turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (10/26/89)
In a recent editorial, Ellen Goodman wrote about the frustration of women politicians who find they have to play "male" power games in order to get things done, and who then suffer from the conflicting value systems -- the one for which they fight and the other which they use as a tool. She calls for a change in how government is conducted, and in this, she is right on the mark. Unfortunately, she fails to identify where the problem lies, and calls for "concensus politics" without saying what this might mean. What her editorial betrays is a remarkable confusion about what government is all about. Now admittedly, Ms Goodman is not a powerhouse feminist theoretician, but the same lacuna appears in more adept thinkers, for example, Marilyn French. In "Beyond Power", French meticulously, beautifully, and persuasively describes the origin, nature, and evil of patriarchy, a system which posits as an ultimate value the acquisition of power over others. The weakest part of French's book is her chapter on politics, in which she urges all sorts of things the government should do, but fails to come to grips with the fact that what distinguishes government (in current societies) from other institutions is precisely that it monopolizes the social use of the ugliest and rawest kind of power over others: brute force. The conflict that troubles Ms Goodman is not just between what feminist politicians want and how they must act to be effective, but also one in her own ideas, between her feminism and between her politics. Consider another issue about which Ms Goodman has written: abortion. Her feminism wants government funding for abortion. But this is an issue about which concensus is impossible. Like it or not, there are many benighted fools [1] who see no difference between abortion and murder. Unfortunately, Ms Goodman does not just want us ignore these people -- she wants to force them to support her preferred policy and to throw them in jail if they do not. So much for "concensus politics". So much for "feminist politics" presenting a more humane, less power hungry, less brutish face than "male politics". The problem is the nature of government, which is all about power. It cannot brook any dissent with its decisions, even dissent which is only a refusal of active support. The government's war effort in Vietnam did not falter just because a few pacifists withheld that portion of their taxes which went to the military, but they were jailed and their lives destroyed just the same. Making abortion available and safe in America does not require us to force religious zealots to go against their principles, but that is how it will be done. Is it really right jail someone for refusing to fund abortions which they view as murder? No, but it is the nature of government to do it this way. If feminists wish to achieve their social goals without being corrupted by "male politics", without becoming power brokers, without sacrificing their principles, and without bending their opponents to their will using guns, jails, and chains, then they must do one of two things. They must either accept that some means will not achieve their ends -- that some things must be done without government power -- or they must change the nature and structure of government. Neither seems likely when so few recognize the problem. Russell [1] Direct all benighted flames to alt.flame or talk.abortion.