From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Dworkin and her positive contributions to feminism?
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:47:43 GMT

In article <BuFCM8.Gw7@intime.intime.COM> scottm@intime.intime.COM (Scott Michel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.135003.19159@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>>[ ... truncated ... ]
>>>
>[ ... truncated (again) ... ]
>>Actually, I think that moderate and less extreme feminists are 
>>out there attempting to change perceptions.  You see it out  
>>on the net every day.  
>
>Yes, but the net isn't the popular press. Even in the tilted Los Angeles
>Times (no they don't report news, they constantly anal-yse it for me),
>you don't get anything about the moderate feminists at all.

There are a lot of "feminist" activities that do not necessarily 
receive the "feminist" label.  For instance, I know a union man 
who is outraged over sexist treatment being suffered by a co-
worker of his.  He is a leader in his local and took it upon 
himself to join the union's commission that handles 
harrassment issues.  He is working to get both the union and
management to recognize that sexual harrassment, although 
in this case not highly provable, is still damaging to the 
union and the company and that a strong stand is necessary 
for the union in terms of solidarity and for the company 
in terms of legal culpability.  Now, I know this man would 
never call himself a "feminist", but by golly, he is working 
very visibly toward a feminist goal: a harrassment-free 
workplace.  You'll never see his story in the press, but my 
guess is that he will have impact on his worksite and may 
possibly impact the larger union management.  

This man picked up his feminist ideals from years of free-
flowing dialog between his wife and I, both of a feminist bent, 
and his own awareness of mistreatment suffered by women and 
minorities on other jobsites.  I suspect that a lot of 
feminist activity occurs one-on-one or in small groups.  For 
instance, I have successfully won for parents a written 
policy change at two job-sites allowing people to take off 
sick time to care for children.  Once again, I am pursuing 
this issue at my current job-site.  Not front page stuff, 
but I also know I am not alone.

>>As for Dworkin herself, the most disturbing aspect of her writing 
>>to me was not so much her rants about sexuality.  I felt while 
>>reading her this constant drum in my head "you are woman, you 
>>have no free will."  In fact, during her presentation she wrote 
>>something to the effect that even if a woman never marries she is 
>>still subjected to and under control of the marital slave systems.
>>Marriage as slavery may have existed in the past and may very well 
>>exist in the global community, but Dworkin is obviously writing to 
>>a modern American audience, an audience for which the mechanisms of 
>>change are available:  vote, jobs, property rights, courts, laws. 
>>I feel that she has taken a "paternalistic" attitude toward women 
>>by claiming we are *still* enslaved, but just aren't bright enough 
>>to realize it.
>
>Don't know whether or not I could agree with that sentiment at all.
>Hypothetically speaking, doesn't a woman exercise free will and makes
>a choice when entering into the state of marriage? Is a woman bound
>and gagged, and mentally subjugated when entering a state of marriage?
>Or rather, does a woman accept a new set of responsibilities when
>entering into marriage, just as a man also must?

My feeling exactly.  Although, I think it is arguable that there 
exists a lot of social pressure for women, and men too, to marry 
this doesn't translate into "enforced" marriage for most folks in 
1990s America.

>I know it's an emotionally charged issue, but I do think there is a way 
>of balancing the biological, social, and business resposibilities. For 
>example, let's take the bill passed yesterday makes maternity leave 
>mandatory. Let's also assume that a woman made the choice with her husband
>to have a child, regardless of wether or not she wanted to have the child
>but more fundamentally they both made a choice to create a family. Is
>it fair to a business to hold her job while she cares for an infant? By
>the same token, is it fair for my company to be made to hold my job just
>because the TransPac fleet is sailing from CA to Hawaii, and I want to do
>that? At a fundamental level, both the woman and myself have made a choice
>to suspend our business activities for a period of time. It simply requires
>one to take responsibility for making a choice.

A point where we diverge.... Is it fair to ask a company to hold your 
job for you to take a two week vacation?  Is it fair to ask a company 
to kick in for your pension, after all they've paid you already?  Is it 
fair to keep a job open if you are recuperating from a motorcycle 
accident, after all it is your choice to ride the cycle?  I think the 
answer is yes.  I think that businesses have a social responsibility, 
a commitment to the larger community which include not only their 
employees, but their customers, vendors, town or city, state and 
country.  If the society at large feels that having children is a 
social good then companies, as well as other institutions, along 
with the individuals bear a responsibility toward those children. 
Afterall, those children are future customers, employees, investors.
If the commitment is not made to the youth, then we all pay the 
price for the unstable adults that are created (prisons, mental 
hospitals, broken homes, etc.)

>We've opened the scope of oppurtunity for women, which is a Good Thing.
>What has become a Bad Thing is the notion that woment can have their cake
>and eat it too, vis a vis having a career and a family too. Each is a
>tremendous undertaking, and irrespective of present economic conditions,
>each is a seperate and full time endeavour. In fact, a colleague of mine
>has a family and a career, but took eight (8!) years off to raise her
>family before coming back into her career. I applaud and respect that
>because she recognised the choices she made and has taken responsiblity
>for them.

Well, men have had careers and families for years.......  My personal 
bent, though, is toward the family.  I think though, that more than 
just political lip service to "family values" is required.  We, as a 
society, need to pursue schemes that support families, not schemes 
that make women who have to work feel lousy because they are not 
following their "true nature."  

>BTW: You should know you're debating an Ayn Rand'er. I know most feminists
>don't like her, but I've found her philosophy more intellectually appealing
>than any others simply because it doesn't require me to reconsile
>fundamentally opposite concepts. (A can be non-A at the same time concepts)

Well, I won't hold that against you, as long as you aren't too put off 
talking to a socialist.........  BTW I don't worry too much about 
opposite concepts, just shrug my shoulders a lot about the messy 
business of being human.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu