From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists "analysis" of men (Was Re: Double standards )
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:22:12 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel):
| Gordon had the following suggestion for me:

gf:
| >Your problem is that you think of feminists as the other
| >team.  What I've suggested, about this topic as well
| >as about many others, is that you use feminist analysis
| >on men's problems.  

hg:
| ...
| You say that a man who had a birth control failure, and notifies the
| woman immediately that he does not want any rights and responsibilities
| toward the future baby is *responsible* and should *pay* for that.

What I said, as I recall, was that given the usual context
of individualistic liberalism, the child is going to have a
claim against those who are responsible for its existence,
no matter how it came into being.  That's not feminist
analysis.

hg:
| Do you use similar criteria for women?

I certainly would if I thought liberalism as implemented so
far was a reasonable solution to this issue.

hg:
| A woman who had a birth control failure, and knowing very well that the
| the future father does not want any rights or responsibilities toward
| the baby, decided not to have an abortion and not to give the baby up
| to adoption behaves in a much more irresponsible way.
|
| You take him to the cleaner in the name of responsibility and give
| her money in the name of child's rights.

No, _I_ don't do this; _you_ -- a plural "you" here -- do,
because _you_ believe in liberalism, at least of the
classical variety.  You believe in strict individualism.  It
is from individualism that the concepts and practice of
individual responsibility derive.  I think in the case of
children that the responsibility is highly communal; but you
don't agree.  So be it.  The most you can hope for is for
men to get custody and take the mothers to the cleaners, but
somebody has to be taken to the cleaners.  That's how the
system works.  This would be a good argument for some kind
of affirmative action: more men at home with the kids, more
women at the office raking it in so they can get down to the
cleaners' with it.  That hasn't happened yet, but it's
probably in the works.

Of course, some men may prefer working themselves to death 
to changing diapers.  I've seen a lot of sympathy for those
poor dads working themselves to death, but when I was
changing diapers a lot of people thought I was jerk.  But
that was a long time ago.  Now, I suppose I should put it on
my resume.

hg:
| Both positions can make sense *if* you treat everybody by the
| same standards.  You have no intention to enforce the same standards
| of responsibility on both of them because you use feminists analysis.

Some feminists are pretty much classical liberals and would
support your point of view; in fact, I've seen feminist
support for it right in this newsgroup, I believe, although
I didn't save any of the articles.  The more radical or
"socialistic" of the feminists would probably have ideas 
more like mine, but they've gone into hiding.

hg:
| That's why main-steam feminist analysis is so useful for you
| and it is so useless for me.

I was talking about more radical forms of analysis.  For
instance, it was feminist analysis that first called into
question the division of labor as it existed in the 1950s.
This was the arrangement of things under which men "worked
themselves to death" so their wives could do nothing and
live off the life insurance, etc. etc. -- I'm sure you know
the rap.  It's also the arrangement under which Mommy gets
to keep the kids and kick up her heels all day, while Daddy
has to go from the office to the cleaners and back again,
and never have any fun.

Some of these feminists were commies, but most today
believe in the same classical liberalism you seem to.  So
here's a possible deal, as suggested above: more mommies in 
the office working themselves to death on a basis of equal 
opportunity; more daddies at home changing diapers, 
counting pennies, watching _Sesame_Street_, and otherwise 
living the life of Riley.  Fair enough?  I love to broker 
deals between capitalism fans.  

But I don't want to take credit away from Karl Denninger on
this.  He was the one who came up with the idea of 
affirmative action in assignment of custody.

hg:
| My analysis of the situation is that main-stream feminists and 
| most traditionalists think that men should be punished for 
| "commitment free" sex, and taking them to the cleaners is the
| appropriate punishment.  Feminists have this feeling because they
| grew up in the same traditional society that all of us know, and
| they don't have the integrity to look inside and see their very
| own sexism and do something about that.  They can recognize sexism
| only when it hurts women, that's why their analysis is so useless
| for men.

So you should out-feminist them, instead of trying to score
points off them.  If you learn the material, you can out-rad
them.  Wouldn't that be fun?  You just have to watch out
that you don't let any of it get to you and, you know,
soften your, ah, position.

gf:
| >I've agreed
| >that it seems unfair, and I'd tell you once again what I
| >think better alternatives are, were I not afraid you'd print
| >that dumb story again.  

hg:
| Carole's suggestion will work better than everything that the NYC
| liberals have tried for the last 30 years.

I don't think so.  Most of the Third World practices zero
welfare, and it hasn't brought prosperity to them.  Countries
with heavy-duty welfare systems are a lot better off, by and
large.  However, this is the ancient welfare discussion and
probably belongs in talk.politics.theory or -.misc, rather
than here.  I still say Carole's story is dumb, for the
reasons I've already given.  All the more reason, I suppose,
to reprint it soon.

The idea of crushing the poor is an aesthetic one.  It has
negative practical value, and should be entertained only for
the satisfaction it gives in and of itself.  It is its own
reward for those who enjoy it.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men