dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (04/13/91)
WHY I AM NOT A FEMINIST by Dave Gross You've probably heard the phrase a dozen times: "I'm not a feminist, but..." What follows the "but" are protestations about how dedicated the speaker is to equality between the sexes, how appreciative he or she is about suffrage or equal employment opportunity or the other gains of the women's movement, and other pleas that seem to suggest that he or she would really _like_ to be a feminist, but cannot be. Feminist groups are, naturally, troubled by this. They see polls that show a majority of both sexes in favor of equal rights and equal respect between the genders, but the vast majority of both sexes disavowing the label "feminist." They think that the cause of this contradiction is an image problem. The real problem is that to believe in equality between the sexes, and to be a non-feminist is NOT a contradiction. If you ask one of these reluctant non-feminists why they refuse the feminist label, the response you're likely to get goes something like this: "Well, I like equality and all, but it seems like feminists are a bunch of man-hating bra-burners, and I'm not like that." If you ignore the vivid bra-burner image (many now claim that bras were only burned in the minds of certain anti-feminist journalists), what it comes down to is that these non-feminists see a contradiction between their ideal of gender equality, and what they see as feminism's anti-male stance. Is this a fair attack on feminism? Is feminism so anti-male that its doctrine of gender equality is compromised? I think so. If you ask a feminist whether feminism is anti-male, he or she will absolutely deny it. If you quote to a feminist some of the more extreme anti-male attitudes that have been expressed by feminists, you will be told that those views are far outside of the feminist mainstream, and should cause no worry. I discovered one of my favorite anti-male feminist quotes when I took "Sociology of Sex Roles" at Cal Poly a few quarters ago. It's from an article by Susan Griffin called "Rape: The All-American Crime" that was included in one of the textbooks for that course. "[I]f the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant [male] heterosexual, it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Think about the implications of that one for a minute. That the difference between a heterosexual man and a rapist is only one of degree. My theory that perhaps this essay was one of those "out of the feminist mainstream" views was dashed last quarter when my Psychology of Women professor read a few of the less offensive passages from Griffin's article after calling it "probably the best thing written about rape." Susan Griffin, in her concluding paragraph, approvingly quotes Valerie Solanis. Solanis' main contributions to feminism were writing the "Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) Manifesto" and attempting to assassinate Andy Warhol. The SCUM Manifesto was included in a collection of writings edited by Robin Morgan called "Sisterhood is Powerful." It includes such interesting quotes as: "[T]he male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene state..." "SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves..." Robin Morgan, now editor of _Ms._ magazine, does not attempt to explain in the book why she felt that the manifesto was worth reprinting. She does, however, devote some space in the biographical notes at the end of the book, to give her explanation of Solanis' assassination attempt. "Valerie Solanis should be known primarily as an artist, not as someone who shot Andy Warhol. Her filmscripts and other writings have not received the attention they deserve. She is still being persecuted by police and `mental health' authorities for her `attempted murder' of Warhol, and has been in and out of prisons ever since. Interestingly enough, Norman Mailer was charged with the same crime when he almost fatally stabbed his wife. He was never imprisoned; all charges were dropped; his reputation was enhanced; he subsequently ran for Mayor of New York. Enough said." Now regardless of what Norman Mailer may or may not have been charged with, doesn't it look to you like Robin Morgan is trying awfully hard to justify what was really an attempt at cold-blooded murder -- what she puts in derisive quotes as "`attempted murder'." But the final straw for me was when, in my Women's Studies class this quarter, we were assigned as a reading an excerpt from Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will." When I read about how "one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men" or about how rape "is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which _all men_ keep _all women_ in a state of fear [italics Brownmiller's]," I was forced to agree with John Gordon, who said: "I am not being hyperbolic: I have read _Against Our Will_, and I have read _Mein Kampf_, and my sober judgement is that it is a toss-up between them." And that is why I can no more be a feminist than a Jew could stomach being a Nazi. And my position, and the positions of other non-feminists, is not likely to change until the "mainstream" feminists start denouncing feminists like Brownmiller and Griffin and Solanis as the hate-filled sexists that they are.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/14/91)
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: | WHY I AM NOT A FEMINIST .... If I may condense severely, Dave Gross says he is not a feminist because "mainstream" feminists do not denounce violent or fascistic types such as Solanis, Dworkin, or Brownmiller. However, I'm unclear as to what "not a feminist" means just as I'm unclear as to what "feminist" means. For instance, for some people "feminist" means someone who struggles for equality for women. Does Dave Gross mean he won't support equality for women until Molly Yard calls Susan Brownmiller a bad name? I doubt it, but it could be so. On the other hand, such a move might prompt him to join NOW. Until we know what the speaker means by "feminist" we don't know what "not a feminist" means. Part of the problem is that feminism isn't a party or a church; it's hard to say, often, whether some idea or policy is with it or against it. When someone recites that familiar phrase "I am not a feminist, but... " they're usually about to agree with what they think of as feminist doctrine, so that this preface actually means the opposite of what is says. I think what we're hearing when we hear that phrase is the echo of an enormous campaign of distortion and self-delusion: all feminists hate men, all feminists burn bras, all feminists are totalitarians, and so on. This isn't new, nor is it a conspiracy; it's a natural class reaction to a change in the balances of privilege and power. Some feminists _do_ denounce Brownmiller and Dworkin; if someone wants to define me as a feminist, I'll give a demonstration. (In the case of poor Valerie Solanis, I must forbear; I am told she died a few years ago.) So now what, O not-a-feminists?
fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) (04/15/91)
Dave Gross (dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU) writes: > [...] > If you ignore the vivid bra-burner image (many now claim that bras > were only burned in the minds of certain anti-feminist journalists), > what it comes down to is that these non-feminists see a contradiction > between their ideal of gender equality, and what they see as > feminism's anti-male stance. > > Is this a fair attack on feminism? Is feminism so anti-male that its > doctrine of gender equality is compromised? I think so. I think not. Maybe there are feminists who are anti-male. Should we infer that all feminists are anti-male? Again, I think not. If this sort of reasoning is sound, we could do even better. Some feminists are lesbians. I am not a lesbian. Therefore I am not a feminist? > [...] > I discovered one of my favorite anti-male feminist quotes when I took > "Sociology of Sex Roles" at Cal Poly a few quarters ago. It's from an > article by Susan Griffin called "Rape: The All-American Crime" that > was included in one of the textbooks for that course. > > "[I]f the professional rapist is to be separated from the > average dominant [male] heterosexual, it may be mainly a > quantitative difference." > > Think about the implications of that one for a minute. That the > difference between a heterosexual man and a rapist is only one of > degree. This does seem like a lot to stomach. But having been in the business of quantifying things, I have begun to wonder if *all* qualitative differences can not ultimately be viewed as differences of degree. For example, there appears to be a qualitative difference between the colors red and green, but when you think of the visible light spectrum, it is easy to see their difference as quantitative. > [...] > And my position, and the positions of other non-feminists, is not > likely to change until the "mainstream" feminists start denouncing > feminists like Brownmiller and Griffin and Solanis as the hate-filled > sexists that they are. An alternative course of action would be to join the fray and denounce anti-male statements (as opposed to the people making these statements) yourself, i.e. change feminism from within. How does one recognize when the situation has deteriorated to the point where it warrants abstention? Felix CSNET fwy@cs.brown.edu UUCP uunet!brunix!fwy
cs331124@ncar.UCAR.EDU (cs331124) (04/16/91)
I am one of the men who will call myself a feminist, not a "feminist
supporter." Someone earlier has pointed out that man can only be supporters,
while women are feminists. I'll give them their point, but still demur,
and stick to my label. :-)
Anyway, I was at Lamda Rising, and saw this quote on back of the original
LAVENDER JANE LOVES WOMEN album. I wish I could remember the source to
attribute it to, but...
Feminism is the theory
Lesbianism is the practice.
--
----
\ / JOEL BURTON cs331124@umbc5.umbc.edu {my friend Carol's acct, not mine}
\/ "We're Here, We're Queer, We're Fabulous--Get used to it!" - Queer Nationjls@uunet.uu.net (Jim Showalter) (04/19/91)
> "[I]f the professional rapist is to be separated from the > average dominant [male] heterosexual, it may be mainly a > quantitative difference." >Think about the implications of that one for a minute. That the >difference between a heterosexual man and a rapist is only one of >degree. Yeah--this is as bigoted and sexist a bunch of crap as I've ever heard. Would a man be able to get away with: "[I]f the professional housewife is to be separated from the average [female] heterosexual, it may be mainly a quantitative difference." or "[I]f the professional killer is to be separated from the average black man, it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Last time I looked, statements like this could get you thrown out of a university. Except the original--WHICH IS TAUGHT TO INCOMING STUDENTS. >Now regardless of what Norman Mailer may or may not have been charged >with, doesn't it look to you like Robin Morgan is trying awfully hard >to justify what was really an attempt at cold-blooded murder -- what >she puts in derisive quotes as "`attempted murder'." Yeah, well--when a woman cuts up a man with a knife, that's okey dokey. If a man cuts up a woman with a knife it is More Evidence That All Men Are Creeps and Rapists and Murderers. Call me a silly idealist, but I thought the idea was equality for all. -- * The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software * * engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. * * * * Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *
lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) (04/19/91)
I want to respond to parts of the "Why I am Not a feminist" posting and add a copy of something I originally posted elsewhere about why (as a man) I call myself a feminist. Albert Lunde Albert_Lunde@nwu.edu First some remarks in response: >I discovered one of my favorite anti-male feminist quotes [...] > "[I]f the professional rapist is to be separated from the > average dominant [male] heterosexual, it may be mainly a > quantitative difference." > >Think about the implications of that one for a minute. That the >difference between a heterosexual man and a rapist is only one of >degree. This statement is shocking; it may also be true. I believe the line of argument supporting this is based on studies of men's attitudes. They suggests that the idea of rapists as a distinct group of wackos is misleading; that as men we need to examine our own socialization for things which when pushed further can lead to rape. >The SCUM Manifesto was included in a collection of writings edited by >Robin Morgan called "Sisterhood is Powerful." Read the copyright date - "Sisterhood is Powerful." was one of the first mass-market anthologies on feminism, and as such includes things of lasting impact and things of only historical importance. Robin Morgan has kept on writing and her later work shows growth, change and less dogmatic attitudes. I would defend the body of either Robin Morgan's or Susan Griffin's work by humanistic as well as feminist criteria. (I've read several books by both.) They have written with a mix of poetry, ideology and psychological insight that is far from some sort of one-dimensional reverse-sexism. >But the final straw for me was when, in my Women's Studies class this >quarter, we were assigned as a reading an excerpt from Susan >Brownmiller's "Against Our Will." "Against our Will" was one of the first books to speak about the subject of rape, and has been influential. The quotes you cited sound like a typical example of radical over-zealousness to me - raising one form of oppression as the primary and original form of oppression. Susan Brownmiller succeeds best at expressing women's anger; I don't think she was trying to speak in a balanced "objective" voice. No one person speaks for the feminist movement. It is diverse. To make change may well require a "good cop"/"bad cop" approach. I would distinguish between women's anger at men's behavior and socialization or women not wanting to spend time and energy on men from women "hating men". To spend time with the various parts of the feminist movement, it is necessary to be able to tolerate women's anger, to be willing to be in a minority and to respect women-only space. I think this is an acceptable price for hearing some of the things women have to say. As some alternate reading I would suggest "Every Mother's Son" by Judith Arcana, and "Reweaving The Web of Life" an anthology on feminism and pacifism (this includes some anti-male material, but the total range of material is instructive and a bit more up to date.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- What follows was originally posted on a mailing list on bisexuality in response to a thread about whether men could be feminists. The original poster seemed angry about men calling themselves feminists but not really having a clue what woman's life was like. (I regard this as a legitimate argument, but not as one having absolute status.) I see this as related because it explains my attraction to feminism, some of my responses to the divisions within feminism and its attitudes toward men. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Feminism, the ACLU and me I like to think of myself as a feminist, and I will call myself one in public. