travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/23/89)
[ Hi all, sorry for the very long posting, but I started a list, then filled in most of it before pooping out. If I may paraphrase this entire post, it's based on the saying "you can't soar with the eagles when you were wallowing with the hogs the night before." Well, you can't dance with Foucault after you've been butting heads with Jesse Helms.] In article <8910200306.AA17402@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: > Richard Shapiro asks: >>>>1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not argue >>>>on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a mere tactic? Hillel replied: >#Because what you *DO* is what you are. You can't insist that >#race/sex will be mentioned in every job application, college >#admission etc. and be an "equal rights" person. Period. Hillel, Although Richard is quite capable of doing so, I think I'll add more detail to his questions, in the hopes that you may understand it enough to answer it. One view of feminism is that it is a critique of the gender-based attributes and attitudes that people are given. To the extent that there is a political side of feminism, it is one that examines and criticizes the many consequences -- political and personal, historical and present-day -- of these gender-based assumptions and attitudes. The problem with your (and others') simplistic descriptions of "feminism" is that you seem to think it begins and ends with Affirmative Action-type laws and programs. What Richard's question referred to was the fact that you (and others) seem to be willing to spend an astonishing amount of time on the net attacking Affirmative Action programs, when there is much, much more that is analyzed and critiqued under the rubric of feminism. You are apparently totally unaware of the existence of this work, yet you remain unafraid to slander "feminists" as technicians of inequality, as if AA programs were all that they did or cared about. For example, you ask: >IMO what you say, intentions, etc. are not important. If you want to >argue that feminism is not "just AA" then try to present some of its >*actions*, preferably actions in the Eighties. Presumably you mean actions other than feminist analyses of social structures, e.g., Catherine Mackinnon's "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State" (just published), Evelyn Fox Keller's "Reflections on Gender and Science", Andrea Dworkin's "Pornography", Carol Vance's "Pleasure and Danger", Varda Burstyn's "Women Against Censorship", Marilyn French's "Beyond Power", Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will", or the literally thousands of other such books that range from studies of the suffrage movement, to incest, to the nature of the male gaze in cinema. Of the books I listed, only two mention anything about Affirmative Action. It's possibly the case that you don't think of these things as "feminism," which is precisely the reason why you and the rest of the anti-AA crowd on the net are missing 90% of the point. "Feminism" is not just the advocacy of Affirmative Action, or, God help us, the willingness of females to volunteer to fight in a war. Are you married? Do you have sisters or daughters or female friends? What about your mother? Do you listen to their problems? Can you begin to understand that each of the following problems/situations/power structures I list below is studied under the label of "feminism", and that *nothing* here has anything to do with Affirmative Action? Let's go through the list. - Rape. If reported rapes are analyzed, 1 out of 10 of every women will be raped in their lifetime (says the FBI, the Dept. of Justice goes for 1 in 12). If unreported rapes are factored in, 1 out of every 4 women will be raped in their lifetime. Grown women, children, grandmothers all lead their lives differently because of the possibility of a sexual assault. Isn't this kind of high? With rape so stunningly prevalent, as Golda Meir asked the Knesset (lo! these many years ago), who should be locked inside at night: men or women? - Incest. The last statistic I heard was from NY Women Against Rape, which reported that 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted by a relative. It's conventional to think that a child molester will the stranger in a raincoat, but it's usually kept in the family. 90% of all incest survivors are females, molested by heterosexual male relatives, by the way. But don't worry, it wraps around: I just saw a short documentary where a rapist described his rapes as a means of getting back at his mother, who sexually molested him years before. - Wife Abuse. The most fascinating statistic for me in this field is that, of the women who are eventually murdered by their husbands, there is an *average* of 10 visits by the police before the woman is actually killed. Can you think that through, and see in it the tolerance of society, see the dependence of the woman, see the long-term nature of the abuse? Wife beating has been legal for centuries under English Common Law, as long as it was kept "within reason." One law specified that it be with a stick no thicker than a man's thumb, but I honestly can't remember if that was a Common Law statute, or one in the colonies. Can you spot the gender roles implicit in these laws? - Abortion This is possibly a women's issue, yes? There's probably no connection at all between the women's rights movement, and the resurgence of the anti-abortion movement, right? Even though abortion has been known for centuries, was legal in the U.S. up until the 20th century (before the quickening, around 4-5 months), even approved of by the church. If abortion is murder, and pre-marital sex is as commonplace as it now, wouldn't it make more sense to advocate birth-control information immediately? (Sure, birth control might be morally wrong, too, but even people opposed to abortion don't think an unfertilized egg is life.) Did you know that 1 in 40 women were dying from abortions before it was legalized? Why do you think you haven't heard that figure before? - Sexual Harassment at work or at school, Ogling or fondling on the street. You've never seen this? You've never heard of this? You've never heard, or seen, or been with, a group of guy yelling something suave like "show us your tits"? - Clitoridectomies, Infibulation, Forced Sterilization, Radical Masectomies, "Hysteria" Have you ever heard of these things? Did you know that, according the Egyptian woman who founded an organization against the practices of clitoridectomy and infibulation, over 30 million women have had one performed on them? Have you heard of the black women in South Carolina, or the poor women in Puerto Rico, women who were sterilized without their knowledge? Why do you think that is? Do you know who the "Love Doctor" in Illinois was, or why other gynecologists allowed him to disfigure women's vaginas for many years? - Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia, Makeup, Plastic Surgery, Liposuction, Breast Implants. 90% of the Anorexics in America are female. Why do you think that is? Why do you think women spend 8 billion dollars a year on makeup? Can you imagine why anyone would wear jeans so tight that their internal organs are actually damaged? - Child Care Why is there no national child care plan? Why is the only prenatal care plan (WIC) perennially threatened by budget cuts? Why does the lack of a universal prenatal care system seem to conflict with the opinion that a fetus is a human life? After all, isn't that child abuse, letting a woman on welfare not feed her "child" in her womb? - Gender Roles Is it a good thing that men have difficulty expressing emotions (except anger) in public? Have you ever cried in public? Were you embarrassed? Is it good that men work, and don't get to take care of their children? Is the early death rate of men a good thing or a bad thing? How about a life dominated by work, one separate from children and home? Is that a good model for a society? Did you know that most children will not play with a wrong-gender toy beginning at the age of three? Why do you think that is? Have you ever heard males called "ladies" or "girls" as an insult? Do you know that teachers will chastise female students for interrupting, but allow male students to do so? Do you know that wearing pink or blue diapers will uniquely determine how caregivers treat infants and young babies? (Pinks who cry are immediately picked up and comforted, Blues are allowed to cry longer, and are allowed to explore more.) Did you know that every profession historically identified with women has been eventually stripped of its status and relative pay? (Almost AA material, I know). Do you understand how the gender of an occupation changes the way it is practiced? - Pornography. Why do you think pornography is so popular? Does it implicitly express any particular role for women? (Subtle hint: See Anorexia & Breast Implants, above.) How about roles for men? The vast majority of all pornography is prepared for straight men, although there is some made for straight women as well as lesbians and gay men. Why is that proportion so predominant? it's not demographically justiable. Why are lesbian themes so common in straight pornography? - Prostitution. Why is prostitution simultaneously illegal and practiced all over the world? Is prostitution a good thing or a bad thing? Why do you think men like to have sex with younger prostitutes, as young as 12 years old in some cases? Are pornography and prostitution symptomatic of any roles for women that you can identify? - Homosexuality. Have you ever thought another man was beautiful? Would you tell him that? What would he be likely to think? Do you think there's any particular role implied for men in this society? Can men be pretty, for example? Why not? Is it degrading for a man to go down on another man, or to be anally penetrated by another man? Is it for a woman? - Patriarchal Roles & Models. Never mind, I'm way too tired to fill this one in. Here's where I give up. I haven't even gotten to literature, suffrage, marxism & feminism, madonna/whore dichotomies, passive roles, aggression/war, divorce, teen pregnancy, beauty contests, mommy worship, breast fetishization, bride dowry, female infantcide, or youth-obsessed cultures. >>I ask why you insist on equating the multi-facted and well-elaborated >>theory & practice called feminism with a minor tactic which is >>contingently accepted by *some* feminists (as well as some non-feminists), > >I'm interested to know what is you definition of "*some*". Can you >quote well known feminists and/or major feminist organizations that >object to AA? If not, why not? You've completely missed his point. There are many feminists and organizations that are concerned with different issues, e.g., NARAL and abortion; WAP or FACT and pornography. AA isn't a primary issue to many feminists, myself included. >No, I want to see what feminists do when they discover that their >movement supports discrimination. I want to check if they really care >about equal rights or just say they are. I don't care about the >theory, I want to see how they solve a problem in *practice*. > >The feminists on the net have interesting responses. > >The feminists shout "60 cents!" no matter if it is relevant or not, >but you ignored my suggestion to AA by income level. > >The feminists shout "the education system!", but you ignored my >question why NOW does not push for better quality control on teachers. > >My conclusion is that you don't want to talk, you want to sell. You >ignore the "irrelevant" facts and try to sell the theory. Here are some more examples, as if we need them. You perpetually use the word "feminist" to describe those people in favor of Affirmative Action. I wish you would give the literate world a break, and choose your words with more care. To go out on a limb, and rephrase Richard's complaint in a more direct way, it's not that you're so terribly wrong about Affirmative Action (although you are! **), it more that you're so stunningly ignorant and unreflective of the other problems that face us all as men and women. No matter how much rhetoric others may spew about the problems of women and men, the simple fact that people view gender-based problems as the particular concerns of one gender or another, is in itself a symptom of the multifaceted cancer we're so energetically trying to point out. We're all in the same muddle together. a thousand blessings on those who made it this far through my message, t ** and watch him respond to this line alone, folks. whee! Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/26/89)
In article <6561@columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >"feminists" as technicians of inequality, as if AA programs were all that >they did or cared about. Please count the political achievements of feminism in the last 15 years. AA is in the top of the list, but of course it's not important... >Presumably you mean actions other than feminist analyses of social >structures, e.g., Catherine Mackinnon's "Toward a Feminist Theory of >the State" (just published), Evelyn Fox Keller's "Reflections on Gender >and Science", Andrea Dworkin's "Pornography", Carol Vance's "Pleasure >and Danger", Varda Burstyn's "Women Against Censorship", Marilyn >French's "Beyond Power", Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will", or the I see that you're quite good in name dropping and you just can't see what wrong in the feminist literature, so here is a small "spelling out": >From "Against Our Will": "War provides men with the perfect psychologic backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women. The very maleness of the military - the brute power of weaponry exclusive in their hands, the spiritual bonding of men at arms, the manly discipline of orders given and orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command - confirms for men what they long suspect, that women are peripheral, irrelevant to the world that counts, passive spectators to the action in the center ring." Brownmiller says very clear that men enjoy being in army and all the jazz around it. Some simple questions like "if men enjoy being in war so much, why there is a need to draft them?" are high above her feminist head. I tell you that what she said is feminist Cow-Shit and her understanding of men in army is somewhere near zero (*I* have first hand experience). If you want to debate about the *text* and not just to drop names feel free to do it, but I prefer a non-moderated group (soc.men). >literally thousands of other such books that range from studies of the So quote some facts, show some theory, develop an idea. I know that something is *wrong* in our society, what you don't know is that Eighties' feminism is a part of the *problem*. Presenting men as creatures who enjoy to give and obey orders is a part of the problem. Got that, or should I *spell* it for your feminist mind? >- Rape. >- Incest. >- Wife Abuse. >- Abortion >- Sexual Harassment at work or at school, Ogling or fondling on the street. >- Clitoridectomies, Infibulation, Forced Sterilization, >- Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia, Makeup, Plastic Surgery, Liposuction, >- Child Care >- Gender Roles >- Pornography. >- Prostitution. >- Homosexuality. >- Patriarchal Roles & Models. Would you mind to summarize what the feminist movement did about the above problems, and how much the situation has improved in the last 15 years? You talk about all these problems but use the political power you get to push AA. WHY? You ask a lot of questions, but you don't bother yourself to try to present your opinion about some of the problems. What you failed to realize is that even if I don't have an answer it does not mean that you're right. I'll answer some of your questions to show you the readers the MCPs have *some* answers. >- Abortion > This is possibly a women's issue, yes? But not in high priority. For 15 years the feminists left it on a single court decision. "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." especially if you have to use of your political force for more urgent subjects... >- Gender Roles > Is it a good thing that men have difficulty expressing emotions >(except anger) in public? Have you ever cried in public? NOYB. My problems are *my* problems. I may share them with friends, but you are not my friend. >Is it good that men work, and don't get to take care of their children? \begin{sarcasm} They give orders and obey orders so every normal man enjoys it. >Is the early death rate of men a good thing or a bad thing? As a result women are the majority and they elect better official. Widows have so much of the wealth and they push women's better values. \end{sarcasm} Now tell me what *exactly* feminism has done to change these things. >- Pornography. > Why do you think pornography is so popular? Shortage in sex for men. >Does it implicitly express any particular role for women? The same role it expresses for men, sex machines. If you don't believe me you can close your politically correct books and go to 42 street and see some porno material (I did it. I try to find the raw data.) >(Subtle hint: See Anorexia & Breast Implants, above.) Since the average man watches TV many more hours than he reads hard core porno, and the women at TV are thin (woman in anorexia looks *bad* without clothes), it seems to me that the influence of the TV is *much* greater. Why can't you do such a *simple* analysis by yourself? >How about roles for men? The vast majority of >all pornography is prepared for straight men, although there is some >made for straight women as well as lesbians and gay men. Why is that >proportion so predominant? 10% of the population is a common upper estimate for the number of homosexual. In the sex shops I saw about 20%+ of the material was for homosexual men. Go out and *check* dear ignorant. >- Prostitution. >Why is prostitution simultaneously illegal and practiced all over the world? Why did women make their best to push the Prohibition? Why did people continue to drink (and sometimes died) in the Prohibition time? >Is prostitution a good thing or a bad thing? The question is not meaningful because we can't prevent prostitution. I prefer Nevada-style prostitution where the prostitutes pay taxes, get real protection, and have to be checked for VD every month. >Is it degrading for a man to go down on another man, >or to be anally penetrated by another man? Is it for a woman? What willing adults do between themselves is not my business. If someone feels degraded to do X, then so it be. If someone else feels OK about X, so it be. I don't see it as a moral question, and I don't think that I should tell other people what I think about their sex lives. > Never mind, I'm way too tired to fill this one in. Here's where I >give up. I haven't even gotten to literature, suffrage, marxism & >feminism, madonna/whore dichotomies, passive roles, aggression/war, >divorce, teen pregnancy, beauty contests, mommy worship, breast >fetishization, bride dowry, female infantcide, or youth-obsessed cultures. I agree with you that there are problems, but I can't see your solutions. Why don't you tell us about them? >You've completely missed his point. There are many feminists and >organizations that are concerned with different issues, e.g., NARAL and >abortion; WAP or FACT and pornography. AA isn't a primary issue to many >feminists, myself included. If AA is not important then why the feminist movement invested so much of its political power in maintaining it? >Here are some more examples, as if we need them. You perpetually use >the word "feminist" to describe those people in favor of Affirmative >Action. Do you know any non-feminist group that supports AA for women? If not, why it is wrong to blame the feminist movement for what it pushes? >way, it's not that you're so terribly wrong about Affirmative Action >(although you are! **), it more that you're so stunningly ignorant and After you ask all the zillion question, and after you explain to me that AA is not important, it is important to *you* to tell me how wrong I'm about the subject. It's a bad tactic, try to do better next time... >and men, the simple fact that people view gender-based problems as the >particular concerns of one gender or another, Therefore if men tell you that AA is a problem for them you realize that it's just a gender base problem (only men complain) and tell them: >AA isn't a primary issue to many feminists, myself included. >is in itself a symptom of >the multifaceted cancer we're so energetically trying to point out. May be you try, but I'll tell you what the basic problem of the feminist movement: they (almost) never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu Until she laughed like harpsong and said to him in scorn: `I do not need a magic to make you always mourn. I send you home with nothing except your memory of moonlight, Outling music, night breezes, dew, and me. And that will run behind you, and shadow on the sun, and that will lie beside you when every day is done.
