From: rsrodger@wam.umd.EDU (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Someone Convince Me
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:00:42 GMT

[Let's keep the rancor down to a dull roar, shall we?  --CTM]

In article <1993Jan19.193020.16882@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>         Rather, because each person has feelings and no one persons
>>         feelings outweigh any others, "feelings" are a damn poor thing
>>         to base policies or laws on.
>
>Of course I agree with this and want to thank you for sharing that bit
>of wisdom with us.  And I'm glad to report that I have never ever come
>across anyone suggesting such a thing.


	Ahem.  You must have missed the pornography thread.


>>         The whole idea that we should give "feelings" anything more
>>         than a humorous glance in this issue is absurd.
>
>I assume that you mean this unless it's *your* feelings that are
>given nothing more than a "humorous glance" Now, exactly *what* is
>wrong with talking seriously and humanely about peoples feeling on
>porn or any other issue?  No one *ever* said that public policy was
>going to be based on that.


	Wrong.  The whole porn thread is INTRINSICALLY legalistic in
	nature.  The eventual goal of people who are "against porn" is
	almost always to have porn made illegal or a lot less
	available.  Yes, there are some--in the minority--that
	consider this wrongminded censorship and still consider porn
	"bad"--but they are insignificant next to the number of those
	who would like to see porn (defined by male interest, as to
	license female-porn [romance novels]) banned.


>>         I've read a lot of complaining that "feelings" are somehow
>>         made to look less than "objective science" in modern
>>         society and how this is some sort of bad thing.  Horse
>>         droppings!  That is a *good* thing.  For centuries people
>>         (both men and women) felt that women were naturally
>>         inferior to men in every way but loving.  The thing that
>>         changed this was an *objective* mindset, nothing more.
>>         Feelings, next to hard observation and, yes, the scientific
>>         method--ARE inferior.
>
>The unamed things that you have "read" do sound flakey if that is
>what they said.  Care to name the books or articles you've "read"
>this in.  Why not do a critical review.  If you mean "read in recent
>history on this newsgroup then you are distorting what other people
>said to *fit* your counterarguments.


	Wrong again.  You obviously missed the "science is evil and
	tmale" hread (again, in the pornography thread) that
	specifically called for asking women how they *feel* about
	porn (as opposed to asking men, I suppose) instead of relying
	on statistics that show that sex crimes are unrelated to porn.


>Yes, feelings are inferior to the scientific method because that is
>axiomatic within the scientific method.  I, for one, have never tried
>to equate the objectivity of the scientific method with an
>objectivity of feelings as you imply people are doing.


	There is no objectivity in feelings whatsoever.


>But are we all so narrow in our thought to think that the scientific
>method and "objectivity" is the *only* way to apprehend reality?


	I don't consider that narrow at all.  Science is inherently
	less narrow minded than "feelings" because feelings are
	centered on the specific individual, while science draws it's
	conclusions from *information*.  Often, science forces a
	person to accept a conclusion that disturbs their feelings.
	Take, for instance, claims that blacks are inferior to whites.
	Science can show that blacks and whites seem to have equal
	capacity.

	So, which is more narrow?  A person who feels that blacks are
	inferior, or science that is willing to consider other
	possibilities even when run by people with anti-black
	feelings?


>"Objectivity" is only *one* game, *one* system.  There are other
>systems of thought outside of analyticity and objectivity.  And they
>are NOT inferior to other systems, just *different*.  (a little humor
>implied here)


	They *are* inferior.  The fact that science is not _natural_
	to human thinking (which works via mass generalization and
	association) has no bearing on the fact that it's conclusions
	are a _lot_ more valid than those that will be generated by
	"feeling"..

	For instance, the vast majority of American citizens feel that
	homosexuality is wrong (or perverted, or sick, whatever).
	Science can draw no conclusions about morality.  So, is it
	proper that we have laws based on *feelings* and not on
	*science*?


>Why not challenge your ingrained assumptions.  I challenge you to
>read "Women's Realities" by Anne Wilson Schaef. After reading this
>book you might be able to come back with more cogent criticisms on
>this "feeling" issue.


	Publisher, please?  Further, I have no misunderstandings as to
	what feelings *are* or how they *work* but rather have utter
	disgust for people who base their lives around "feelings"
	instead of something a little more open minded.


>In short, I beleive that all you have said is that feeling are
>inferior because they are assumed to be so within the scientific
>method.  I believe that everyone on this newsgroup is already aware of
>this.


	Nope.  I have said that feelings are inherently flawed because
	they are based on stereotypes and generalizations of past
	events.

	For instance, there are a lot of white people who fear/hate
	blacks because they have been mugged/raped/shot/beaten by a
	black criminal.  The outstanding characteristic of this
	criminal was his/her dark skin.  Many of these people carry
	around these feelings of fear/hate without being able to get
	by them and realize that the criminals balckness was not a
	factor.  If these people are mugged by a white criminal, they
	will associate it with other physical characteristics (long
	hair, beard, tattoos, etc).

	Are "feelings" a legitimate basis for policy or law?  NO.
	Never.

	Why?  Because they are, quite naturally, based on stereotypes
	formed using an *extremely* small (say, one) sample group.

	If you have some delusion that the whole argument in favor of
	feelings wasn't a sad attempt to legitimize policy (anti-porn,
	where men should walk, etc) based on feelings, you should give
	it a few more minutes of thought.


>>         Why single out pornography--especially when people can't
>>         even provide a better definition than "sexually explicit
>>         material that MEN like"?
>
>What's so bad about this definition?  I posted the dictionary
>entries in an earlier post, and I think that pornography has been
>properly identified.


	Because some people consider womens books (i.e., Sleeping
	Beauty, Anne Rice under a dumn french-like psuedonym) to be
	porn, but women have no problem with this.

	The whole thing reeks of oppression, to be sure, but also
	hypocrisy.


--
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault
        	on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.