rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/04/89)
In article <8910041344.AA27103@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >Now, I've exaggerated this somewhat. At the same time, however, my >point remains: insofar as "feminism" means "gender equality", it >cannot mean "advocacy for women". I don't understand why people keep making this point. It's simply incorrect. Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the status quo, and if that status quo discriminates against women, than non-advocacy means discriminating against women. Is this really so hard to understand? Treating unequals equally preserves the initial inequality. If gender inequality is an unacceptable state, then gender-blindness or non-advocacy CANNOT be a legitimate course of action. As for what feminism "means", that's a harder question. To me, feminism is the study of political and social gender. It's a way to understand gender inequality: where it appears, how it appears, why it appears, where it derives from, how we might end it. That, at least, is its theoretical component. But insofar as it's an activist political point of view, "advocacy for women" seems like a legitimate paraphrase. And this position is wholly consistent with a general belief in justice and equality.
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (10/05/89)
"And this position is wholly consistent with a general belief in justice and equality" To examine this statement, a moment, is to understand that "equality" and "justice" are not wholly compatible with each other as they have been defined here! For if "equality" is defined as "being given" equal rewards like salary, etc, and forcing employers (and others) to give things where they would not have; and justice is "equality under law, where all people are treated as equals, where force is not used against those who are innocent, and the unearned is never given" then the 2 points of view contradict. What "equality" here means is: preferential treatment to one group over another. I think it's also pretty obvious that this abrogates individual rights, to be supplanted by collectivist dictatorship which regards people as unthinking animals which must be protected from themselves and each other by growing gov't control. Related to this are other "egalitarians" who protest that some people are rich, and some are poor and that this isn't fair. Or that some kids in school play baseball well, and some do not, but all should be "given" equal opportunity to play. "Giving" has a peculiar definition here, as it implies the "taking" from those who have earned to "give" to those who don't. Such is the meaning of "justice with mercy"...
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (10/06/89)
In article <46465@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: > >I don't understand why people keep making this point. It's simply >incorrect. Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the >status quo, and if that status quo discriminates against women, than >non-advocacy means discriminating against women. Is this really so >hard to understand? Apparently so, since you have just made a logical contradiction. If the status quo discriminates against women, then ipso facto it *cannot* be gender-blind, now can it? If you are gender-blind, there is no basis for discriminating. I think what you really meant to say is the status quo would leave women in their relatively poorer position, which you would like corrected by "affirmative action".
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/06/89)
In article <8910051922.AA07504@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <46465@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >> >>Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the >>status quo, and if that status quo discriminates against women, than >>non-advocacy means discriminating against women. Is this really so >>hard to understand? > >Apparently so, since you have just made a logical contradiction. If >the status quo discriminates against women, then ipso facto it >*cannot* be gender-blind, now can it? You're confusing the state of things, the status quo, with subsequent actions that people may or may not take. Advocacy (or non-advocacy) refers to those actions, not to the situation. Thus gender-blindness refers to one kind of action we might take, given an existing situation. I was never talking about gender-blindness within the current situation itself (it's not even clear to me how a situation can be either "blind" or "sighted"; these are attributes of people and their actions, not of situations). There's no contradiction here, logical or otherwise. >If you are gender-blind, there >is no basis for discriminating. Which is exactly why it's a contradictory and unacceptable form of action. Its intent (non-discrimination) and its actual effects (preservation of the discriminatory status quo) are opposites. Gender-blindness can only make sense given a situation in which discrimination has *already* been eliminated, which is obviously not our situation.
avery@well.UUCP (Avery Ray Colter) (10/24/89)
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >But insofar as it's an activist >political point of view, "advocacy for women" seems like a legitimate >paraphrase. And this position is wholly consistent with a general >belief in justice and equality. And why is it that so many people think it's impossible or traitorous or whatever to be an advocate for a group you don't belong to? - Avery, the 110 pound fat-activist -- 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!