From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Dear Starbuck
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:03:06 GMT

In article <1dlujuINNor@oregano.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>In my experience, the underlying instinctive response to any given statement
>is to believe it, without the need for justification.

Perhaps you hang out in too many conformist circles.  A lot of people I know
are contrarians whose underlying instinctive response to any given statement
is to disbelieve it.  Both of these paradigms are flawed and clearly there
must be some balance.

>In our sophisticated
>human society, we know to consiously supress this, but it still has an effect, 
>especially with extreme viewpoints on subjective matters.

That is why radical notions are good.  They get people thinking and break down
assumptions.  Radical notions are bad, of course, when they rouse more
hostility than thought.

>One group of people who do this quite a lot are the 'extreme feminists', ie 
>those people, usually women, who vigourously make absurd (to the majority)
>claims about the things men do to women including:
>(1) Telling men things about their own habits and claiming they don't know
>    what they are doing.

I have been known to do things without knowing what I am doing.  I suspect
I am not alone in this.  I am grateful when people point out my thoughtless
behaviour if they are sincerely trying to be helpful.  Do not accept feminist
dogma blindly, but do not spurn it blindly like my contrarian friends, either.

>(2) Taking evils (eg rape) that the vast majority will never commit, and 
>    reflecting them upon the 'average' man.

By assuming ourselves beyond reproach we become proud and pride can actually
lead us to the patterns of behaviours we eschew.  Casting our actions in a
broader context of right and wrong while keeping in perspective on the actual
degree of our wrongdoings can help us see things more clearly if we do not
overreact to these revelations.  Looking at Elle MacPherson is not rape, but
one should not be blinded to the truth of the analogy by the ridiculousness of
the claim.

>(3) [...]
>(4) Defining any man who argues with them as a sexist. 

Everyone in this society, man and woman alike, is sexist.  The difference is
degree and one's response to one's prejudice.

>I trust (hope) nobody will disagree that these are unacceptable in terms of
>making a rational argument that stands on its on validity.

I agree with you on (3), but disagree on the other points for the above
reasons.  IMO, your view of rationality is too narrowly restricted.

>However, as I said above, they _still_ filter through into our minds. When
>we (male and female) are exposed to enough of it, we begin to believe that
>man is the cruel oppressor and user of women. 

These subtle subconscious effects seem incongruous with your prior assertion
that we can do no wrong without realizing we have done so.  I do not
contest that your model is ultimately untenable, merely that it there are
some anomalies requiring explanation perhaps.

>So the extreme feminist rhetoric serves as a weapon. It makes men feel bad 
>when they read it, and the more ridiculous it is, the better it works. 

Guilt when not internalized and substituted for action can be a constructive
motivator for change.  Others call it conscience.

>[Moderate feminism assaulted...]
>And as a male, you simply shield yourself from it by being able to say
>'that doesnt apply to me, Im a feminist'?

Be careful, I may suspect you of promulgating ridiculous ideas yourself.  (;
Of course men are not excluded from being sexists simply by virtue of the
fact that they are feminists.

>Who can gain from this war of words?

If one gains a greater appreciation of the issues from a dialog, however
heated, that person life and the lives of those surrounding that person will
be enriched.  The trick is not to be resentful or take personally opinions
that were not personally directed.  The key is to have a positive attitude of
I will learn and grow.  You obviously see some value to this war or you would
not follow the threads.

>Men, after all, are also victims of sexism - although I accept by less - and 
>being blindly condemed either directly (by extremists) or indirectly (by the 
>moderates, via the extremists) isn't exactly going to stop them being sexist
>against women. Unfair, perhaps, but true.

Some attacks are worthwhile.  If you come out of a discussion feeling like
crap, determine why.  If it is because of the tone, shrug it off.  If it is
something deeper, reassess.  You will either find the claims valid or not.
If they are not valid, you will not be as prone to getting guilt tripped.  If
they are valid, use it as a catalyst for personal change.

>IMHO, A little consideration shown on the part of feminists would be far
>more effective in causing men to realise their own wrongdoings. You don't have
>to give in to be honest, you simply lay your cards on the table. Your 
>'opponent' is then compelled to do so himself.

Hear!  Hear!  We are in complete agreement.

>[Introduction to masculine gender issues...]
>(1) A lot of men get discriminated against by female schooltechers in pri. and
>    sec. education. I would guess 50% of males are serious victims.

In what way?  I am inclined to believe you, but since you mentioned statistics
would you care to back them up?  (At the very least with anecdotal evidence,
my personal favorite.)

>(2) The divorce laws in most countries. Need I say more?

Perhaps you should.  I agree there is injustice surrounding them, though, I
should preface.

>(3) Female's treatment of males in 'social' circumstances. This is the exact
>    equivilent of male's treatment of females in 'the workplace'.

I do not follow this argument.  In what way is this treatment equivalent?

>When I realised the prevailance of these and similar, I immediately noticed
>my own sexist prejudices (and put them to sleep). But feminism still annoys
>me because it encourages these above things in a tit-for-tat way, and so
>makes matters worse.
>
>And, hey, does it _really_ have to be called 'femin'ism?

The prevalent paradigm in society is masculine.  (You alluded obliquely to this
notion at the beginning of your post.)  Thus, equalization aims increased
appreciation of feminine qualities.

-dave


Newsgroups: alt.feminism