randy@ms.uky.EDU (Randy Appleton) (10/11/90)
Hi! I have two unrelated thoughts, but I'm putting them both in the same post to reduce clutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought Number One Suppose the following two statments were both true: 1) Black man have a different life expectancy than white men. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that black men live shorter lives. I think this is true, but if not, just assume it for now. Now, if I were a life insurance company, and I were to charge black men more for life insurance, I would be sued. If I were a BIG life insurance company, I'd probably get Operation Push [a hypothetical company? --clt] to tell everyone what an evil racist I was. 2) White women have a different life expectancy than white men. I *know* this to be true. White women live longer than white men. Again, if I were a life insurance company, and I charged white men more for life insurance than white women, I'd be doing what every other insurance companyy does. Something is inconsistent here. That seems obvious. But I cannot figure out how it ought to be. So my questions are, "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in an ideal world?" "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in the current world?" "How would ERA change the legal situation here?" I note that the 16th ammendment (I think) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and that ERA *might* be interpreted to prohibit charging different rates based on gender. -------------------------------------------------- Thought Number Two (The Smaller Thought) In my mind, the definition of feminism includes *only* the striving for equality between the genders. It does *not* include an anti-nuclear power position, a fight against the porn movies, our foreign policy towards South Africa, or even nationalized Child Care. I understand the American Feminism (tm) does not need my support, but my support does *not* extend to those areas, and to fight for those things will aleanate me. I would suggest that one can be for gender-nutrality and yet also for peaceful nuclear power. It just seems like a possibility to me. [You are assuming that there is only one brand of feminism, which is not true... --CLT] -Randy -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================
2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/12/90)
> > Again, if I were a life insurance company, and I charged white men > more for life insurance than white women, I'd be doing what every > other insurance companyy does. > > Something is inconsistent here. That seems obvious. But I cannot > figure out how it ought to be. So my questions are, > > "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in an ideal > world?" > > "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in the current > world?" > Well this of course is the question of reverse descrimination. What I find particularly interesting is that Insurance companies are predominantly owned and controlled men, (white men at that.) So the decision to charge men more, was mostly a decision of white men. Solving the inconsistency, in an ideal world, no one would have to pay for insurance! So no discrepancy. Solving it in the current world? Does it need a solution? To what extent has it become a tool of oppression? Think of this also, men in general get paid more, I suppose they should be able to afford slightly higher insurance. But that really isn't fair either. The Current world is an unfair world, until it becomes a fair world, we will have to deal with unfair compensations, like affirmative action for instance. Or giving breaks to employers who hire sight or hearing impaired people, or other handicapped people. If education, employment, and life in general would be undiscriminating our laws would not have to be. Dealing with laws to counter discrimination, is an approach we must continue, but for changes to really take place, we must also start rocking the foundations of oppression. We need a diagnosis, we need to start working on a cure. This deals with your thought number two. Feminism is not about fighting for women's rights to become men. It is an attempt to put an end to oppression. And if that means addressing our concepts about war, or the environment, or government, then those things must also come. Certainly you are not FOR nuclear armament. You would have to be pretty sick, or a defense contractor I suppose, to want that. What we all want is too feel safe, to not be under the threat of war, or global destruction. Some feel this means we need to arm ourselves, others feel we need to withdraw from conflict completely. The middle ground recognise that nuclear weapons are ultimately self destructive, and want a unilateral disarmament. We need to find in which direction our freedom lies, our safety. Can we feel safe under the threat of a nuclear war? I know I cannot, and I worry for my nieces, my friends, this world. Are we so arrogant to think this is within our right? But that is a different topic altogether, perhaps we could carry it elsewhere. The time has come to dream a new world. Stephen R. Figgins University of Kansas 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/14/90)
randy@ms.uky.EDU (Randy Appleton) writes: >In my mind, the definition of feminism includes *only* the striving >for equality between the genders. It does *not* include an >anti-nuclear power position, a fight against the porn movies, our >foreign policy towards South Africa, or even nationalized Child Care. hmm... the fight against porn movies may not be on the agenda of most feminists simply because they are dirty or what ever. Porn is basically anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, and hate of women. There is no pornagrafy that does not promote one or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. So the fight agianst Porn is the fight for equality. (this does not mean that I believe the church fanatics are correct - as one article i read said, the church and pornographers are codependent.) [What about lesbian pornography? - MHN] As for south africa, IMHO, one group cannot be free if another is opressed. Childcare is one of the keys to gender equallity. It allows both parents to work or do their own thing. It can also be an educating, socialising experience for the child(ren). As for nationalization, we are spending obscene(sp) amounts of money on war, finantial bail outs, arms, space programs etc; but spending for a child care program or fund seems obscene to the law makers and the tax spenders. I don't know about you but my childhood was the single most important, and influencing period of my life. If I had been left in child care that was inadiquate, with attendants with little training, patients, and salary, then I would say that my life would be different. People need to start seeing the importance of their childhoods and their children, and that is a very feminist thought. -kaveh.
