From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: Re: Basic Instinct D (1)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:45:37 GMT

[This article arrived here 9/25 but it was dated 9/14  --CTM]

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
GF> I write...
GF> |                                  ...  What I have a problem
GF> | with, is *not* the concept that we have a large number of "white
GF> | males" who rule, but tha the notion of "patriarchal theory" is
GF> | being used to explain away all the world's ills, as I have seen
GF> | many a "feminist" do...

GF> So attribution of homophobia to patriarchalism is not just
GF> attribution of homophobia to patriarchalism, but part of a larger
GF> ideology whose overall program is so important we need not
GF> consider the original proposition at all.

GF> Now, I think we all agree that a great many bad effects have
GF> been attributed to patriarchalism by feminists; according to
GF> Will, this is illegitimate.  I can only assume that this
GF> means he thinks patriarchalism does not and did not exist as
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gordon, I did *not* say that.  I merely disagree with many
attributions of "patriarchal theory," as it is referred to.  Let me
give an example:

I *do* believe, and agree with you, that the under-representation of
women in certain sectors of the economy has been due to the belief
that "men are better than women".  So, in that sense, this *is*
"patriarchy in action".

*However*, I have disagreed with, and will *always* disagree with the
apparent attribution of heterosexism as being equivalent to the belief
that men are better than women.  I think that this sort of attribution
is stretching the limits of credulity.

(Talking about beliefs of male and female moral superiority...)

GF> .because if it _does_ exist, or _did_ exist and has serious
GF> effects in our own time, then we can't say it's inappropriate for
GF> feminists (or anyone else) to attribute evils to it, can we?

Why can't we?  However, I am *not* saying that no evils be attributed
to patriarchy ; I am merely that we should make *reasonable*
attributions.  For example, if someone were to blame patriarchy for
deforestation in Brazil, then I *would* be motivated to state that the
attribution was not strictly valid, or at least not valid as a
*direct* cause.


GF> |                              ... I think that it is *quite*
GF> | apparent in th terminology that the views are considered to be
GF> | *male-ORIGINATED*, which i why I feel that the very term
GF> | "patriarchy," when used to ascribe negative characteristics to a
GF> | belief system or to a system of actions, is nothing more than a
GF> | vector for the morally bankrupt [ etc. etc. ]

GF> which implies to me that he doesn't agree that patriarchalism is
GF> important other than as a fiction.  It is "_nothing_more_than_
GF> _a_vector_."

GF> Basically, Will is questioning the legitimacy, rather than the
GF> factuality or reasonability, of an assertion like "homophobia
GF> comes from patriarchalism" because, he says, the second term has
GF> no real reference.  I think, before we continue to discuss
GF> homophobia, we ought settle the question of legitimacy.  So here's
GF> a question for Will or any other members of the Men's
                                                    ^^^^^
GF> Anti-Defamation League that may be around: Is patriarchalism
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> just a fiction?


Gee, Gordon, I might as well take *that* as a compliment, eh?  :-)

To answer your question, though, I am *not* saying that
"patriarchalism is just a fiction" ; I am saying that many
*attributions* of patriarchalism are fictitious.

Remember, you can oppose certain attributions of a theory while still
agreeing with the theory itself.

I believe that I have made this point very clear on many occasions.
Am I not making myself clear enough?  Or, are you just assuming the
worst of what I say?  Or, are you attacking me for the sake of doing
so?  I would hope the former.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.

--
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.