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the ideological arguments against calling men feminists, and I don't expect everyone to agree with this usage. The reason I talk about myself this way is that my life has been affected in so many ways by a collection of things including: "the women's movement", the women's health movement, Lesbian-Feminism, feminist theology, womyn's music and lesbian literature. My involvement started my second year of college:('72-'73), and continues to the present. If it were not for all these aspects of feminism, I would be a very different person today. I have internalized enough from feminist ideology and culture that I respond to the subcultural ideas, images and myths as much as to conventional stuff. As I've said before: my participation in the women's community is somewhat marginal because of my "anatomical deficiencies". I gradually realized I could not, as a man, do anything to satisfy the most extreme ideological "purity tests", so I'm not as hard on myself as I once was. Feminism covers a lot of ground in several dimensions. There are ideological arguments that have been made by various feminists against: lesbians; heterosexual women; bisexual women; transsexuals; transvestites; pornography and (of course) men. After this long, I try to keep things in perspective. I don't regard a list like this as central to the character of feminism. I suspect essentialism, generalizations and true-believership. I appreciate a sense of humor, and I think most feminists have (at least) one. I think women's experience has a lot to say to everybody - and I wish more people were listening. I support anger/rage about the way men act; I agree that a lot of oppressive structures still need to be changed; I think that feminism has presented new alternate role models not only for women but for the "generic" human being. I agree it not worth spending time to change some people. I support and try not to interfere with women-only spaces. I have problems with lines of argument that seriously suggest that all men (or bisexuals or transsexuals...) are all alike and can never change. I doubt that some essential "men's energy" or "women's energy" exists, just as I disbelieve in "original sin". I agree with the demands of feminism; I am not prepared to say: "All men are *!@#, but I am the exception." I know other men who take feminism seriously and seem to have changed their lives as a result. To close, I would like to put in a good word for the ACLU - I am a "card-carrying member". They have done a lot to advance feminism and gay rights. Of all the organizations I support, they cover the broadest range of causes I agree with. We need people like the ACLU as well as demonstrators on the streets. Albert Lunde Albert_Lunde@nwu.edu Gay / Bisexual / Feminist alunde@nuacvm.bitnet
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (04/23/91)
Reading this thread and having dealt with this issue in some depth I see an attitude that does not please me. All these people criticize the works of feminists - especially if they are at all tinged with "man-hating". Has anyone heard of process? Do people really think that before someone can write a book and have it printed they _must_ know the meaning of life and all those things that fall inbetween? All I need to do is to look back at my journal from two years ago - I understand where I was but most of the time I have grown to look at the same situation differently. Women are/were angry. The literature that has come out of that anger is (o no) angry too. I think that women's studies should allow the anger along with the loving. Literature needs to be read with its context in mind. Reading a work from the 70's is going to have, in most cases, a different focus than that of the 90's. But the process of how and what makes feminism of today is important in understanding feminism. We all have to remember that those that are supposed to "enlighten" us are also growing at the same time. Just because someone is a professor or an author does not mean they have the "absolute" truth (no one does or should) and the most important thing is that we have to accept this of them. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu
murthy@cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) (04/23/91)
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: >Reading this thread and having dealt with this issue in some depth I see an >attitude that does not please me. All these people criticize the works of >feminists - especially if they are at all tinged with "man-hating". Has anyone >heard of process? Do people really think that before someone can write a book >and have it printed they _must_ know the meaning of life and all those things >that fall inbetween? All I need to do is to look back at my journal from two >years ago - I understand where I was but most of the time I have grown to look >at the same situation differently. >Women are/were angry. [... lots of stuff about how women are >oppressed, and therefore it is OK for feminists to be man-haters.] But Lisa, you make the (very large) assumption that women are oppressed in our society more than men are. Now, you can make that assumption . And a lot of people wil support you on it. But the principal tenet upon which Dave Gross' essay is based is the belief that men are as equally oppressed as women in this society. Look. You don't have to believe that. But I do. I can see it everywhere around me, from the earlier deaths, to the estrangement from family, to the greater stress-related illness, and the list goes on and on. But you might disagree. And that is your right. But, for instance, when a woman complains about getting hit on at X place, a guy will, even when he says "that's awful", say, in his head, "Gee, I wish I could have that happen to me", or "Gee, that isn't so bad - if that happened to me I wouldn't be complaining". The point I am trying to make is that until you have walked a mile in my shoes, you cannot understand what I have gone thru. And you can never do more than nod your head, either in agreement, or disagreement, when I talk about my oppression and anger. I have a friend who, when I visited him, took great glee in getting me to "show my anger" to women he knew. The response (from the women) was always something like "Gee, he's so intense". And I am. Let me tell you a little about my anger. When a man says "I support women's rights, but for me, I want a little woman to stay at home and be a good wife and mother", we call him a chauvinist. We call his wife (when she hits 40, and realizes what she's been hoodwinked into) oppressed. When a woman sets herself up with an education (or lack thereof) which guarantees that she can't support a husband and children, and then she marries a man who can support her and her children, we call her "traditional", and many women I have met say that, even though they might not like her choice, they must "respect" it. What do these two scenarios have in common? The man is preventing his wife from exploring the part of life which he lives in - the public sphere. He prevents her from having a job, from being free of domestic responsibilities, etc. The woman prevents the man from exploring the part of life which she lives in, too. She forces him to support her, and thus to be distant from his children (a man that can't be there to change the diapers, clean up the baby food, and mop up the pee-pee is NOT being a real father, in my book), to endure stressful work, for the sole purpose of supporting his family, etc. But one is looked down upon by progressive society, and one is "respected". In my book, that woman is just as much a pig as that man. I want to be a househusband, and I can't be without being willing to take a serious hit in my standard of living. "What?" you say? "You are concerned about money? How male!". But a woman who was told "You can work, as long as you can handle having to do the domestic chores and also earning less than your male coworkers" would have a shit-fit. I want to be a househusband on the same terms that the women of my class can be housewives, Lisa. I want a wife that can support me as well as I can support her. And let me tell you, they are hard to find. Because most women that I have met in my economic class want a man who is even better-off. But most people will regard this is as something "personal". "You can't force women to look for men who are less-well-off than themselves". And I can't. But until women start doing so, and showing men that they don't have to be knights in green armor in order to be loved, until women start showing men that they don't have to be beasts in order to be wanted, men will continue being the beasts they are today. By the way, for me, it is not the man-hating part of most feminist though that bothers me. It is the hypocrisy. Most of what I see with the label feminist is, either overtly or covertly, hypocritical. And as such, well, in the long run, NOTHING will come of it. --chet--
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr15.215018.10035@umbc3.umbc.edu> uunet!umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!cs331124@ncar.UCAR.EDU (cs331124) writes: >Anyway, I was at Lamda Rising, and saw this quote on back of the original >LAVENDER JANE LOVES WOMEN album. I wish I could remember the source to >attribute it to, but... > > Feminism is the theory > Lesbianism is the practice. How soon they forget. The author of this was Ti-Grace Atkinson. -EMP
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (04/24/91)
