From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:04:51 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct2.214715.26119@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
(Richard Lynch) writes:

>Do you not think the draft is anti-male?  

I think that a liberal like Johnson sent 500,000 drafted men to Vietnam,
Nixon stopped the draft and Carter started a registration to draft.  Now
try to guess who got more support from liberals and feminists...

Feminists like MacKinnon may pay some lips service to the equality, but
they don't care about that; the nice talk is just a way to get support.

>1.  WHEN was this book published.  

1987.

#Women are poor, and pay is at least as far from being sex-equal as it
#was before the passage of legislation guaranteeing equality by law.

>I think the data posted (thank you, somebody for REAL data!!!) made it clear
>that pay is fairly equitable after experience and education were accounted for.

You don't use Politically Correct criteria...

#Under the rule of gender neutrality, the law of custody and divorce has
#been transformed, giving men an equal chance at custody of children 
#and alimony.

>>(Equality is when in 90% of the cases women have sole custody...)

>Perhaps the law has been transformed, but the judges haven't yet.  A cheap out,
>I will admit, but it seems to me it's improving slowly but steadily.

"A cheap out" is the main-stream feminists way of dealing with
discrimination against men.  They look for ways that will look like
equality while preserving all women's extra rights.

>So your point is that since two statements are wrong, a third by the same
>person MUST be garbage?  

Very different criteria were used for the statements.  By the "logic" of
statement 2) women had equality after the EEO was passed in 1964.  The
double standards show, in *my* opinion, that MacKinnon is not honest.

>>I don't think that even farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) will try
>>to defend such opinions in a non-moderated forum, so I wonder why
>>she tried to give us such false impression about MacKinnon?

>Maybe she won't, but I have.  :-)

ljf doesn't have the guts to defend MacKinnon main agenda (the anti-
porno is a *main* issue in the book.)  She preferred to take a sentence 
out of context as a way to give a false impression.

>The statement seems to me to be cogent and relatively well-thought-out.

The ideas are more important than the ways they are written.

>It certainly has some flaws, but as it's rather long and complex I wish you had
>expressed your (sort of) labeling it as garbage.

OK, let's pick a couple of statements:

#She becomes 
#something to be used by him, especially, an object for his sexual use.

A similar attack can be used against every form of employment because
most employers look for profit by using other people.  The
solution for the 19'th century sweat shops was not going back to non-
industrial society, but regulations.  Out-lawing of Playboy, as 
MacKinnon wants, will be a step backward.  The mafia will be quite
a happy with that, for the same reasons the Prohibition helped the
mafia so much, but MacKinnon doesn't even realize that.

#_Playboy_ as a standard means that to use a woman sexually
#does not violate her nature because it expresses her nature; it is what
#she is *for*.  

Some women (and men) view their sexuality as part of themselves.

#What _Playboy_ does to women is very carefully legitimized, both inside
#and outside the magazine.  _Playboy_'s articles push their views, 
#including their views of the First Amendment, 

Why is it so wrong of Playboy to push its view on the First Amendment?

Is it wrong of MacKinnon to push her views on the First Amendment?

# Ever wonder why men are so passionate about the First Amendment?  

Instead of debating the issue of the First Amendment she gives a 
snide remark against men who don't want to give up their freedom
to read what they damn like.  No comment about pro-porno women.

What common to all of that is a strong belief in the badness of
porno, with too little real data.  *I* see it as the old feminine
anti-porno position with new rationalizations.

>I was going to make a valiant attempt at second-guessing you, and *then*
>responding to those, but since I don't find _Playboy_ objectionable, 

Try...

>hard for me.  I *do* understand, somewhat, what the objections are, and agree
>that _Playboy_ really shouldn't exist in that better world we all yearn for.

1) Please put me out of yours "all."

2) Please explain why "_Playboy_ really shouldn't exist in that 
   better world" without using the "everybody knows" "logic."

>But, I don't think cencorship is a valid answer.  

Try to think why MacKinnon thinks that "censorship is a valid answer."  

>Anyway, my point
>is that if you want somebody to defend the opinions expressed (or at least 
>discuss them with you) I don't know where to start unless you specifically
>outline your disagreements.

"I agree with what MacKinnon" said is a simple way to express agreement.

%"WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex
%education in schools, birth control and abortion, children's right to sexual
%information and freedom, decriminalization of prostitution or civil rights of
%sexual minorities.  They continue to grow larger to grow larger, more powerful
%and more pro-censorship and antisex in their positions.  Few members of the
%liberal press will risk opposing or criticizing them because they travel under
%the protective, self-applied label `feminist'.  It is obvious that no one in
%the conservative press will oppose them, either - unless they get too public
%about having a large lesbian membership." 

>[Attribution which is NOT, repeat NOT, Hillel (sp?) Gazit, accidentally del'd]

It was from Pat Califia; a great writer, in *my* opinion.

>Which group is WAVMP?  

Women Against Pornography and Violence in the Media.

>Why would they be expected to make statements on these issues?

Califia listed (and I agree) better ways to fight violence in 
general and violence against women.  

>How are:
>gay rights,
>sex ed in schools,
>children's right to sex info and freedom, and
>civil rights of sexual minorities
>(presumably gay, lesbian, bisexual, and polyamorous [tried real hard not to
>miss any, probably did])

What about S&M people?  

Will they have any right to play as they damn like in your perfect world?

>feminist issues anyway?

Don't ask me; I'm not a feminist.

>The various political groups at all ends and in the middle of the spectrum have
>long been non-cooperative, even when they shoulda.  What else is new?

It is one thing to ignore a group with a just cause, and another
to ignore a group which its causes help your causes.

If WAVMP wanted to prevent violence (fat chance...) then 
supporting gays' right for example could give gays (and 
lesbians) better protection from violence.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Hillel                                                  gazit@cs.duke.edu

That's right.  Some men like dicks and other men's assholes.  Who conditioned
them to that?  Surely not TV or Playboy.  --  Oleg Kiselev