From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: I confess!... *HE'S* guilty!!!!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:44:53 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
|>| But what evidence is there that there are NO inherent mental differences?
|>| [....]  then the proposition
|>| is unfalsifiable.  It becomes a matter of faith.
|>| 
|>| "Feminism" is not a set of logical postulates that can be debated, analyzed,
|>| and resolved.  It's a religion, pure and simple.   ...

gf:
| >You seem to be almost entirely ignorant of feminist theory.

db:
| Not so "ignorant" as to believe in it.  I probably know a lot
| less about the nuances of astrology and faith healing than do
| the purveyors of the stuff, but I know enough to see that there 
| are certain aspects of it that are, shall we say, not firmly grounded
| in reality.
| 
| The term "feminist" is so vague as to be almost useless.  Whenever
| anyone tries to define a "feminist" position "X" for the sake of argument,
| there is always someone who pops up and objects that "not all" feminists
| agree with "X", and so it's not fair to label "X" as a "feminist position". 
| 
| For example:

gf:
| >First of all, there _are_ feminists who accept the idea that
| >there are significant inherent differences between men and
| >women, although this is not a majority opinion.  

db:
| So a "feminist" is either someone who believes that there is NO inherent
| mental difference between the sexes (the implicit definition of the poster
| to whom I had originally responded), or else a "feminist" is someone who
| believes that there IS a difference.  Did you know there are also Pro-Life
| "feminists"?  I guess that means that Pro-Life is a "feminist" position too. 

So feminism is too vague to attribute any specific beliefs
to; nevertheless, its specific beliefs are wrong.  Well,
let's do one thing at a time.

I guess you missed all of the many discussions on the Net
and in the media about this question.  I realize this is
tiresome to most of our readers, but apparently it is our
duty to once again recite the obvious: feminism is not a
single uniform system of belief in the manner of a religious
cult.  It can best be described by St. Augustine's term "a
community of affections."  There are three related interests
in feminism: (1) equality for women, in other words, good
old classical liberalism applied to gender; (2) benefit for
women as a specific group, e.g. abortion rights; (3)
revaluation of the feminine in our culture.  Not every
feminist is interested in all of these general interests,
and not every feminist has the same theory about them.

The idea that biology creates an inherent, significant
difference between the sexes has generally been a minority
position among feminists.  It has been far more popular with
earlier theories of female inferiority.  Where you get the
idea that it is some kind of general feminist belief is
beyond me; the last prominent person to espouse it publicly
was Marilyn Quayle at the Republican Convention, unless you
account Robert Sheaffer prominent.  (I hear he showed up on 
television as an official TV skeptic!)  Do you mistake 
_them_ for feminists?

db: 
| I have probably read a lot more feminist literature than you have.  

No doubt.  I encourage you to keep working on it.

db:
                                                           I even
| had a subscription to Ms magazine, back in the days when it was still
| fashionable among feminists to sneer at women who stay home and take care
| of children.  A sizable portion of feminist literature is hate literature;
| hatred of men, and hatred of women in traditional roles.  I presume you 
| don't consider it to be "real" feminism to believe that all heterosexual
| sex is rape (Dworkin), or that all men are murderers at heart (Chesler).
| Or maybe you agree with it, but only so far as it applies to men OTHER THAN
| YOURSELF.  "I confess, HE's guilty!!" 

If there were no Dworkin, anti-feminists would have to
invent one; and often, reading these newsgroups, I think
they have.  I hope to go into the cult of anti-feminism
sometime, which seems far more coherent than feminism.  To
wit: certain alleged feminists, almost invariably Dworkin,
MacKinnon, sometimes Chesler or Brownmiller, are carefully
scanned for remarks which can be taken out of context and
waved about whenever any question related to feminism 
arises.  The entire remaining body of feminist literature
and activity is ignored, because it _doesn't_matter_.  The
point is to attack feminism, not to know what it is.  It
seems it is enough to recognize it as The Other, and to
score points.  Whoever dies with the most points wins, I
guess.

gf:
| >there is a very large body of feminist writing which is at
| >least as rational as any other kind of writing on the same
| >subjects (mostly, politics and social issues).  

db:
| There is a very large body of RELIGIOUS writing that meet those same
| criteria, going all the way back to the Talmud and the writings of
| Thomas Aquinas.  There are volumes of infinitely logical, precise and
| elegant discursions on such topics as the obligations of slaves, whether or
| not christians must be circumcised, and how many angels can dance on the 
| head of a pin.  

So what?  The logic here is: some religious writing is
rational; some feminist writing is rational; therefore, all
feminist writing is religious.  Surely you can do better
than this if you try.

db:
| The trouble with rationality is that it's just like your computer; garbage in,
| garbage out.  If you start with a premise that is false, then all you end
| up with is castles in the air. 

But in the case of feminism, the "false premise" was
something you invented; or rather, you took a marginal
position and pretended it was universal.  Talk about
gigo....

gf:
| >There's nothing wrong with ignorance -- we all start out
| >with it -- but on the other hand, it's not really something
| >to flaunt.

db:
| So why do you keep doing it, then? 

Sir, your mastery of repartee is awe-inspiring.

db:
| Believe it or not, the quintessence of all wisdom does not lie in playing
| the Uncle-Tom/Sensitive-Male-Protector for a bunch of women of whom a 
| sizable portion would like to make you a second-class citizen.
| ...
| PS. WHY is it that the worst male-bashers on the net are always men????

Does this last question refer to me?  I invite you to scan
the Net -- what is now present, or any archives you can use
-- and find a single sentence in which I have bashed males
as such.  I think you are continuing to demonstrate an
impressive ignorance.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.women:22142 soc.men:22144 alt.feminism:6814 talk.abortion:54142 alt.abortion.inequity:6301