Since I'm the fool that started this thread, I think it's about time I clarify some of my remarks and hopefully move this discussion along a more constructive path. As an initial clarifying point, let me say that I'm one of those people who would LIKE to be a feminist -- my criticism of feminism is not that of an antifeminist trying to prove the movement wrong, but of an egalitarian conscience trying to understand where a once-egalitarian movement went wrong. According to handel!farmerl@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU (lisa ann farmer): >Reading this thread and having dealt with this issue in some depth I see an >attitude that does not please me. All these people criticize the works of >feminists - especially if they are at all tinged with "man-hating". Has >anyone heard of process? Anybody can excerpt some of the more outrageous fringe literature from a group in an attempt to slander that group. It's a cheap game to play, and I was consciously trying to avoid playing that game. My objections are not directly with the works of Solanis, et al., since I know that any group as large and diverse as feminism can expect to attract some wackos with access to type- writers. My objection is to the fact that these wackos, no matter how anti-male they get, are not seen as the reprehensible bigots that they are by the so-called "mainstream" of feminism. I would like to see a feminism in which approvingly quoting Valerie Solanis in the concluding paragraph of one's essay is treated with the same amount of disgust as would quoting Charlie Manson. Instead, mainstream feminists like my Women's Studies professor (who complains constantly that her feminist friends think she is not radical enough), call essays like these "great." As an aside, I turned in the "Why I Am Not A Feminist" essay in my women's studies class. The professor read aloud from two essays which were written in response to an excerpt from Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will." One was from a woman who wrote a vivid and horrifying account of how she and her family felt when an 8-year-old cousin of hers was kidnapped and raped. There wasn't a dry eye in the room when the reading was finished. The professor introduced my essay by saying something along the lines of "And here's something from the other side of the issue..." Chew on the implications of that for a moment... >Women are/were angry. The literature that has come out of that anger is >angry too. I think that women's studies should allow the anger along with the >loving. I can understand the psychology behind this angry literature. I can try to sympathize with the people who write it and with their state of mind. But I don't think, as it seems many feminists do, that I should give any special credibility to these works because of the emotion behind them, or spare them from criticism because of the intensity of feeling of the author. Surely David Duke was angry when he marched around in a Nazi uniform several years back. This does not mean that I can quote David Duke approvingly in an essay and avoid being thought of as a nutcase out of some sort of idea that the anger behind Duke's actions insulates me from any criticism for taking his views seriously. > Literature needs to be read with its context in mind. Reading a work >from the 70's is going to have, in most cases, a different focus than that of >the 90's. But the process of how and what makes feminism of today is important >in understanding feminism. If this were the focus of these articles in feminist textbooks, I would have little or no complaint. Surely Valerie Solanis has her place in the annals of the women's movement, just as John Wilkes Booth has his place in American history. But the feminist textbooks place Brownmiller not in the chapter about the history of feminism, but in the chapter discussing theories about how gender roles began (Brownmiller credits rape). This to me would be like a civil rights textbook being written with the far-out views of Leonard Jeffries (who says that whites suffer from an inadequate supply of melanin, making them unable to function as well as other groups, and that deformation of white genes during the Ice Ages causes whites to commit terrible crimes of genocide, while black genes were enhanced by "the value system of the sun") or David Duke included not as examples of bizarre racism, but included right alongside of, and given equal respect to, legitimate writing on civil rights. The Republicans consider David Duke an embarassment, and are doing their damnedest to distance themselves from him. The Democrats do the same to Lyndon LaRouche. If the feminists would do the same to lunatics like Brownmiller, Solanis, Griffin, et cetera (or at least tell them to clean up their act), it would do much to restore my confidence (and probably many other people's) in feminism. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "If men are going to destroy the planet Earth and all its inhabitants with violence and wars, all men should be killed, to preserve the rest of human kind" --Betsy Warrior
robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr14.222759.13730@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes: > > (Dave Gross writes:) > >I discovered one of my favorite anti-male feminist quotes [...] > > "[I]f the professional rapist is to be separated from the > > average dominant [male] heterosexual, it may be mainly a > > quantitative difference." > >Think about the implications of that one for a minute. That the > >difference between a heterosexual man and a rapist is only one of > >degree. >This statement is shocking; it may also be true. I believe the line >of argument supporting this is based on studies of men's attitudes. >They suggests that the idea of rapists as a distinct group of wackos >is misleading; that as men we need to examine our own socialization >for things which when pushed further can lead to rape. The idea seems to be that both ordinary heterosexual men and rapists want sex; it's just that the rapist wants it more. That would be a matter of degree. However, that's absurd. Normal heterosexual men want sex from willing women, and probably couldn't even perform a sexual act with an unwilling woman. A rapist *wants* an unwilling woman, or doesn't care what the woman wants. This isn't a difference in degree, it's a different mindset altogether. (Also, I'm very curious; you state that men have a socialization that makes it possible for them to rape when "pushed further", which implies that it's not the rapist's fault; he was programmed by society, then "pushed further" by some unnameable something. Could you specify just what will *push* an ordinary heterosexual male to become a rapist? Wouldn't it then be the "pusher's" fault? Should we view a rapist as a victim "pushed" into a crime, or as a being responsible for their actions?) > >But the final straw for me was when, in my Women's Studies class this > >quarter, we were assigned as a reading an excerpt from Susan > >Brownmiller's "Against Our Will." >Susan Brownmiller succeeds best at expressing women's anger; I don't >think she was trying to speak in a balanced "objective" voice. Unfortunately, her works aren't taught as a meaningless expression of women's anger; her ideas are taught as if they had value and truth. >No one person speaks for the feminist movement. It is diverse. To >make change may well require a "good cop"/"bad cop" approach. Good cop/bad cop works only if the target is actually in the power of the bad cop. If someone were to be accosted by a "bad cop", and that cop had no power over them, they would simply get angry and resentful, perhaps even fight back. Under the current social setup , all "bad cop" feminists do is raise resistance to the good cops feminists. BTW, do you approve of good cop/bad cop in real police situations? Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (04/24/91)
In article <9104141120.6798@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >However, I'm unclear as to what "not a feminist" means just as >I'm unclear as to what "feminist" means. It means that I may support some specific common goal, but I would not support a feminist-only leadership to achieve that goal, and I'll double check what they do with my support. In other words, I'm willing to make deals with them but on "cash-only" basis, I don't give them any credit. >This isn't new, nor is it a conspiracy; it's a natural >class reaction to a change in the balances of privilege and power. The most vocal class in its objection is the non-Old-Boys. Quite a few of the privilege ones support feminism because it does not threaten their privileges... >Some feminists _do_ denounce Brownmiller and Dworkin; if someone >wants to define me as a feminist, I'll give a demonstration. Tell me Mr. "natural class reaction", do you denounce the ideas in the following paragraph? Becky Thompson, a sociology and women's studies professor, in a teaching manual distributed by the American Sociological Association writes: "I begin my course with the basic principle that in a racist, classist and sexist society we have all swallowed oppressive ways of being, whether intentionally or not. Specifically, this means that it is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of "Forbes" Do you know why no feminist has denounced it, even though I posted it several times? [Posted it where? I don't recall seeing it on soc.feminism before -- AMBAR] Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Were we the ones who called the shots, there would be no institutional discrimination against us." -- Clay Bond
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (04/24/91)
In article <72085@brunix.UUCP> fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) writes: >An alternative course of action would be to join the fray and denounce >anti-male statements (as opposed to the people making these statements) >yourself, i.e. change feminism from within. A woman can do it, if she wants too. A man will be in a very bad position because there will be no problem to attack his gender instead of his views. He will have to explain (and prove...) three times per day that he is not a MCP. I "u"ed soc.women because I had *enough* with this shit. Feel free to think that you can join the movement and change it from inside; just take into account that there is a higher probability that the movement will change you, from the inside.
rberlin%birdlandEng@sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (04/24/91)
In article <14423@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: |> Reading this thread and having dealt with this issue in some depth I |> see an attitude that does not please me. All these people criticize |> the works of feminists - especially if they are at all tinged with |>"man-hating". Has anyone heard of process? Do people really think |> that before someone can write a book and have it printed they _must_ |> know the meaning of life and all those things that fall inbetween? |> All I need to do is to look back at my journal from two years ago - I |> understand where I was but most of the time I have grown to look at |> the same situation differently. |> |> Women are/were angry. The literature that has come out of that anger |> is (o no) angry too. I think that women's studies should allow the |> anger along with the loving. Literature needs to be read with its |> context in mind. Reading a work from the 70's is going to have, in |> most cases, a different focus than that of the 90's. But the process |> of how and what makes feminism of today is important in understanding |> feminism. |> |> We all have to remember that those that are supposed to "enlighten" us |> are also growing at the same time. Just because someone is a |> professor or an author does not mean they have the "absolute" truth |> (no one does or should) and the most important thing is that we have |> to accept this of them. |> |> Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu You're very right about the issues of evolving perspective, Lisa. Lots of people come to criticize *their own* older work as having a perspective they no longer hold, and anticipating this phenomenon is helpful. What works best for me when reading an author whose perspective is extremely different from mine is to look for the grains of truth rather than wasting my energy defending my own perspective. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to share the author's view and it doesn't necessarily mean refraining from criticism, either, but it demands that I value and accept the unique subjectivity of the author. My best intentions notwithstanding, I find that accepting an author's radical view can be extremely difficult when the material is highly personal. As a man who, for example, has read much of Andrea Dworkin's work, I experience the level of anger as alienating. I cannot relate acceptingly to Andrea Dworkin, even though I see truth in what she writes, because she relates to me as her enemy. I think many of us men can accept feminism as an "equal rights" doctrine but have no means of accepting or supporting a vituperative feminist work when we feel "that anger is personally directed towards me!" (A male friend whom I consider pretty enlightened once observed that I was reading "Women Hating" and asked whether a direct form of self-flaggelation wouldn't be more efficient.) I often worry about the process that is affecting feminism right now. Perhaps I've said this before, but [RADICALISM ALERT :-)] I think a lot of women's nascent anger is being encouraged and then co-opted by powermongers who know how to use that anger and dissatisfaction to manipulate the angry and dissatisfied. Instead of a feeling which is being heard and resolved, I'm afraid that "women's anger" has become a state of being. There's an enormous difference between someone who *feels* angry and someone who *lives* angry. The latter is neither free nor autonomous. -- Rich
tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (04/26/91)
In <672147838@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >Becky Thompson, a sociology and women's studies professor, in a >teaching manual distributed by the American Sociological Association >writes: "I begin my course with the basic principle that in a racist, >classist and sexist society we have all swallowed oppressive ways of >being, whether intentionally or not. Specifically, this means that it >is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male >student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of >"Forbes" >Do you know why no feminist has denounced it, even though I posted it >several times? I haven't seen it before, but it is a position that I disagree with. However, I have indicated before to Mr. Gazit that I disagreed with various similar positions and his reaction has been, in effect, "you're not one of the feminists that count." With a reaction like that, it is perhaps little wonder that later demands met with little response. --Cindy
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (04/26/91)
In article <672147838@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > Becky Thompson, a sociology and women's studies professor, in a > teaching manual distributed by the American Sociological Association > writes: "I begin my course with the basic principle that in a racist, > classist and sexist society we have all swallowed oppressive ways of > being, whether intentionally or not. Specifically, this means that it > is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male > student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of > "Forbes" Ms. Thompson, in saying a white student "simply is" a racist, makes a racist remark. When she says a male student "simply is" sexist, she makes a sexist remark. There are racists of all colors, and sexists of both genders. Pointing to one sex (race) over another for crimes that both are equally guilty of is "simply not" fair. Michael
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (04/26/91)
In article <9104231215.aa04821@ics.uci.edu> tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >I haven't seen it before, but it is a position that I disagree with. >However, I have indicated before to Mr. Gazit that I disagreed with >various similar positions and his reaction has been, in effect, >"you're not one of the feminists that count." What I pointed out was different: There is the following process on the net: 1) X expresses some feminist anti-male position Y. 2) Non-feminists debate with X, feminist stay out of the debate. 3) *After* the debate someone says "the feminist position is Y". 4) The same feminists who stayed out of the previous debate make a big debate because they claim that the feminist position is not Y. As long as you are not willing to debate other feminists about anti-male positions, "you're not one of the feminists that count." Feel free to complain. >--Cindy Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "That girl won't have a pulse-pounding testosterone jag that needs a war to satisfy it, either." -- The latest feminist attack in soc.men
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr23.120320.17660@cs.cornell.edu> murthy@cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) writes: > > >But Lisa, you make the (very large) assumption that women are >oppressed in our society more than men are. Now, you can make that >assumption . And a lot of people wil support you on it. But the >principal tenet upon which Dave Gross' essay is based is the belief >that men are as equally oppressed as women in this society. I don't deny that men are oppressed - but I don't think they are oppressed _because_ they are male. There are many issues that any individual can be oppressed in (well any individual excect the white,able,upper-class,"young", etc. male). I am not saying that those people don't feel pain but they have the power to change the system,not me. I also don't want to get into the issue of "more" oppressed - I cannot tell anyone that my pain is greater than theirs - it all hurts. > >happened to me I wouldn't be complaining". The point I am trying to >make is that until you have walked a mile in my shoes, you cannot >understand what I have gone thru. And you can never do more than nod >your head, either in agreement, or disagreement, when I talk about my >oppression and anger. > But I am walking in "your shoes". In order for me to "succeed" in this world I have to follow the "White male system" rules. I have had to cover up who I am just to get along. I would like to be able to _not_ shave my legs and I don't most of the time _but_ when I go out interviewing...I think both men and womyn are hurt by the system but if I try to change it I am told that 1)I am overreacting to <insert common thing> 2)I am a bitch 3) What is wrong with the way things are now? etc. As a male you have more power to change the system because males made it in the first place and they won't tell you that you are a bitch etc. (I do realize that your ideas may be ignored - but they aren't ignored _because_ of your gender) >Let me tell you a little about my anger. When a man says "I support >women's rights, but for me, I want a little woman to stay at home and >be a good wife and mother", we call him a chauvinist. We call his >wife (when she hits 40, and realizes what she's been hoodwinked into) >oppressed. When a woman sets herself up with an education (or lack >thereof) which guarantees that she can't support a husband and >children, and then she marries a man who can support her and her >children, we call her "traditional", and many women I have met say >that, even though they might not like her choice, they must "respect" >it. Did this woman come up with this idea on her own? No way - she was taught to think that way just as the male was. When your parents, school, religion, peer group, society etc tell you that you will go to college to find a husband what else are you supposed to think? I have to respect that womyn because if I try to "change" her she will rebel against anything anyone says that is contradictory to the way she was brought up. If I don't respect her, and ignore that she exists there will be no chance to educate her -whether it is to encourage her to go back to school or to get involved. > >I want to be a househusband on the same terms that the women of my >class can be housewives, Lisa. I want a wife that can support me as >well as I can support her. And let me tell you, they are hard to >find. Because most women that I have met in my economic class want a >man who is even better-off. I think it is fine that men want to be househusbands. The only problem I have with it is that I think parenting and housekeeping(etc) should be a more shared venture and that having "specific" roles for mom and dad won't help society at all. Anyways, it is unrealistic (in most cases) to be a one-income home. > >By the way, for me, it is not the man-hating part of most feminist >though that bothers me. It is the hypocrisy. Most of what I see with >the label feminist is, either overtly or covertly, hypocritical. And >as such, well, in the long run, NOTHING will come of it. I don't know if I posted it here or not but everyone expects feminism to be this totally correct thing on one try. I picture this balance with two sides of society - people expect feminism to give it one push and viola everything is equal. But sometimes it is going to be pushed too far and sometimes not hard enough but at least someone is pushing! All we can hope for is that all this talk, all this trying _will_ change the system if even just a little bit. > >--chet-- Lisa farmerl @handel.cs.colostate.edu P.S.(I don't know how the tone of this came off but I hope not badly. I just wanted to say that this semester at Colorado State a "Men and Masculinity" course was offered - there was actually an article in the newspaper about it- I think that class is exactly what this society needs to start breaking down more of the barriers that men have. )
farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr24.130437.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <672147838@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >> being, whether intentionally or not. Specifically, this means that it >> is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male >> student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of >> "Forbes" > >Ms. Thompson, in saying a white student "simply is" a racist, makes a >racist remark. When she says a male student "simply is" sexist, she >makes a sexist remark. There are racists of all colors, and sexists of >both genders. Pointing to one sex (race) over another for crimes that >both are equally guilty of is "simply not" fair. I went to a seminar by Lillian Roball Rose(or Ross) last fall. I think that she presented some good ways at looking at sexism, classism, racism, ableism, etc. In this society(USA) we have a white male upper-middle class, able group in power. If you are part of what is in power you are an ??ist. For example, if you are white _because_ whites are in power (they make the laws,enforce them etc) you are racist. This means that because you are white there are certain attitudes that you grow up with, certain ways that you are treated by the people in power because you are white. Because you are associated with the group that makes the (sexist,racist,ableist) laws you are part of the problem. That does not however imply that you can not be part of the solution. This does not mean you should feel guilty being white. etc. But everytime you participate in something that is -ist and you are not part of the target group and you do not say "this is -ist" then you are not being part of the solution. This is extremely hard to get across in a short amount of space - Rose actually gives day-long lectures on this stuff. So my main point is you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu
mlm@cs.brown.edu (Moises Lejter) (04/29/91)
From: farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) [...] In this society(USA) we have a white male upper-middle class, able group in power. If you are part of what is in power you are an ??ist. For example, if you are white _because_ whites are in power (they make the laws,enforce them etc) you are racist. This means that because you are white there are certain attitudes that you grow up with, certain ways that you are treated by the people in power because you are white. It would seem to me that one can say that a group is Z-ist, based on that group's behavior or beliefs. One can also say that an individual is a Z-ist, based on that individual's behavior or beliefs. But it makes no sense to say that an individual is a Z-ist because of the behavior of a group s/he may be associated with, except in so far as the individual's behavior or beliefs matches those of the group with which s/he is being associated in those areas relevant to Z-ism. For example, take a democratic government in which a majority has determined (and enacted into law) Z-ist rules. That government, and thus that society, is Z-ist. Take now an individual Y that is part of that society, but who voted against Z-ist laws and behaves in a non-Z-ist manner. Y is, in thought and deed, a non-Z-ist individual. To call Y a Z-ist seems to me a useless, if not actually counter- productive, position to take (because it's bound to alienate Y, if for no other reason). I would further claim that this would be true regardless of any groups Y could be associated with within that society (even if it happens to be the majority group, for any particular denominator). Assume now that a second individual X belongs to the group Z-ism discriminates against. Assume further that X believes that Z-ism is "true", and so accepts that Y is to be favored over X. Is Y now Z-ist, because X is Z-ist? Does it matter if there is a whole group of discriminated people who believe in Z-ism? The answers should be no - calling Y a Z-ist should only depend on Y's behavior and beliefs, and on nothing else. Assume that the government favors Y over X, because of its Z-ist policy. If Y does not take advantage of this privilege, is s/he Z-ist? I would say not. Suppose Y does take advantage of this privilege, in such a way that it benefits those Z-ism discriminates against. Is Y Z-ist? I would say not. Suppose Y takes advantage of this privilege, in such a way that someone else is discriminated against. Is Y Z-ist? By assumption, Y would not do this, being non-Z-ist. In general? I think this is a hard one. Because you are associated with the group that makes the (sexist,racist,ableist) laws you are part of the problem. I would say that only to the extent that you do not take steps, in either your personal or public life, against those Z-ist laws are you a part of the problem. That does not however imply that you can not be part of the solution. This does not mean you should feel guilty being white. etc. But everytime you participate in something that is -ist and you are not part of the target group and you do not say "this is -ist" then you are not being part of the solution. True. I would go even farther - you are only part of the solution if you actively take steps, in either your personal or public life, to solve the problem. This is extremely hard to get across in a short amount of space - Rose actually gives day-long lectures on this stuff. So my main point is you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. I disagree. X in my example above is Z-ist. The fact that X is in the group discriminated against has nothing to do with it - X believes whatever position Z-ism preaches, and is therefore a Z-ist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: mlm@cs.brown.edu BITNET: mlm@browncs.BITNET UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.brown.edu!mlm Phone: (401)863-7664 USmail: Moises Lejter, Box 1910 Brown University, Providence RI 02912
davidson@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Davidson) (04/30/91)
In article <14551@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, lisa ann farmer <handel!farmerl@ccncsu.colostate.EDU> writes: >In article <1991Apr24.130437.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com>, >rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: >>Ms. Thompson, in saying a white student "simply is" a racist, makes a >>racist remark. When she says a male student "simply is" sexist, she >>makes a sexist remark. There are racists of all colors, and sexists of >>both genders. Pointing to one sex (race) over another for crimes that >>both are equally guilty of is "simply not" fair. > >I went to a seminar by Lillian Roball Rose(or Ross) last fall. I >think that she presented some good ways at looking at sexism, >classism, racism, ableism, etc. In this society(USA) we have a white >male upper-middle class, able group in power. If you are part of what >is in power you are an ??ist. I disagree with this completely. >For example, if you are white _because_ >whites are in power (they make the laws,enforce them etc) you are >racist. I am white because of my genes, not because whites are "in power". :-) But seriously, I just don't follow this logic. "Because whites are in power, all whites are racist." Am I missing something here? You mean to tell me there are *NO* non-racist whites? And what the heck does "in power" mean? What if I claim that you're looking at the world the wrong way, that *women* have the all power that really counts. Does this suddenly make all women sexist? >This means that because you are white there are certain >attitudes that you grow up with, certain ways that you are treated by >the people in power because you are white. OK... >Because you are associated with the group that makes the >(sexist,racist,ableist) laws you are part of the problem. Wrong, and it is exactly this attitude that turns off people like me, who are completely against *ALL* discrimination, not just discrimination against groups who don't have this undefinable quality "power". How can I be part of the problem by my very existence? I would think that my *actions* make me part of the problem or part of the solution. What about a U.S. Congresswoman? She's associated with the group that makes the laws -- heck, she's *part* of the group that makes the laws. Is she part of the problem? Even if she voted against every *ist law that came up for a vote? >That does not however imply that you can not be part of the solution. So why even say that I am part of the problem? Do you really think that white males will want to work with you to eliminate *ism if you scream "It's your fault! You're part of the problem!" and then ask for their help? If we all work *together*, maybe we could make progress. >This does not mean you should feel guilty being white. etc. So why tell whites they are part of the problem? >But everytime you >participate in something that is -ist and you are not part of the >target group and you do not say "this is -ist" then you are not being >part of the solution. What if I *always* say "this is -ist"? Am I still part of the problem? If so, why? If not, why do you insist on telling me I *am* part of the problem? Why not judge people by their actions instead of their sex or the color of their skin (boy, now *THERE'S* a radical thought). >So my main point is you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. Do you really believe this? What a plusgood example of *ist doublethink. My advice is, drop the illogical, sexist, racist rhetoric that just turns off people that would be willing to help if they weren't automatically considered the enemy. Freedom, Drew -- Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS: davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY ** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly * FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
gcf@uunet.uu.NET (Gordon Fitch) (05/02/91)
tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: | >I haven't seen it before, but it is a position that I disagree with. | >However, I have indicated before to Mr. Gazit that I disagreed with | >various similar positions and his reaction has been, in effect, | >"you're not one of the feminists that count." gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: | What I pointed out was different: | | There is the following process on the net: | | 1) X expresses some feminist anti-male position Y. | | 2) Non-feminists debate with X, feminist stay out of the debate. | | 3) *After* the debate someone says "the feminist position is Y". | | 4) The same feminists who stayed out of the previous debate make a big | debate because they claim that the feminist position is not Y. | | As long as you are not willing to debate other feminists about | anti-male positions, "you're not one of the feminists that count." | | Feel free to complain. In order to play this game properly, however, you have to inform all the players that they are in it, and when it starts. It's also necessary to get their consent, and make sure they're on the playing field. I don't think this is impossible, but it can't be done by posting things on the net. Or it's very unlikely. You certainly can't start it up informally without telling anyone. For instance, if a "feminist" says Brownmiller is wonderful, and an "anti-feminist" writes a scathing critique of Brownmiller and her supporters, I may feel that my contribution would be superfluous. That is because I approach the net for entertainment and enlightenment, not as a competitive sport. There is nothing wrong with the latter approach, but those who engage in it should realize that not everyone is doing the same thing. Possibly a mailing list could be set up, or a moderated newsgroup, in which each participant would be required to make a "play" during each "round" of a discussion. When the thread was being set up, participants would be required to identify which "side" or "team" they were on. The moderator would then put something into play, like, say, a quotation from Brownmiller. During the first round, every player would be required to take a position on the quotation. During the second phase of play, the participants would criticize the positions of the others, and improve upon their own. During the third phase, participants would criticize each other and be scored on the breadth and depth of their capacity for invective. Finally, during a fourth phase, players would argue about what the score was, and who won. "I did _too_ oppose Brownmiller's position!" "Yes, but you didn't denounce her by name. You don't get any points." "Fascist thug!" " 'Politically correct' person!" Now, we've never seen anything like _that_ on the net before, have we?
gcf@uunet.uu.NET (Gordon Fitch) (05/02/91)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) quotes somebody: | >> "... Specifically, this means that it | >> is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male | >> student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of | >> "Forbes" rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: | >Ms. Thompson, in saying a white student "simply is" a racist, makes a | >racist remark. When she says a male student "simply is" sexist, she | >makes a sexist remark. There are racists of all colors, and sexists of | >both genders. Pointing to one sex (race) over another for crimes that | >both are equally guilty of is "simply not" fair. farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer): | I went to a seminar by Lillian Roball Rose(or Ross) last fall. I | think that she presented some good ways at looking at sexism, | classism, racism, ableism, etc. In this society(USA) we have a white | male upper-middle class, able group in power. If you are part of what | is in power you are an ??ist. For example, if you are white _because_ | whites are in power (they make the laws,enforce them etc) you are | racist. This means that because you are white there are certain | attitudes that you grow up with, certain ways that you are treated by | the people in power because you are white. | | Because you are associated with the group that makes the | (sexist,racist,ableist) laws you are part of the problem. That does | not however imply that you can not be part of the solution. This does | not mean you should feel guilty being white. etc. But everytime you | participate in something that is -ist and you are not part of the | target group and you do not say "this is -ist" then you are not being | part of the solution. ... So my main point is | you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. I find this last idea, which has been very popular at times, extraordinarily destructive. It originates in what I think is a misunderstanding of a Marxist concept, "objective racism" (or sexism, or whatever). This concept may be illustrated by a white person who lives in a society where whites, as a class, oppress blacks, as a class. A white individual who benefits from this oppression is said to be involved in "objective racism" even though she may not be personally a racist. In fact, she may be an anti-racist; this sort of Marxist analysis is not about personal guilt and redemption but about economic and political relationships. Apparently, some people found it convenient or gratifying to take this theory out of its context and omit certain essential parts of it, thus coming up with the idea that, if one is a member of an oppressed group, it's all right to utter racist ideas and commit racist acts because one can't really be a racist if one belongs to the right race. Guess what: this is _exactly_ the same theory straight-out white racists promulgate! If you can stand it, read some Nazi literature: there you will see that it is not only a pleasure, but a duty, for the persecuted white race to strike back at its evil opponents. The fact is, racism, sexism, and so forth are symptoms of a kind of mental illness which a great many people seem prone to: a perception that categories of people, usually people in some way not quite like themselves, or like the dominant group, are less than human. Being on the wrong end of one of its outbreaks does not make any particular group immune to it. Actually, it seems to increase the likelihood of infection. The really sad part of this is that, while racism poisons a majority, it only makes it sick. A disadvantaged group which takes this sort of thing seriously is on the point of suicide, since it has fewer resources with which to cope with the sickness. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (05/04/91)
| There is the following process on the net: | 1) X expresses some feminist anti-male position Y. | 2) Non-feminists debate with X, feminist stay out of the debate. | 3) *After* the debate someone says "the feminist position is Y". | 4) The same feminists who stayed out of the previous debate make a big | debate because they claim that the feminist position is not Y. | As long as you are not willing to debate other feminists about | anti-male positions, "you're not one of the feminists that count." In article <9104270827.14195@mydog.UUCP> (Gordon Fitch) writes: >In order to play this game properly, however, you have to inform all >the players that they are in it, and when it starts. Why? In *my* opinion what people do when they think that "it does not count" shows more about what they really are. >for invective. Finally, during a fourth phase, players would argue >about what the score was, and who won. > "I did _too_ oppose Brownmiller's position!" > "Yes, but you didn't denounce her by name. You don't > get any points." Last time that I complained about "Against Our Will", in soc.feminism, the feminist response was a strong support. Read Cindy's archive if you don't believe. I don't see any reason to play the game once again, it is rather obvious that the men-bashing just did not bother enough any feminist, but the "Against Our Will" bashing was quite irritating for several of them. Since the play, in the net, is for the audience it was enough to show my point. Feel free to complain. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men." -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/08/91)
In article <14551@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> lisa ann farmer <handel!farmerl@ccncsu.colostate.EDU> writes: >This is extremely hard to get across in a short amount of space - Rose >actually gives day-long lectures on this stuff. So my main point is >you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. Please define what you mean by "in power." E.g. if an AA committee forces a company to hire women/minorities with lower qualifications than other candidates, is this committee in power? Is this committee racist/sexist? If a professor teaches students the ideology I quoted, and gives an F grade to those who (publicly) disagree, is she in power?
gcf@uunet.UU.NET (05/08/91)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit): | | There is the following process on the net: | | 1) X expresses some feminist anti-male position Y. | | 2) Non-feminists debate with X, feminist stay out of the debate. | | 3) *After* the debate someone says "the feminist position is Y". | | 4) The same feminists who stayed out of the previous debate make a big | | debate because they claim that the feminist position is not Y. | | As long as you are not willing to debate other feminists about | | anti-male positions, "you're not one of the feminists that count." (Gordon Fitch) writes: | >In order to play this game properly, however, you have to inform all | >the players that they are in it, and when it starts. (Hillel Gazit): | Why? | | In *my* opinion what people do when they think that "it | does not count" shows more about what they really are. If you are going to draw a conclusion about a population, you must first define the population by criteria not involved in your conclusion. (Otherwise it's circular.) Then you must ensure that each member of the population receives the same stimulus under reasonably similar conditions. You must also prescribe the criteria for results in advance; you can't wait for some undifferentiated mass of outcomes, and then pick and choose from it to support your argument. This is elementary stuff. You have not done any of these things; therefore, you can't draw any conclusions about "feminists" -- or rather, you can draw any conclusions you like; they will all be equally unsupported. | Last time that I complained about "Against Our Will", in soc.feminism, | the feminist response was a strong support. Read Cindy's archive if | you don't believe. I don't see any reason to play the game once again, | it is rather obvious that the men-bashing just did not bother enough | any feminist, but the "Against Our Will" bashing was quite irritating | for several of them. The Poisson distribution ensures that, for random events occurring in series, such as pro- and anti-Brownmiller articles, there will be clumping. If you move an arbitrary time-frame arbitrarily along such a series, you can probably find any kind of population distribution you want. | Since the play, in the net, is for the audience | it was enough to show my point. Propaganda is useful to draw attention to an idea, but if the idea has no other support its effect is transitory, and you will wind up preaching to the converted. In fact, there may be a reaction against the idea as a result. For example, suppose you tell a naif that all feminists support the reprehensible fascist Brownmiller, and the naif later meets a feminist who opposes and denounces Brownmiller (by name). He will then conclude that you were deceiving him, and that all your ideas are bad. Actually, I've hardly ever seen anyone's mind change as a result of participating in these discussions. Apparently it takes an unusual degree of intelligence, or perhaps moral courage, to question one's own ideas. Gordon Fitch
chris@psych.toronto.EDU (Christine Hitchcock) (05/08/91)
Hillel Gazit talked about the implicit rules that govern what he terms "play on the net". And in response to Gordon Fitch: >>In order to play this game properly, however, you have to inform all >>the players that they are in it, and when it starts. He says: >Why? >In *my* opinion what people do when they think that "it >does not count" shows more about what they really are. Here, I think, is where Hillel is making an assumption about what influences people to follow-up. There are a number of things that determine whether I follow-up a post. One is certainly that I'm not interested in the issue. But sometimes I am confused about an issue, and, rather than throw myself into the fray, I sit back and watch what others have to say. Sometimes I strongly disagree with what is being posted, but I am vastly outnumbered and I don't feel I have the energy to invest in a long flame war and email debate. Sometimes I feel that what is being posted is clearly absurd, and a refutation would dignify it. In general, I try to have something more to say than "record my vote for this side or that side". And some days my drive to avoid my thesis is just stronger than others ;-) I see "net play" more as a way to discuss issues and see other people's opinions rather than as a way to prove "what people really are" or to decide on the validity of an argument by the number of posting UseNetters who support it. Chris. -- Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology chris@psych.toronto.edu University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario UseNet: I only read it for the CANADA M5S 1A1 .signatures