me and say
    "I like you because you are so many things that I want in a man" not
    "I like you because at least you don't beat me up."  I don't see how
    that's an "edge" for anyone looking for a relationship.  
    
    I know you want me to indulge in myopia and not look at the big
    picture.  But I don't see any reason to do that.  But if you want
    to rephrase the question to be "Do men now have more of the goods
    than women because of sexism", then I'd say yes.  But men and women
    both would have more of the goods if there were sexual equality.
    (by "the goods" I'm not referring solely to fiscal well-being, but
    also to emotional and spiritual well-being.)
    
    					- Vick

    sorry, I got carried away in .39... this is the abridged version...
    
    Looking at the society around me, it appears the majority of men AND women 
    think they benefit from sexism.
                                      Sue
    (mumble... and they're moronic... mumble ...neanderthals... I'd like
    to...)

Unlike the case of the "thief", the wrongdoer and the one who benefits are
not necessarily the same here.  Along the lines of what Justine was saying, 
*some* men create the problem.  Do all men benefit?  In comparison to all
women, absolutely yes.  Overall, as Vick is saying, ya gotta be kidding.

Should all the "nice guys" feel guilty?  It's an interesting question.  I
tend to feel that in this case (to roll out a favorite version of a trite
saying...) if you're not part of the solution, you're not part of the
problem, but part of the precipitate.  To stretch the analogy, if you place
such value on being part of the precipitate that it keeps you from getting
[back] into solution - and you encourage others to share your values, then, 
IMO, you have become part of the problem by default, even if it was not by
original design.  In other words, if you know someone is leaving stolen
groceries on your doorstep daily, and you eat them without trying to make
any reparations, then where do you *really* fit in?  Are you really an 
innocent bystander?

I don't understand why everyone's being so hard on Vick.  If his message
were more widely understood, then, in my opinion, there would be more men
fighting for "women's issues".  I personally agree with what he's saying,
although in this case I don't care too much if it's not the 100% gospel
truth, or if it's only 3/4 of the story.  It's a [partial] solution.  To 
return to my original analogy, if you (as a woman) are refusing to be part 
of the solution, then, IMO, you are becoming part of the precipitate... 
whether you benefit or not.

    Sharon

Sharon, a couple of points...

One, I was using "thief" in my analogy in reference to "men as a class" no
individual men, and "thievee" as analogy for "women as a class".  basically
men (as a class) are stealing women's rights, and are benefitting - by
having a slave class who are raised to believe their purpose in life is to
nuture the male class.

Two, I'm not sure *anyone* should feel guilty. I don't understand the "guilt"
part of this question anyway. What does "should feel guilty" mean?  Guilt,
as I have always said, is an utterly useless emotion. All men and all women
"should" work to end sexism.  Guilt is only useful as a motivator for that
work. If you are working, don't feel guilty, it doesn't do any good.

Finally, the reason I am arguing against that stance that sexism hurts men
more than { it hurts women | it helps men } rather than what seems would
be obviously more helpful (try to convince men that sexism hurts them), is
because I think men, overall, as a class, *aren't* hurt by sexism, and that
they, as a class, *know it*, and so nothing in the world is going to 
convince them to give it up.  Period.  Therefore the only way change is 
going to happen is to convince women to *take* it, rather than wait for men
to give it to them; and the only way to do that is to convince women that
men *aren't* going to give it to them. As long as we keep asking for our
rights, we will never get anywhere.

D!

    
    Vick,
    
    I think there is room for you to tell men what it is you think they
    have to lose by (not working to end) sexism; that can be how *you* work
    to end sexism.   I think there is also room for me (and for other women
    and men) to say how we feel sexism benefits men.  
    
    I think everyone loses in an inequitable system.  I think men are
    reaping most of the benefits that sexism offers.  I hope you're able
    to convince lots of men that the losses are greater than the gains.
    
    Justine

re: .42
    
>    I'm answering the question "Do men benefit from sexism."  I claim that
>    any perceived benefit is out-weighed by either current of eventual
>    (unfortunately frequently hard to see) deficits (what's the word I
>    want there?).  
    
    And I claim that men DO benefit from sexism more than most of us
    probably are aware, which means GEE MAYBE there's a reason why it's so
    hard to fight.  I know if more men felt that the deficits were serious
    they'd fight it harder, but I also know that it's FIRMLY entrenched,
    and there's a REASON it's firmly entrenched and to dredge up something
    from another topic it's not necessarily WOMEN who are doing all the
    entrenching (particularly not in our own little minds).
    
    
>    I know you want me to indulge in myopia and not look at the big
>    picture.  But I don't see any reason to do that.  But if you want
    
    I, personally *DO* want you to see the big picture.  INCLUDING the
    financial/power aspects.
    
    
>    (by "the goods" I'm not referring solely to fiscal well-being, but
>    also to emotional and spiritual well-being.)
    
    But so few people are motivated in this universe by emotional and
    spiritual wellbeing - they often mortgage their feel of "right" in the
    larger sense (karma-wise) in order to benefit now, because any
    perceived later penalties from things they can shrug off (a man getting
    a higher salary than a comparably employed/experienced woman) can't
    possibly compete with the fact that if they speak up ( either they'll
    get a cut or she'll get a raise which may cut into their NEXT raise.)
 
       
    re: .45
    
>because I think men, overall, as a class, *aren't* hurt by sexism, and that
>they, as a class, *know it*, and so nothing in the world is going to 
>convince them to give it up.  Period.  Therefore the only way change is 
>going to happen is to convince women to *take* it, rather than wait for men
>to give it to them; and the only way to do that is to convince women that
>men *aren't* going to give it to them. As long as we keep asking for our
>rights, we will never get anywhere.
\
    It hurts to hear that put so succinctly, but I feel it's right on
    target.
    
    -Jody
    

   "Benefit" is a slippery term to pin down. There are primary
   benefits, secondary benefits, short term benefits, long term
   benefits, and so forth. Benefits can be actual and/or measurable
   (money, power), or they can be more subtle (emotional). And there
   are both individual benefits and societal benefits. 

   These many type of benefits can, and often do, conflict. 

   Sexism can have an immediate short-term benefit for an individual,
   but not be a benefit at all over the long term. For example, say
   that a man instead of a woman is picked for a job, or a man makes
   more money for the same job than a woman does. This is an immediate
   short term individual benefit for the man. Over the long term this
   is not a benefit to either the man or society because it keeps a
   lid on the earnings of other women, including his wife and
   daughters and it can cause them emotional suffering; and it
   deprives society of the full potential and benefits of what women
   can achieve and contribute in a truly open society.

   Unfortunately most people perceive only the short term. It is very
   difficult to see beyond the immediate. This is one reason why it
   is so hard to change.

   In addition, sexism squeezes people, men and women, into preset
   molds and predefined roles. Both men and women are supposed to
   think, act, and feel in ways which fit these roles. These include
   the sexual stereotypes we are all so familiar with in all their
   forms and shapes. In many cases these roles are so internalized
   and habitualized that people are not even aware that they are being
   sexist. This is another reason why it is so hard to change.  

   In the long term neither men nor women benefit from sexism. Because
   of sexism there are few male child care workers or social workers
   and few female engineers or auto racers. Men who would prefer to be
   tender feel they must be tough; women who want be competitive feel
   forced to act in a docile manner. Society suffers, personal
   relationships do not realize their full potential, and men and
   women feel uneasy and unfulfilled. Some men may derive immediate
   benefits from sexism, but in the long run sexism is a negative
   benefit for all of us.

   Bruce

The way to change things is convince people that they will be better off in a
non-sexist world. When people, men and women, truly believe that, they will 
change.

Now, how do we do that?

Bruce

Well, actually I don't think it's appropriate to classify "men as a class"
as the thieves and "women as a class" as the thievees (is that a word?).
The seeds of the current order may well have been planted by women;
picture the following: (woman to a man) "look, we're trying to help
Susie give birth here, and men don't know anything about childbirth first
hand, so why don't you go out and hunt mastodons for the afternoon?"

The point is that the thief is anonymous, although one can certainly imagine
more reasons for the thief being male than female.  To return to my example
about someone leaving groceries on your doorstep, I would liken this to men
being the recipients of groceries.  However, suppose the groceries were
things you didn't like, and always the same.  For purposes of argument, let's
say that EVERY WEEK it was colored marshmallows, canned spaghetti, smelts,
twinkies, and stale powdered donuts.  To a woman who is starving, this would 
look like a real benefit.  To a man who eats only health food and whole grains 
and is allergic to smelts, it's completely useless.  If he's concerned about 
waste and doesn't know anyone else who would eat that stuff, it's a detriment.

Generally speaking, I think you're right (and I definitely agree with you
about guilt being nonproductive).  Except that I think that while sexism 
benefits men to some degree, it hurts them in ways that are far less obvious,
and that pointing that out is a good idea.  However, any woman alive today
who believes that this approach alone will work in *her* lifetime is probably
quite mistaken.

I don't get your title.  What do you mean in saying you have "no vested 
interest in what men think one way or the other"?

	Sharon

    It drives me mad that most of the women I know don't think sexism
    is a problem.  How far would civil rights in this country have come
    if most of the people being discriminated against thought everything
    was just hunky-dory?  It's the women who need to be reached.
    If the majority of the women in the US felt the way the majority of
    women in Womannotes feel than this country couldn't stay sexist for
    long.  
                   Sue

    Good question, Bruce, how do we convince men?  Let's see, women have
    been at it over 30 years now.  Think we should keep at it?  Or do you
    think we should wise up and realize men are humming with their hands over
    their ears like little kids do to avoid hearing what they dislike?
    
> I think what's scary to men about equality is not just the pay equity 
> issues but that they will have to be more emotionally present and re-
> sponsible in their relationships with women (and, I would hope) with 
> other men.  

Justine, bless you.  Your comments about the beneft of seeming like a
goodguy simply by not being a badguy are right on.  Men benefit simply
by being 'average joes', something that is in *no way* good enough for
a woman to be.

> I don't believe I benefit by violence against women.  The argument that
> guy gave was faulty.  Is it really a benefit to "look so good, by
> comparison to a woman-beater?"

"Good" depends on what you want.  Men want women.  If they get them simply
by *not* beating or raping them, then they are benefitting - they are 
getting what they want.  Don't assume all men or even most are 
philosophical about this.  Most just get what, (and who), they can, are
glad for it and that's that.  Most never question it.  So again, they
have "won", they have "benefitted", to them it has been "good" that their
value as a non-raper, a non-beater or a non-mistreater is exalted due to 
the many men in all women's lives who are those things.  Like it or not, if 
all men were as solicitous of women as women are of men, all individual men's 
values would drop, just like Justine alluded to.  Men would have to work
harder at relationships, invest more emotionally and take more 
responsibility for their success or failure.

> I want a woman to look at me and say "I like you because you are so many
> things that I want in a man" not  "I like you because at least you don't
> beat me up."  I don't see how  that's an "edge" for anyone looking for a
> relationship. 

Because it GIVES you a relationship where you might not have had one
otherwise.  You get a chance you might not have gotten.  To most men, 
anything that increases their success with women is something to be 
embraced and certainly not questioned.  This is one of the reasons rape
and domestic abuse has been tacitly approved of by our culture.  Maybe
people can't or don't put it into words, but men know durn well the edge
they will lose with increased competition, (with more and nicer men pursuing
the same women).

>But men and women both would have more of the goods if there were sexual
>equality.  (by "the goods" I'm not referring solely to fiscal
> well-being, but also to emotional and spiritual well-being.)

Oh?  Then what do you mean by the following?
    
> But if you want to rephrase the question to be "Do men now have more of
> the goods than women because of sexism", then I'd say yes. 

Try to keep consistent in your definitions and that will help people to
understand you better.
    
    Sharon, I agree that women were busy delivering babies and wooshing the
    men out the door, but I don't see that as justification for keeping
    them at an economic disadvantage or raping them.  Unless of course the
    men were/are simply jealous...  I've always thought Freud's stupid idea
    about penis envy was a transfer of what I believe is men's own womb
    envy, born in the very scenario you coined.  When you talk equality, a
    lot of men hear "female superiority".  Perhaps there's something to
    that.  Perhaps given an equal advantage in our society, women will run
    with it and leave men behind in the dust.  And then there's always my
    favorite quote:
    
    "Nature has endowed woman with so much power, society, (thankfully),
    has accorded her very little"
    
    Written by a man, obviously.  But it speaks to the jealousy idea, the
    "nyah-nyah" aspect of making sure women "pay" for what men believe is
    their inherent superiority.
    
