From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Philosophy for Gordon (Was Re: Choice for men)
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep26.130832.19088@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>| The draft issue is, more than anything else, a question of freedom.

>I don't know if you're aware of this, but the argument
>had assumed this and gone down the road aways.

And made a half circle while going "down the road aways"...

>gf:
>| >      ...  Instead of attacking feminism, men could be 
>| >using feminist analyses to decode their own problems.  

>hg:
>| Your feminist analyses reminds me the following paragraph:

>| The insistence of people with no first hand experience in being drafted
>| that they understand the problem much better has no base, IMO.

>First of all, I'm a feminist and grew up at a time when 

I talked about feminist analyses, not Gordon's life experience.

>Second, I'm obviously talking about using feminist
>analyses, not feminist life-experiences.  There is a
>difference, although it pains me to think I will have to
>explain it.  It's like going back to grade school.

Is the following feminist analyses?
#War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent
#to their contempt for women.  The very maleness of the military -
#the brute power of weaponry exclusive to their hands, the spiritual
#bonding of men at arms, the manly discipline of orders given and
#orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command - confirms
#for men what they long suspect, that women are peripheral, irrelevant
#to the world that counts, passive spectators to the action in the
#center ring.
                -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)

What should I make with such "analyses" that contradicts so much
the way I felt in the army?  

>hg:
>| The feminists I agree with tend to be pro-freedom and not so much
>| anti-violence.  ...

>Freedom and violence are antithetical, millennia of
>propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Sometimes one has to use violence to defend his freedom.

>| 1) In the early 70's your generation tried to do just that, 
>|    and your influence was greatly reduced.

>Here's "generation" again.  What's "my generation"?  

The generation of people who were young in the 60's, had the big
dreams about changing the world, had the big opportunity to do 
that and *missed* it.   

>| 2) Why don't you take some examples from successful (in getting
>|    a *change*) revolutions?  Why the new generation should accept
>|    your claim about how things should be done?  Were you such a 
>|    great success story?

>Well, does my "gggggeneration" get credit for the Civil
>Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam-War movement, and the
>feminist movement?  

The Civil Rights Movement was under way before "your generation"
jumped in in large numbers, and its beginning had to do more with 
the Supreme Court.  E.g. in 1962 the university of Mississippi was
ordered to admit a black students, and 10,000 army troops were
needed to quiet down the demonstrations.  (Not too many "flower
kids" were around there, you know...)

The anti-war movement was carried out by kids who were afraid of being
drafted; it got a big push after the college kids lost their draft-
exempt status, and it died after Nixon stopped the draft.  It was
not a great success because it failed in its attempt to stop the
war.  The kids had the right vision, but they made no real effort
to explain their position to a large number of middle America voters -
the kids demonstrated in the street, and the majority elected Nixon.

The feminist movement was quite a success, in the 60's, but like
the Civil Rights movement its roots were deeper.  E.g. The Feminine
Mystique was published in 1963.  The EEO was passed in 1964.
The biggest success (abortion right) came from the old men in the 
Supreme Court.  The movement was quite a failure in the late 70's.  
E.g. it started the ERA with 90% majority in the Senate, and it lost 
it in the states in a prime example of *bad* management.

What common to all these examples is that your generation did 
quite well with a strong back-wind, and took a lot of credit
for that, but failed to change society.

>You seem to feel that the last-named
>was a powerful political thrust that changed everything
>and is to be blamed for any defects (like draft 
>registration) remaining today.  Which is it?  

The feminist movement certainly has power, but all it can do with
it is getting more pork barrels.  The job of changing society
will be left to another generation.

>gf:
>| >                                       ...  Anyone with any
>| >consciousness of the Left in America is all too familiar 
>| >with this state of affairs.  

>hg:
>| I wonder how many of you read what Marx had to say about 
>| the question of the Jews...

>This is really relevant.  Let's skip ahead....

Have you read that?
(I am not looking for an argument, just a yes/no answer.)

>[ Women Strike for Peace ]
>| It just proves that in the time that feminism was on the *rise* it
>| did not work by "the way things get done in America politically."

>Do you want to think that one through again?  Women Strike for
>Peace made opposition to the draft a major item on their
>agenda.  They don't seem to be around any more.  NOW didn't
>seem to exist then, but they have concentrated on women's
>issues (although I believe they oppose the draft).  They are
>around and thriving.  It seems that the example supports my 
>point and disproves yours.

What is more important, being around and being powerful or changing
society in the way you want?  NOW is around, but what influence
does it have on society (I said "society" not "the political system")?  
What are its big successes in the 80's?

(Personally, I prefer to change people's minds, not to lead
them to any party.  They should decide for themselves.)

>Now we've come down to the bottom, in more than one sense,
>I'm going to invite you to read my articles for meaning 
>instead of knock-off points.  There's one in soc.feminism

I took a look and I have the following comments:
Tannen's "analyses" is the kind of "analyses" that 
feminism produces today.  It is a regression compared 
to "The Feminine Mystique" for example.

>Clearly, property is inspiring, because, I
>believe, it encapsulates violence.

The kibbutz system in Israel is pretty much violence free (murder
cases are *rare*), but people still want property.  The more time
pass, the more property they want; especially the kids who grew
up in the kibbutz and are not there because of ideology.

I wonder how this data fit to what you believe...

>I think we need to do more thinking about violence, and I
>think it is good to start from a female perspective, since
>women, having less musculature and different myths, may see
>it more clearly than men, in general.  

Think for a minute about high school years, who were the popular
boys between the girls?  The anti-violence boys or the Macho boys?

One Golda gave me more than enough female perspective, but I
don't think that you know enough about Isreal's history to 
understand what a disaster this righteous and narrow minded
woman really was.

>When you've done that, maybe we can play a game of put
>up or shut up.

If you don't want to play then don't play.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                       gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Of course Golda was a war-monger. Would any man in Israel have supported
her if she had not been?" -- Valerie Maslak  (in soc.MEN)