From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:50:45 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

>In article <1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>> Do you think men, as a class, *are* victims of the female power structure?

In the referenced article, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>  No, because I don't think there *is* much of a female power structure.

So you are saying that men, as a class, *are* victims of the
female power structure, although we disagree on how strong it is.

>I'm fairly certain if women had a (virtual) monopoly on power like men
>do, then men would suffer similarily.

Well if I'm a man and have a virtual monopoly on power, why
am I so poor?  And why are so many men poor, when they could
be rich simply by taking money from rich women?  Could it be
that, amazingly, we don't actually have that power?

Or perhaps I misunderstood and you meant that the people who
have the (political) power are mostly men...  But what the
hell would that have to do with me or the other 99.9% of men
and women in the world not in power?  Absolutely Nothing.  I
would suffer as much as anyone else.

>> >what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>> >action from another(s).
>> By that definition, almost everyone is a victim of almost everyone else.
>
>  Not at all.  I can't think of ever being harmed by anyone on
>alt.feminism, for instance.

People's actions usually affect other people, and each time
there is a reasonable probability the effect is harmful.  I
hope you can see that very quickly everyone becomes a 'victim'
of everyone they interact with, including on alt.feminism.

>> It is much
>> better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
>> to a class which doesn't deserve it.
>
>  Why is it "better", pray tell?

Because all individuals are unique.  To judge someone by
their membership of a group is to ignore all of their unique
attributes and impose a lowest-common-denominator description,
which is probably not very useful and is often inaccurate. 
That is why stereotypes are usually considered harmful.

                                   You don't think that it's useful to
>talk about women and black people in this country as a class?  You don't
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've noticed the common practice of trying to gain sympathy
for women by associating them with another group which has
accepted problems (e.g. black people).

I prefer to argue for something on its own merits.

>think it's useful to discuss that they are opressed, as a class?  You

It's fine to perform a statistical analysis and say, e.g.
men are more likely to be murdered than women.  It is OK
to say of a particular man that he was a victim.  But to
claim *a class* is oppressed without qualifying the
statement is bullshit.

Let me remind you of what you were saying.

% In article <22549@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
% # Where I see feminist thinking as being faulty for example is in trying to
% # convince women that they are all victims, that they have no power, and in
                                 ^^^
% # trying to place the blame for all failures of women on men.
                                  ^^^
% zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) responds:
% #  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.

You disliked the idea that *a few* women may not be victims so
you extended the idea of victimisation from individuals to a
whole group, now all are automatically victims.  This is the
sort of rhetoric underlying racism.

>can (almost) always come up with examples of people in the class of
>victims/oppressed/whatever that have never had a problem, or at least

Of course you can't.  Someone who is a person in the class of victims
*by definition* has a problem.  Presumably you mean the class of
women/whites/whatever... (your confusion speaks volumes).
If you admit some women aren't victims, it makes your class
rhetoric pretty meaningless, doesn't it.

>will say so.  So, we have a black man and a white woman in the supreme
>court now.  Does this mean that there aren't problems and
>discrimination, just because some token representation exists?

I'm not sure what you're arguing.  Where have I said
discrimination doesn't exist?

> -- d

Toby