    Now we're *really* muddying the waters here!
    
    ;-)
    
    Sandy
    

I had thought about saying, "that's easy for you to say", but I think I'll amend
that to "that's easy for me to say."  Being able to see long-term or philosophize
in this case already implies that none of us here is desperate in the short-term.

Saying that no one "benefits" from sexism is one of those "that's easy for ....
to say" because for us it is easier!  Not so for many struggling for
survival, and, YES, in that class it is harder to survive as a woman.  Think about
it, if women get less than 50% of the compensation for work, wonder how the
professional women are skewing that UPWARD (shriek!) for the women laborers.  
Sorry, but until we are a tad closer to level, it is extremely difficult to talk
about "big pictures", "long terms", or "equalizing society."

Say, if it's really true that men don't benefit from sexim, I have an idea.  Stop.

Barb

Re: .51 and .52

Sue is right -- You have to raise the consciousness of both men and women.
In fact, I think it is sexism and a symptom of the problem to say that only
men need to change.

Bruce 

    re: .53
    yes, I agree it's harder to be a poor woman than a middle-class
    woman.  But then how come so few working class women are feminists?
                                           Sue

Sue,

I believe that working class women really don't have the time or the emotional
energy to do much else than survive.  I also believe they are much more likely
to be dependent on "sexist situations" for their and/or family survival to
take "risks."

Barb

    re. .56
    
    Barb,
    
    Talking about class in America is always a little uncomfortable
    since we don't have any :)  but I'm not thinking about women
    who are living hand to mouth.  I don't expect anyone in that
    position to worry about anything beyond survival.  But I do
    think a lot of women in the working class have as much time as
    professional women.  How much time does it take to see that
    women are discrimated against (and, hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to
    vote for the person who promises to discriminate least)?
                                       Sue
                                  

>I don't get your title.  What do you mean in saying you have "no vested 
>interest in what men think one way or the other"?

As in, I don't think it matters whether an individual man believes he
benefits from sexism or not, since I don't think men as a class will
ever believe it (since it isn't true).  So I am not particularly concerned
with convincing men that they would be better off without sexism; though
I am certainly not opposed to them thinking that.  Therefore I have
no vested interest one way or another.  (That is, politically speaking;
obviously I am concerned about what the individual men in my life think.)

D!

Sue,

I agree that there is certainly a percentage of working class women who could
join/see/whatever.......I don't know why not give it a try any more than I can
figure out why there is sexism if it really benefits no one.

I used to be very active in "the movement", outreach and all....I think a new
wave of outreach may be needed for those who haven't been through the CR thing
already.  Part of it may be that the small gains already in place really are
placating "the masses."  That is clearly a class strategy - give the desparate
just enough to slow them down.  I'm just not sure....I really can't imagine why
anyone would choose to discriminate on the bases most people choose.

In my opinion, though, a lot more action needs to take place before we can
afford the "phiosophies of equality." 

Barb 

    
    Bruce,
    
    I don't think that only men have to change, but the subject of this
    note is "do men benefit from sexism," so that's what I've been
    addressing my comments to.
    
    Justine

Thanks, Justine for keeping me on the topic. Sometimes it's hard to tell 
what the topic is from reading the replies  %-] 

Maybe you'd like to personally remind some other people.

Back to the subject:
Sure, some men benefit from sexism on a short term basis. Some men even benefit
from sexism on a long term basis. What else is there to discuss about this 
question? 

(Personally I'd like to discuss how to change things. But I guess we'd need
another topic to do that.)

Bruce   

    
>>But men and women both would have more of the goods if there were sexual
>>equality.  (by "the goods" I'm not referring solely to fiscal
>> well-being, but also to emotional and spiritual well-being.)

>Oh?  Then what do you mean by the following?
    
>> But if you want to rephrase the question to be "Do men now have more of
>> the goods than women because of sexism", then I'd say yes. 

>Try to keep consistent in your definitions and that will help people to
>understand you better.
    
    You must not understand what I'm saying, because I can't see any 
    inconsistency in the above.  I'm defining the "goods" as being fiscal,
    emotional, and spiritual.  I'm saying that right now men have 
    more of the goods than women, because of sexism.  I'm saying that
    both men and women would have more goods if there were sexual equality.
    Unless you believe in a law of the conservation of goods, which I
    don't in this case, because I think the whole society will be more
    productive.  Now about half the people in this debate are saying that
    men benefit because they have more of the goods, and the other half are
    saying that men don't really benefit because they would have more if
    there were sexual equality.  The two arguments aren't really mutually
    exclusive, and perhaps that's why we can't end this debate.  :^)
    
    					- Vick

    I was trying to think abou "invisible advantages", and trying to find a
    parallel in my life between have and have-not.  And I think I found
    one.
    
    I used to be obese.  I didn't have a lot of attention from men, got a
    lot of "such a shame, she has such a pretty face, too...." with the
    unspoken "if only she'd lose weight".  And I never REALIZED what a
    strike that was against me until I became non-obese.  Life is sometimes
    LUDICROUSLY easy in certain areas where I used to fight and fret and be
    stressed, areas where I could never feel confident or successful now
    come easily (particularly in the are of finding dates, or getting
    service from men who are waiting on my table, or cashing me out at a
    store, or whatever).  Even getting directions is easier.  I go to
    science fiction conventions and renaissance faires in garb and costume
    and somehow get "instant discounts" (just for me, they smile and say
    with a wink).  So I'm saving money, saving time, I've increased the
    diversity and general physical attractiveness of the people I can
    choose from to date, and all without taking action specifically towards
    those goals.  All I did was lose weight, and doors opened.  LOTS of
    them.  So many that I am stunned in disbelief sometimes.  No, life is
    not a bowl of cherries, and there are some disadvantages, but the
    advantages far outweigh them.
    
    In truth, I never expected these things to change, or things to get
    easier, because I never KNEW how much I was fighting people's prejudice
    or prejudgment or natural proclivity to assume things about obese
    people.  I had no IDEA how hard it was to be that large, until I was
    less large.  I am looking at both sides of the coin now, and from where
    I sit if someone were to tell me to gain 50 pounds back I would laugh. 
    I don't want to give up the ease with which I can now comport myself
    socially, or the smiles I get just be being someplace and smiling at
    people.  I don't even want to give up the surprise discounts (which
    tend to be random, I don't change what I do, but somehow they sometimes
    happen all the same).
    
    I feel right now I'm living a charmed existence and I'll wake up some
    morning and be my old self, with my old barriers.  Life has for some
    reason given me indemities for the first 24 years of my life, and I am
    grateful.  But I look at the situation outlined in this topic and shake
    my head.  I do not think men will give up anything willingly.
    
    -Jody
    

    re:.63
    
    �    my head.  I do not think men will give up anything willingly.
    
    Then how do you get them to give it up?
    
                                     L.J.

    This is (essentially) the same question that was asked in 800.86,
    by Robert Holt.  I am currently waiting for a reply from Frederick
    Ward, who has indicated that he knows the answer.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Re: Some prior note:  Anyone who thinks emotional isolation is a benefit 
    that men derive from sexism can have mine.
    
    - Vick

    $ SET TONGUE/Position=(IN:CHEEK)
    $ SET TONGUE/Position=(IN:CHEEK)
    
    
    
    $SET TONGUE/ POSITION=(IN:CHEEK)
    
            or
    
    $ note | incheek -Tounge > =wn=
    
    depending one your proclivity.
    
    Sure! Men suffer a whole lot from sexism!  They have to carry the load
    of being the man of the house.  The have to be the protectors of the
    country.  They even have to use their manly understanding of the world
    to help business remain what it is today!  And think of the GUILT that
    must come from the advantages of easier placement and more money
    they have to go through.  Man... they sure got it tough.  It wasn't
    so clear to me before! ... But by gosh I understand it now.
    
    I think I must have missed it.  With my personal female emotional
    bias you know.
    
    $ SET TONGUE/POSITION=(DEFAULT)
    
    It could have cost my mom her life to get that extra 30 cents on the
    dollar my dad was capable of earning.  So she ran, severing all
    emotional and finacial ties.  We were left with no man to share the
    burden of our femaleness with.  From this vantage point, it is
    difficult to truly empathize with the emotional difficulties 
    the unfairness may reek on inocent male victims of the system.
    
    It is however, easy to imagine, that somewhere there was a man
    earning 1 dollar for every 60 cents we had under the guise of
    "men have to support their families".  That man might have been
    single, had no children or spouse to attend to.  But we, who
    had the need, had to pay for them.
    
    In truth, it is quite an adjustment to really feel hurt for
    the guilt he might feel at that.  All I could request is that
    the situations that allow this unfairness to exist be halted.
    
    Cindi

    The following reply is from a member of the community who wishes
    to remain anonymous...
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= mod
    
May I ask you to enter this as an anonymous and late reply to note 819 (Do men 
benefit from sexism?" in Womannotes?

I hope this interests some women.  It raises the possibility that mens's lack
of action on the issues of sexism may be rooted more in the habitual denial
of men's own pain (real men don't cry and complain) and thus in the lack of
ability to identify the cause of that pain, than in the perverse
enjoyment of the "benefits" of sexism.  It also raises the idea that overall
in the big picture, men don't benefit from sexism and in fact as a gender
may be suffering as much or even more than women.

The following are excerpts from the article "A time for men to pull together" in
the Utne Reader May/June 1991, by Andrew Kimbrell.  The article
is 9 pages, these excerpts concentrate mostly on the facts around what sexism
has done for men, but I included a bit around what can be done to change it.
I have the feeling I've seen bits of this before, maybe in notes, but am not
even sure which note file let alone which note.  Anyway, seems to fit here, and
I just last nite obtained a copy of the full article.

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

Men are hurting - badly.  Despite rumors to the contrary, men as a gender are
being devastated physically and psychically by our socioeconomic system.  As
American society continues to empower a small percentage of men - and a smaller
but increasing percentage of women - it is causing significant confusion and
anguish for the majority of men.

In recent years, there have been many impressive analyses documenting the 
exploitation of women in our culture.  Unfortunately, little attention has been
given to the massive disruption and destruction that our economic and political
institutions have wrought on men.  In fact, for too often, men as a gender have
been thought of as synonymous with the power elite.

But thinking on this subject is beginning to change.  Over the last decade,
men have begun to realize that we cannot properly relate to one another, or
understand how some of us in turn exploit others, until we have begun to
appreciate the extent and nature of our dispossessed predicament.

...... 

The mission of many men today - both those involved in the men's movement and 
others outside it - is to find new ways that allow men to celebrate their
generative potential and reverse the cycle of destruction that characterizes
men's collective behavior today.  These calls to action are not abstract or
hypothetical.  The oppression of men, expecially in the last several decades,
can be easily seen in a disturbing upward spiral of male self-destruction,
addiction, hopelessmess, and homelessness.

While suicide rates for women have been stable over the last 20 years, amoung
men - especially white male teenagers - they have increased rapidly.  Currently,
male teenagers are five times more likely to take their own lives than females.
Overall, men are committing suicide at four times the rate of women.  America's
young men are also being ravaged by alcohol and drug abuse.  Men between the
ages of 18 and 29 suffer alcohol dependancy at three times the rate of women
of the same age group.  More than two-thirds of all alcoholics are men, and 50
percent more men are regular users of illict drugs than women.  Men account for
more than 90 percent of arrests for alcohol and drug abuse violations.

A sense of hopelessness amoung America's young men is not surprising.  Real
wages for men under 25 have actually declined over the last 20 years, and 60
percent of all high school dropouts are males.  These statistics, added to
the fact that 400,000 farmers have lost their land in the last decade, account
in part for the increasing rate of unemployment amoung men, and for the fact
that more than 80 percent of America's homeless are men.

The stress on men is taking its toll.  Men's life expectancy in 10 percent
shorter than women's, and the incidence of stress-related illnesses such as
heart disease and certain cancers remains inordinately high amoung men.

And the situation for minority men is even worse.  One out of four black men
between the ages of 20 and 29 is either in jail, on probation, or on parole -
ten times the proportion for black women in the same age range.  More black
men are in jail than in college, and there are 10 percent more black women 
than black men studying in our nation's colleges and universities.  Homicide
is the leading cause of death amoung black males ages 15 to 24.  Black males
have the lowest life expectancy of any segment of the American population.
Statistics for Native American and Hispanic men are also grim.

Men are also a large part of the growing crisis in the American family.  Studies
report that parents today spend 40 percent less time with their children than
did parents in 1965, and men are increasingly isolated from their familes by
the pressures of work and the circumstances of divorce.  In a recent poll, 72
percent of employed male respondents agreed they are "torn by conflict" 
between their jobs and the desire to be with their families.  Yet the average
divorced American man spends less than two days each month with his children.
Well over half of black male children are raised without fathers.  While the
trauma of separation and divorce affects all members of a family, it is
especially poignant for sons:  Researchers generally agree that boys at all
ages are hardest hit by divorce.

........

Women have increasingly identified their oppression in society; men have not.
Thankfully, some men are now working to create a movement, or community, that
focuses on awareness and understanding of men's loss and pain as well as the
potential for healing.  Because men's oppression is deeply rooted in the 
political and economic institutions of modern society, it is critical that
awareness of these issues must be followed by action: Men today need a 
comprehensive political program that points the way toward liberation.  

Instead of grieving over and acting on our loss of independence and generativity
modern men have often engaged in an act of denial - a denial that is linked to
the existence of a "male mystique".  This defective mythology of the modern
age has created a "new man".  The male mystique recasts what anthrpologists
have identified as the traditional male role throughout history - a man, 
whether hunter-gatherer or farmer, who is steeped in a creative and
sustaining relationship with his extended family and the earth household.  In
the place of this long-enduring, rooted masculine role, the male mystique
has fostered a new image of men: autonomous, efficient, intensely 
self-interested, and disconnected from community and earth.

........

Modern men are entranced by this simulated masculinity - they experience
danger, independence, success, sexuality, idealism, and adventure as
voyeurs.  Meanwhile, in real life most men lead powerless, subservient lives
in the factory or office - frightened of losing their jobs, mortgaged to
the gills, and still feeling responsible for supporting their families.
Their lauded independence - as well as most of their basic rights - disappear
the minute they report for work.  The disparity between their real lives
and the macho images of masculinity perpetrated by the media confuses and
confounds many men.

........

At the same time, while recognizing the pervasive victimization of women, we
must resist the view of some feminists that maleness itself, and not the current
systems of social control and production, is primarily responsible for the
exploitation of women.  Neither the male mystique, not the denigration of
maleness offers hope for the future.

........

Ultimately we must help fashion a world without the daily frustration and sorrow
of having to view each other as a collection of competitors instead of a 
community of friends.  We must celebrate the essence and rituals of our
masculinity.  We can no longer passively submit to the destruction of the
household, the demise of self employment, the disintegration of family and
community, and the desecration of our earth.

Shortly after the First World War, Ford Madox ford, one of this century's
greatest writers, depicted 20th century men as continually pinned down in
their trenches, unable to stand up for fear of annihilation.  As the century
closes, men remain pinned down by an economic and political system that daily
forces millions of us into meaningless work, powerless lives, and self
destruction.  The time has come for men to stand up.

.......

No area of the men's politial agenda will be realized until men can establish
a network of activists to create collective action.  A first step might be 
to create a high profile national coalition of the men's councils that are
growing around the country.  This coalition, which could be called the Men's
Action Network (MAN), could call for a national conference to define a 
comprehensive platform of men's concerns and to provide the political muscle
to implement those ideas.

.......

Andrew Kimbrell is an attorney and policy director for the Foundation on
Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. (although the views expressed here
do not necessarily reflect those of the foundation). ..... He is interested 
in hearing from people with ideas about a national Mens's Action Network.  
Write to hime c/o Utne Reader.

    re: .68 
    
        Good points.  Unless I missed it, it failed to suggest that
    women are not well off when they attempt to emulate men, either.
    As I said a while back...it is important for women to find the
    strength and power that they hold...it is equally important for
    men to learn *how* to channel their power.  Doing what we've always
    done won't work (this includes sexism.)  Having women act as men
    won't work, either.  
    
    
    Frederick