From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:08:08 GMT
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <MUFFY.92Dec22164023@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>You deleted my text, which explained this, but I'll try again.  Are you
>saying, then, that I should a) LIE to them and b) disavow any connection
>with that EVIL feminism, even though I am, in fact, a feminist?  It is
>not a quesiton of "my own language" or "their language," any more than
>saying I am female, bisexual, brown-haired, or whatever.

No, not really.  If gender-neutral language is encouraged, and becomes
a sign of intelligence, strength-of-character, or some other positive
set of attributes, then the probability of acceptance is increased
(or so I say - and have been saying for megabytes/clock cycles :-)
Feminism isn't evil - but, IMHO and the opinion of many others (including
noted feminists), it has become the worst of all possible worlds -
non-essential.  Out of touch with the common womyn.  Elitist, at times.
Like most philosophies, it has evolved, and like most large constructs
its lost touch with its constituents.

An example:  rather than beating people over the head for not using
gender-neutral language, associate its usage with some other positive
attributes (like, say, intelligence in discussions :-)  NOTE:  I
did NOT just say that people are beating other people up over NOT
using gender-neutral language.

Besides, from a purely rational self-interest perspective (defined
as me and my family, in this case), there's a LOT feminism offers.
It may not be noble to talk about rational self-interest ... but
to a large extent self-interest is a KEY motivator of people's behavior.
And that's why I said, essentially, that I don't think gender-neutral
language is very important in society (i.e. not many people give a damn
about it), because the case hasn't been made for it in a persuasive manner.

>>>personal attack.  It would be pretty silly for women to base their
>>>self-image on "being female," since society's view of women is rather
>>>negative.  Of course, there *are* female supremacists who do this, but
>>>there are relatively few of them.
>
>>I can't agree, Muffy, because by and large women hold MUCH more
>>power than men
>
>So what?  I never said *anything* about power, I said that our society
>holds men in much higher regard than women.
>
>Muffy

My mistake:  I associate esteem with power (as do *most* people, come
to think of it).  Although, there is great strength in weakness,
but that's not what we're talking about here.  Maybe society (whatever
that means) holds men in higher regard than womyn.  But, by all rational
and measurable standards this is not exemplified by its actions.
Men as breadwinners.  Men as heart-attack candidates.  Men as fighters.
Men as macho posturing buffoons getting killed fighting over a woman.
Men as driven by ENDLESS amounts of advertising to lust after a
particular image of female beauty.  Men, in short, as powerless over
the *real* wealth - time, control of their lives, etc.  This is not whining,
merely the observations of Farrell and others.

And, of course, for each of the above there is an equally oppressive
female role that is played out.  It is this kind of situation that feminism
needs to address, rather than "just" gender-in-language.  IMHO.

Things are changing, to be sure.  But not in a bad economy.
-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: soc.bi