Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:44 am Post subject: Men and Feminism
Hey people...(I refrain from saying hey guys cuz we're not all guys) So this chapter was interesting, even if a lot of the stuff it went over was review. I liked the sidebars about feminism outside of the U.S. One anecdote that struck me was the one on pgs. 39 and 42 about Robert Dale Owen. Sometimes the people you don't hear about are the most unique individuals, and really do make a difference, even on a small scale. As we know, however, history has never been all-inclusive. The discussion of free love was interesting, and it made me remember Victoria Woodhull, the lady from the first wave who supported free love and also ran for President. It was also interesting that they discussed how some people supported birth control but not abortion...the message from this, I think, is that there are various degrees of being liberal or conservative.
The whole pregnant men demonstration, of which there is a picture on pg. 48, was intriguing to me. The act of dressing up as pregnant men, I feel, is the epitome of sincerity and totality with which a man can support feminism. Pregnancy not only effects a woman's body image, but it also can cause discrimination/violence against her, or make her feel like she doesn't fit in with the rest of society. In a way similar to chivalry, however, pregnant women are also given special privileges, and treated with a greater amount of respect. Thus, to dress up as a pregnant woman, I imagine, really showed that those men understood the sexism that feminists were trying to combat.
The next thing that struck me was the anecdote about Marilyn Salzman Webb's anti-Vietnam speech, detailed on pgs. 49-50. Much like reading about the abortion-related murders, my reaction to this was...I can't believe things as extreme as this actually happened.
Finally, it was super interesting to read about men's separatist groups, the discussions of male oppression also helped my realize that sexism, contrary to popular association, is not a term that pertains only to acts of injustice/ policies of injustice which are perpetrated/enforced by males upon female victims. Rather, sexism is a term used to describe all of the inequities that result from gender ideology as it affects our society.
My Question: How did men help feminism and how can they help it in the future? How are men oppressed and what can women do to help them? Just as the traditional power and dominance of men have been very powerful in furthering the causes of feminism, how can women use their traditional roles and qualities to help men achieve social and political equality?
As Hannah already stated...much of this reading was review. But kind of like a review in terms of "Vantage Point" (thriller/international espionage movie..Dennis Quaid, Forresst Whitaker, etc) where the same scene is assessed but with a different perspective every time.
I think what I found the most interesting actually was, again, like Hannah, the individuals' focus---specifically, "Gay Men's Support for Women's Liberation"
(SLIGHT deviation---did anyone else think it was kind of of hilarious that one of the gay men's liberation groups was called "The Radical Faeries?" Perhaps I'm saying it wrong but I keep thinking of it as "Fairy's." Simply ironic, a mistake, a poor joke on Rachel's part or---ALL THREE??)
But back to the important thing:
Although I don't believe it was very well written, nor particularly articulate (at least not judging by the excerpt we received) but "The Gay Manifesto," written by Carl Wittman in 1972 definitely got a powerful idea across.
"We can junk it [male chauvinism] much more easily than straight men can...For we understand oppression. We have largely opted out of a system which oppresses women daily--our egos are not built on putting women down and having them build us up. Also, living in a mostly male world we have become used to playing different roles, doing our own shit-work. And finally we have a common enemy: the big male chauvinists are also big anti-gays. (p.51)
I thought this excerpt was incredible because I had never really thought about the bizarre functioning of most men's egos, push down the same people who build you up. I think Wittman's ability to articulate that point is some of the best evidence I've ever heard for how gay men are different than straight men. This may sound weird because OBVIOUSLY, just in terms of sexual orientation, they are different. But I tend to say "men are men...not women." Yet this crucial differentiation I think accounts very much for "normal" societal treatment of gay men to women (of course not all) and staright men to women (once again, not all.)So I thought that was great.
I also think what the final line in the excerpt is getting at is the "big male chauvinists" are the white heterosexual men in charge of America. This is the norm, the chauvinist, and the anti-gay. Gay men should align themselves with women in a solidarity based simply on the fact they are groups seen as subordinate do the norm. Like Wittman said, for the most part they have a "common enemy."
My question (which probably has no answer but requires creative thinking; i.e. feel free to ignore it) is:
I really liked this reading. When I interviewed Lisa she talked about some of these things in the reading like doctors performing abortions for women but I loved how this reading went into detail on all topics. I was amazed to see how not all men were awful. Some men really took risk on siding with women that everyone, men and women, should be equal. Men helped feminism in many ways by being allies. It was like they helped create a voice for women. In many ways men are oppressed because of their “race, religion, class, or sexual orientation.” (Page 2. Like Hannah I really liked the picture of the “pregnant men”. Seeing men noticing that the “separate spheres” have formed in America are not only wrong to women but also to men and I thought that was so powerful. I liked that some men when they married did it differently by saying they see their wife as an equal or men who wanted women to go to school because it benefited the children and the marriage. I really liked what Theodore Dwight Weld says on 42, “that limitations in women’s metal and physical performance were the result of oppression not the excuse for it”. That quote pretty much explains the Women’s Movement in my eyes.
Question: Were all male feminists helpful in the movement? Why or Why not? Meaning were there some men who called themselves feminist but didn’t create a voice for women?
To answer Helen's question, I don't think that all male feminists were helpful in the movement. I think a lot of male feminists fought in the struggle for gender equality because of their wives. In order to please their wives, men would often tell them that they thought that women and men should be equal, yet they didn't actively do anything to change gender roles.
