From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:08:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep10221950@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <_ssnhrh.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep8211733@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <mxrnslk.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>If the effects of feminism are different from the stated goals of
>>the "movement", then there is indeed a major malfunction. But it is
>>exactly as valid to look at the "effects" of feminism as it is to
>>look at the "effects" of sexism, there is no difference.
>
>There is definitely a difference.  Feminism is attempting to change
>things, and it is not always clear how to change things in the way that
>you want to.  Sexism wants to keep things the same and therefore doesn't
>make mistakes in its effects.  However, I still believe (see below) that
>you are focusing on one set of "effects" of feminism to the exclusion of
>all others.  

I have repeatedly asked for others to enlighten me as to the other
effects of feminism. Even here they seem a well kept secret. 

Also, the argument goes something like - The problem with sexism is
the negative effect it has on women. The effects are what matter, not
whether it is contrived or situational. One could easily say the
same thing about hurricanes. They have a good -idea- of the effects
in the SE states right now. I'm sure that they are well versed in the
theory.

The same is true about feminism. It is the effects that count, not
the claimed goals. And it seems that there is no clear unity in the
goals either, please correct me if I'm wrong.

>              It is like you looking at my life and pointing to the time
>I broke a pile of dishes when I was six and the time I broke a glass
>last week and saying "oh, you've spent your whole life breaking things."
>Then I say that I have had many other effects, but you deny them.

If you looked around you and saw nothing but piles of broken glass, then
the assessment would be correct. So what effects of the feminist movement 
have not been broken glass (so to speak).
 
>>By dealing with what I see and experience, I am "focusing rather narrowly"?
>>Thanx for the news, now what do I do, therapy?
>
>Well, if you really want to criticize feminism, it seems like you need
>information *outside* of your personal experience.  

And what if there is contradiction between my experience and the claims
of others? Reading this group, one would easily categorize men as 
low-life, female exploiting, male supremist serial rapists, who are proud
of it. I just do not see it. Look around you, do you? So on one hand,
you are telling me to ignore the 'broken glass' of the feminist movement,
and on the other hand, all the feminists seem to be talking about is
the 'broken glass' in the male population.

>                                                   How do you know that
>you are getting a balanced picture?  From the sounds of it, in fact, you
>are not.

Good question, how do -you- know that you are getting a "balanced picture"?
For myself, I do not know. 

>>If any of these things had been accomplished, directly or indirectly,
>>I would not feel as I do. What I see being pushed again and again
>>I do not support.
>
>Like what?  What are you *looking* at?  Let's look around for a minute.

Yes, lets all look around for a minute. Do you see the reality being
discussed in the other threads? Is this just the way it is?

>Here on the net, I've seen feminists who are against makeup, some for
>and some against pornography, for better education of women,
>particularly in math and science, against sexual harrassment, for women

Sexual harassment needs to be objectively defined. 

>deciding what to do with their own lives (re: careers, children, etc.).
>What do you disagree with in these ideas?  (Well, the porn one is easy,
>I know, since there are feminists on both sides.)

OK, but these are where feminists stand (or claim to stand). These are
not the effects as far as I can tell.
 
>>>Sure, the media *loves* people like Andrea Dworkin, so you hear a lot
>>>about the effects that she has had, but that doesn't mean that those are
>>>by any means the major effects or efforts of feminism.
>>She has had major effects, you cannot just claim media hype.
>
>No, I am not claiming "media hype."  What I am saying is that the news
>that feminists have gradually made things better for women is not
>"news".  Someone saying "all intercourse is rape" (or whatever) is
>"news," so that's what you hear about.

After starting into _Backlash_, I know of at least one author who
states that things are not getting better for women.
 
>>But I also do not see NOW or any feminst groups disowning
>>Dworkin or making statements that they do not support Dworkin and her
>>goals. Do you?
>
>Well, I don't really *CARE* if they disown her, since they didn't OWN
>her in the first place.  

Apologies, poor phrasing on my part. Do they -support- Dworkin, or not?

>                      I do not believe that any other feminist speaks
>for me, so I do not feel the need to make sure that I disagree with all
>the thousands of people who will make statements that I disagree with.
>I will disagree when it comes up, but I think that going around
>*looking* for people to disagree with would be a waste of time that
>could be much better spent actually working on problems.  And yes, all
>but one of the feminists I know thinks that Dworkin's ideas are quite
>ridiculous and they are very much against them.

And yet, the idea of anti-male legislation (to control sexism) seems
to be well accepted, or even desirable, going by many responses here
in alt.feminism. This is exactly what Dworkin is accomplishing.
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us


Rich

payner@netcom.com