gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/08/89)
In article <11866@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> annmh@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ann Harrington) writes: >You men, always talking about power and control! :) What *exactly* do you try to tell us? Do you try to induce guilt feelings? >just one as an "oppressor" is likewise narrow-sighted. Over and over it >has been shown that placing blame is all well and good for making people >feel righteous and just, but it doesn't get any changes made. Placing blame is a powerful tool to manipulate people. Do you think that you (feminists) could achieve AA without inducing guilt feeling on men? > It is often easier to blame it all on outside forces, "other" groups, >but we also have to change ourselves, and that is often harder. You got it right, but you got it too late. Every revolutionary movement (and feminism was one) has two stages. Stage 1 is when the movement is looking for justice. The people are mostly young, and they are attracted to the movement's ideology. They want to change the world and create a better place. The message is loud and clear, but there are *open* debates about the details. Stage 2 is when the movement has some power, and it is willing to lose some of its ideology to keep the power. In that point the "message" is not universal anymore, but there are different messages to different groups. The rationalization is something like "it's true that what we do is wrong (on ideological level), *but* the final result will be good, so it's OK". In that stage the movement is dominated by older (above thirty) people. Young people can't develop this rationalization fast enough. They may be part of the movement, but not in the decision making level. I see several of the stage 2 signs in feminism: 1) It supports unequal treatment of people by gender (AA and so on). 2) It shuts up about unequal treatment of people as long as women don't hurt (registration to draft, custody battles). 3) The message to the outside is not clear. Try for example to ask a feminist a question like "for how long AA will last?" 4) It tries to manipulate men by slogans like "men dominated the world for the last 3,000 years". The idea is not to help men to grow out of their sexism, but to induce guilt. Men are always presented as a group, not individuals. Every movement that enters stage two sure that it is temporary, but it is not. Sooner or later it loses the people who are interested in ideology, and have only a group of power-hungry people. Feminism is in the beginning of this way, and I think that we have a chance of "once in a life time" to see the deep changes in a movement in real time. I don't think that feminism has (even though it had) a chance to have a real partnership with men. Because it did not want to and 1) and 2) were around long enough to break the any trust. We can see it in the battle of ERA. Men did very little for either side, they were in a state of apathy. From one side most of us don't trust feminism, from the other side we have the guilt feeling. BTW Note that in most of the feminist debates about "why ERA failed?" the apathy of 47% of the population is not discussed as an important subject. As a result feminism has to serve women or lose power. It serves women by 1) and 2), while the men resistance is reduced by different messages to men (3) and 4)). I think that this is a process that keeps itself going (positive feedback) and there is no chance that feminism will get back to stage one. My summary is that Ann got it right, but she got it too late. No movement in stage two is willing to lose power (regardless of the price), and looking inside "when there are so many important problems around" is a sure way to lose some power... >-Ann Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Morgan opens a window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving life force." --- Ms. magazine, March 1989 -- "A man gazing at the stars is | ARPA: tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu proverbially at the mercy of | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittle the puddles in the road." | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet --Alexander Smith | USnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/08/89)
In article <17048@paris.ics.uci.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >Every revolutionary movement (and feminism was one) has two stages... >...Stage 2 is when the movement has some power, and it is willing to lose >some of its ideology to keep the power. ... >In that stage the movement is dominated by older (above thirty) >people. My, how agist. (Though I'm speaking as someone about to turn 31 and so am, perhaps, a bit hypersensitive to that particular remark.) >I see several of the stage 2 signs in feminism: >1) It supports unequal treatment of people by gender (AA and so on). I'm sure you've heard this before but perhaps it will get through this time: "Equal" opportunity is not equal if different groups are not given equal oppor- tunity to prepare to grasp it. A good analogy would be giving one political party access to four major networks and giving the other access to a soapbox in Central Park. Both sides are free to say whatever they want, via whatever media are available to them. Is free speech served? Similarly, if society is split into two groups, and group "a" is given significantly greater educational benefits than group "b," then does an "equal opportunity" system based purely on educational qualification -- i.e., the hiring system for nearly every well-paying job in society -- actually serve the principle of equal opportunity? Believe me, this was a difficult pill for me to swallow; I'm a middle-class white male. But logic dictates that an imbalance can only be corrected by an opposing force. >2) It shuts up about unequal treatment of people as long as women don't hurt > (registration to draft, custody battles). Not the feminists I talk to. >3) The message to the outside is not clear. Try for example to ask > a feminist a question like "for how long AA will last?" Try to ask a physicist a question like "for how long will the universe last?" You ask for prophecy? Go to a prophet. I don't know anyone who claims to be both a prophet and a feminist. >4) It tries to manipulate men by slogans like "men dominated the world for the > last 3,000 years". The idea is not to help men to grow out of their sexism, > but to induce guilt. Men are always presented as a group, not individuals. *THIS*, at least, is a frequently-true statement. But here's where I quibble seriously with your semantics: "It supports," "It shuts up about," "It tries." You are guilty of your own accusation, treating "feminists" as a group rather than as individuals. Indeed, not only as a group (which would more properly be referred to as "they") but as a homogeneous mass ("it"). "Feminism" doesn't say, support, shut up about, or try to do *anything*. Individual feminists individually say, support, shut up about, or try to do any number of things, generally all different from one another. >I don't think that feminism has (even though it had) a chance to have >a real partnership with men. Because it did not want to and 1) and 2) >were around long enough to break the any trust. We can see it in the >battle of ERA. Men did very little for either side, they were in a >state of apathy. From one side most of us don't trust feminism, from >the other side we have the guilt feeling. Gaaaaaaah. Now you're making equally sweeping statements about "men" -- just as you accused "feminism" of making. Speak fer yerself, boyo. Me, I find I'm perfectly happy partnered with feminists; I find that I trust women at least as much as I do men; I spent a summer in high school stumping for the ERA. And I don't have guilt feelings. Not to say I don't find sexist attitudes in myself; everyone in this culture contains sexist, racist, etc., attitudes and can deny having them only at the price of lying to themselves. But you can defuse them by acknowledging their existence -- and that's far more productive than "guilt feelings." I don't feel guilty about society; I didn't make it. When *individual* feminists (or female sexists, or non-white racists) try to lay guilt on me I just smile and thank them. The Rarely Redundant Net.Roach