From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dworkin (was Re: Liberty)
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:04:38 GMT


I'm happy to see that here in 93 we see the return of civility
and honest discourse even while disagreeing.

on with the show :-)

>In article <1993Jan5.030042.10601@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com
>(D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>o>For one thing, I don't buy that *their numbers are massive*
>o>.  Give me some examples of overzealous woman hating writers
>o>who publish similar material to Dworkins, but with women as
>o>the subject?

>o>Do you really think that a male writer could postulate that
>o>acts of rape are really deeply emotional bonds energeticly
>o>exercised without being publicly vilified?

>In article <1992Dec30.043029.10104@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>Sure.  Look at the hundreds of mystery novels and pulp mags
>churned out monthly, elaborating the Mickey Spillane model
>in one way or another.  Woman-hating is good business, apart
>from the fact that it stinks.  You don't have to buy the
>stuff or read it; just look at the cover art.

I guess I see that stuff as exploitative, and not intentionally hateful.
I guess I should also admit that I've never read any Micky Spillane 
and have no interest in the genre whatsoever so really don't know.

I think I mean non-fiction.. books in the same Genre as Andrea Dworkins
but with the genders reversed.

Mind you. I'm not postulating that they don't exist, I just don't know about
any. 

I suppose that I do agree with some aspects of the argument
that pornographic exploitation of women  is a problem in our society,
but I am loathe to eat away at first ammendment rights to deal with 
that problem, as I believe that such a remedy would turn into an
even bigger problem.

>o>I suppose that there are indeed massive numbers of clueless
>o>men who can't think beyond the end of their dicks, but that
>o>is a sign of ignorance and insensitivity, not women-hating.

>Steve has an excellent point: ask those who see the dick
>from the other angle.

I agree and I answered Steves point.
I'm talking from my perspective, I think dialogue with different
perspectives involved makes for better conversation, and ultimately thats
what this thread is.

Clearly, for women, its more than conversation, and the perspective
they get is different.

>o>It seems to me that we are at the crux of a major paradigm
>o>shift regarding the interaction of the sexes.  We carry a
>o>lot of baggage in certain portions of our grey matter that
>o>seems unsuitable for our journey into the future.

>I think this last is safely said, but if we are at the crux
>of a major paradigm shift, I wonder what you see as the
>evidence, apart from fond hopes, perhaps.

You and I are only about a half generation apart in age, we 
both lived in an America where the job/career oportunitys for
women outside of a closely prescribed set were scarce, and
individual women who broke gender barriers in the workplace
made headlines.

I remember a period of time when the barriers started falling fast
and furious, until the point when such individual efforts became 
relatively normal operating procedure.

beyond that though, I see lots of evidence that we as beings are
poised on teh brink of many cutting edges , all at the same time.
I think Clintons phrase *We can't aford to waste anybody* sums up
the new pardigm I *feel* coming.

>o>I suspect that social/cultural programming can go a long way
>o>to modifying how the genders interact, but I doubt that the
>o>basic *battle of the sexes*

>Not while that phrase is in use, at any rate.

Thats why I used it.

>o>will change significantly while reproduction of the species
>o>is still accomplished through natural means.

>The definition of "natural" will be the greater part of the
>change, probably.  

well, lets call it making babys the old fashioned way :-)

>I don't think women are subjugated by the
>biological fact of bearing children; it's the other things.

I do.
I think the *other things*  are engendered by the burden of the 
child bearing role.
For example, back when you and I were school boys, women would not be 
hired in any position of importance in a corporation, because they
had a propensity to get pregnant and leave. Back then women were 
expected to stay at home, while the husband supported them. 

These things have changed significantly in the last 3 decades,
though many of the attitudes that prevailed still loom.

My mother divorced my father when I was 6, and since she had a profession,
a womens profession - hairdressing, she was able to support us.
But the way women are payed in relation to men affected me directly.
We had to live on a womens salary, and I can tell you it was definitly
a problem. 

>o>Obviously when (or if) the means of reproducing the species
>o>is accomplished ex-utero, we would also have necesarily
>o>developed the means to change lots of things about ourselves
>o>and the gender gap would be a non-issue.

>You could be right, but it seems more like whistling in the
>dark to me.  By the way, there is no necessary precedent for
>supposing that a technological advance corresponds to a
>social advance, especially not such a far-reaching one.

yeah, a flight of fancy perhaps, but I agree with you on that last point.

>j>>but if men
>j>>are going to try to render Dworkin such a demon, then to be
>j>>at all credible, they are going to have to move heaven and
>j>>earth in an effort to rectify women's inequities, in the
>j>>process impeaching largely themselves, which they are
>j>>singularly loath to do.

>o>Dworkin isn't a demon who threatens the power establishment,

>Questionable.  The reaction to her suggests she's getting on
>*someone's* nerves quite a bit.  People don't usually have
>hysterics (which they almost invariably do in the presence
>of Dworkin the topic) unless they're threatened *somehow*.

The hysterics are not coming from the seats of power.
the hysterics are coming fom hysterics, I find them hysterical.

I should add that I am not arguing to silence or censor A.D. .
I admire a shit stirrer of her caliber :-)

>o>Dworkin does nothing to uplift the position of women.

>Shouldn't women be the judge of that?

Perhaps I phrased my point poorly.
Her material may well inspire and motivate women, and that would
be a good thing. I mean that she seeks to improve her position
by bringing down the other party. as I see it that is not the same as
gaining ground for yourself without any net loss in the overall balance.

>o>She focuses sharply on the injustice of the situation, she
>o>exposes the vast extent and deep entrenchment of the
>o>imbalance of power, but she offers nothing that deals
>o>positively with the issue.

>I thought the excerpt CJ Lee gave us yesterday rebuts that.

perhaps, I guess I don't mean to imply that every point of every
statemenet she makes is totally negative, but I do think that taken
as a cohesive program, it winds up in a negative result.

>o>She can agitate some, she can irritate others, she can beat
>o>her breast and wail till the cows come home, but her polemic
>o>style can only fail the cause of empowering women.

>When no one can say, why predict?

habit?

No really, I like powerful women, and I'd like to see more.
I think we will, and that gender based discrimination deserves
to go the way of the shoe-hook. 



>o>I think that the *Ellen James Society* depicted in "The
>o>world according to Garp" pretty well satirizes the utimately
>o>destructive nature of such self defeating tactics.

>Just one model, of many.

I didn't say it was the only model, but it points out the 
particular type of thing I was talking about.

>o>Power is an individual thing, and each person either finds
>o>it within themselves or accepts it from outside themselves.
>o>Most of us are relatively powerless, even those who weild
>o>authority.  Your power in this world stems from your resolve
>o>to *have* it.  People like Andrea Dworkin spend too much
>o>energy wanting power and leave no time to *have* it.

>Too facile.

don't confuse its simplicity for inefectiveness in *facil*itating change
in an individual. This concept was instrumental in my own transitions
from victim-mentality to the dynamic master of all I survey :-)

You may have heard that our company has a new CEO, Carol Bartz.
She didn't just *break through* the glass ceiling, she defeated it.
therein is a subtle difference. 
At Clintons economic summit, when it was her turn to speak, she outlined
her own methodology, which is to study the issue, make decisions, and
then get on with it. Notice that these all center within her own self
and work out from there as a base.
Sometimes the hardest things to do are the easiest.

>o>People who have power understand well that they can only
>o>exercise their own power, and don't waste time being envious
>o>of someone elses power.  (If they don't understand this ,
>o>they don't hold onto it very long)

>Quite a number of them have too much and hold it long enough
>to do real damage.  That Hitler ultimately failed (and did
>he?) doesn't undo the camps.  Besides, it seems to me closer
>to the truth that the desire to have power (your "envy") is
>a major component of the destructiveness we're talking
>about.

I shifted from the marco-social (cultural) scale to the micro-social 
(individual) scale somewhere in taht article. Perhaps I was too abrupt
or not clear about that. Also I'm talking more about self-worth,
and where you derive it than external power.

>o>Men don't need to *impeach* themselves to assist the
>o>empowerment of women.
>
>Call it something else then; the point is, they *do* have to
>do a major piece of work on themselves, even if in the
>end it all boils down to getting out of the way.

Oh, making room for women on an equal basis, is exactly what I'm saying.
I'd like it to happen in ways that increase the overall self-worth
of everybody, not just knock some off the other guy and paste it on your
self!

>o>We need to work towards a society that operates on the
>o>principle of fairness, and recognises the right of the
>o>individual to own themself.  We live in a society that still
>o>maintains the vestigal systems by which women have been kept
>o>the property of men.

>Vestigial, my heinie.  Integral, foreground, omnipresent and
>omnipotent.  

interesting, your choice of words imply that there is no hope.
I have hope, and that allows me to envision a future that is
different from the present.

>The goal is nice, but it's not exactly heaving
>into view.

no, its not , but to paraphrase WC Fields from *My little Chicadee*
maybe we can just slip 'em under the door. :-)

>o>Men need to be fair in their dealings with women and
>o>equitably share opportunity to make their way in the world
>o>without taking undue advantage of differences in strength or
>o>previous privilege.

>Easily said, but what are men doing about it *lately*?  As I
>mention, just getting out of the way would be a step.

I do what I can, isn't that enough?
See my answer to the next ( and last ) bits.

>o>I do not believe that Andrea Dworkin leads us on a path
>o>towards anything resembling that goal.

>"Anything resembling" cuts a pretty wide swath, wide
>enough, it seems to me, to undercut your claim.

Back up 5 words from the ones you singled out.
since I claim that A.D.'s methodology seeks to tear down men in order to
enhance the position of women it results in a net negative gain for 

*us*

which includes my sisters and my brothers.
Who is undercutting who.


LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.