From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:50:58 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov22104404@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.044436.7341@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.211111.24218@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>I addressed the question, 'is -feminism- about double standards' in response
>>>>to your claim that -sexism- is about double standards. It would seem this
>>>>is a distinction which you can't figure out how to flame or denigrate, so
>>>>you edit it out and use ad-hominum. 
>>>You seemed to argue "some feminists seem to think feminism is about
>>>double-standards, while others don't."  So?  What's the point?  Is there
>>>something relevant or contentious there?
>
>>I said that it may be true that sexism is about double standards, but not
>>all feminists view sexism this way.
>
>*Most* of the feminist I have talked to or heard of *do* view sexism as
>being about double standards.  

Contrast this to the poster who mentioned the lesbian feminists in Maine.

>                                 Is your argument that, because you
>believe most feminists are in favor of double standards (against men),

I did not say that I believe that "most feminists are in favor of double
standards (against men)", nor do I have any idea if it is 0.05%, 75%, or 
95%. I do believe that it is not 0.0%.

>you do not believe that they think this is sexist?  

Some feminists define sexism in a way that excludes women. MacKinnon, 
and the rhetoric about the "White Male System" comes to mind. Some 
such as Naomi Wolfe (from rini's post) and most of the feminists posting 
here would seem to think all double standards are sexist. Others, like 
ljf, I would not hazard to guess about.

>                                                    Just because someone
>believes that "sexism is about double standards" does not mean that they
>are therefore against all double standards.  I think that it would make
>more sense if they were, but it certainly does not have to follow.

I thought that this was rather what I had said, or at least implied. And
the human condition is not a strictly linear condition, contradictions
are possible. I do not believe internal contradictions become a problem
till one has to take action or make a decision upon the contrdiction.
 
>>And some feminists are for double standards
>>(when they are in their favor), and some are against them all. But I do
>>not think it would be valid to say that feminists are against double
>>standards, lest we be guilty of generalizing from a few examples.
>
>Who has said this?  

Perhaps I should have said some -women-, not feminists. Would you dispute 
this? I have personally run into this several times, it -does- exist. 
Regardless, some of the more extreme feminist camps which assign womens 
subjective reality as the only reality would clearly seem to allow for this.

>                    All I see rini saying (going back 4-5 articles) is
>that sexism is about double standards.  You seem to agree with this, 

OK, I do agree with this.

>but then take the opportunity to accuse most feminists of being sexist, in
>favor of double standards, etc.  Speaking of "generalizing from a few
>examples," what do you call:
>
>>BTW, the last two women I talked with on this issue fell into the camp
>>which allowed sexism against males. They had a realistic concern for
>>fixing their problems, but expressed no concern for doing the same damage
>>they objected too.
>
>Wow, a whopping two examples, of "women," not even "feminists."  Well,
>heck, *I'm* convinced now that all feminists are sexist, discriminatory
>weilders of double standards.

I tend to give personal experience more weight than what I read,
including what I read here. Don't you? But where did I generalize from
these examples? This was just a few more data points. And I did not
inquire as to whether they considered themselves feminists. But I
am more than reasonably certain that Kate is.
 
>So, was your whole point to attack feminism (yet again)?  

Where exactly did I attack feminsm? I tried to balance the information
at hand, and I do not recall mounting an attack. 

>                                                        If you want to
>prove that most feminists are in favor of double standards, instead of
>hauling out two women (why do you choose to hang around with these
>people, anyway?  

Friends of roommates/etc... Why do you make assumptions here? And I offer
no more "proof" than anyone else does here. At best all we can offer is
evidence. You weigh it and either change your mind, or ignore it. 

>                   I wouldn't stick around people who felt that it was
>okay to discriminate against me.) 

I think Sarah (a roommate) would be understandably upset if I attempted
to throw her friends out. 

>                                who may or may not be feminists, how
>about doing a general survey of feminist writings, coming back with a
>bibliography and a percentage of those writings which are in favor of
>double standards?

To what point? What would almost certainly result would be a word battle
over the intrepretation of the text in question. As nothing would be
gained, the time would almost certainly be wasted, and the waste would be
compounded if I got involved in the word battle.

Even the relatively clear text which stated that any sex not initiated by 
the woman was rape was subject to a long debate.  And there was no clear 
consensus.

As time allows (variable due to new products and school) I will read
some of the texts mentioned here if available from the library.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism