Male Oppression

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:32:26 -0500

From: Kelley Crouse <kcwalker @ SYR.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

I'm wondering what folks think of "male oppression" Several of my intro Women's Studies students had already taken a men and masculinities course taught by a dean at the colleges. I took the stance that men aren't oppressed, though certainly they are harmed in important ways by gender stereotypes and I used the typical definition of oppression (see below). It seems to me that the definition of oppression offered is not well supported by the claims that follow in the post below. Perhaps there are better analyses than what I found on the web? I found the experience frustrating since these students seemed to interpret me as being unconcerned about men's lives and this is so far from where my feminist politics lie that I was taken aback. Any thoughts, corrections, comments, words of wisdom on teaching about gender oppression? (The course is over, but I wanted to bring it up now as I'm reflecting on the course and what worked and didn't work.) Kelley Crouse Department of Sociology Hobart and William Smith Colleges 311 Trinity Hall Geneva, New York 14456-3397 kcwalker @ syr.edu Male Oppression REMEMBER: Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of one group of people by another group of people or by society as a whole; with institutional power as a means of asserting that mistreatment. HOW MEN ARE OPPRESSED: 1. Men are treated as inherently aggressive and violent. Men are not allowed to be flexible; they are forced into a narrow definition of MALE. When they do not fit in to the definition they are labeled "wimp", "sissy" or "girl". 2. Violence against men is more condoned than against women. Despite the growing societal awareness of violence against women (which is very good) it is still acceptable to harm or kill men if the reason is "justifiable". 3. Men are treated as if they do not feel pain or experience the full range of emotions like women. If killing or risking of life and limb is involved men are chosen for the job. When they get hurt at work or play they are expected to shrug it off and continue as if nothing happened; the work or the game is considered more important than their feelings. Men are looked upon as expendable. 4. Boys and men are not expected to need closeness, reassurance and attention, which is thought to be harmful to their sense of place and importance in the world. If a boy or man asks for help they are seen as weak and needy and then put down for being like a woman. 5. Men are treated as inherently compulsive in their sexuality. It is a lie that men cannot help the way they think, feel, look or act in a sexual context towards anyone. THE TRUTH ABOUT MEN: 1. Every man has always done the best he could to fight the oppression that was placed upon him; even when he acts oppressively towards men or women, he is still fighting against the oppression as hard as he can and as much as he knows how to. 2. All men want, need and require close loving relationships with men and women. It is the effects of oppression that lead men ever to act otherwise. If it is difficult to see this then it is where YOU have bought into Male Oppression. 3. Every man is capable of recovering his humanness completely. No man is ever too far gone, too out of reach, or too damaged. AGAIN: Not seeing this clearly is part of Male Oppression. It may take resource but every man is worthwhile to love. 4. Tenderness, closeness, and softness are all inherent male traits. Therefore it is 100% masculine to have these qualities. It is oppressive to consider that masculinity is only "tough," "rough" and "strong;" just as it would be sexist to view women only as tender, close, and soft creatures. It is 100% feminine for women to be tough, rough, and strong . By definition, men are not feminine, just as women are not masculine. POSTSCRIPT: It is true that men hold predominantly all of the power and privilege in the current oppressive society. Although women do not hold near as much power and privilege they still play a part in oppressing boys and men in society by holding the above lies about men as true. Certainly men do this too as well. Men Against Racism & Sexism 517 Sacramento Drive, Austin, Texas USA E-MAIL: mars @ ccsi.com - Phone-Fax: 512-326--9686

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:10:49 -0500

From: "Amy L. Wink" <awink @ SFASU.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Kelley Crouse wrote: > I found the experience >frustrating since these students seemed to interpret me as being >unconcerned about men's lives and this is so far from where my feminist >politics lie that I was taken aback. I am very interested in this point as related an incident in my own Women's Autobiography class. As the semester progressed, I found that students continued to refer to men and men's autobiographies, leaving discussion on women and women's autobiography to discuss issues surrounding male authors/masculinity, not wanting to leave men out, etc. I personally find this troublesome as it refocuses a class designed to discuss women, on to men, thus returning to a patriachal focus of men as more important, even in a discussion of women. I pointed this out to students and our discussions ahve been less male oriented since but I am wondering have other people had this experience and how have people handled re-directing the discussion? Amy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Amy L. Wink, Ph.D. awink @ sfasu.edu Department of English and Philosophy PO Bx 13007, SFA Station Stephen F. Austin State University Nacogdoches, Texas 75962-3007 (409)468-2007 "A Letter always feels to me like immortality because it is the mind alone without corporeal friend. Indebted in our talk to attitude and accent, there seems a spectral power in thought that walks alone." Emily Dickinson _Selected Letters_ (#330, p.196) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:38:48 -0500

From: Glynis Carr <gcarr @ BUCKNELL.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Kelly -- I'm confused by your post. You say you took stance that men aren't oppressed, but the definition attached seemed to suggest that they were??? I think you're raising some interesting questions -- in particular about how we define "oppression" and about "men as a group" -- but I'm not sure how to respond because I'm not sure what you are trying to say. -- Glynis Carr Associate Professor of English Bucknell University Lewisburg, PA 17837 gcarr @ bucknell.edu http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/gcarr

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:51 -0500

From: the Cheshire Cat <alanacat @ WAM.UMD.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Kelley Crouse wrote: > 2. Violence against men is more condoned than against women. Despite the > growing societal awareness of violence against women (which is very good) > it is still acceptable to harm or kill men if the reason is "justifiable". While the other "oppressions" you list have some validity to them (although I would hardly call them "oppression" since oppression requires someone with greater power than you enforcing such rules, and men *are* that greater power, and those rules benefit them in lots of ways - I'll get to that in a sec.) The one above is false. While it's true that there is a general view that men like to fistfight (in some cultural groups, anyway) or what have you, implicitly, violence against women is much more tolerated than violence against men. A better phrasing might be "men are more expected to be violent" which IS true - but those against whom they are violent are largely women and children. Now, when a man is violent against a man, he may be prosecuted or not, depending upon other factors like race (if they're both black, probably not, if they're both white, than class comes into play - is one richer than the other, than probably, if they're both working class, probably not, and so on). If a woman is violent toward a man, she is almost sure to be prosecuted -and to go to jail, because it's not women's place to be violent. Her violence shows that there's something wrong with her. Note how this works to men's advantage, particularly in cases of battering. On the other hand, when men are violent against women, prosecution is relatively unlikely, even now, and even when there is prosecution, jail is an iffy outcome. Partially, that's why women are in so much more danger if they try to prosecute. Again, note how this work's to men's advantage. > > THE TRUTH ABOUT MEN: > 1. Every man has always done the best he could to fight the oppression that > was placed upon him; even when he acts oppressively towards men or women, > he is still fighting against the oppression as hard as he can and as much > as he knows how to. Nonsense! There are men who do work to fight oppression, sure, but there are plenty who either don't care or don't think about their lives in terms of oppression, or else who are aware that they benefit from the status quo, and wish for things to remain as they are. Not to mention that men who batter, for example, are hardly fighting oppression. How is contributing to oppression fighting it.Or how about the religious right? I'm sorry, I find that just too ridiculous. > POSTSCRIPT: > It is true that men hold predominantly all of the power and privilege in > the current oppressive society. Although women do not hold near as much > power and privilege they still play a part in oppressing boys and men in > society by holding the above lies about men as true. Certainly men do this > too as well. I see, so women oppress men, by doing their best to survive under the rules set up by those who benefit by those rules? Your definition of oppression is way too loose, here. Alana Suskin alanacat @ wam.umd.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:22:25 -0500

From: Jennifer McCrickerd <JM4361R @ ACAD.DRAKE.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Marilyn Frye's article "Oppression" might be helpful with this topic. (It's in _Politics of Reality_) One of her points is that men are not caught in what she calls a 'double-bind,' while women are. If a man acts in accordance with the norms of masculinity, he will not be penalized but will gain privilege (or there may be some harm, *but the harm is outweighed by the privilege gained*). Serious penalty for men comes only when they stray from the norms of masculinity (or other norms). But, then they aren't oppressed because they are men, but because they are not meeting a particular standard. A woman who acts in accordance with the norms of femininity *is* penalized for her conformity. Eg., women who are indecisive are acting in a stereotypically feminine manner, and are mocked for being indecisive, are turned down for jobs, etc. And a woman who is decisive is also penalized for her lack of femininity. Women experience social sanctions for both conformity and non-conformity to the norms of femininity. Frye says it much better and with more detail and argument, but this gives what I take to be much of the general idea. Jennifer McCrickerd

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:54:54 -0500

From: Jean Noble <jnoble @ YORKU.CA>

Subject: Male Oppression

Am wondering if 'we' might unpack the terms "men/man": might we mean white men, heterosexual men, black men, asian men, female-to-male men, gay white men, black gay men, transsexual men, transgendered men, disabled men, male-to-female 'men', working class men, men without dicks ... am troubled by how 'men' is being used without specificities in these conversations. surely we would not use 'woman' in such a way, right? Jean Noble Graduate Programme in English York University Toronto Canada

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:41:31 -0500

From: Christine Smith <CSMITH @ VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

I second Jennifer McCrickerd's suggestion to read "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye. Another of Frye's points is that you can be miserable without being oppressed. In my courses, I do clarify that certain men are oppressed, such as men of color, gay men, working class men, etc. But they are oppressed because of those categories. I do not believe men, as in the category men, are oppressed. They set up the system, and apparently they did not do a perfect job. But I do believe that ultimately even those things seen as oppressive, (male violence, not being able to cry) benefit men. Men "can't" cry, but that lack of emotional expressivity is seen as positive and as showing reason (allegely the opposite of emotion). Men use violence, which hurts men as well as women, but it is a visible means of control and power. Christine Smith Lewis & Clark College

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:55:03 -0500

From: "Michelle B. Golden" <mgolden @ EMORY.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Hi all, There is an excellent article (cited below) that I think indirectly speaks to the issue of men being "oppressed" on the basis of gender by addressing some ways white middle/upper middle class men enact the privilege that comes with that social location. It has been some time since I read it but I remember being very *very* impressed with the way that the authors get at the issue of power/privilege/oppression as it relates to men from two different social locations (the sophistication of the analysis isn't fully apparent until the end, FYI, though it is excellent throughout). I think it also may have a section specifically on the mythopoetic men's movement, which seems to be a source of some of the ideas out there about men being oppressed on the basis of gender (by the way I think that men cannot be oppressed on the basis of gender, though men can and are oppressed on the basis of race, class, etc -- and those oppressions are themselves gendered). Anyway, here's the cite: Hondagneu, Pierrette and Michael Messner. 1997. "Gender Displays and Men's Power: The 'New Man' and the Mexican Immigrant Man," in_ Through the Prism of Difference: Readings on Sex and Gender_, Zinn, Maxine Baca, Pierette Hondagneu-Sotelo and Michael Messner, eds. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. pg. 58-69. I think this is one of the most useful articles I have read on men and gender in some time, and I remember being so impressed by the end that I immediately called a white male friend of mine (who trys to be an pro-feminist ally) and had a long discussion about it. He subsequently read it and found it very powerful. Best, Michelle mgolden @ emory.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:02:46 -0500

From: Peter Hovmand <hovmandp @ PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Nearly all of my work relates in one way or another to male violence prevention/intervention, including workshops/ programs with males. The notion of "male oppression" is a red herring in these groups. When the issue of "male oppression" comes up, I usually confront it immediately. I borrow from Marilyn Frye, bell hooks, Mary Daly, Erich Fromm, Paulo Freire, and others, the idea that the oppressor is in a death loving mode, and hence dehumanized. I found two basic cases. In the first case, the term 'oppression' is being substituted for for a feeling of dehumanization. While males may be generally rewarded for violence and punished for crying, and one might look at this as a cost-benefit equation, I think there is a deeper point here. Folks in positions of priviledge must be convinced into maintaining priviledge by believing that their position is, in fact, superior. But these positions are death loving, empty. There is an obscession to seize life from others. So when women decide to separate from males, there is some deep fear of starvation which is used to justify aggression against women. Being this way is not life affirming. When I have taken an approach based on this with males in prevention workshops, the effect is powerful and creates a space where males can more accurately locate the impact of male violence on women and children. Sticking with the term "male oppression" in these cases is a tactic to avoid dealing with the real issues and their impacts. In the second case, males may be operating from a premise that there can only be one dimension of oppression. So if such a male experiences oppression along a different dimension such as race, sexual orientation, class, education, etc., he concludes that he is oppressed. Since there is only one dimension, he concludes that he is oppressed by what someone else is calling the oppression of sexism. This may be reinforced by the notion that when someone talks about male priviledge, he does not see himself as experiencing that set priviledge. The underlying assumption here is that sexism ought to benefit all males equally, which is clearly not the case. I've found that being upfront on issues of racism, classism, homophobia, etc. and talking about the intersections really helps. Peter Hovmand

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:00:48 -0500 (EST)

From: "Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology, Ursinus College"

Subject: Male Oppression

The problem with discussions of who oppresses whom, in very borad general terms, is that it is very alienating to claim that men, as a group, oppress women, as a group, when an individual man may feel much more oppressed than oppressing. Though many of Alana's objections are founded in some truth, the bottom line truth is that men do not oppress women -- many individuals in positions of power oppress those with less power, in a variety of ways. Very often, and granted, more often than vice versa, that ends up being an individual man oppressing an individual women, on the basis of his socially constructed power *as a man* -- but it can also be the other way around (though I'd agree that the woman's oppression of a man would usually not be on the basis of her socially constructed power *as a woman* but on something else. I don't think it's very helpful to confront men who feel aspects of their experience as "oppression" by becoming angry and denying that interpretation: "You're not really oppressed -- *we* are the ones who are oppressed!" Whose oppression is worse is a fruitless argument. Besides, men who acknowledge male oppression are usually developing their consciousness of gender roles, which leads in the direction of feminism. The author of the piece Kelley appended acknowledges that women suffer more from gender roles. To discuss the nature of oppression with an open mind, and with willingness to listen, can really create the teachable moment. That will backfire, however, if the point becomes to show the guy who thinks he's oppressed how wrong he is.

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:42:28 -0700

From: Trudy Mercer <tmercer @ SPRINTMAIL.COM>

Subject: Male Oppression

Kelly, Is this organization where the list of oppresstions & "truths" are from? Please clarify, as I see it important to how some reading your post are responding. Trudy tmercer @ sprintmail.com >Men Against Racism & Sexism >517 Sacramento Drive, Austin, Texas USA >E-MAIL: mars @ ccsi.com - Phone-Fax: 512-326--9686

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:22:40 -0800

From: France Winddance Twine <twine @ SSCF.UCSB.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Kelley: If you are interested in providing your students with some writings on male oppression written by self-identified male feminists there are several useful essays that address this concern in the volume edited by Tom Digby entitled "MEN DOING FEMINISM", with a foreword by Sandra Bartky. Published by Routledge in 1998. I am currently assigning "Male Feminism as an Oxymoron" by David J. Kahane and "How Feminism Made a Man Out of Me: The Proper Subject of Feminism and the Problem of Men" by Patrick Hopkins in my undergraduate feminist theory course so that we can discuss what oppression means to men who claim feminism as an intellectual and political space. Also Susan Bordo has an excellent essay in this volume "My Father the Feminist". F. Winddance Twine U of California - Santa Barbara ****************************** If it can be imagined, it can be done. France Winddance Twine Assistant Professor of Sociology 2834 Ellison Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Phone: 805-893-3118 FAX: 805-893-3324

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:26:13 -0500

From: Ruby Rohrlich <rohrlich @ GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Dear Kelley: Both men and women suffer from class oppression and black men suffer physically, tdo the point of death, from racial oppression, perhaps more than women, who are not usually lynched. Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich @ gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:33:58 -0500

From: Joya Misra <joya @ ARCHES.UGA.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

This point of Michelle Golden's > men > can and are oppressed on the basis of race, class, etc -- and those > oppressions are themselves gendered). seems pretty critical to me. Men can be oppressed on the basis of race, for example, but this oppression is also gendered. Here are two examples: In the US, African-American lower-class men have been dehumanized and conceptualized as "violent" -- they are treated as significantly different from either African-American women or white men. During the colonial period in India, British discourse portrayed Bengali men as "soft" and "feminine" in order to undermine their position in Bengali society. Are these men then oppressed by their gender? Or by the way people in power use the interaction between gender and ethnicity to oppress them? In essence, then, I agree with several other posters, in arguing that we need to take these intersections seriously -- and not discount the *gendering* of men's oppression. Joya Misra Please note! My email address has changed to joya @ arches.uga.edu! ********************************************************************** Joya Misra Assistant Professor Baldwin Hall University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 email: joya @ arches.uga.edu phone: (706) 542-3190 fax: (706) 542-4320

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:21:00 -0500

From: Kelley Crouse <kcwalker @ SYR.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

>I personally find this > troublesome as it refocuses a class designed to discuss women, on to men, thus > returning to a patriachal focus of men as more important, even in a discussion > of women. I pointed this out to students and our discussions ahve been less > male oriented since but I am wondering have other people had this experience > and how have people handled re-directing the discussion? > >Amy Hi Amy, One thing I did was include a sentence in the syllabus which said: Academic feminism is not about 'male bashing' While men's participation in social change is important, this course is focused on feminist knowledges, bringing them from the margins to the center(s) of our scholarly concerns" And continued on with a discussion of feminism as part of the larger project of critiquing ad re-creating knowledge production. But I too found that the discussions were really animated when discussions of men came up for whatever reason. Whereas, discussions of women and gender stereotypes were not only less animated but often accompanied by a lot of objections about whether this was "really true," how old is the research? when was this written anyway? Things like that. In part, this was because about 6 women (out of 30) had taken the men and masculinities course and their instructor had been adamant that male oppression exists--that men are oppressed as men. Because this particular professor is a dean and I'm an adjunct, I think they found it easier to take him seriously and ignore my insistence that they go back to the Frye article which we read early on in the course. And, while the course was constructed from the perspective of an intersectional analysis, they still objected when I tried to point out that most of their examples of men oppressed as men were really examples of men oppressed in conjunction with racial, ethnic, sexual, and class oppressions. Anyway, I allowed them to dwell on the topic for awhile, but I didn't come right out and point out that they were reinscribing gender oppression. I just gently tried to steer the conversation back to women. I don't know how to deal with these issues because we're in the classic double bind: if we're forceful in our positions we're seen as bitchy feminists and, if we're not, then we end up not being heard. I guess the thing that I kept trying to remind myself of was that it took me quite a few years to embrace feminist analyses, so I shouldn't expect them to be transformed in the course of a ten week term. Kelley, humbled at every turn

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:52:25 -0500

From: Kelley Crouse <kcwalker @ SYR.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

First, some points of clarification: I didn't create the list defining male oppression. I found it on a web site, Men Against Racism & Sexism or MARS I noted this in my post though clearly I wasn't explicit enough since a number of responses thought otherwise. The web site on male oppression was interesting to me because it used the typical definition of oppression (also implicitly used by Frye and Gloria Yamamoto and others) but went on to provide examples that didn't hold up to that definition of oppression as some posts have pointed out. With regard to my students, their examples of male oppression ended up being about male oppression as it intersects with race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality. But I didn't include all this in my initial post because my question was about 'male oppression' and the validity of the notion of male oppression and whether anyone could more adequately defend the claims of 'male oppression' I was particularly interested since I was curious as to whether the Dean who teaches the course on men and masculinities might have a more theoretically adequate ground to stand on. By the way, I agree that engaging in a 'more oppressed than thou' debate in class is pointless in the end. Second, it's not entirely clear to me why folks felt it necessary to assume that I don't teach from the perspective of an intersectional analysis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and gender. Why this assumption--and why were *some* of the posts accusatory in tone? I find it rather troublesome that this assumption was made given the nature of the technological beast we're working with here and the limitations of space and time. I guess I could have droned on about my social location (white, rural, working class, single mother and I continue to live in a working class community, and engage with and love working class friends and family. And,I'm an adjunct still and so as far as I'm concerned, not quite yet a white, middle class professional). I guess I could have gone on about my feminist politics and theoretical preferences (early on not particularly enthused by and feeling quite alienated by what I say as a feminism concerned mostly with the concerns of white middle class women and later being radicalized by the likes of hooks, Anzaldua, Spellman and Lugones, and other). And I guess I could have included the texts I used in the course: Dorothy Allison, Bastard out of Carolina and Three things I know for sure Kesselman, McNair, Schniedewind, Women, Images and Realities a multicultural reader (very intersectional thank you very much) Frye, Oppression Tokarczyk and Fay, Working Class Women in the Academy Taylor, Gilligan, Sullivan, Between Voice and Silence, Women and Girls, Race and Relationship Findley, Listen Up Voices from the Next Feminist Generation All of this would have clarified my position and prevented misunderstandings--maybe. It also makes for a long post which people don't always read or send to the trash before they get to the question or concern that motivated the post in the first place. I guess I'm wondering why the impulse to NOT given someone the benefit of a doubt in these forums? Third, for those who did offer constructive advice on teaching about oppression: Yes I did use Frye's article. It's still a wonderful piece to work with and the bird cage metaphor came up over and over again in our discussions. Many used it in their essays and especially when they analyzed Allison's Bastard our of Carolina. I updated it in order to include an intersectional analysis, talking about how the bars of the cage were different depending on the social location of the person inside. (made of different metals, more or less of them, spaced closer or farther apart, etc) It really seemed to work and the students' imaginations were clearly animated by the analogy. I recommend it to folks on the list. I even managed to find some birdcages in a second hand shop which I use as props--fun to work with! Finally, thanks for the other refs on the social construction of gender, male privilege, and the intersections of CREGS. Like Amy, though, in this particular course I wanted to focus just on women and to do so from an intersectional analysis. Generally, I take seriously the claim that we also need to understand how privilege is constructed and to analyze oppression in conjunction with an analysis of privilege (CREGS as the acronym goes) and so I prefer to teach women's studies by also talking about men and CREGS. But, of course, ten week terms aren't conducive to this sort of breadth of analysis and so I ended up limiting the readings to an intersectional analysis of women's experience and how class, racial, ethnic, and heterosexual privilege operates in women's lives. The course is also, unfortunately, called "The Female Experience" which we did problematize throughout the course. But, I fear that half of the students still walked away with the sense that problatizing the title of the course means that there is no such thing a a singular female experience (now that's progress I'd say) and, instead, there are an infinite variety of female experiences (and that is not progress I fear) Kelley, repeating to herself the mantra: "It took me a couple of years to 'get it'"

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:17:10 -0500

From: Ruby Rohrlich <rohrlich @ GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

I believe the facts about male oppression should not be hidden or diluted. But when I taught the anthropology of women, before I retired, I started off by discussing the meaning of patriarchal culture, and pointed out that men -- working class, "color" groups, religious and ethnic groups -- accepted the fact of their own oppression more readily as long as their control over women is not altered. Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich @ gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:19:14 -0500 (EST)

From: YHall <YHall @ AOL.COM>

Subject: Male Oppression

I am happy to see the discussion on male oppression enlarged by rorich and others to include economic oppression (class), racial and ethnic discrimination (lynchings, and today, the unprecedented number of black males in our prisons), together with gender issues. If we deal primarily with gender issues focusing on the problem as seen through the prism of white middle class women's issues, we miss connecting with many potential allies. It has long been pointed out that women of color are triply oppressed on the basis of race, class and gender. I recommend to the reading list: "Race, Gender and Work, A Multicultural Economic History of Women in the United States," Teresa L. Amott & Julie A. Matthaei,South End Press, Boston, 1991. Yolanda Hall Women and Labor History Project yhall @ aol.com

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:28:07 -0500

From: Daphne Patai <daphne.patai @ SPANPORT.UMASS.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

I wonder if the same sort of explanation offered below also helps explain many women's apparent acceptance (as so much feminist writing bemoans) of their own oppression. What kind of control or payoffs do they get that work comparably to the payoffs Ruby rohrlich articulates below? Daphne Patai ---------- > I believe the facts about male oppression should not be hidden or diluted. > But when I taught the anthropology of women, before I retired, I started off > by discussing the meaning of patriarchal culture, and pointed out that men > -- working class, "color" groups, religious and ethnic groups -- > accepted the fact of their own oppression more readily as long as their > control over women is not altered. Ruby Rohrlich > rohrlich @ gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:05:18 -0800

From: "Allan G. Johnson" <agjohnson @ MAIL.HARTFORD.EDU>

Subject: "Male Oppression" as Denial & Defense

I think Kelley Crouse's dilemma around "male oppression" is rooted primarily in the definition she used for 'oppression.' Since oppression is about dominant and subordinate relations between groups, a society cannot oppress a group. To say that it can hopelessly distorts the meaning of both 'oppression' and 'society.' On another level, it's also important to be aware of the circumstances in which the assertion that men are oppressed is made. It's typically a defensive reaction offered as a kind of balancing "counter-suit" to assertions of women's oppressed status under patriarchy. In that way, it's similar to the mythic "male bashing" claim. It's usually not said as a call to action since the vast majority of men show little interest in actually changing the society that they say oppresses them. Instead, the claim serves as a way to silence women and draw their sympathetic attention away from women and back to men which, in a male-centered patriarchy, is where women's attention properly belongs. There is no doubt that men are in considerable pain as a result of patriarchal dynamics. But 'oppression' isn't the word for it. The middle portion of my book, "The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy" (Temple University Press, 1997) is devoted to the many ways that the reality of patriarchy is obscured and denied, including the claim that men are oppressed. It might help male students to hear about it from another man. For more, see http://mail.hartford.edu/genderknot. -- Allan Johnson Sociology & Women's Studies Hartford College for Women agjohnson @ mail.hartford.edu (860) 768-5605

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:11:40 -0500

From: cynthia burack <cburack @ POLISCI.UFL.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

With regard to the thread on male oppression, Gina Oboler wrote: Besides, men who acknowledge >male oppression are usually developing their consciousness of gender roles, >which leads in the direction of feminism. I think it's important to acknowledge that this is often not the case. The self-understanding of many white supremacist men is of their own (male) oppression or victimization, and this self-understanding, far from being conducive to the development of a consciousness about sexism, racism, or hatred of lesbians and gay men, fuels their ideological rage and resentment. For an excellent treatment of this theme, see Jesse Daniels' _White Lies: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse_. Daniels also emphasizes the close connections that exist between "extreme" white supremacist discourse and "ordinary" political discourse (connections that are surely relevant to the discussion of male oppression underway on the list). Needless to say, I've found that most undergraduate political science students are not receptive to discussions of texts/ideas such as these. Cynthia Burack Department of Political Science, Cntr for Women's Studies & Gender Research 3324 Turlington Hall PO Box 117325 University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611-7325 cburack @ polisci.ufl.edu phone: 352-846-2835 fax: 352-392-4873

