From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:45:08 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <1993Jan5.030042.10601@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com
(D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.043029.10104@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>>>[T]here clearly is a much smaller tendency to hold over-zealous
>>>>woman-haters accountable (their numbers are massive) than to
>>>>hold over-zealous man-haters (their numbers are much
>>>>smaller) accountable.

>For one thing, I don't buy that *their numbers are massive*
>.  Give me some examples of overzealous woman hating writers
>who publish similar material to Dworkins, but with women as
>the subject?

>Do you really think that a male writer could postulate that
>acts of rape are really deeply emotional bonds energeticly
>exercised without being publicly vilified?

Sure.  Look at the hundreds of mystery novels and pulp mags
churned out monthly, elaborating the Mickey Spillane model
in one way or another.  Woman-hating is good business, apart
from the fact that it stinks.  You don't have to buy the
stuff or read it; just look at the cover art.

>I suppose that there are indeed massive numbers of clueless
>men who can't think beyond the end of their dicks, but that
>is a sign of ignorance and insensitivity, not women-hating.

Steve has an excellent point: ask those who see the dick
from the other angle.

>>...those who are finding ...fault are ignoring
>>some relevant issues of proportion.  As I've been at some
>>pains to point out, I'm in no position to criticize
>>Dworkin's writing directly, as I've not read it.  But as
>>Arne points out, the systemic oppression of women in our
>>society is one thing and man-hating is another, I maintain
>>quite a smaller, thing.  This excuses neither, 

>It seems to me that we are at the crux of a major paradigm
>shift regarding the interaction of the sexes.  We carry a
>lot of baggage in certain portions of our grey matter that
>seems unsuitable for our journey into the future.

I think this last is safely said, but if we are at the crux
of a major paradigm shift, I wonder what you see as the
evidence, apart from fond hopes, perhaps.

>I suspect that social/cultural programming can go a long way
>to modifying how the genders interact, but I doubt that the
>basic *battle of the sexes*

Not while that phrase is in use, at any rate.

>will change significantly while reproduction of the species
>is still accomplished through natural means.

The definition of "natural" will be the greater part of the
change, probably.  I don't think women are subjugated by the
biological fact of bearing children; it's the other things.

>Obviously when (or if) the means of reproducing the species
>is accomplished ex-utero, we would also have necesarily
>developed the means to change lots of things about ourselves
>and the gender gap would be a non-issue.

You could be right, but it seems more like whistling in the
dark to me.  By the way, there is no necessary precedent for
supposing that a technological advance corresponds to a
social advance, especially not such a far-reaching one.

>>but if men
>>are going to try to render Dworkin such a demon, then to be
>>at all credible, they are going to have to move heaven and
>>earth in an effort to rectify women's inequities, in the
>>process impeaching largely themselves, which they are
>>singularly loath to do.

>Dworkin isn't a demon who threatens the power establishment,

Questionable.  The reaction to her suggests she's getting on
*someone's* nerves quite a bit.  People don't usually have
hysterics (which they almost invariably do in the presence
of Dworkin the topic) unless they're threatened *somehow*.

>Dworkin does nothing to uplift the position of women.

Shouldn't women be the judge of that?

>She focuses sharply on the injustice of the situation, she
>exposes the vast extent and deep entrenchment of the
>imbalance of power, but she offers nothing that deals
>positively with the issue.

I thought the excerpt CJ Lee gave us yesterday rebuts that.

>She can agitate some, she can irritate others, she can beat
>her breast and wail till the cows come home, but her polemic
>style can only fail the cause of empowering women.

When no one can say, why predict?

>I think that the *Ellen James Society* depicted in "The
>world according to Garp" pretty well satirizes the utimately
>destructive nature of such self defeating tactics.

Just one model, of many.

>Power is an individual thing, and each person either finds
>it within themselves or accepts it from outside themselves.
>Most of us are relatively powerless, even those who weild
>authority.  Your power in this world stems from your resolve
>to *have* it.  People like Andrea Dworkin spend too much
>energy wanting power and leave no time to *have* it.

Too facile.

>People who have power understand well that they can only
>exercise their own power, and don't waste time being envious
>of someone elses power.  (If they don't understand this ,
>they don't hold onto it very long)

Quite a number of them have too much and hold it long enough
to do real damage.  That Hitler ultimately failed (and did
he?) doesn't undo the camps.  Besides, it seems to me closer
to the truth that the desire to have power (your "envy") is
a major component of the destructiveness we're talking
about.

>Men don't need to *impeach* themselves to assist the
>empowerment of women.

Call it something else then; the point is, they *do* have to
do a major piece of work on themselves, even if in the
end it all boils down to getting out of the way.

>We need to work towards a society that operates on the
>principle of fairness, and recognises the right of the
>individual to own themself.  We live in a society that still
>maintains the vestigal systems by which women have been kept
>the property of men.

Vestigial, my heinie.  Integral, foreground, omnipresent and
omnipotent.  The goal is nice, but it's not exactly heaving
into view.

>Men need to be fair in their dealings with women and
>equitably share opportunity to make their way in the world
>without taking undue advantage of differences in strength or
>previous privilege.

Easily said, but what are men doing about it *lately*?  As I
mention, just getting out of the way would be a step.

>I do not believe that Andrea Dworkin leads on us on a path
>towards anything resembling that goal.

"Anything resembling" cuts a pretty wide swath, wide
enough, it seems to me, to undercut your claim.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]