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (10/16/90)
In article <26082.2714c3d1@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >Well this of course is the question of reverse descrimination. What I find >particularly interesting is that Insurance companies are predominantly owned >and controlled men, (white men at that.) So the decision to charge men more, >was mostly a decision of white men. This is only odd if one assumes that the owners of the insurance companies are exclusively slaves of their skin color and the contents of their trousers. If one accepts that they operate, rather, on the basis of the profit motive, there is no incongruity. > The Current world is an unfair world, until it becomes a fair world, we >will have to deal with unfair compensations, like affirmative action for >instance. Or giving breaks to employers who hire sight or hearing impaired >people, or other handicapped people. If education, employment, and life in >general would be undiscriminating our laws would not have to be. It should be obvious that the exact same kind of reasoning can be used to keep traditional forms of discrimination intact, or to serve as justification for their return. Those who would adopt this kind of reasoning would do well to understand its double-edged nature. Every sexually egalitarian movement to date has come to this dilemma. Every one until, and perhaps including this one, has managed to scuttle itself rather than face the discomforting and unsettling problems of the future. By the way, sight- and hearing-impaired are considered loathsome terms by many, and handicapped is a downright insult, as it derives from an English term meaning "panhandler." [I have always described myself as "deaf", and have been mildly amazed and amused over the years at the proliferation of alternative terms. However, I believe that hearing-impaired, at least, is the current "PC" term. --CLT] -EMP
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (10/17/90)
In article <26082.2714c3d1@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > >This deals with your thought number two. Feminism is not about fighting for >women's rights to become men. I didn't say that! The world has enough men. What I did say was that feminism is the struggle for equality between the genders. I don't mean identity, I mean equal oportunity. >It is an attempt to put an end to oppression. >And if that means addressing our concepts about war, or the environment, or >government, then those things must also come. No, it does not! If I have concerns about the about the envoirment, you are an enviornmentalist. That seems clear. And I believe both the dictionary and common usage agrees with me. In my mind, feminism and environmentalism are like wealth and health. Both are desiarable (necessary!), and there even tends to be a correlation. Sick people tend to have less money (more hospital bills!). BUt I can be healthy and poor, or rich and sick. It is done all the time. >Certainly you are not FOR >nuclear armament. You would have to be pretty sick, or a defense contractor I >suppose, to want that. What we all want is too feel safe, to not be under the >threat of war, or global destruction. Some feel this means we need to arm >ourselves, others feel we need to withdraw from conflict completely. The >middle ground recognise that nuclear weapons are ultimately self destructive, >and want a unilateral disarmament. We need to find in which direction our >freedom lies, our safety. Can we feel safe under the threat of a nuclear >war? I know I cannot, and I worry for my nieces, my friends, this world. Are >we so arrogant to think this is within our right? Yes, it is within your rights. But just as nuclear weapons and racial equality are orthogonal to each other, so are nuclear weapons and feminism. But are you going to tell me I cannot be a feminist unless I have your views on defence policy? Are you willing to say that? -Randy -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/17/90)
In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >Porn is basically >anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, >and hate of women. ....................................................................... >[What about lesbian pornography? - MHN] And what about all-men gay porno? The anti-porno laws that were pushed by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon defined all porno, gay porno explicitly included, as "discrimination against women"; do you accept this definition for all-men gay porno?
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (10/18/90)
In article <16187@s.ms.uky.edu> Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> writes: [...stuff deleted...] >Yes, it is within your rights. But just as nuclear weapons and racial >equality are orthogonal to each other, so are nuclear weapons and feminism. >But are you going to tell me I cannot be a feminist >unless I have your views on defence policy? Are you willing to say that? > >-Randy Feminism is a broad collection of opinions. In your feminism, there is no connection between nuclear weapons and feminism. But, in certain other "brands" of feminism, it is thought that nuclear weapons are a function of patriarchy, and in a non-patriarchal society, nuclear weapons wouldn't exist. Both your view and this other view are feminist. There is no One True Path of Feminism, no single agenda that characterizes all feminists. Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
pmoloney@vax1.tcd.ie ( Paul Moloney ) (10/23/90)
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > hmm... the fight against porn movies may not be on the agenda of most > feminists simply because they are dirty or what ever. Porn is basically > anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, > and hate of women. There is no pornagrafy that does not promote one > or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. Uhh..what about male gay pornography? Or do you represent Feminists Saving Gay Men From Themselves? -- moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersneworderpratchett clive P a u l M o l o n e y "You know, I've met a lot of cool chicks, but spike james pmoloney@vax1.tcd.ie I've never met a girl with all her own teeth" lee brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (10/26/90)
>Certainly you are not FOR nuclear armament. You would have to be >pretty sick, or a defense contractor I suppose, to want that. Since this argument was made as a statement that all feminists are... I feel compelled, as a feminist, to argue with it. In my lifetime (37 years) there has been no global warfare. There has been some agression and battle skirmishes but they have been geographically contained FAR more than either WWI or WWII. The earth has not been blown to smithereens. Economic boycotts have become the modus operandi for fighting aggression. And all this has been during a time when nuclear weapons have proliferated. I believe it is because the threat of nuclear destruction which has made us begin to explore alternative methods of handling war and aggression. And without the threat of global destruction we would have MORE war, not less. So, regarding the original argument, no, feminism is not an all encompassing political stance. Not all feminsists buy the populist liberal line unquestioningly. Not all feminsists blame acts of war, pollution, poverty, and any number of additional social sins on patriarchy nor do we all believe that simply switching to matriarchy will solve all our problems. Judy