Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;   s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;   h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;   b=hciKdhd0l9S0LB7YnvsLiPiCrihWqo2XrTr7WjnhQWVABXOU1O2BFE6/xJtzi9oltAdVsUXC3VHEva+/gTz11udz5TeURvv6UTas5w70notbIhazL0PLkPcN7/wK44AbzRokc/OGtPPuPQP3AQy+yN0WUSmS8ZeeL29jN87XIWk=  ;
Message-ID: <20051013184514.22211.qmail &AElig web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: improvetheworld-noarchive &AElig umich.edu
From: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>
Subject: Masculinism 
Status: O

     I'd like to take the opportunity to respond to
Mr. Reeves' most recent comments while keeping in mind
the thoughts of others who have already weighed in on
this issue.
     First of all, the prospect of widespread forced
sterility, the growing of babies in bottles and
institutionally raising them in particularly
restrictive ways could hardly be construed as a
desired outcome in even the most radical versions of
feminism.  This senario is repugnant primarily because
it involves severe and intolerable infringements on
individual human rights--including but not limited to
the forced total dissolution of gender roles. 
Mainstream feminism by contrast is very much couched
in individual freedom and basic human rights.   
     From my perspective, then, feminism is really not
distinct from "masculinism" or "humanism," if you
will.  Let me offer an anecdote from my family to
illustrate.  Both my parents are physicians and worked
throughout my childhood.  My mother took a period of
time off to nurse me, I honestly don't know how long,
nor does it particularly matter now.  This time did
not adversely affect her career.  Both my parents were
free to pursue their careers as aggressively as they
wished and both enjoyed a high degree of success and
recognition.  Although I experienced no deprivation
from either parent, my father played a decidedly
larger role in my life.  My father simply posses more
of the selfless, nurturing, protective characteristics
traditionally associated with a "maternal" instinct
than my mother.  I'm sure my mother loved me but her
love was of a different nature.  My father's love for
me and my brother consumed him and my relationship
with him reflects that, now and then.  There could be
no more adoring, devoted, and encouraging parent than
him.  The point is that males and females are equally
capable of and suited to rearing children.  Currently,
for whatever reason, historical or otherwise it may be
the case that on average females form the closest bond
with their children and spend more time raising them,
however, this doesn't mean that a particular male
could not excel just as well in this area.  Also,
don't forget that paternal investment in child rearing
is also an extremely important force in human
behavioral ecology.  Evolution no doubt selects for
fathers who best influence the survival and success of
their offspring, and surely some of these are fathers
are of the "nurturing" sort.  (I have no interest in 
committing the naturalistic fallacy through my last
point on paternal investment but people have been
throwing around these sorts of arguments so I figured
I'd include it). 
     Back to the case with my father, although he was
the parent that spent the most time and energy caring
for me and my brother, my mother was legally able to
take us away from him for more than half of the time
during their divorce.  She was also "entitled" by law
to take huge chunks of money from my father despite
the fact that she was gainfully employed and he was
reduced to a depressive state that made it impossible
for him to continue his work as a cardiologist.  Seven
years after the divorce and he is still too disabled
by depression to work.  This, clearly, is
discrimination based on sex and "traditional gender
roles" and it resulted in the destruction of the
person I love and respect most in this world.  This
person happened to be male.  
     All individuals fall somewhere within a range of
variation with respect to their proclivity and
suitability to directly raise children and this is not
dictated by sex.  Accordingly no one, male, female,
transgendered or whoever should not be prevented or
discouraged institutionally or socially from
fulfilling whatever roles they feel they are most
suited to.  This holds, of course, so long as the
rights of the children involved are not infringed
upon.  Feminism, therefore, should not demand the
"abolition or suppression of traditional gender roles"
as Mr. Reeves put it, but rather recognize that
whatever roles are invovled in raising children and
holding a family together are not confined by gender.
     The question of what government legislation
should be adopted to prevent such discrimination is a
tricky one.  I suppose whatever policy measures work
best in treating the ills of racial discrimination and
racial profiling might have some application here. 
Cultural change, though, arguably has the power to
make the most progress.  So good for us.  :-)
Thank you for considering my thoughts.  I look forward
to and encourage any responses.  
-Erica
P.S.  I took some Latin once.  Vescere bracis meis. 
:-)  Just kidding.  Felicem diem natalem (happy
birthday, Mr. Reeves).