Sexism lies more deeply than language.

That being said, I was troubled by the following statement in the original study: “If each spouse’s employment improves
or weakens the other spouse’s health, then it would seem useful or even
necessary to consider health effects when assessing the impact of the
household division of labor on the well-being of husband and wife.”

It seems to me that Stolzenberg here is suggesting, since the study found that when wives work more than 40 hours a week it negatively impacts their spouses health, that wives shouldn’t work more than 40 hours a week. To me, this betrays a bias on the part of the researcher.

Also, note the following:
“Previous research suggests that
care for the sick and the management of health behavior and social and
emotional well-being are culturally gendered (West and Zimmerman 1987) as female tasks.”

To me, this suggests that the differential effects of long work hours may have something to do with the fact that wives traditionally take on the tasks of “management of health behavior” and “emotional well-being.” (Classic examples are the wife that makes her husband’s doctor appointments runs their social life). Not surprisingly, wives who work more than 40 hours a week probably don’t have the time or inclination to take on ths role.

The solution is not for wives to work less or for husbands to work more. The solution is for these husbands to start taking responsibility for their own health and emotional needs!!!!!

I thought Brian made some excellent points in post # 100, particularly:

Second, calling it a masculinist movement implies that it’s to be a separate movement from the movement against women’s oppression. There’s no reason why men need to separate themselves from women in order to confront sexism … in fact, that’s as counterproductive a move as could be imagined.

I can understand some men’s resistance to calling themselves “feminist” even though they agree with the basis of feminism - the efforts to free women and others of oppressive stereotypes - but Brian nicely summarizes why I don’t think “masculinist” is the way to go.

I kind of like the terms in use in the Christian debate on the topic - the “complementarians” are the ones who argue that men and women should have quite different social roles (at least within the church and family), while the “egalitarians” are those who argue that the differences between men and women are limited to reproduction and that social roles should not be assigned by sex (or race, or income, or social status…).

Egalitarians argue that there should be a “fundamental unity and equality of human beings,” but the name doesn’t imply the egalitarian in question is of either sex, which I like.

Crys T wrote:

In fact, I feel that looking at men’s lives can often be counterproductive for feminists because as a society we already have the idea that Man is the norm, the default setting for Human. So we often believe that men’s lives do in fact represent “normal”? and even “desirable”?.

Right. Once you accept or recognize the idea that most of our social roles and men and women are assigned, I think it makes far more sense to look at what makes us human, or to look for the most “human” approach to life, instead of worrying about the current social roles for men or women. I suspect that there will always be some debate over the extent of the differences between men and women, but I presume this debate will be structured quite differently if the “norm” is “human” rather than “male.”

I also think there is an innate problem with defining a movement (as above) for women’s rights as seeking equality to men’s rights,

Well, Court, this has been said many, many times before (and no doubt will be said as many times and more again), but the feminist movement is NOT some homogenous whole where every feminist actually has the same concrete definition of feminism as every other feminist. And one BIG way in which we can differ from each other is on the question of “equality with men”.

For example, I personally don’t see men as The Standard of Excellence to emulate. Nor do I see men’s lives, including those aspects encompassing their rights, as the ideal ones I should aspire to. And so on.

In fact, I feel that looking at men’s lives can often be counterproductive for feminists because as a society we already have the idea that Man is the norm, the default setting for Human. So we often believe that men’s lives do in fact represent “normal” and even “desirable”. I think that women need to look completely outside of this if we are going to make our own lives better, and not sad copies of men’s lives, with all the negativity and brutality that can imply.

Because of this point of view, I in no way think feminism should “seek equality to men’s rights”. So, I in no way feel obliged to have every single discussion of how women are shortchanged or made to suffer in this world into YET ANOTHER chapter of PHMT, and sacrifice all discussion of women’s lives until every man has had his chance to be succored. What you men decide to do is up to you–as long as you stop screwing others over–but I’m really tired of having you come running to women crying just because you don’t know how to treat each other nicely. Sort yourselves out, and let us get some damn work done.

On a side note, try going to a Grateful Dead show sometime (Yeah, I know Jerry’s dead, but they still tour). You’ll see plenty of guys wearing skirts and not a single person making an issue of it. I also had a straight male friend in high school who liked to wear skirts a lot, he did and nobody ever picked a serious fight with him, he did get asked about it a lot though and it was a great conversation starter most of the time as the people who didn’t approve just shook their heads and got the hell away from us.