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/30/89)
[ Hi all, sorry, even longer, and I cut out half. But there are book references...] In article <15872@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <6561@columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >> [many things, to which Hillel responded:] > >I see that you're quite good in name dropping and you just can't see >what wrong in the feminist literature, so here is a small "spelling >out": > >From [Susan Brownmiller's] "Against Our Will": >"War provides men with the perfect psychologic backdrop to give vent to their >contempt for women. The very maleness of the military - the brute power of >weaponry exclusive in their hands, the spiritual bonding of men at arms, the >manly discipline of orders given and orders obeyed, the simple logic of the >hierarchical command - confirms for men what they long suspect, that women >are peripheral, irrelevant to the world that counts, passive spectators to >the action in the center ring." > >Brownmiller says very clear [sic] that men enjoy being in army [sic] >and all the jazz around it. Some simple questions like "if men enjoy >being in war so much, why there is a need to draft them?" are high >above her feminist head. > >I tell you that what she said is feminist Cow-Shit and her >understanding of men in army [sic] is somewhere near zero (*I* have >first hand experience). It's good that you brought this example up, because it is a clearer example than most of your method of mis-reading of a text. My exasperated claim last time was that feminists are concerned with much more than Affirmative Action. Your initial point demolished, you then asserted a list of feminist books concern with other things is meaningless because I cannot see "what wrong" in the feminist literature. The quotation you give is intended to show many things. In your discussion, you claim: 1) Brownmiller claims that men enjoy war and being in the army. 2) Brownmiller's quotation is "feminist Cow-shit", which charming epithet we will take to mean "irrational, unsupported by facts or deduction." 3) This paragraph is typical of the lack of reasoning in feminist books, and hence discredits all feminist books and all feminists. Further, Brownmiller is incapable of understanding simple questions, and indeed, all "men in army." 4) Your undetailed personal experiences, presumably unpleasant ones in the Israeli Army, outweighs the analysis given. 5) This reasoning is sufficiently bad that it outweighs other arguments that Susan Brownmiller makes in the book. Not only is her reasoning bad, but it is so bad that a few sentences of yours serve to demolish its book-length assertions. You say, "War is Hell," and we are all supposed to understand what you mean in the context of her statements. Quite the bristling bundle of assertions you've made! The most important ones are the generic attacks on her ability to reason, because attacking anyone's ability to reason undermines all their arguments. However, the fact that intended this particular quotation to be devastating rebuttal to what I said shows *how* you're reading her book: with the intention of finding mistakes, evidence for your arguments. You read a book the intention of proving it wrong, and it's no surprise that you found passages to quibble with. The saddest thing about this type of reading is that her other argument apparently passed through the mistake-filter you were using without making any impression. This was a discussion of rape in war, Hillel. Let's presume for a moment that your response overwhelmingly convinces me and the other readers that you are right and she is wrong. So what? Did you notice the parts of the same chapter documenting the frequency of rape in past wars? Do you remember the parts detailing how accusations of rape are routinely flung at the other side as a means of propagandizing one's own people during a war? Did any of the numbing details in the the other chapters -- repeated, hideous violations of women throughout the centuries -- make any sense to you? Did they make any impression on you?? Why is your only discussion of the book that of a single passage you found objectionable? Does your objection to this passage also mean that you don't agree with her evidence for rapes as a common element in wars? Beyond Brownmiller's book, why do you think that a successful attack on her book would lead anyone to reject any feminist book, or any other opinion of Susan Brownmiller herself? What does this book have to do with any other? I gave it as one of a list of books united only under the common theme "feminism," but you seem to think they are united in much more. Do you think all feminists go to politically correct summer camp, and decide what they think about everything? Can you explain in more detail why you find her thinking typical -- or typically bad? Does this mean that you agree with everything said by authors or thinkers you find more understandable? Does it mean that because you disagree with me on these topics, you couldn't agree with me on anything else? Perhaps your haste to find fault in her book explains why you mistook her meaning so completely. She never says anything about enjoying war; she says it provides a backdrop for displaying a preexistent hatred of women. She is attempting to analyze the essence of being joined together in a hierarchy, joined with other men in battle, and claiming that women are perceived by the men as passive spectators to this manly spectacle. The explanatory use of these well-known psychological factors as a "psychological backdrop" to rape is neither new nor surprising. A pre-existent "contempt" for women is her most debatable assertion, but you miss the chance to attack it altogether, preferring to battle with straw men. Whether or not you liked the army, many men do, and always have. The draft is necessary to create an army, but it is not necessary to create career soldiers, or soldiers who re-enlist for extra tours. There have always been men who get off on the danger and excitement. "War is hell", as General Sherman said, but General Patton is said to have continued, "... but God, I love it so!" Also, whether or not any men have liked the army, many men have found their male identity in military service. What Brownmiller has done is to declare that the proud, all-male tradition naturally enhances a natural misogyny. (Actually armies are only "all-male" in their image, since women have always fought in wars at some level.) The initiation of bootcamp, for instance, intends to break down the young men, then rebuild them into a coordinated fighting unit. This purpose will not change with an integrated-gender army, but the soldier will not be called "women," "girls," "pussies," or "cunts," as they have been in the past, insulting names that give the soldiers the negation of what they are to be. They are *never* to be effeminate, emotional, weak; they are *always* to be masculine, strong, powerful. Men are strong; women are weak. This becomes their identity, the negation of women. Since Graeco-Roman times, and probably before, soldiers have been poured from this masculine mold. What Brownmiller has argued, and you have failed to address, is that this attitude necessarily leads to a dehumanization and devaluation of women. "Women" are seamlessly merged in with the enemy as inhuman objects of desire and revulsion. In other words, it is arguably a foundation, a cause of rape, that allows men who are otherwise ordinary people to brutalize other human beings. If this ritualized dehumanization is not a cause of rape in wartime, then you must explain the terrible frequency through some other means, which you have not done, and do not appear prepared to do. A few references: Richard Holmes in "Acts of War" (Free Press: NY, 1985) outlines in great detail the mind of a soldier, expanding on what I've given here in bare outline. Klaus Theweleit in "Male Fantasies" (Polity Press: NY, 1987) writes about the fiction and poetry published by the Freikorps, a group of ex-soldiers who ran death squads in post-WWI Germany. Part 2 (it's actually his thesis) was just published, I believe. Joan Smith in "Misogynies" (Faber & Faber: London, 1989) has an essay discussing poems written by USAF pilots, and published before a startled Air Force command had the book pulled. Some of these poems are amazingly crude, especially "I Fucked A Dead Whore." I thought about including it here, but I'd have to rotate-13 the entire article. She also discusses the Theweleit book. >So quote some facts, show some theory, develop an idea. I know that >something is *wrong* in our society, what you don't know is that >Eighties' feminism is a part of the *problem*. Presenting men as >creatures who enjoy to give and obey orders is a part of the problem. >Got that, or should I *spell* it for your feminist mind? Oh, whip me, beat me, make me write articles about Affirmative Action. Hillel, you manly stud, spell it out for my feminist mind. >>- Rape. >>- Incest. >>- Wife Abuse. >>- Abortion >>- Sexual Harassment at work or at school, Ogling or fondling on the street. >>- Clitoridectomies, Infibulation, Forced Sterilization, >>- Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia, Makeup, Plastic Surgery, Liposuction, >>- Child Care >>- Gender Roles >>- Pornography. >>- Prostitution. >>- Homosexuality. >>- Patriarchal Roles & Models. >Would you mind to summarize what the feminist movement did about the above >problems, and how much the situation has improved in the last 15 years? Why? You want me to give you details on things you didn't know about or haven't thought about, just so you can give me a report card on how well feminism has solved them? Uh, sure, I'll bite. I think the situation has changed for the better in a number of these areas, even when the only change in the situation is in the consciousness of the women involved. Awareness of Rape, Incest, Wife Abuse, and Sexual Harrassment is much higher than it was in the 60's. Counseling centers and safe houses exist that simply weren't there over a decade ago. Permissive rape laws have been changed all across the country to permit new levels of evidence, to deny harrassing questions, to allow rape charges to be pressed against husbands, and to permit new charges of sexual abuse, e.g., abuse of someone's genitals. (Many laws previously specified that non-consenting penile penetration of a vagina was rape, which disallowed prosecuting someone for, say, fingering a little girl.) Sexual Harrassment was not even a crime in the past; now it is, one reconfirmed this decade by a conservative Supreme Court. As for the barely understood causes of these crimes, they will go away very slowly. Though they may never go away, I am comforted that victimizers may now be punished, and survivors appropriately comforted. Clitoridectomies and Infibulation are ongoing problems in Northern Africa, and the Gulf States (and in emigrant populations from these areas). There is some awareness of the problem, a few relevant organizations and UN councils; but but little change has occurred. I don't know what more to expect in this area. The same may be said of Infanticide and Bridal Dowries in China, India, and other Asian countries. These women and girls are going to die for cultural reasons that we in the West cannot change instantly, any more than we can quickly alter problems resulting from our own culture, e.g., Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia, etc. Gender Roles change, albeit slowly. As with cultural issues, it's easier to decide to, say, help your wife with the dishes than it is to show your emotions. Men are told by a million voices in their culture that they are in charge, that they are responsible, and these voices are hard to ignore. Pornography and Prostitution are ongoing controversies with feminists on both sides of the more/less question. Some scapegoating of prostitutes for AIDS has been headed off by activists, which is good. Good or bad, the abolition of laws against prostitution will not happen in the US in a decade's time. Laws and attitudes against homosexuality are happily falling by the wayside, not that many feminists qua feminists are responsible. There is some progress, despite the AIDS crisis, and little regress. I was really asking you to think about gender roles from a sexual viewpoint with those questions. >>- Pornography. >> Why do you think pornography is so popular? >Shortage in sex for men. What does that mean? The relative number of men and women is constant, and social mores have changed in the last thirties so that premarital sex is a given. Aren't men getting more sex? Why isn't pornography made for the women who also having a "shortage in sex"? Is pornography just a substitute for sex? Do men want sex more than women? Also, is this five-word answer a substitute for a more lengthy analysis? Or are you really saying that this is all that need be said about the subject: there is a shortage in sex, men need sex, ergo men use pornography. From someone who seems quite literally tireless in his voluble crusade against Affirmative action, this terseness seems to imply that pornography is understood, is unremarkable, and is unworthy of further analysis. Is that what you wanted to say, or don't you know what to say? >>Does it implicitly express any particular role for women? >The same role it expresses for men, sex machines. If you don't believe me you >can close your politically correct books and go to 42 street and see some >porno material (I did it. I try to find the raw data.) Your thirst for scientific knowledge is fervently admired in these quarters. If the same roles for men and women are expressed in these movies, then why aren't the same number of men and women purchasing pornography? >> Never mind, I'm way too tired to fill this one in. Here's where I >>give up. I haven't even gotten to literature, suffrage, marxism & >>feminism, madonna/whore dichotomies, passive roles, aggression/war, >>divorce, teen pregnancy, beauty contests, mommy worship, breast >>fetishization, bride dowry, female infanticide, or youth-obsessed cultures. >I agree with you that there are problems, but I can't see your solutions. >Why don't you tell us about them? I fail to see the slightest advantage in doing so, since you've shown an inability to read and understand a very straightforward, readable, mass-market book such as Susan Brownmiller's book on rape. Perhaps you could try reading Marilyn French's "Beyond Power." You won't understand it either, but at least it will keep you off the net for a while. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis