From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.213659.16370@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.210259.24543@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>>Mr. Payne, you seem to have a hard time grasping the *possibility*
>>>>that some of the imbalance in porn is simply due to the different
>>>>ways that boys and girls and raised in this world.  Why is this so
>>>>hard to grasp?
>> 
>>>Richard Lynch is -not- just claiming "possibility". He is claiming
>>>causality, and because of this causality, he is claiming discrimination.
>>
>>Sigh.  Do I really have to go back through all those inane posts and
>>count the times he used the word "possibility"?  I *know* I have seen
>>it numerous times.
>
>Well, I claim it is -possible- that you (as usual) have missed what -I-
>have posted. It is just as valid as what RL posts, even if rini does
>not agree, and cannot read my words for meaning. 
>
>As for going over the posts, do whatever you damn well please. 

I -have- repeatedly theorized that porn imbalance causes discrimination.  I
have *never* stated it as a fact.  I have recently also theorized that
discrimination causes the porn imbalance, ie it is a self-sustaining cycle.

You have repeatedly rejected this hypothesis because you claim it is unprovable
and you can come up with an equally valid hypothesis.

So now we both have hypotheses neither of us can prove.

However, the tone of your posts often seems to me to be that your hypothesis is
inherently better.

Yet, when a suggestion is made that since women's porn only appeared after the
women's movement, all you have to say is some basic philosophy about how
things change and that if I was right the women's movement could never have 
increased women's porn.  Well, I got news for you.  Things *are* as bad as I
paint them, but some very strong people have worked and are working very hard
to change them.  My whole point is that one of the reasons this particular
change is so difficult may be that discrimination is a self-sustaining cycle.

In terms of searching articles, why don't you try and find just one where I
stated the causality as a forgone conclusion.  You have continually painted me
as making statements as fact when I have always made hypotheses.


>>>>I don't think our biology has changed that much in the last fifty
>>>>years, so I do tend to believe that the changing social atmosphere 
>>>>(including the women's movement) is responsible for that.
>> 
>>>No, a new balance will eventually be reached. So where is the problem?
>>
>>I don't know what you mean by "balance."  
>
>Then you probably had no idea what RL meant by balance either. So how
>the hell is it that you are explaining -his- post to me?

*I* know what you mean by balance, anyway.  Yes, a new balance will be reached.
But that balance is determined by each of us.  And the problem is when people
want a balance that isn't all that balanced.  Feminism fights against 
balances where women get the short end of the stick.  [You can add that to the
list of general feminist principals that you can't seem to find here, btw.]


>>                                           Anyway, I think the historical
>>data are consistent with the idea that traditional female roles are
>>associated with the lack of desire for pornography on the part of 
>>women.  
>
>Cause and effect is -not- implied by correlation. Neither does this give
>any evidence of what women would buy given an absence of these social
>roles, it could -possibly- be exactly the same. The historical data
>proves nothing, either way. Nor does it even give evidence either way.
>the case is 100% unproven so far, just conjecture.

Sorry, Rich, but I have to disagree with you somewhat.  C&E is not deducable
from correlation alone, but correlation can be an indicator of C&E.  That's why
scientists look at correlations in the first place!  The historical data does
not *prove* anything, but it certainly is supportive of the theory.
Now it would be great if we could find some experiments that would clearly
prove or disprove either your or my theory, but we can't.  [At least I don't
think we can.]  So we're stuck with looking at the available data and picking
the best theory.  BTW, what data do you have that would be supportive of your
biological differences theory?

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