From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:05:16 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct7.184233.21485@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
(Richard Lynch) writes:

[HG]
%She claimed that ERA will prevent men-only draft.  This is not true
%because in a war time the president can ignore parts of the Constitution
%using the war powers act.  Therefore the president will have no problem
%to draft only men.  (And the president can also draft women today...)

[RL]
>There's something fundamentally wrong with an argument that says that a law
>that we are arguing about doesn't apply under the extreme condition of the
>President suspended the Constitution using the War Powers Act.

The president can over-ride constitutional protections even when there
is no emergency.  E.g. men were drafted, and their freedom was taken away
by that, when there was no war.  Nothing prevents the president from
doing the same once again, and the same court that refused to stop regular
draft because it took away men's freedom will be able to use the same
legal arguments once again.

MacKinnon *knows* that pretty well, but she still tries to sale
her snake oil for a good price.

>The ERA (had it passed) would have made a male-only draft far less likely.

Please present some legal arguments for that.

#[CM]
#Women are poor, and pay is at least as far from being sex-equal as it
#was before the passage of legislation guaranteeing equality by law.

>So her statement is old enough that it may have been true then, no?

[HG]
%No.  (Read sometimes about 1964 if you still miss the point.)

>I could waste a lot of time reading a lot of things about 1964.  Why don't you
>just tell me your point?  

The point is that in 1964 discrimination against women was legal,
and it was done in zillion of companies without any cover.  The
pay scales for men and women with the *same* education and experience
were *tilted*.  There is no such data for 1987, and those women
who were around in 1964 claim that there was a *change*.

>I'm tired of second-guessing your arguments, though.

If you want to debate a subject then please learn it first.

#Under the rule of gender neutrality, the law of custody and divorce has
#been transformed, giving men an equal chance at custody of children 
#and alimony.

[HG]
%%"A cheap out" is the main-stream feminists way of dealing with
%%discrimination against men.  They look for ways that will look like
%%equality while preserving all women's extra rights.

[RL]
>>What extra rights?  
>>Custody?  Again time will take care of this.  

[HG]
%Custody, no draft, priority for life-boats, priority for less
%qualified women via affirmative action, choice-for-women and
%no-choice-for-men.

>But MacKinnon claimed that it [custody] has already been done...

That's her cheap out.

>Life-boats?  Any preference given to who gets in a life-boat 
>first is certainly not a legal rule.  

Breaking the rule can cost you a bullet in your head, with
no legal sanction against those who enforce this "no rule."

>If you're really concerned with this issue, wouldn't the ERA have covered it?

No.

>I've already posted in other threads that I'm not too keen on the current
>potential loophole for injustice re mens-choice.

Do you have a similar approach for women's choice?

>The issue here is your labeling stuff garbage.  Let's see some garbage 
>feminist cow-shit [see below] on these very issues.

I view MacKinnon claims as garbage; feel free to disagree.

[RL]
>I'd be happy to see affirmative action die...and non-discrimination stay/come.
>But don't try to kill AA and revert to discrimination.

Well, what do you suggest to do, aside from praying?

>>Or I'll bet that the custody goes 50/50 when half the judges are women.  

[HG]
%Feminist Cow-shit.

[RL]
>No comment.

Don't you want to try to explain how your reached your claim?

[RL]
>>While we're at it, she's *already* made a pro-equality statement here.  
>>ie, the laws are [and should be] unbiased by gender in custody cases.  

[HG]
%Talk is *cheap*.

%She claimed that men have an equal chance in custody, not just that 
%the laws are unbiased.  Can you see the difference?

[RL]
>You're the one who is all worked up about her talk.
>She said that the law had been changed to give men an equal chance.  

\begin{sarcasm}
And I tied two sticks together and said that I created a space ship;
so now we have a way to reach the moon.
\end{sarcasm}

>You've got an equal chance by the law.  Then you gotta go
>fight with society's mind-set.  Sound familiar?

After the EEO was passed in 1964 a woman who was discriminated against
had the option to sue a company.  Today a judge who discriminates
against men on a regular basis can't be sued for that.

Got that?

[HG]
%Very different criteria were used for the statements.  By the "logic" of
%statement 2) women had equality after the EEO was passed in 1964.  The
%double standards show, in *my* opinion, that MacKinnon is not honest.
%The EEO of 1964 out-lawed discrimination against women, but MacKinnon 
%claimed in 1987 that no difference happened.  Then she goes to say
%that because the custody laws were changed then men have "equal chance."
%
%Don't you see that as a double standard?

>[RL]
>Was her claim that custody had improved in real-terms for men but that pay for
>women had not?

To prove her point about employment she uses "statistics;" she does not
use any statistic to prove her point about custody.  Can't you see that
different criteria are used?  Can't you see that under "the law test"
women had equal employment opportunity after 1964?

#She becomes 
#something to be used by him, especially, an object for his sexual use.

[RL]
>>So do you want to regulate what can and can't be in Playboy?  

[HG]
%NO.
%
%The regulation of the textile industry working condition tried to prevent
%sweat-shop style working conditions, not to say what can be written
%on a T shirt.
%
%Regulation can reduce the exploitation on the porno industry, 
%and quite a few people (e.g. Califia and COYOTE) had made the 
%point long before MacKinnon posted her "analysis."

>[RL]
>You say no, but then suggest regulation to reduce exploitation.  

Exploitation of the *workers*, not of MacKinnon & Dworkin.

>I assume you are speaking of consent forms and the like.

Very good.

(Safety issues too.
E.g. legal prostitution will probably give prostitutes better
protection than what they have today.)

>But this does not address the "problem" MacKinnon is concerned about:
>The unequal treatment of women as sex objects, ie more often than men.

That's her problem, not mine.

[RL]
>>>that _Playboy_ really shouldn't exist in that better world we all yearn for.>

[HG]
%No, just create your own commune and run there your experiments
%with people who want to be there.

[RL]
>No thanks.  I'll stick around and make sure the world is one I can live in.
>As I expect you to.

I'm not going to free anyone against their will.

[RL]
>>By better world, I'm thinking of one where nudity and pornography are not an
>>issue because it's no big deal because people aren't hung up about it from
>>illogical training.

[HG]
%There would always be fantasies that porno can supply.

[RL]
>Hey, I've got no problem with that.  My prediction was that with more equality,
>and more mutual respect between men and women, and more frank discussion, etc
>people will be happier with reality and fantasize less.

What is your prediction based on?

[RL]
>>Yep.  Consenting adults who want to hurt each other and enjoy being hurt is
>>fine by me.  S&M seems kinda sick to me, but I'm not gonna get in their way

[HG]
%30 years ago good liberals said something like "homosexuals seem kinda 
%sick to me, but I'm not gonna get in their way;" today the good
%liberals (and vanilla gays...) preserve the attitude to S&M.

%Do you have any guess why I don't want to be in your "perfect world"?

[RL]
>Not really.  I've made it clear that things that I don't like that are 
>none of my business are just that.  none of my business.

In *my* perfect world the line of "you don't live your life by my 
standards therefore you are sick." will not be used.  
                            ^^^^

[HG]
%I bet that in a violence-free world there will be more S&M.

[RL]
>Maybe.  Maybe more S&M would CAUSE less violence.

I don't think so.

[HG]
%I'm well known all over the net as an MCP, and I still fight in 
%talk.abortion for choice-for-women every now and then.

[RL]
>That's nice, but every now and then isn't very often, 

So?

[RL]
>>When was the last time the gay rights supporters helped
>>feminist causes that would help them?

[HG]
%Check soc.motss sometimes.

>I would, but alt.feminism is already taking too much time.  :-)

So leave alt.feminism and check soc.motss for a week.
You'll learn a lot.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Hillel                                                   gazit@cs.duke.edu
"You certainly manage to make a woman feel like an object rather than a person."
   Nancy McLuhan to Billy the Poet (K. Vonnegut, "Welcome to the Monkey House")
Newsgroups: alt.feminism