Interesting how you push that off into parenthesis when it’s actually pretty central. Anger, especially aggressive anger, is considered completely off-limits for women. And it’s not considered “emotional” for a man to display aggressive anger.

First, it presumes that the ways that sexism oppresses men isn’t being discussed. That’s not true. The ways that sexism oppresses men has always been part of the critique of sexism — how could it not be? The genders are defined in terms of their opposition to each other. You can’t critique the arbitrary limits placed on women without at least implying a critique of the arbitrary limits placed on men. And it’s rare that the connection isn’t made explicit. The main emphasis is on the oppression of women, but that’s because the main focus of sexism is the oppression of women. Men’s oppression as men is largely derivative of the oppression of women.

Second, calling it a masculinist movement implies that it’s to be a separate movement from the movement against women’s oppression. There’s no reason why men need to separate themselves from women in order to confront sexism — in fact, that’s as counterproductive a move as could be imagined. I can’t see any point to organizing on such a basis, unless it’s specifically in opposition to women’s liberation. If all you mean is that, sometimes, men should talk with each other about what they suffer as men, then that’s not really a separate and distinct movement, and calling it such is misleading at best. In no small part this is because overt sexists have called for movements for men, again and again, as something explicitly opposed to the movement for women’s liberation — the MRAs are only one example of this.

I believe sexism is best opposed by women and men together, with the understanding that while sexism hurts men and women, it hurts women most, and the core of the struggle against sexism is the struggle for women’s liberation. When women are free, men will also be free.

My *entire* reason for posting has been to point out that expectations are placed on men as well, but that’s often overlooked.

Not around here, it’s not. I can think of few mixed-gender feminist groups I’ve been to online where threads about women’s troubles don’t end up being crashed by men who want to do a constant diversion of “Yeah, buts…” as if pointing out that men have problems too somehow defeats the impact of the problems women were discussing in the first place;As if a man is hurting, of course the women ought to just drop everything else and start discussing that. Funny how that dynamic is similar to what P-A was talking about in the first place, isn’t it ?

It’s a constant sore point to me, and to other women here too, I’ll wager.

At any rate, I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t matter much to the average woman whether or not men are publically airing their feelings;The onus is still upon us to cater to those feelings, frequently at our own expense. Also (as several folk have pointed out clearly on this thread and on others) the toll this sort of catering takes on us is far heavier than the toll men might place on each other to restrain public displays of feelings in the first place.

See, I think the emotions men can and cannot display are a very good illustration of the problem, and therefore quite relevant.

Well, maybe you should ask Amp if he’d allow to post a piece about what a “masculinist” movement would do to alieviate this. Or if you have your own blog, write about it there and link to it. Something like that would go a long way toward persuading a number of feminists here who’ve heard variations of your tune many, many times that you’re serious about change– instead of just wanting to change the focus of the discussion so it’s all about you and other men.

Much discussion on this thread has centered around the expectations placed on women and the unfairness of that. My *entire* reason for posting has been to point out that expectations are placed on men as well, but that’s often overlooked.

Last I checked this was a blog centered on women’s issues and feminism. Yes, expectations are placed on men too, and no, they are not overlooked generally, they are not just discussed here as much as expectations on women. There is no need to get all “fair and balanced” everytime women are discussed and derail the conversation by yelling “What about the men?” I’ve seen a post about a damn gang-rape turn into a huge, huge argument about the premise: “Men feel powerless because of female beauty and passive sex role, which gives women greater sexual power, poor little men!” A god damn thread about a gang rape and the subsequent coverup turned into a discussion about men supposedly having harder time to get laid. Doh.
I think you are either uninformed about feminism or just trolling (altough you are a very happy troll if that’s what you are :-) )Here, a dictionary definition:
fem·i·nism
noun
1. belief in women’s rights: belief in the need to secure, or a commitment to securing, rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men

2. movement for women’s rights: the movement committed to securing and defending equal rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men
(emphasis mine). Notice the word equal there? Since men already have equal or better rights and opportunities, an opposite, masculinist movement would be silly in that definition.
But hey, I’m all for changing stupid stereotypes about men, and that’s why I generally support feminism (as breaking stereotypes is not a zero-sum game i.e. either have stereotypes about men or stereotypes about women). And indeed, quite many feminists are only happy to trash stereotypes about men (don’t show emotion etc.) They just focus on women’s issues more, and have every right to do so.

