Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that
>don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"?
First of all, we should not confuse men with societal institutions.
Certainly, western civilization is built on the concept of hierarchy and
dominance - over humans, animals, and nature. Even the animal world has
the pecking order - social animals arranged in a hierarchical grouping
from the strongest to the weakest. Violence has always been used to
keep the members at the bottom of the pecking order in line, just as
violence is used by challengers to the old order. (This is as true of
revolutionaries as young lions killing an old pride leader.)
Although historically men have dominated all societal institutions - the
church, politics, business, education - today western women are
beginning to take their place in the corridors of power. One of the
great debates in feminism and among women in the business world is "now
that we have some power, should we follow old patterns (dominance,
competition, etc.) or establish new ways of behaving and thinking?"
One of the earliest points feminism in the 60's made was that no one
should expect people to behave a certain way because of their gender --
society has always had strong dominant females as well as weak, fearful
men.
We are certainly socialized to behave in accordance to cultural
expectations regarding gender, but many people -- particularly in an
open, western society -- learn in time to become comfortable with the
type of person they are, even if it doesn't line up with the ideal of
'manly men' or 'womanly women'.
Institutions should always be criticized. Any society has its strengths
and weaknesses. Criticizing the tragic shortcomings of a society or a
culture should not be equated with criticizing members of the society
who have come to terms with cultural expectations and have accepted or
undermined the roles society created for them.
That being said, men should not identify with societal institutions.
The suggestion on the part of people oppressed by western civilization
that our society has some limitations should not be equated with "male
bashing". This term, like "political correctness" is a ploy to silence
those who are oppressed by the system. It is only by questioning and
challenging the received wisdom of 'how things have always been' that
social change is possible. THose who benefit from the current system
are, of course, reluctant to change the system so that others can
benefit.
I think almost any woman who reads will encounter novels and works of
non fiction that are either abrasively or casually anti-female. No one
seems to be bothered by these portrayals. But if a female writer
creates a novel with strong women and men who are less than perfect (I
think of Barbara Pym, who didn't write sci fi, but was a wonderfully
feminist writer) then the questions of "male bashing" inevitably arise.
What is really scary is that these objections can be raised by
gatekeepers in the publishing industry - editors, managers, etc. -- and
that can keep some writers from being published or force them to revise
their works so they pass the hidden censorship of the gatekeepers.
Women and men should always feel free in their personal lives and in
their discourse to challenge the assumptions of our society or any other
society, and have those hard questions listened to and regarded; not
dismissed as "male bashing."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:02 PDT