===========================================================================

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:23:11 -0500 (EST)

From: "Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology, Ursinus College"

Subject: "Male Oppression" as Denial & Defense

It seems to me the point is not to reach the One Correct Interpretation of what oppression is and who is oppressed, exactly, and how. We have all been discussing whether men can be oppressed (which turned out actually to mean whether they can be oppressed *as men*), what the bases of disadvantage that produce oppression are -- race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, sometimes language and religion, etc. -- whether this is a group or individual phenomenon,whether the pain patriarchy produces for men can rightly be called oppression, whether the whole question sidetracks consideration of women's oppression, etc. These are interesting questions, and the conversation leads us to deeper thought, whether we end up with a single interpretation or not. The point seems to me to be to get students, in so far as possible, to reproduce this conversation in the classroom. FWIW.

===========================================================================

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:53:01 +0200

From: Jutta Zalud <jutta.zalud @ MAGNET.AT>

Subject: Male Oppression

There are at least two gratifications women get from accepting their own opression: first: They are in the place society has provided for them and living according to (their) society's standards, which makes them feel accepted and ok. second: Living according to patriarchal standards ensures that a woman will not be responsible for her own fate. Whatever happens to her will be her husband's (father's, brother's, bosses ...) fault. and after all: *if* the husband earns enough money, the marriage is ok, the kids are at school, the neighbours are nice people, the sun is shining etc being a traditional housewife is not that bad.... Jutta ---- Daphne Patai wrote: > I wonder if the same sort of explanation offered below also helps explain > many women's apparent acceptance (as so much feminist writing bemoans) of > their own oppression. What kind of control or payoffs do they get that > work comparably to the payoffs Ruby rohrlich articulates below? > Daphne Patai > ---------- ************************************************** Jutta Zalud Deublergasse 48/5 A-1210 Vienna Austria Phone (home): ++43-1-272 99 02 Phone (office): ++43-1-712 10 01 ext. 76 Fax: ++43-1-713 74 40 email: a7400819 @ unet.univie.ac.at jutta.zalud @ magnet.at **************************************************

===========================================================================

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 12:11:15 -0500 (EST)

From: GNesmith <GNesmith @ AOL.COM>

Subject: Male Oppression/women's acceptance

<< Living according to patriarchal standards ensures that a woman will not be responsible for her own fate. Whatever happens to her will be her husband's (father's, brother's, bosses ...) fault. and after all: *if* the husband earns enough money, the marriage is ok, the kids are at school, the neighbours are nice people, the sun is shining etc being a traditional housewife is not that bad....<< I find this difficult to accept, primarily because a major feature of accepting patriarchy for women involves accepting fault for everything that happens. If a husband fails in business, it's the woman's fault for not providing him sufficient emotional support. If he fails sexually, it's his wife's fault. Being a traditional housewife is "not that bad" only when things are going well. She is considered to be a "good wife" because she is properly supporting her husband emotionally & by providing the creature comforts he needs to fulfill his role. However, when things go bad, *SHE* is responsible. It is *HER* responsibility to "set things right." Georgia NeSmith, Phd Writer, Editor, Photographer & writing coach Adjunct faculty, Rochester Institute of Technology gnesmith @ aol.com

===========================================================================

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:50:36 -0400

From: Michael Kimmel <mkimmel @ DATALAB2.SBS.SUNYSB.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Forgive me for jumping in a little late on this thread, since I just got back from a few days away. I wanted to second this reference, since my friends (and co-editor) Messner and Hondagneau-Sotelo frame the issues in powerful ways. I confront this question constantly, both as an academic writing about men from a profeminst perspective, and as an activist as Spokesperson for NOMAS. I think the original post had some enormous value in sorting through the question of oppression by maintaining the social, aggregate, analytic framework for situating the discussion. Oppression is a social, aggregate level of analysis, a phenomenon that occurs between groups, not something that individuals necessarily feel. Men _as men_ are not oppressed, but privileged. Men MAY be oppressed, of course, but not as men. They are oppressed by race, class, sexuality, age, ethnicity, region, physical abilities etc. (Just because we raise a gender analysis ought not mean that we ignore the other categories by which people develop access to status and power.) As men - as a group - we are privileged, vis a vis women. This doesn't mean, though, that we feel like oppressors - we typically do not. So it might make sense to provide some distinction. I think of my life as painfully impoverished by sexism (or racism, hetreosexism, classism, etc.), my vision distorted, my world diminished. I have no idea what it would be like - how rich my experience could be - if I lived in a world in which women were equal to men. So for men - as men - I say our lives are distorted, our experience impoverished by the very same processes that oppress women. But we are not oppressed as men. I have the same discussion about "power" all the time. Men are "in" power, but men don't "feel" powerful. I've found that it does not reach men at all to simply assert that since men as a group are in power, they, as individuals, must feel powerful. They look at you as if, for once, we were from different planets. Michael Kimmel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael Kimmel Professor Department of Sociology SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794 phone: (516) 632-7708 fax: (516) 632-8203 email: mkimmel @ datalab2.sbs.sunysb.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:59:00 -0600

From: Robin Murray <rmurray @ SOSU.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

Ruby Rohrlich wrote: > > Dear Kelley: > Both men and women suffer from class oppression and black men > suffer physically, tdo the point of death, from racial oppression, perhaps > more than women, who are not usually lynched. Ruby Rohrlich > rohrlich @ gwis2.circ.gwu.edu Ruby, Instead, black women are raped, sterilized, economically oppressed, stigmatized as welfare "witches," etc. African American girls receive less emphasis in school and social programs because they are viewed as less oppressed, even though their drop-out rate, pregnancy rate, etc., greatly inhibit their growth. Black women *do* suffer physically. Robin rmurray @ sosu.edu

===========================================================================

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:46:32 -0800

From: Betty Glass <glass @ ADMIN.UNR.EDU>

Subject: Female Oppression & Arkansas Shootings as Gender Hate Crime

Mary Schweitzer's weekend post about the AK shooting is very timely for the "Male Oppression" thread. The 13-yr-old and 11-yr-old boys have demonstrated to the world the message of patriarchy they have absorbed from their society - that females should fear for their lives if they do not satisfy the wants of the dominant male -- and any female may have to pay the price for the 'shortcomings' of another female. You may be interested in Linda Hasselstrom's essay, "Why One Peaceful Woman Carries a Pistol". It is available in two books: Hasselstron, Linda. _Land Circle: Writings Collected from the Land_ CO: Fulcrum Pub., 1991. ISBN 1-55591-142-0 Jordan, Teresa & James Hepworth, eds. _The Stories that Shape Us: Contemporary Women Write About the West_. NY: Norton, 1995. ISBN 0-393-31451-0 (Interestingly, Hasselstron, an established writer, had trouble getting this essay published. It just doesn't 'fit' what our society wants to know about/hear from women about the reality of their lives.) Betty _________________________________________________________ Betty Glass, Humanities Bibliographer Getchell Library/322 University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV 89557-0044 email: glass @ admin.unr.edu office: (702) 784-6500 ext. 303 FAX: (702) 784-1751 "Don't laugh, oh, please don't make me laugh." Andy Warhol June 3, 1968

===========================================================================

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:30:33 -0500 (EST)

From: "Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology, Ursinus College"

Subject: Male Oppression

Back at the beginning of the discussion of oppression, Kelley provided a definition from the website of Men Against Racism and Sexism. I deleted it and can't remember what it was, but it didn't seem unreasonable. I just checked a number of statification and inequality texts in anthropology and sociology to see what definitions of the term they offer. The fact is that the term "oppression" is rarely defined, or used. There may be a good reason for this. Obviously, discussion here has shown that it is a term that is variously understood. It is also emotionally loaded, which makes it a valuable tool of political rhetoric. But is it an equally valuable analytic tool, as things now stand? Personally, I am uncomfortable with taking the experiential element that people I know have always used prominently as a part of the meaning of "oppression" out of the mix. For example, in the 60s many of us were involved in consciousness-raising, often for very extended periods of time and often well into the 70s, and sometimes beyond. The goal of this process, I thought, was to define our oppression -- and hence the axiom, "People have a right to define their own oppression." I have been told very clearly by African feminists that Western women have no business thinking that pro- natalism and bearing many children is part of African women's oppression, though certainly the mandate to be a mother creates desperate unhappiness for women who can't conceive, and though the same African feminists certainly see *other* institutions in their cultures as functioning to keep women as a group in a secondary condition. In the women's center I worked in in 1970, a huge argument erupted over whether wearing jewellry was an aspect of women's oppression as part of the mandate that we be decorative. In these cases, how people felt about the experience that allegedly "oppressed" them mattered powerfully. It seems to me that "oppression" means something like the constraints that function to keep a group of people in a lower position in a social system. Men are "oppressors" when they act directly to prevent women from doing things they wish to do *because they are women.* But women can also act as oppressors of other women in this way. Though people may sometimes be the "oppressors," for the most part it is the cultural and social system that creates the oppression. Now, are men not oppressed because overall, when all things a person wishes to do but is denied the right to do because of gender are weighed in the aggregate, it ends up usually being women who are disadvantaged? Is it argued, therefore, that men are in the higher position in the social system? Still, there are ways that men are systematically disadvantaged *as men.* Throughout history, men (though usually primarily men of the lower classes) have been subject to a military draft that required them to kill and risk being killed. Though it is not operative in the US at this moment, it could be restored at any time. That seems like a powerful systematic disadvantage to me, and other examples could be offered. Certainly, though, all these areas of experience in which men are the disadvantaged ones do not add up overall to the number of ways women are systematically disadvantaged as women. Is that why women are oppressed and men are not? I am not trying to argue. I am genuinely trying to be clearer about what the precise basis would be upon which we deny that a man is oppressed as a man, if he really feels himself to be (for example, because he is as risk of being drafted while women are not.) It seems much more sensible to me to say that this is an example of the way in which the cultural system oppresses men, while pointing out that there are vastly more ways women are oppressed by the system and men are privileged by it than vice versa (which was in fact a point directly made in the website excerpt Kelley provided). And yes, there are (at least) two threads of discourse about male oppression. One is highly misogynistic, found among anit-feminist men's groups, e.g. several support groups for divorced fathers seeking custody of children. In this discourse men become oppressed by being denied access to children (or alternatively, unreasonably drained of resources) because they are men. And women are the "oppressors." And I certainly agree that most of the claims made in this line of discourse are bogus. However, that is not the position that my male sutdents are usually coming from, or that I assume the Dean who taught the course on Men's Roles Kelley referred to was coming from. I've always thought that oppression is complex, and more than a matter of counting up advantages and disadvantages. And that if a person's situation feels like oppression to her/him, that sense of the situation at least ought to be given serious consideration.

===========================================================================

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:23:31 -0600

From: Sandra Donaldson <donaldso @ BADLANDS.NODAK.EDU>

Subject: Male Oppression

There's a very good essay by Susan Stanford Friedman in _Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature_ that conceptualizes exactly the conflicts raised by this issue. She suggests six perspectives, or discourses of identity, as a "geographics of identity." They are cultural formations that she describes as the discourses of multiple oppression; multiple subject positions; contradictory subject positions; relationallity, situationality; and hybridity. The context is feminist literary criticism, but the idea of positionality is relevant to many disciplines. Here's the citation: "'Beyond' Gynocriticism and Gynesis: The Geographics of Identity and the Future of Feminist Criticism," _TSWL_ 15.1 (Spring 1996), pp. 13-40. Sandy Donaldson English & Women Studies Univ. of North Dakota Grand Forks ND 58202

===========================================================================

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:12:14 +1000

From: michael flood <Michael.Flood @ ANU.EDU.AU>

Subject: Male oppression

Kelley Crouse asked: >I'm wondering what folks think of "male oppression" [snipped] This notion is frequently espoused among 'men's liberationist' and 'men's rights' wings of men's movement activity, and criticised by pro-feminist wings. The latter tend to acknowledge areas of male pain and disadvantage, but to put them in the context of men's power. There is a useful feminist-informed literature on this area, which I've listed in The Men's Bibliography (under "Good reading"), at the internet address below. One useful overview can be found in the following work: Messner, Michael A. 1997 Politics of masculinities: Men in movements, University of Southern California: Sage Publications Messner offers three themes which organise his discussion of men and masculinities; (a) Institutional privilege - "Men, as a group, enjoy institutional privileges at the expense of women, as a group." [5] Institutional privilege and gender inequality still characterise US society. Gender is a system of unequal, but shifting and sometimes contested, power rel'ns [5]. (b) The costs of masculinity - "Men tend to pay heavy costs - in the form of shallow relationships, poor health, and early death - for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that promise to bring them status and privilege." [6] The promise of public status and masculine privilege comes with a price tag, of poor health, shorter lives, emotionally shallow relationships, etc [6]. Ie, conformity with narrow definitions of masculinity can be lethal for men [6]. (c) Differences and inequalities among men - "Men share very unequally in the fruits of patriarchy; hegemonic (white, middle- and upper-class, and heterosexual) masculinity is constructed in relation to femininities and to various (racial, sexual and class) subordinated masculinities." [8] Ie, while 'men, as a group, enjoy institutional privileges at the expense of women, as a group', men share very unequally in the fruits of these privileges [7]. And he gives examples of groups of men facing economic, political and legal constraints arguably which overshadow whatever privileges they may have as men [7]. ----------------------- Another piece that tackles this question is: McLean, Christopher 1996 "The politics of men's pain", in McLean, Chris, Carey, Maggie and White, Cheryl (eds) Men's ways of being, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. I've written a piece on "Responding to men's rights", which includes material on how to incorporate recognition of 'men's pain' into a feminist/pro-feminist politics. (It's being published in the Australian pro-feminist magazine XY: Men, Sex, Politics.) I'll happily send a copy to anyone to asks. Cheers, michael flood. E-mail: Michael Flood <michael.flood @ anu.edu.au> Phone: [02] 6279 8468 (w). PO Box 26, Ainslie ACT, 2602, AUSTRALIA. -- XY magazine: http://www.spirit.com.au/gerry/XY/xyf.htm (e-mail: (Ben Wadham) benwadh @ tafe.sa.edu.au ) -- The men's bibliography: http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/mensbiblio/MensBiblioMenu.html -- Pro-feminist men's FAQ: http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/pffaq.html -- Pro-feminist men's mail list: http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~gorkin/profem.html -- Women's Studies Web Page: http://www.anu.edu.au/womens_studies/ -- Homophobia and masculinities among young men (Lessons in becoming a straight man): http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/homophobia.html

===========================================================================

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:17:05 +1000

From: michael flood <Michael.Flood @ ANU.EDU.AU>

Subject: Male oppression

Just another comment. Kelley's reprinted list on 'male oppression' reads exactly like the material I've seen from Re-Evaluation Co-counselling. I know that RC is big in the US, and it has a substantial influence in men's movement circles in Australia too. RC is one of the main sources for the understandings of 'men's oppression', as well as more anti-feminist sources such as Warren Farrell. (I've also written a critique of RC, which I can send.) Cheers, michael flood. E-mail: Michael Flood <michael.flood @ anu.edu.au> Phone: [02] 6279 8468 (w). PO Box 26, Ainslie ACT, 2602, AUSTRALIA. -- XY magazine: http://www.spirit.com.au/gerry/XY/xyf.htm (e-mail: (Ben Wadham) benwadh @ tafe.sa.edu.au ) -- The men's bibliography: http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/mensbiblio/MensBiblioMenu.html -- Pro-feminist men's FAQ: http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/pffaq.html -- Pro-feminist men's mail list: http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~gorkin/profem.html -- Women's Studies Web Page: http://www.anu.edu.au/womens_studies/ -- Homophobia and masculinities among young men (Lessons in becoming a straight man): http://online.anu.edu.au/~e900392/homophobia.html

===========================================================================

For information about WMST-L

WMST-L File Collection