From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 02:43:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep02.171224.1332@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <gyjnsld.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> >> Well, you probably percieve the material in a different light than I.
>> >> By the standards of Dworkin, I should do all in my power to make this
>> >> sexist material go away, I think.
> 
>Which standards of Dworkin do you mean?  Are you saying that she promotes
>censorship?  How far would you like to go in making sexist material go
>away?

You misread me. I did not say that -I would make these materials go away-.
But rather that this is what Dworkin seems to be doing. I can see that
the wording was not clear. But you have assumed far to much from it, and
you have got most of it wrong, at least as far as it pertains to what I
would do.

And yes, she -does- promote censorship, in clear sweeping terms.
  
>> There is a difference between a "personal attack", and that which can
>> be taken personally, even though no names are mentioned. If I made a point
>> of saying -all women are evil-, etc... whenever you were around, but
>> never mentioned your name, would you not notice that you were a member of
>> the group containing "all women", and that everything said also applied
>> to you?
>I do hear statements about "all women..." all the time.  My own reaction
>is that the statement says more about the speaker than it does about me. 
>And sometimes it contains something interesting and sometimes it doesn't. 
>I don't take it personally unless it is meant personally.  If my boss
>says, "all women are dumb therefore I can't use you anymore," I'm
>obviously going to take that very personally.  But if he goes around
>saying that all women are dumb but treats me as an exception, then I'm
>going to treat his statements as some kind of bizarre rhetoric.
   
Do as you wish. But please grant others the same consideration.

>> It need not be a personal attack to be taken personally. 
> 
>I'm not sure I understand the difference.  What is personal about what
>someone says, if that person doesn't even know you exist?

Is it allowed for me (a male) to say something like 'you just don't get
it'? Or do I get kicked out of an alt group?
   
>> How does she exclude men from her book. I would assume that she is
>> talking about 'every man", rather than any individual man. What's the
>> difference?
>  
>Are you saying that all study and description of groups of people is
>unacceptable?  And that all statements about classes of people MUST be
>true of every single individual?  

-->                               You not only want to stamp out feminist
-->writers like Dworkin but also sociology, political science, economics,
-->psycholog, and every other attempt to distill general principles WRT human
-->groups?

Please explain this nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. And please stop
telling me what I would do, you have not yet gotten close.
  
>> And I question the direct relevance of the hisorical data.  I accept
>> that it could show how we got to where we are today, but not that it
>> describes our situation now.
> 
>I agree with you that the ideas are either relevant or not.  And if it
>isn't relevant, you probably shouldn't waste time talking about it.  So
>why are you?  

I reply to another post (which you deleted), and now you ask me why I waste
my time with this (your opinion as well that it is wasting time). Go back
and read the stuff you deleted if you really care. The post will probably
not expire for 10 days or so.
   
>> How much did you accept? There are different ways to go about things. One
>> way, favored by fundamentalists, is to start with a -fact- they are already
>> 100% certain about, and look for data to 'prove' it. Since they already
>> know the answer, any data that does not fit is tossed or ignored. The 
>> other way is to gather all relevant data possible, and see what conclusions
>> can be drawn from it. Which has Dworkin done? 
>  
>I think she probably uses the former, fundamentalist approach.  And I
>think I use the latter, although I may never get to the conclusions part. 
>I'm not sure which you use.  You seem pretty ready to condemn 100% of
>Dworkin, which may imply that you are using the fundamentalist approach
>too.  Where do you think you fit into your scheme?

Seeing as how I have reacted -only- to the works of Dworkin which I have
found out about, and will gather more input time permitting, what do you
think?

But your approach to my post has been the former as well. You make assumptions
based upon who knows what, then ask me to defend -your- opinion of my opinion.
Sorry, I have no intention of doing anything so stupid, especially considering
how you have gotten everything wrong so far.

>>   
>> >If we destroy all broad observations about people as groups because the
>> >observations are unfair to individuals, we eliminate the opportunity to
>> >think about very large social issues.
>> 
>> Is it also not possible that by such classification, we create the
>> conditions necessary for abuse? In fact, is this not more of less the
>> same claim made about the current situation. Those other posters who
>> answered the question about blatant sexism all posted instances
>> where such "sweeping generalizations" were made about females, and
>> about them by implication. Is it right to make such generalizations
>> about men, but wrong to make similar generalizations about women?
>>
>I'm not sure if you are saying that you would like to censor Dworkin and
>keep her from saying bad things about men or not.  

You seemed pretty sure above. I would not -censor- Dworkin, or anyone
else. But I would not do as she suggests either, and caution against
taking -any- extreme postition at face value, even if you have an emotional
attachment to the outcome.

>                                                 No, I don't think that
>incorrect or unfair generalizations lead to abuse.  If someone is being
>abusive, then THAT's the behavior that needs to be dealt with, not serious
>scholarship that happens to contain some personal emotion and happens to
>be unsympathetic to your own gender.  I support the right of Dworkin to
>write books about the political side of intercourse AND I support the
>right of male sexists to tell jokes about women drivers and make erroneous
>claims about female math abilities.  I even support racist scum who slur
>minorities, because I think people are smart enough to evaluate the source
>take whatever, if anything, is useful.  

At this stage, I could almost think that you are talking about me. Oddly
enough, I do not see your post as supportive in any way. Rather, it is more
of a personal attack. Why, please explain?

>                                            Censorship and bookburning is
>obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in power more than it will hurt the
>one that IS.  Overall I see the squelching of odious ideas as being a lot
>more dangerous than any fanatical idea anyone can think of.

And yet, you seem to be trying to squelch my ideas, or your idea of them.
You did not bother to get clarification, or even see exactly what I would
do before posting.

>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.bizarre