X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL8]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5181
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:05:32 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@AIS.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Sexism, etc.
              "KMORGAN%WHEATNMA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU" at Nov 12,
              92 05:45:00 pm

        Kathy writes:

==>        And so are these two sentences.  At least, they
==>reflect a bias which is so close to home that Rick, bless his
==>heart, doesn't even see it.  And it is a bias that disturbs
==>me very much.  The bias is present in the examples used to
==>describe and define both groups.  In these sentences,
==>masculinists are people (presumably men), who do "female-
==>bashing," which means that they "perpetuate myths which
==>disempower women," while feminists are people (presumably
==>women) who claim that "all sex is rape," which means that
==>they are "preaching hatred and prejudice under a guise of
==>supporting women."  To say that "masculinists perpetuate
==>myths which disempower women" implies that women are
==>currently disempowered by those myths (otherwise, how could
==>the masculinists be "perpetuating" something?)  However, I
==>don't understand the linking of "feminists" to sex (as an
==>_act_, for the etymologists in the audience).  First of all,
==>I've never heard any feminists (men or women) that I know say
==>that "all sex is rape," though I've heard much "female-
==>bashing" by both men and women.  And I can imagine some
==>feminist lesbians who actually like sex as an act and do not
==>view "all sex as rape."  In fact, I can imagine some
==>HETEROSEXUAL feminists, like myself for instance, who like
==>sex and do not view "all sex as rape."

        Ouch!

        I knew my phraseology was sloppy on that one, but I didn't realize I
had stated my argument =that= badly!

        By "female-bashing" masculinists and "all-sex-is-rape" feminists, I
was =not= refering to all masculinists (who are, as Kathy surmised, the male
counterpart of feminists), nor to all feminists. I was refering specifically
to a subset of those groups who =do= express those views. A good example of
the former would be the men's group leaders who present precisely the views
attributed to Bly earlier in this discussion, while the latter are
personified in the works of such femininsts as Dworkin who has expressly
written that heterosexual intercourse is INVARIABLY an expression of male
domination of women and therefore ALWAYS represents a act of rape!

        From a purely personal perspective, I consider myself a feminist
(i.e., I totally support the causes most women would associate with
feminism) and during my education I've had the very good fortune to work
closely with some truly exceptional women's rights activists whose views and
values have contributed enormously to my growth.

==>        Rick, I understand your frustration, but no group is
==>going to suddenly throw open the doors of welcome to the
==>group which they perceive has wronged them without venting a
==>little anger first.  It happened in other civil rights
==>movements.  This one is no different.  Patience, patience....

        I'm well aware of the effect in other civil rights movements - I was
a civil rights activist in the early sixties when that meant not only being
ostracized (or assaulted) by whites, but overcoming the distrust of the
black members of the movement as well. There have been many occasions on
which I was the only white on a bus filled with civil rights protesters
enroute to a demonstration. In those cases, however, once the initial
distrust was overcome I honestly believe that the communications which
opened up were of real benefit to both the other protesters and myself. I
totally believe that the same is true of groups in which the cause of
women's rights is being forwarded when men are admitted.

==>        Point I:  There is only ONE "Playgirl."  There is,
==>however, in addition to "Playboy," "Penthouse," "Hustler,"
==>"Esquire," and a whole host of others.

        Nope - that's just the most prominent. There are a number of other
similar magazines, as well as such "objectifying" materials as Chippendale's
calendars, etc. which are sold primarily to women.

        I'm =not= knocking those materials, btw, only the mind-set (far from
universal among feminists, incidently) which accuses men of viewing women as
sex objects while failing to acknowledge a similar objectification of men by
women.

        Personally, I have no problem with either sex enjoying the viewing
of such materials. My only problem is with those who insist that models who
choose to pose (male OR female) for them are being either exploited or some
sort of traitors to their sex."

==>        Point II:  The data are available which show that
==>"Playgirl"'s largest readership and the one that keeps them
==>in print consists of gay men.

        Yep.

        But studies have =also= indicated that over 50% of all Playboy
readers are women!
        Peace,

        Rick
--
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
            The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
      over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
      prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
      not a sufficient warrant.                         John Stuart Mill
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
         Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet
      anonymous users may send to anonymus+1693@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU