| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 713.1 | k.m. discussion (moved by moderator) | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Feb 08 1988 13:41 | 16 |
| SALEM::AMARTIN "YO HILLNINNY+MATT KISSER, I is here" 12 lines 7-FEB-1988 03:23
-< NO, NO, Not again!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: 162,63
Russ, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer want to
write in this conf, but SOME of the stuff that you write really
makes me wonder about you. Why do you persist on trying to take
these topics and twist them to your satisfaction? I have about
had it with this whole thing but you , you seem to enjoy this.
So, tell us "mr library" what in the hell does this (.162,3) have
to do with female tyranny or the women's movement not treating men
as allies? From what I have read, she seems smart enough not to
be a one-sided troublemaker, or an US/THEM type. Please, Mr Library,
whats your point THIS time?
@L
|
| 713.2 | k.m. discussion (moved by moderator) | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Feb 08 1988 13:44 | 72 |
|
XCELR8::POLLITZ 67 lines 7-FEB-1988 23:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .164 Has it ever donned on you that the ideas of the Women's
Movement have been successfully assimilated in the U.S.
The largest population group (women) is legally seen as
having been unfairly discriminated against by 'Male Dominator
Patriarcal Society. This being the case (supposedly) laws
have been passed to correct these atrocities. Women are
now considered a 'Minority' group and have the benefit of
programs like 'Affirmative Action.'
Also the American consciousness has been inundated with
all sort of accusations from the movement like "Patriarchy,
Male-domination, sexist, chauvanist, discrimination," etc.
I see a lot of emasculated 'men' walking around. And I have
concerns about that. Not being a chauvanist is one thing,
giving in to a mass culture movement's ideas on most everything
is quite another thing. What ever happened to the days when
Men were Men and Women were Women? Ha, I'm trying not to
cry. Enough of this-back to the topic.
So the movement has affected us. I am very curious about
just how Great the Movements Leaders were regarding moral
fiber, wisdom, intelligence, feelings, and pointing us all
in the right direction. Means justifying the ends.
So what does all this mean regarding this topic. It means
let's take a close look at the Women's movement. The Leaders
supporters, and followers. Who they are, where they came
from, what they did, and how it affects us all. Perhaps
that's too big a scope for here.
What we can look at is the possibility that men were not
viewed too favorably by the movement as an ally. Certainly
when a movement argues vehemently against a "male dominated
Patriarchal Society" those statements-by extension or insin-
uation are statements that criticize men. It is criticism
against the ways that men have structured business and family
life. And such criticism, if viewed as correct by the public
or political realms, can have far-reaching consequences.
The reality of the sexual revolution and affirmative action
are but 2 examples.
At any rate what I'm trying to see is if the movement
on a whole, viewed men favorably or not. What were the Leaders
and supporters attitudes regarding men. And regarding women.
In the Movement's eye, just how did it define 'liberation'?
Liberation from Patriarchy, men, oneselfs old ways-what?
What political attachments and statements did the people
in the movement make? Ideologies, agendas, speeches, press-
releases, and so forth.
With regards to Kate Millett she is the person I would
like most to discuss. It seems that her book 'Sexual Politics'
is what really got the movement going full blast. I can't
think of a more exciting feminist to study than Kate Millett.
I would like to talk about her with Conference noters who
know about her work and her various contributions to the
movement. For my part I plan to throw out various reviews
and personal opinions about 'Sexual Politics', along with
interviews that she made. These things will be directly
related to the basenotes idea of man as non - ally.
Here is an example in advertising of the notion of man
as foe:
New Republic ad 7/25/70
Women's Liberation:
'Notes from the Second Year' 35 radical feminists articles
on love, left debate, vaginal orgasm, consciousness raising,
housework, MAN-HATING, consumerism, etc. $ 1.50 each.
P.O. Box AA, Old Chelsea Station, NY, NY.
Yes let me order one of THOSE right now.
Russ
|
| 713.3 | k.m. discussion (moved by moderator) | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Feb 08 1988 13:50 | 18 |
| SALEM::AMARTIN "YO HILLNINNY+MATT KISSER, I is here" 13 lines 8-FEB-1988 01:39
-< OH, Mr Library speaks AGAIN?! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:last
Gee, Mr library, sounds like this is your lifes work, is it?
I have heard of Betty Friedman, Gloria Steinem, AND Kate Millett
but I never thought that she was the so called feminist leader the
you are somewhat labeling her. Mind elaborating a bit? HMMMM?
As far as that add, ONE ADD doesn't mean that all those involved
in the movement think like that. Gimme a break you can do better
than that! You know, you should REALLY have some sort of evidence
to back up the thought that something like that came from **FROM**
the movement, and not some isolated group. I really doubt that
the movement would embrace such 'negative' concepts.
Go back to the library dude!
@L
|
| 713.4 | k.m. discussion (moved by moderator) | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Feb 08 1988 13:53 | 29 |
| SUPER::HENDRICKS "The only way out is through" 24 lines 8-FEB-1988 06:39
-< Please start a new topic, Russ >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Millett's work is an appropriate topic for Womannotes,
but I think you should start a new basenote about her. I think
it is inappropriate to discuss her work seriously in a topic entitled
"The Real Enemy?" in Womannotes.
Russ, if you are interested in sharing your point of view about
her and hearing others, I think this is a good place to do it.
If you are only interested in putting her down and discrediting
her at the expense of all other views, I don't think this is a good
place to do it. You have some good points about the way ideas
of the women's movement have been assimilated, but I'm not sure
that everyone who writes in this conference wants to start with
the assumption that such assimilation is negative.
I met her at a party once and enjoyed talking with her, and her books
meant a lot to me personally in the 1970s. Please keep in mind
that what was fresh and new and liberating 15 years ago may indeed
sound a little rhetorical in 1988, especially in tone, and that
is not a valid reason to discredit the importance of a work in its
own time.
Holly
|
| 713.5 | One vote for Millett | CIMNET::WALKER | | Tue Feb 09 1988 12:38 | 6 |
| Wow! Did I ever get this note wrong! I didn't know the mindset
of the person who inserted it, but I thought when I read it "what
an interesting woman. Why haven't I taken the time to read her
before this."
I really thought that was the purpose of the note.
|
| 713.6 | Flying | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Wed Feb 10 1988 07:53 | 17 |
| She is interesting!
Her book Flying received some terrible reviews because it was a
confessional novel. In some cases she spares the reader no gory
details, and the effect (for me) of reading the book was feeling
like I was going through a great deal of her pain with her on a
moment to moment basis.
It probably will never be counted as great literature, but to me, its
value was very great. It is an extremely thought provoking book, and
one that did not idealize the women's movement at a time when most
feminist writers were caught up in blissful visions of a women's
society.
Has anyone else read it?
Holly
|
| 713.7 | Thunder from the Left | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 11 1988 02:01 | 47 |
| re .0 I would appreciate it if you would contact me first before
moving any of my more important notes around. As it is I'll
just mail the 40+ reviews/interviews out to interested parties
now. I am a noter that merits the courtesy to be contacted
about possible note transfers--and I never have been contacted
about such ideas--until after the fact. ......................
re .1 Since this was in 606, your note is invalid here. The note
being transferred makes no sense. It is out of context in
a new discussion.
re .2 If I had wanted to start a basenote about Kate Millett (a
posibility) then I never would have said at the end of this
note "...man as non-ally".... ending with the MAN-HATING
radical ad. That's a 606 discussion and does NOT belong here.
For the record the Libr Journal issue (9/1/71) listed about
100 movement related books. Here is one of them:
RADICAL Feminists. 'Notes from the First Years (1968) and
Notes from the Second Year (1969)' P.O. Box AA Old Chelsea
Station, NY,NY. 10011.
A yearly "journal" of outstanding, provocative articles from
the radical wing of the *movement*. Many key articles, such
as Pat Mainardi on housework, and Ellen Willis on the "Founding
of a Radical Feminist Movement" are here.
Yes Al, an *isolated* group. Here's another one:
Solanis, Valerie. The SCUM Manifesto. Olympia 1968.
Represents one portion of the *movement*--the **Society for
Cutting Up Men**--which posits that "life in this society
being at best an utter bore and no aspect of society being
at all relevant to women, there remains to *civic-minded,
responsible, thrill-seeking females*, only to overthrow the
government, eliminate the money system, institute complete
automation, and DESTROY the MALE SEX."
Do you want more. Plenty. Just ask.
re .3 Same as .1 (ibid) PS Mr Anti-Library: I do my homework.
Do you?? Has everyone else?
re .4 Regarding "what's appropriate", how's this topic starting
off? Oh, the reviews are on the way.
re .5 I don't know what this topic is about either.
re .6 Yes, there were mixed reviews. If I sustain an interest
in Millett I'll read her auto-bio, but I dunno.
Russ
|
| 713.8 | some scattered thoughts | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Thu Feb 11 1988 09:06 | 22 |
| It seems almost impossible to put the "SCUM manifesto" in perspective
now...but all I can say is don't take it too literally.
I do respect the fact that you are reading it now and don't like
it. I'm not arguing that.
It was intended to be deliberately outrageous. I don't think the
writer ever intended anyone to go out and murder men. She was trying
to get readers' attention, and I think she was also trying to challenge
a number of assumptions we all took for granted.
In that way, it was a little bit like Swift's 'Modest Proposal'. No one
really thought Swift was suggesting that anyone go out and follow his
exhortations; he was trying to call attention to something else by
making outrageous statements and comparisons.
Keep in mind that it was written at a time when a large number of
people still thought it was just fine to keep women 'barefoot and
pregnant'. [my opinion] Others still felt that salary discrimination
was justifiable if the man had a family to support and the woman
was just a career girl, after all.
|
| 713.9 | foremother | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Feb 11 1988 12:38 | 25 |
| RE: SCUM manifesto
Yes, How outrageous that women would go out and murder men.
My, how interesting that men murder women at the rate of once
every 22 days in Massachusetts. And *without* a Manifesto!
Conclusions are left as an exercise to the reader...
[Sorry if this is a rathole, but I couldn't let it pass]
RE: Kate
I read FLYING and found it very affecting. Her work (and she herself)
was *very* important in the young days of the women's movement.
It would have been less without her presence. Perhaps someof her
work hasn't stood the test of time. Perhaps we've gotten "above"
all that. Perhaps we'll find that being "above" all that gets us
nothing. Or worse.
If we forget our herstory maybe we will indeed be doomed to repeat
it.
--DE
|
| 713.10 | ex | FDCV03::ROSS | | Thu Feb 11 1988 12:57 | 12 |
| RE: .9
So, Dawn, rathole or not, do you agree with the SCUM Manifesto?
And I bet that men murder men at an even-more-frequent rate than
once every 22 days. Also *without* a Manifesto!
Some men may be sexists, but when it comes to murder, they do
seem to follow equal opportunity guidelines.
Alan
|
| 713.11 | apples and oranges | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Feb 11 1988 13:25 | 10 |
| Let me put it this way:
Men murder the women they supposedly love at the rate of 1
every 22 days in Massachusetts. These women are *beaten* to death.
I believe this type of murder is in a very different category than
men-killing-men. This crime is aimed totally at women.
--DE
|
| 713.12 | So Do You Agree with SCUM? | FDCV03::ROSS | | Thu Feb 11 1988 14:47 | 7 |
| RE: .11
Dawn, I take your word that your statistics are true.
Given that they are, do you, then, subscribe to the SCUM Manifesto?
Alan
|
| 713.13 | Unequal Opportunity at it's Worst | YODA::BARANSKI | The Mouse Police never sleeps | Thu Feb 11 1988 15:11 | 41 |
| In the statistics of spousal murders, 50% of the victims are male.
"While everybody seems to know that men commit significantly more crimes, it is
perhaps less well known that they are also significantly more likely to be the
victim. Males are the victims of aggravated assault 143% more often; 404% more
often the victim of a burglary; 150% more often the victim of larceny; and 45%
more often the victim of robbery.37 And according to the 1972 Uniform Crime
Reports, men were the victims of murder in approximately 80% of the cases.38
Although men are arrested for murder six times as often, when it comes to spouse
killings which compromise over 10% of all murders, almost half of all these
killings are committed by women.39
These is a special hazard to being a male homosexual in our culture. As a
recent study pointed out, "The major emphasis of legislation in the field of
criminal justice is directed toward the male homosexual, as laws are almost
never enforced concerning the female homosexual."40
A cursory search by that researcher of fifteen law enforcement agencies in
southern California revealed an apathy toward female homosexuality. Females
arrested on charges related to this ranged from 2% to 4% of the total number of
arrests for homosexuality. "... the Los Angeles Police Department has had a
range of 2.9% to 4.3% of a five year period." The researcher concluded that
there was almost a "... total lack of interest in female homosexuals as a law
enforcement problem."41
No chapter on the hazards of being male would be complete without a discussion
of the suicide statistics. They are perhaps the most telling of all the
statistics regarding the "glories" and "joys" of being male. Up to the age of
twenty four, the male rate of suicide is over three times as high as the
female's. Over the age of sixty five, the rate is almost five times as high as
the female.42 These statistics do not account for the many automobile
accidents leading to death which may have been suicides. Men have a twelve
times higher ratio of success to failure in suicide attempts in comparison to
women. That is, women attempt suicide approximately four times as often as men
while men actually succeed in killing themselves three times more often."
(From "The Hazards of being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege",
by Herb Goldberg PhD.)
Jim.
|
| 713.14 | I didn't think so. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Feb 11 1988 15:14 | 6 |
| Alan,
Does your mind really work in such a way that you think there
*must* be a causal connection between two statements?
Ann B.
|
| 713.15 | Moderator Request | VIKING::TARBET | | Thu Feb 11 1988 15:47 | 4 |
| Could we either plug this rathole or take it to a new note, please?
Thanks.
=maggie
|
| 713.16 | 3 slugs for Andy...not too literate......................... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 15 1988 02:37 | 7 |
| Consider it plugged. I've taken what I know about the 'manifesto'
to Soapbox. Hopefully someone will discuss Millett's contributions
here--unfortunately I will not.
take care,
Russ
|