From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 03:56:05 GMT


In article <18291@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D.  Owen
Rowley) writes:

>I'm happy to see that here in 93 we see the return of
>civility and honest discourse even while disagreeing.

It has taken me this long to recover from the fainting
spell!  :-)  In 94, I'm going to try to get you to spell
better.

>>In article <1993Jan5.030042.10601@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com
>>(D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>>>Do you really think that a male writer could postulate that
>>>acts of rape are really deeply emotional bonds energeticly
>>>exercised without being publicly vilified?

>>In article <1992Dec30.043029.10104@macc.wisc.edu>
>>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>Sure.  Look at the hundreds of mystery novels and pulp mags
>>churned out monthly, elaborating the Mickey Spillane model
>>in one way or another.  Woman-hating is good business, apart
>>from the fact that it stinks.  You don't have to buy the
>>stuff or read it; just look at the cover art.

>I guess I see that stuff as exploitative, and not
>intentionally hateful.  I guess I should also admit that
>I've never read any Micky Spillane and have no interest in
>the genre whatsoever so really don't know.

Not to co-opt Dworkin, but exploitive isn't sufficiently
different from hateful, arguably, that we need concern
ourselves much over the differences.  Spillane (the genre as
well as the writer) *is* hateful; the violence against women
alone is enough to establish that.

>I think I mean non-fiction.  Books in the same genre as
>Andrea Dworkins but with the genders reversed.

>Mind you.  I'm not postulating that they don't exist, I just
>don't know about any.

I can think of one.  It's a whole separate discussion, as it
involves racism in addition to sexism.

But for our purposes here, I'll let it go at questioning
whether the sort of parallel the original question assumes
is useful in any particular way.  The issues between the
genders are more often matters of inequality and lack of
parity than they are of equals and opposites.

>I suppose that I do agree with some aspects of the argument
>that pornographic exploitation of women is a problem in our
>society, but I am loathe to eat away at first amendment
>rights to deal with that problem, as I believe that such a
>remedy would turn into an even bigger problem.

I'm solidly with you on protecting the 1st Amendment, but
the society can do a lot about pornography (especially the
issues underlying it, even more than the thing itself)
without ruining the 1st Amendment's protections for all.

>>>It seems to me that we are at the crux of a major paradigm
>>>shift regarding the interaction of the sexes.  We carry a
>>>lot of baggage in certain portions of our grey matter that
>>>seems unsuitable for our journey into the future.

>>I think this last is safely said, but if we are at the crux
>>f a major paradigm shift, I wonder what you see as the
>>evidence, apart from fond hopes, perhaps.

>You and I are only about a half generation apart in age, we
>both lived in an America where the job/career oportunitys
>for women outside of a closely prescribed set were scarce,
>and individual women who broke gender barriers in the
>workplace made headlines.

>I remember a period of time when the barriers started
>falling fast and furious, until the point when such
>individual efforts became relatively normal operating
>procedure.

Well, that half generation difference in our ages means that
I can remember when women had to give up their jobs in
factories (making tanks, planes, and guns) after WW II so
the returning GIs could go have them.  Many women did *not*
want the status quo ante, believe me.

I don't deny that changes have occurred, but they are, on
the scale of possible and necessary, not so big.

>beyond that though, I see lots of evidence that we as beings
>are poised on teh brink of many cutting edges, all at the
>same time.  I think Clintons phrase *We can't aford to waste
>anybody* sums up the new pardigm I *feel* coming.

I think there is at least as strong a current of regression
loose in the world.  Which direction things will go is
anyone's guess.  I'd like to be hopeful, and in a general
way I am.  But I'm also ever on the alert for rose-colored
glasses.  Remember the phrase "you've come a long way,
baby!"?  Virginia Slims cigarets, specifically marketing to
women.  Baby?  What message does that send?  Buy into death,
dearie.  What message does that send?  "Women's" products.
What message does that send?  A *long* way?  *Do* be
serious.

You could be right that a big shift is in the offing, but
for the most part it still looks to me like the SOS (same
old shit) is being repackaged.

>>>Men don't need to *impeach* themselves to assist the
>>>empowerment of women.

>>Call it something else then; the point is, they *do* have to
>>do a major piece of work on themselves, even if in the
>>end it all boils down to getting out of the way.

>Oh, making room for women on an equal basis, is exactly what
>I'm saying.  I'd like it to happen in ways that increase the
>overall self-worth of everybody, not just knock some off the
>other guy and paste it on your self!

Well, a problem with the quantitative rhetoric of that sort
is that we're talking about qualitative aspects as much or
more than things that can be counted.  Knocking men down a
few pegs isn't going to kill them, and women *do* get killed
or maimed, all too often.

>>>We need to work towards a society that operates on the
>>>principle of fairness, and recognises the right of the
>>>individual to own themself.  We live in a society that still
>>>maintains the vestigal systems by which women have been kept
>>>the property of men.

>>Vestigial, my heinie.  Integral, foreground, omnipresent and
>>omnipotent.  

>interesting, your choice of words imply that there is no
>hope.  I have hope, and that allows me to envision a future
>that is different from the present.

I don't think I imply a lack of hope, not at all.  But I
distrust all this "things are improving" thrust, which I
took your "vestigial" to be reinforcing.

Sorry to have tossed out so much.  Can't do everything.

<> Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to
<> me."  Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain."  Picard:
<> "Make it so."
-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]