For Men Only: Asexuality
Nick (Nick Levinson)
relationships without waiting until they're told to. While womyn have
to take power and not just accept gifts of tokens, men can contribute
without placing a price.
So to Speak: a feminist journal of language and art, has just published
For Men Only: Asexuality, which I wrote. It's in the Summer/Fall 2005
issue, just out:
Managing Editor
So to Speak
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MSN 2D6
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4444
http://www.gmu.edu/org/sts/
$7/issue, $12/year, $22/2 years, bi-annual (not a penny of which
accrues to me, so this is a no-profit announcement)
Thank you.
-- Nick
E-mail:
Nick_Levinson
Domain:
yahoo.com
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Michael Snyder
> To let womyn exercise more power, more choice, men can end their sexual
> relationships without waiting until they're told to. While womyn have
> to take power and not just accept gifts of tokens, men can contribute
> without placing a price.
I don't understand. You want men to break up with their relationship
partners? Whether the women want them to or not? How is this supposed
to benefit women?
I can't even parse the second sentence...
Dan Holzman
Nick (Nick Levinson) <do_not_e-m...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote:
>To let womyn exercise more power, more choice, men can end their sexual
>relationships without waiting until they're told to.
Should I assume this refers to situations where a man somehow knows
the woman wants the relationship to end? I don't see where it would
make sense for a man to end a relationship with a woman who wants to
be in a relationship with him as an opportunity for her to exercise
more choice.
Michael Snyder
> To let womyn exercise more power, more choice, men can end their sexual
> relationships without waiting until they're told to. While womyn have
> to take power and not just accept gifts of tokens, men can contribute
> without placing a price.
You know what would really be empowering to women, Nick?
Authors and pundits have spent decades telling us that the
answer to all of women's problems is for men to change their
(men's) behavior. Well guess what -- that's not empowering.
You don't have any control over anyone's behavior but your
own.
What would be empowering would be to teach women to
change their *own* behaviors. For instance, using your
own example, instead of expecting the man to read the
woman's mind to determine when she wants to end the
relationship, how about telling women to TELL the guy
when they'd like to end the relationship?
And while we're at it, how about teaching them to tell
the guy when they'd like to BEGIN a relationship?
Now THAT would be empowering!
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
. . . You want men to break up with their relationship partners?
Whether the women want them to or not? How is this supposed to benefit
women?
. . . . I don't see where it would make sense for a man to end a
relationship with a woman who wants to be in a relationship with him as
an opportunity for her to exercise more choice.
I think I address that well, in the article cited. May I refer you to
the article? Perhaps your local public libraries can get you the issue,
either from their collections or through interlibrary loan, although
where I live journals are rarely available through interlibrary loan.
I and you, Michael, wrote:
* * * * *
While womyn have to take power and not just accept gifts of tokens, men
can
contribute without placing a price.
* * * * *
I can't even parse [that]
* * * * *
That's about power in a more encompassing sense, not just sexual power
but power throughout their lives. Womyn need more power, but relying on
gifts of power from men isn't enough, and therefore they have to take
power, not just be handed it. That doesn't prevent men giving
something.
I address that, too, in the article.
While I retain the copyright, it wouldn't be fair to reproduce the
content here when So to Speak has just published it.
Michael, you asserted:
* * * * *
You don't have any control over anyone's behavior but your own.
* * * * *
Maybe. But we often have influence.
You wrote:
* * * * *
Authors and pundits have spent decades telling us that the answer to
all of women's problems is for men to change their (men's) behavior.
Well guess what -- that's not empowering.
* * * * *
It is when it works. It sometimes is even when it doesn't work. The
latter is because the alternatives are the status quo, nothing
changing, and telling womyn to change themselves so that men will be
happy and then the men will make womyn happy and so the womyn will then
be happy. Authors have been giving that advice for a lot longer than
decades. It has been remarkably disappointing. Sometimes it worked. Too
many times it didn't, and too many times it let men get away with
taking no responsibility for their own acts.
You continued:
* * * * *
What would be empowering would be to teach women to change their *own*
behaviors. For instance, using your own example, instead of expecting
the man to read the woman's mind to determine when she wants to end the
relationship, how about telling women to TELL the guy when they'd like
to end the relationship?
And while we're at it, how about teaching them to tell the guy when
they'd like to BEGIN a relationship? Now THAT would be empowering!
* * * * *
Both kinds of advice periodically appear in womyn's lifestyle magazines
(of the likes of Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Essence, etc.). These magazines
enjoy large circulations.
Womyn run into a problem doing what you ask, however: many men resist
honoring those preferences. That's why many womyn find it expeditious
to encourage men to want to leave, thus preserving men's sense of ego
and control.
Womyn would often appreciate having their decisions respected. Some are
honored. Many are not. Within that framework, many learn ways to
negotiate. Many times, they find, unfortunately, that persuading
someone that it was the other person's idea is a more successful way of
achieving something. Secretaries have noticed that, too, relative to
bosses. So have sales representatives, relative to customers.
I've found the requirement for mindreading to be annoying and
impossible, too. But I don't think womyn think of what they're doing
that way. What many people, womyn and men, do is rely on what's natural
or normal and therefore is already known to any normal person. If it's
already known, it hardly needs mentioning. I'm uncomfortable with that;
I've been described as an individualist. But a word or two isn't going
to change something so fundamental as a wide ascription of naturalness
and normality (and therefore near-immutability) to what I consider
within the realm of legitimate choice. A word or two isn't going to
change it because it serves important purposes and its use is rewarded.
We've been teaching females from childhood and for generations that
fulfilling their assigned role in life is simply natural, and so we
shouldn't be too surprised when they use that same concept to support
their efforts to do well among us.
-- Nick
weather...@yahoo.com
wedding ring. Nice as it is, it marks women as objects and places a
sort of monetary value and social designation on them -- much like
taking the man's name. Some sort of call for "mutual rings" would go a
long way in balancing the gift thing you're referring to. However, I
don't see this as becoming mainstream!
Rick Merrill
> The first place to start in terms of women "accepting gifts" is the
> wedding ring. Nice as it is, it marks women as objects and places a
> sort of monetary value and social designation on them -- much like
> taking the man's name. Some sort of call for "mutual rings" would go a
> long way in balancing the gift thing you're referring to. However, I
> don't see this as becoming mainstream!
>
"objects"? Hah! The wedding classic, "who givith this woman
in marriage" clearly STILL demarks the woman as * property * to be cared
for - "husbanded" if you will.
Michael Snyder
news:1131316970....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The first place to start in terms of women "accepting gifts" is the
> wedding ring. Nice as it is, it marks women as objects and places a
> sort of monetary value and social designation on them -- much like
> taking the man's name. Some sort of call for "mutual rings" would go a
> long way in balancing the gift thing you're referring to. However, I
> don't see this as becoming mainstream!
That's odd, I thought it already was. Are you saying that men
don't wear wedding rings? My father did. Every married man
I've ever known did. If it's not the norm for men to wear wedding
rings, why do women look at a man's hand to see if he is married?
Is it possible that you're seeing inequality where it it doesn't exist?
Glenn Knickerbocker
><weather...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1131316970....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The first place to start in terms of women "accepting gifts" is the
>> wedding ring. Nice as it is, it marks women as objects and places a
>> sort of monetary value and social designation on them -- much like
>> taking the man's name. Some sort of call for "mutual rings" would go a
>> long way in balancing the gift thing you're referring to. However, I
>> don't see this as becoming mainstream!
>That's odd, I thought it already was. Are you saying that men
>don't wear wedding rings?
I mistakenly read "engagement ring" rather than "wedding ring," and I
think that may actually be what weathermansays meant. The wedding ring
usually has only token monetary value. The engagement ring is the one
the jewelers exhort us to spend two months' salary on.
ŹR There's really no such thing as a Loser's Club. --Spot
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/magictop.html Sorry! 1019