rberlin@birdland.Corp.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (10/01/89)
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak), Message-ID: <4014@unix.SRI.COM>: > Anyone else think that this is a good topic for soc.feminism, rather than > this group? Yes, I do. This msg is a crosspost, so soc.feminism knows where it came from. (2 subject threads, folks: the one above, and "There should be a different word for this...") gary@cgdptah.ucar.edu (Gary Strand), in <4537@ncar.ucar.edu> > pw: Pamela K. Whitehurst > gs: Gary Strand > > gs: I don't expect feminism to deal with the problems I face, because > gs: sexism directed against men is outside their 'charter'. As such, they > gs: are fighting only half the battle, and by implication, are seeing only > gs: half the problem. > > pw: Fighting one battle does not imply being unaware or unsympathetic to > pw: another battle. > > But you see, it's all the same battle. Why is it then that feminists > choose to fight half the fight? > > pw: It does not imply that one does not or cannot give encouragement or > pw: even support to those who are fighting other battles. > Let me make a somewhat stronger statement than Pamela's. Not only is there no inconsistency here, but the encouragement and support she mentions are common in our everyday life. Whatever your feelings on the matter, consider the example of unions honoring each others' picket lines. It couldn't be otherwise: even though the cause belongs to someone else, we honor it because we share something of importance with those who are actively engaged in the struggle. The bell tolls for all of us; there is no other way. And there is no other way with the feminist organizations. It would be crippling for them to assume a posture that says to men "we're only interested in taking care of women." If self-interest is established as the rule, and the status quo truly favors men, what can men be expected to do but fight to preserve that status quo? The feminists I "grew up" with seemed to understand this quite well. Now I hear people telling me otherwise? -- Rich
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (10/02/89)
"If self-interest is established as the rule, and the status quo truly favors men, what can men be expected to do but fight to preserve that status quo?" "IF" is a very large word. IF all men were to gain (somehow) by the collectivist sexism, THEN they might wish to preserve it. However, the unearned prejudice does not benefit any man who is competant, THEREFORE we do not support it. Thats the problem with collectivist arguments: they always present an issue as "Win or Lose". "Us or Them".
gcf@frith.UUCP (10/05/89)
)gary@cgdptah.ucar.edu (Gary Strand), in <4537@ncar.ucar.edu>
)> pw: Pamela K. Whitehurst
)> gs: Gary Strand
)>
)> gs: I don't expect feminism to deal with the problems I face, because
)> gs: sexism directed against men is outside their 'charter'. As such, they
)> gs: are fighting only half the battle, and by implication, are seeing only
)> gs: half the problem.
)>
)> pw: Fighting one battle does not imply being unaware or unsympathetic to
)> pw: another battle. ...
)> pw: It does not imply that one does not or cannot give encouragement or
)> pw: even support to those who are fighting other battles.
rberlin@birdland.Corp.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) writes:
)Let me make a somewhat stronger statement than Pamela's. Not only is
)there no inconsistency here, but the encouragement and support she
)mentions are common in our everyday life. Whatever your feelings on
)the matter, consider the example of unions honoring each others'
)picket lines. It couldn't be otherwise: even though the cause belongs
)to someone else, we honor it because we share something of importance
)with those who are actively engaged in the struggle. The bell tolls
)for all of us; there is no other way.
)
)And there is no other way with the feminist organizations. It would
)be crippling for them to assume a posture that says to men "we're only
)interested in taking care of women." If self-interest is established
)as the rule, and the status quo truly favors men, what can men be
)expected to do but fight to preserve that status quo? ...
I think one of the problems which gave rise to this thread, and a
lot of other conversation, is that there is more than one current
in modern feminism. I see two major currents, which have become
divergent in recent years.
One form of feminism involves fundamental social values, and was
the form espoused by the radical feminists of the '60s. This
form involves an analysis of social problems as deriving from
"patriarchy", that is, male domination (first, of women and
children, and subsequently of other males through hierarchy and
slavery.)
The other feminism accepts, for the most part, contemporary
social values, insisting only that women should be able to
participate fully in things as they are. That is, rather than
overthrow patriarchy (in the form of capitalism or whatever), the
adherents of this view would rather see women populating its
higher reaches in equal numbers with men.
These currents have generally been mixed both among both the
leadership and the ranks of feminists, although pure examples
of either are not hard to find in the literature. (In real
life, radical feminism has pretty much disappeared.) This
mixture offers feminists both advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand, much of the spiritual energy developed by
radical feminists has proved useful in such practical
struggles as the fights for equal opportunity and abortion
rights. On the other hand, the full radical theory provides
the opposition with many targets. One need only read the
soc groups for a short while to find quotations from radicals
used to embarrass people who would not dream of challenging
present structures of domination.
Although many of the male complaints about being victims of
sexism are completely specious, one can see the origins of
their resentment. Once feminism casts aside its ideology,
it becomes just one more group-interest movement, and the
men ask with reason why they should support it to their own
apparent disadvantage. On the other hand, a reappearance
of the radical element in feminism would be unlikely to
make supporters of these males, since the existing political
and social system is apparently already in tune, by and
large, with their present culture and preferences. (Thus
the "gender gap.")
I can't say that I see a solution to the dilemma, given
things as they are. (Like all arrangements, the current
arrangements of power will someday fall apart and others will
supplant them, but probably not today.) I suppose one might
ask the complainants just what part of the feminist agenda they
_would_ support -- materially support -- as part of their own
allegedly egalitarian program. Or correspondingly, what actual
anti-sexist struggles they are now involved in, to which
feminist assistance might reasonably be applied.
--
Gordon Fitch | ...uunet!hombre!mydog!gcfvicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) (10/06/89)
> gary@cgdptah.ucar.edu (Gary Strand), in <4537@ncar.ucar.edu> > > pw: Pamela K. Whitehurst >> gs: Gary Strand >> >> gs: I don't expect feminism to deal with the problems I face, because >> gs: sexism directed against men is outside their 'charter'. As such, they >> gs: are fighting only half the battle, and by implication, are seeing only >> gs: half the problem. >> >> pw: Fighting one battle does not imply being unaware or unsympathetic to >> pw: another battle. >> >> But you see, it's all the same battle. Why is it then that feminists >> choose to fight half the fight? >> >> pw: It does not imply that one does not or cannot give encouragement or >> pw: even support to those who are fighting other battles. >> But isn't ending discrimination against women in MEN's interest as well? Wouldn't the world be a better place for most MEN if there were no discrimination against women? The above statements seem to be saying that there is "our" cause and "your" cause, and if you don't help us, we won't help you because "our" cause doesn't interest you. Feminists can only fight so many battles, and (by definition), they choose to fight a particular battle, namely, equal rights for women. I don't expect the NAACP to worry about the problems specifically concerning discrimination against handicapped people, but that doesn't mean that handicapped people should not support the NAACP. It's been said before, but worth saying again : Life is not a zero-sum game!!! One group of people can make gains without hurting the gains of other groups. Vicki -- Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 |
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/06/89)
In article <58903@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@frith.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >One form of feminism involves fundamental social values, and was >the form espoused by the radical feminists of the '60s. This >form involves an analysis of social problems as deriving from >"patriarchy", that is, male domination (first, of women and >children, and subsequently of other males through hierarchy and >slavery.) You have to be a bit careful with your terminology here. If you mean "radical" (small 'r') to be an adjective with its usual meaning, then it's incorrect to imply that this was limited to the 60's. In fact the most developed feminist theory (addressing the kinds of issues you mention, along with a host of others) is from the 70's and 80's, and continues unabated today. Most of this is happening within what's usually called "post structuralist feminism", sometimes in alignment with "socialist feminism". Both of these stand somewhat in opposition to Radical Feminism (big 'R'). Post-structuralist feminists are sometimes accused of using the oppressor's tools (i.e. 'male' discourse); Radical feminists are accused of essentialism. As my own choice of words probably makes clear, my support goes to the post structuralists: the feminist theorists who are using semiotics, psychoanalysis, marxian economic theory, etc as tools to understand the situation we're in, and the paths which might lead toward better situations. My earlier unsuccesful attempts to explain the concepts underlying the social construction of gendered subjectivity come from this style of thinking (I contributed the "unsuccessful" part...) >rights. On the other hand, the full radical theory provides >the opposition with many targets. One need only read the >soc groups for a short while to find quotations from radicals >used to embarrass people who would not dream of challenging >present structures of domination. Why should anyone be embarrased by a highly sophisticated and well developed theory like post-structuralist feminism? I don't read the other soc groups -- maybe I'm missing something here. Can you elaborate? >their resentment. Once feminism casts aside its ideology, >it becomes just one more group-interest movement, and the >men ask with reason why they should support it to their own >apparent disadvantage. It has not cast aside its ideology. Every year, numerous books and papers appear on radical (small 'r') feminism. The only 'reasons' I hear from anti-feminist men sound suspiciously like pure selfishness, disguised (sometimes) in the language of individual rights. "These actions hurt me, personally, so regardless of their broader impact I'm against them" -- that's the kind of thing I hear (and sometimes read on soc.feminism). It's like taxes -- everybody claims to want better schools and community services, but nobody wants to pay for it. The triumph of self interest over community interest -- this is apparently the meaning some people give to the idea of individual rights. > On the other hand, a reappearance >of the radical element in feminism would be unlikely to >make supporters of these males, since the existing political >and social system is apparently already in tune, by and >large, with their present culture and preferences. (Thus >the "gender gap.") Once again, it doesn't need to "reappear". Radical (small 'r') feminist theory is alive and well. Many men support it and recognize that in no way is "the existing political and social system...in tune...with their present culture and preferences". All one has to do is read a little of the kinds of critical thinking being done by Luce Irigaray or Teresa de Lauretis or Kaja Silverman or Tania Modleski or Michelle Barrett, to name only a few (pardon any misspellings). The theory is out there, though few people take the trouble to read it; the practice is being developed, slowly, in light of the new theory. Don't take "MS" magazine as a representative example of the best that feminist thinking has to offer...
gcf@ncar.UCAR.EDU (10/08/89)
I'm responding here mainly to Richard Shapiro's follow-up (<46617@bbn.COM>
if anyone pays attention to the numbers). I found his entire article
interesting, but at this point can respond to only a small part of it.
)In article <58903@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@frith.UUCP I wrote:
)>One form of feminism involves fundamental social values, and was
)>the form espoused by the radical feminists of the '60s. This
)>form involves an analysis of social problems as deriving from
)>"patriarchy", that is, male domination (first, of women and
)>children, and subsequently of other males through hierarchy and
)>slavery. ... ... [T]he full radical theory provides
)>the opposition with many targets. One need only read the
)>soc groups for a short while to find quotations from radicals
)>used to embarrass people who would not dream of challenging
)>present structures of domination.
Richard Shapiro <uunet!BBN.COM!rshapiro> writes:
)...
)Why should anyone be embarrased by a highly sophisticated and well
)developed theory like post-structuralist feminism? I don't read the
)other soc groups -- maybe I'm missing something here. Can you
)elaborate? ...
This particular thread started, I believe, as another attack on
feminism in soc.men or soc.women. In any case, the attacks on
feminism connected with the thread in these groups were as I have
noted: quotations from radicals are used to embarrass reformists.
For example, a quotation from Robin Morgan has been used
repetitiously (in someone's .signature, in fact) to imply that
all feminists are sexists, or something to that effect. The
quotation involves terrorism and counter-terrorism and uses
the term "thanatos," to refer to a hypothesized collective
death-wish. Taken out of context and perhaps not too brilliant
to begin with, the quotation must seem to serve a purpose to
those who use it. And I can imagine, say, Pat Schroeder thinking,
"Bra-burning, unisex restrooms, and now this!"
The reformists are also attacked for not being universal everyone-
else-first egalitarians, but that is a somewhat different issue.
Since I was following the thread from another environment, my
language was imprecise. "'60s" refers not really to a period
of time but to a spirit and a situation. The spirit was the
willingness to criticize the social system in a fundamental way,
and to put the results of that criticism into action. The
situation was the temporary openness of the American system to
change, so that these actions received public attention, even
if they were misunderstood. The activities of the radicals were
what made the more pragmatic activities of the reformists
thinkable, and therefore possible.
Today, after fifteen or twenty years of vigorous and successful
counterrevolution, it seems a bit much to ask that radical
feminism be successful in the streets. Yet success in academia
or the therapies of the upper middle class is not going to be
enough. Last year, the median wage fell about 1/2 of 1 percent
in the U.S. -- as it has during most years since 1970. In
spite of its public-relations success, American capitalism is
collapsing. At a certain point in the future, assuming this
trend is not reversed, the economic roof will fall in, and
like all arrangements, the current ones will disappear. The
question will then become what will replace them. If radical
feminist thought has been mostly taken off the board, that is,
sequestered in isolated communities, it won't be able to
speak to that coming situation.
The fact that radical feminist quotations can be used to
embarrass feminism in general is significant, because it means
that certain things are becoming generally unthinkable.
Radical feminism certainly has not been much in evidence on
Usenet anywhere, and in terms of the general public, Usenet is
a rather sophisticated community. (Don't laugh -- it's true!)
I hope that Richard Shapiro and others will continue to try
to bring this point of view into general circulation. The
demand that reformist feminists be strict egalitarians, for
example, cries out for radical analysis, yet almost all those
who respond to this issue do so on the attacker's terms.
Gordon Fitch | ...uunet!hombre!mydog!gcfbloch%mandrill@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) (10/14/89)
Gordon Fitch (gcf@frith.UUCP) says: >Once feminism casts aside its ideology, >it becomes just one more group-interest movement, and the >men ask with reason why they should support it to their own >apparent disadvantage. Exactly! If all the movement is after is "a bigger slice of the pie", it's not very interesting, and those of us who, by virtue of having Y chromosomes, have a bigger slice of the pie now, have no reason whatsoever to support it. Indeed, many of those without Y chromosomes (the more intellectual and objective ones) are liable to lose interest too. We have to make a different claim, to wit: we're going to make the world a better place for PEOPLE to live. vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) writes: >But isn't ending discrimination against women in MEN's interest as well? >Wouldn't the world be a better place for most MEN if there were no >discrimination against women? ... >It's been said before, but worth saying again : Life is not a zero-sum >game!!! One group of people can make gains without hurting the gains of >other groups. Amen. The world would be a better place for me if I could get off the bus at the same stop as a young woman I just met without her getting worried I was a rapist. The world would be a better place for me if the number of women in my academic/professional circles approximated the number of men. The world would be a better place for me if all the talents and perspectives of the female half of the race were being put to use in more important ways than taking dictation. "It's a long, long, lonely ride To find the perfect lover for your lover..." -- Jane Siberry bloch%cs@ucsd.edu
keith@pawl.rpi.EDU (Keith D. Weiner) (10/18/89)
>I can't say that I see a solution to the dilemma, given >things as they are. Why does the "solution" hinted at inevitably involves more laws (backed up by a loaded gun)? Why is not freedom to spend your own money (hire as you see fit) an answer? What is this collective "social phenomenon" which eludes definition?
avery@well.UUCP (Avery Ray Colter) (10/24/89)
bloch%mandrill@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) writes: >Gordon Fitch (gcf@frith.UUCP) says: >Amen. The world would be a better place for me if I could get off the >bus at the same stop as a young woman I just met without her getting >worried I was a rapist. Indeed, sometimes I just make eyes at a woman who attracts me, and she starts looking afraid. Perhaps understandably. Perhaps a particular woman I level my gaze at, has had less-than-pleasant experiences in the past. But more and more that seems like all the more reason to muster my own courage and at least let her know that one man at least can admire her without harboring rapist or otherwise abusive intentions. There are many things one can tell about a person by looking if the looker has a free enough mind. But even then, a certain reaction, a certain posture, can mean one of many things, and most people, of either gender, I find like to confirm those signs by words. Positive social activism? Aggressive niceness? I fear I may be sounding too much like a chivalrist. But I know myself, and I know there are many elements of chivalry I apply to anyone I deal with, of either gender, and in pretty much the same form. With the possible exception of expressing attraction... but if I were bisexual I suspect things would be equal there as well. I am a strong advocate of clear communication in all cases, and of expressing especially positive opinions you have about someone to that person in the least embarrassing way possible. All of which might seem obvious, but it is amazing how people, including myself, lock up and become paralyzed when a person they're attracted to comes around. Well, at least I made things a little clearer for one person today. As you may guess from my emphasis above, the person is a woman I've been staring at from afar for a few weeks. I finally got up my guts (miniscule though they are) to actually say something. The first things out of my mouth were, "I'm sorry for embarrassing you." She then said, "Well, you are acting as if you know me." She was in a hurry, so I didn't try to take this one up, but that strikes me as a very interesting reaction. Hmmmm.... maybe I just look familiar when I'm doing these things. I told her, "Oh, I'm sure I haven't met you anywhere else, I was just looking because you're pretty." Not sure how that struck her - she is a larger woman and I want to be a little careful about the issue of attractiveness, at least for now. However, she didn't seem entirely hostile to being seen as attractive either, and she ended by saying, "OK, all this attention just took me by surprise." OK, I can understand that; possibly she hasn't been singled out quite so clearly before. What does this have to do with feminism? Well, I would think the area of inter-gender communication is a pretty critical one...and the area of physical attraction always seems to be a powderkeg. -- Avery Ray Colter (415) 451-7786 | Now, class, repeat after me: {apple|ucbvax|pacbell}!well!avery | ICH LIEBE DIE BELEIBTEN LEIBEN, avery@well.sf.ca.us | UND HUPFENDE HUEFTE HABE ICH GERN!
avery@lll-crg.llnl.GOV (Avery Ray Colter) (10/25/89)
vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) writes: >It's been said before, but worth saying again : Life is not a zero-sum >game!!! One group of people can make gains without hurting the gains of >other groups. Or, at the very least, all groups which oppose some particular form of discrimination can all gain ground in a unified way, without stepping on each others' toes. That may require lots of education for all involved, but isn't that the reason for newsgroups like this in the first place? -- Avery Ray Colter (415) 451-7786 | Now, class, repeat after me: {apple|ucbvax|pacbell}!well!avery | ICH LIEBE DIE BELEIBTEN LEIBEN, avery@well.sf.ca.us | UND HUPFENDE HUEFTE HABE ICH GERN!