While I’ll agree that alsis38’s comment is pretty sexist, she may be assuming you’re arguing for a masculinist movement that parallels the Men’s Rights movement, which unfortunately often does fit her “sexists complaining about those who are fighting sexism” defininition. Not surprising if that’s her assumption - “Masculinist” is a name more associated with MRAs than with men who argue that sexual discrimination is a problem best resolved by greater equality between the sexes and weaker sex role assignment.

My contention is that any sort of “masculinist movement”? would not be welcome by at least some significant portion of the feminist movement.

Well, define said “masculinist movement.” Feminists are against the current “Men’s Rights Activists” because most MRAs are trying to undo all that feminism has accomplished, and more. Obviously, if a men’s group has goals in complete opposition to those of most feminists, the feminist movement isn’t going to welcome that group with open arms.

If there was a “masculinist movement” that argued we should view others as individuals and treat them as individuals and allow men to find sports boring and cars mere transporation devices and home decorating really quite fun (without those males being labeled “gay”), then I’d hazard a guess most feminists would approve. But if the guys in that masculinist movement started going on about how they had it rougher than. or even as rough as, women, I don’t doubt most feminists will laugh at them.

Which isn’t a handicap, IMHO, because most of the barriers that that sort of masculinist movement would face are social ones, not legal ones. And as others here have said, social barriers must be tackled one by one, by individuals. I’d hazard a guess that every female feminist here over… I dunno, 18? has had to deal with sexism in their every day life - on the job, while dating, at school. I’ve gotten grief for being the only female in the class or group a number of times, and dealt with hazing and sexual harrassment even more often.

In advanced computer class I was regularly accused of being a “token”, an incompetent who used the law to force her way in, even though my programs ran more efficiently than those of the guy who regularly insulted and harrassed me. Did any of the other guys speak up in my defense? Not on your life, pal. Should a “masculinist” expect women to defend him? Probably not. But going on my brother’s experience fighting stereotypes (he took “home ec” in 1974!), the women in the group probably won’t haze him, either.

I got less grief in my male-dominated hobbies (comic collecting and lit s-f - media s-f is female dominated) than some of my female friends who were gamers. Logical, perhaps - comic and s-f fans get together and gab, while gamers get together and try to slaughter each other. Some guys get right testy when a female gamer outdoes them. Heh.

Outside of sexual harrassment on the job (which all men may face, whatever their belief system), most of the sexist grief a “masculinist” male would face would be on that level, I’d think. All the legal issues I can think of where men face the same sort of discrimination women do, feminists are already fighting for non-sexist laws. I know feminists have lobbied for non-sexist rape laws, where rape is defined to include the kind of rapes men face (anal and oral), and where it is not automatically assumed that only women are raped. I can’t think of any issues where men are at more risk than women with less legal protection except gay bashing sorts of things, where, again, feminists side with those who’re trying to change the laws to protect the non-conformists.

And, clearly, feminists can’t help masculinists who’re facing all-male groups, any more than a man could help a feminist who is facing an all-female group with more conformist values. Unless the masculinist movement is fighting for legal changes the feminist movement has no interest in, and thus needs the feminist movement for sheer numbers, I’m not sure why it would matter if the feminist movement embraced it or not.

Not snubbing you ;-) I think we might just disagree. See, I think the emotions men can and cannot display are a very good illustration of the problem, and therefore quite relevant. Much discussion on this thread has centered around the expectations placed on women and the unfairness of that. My *entire* reason for posting has been to point out that expectations are placed on men as well, but that’s often overlooked.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

Arguing for a “masculinist movement”? is simply arguing for yet another bunch of sexist assholes to come together and complain about people opposed to sexism.

The sheer irony wrapped around this sentence would stop a herd of buffalo, but I think it’s obvious to those who see what I’m getting at and invisible to the rest ;-)

[waves at radfem]

Some feminists do embrace the current men’s rights movement, but most do not. You are right about that.

Then again, that’s how it is when a movement starts. Nearly everyone is against it, and that’s why the movement is needed. That’s how it was with feminism, and that’s how it still is in socially conservative areas.