Back to the reading:
"Activists fought to reclaim control of women's health by educating women about their bodies, pushing for women's inclusion in health studies, establishing health clinics, and making birth control and reproductive information accessible" (Tarrant 29). This re-enforced my interviewee's statement that at this time in the movement, women were being educated about their health and sexuality in ways that they had never been taught before. Interestingly enough, "Our Bodies, Ourselves," an example of new kind of education for women, was published in 1972 and is still used today.
I found a quote that reminded me of what Olivia M was saying in class today: "Doctors claimed that studying would suck vital blood to the brain from women's reproductive organs, making them (but not men) sterile and sexually unattractive" (Tarrant 3.
My question is a little confusing but here goes:
Imagine a reversed racial world where white men were slaves for black men and Brian Walker's triangle read (from top to bottom): black men, black women, white men, white women.
Would white men fight for black women's equal rights? Would white women protest along-side black women? What does your answer to this question say about the social network?
The main point which stood out for me was the notion that most men who fought for women's rights suffered due to oppression by other men. I would just like to connect this to the notion that feminism had its roots in abolitionism. This seems to suggest some trend in which people can only sympathies with others if they see their problems connection to the other group. I don't know if I ma the only one, but I find this to be less than inspiring. It seems like these activists only work together because of a shared enemy whose downfall will be mutually beneficial. Where this reading probably alleviates the guilt of many a man, I just feel guiltier and hold a sadder view of humanity. I had assumed that most men involved in the women’s rights movement had nothing to gain, but were simply in an act of pure altruism attempting to tear down male privilege for a strong belief in equality.
Imagine a reversed racial world where white men were slaves for black men and Brian Walker's triangle read (from top to bottom): black men, black women, white men, white women.
Would white men fight for black women's equal rights? Would white women protest along-side black women? What does your answer to this question say about the social network?
Crazzyyyy interesting question Heather! I don't know how well I can answer it, but I'll try.
The first thing that came to mind after reading this was a quote I'd read before- "Someone always has to be the nigger." In general terms-someone always has to be on the bottom. I feel as though it's almost a given, that everyone wants to be on the top or above someone else- you'll do anything to make sure of this, even if it means belittling and discriminating against another group. I said off the back that white men without a doubt would not fight for the rights of black women. But that was before, I realized- well duh, here we have men fighting for the rights of women, white women fighting the rights of black women etc. I still can't imagine though, an entire movement by white men, dedicated to uplifting themselves and black women. I'd love for someone after me to answer this question though (if thats okay with Heather). I really wanna hear someone else's response to it.
But my question: The gray boxes on Plate and Praxedis, show that they're pretty similar. They both basically agree that women should be given the same opportunities as men, work and responsibilities between them should be shared equally, and women and men should be put on the same level. These ideas date back to their times - BCE, and the 19th century. Still a full blown feminism movement didn't occur until the 20th century. Why do you think this is so/ What do you think of this?
I think all of these situations are not only to imagine, but hard to predict since they are so hypothetical. As I learned in Environmental History, one slight change can affect everything else (ie- if the wind hadn't blown this way then these seeds wouldn't have drifted here and this colony wouldn't have survived and this country wouldn't have developed the same way and THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD BE ETERNALLY DIFFERENT.) So as much of a cop-out as it it, I'm going to say that it is impossible for me, personally, to answer. SOOOO many things would have been different. And not necessarily opposite either, which makes it even harder to assess and imagine. So I am going to humbly step aside and leave that for somebody better equipped (or more willing) to tackle it.
Hmm. I felt like a less eloquent version of Hardy writing that.
Most interesting point from the reading in my opinion:
page 48: "marketing these medicines became a moral issue- not necessarily because of questions over when life begins- but because it was feared that women could use abortion to hide extramarital affairs." In the 1800s, when the country was much more actively and devoutly Christian and Catholic, there wasn't as much of an issue over whether a fetus is a baby. I found the shift in religious arguments fascinating.
Anyways.
Since I had so much trouble answering Heather's question I'm going to as one that is just as challenging. On 53 Salaam was quoted as writing "'Either all of us must have access to political and economic power... or else we as a people are not free.'" Is this possible? Can a society function if everyone is equal?
Although I thought this reading was just an overview on what we have already read, I thought it went into more detail in certain aspects of the women's movement. It really did a good job of discussing some of the crazy ideas about women. There was the whole idea that women should not be educated because it will negatively affect their uteruses or even the idea that if women accepted a larger role in politics they would lose their ability to successfully raise children. I think the prior example does a good job of showing how science can be used to further a point even if it is as ridicules as the idea about women’s uteruses.
I also enjoyed the little segments on what was happening with feminism in the past and in different parts of the world. The part that talked about Plato’s radical ideas about integrating women into civilization more than just having their roles be supportive of men and caretakers of children really shocked me. I had no idea that even so long ago ideas like this were being introduced into the public. I also was surprised at how revolutionary it would have been had his ideas caught on more.
I also thought it was interesting when the reading talked about the Mexican Revolutionary Guerrero who incorporated feminism into his fight with dictatorship and oppression. I thought it was odd though when he contradicted himself when he latter talked about how men cannot be feminine and women not masculine.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. Like Hannah I really liked the picture of the “pregnant men”. Seeing men noticing that the “separate spheres” have formed in America are not only wrong to women but also to men and I thought that was so powerful. I liked that some men when they married did it differently by saying they see their wife as an equal or men who wanted women to go to school because it benefited the children and the marriage. I really liked what Theodore Dwight Weld says on 42, “that limitations in women’s metal and physical performance were the result of oppression not the excuse for it”. That quote pretty much explains the Women’s Movement in my eyes.
