From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:08:27 GMT

In article <mxrnslk.payner@netcom.com> 
 payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.153043.22075@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>If I say something, it's my argument. 
>
>All arguments you mentioned have been put forth by feminists, some of them
>long ago. Are you claiming that they got their ideas from you? :^)
>
>Seriously, you may agree with them, and take the argument to heart, but
>that does not make them your arguments.

Most narrowly, I am claiming that I didn't get my present ideas
from Andrea Dworkin and that you are being exteremely dense in 
continuing to suggest otherwise.

Just because you can see a superficial resemblance our arguments
it does not follow she and I are saying the same thing or you are justified
in assuming agreement of views in the absence of other information.

This is not a course in abstract alegbra where all the axioms are
laid out. Everyone has (hidden) default assumptions. I am suggesting
by itemizing some of my assumptions that her and my default assumptions
differ and therefore our conclusions and the practical application of
our views will likely differ.

(I think most of the concerns expressed my Andrea D. have been dealt
with by other feminists -- sometimes in better ways - Mary Daly's
Gyn/Ecology covers the same topics about misogyny that "Women Hating"
does, for example.)

More broadly, when I claim a set of ideas for my own, I am saying that
I am choosing how to sythesize the ideas -- what to include and exclude --
and that I am speaking on my own authority, not relying on Jesus,
Saint Paul, Mary Daly, Gloria Steinem, or whoever.

I stand indebted to a fairly broad selection of feminist thought and
women's writing, and by now it gets hard to footnote all my original
sources, since I've internalized a lot.

[...]
>Longer than I, but that does not disqualify my observations. But tell me
>what pro-female goals been achieved in this period? Note, anti-male
>leglislation and rallies against the 'male chauvenistic pigs' are not
>pro-female.

This sounds like a "have-you stopped beating your wife" sort of question.

Since I didn't claim feminism had achieved anything; this is really
changing the subject. But, yes feminism has done something.

This is taken for granted to the extent that people saying "I'm not
a feminist but...[list of feminist agendas believed in]" is a common
response.

Liberal and "cultural" feminism have the most to point to in mainstream
and alternative institutions. Radical feminism in its original form
is nearly gone but had a big effect on the "marketplace of ideas".


>>Let's see if I can hit some high points:
>>
>>- I am a man. Perhaps a little deviant from the norm ;) -- but this makes
>>it less likely that I would accept a point of view that treats men as
>>hopeless.  
>
>I do not see that this follows, although it may well be true.

Not an argument from boolean logic, but from likelyhood. I am suggesting 
the *radical* notion that I *might* consider my self-interest.

[...]
>Most, from my observation, would change things to what females would
>desire, without regard to males. Bring up the toilet seat sometime.
>You'd be amazed at how angry some women get at not having things left
>exactly as they need it, they could care less that men have to go
>through the opposite ritual after they have used the toilet. There is
>no balance even in small things. 

I'm amazed at the trival issues you raise, and since I usually sit down
at a toilet this is a non-issue for me. Which way do you roll toilet
paper? :-)

[...]
>>I think it is politically silly and theortically shaky to rank oppressions
>>and claim that all other oppressions derive from and are secondary to
>>sexism -- which distingushes my view from one definition of "radical 
>>feminism".
>
>Dworkin and MacKinnon may be a statistically insignificant percentage of
>the number of feminists, but they are doing far more than most of the
>rest put together. They are not minor players. If the major effect of
>the feminist movement is achieved by a few extremists, how then can it
>be claimed that the feminist movement is not extremist? Like the lurkers
>on the net, most who claim to be feminists contribute nothing. This is
>not good nor bad, but I see no point in counting them in either.

This is a non-sequiter with respect to the quote from me
immediately preceeding; since the in/significance of Dworkin is not
related to ranking oppressions. Are you responding or just changing the
subject?

I don't consider them "the major effect" of feminism - just one of 10 or
20 areas where some form of feminism has had an effect.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................