From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Movers Prime and Not
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 02:27:05 GMT


In article <C0nsqM.E0t@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara
Chibnik) writes:

>Tim Mohler said:

Actually, I wrote it, not Tim.  Pending correction to the
contrary, I'll assume the couple references below to Tim's
remarks therefore refer to my remarks.  You may have meant
him, but it's me you've quoted here:

>>>>It's male privilege that animates and sustains sexism,
>>>>probably.

>A couple of articles later, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess
>Anderson) responded to my:

>>>Ow.

>>Ow?  That hurt?  Where and why?

>Because the task of picking apart the twisted and fragile
>threads of reasoning in this area -- understanding the basis
>of sexism -- is not a task I relish undertaking in
>newsgroups.

I'm a little flummoxed by this remark.  Are you saying
there's a bind of some kind, because you can't let it go
without comment *and* are reluctant to take it up?  I mean,
to speak to the second fork, I'm not trying to wheedle a
response out of you unless you *want* to respond.

But on the first part, you seem on the verge of saying
sexism can't be discussed here without you.  This doesn't
fit well with all my prior impressions, so perhaps I am not
hearing your concerns sufficiently.

>I'm deleting a lot of the discussion for that reason,
>although there are a couple of points that I'll answer here.

Here you seem to be saying you found my arguments in the
deleted parts twisted and fragile.  I don't understand why
you would have seen it that way, but perhaps you didn't; I
really can't tell.

>>You're right that ending sexism involves many changes in
>>women's habits, not just in men's. [ ... ] But would you say
>>that apart from this co-optation, women are themselves a
>>primary source of the dynamic that creates and continues
>>sexism in our society?  

>I say that it is impossible to tell.

I don't think this is your drift, but I want to be
clear, since it seems to me an important point.  You're
not saying there can be no analysis of the sources
and dynamics of sexism *at all*, I assume, but rather
that an analysis must be first of all systemic.

If that's it, I certainly wouldn't disagree.

>I also say that it's not apt to be _men_ who have done the
>co-opting, but a system that involves all of us, in which
>those positions that involve perceptible power are
>traditionally held by men.  But there is enormous power to
>be had in the rearing and educating of children, tasks that
>are more often performed by women than by men.

>Of course, the women performing those jobs have, for the
>most part, been co-opted.  Any "non-co-opted" woman is
>competing with men for jobs in medicine, law, engineering,
>politics, and the education of adults.  Those are the jobs
>that we label "important." And it is women, as well as men,
>who make this argument.  Certainly men contribute to it by
>their lack of proportional interest in competing for jobs
>traditionally held by women.

This makes sense to me, but I continue to feel (for whatever
reason) that male privilege, which I see as a force that
largely ignores women and women's roles, is something of a
foundation-stone concept.

>>Yes indeed.  I don't see the model as some sort of privilege
>>pie that just has to be shared more equally, though there's
>>no reason not to pursue that objective too.  Rather, the
>>idea of privilege *itself* seems a root source of the
>>problem, somehow.

>The idea of finite privilege that must be split among
>competitors is, I think, very close to the heart of the
>problem.

This seems to say that once the pie is equitably shared, all
will be well.  But I think such ideas as competition itself,
quantitative as opposed to qualitative measures, and a
general disregard for holistic thinking underlie not only
this but also other social problems.  Indeed, I think they
may be key to the systemic nature of many oppressions.

>>>But I don't like considerations of the topic that make it
>>>look as though sexism would vanish if only those nasty men
>>>would get a clue.  I wish it were that easy!

>>Well, I didn't see any suggestion to that effect in the
>>preceding.

>That was probably a defensive knee-jerk reaction on my part
>to any discussion of feminism on the net.  You now have a
>feminist on record in this discussion has having made this
>point.

Have I heard you?

>It often seems to me that there are a lot of men who hear
>such statements as Tim made and jump to the conclusion that
>they have been personally attacked as villains of the piece.

(Statements like I made?) I think that happens, quite a lot.
As I see it, some men *are* villains in the piece.  There
are, to be sure, varieties of villain.  If you're speaking
to concern for men who self-indict for no particular good
reason, I not so sure that is all that common a phenomenon.
Also, no one would deny that there are women villains too.

>I continue to see Tim's assertions as reasonable, but highly
>simplified statements of a problem that I would not express
>without a great deal more hedging.  This, of course, is
>typical of how women (as contrasted with men) express
>themselves.

(My assertions?)  It seems to me there needs to be
room for overlap between the styles in which some men and
some women express themselves; this would take nothing
away from your general remark.  One form of hedging, too,
is simplification.

>(If you want to pursue this, email is fine with me.  I have
>been engaged in a particularly stimulating discussion of
>feminism arising from the dreadful thread on "inclusive
>pronouns" that spilled over from soc.bi a little while ago.)

For myself, actually, I'd rather talk about it in public
than in private.  The mail just backs up; nowadays I can
only respond to about 10% of it, most of that urgently
related to business.

-- 
[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 <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss