From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 23:57:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep7.223943.8127@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>Rich:
>
>I'm not going to try to answer point by point, as I think I've stated
>my views clearly, and restating them will not necessarally bring us to
>agreement.  I do want to respond to a few things:
>
>In article <dzqnzsr.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>That women can be sexist at all is denied by prominent feminists like
>>Dworkin, who confuse social context for sexism.
>
>I never claimed to agree with Andrea Dworkin -- she may be "prominent"
>but she doesn't represent either my views or any school of thought I
>tend to subscribe to.  I don't want to defend her and I'm not especially
>surprised if I happen to be saying something different than her.

But you do make pretty much the same "social context argument". Do you
agree with her on this? If not, why do you use the argument?
 
>I'm trying to be self-consistent in presenting my views of feminism
>and there is no particular authority responsible for my opinions.

OK, no problem there. But you are not using your own arguments. It is
difficult to use the same argument, and deny all the underlying assumptions.
In fact, with these issues, I doubt that it is possible. If you grab
arguments from two feminists who have contradicting assumptions (not at
all impossible), it may also be impossible to be self consistant. Note,
most often, when I mention Dworkin, I am told that "I (some feminist) do
not feel that way at all", or "feminists do not think that way". The latter
is demonstratably wrong, the former shows that there are many opinions.
 
>[...]
>>(Albert Lunde wrote:)
>>>- Being discriminated against in a subculture (i.e. the music fest) does 
>>>not have the same impact on the rest of my life and choices as being
>>>discriminated against in the mainstream would.
>>
>>But would not the leglislation you propose cover both? Why make the
>>distinction here, when the proposed laws make no such distinction?
>
>I'm not proposing legistation, I'm talking about my views about
>the nature and importance of sexism.  Some of the distinctions I am making
>are ethical or political but would be difficult to put into law.

If sexism is a problem, it cannot be solved by a sexist solution. This
is -all- that I have seen proposed here, with lots of justification.
 
>[...]
>>>The nearest parallel example I can think of for actual men-only events 
>>>would be Robert Bly or the radical faries.  I wouldn't call either of these
>>>events being men-only, "sexist"; though I have other disagrements with Bly.
>>>(These are almost equally marginal to the cluture at large.)
>>
>>Since I do not know what these things are, their significance escapes me.
>
>These are two flavors of the "men's movement" which have held men-only
>events of a somewhat counter-cultural flavor. Bly is credited with
>leading the "mythopoetic" men's movement, the radical faries were
>a gay men's group which worked to subvert conventional masculitity.
>
>(They are interesting to compare since Bly is very "butch" ;) and the 
>radical faries aren't; but both have done men-only rituals of a somewhat
>shaministic character.)
>
>>>Striking out in another direction, I would agree that those ideologies
>>>that suggest that women or men are *essentially* superior, are sexist.
>                                                             ^^^ ^^^^^^

So you are saying that men and women are equal? This is the same ad-hoc
assumption as the one that SEXA is better than SEXB. There are plenty of
studies that show one sex is better, in certain specific things. So what?

>>>For example, there was Sally Miller Gearheart's essay suggesting that 
>>>world peace could be obtained by reducing men to 10% of the population
>>(by non-violent means!?). (See "Reweaving the Web of Life" -- a low point
>                      ^^                                       ^ ^^^ ^^^^
>>for me in a generally good anthology.)
>
>I'm glad women are "caring", else I guess she would have suggested
>euthenasia, or perhaps a machine gun. It's a good thing she ain't sexist. :^)
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Are you not reading what I am saying or is that what the smiley face is
>about? I tried to make it clear I didn't agree with her and I thought 
>her idea was sexist. I thought at least I could offer some limiting cases
>we both would agree on....

Sorry, I'd as soon have Sally Gearheart making laws as Andrea Dworkin. And
I did get your point, apologies for not being clear.

I am still unclear on why feminists are not considered sexist, while most
men are. 
 
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism