From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:13:13 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct5.234214.13990@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
(Richard Lynch) writes:

>>I think that a liberal like Johnson sent 500,000 drafted men to Vietnam,
>>Nixon stopped the draft and Carter started a registration to draft.  Now
>>try to guess who got more support from liberals and feminists...

>I don't really know.  

Go to a library and check that sometimes.

>>Feminists like MacKinnon may pay some lips service to the equality, but
>>they don't care about that; the nice talk is just a way to get support.

>All I've seen so far from what you quoted seemed like pro-equality.  

She claimed that ERA will prevent men-only draft.  This is not true
because in a war time the president can ignore parts of the Constitution
using the war powers act.  Therefore the president will have no problem
to draft only men.  (And the president can also draft women today...)

MacKinnon is pro-laws that look like equality, but will not hurt
women's extra rights.  Try to understand the difference.

>>>1.  WHEN was this book published.  

>>1987.

#Women are poor, and pay is at least as far from being sex-equal as it
#was before the passage of legislation guaranteeing equality by law.

>>>I think the data posted (thank you, somebody for REAL data!!!) made it clear
>>>that pay is fairly equitable after experience and education were accounted for.

>>You don't use Politically Correct criteria...

>So her statement is old enough that it may have been true then, no?

No.  (Read sometimes about 1964 if you still miss the point.)

#Under the rule of gender neutrality, the law of custody and divorce has
#been transformed, giving men an equal chance at custody of children 
#and alimony.

>>>>(Equality is when in 90% of the cases women have sole custody...)

>>>Perhaps the law has been transformed, but the judges haven't yet.  A cheap out,
>>>I will admit, but it seems to me it's improving slowly but steadily.

>>"A cheap out" is the main-stream feminists way of dealing with
>>discrimination against men.  They look for ways that will look like
>>equality while preserving all women's extra rights.

>What extra rights?  

Custody, no draft, priority for life-boats, priority for less
qualified women via affirmative action, choice-for-women and
no-choice-for-men.

>Custody?  Again time will take care of this.  

But MacKinnon claimed that it has already been done...

>I'll bet that
>custody rights (when contested) are done 50/50 at about the same time as
>hiring of women who are equally qualified hits that mark.  

With affirmative action that will take a long time...

>Or I'll bet that the custody goes 50/50 when half the judges are women.  

Feminist Cow-shit.

>Take your pick.  The LAWS are there, now it's time for the people to change.

And that will happen all by itself when so many feminists claim
that men have nothing to complain about...

>While we're at it, she's *already* made a pro-equality statement here.  

Talk is *cheap*.

>ie, the laws are [and should be] unbiased by gender in custody cases.  

She claimed that men have an equal chance in custody, not just that 
the laws are unbiased.  Can you see the difference?

>>Very different criteria were used for the statements.  By the "logic" of
>>statement 2) women had equality after the EEO was passed in 1964.  The
>>double standards show, in *my* opinion, that MacKinnon is not honest.

>What double standards and criteria are you talking about for which statements?

The EEO of 1964 out-lawed discrimination against women, but MacKinnon 
claimed in 1987 that no difference happened.  Then she goes to say
that because the custody laws were changed then men have "equal chance."

Don't you see that as a double standard?

>She just wanted to show that MacKinnon has made one intelligent statement, 

Think why that is such a surprise...

#She becomes 
#something to be used by him, especially, an object for his sexual use.

>>A similar attack can be used against every form of employment because
>>most employers look for profit by using other people.  The
>>solution for the 19'th century sweat shops was not going back to non-
>>industrial society, but regulations.  Out-lawing of Playboy, as 
>>MacKinnon wants, will be a step backward.  The mafia will be quite
>>a happy with that, for the same reasons the Prohibition helped the
>>mafia so much, but MacKinnon doesn't even realize that.

>So do you want to regulate what can and can't be in Playboy?  

NO.

The regulation of the textile industry working condition tried to prevent
sweat-shop style working conditions, not to say what can be written
on a T shirt.

Regulation can reduce the exploitation on the porno industry, 
and quite a few people (e.g. Califia and COYOTE) had made the 
point long before MacKinnon posted her "analysis."

#_Playboy_ as a standard means that to use a woman sexually
#does not violate her nature because it expresses her nature; it is what
#she is *for*.  

>>Some women (and men) view their sexuality as part of themselves.

>MacKinnon complains that Playboy reduces women to JUST their sexuality.

And some other publications present women as if they have no sexuality.

Why is it OK to eliminate factor X, but it is so
wrong to eliminate factor Y?

#What _Playboy_ does to women is very carefully legitimized, both inside
#and outside the magazine.  _Playboy_'s articles push their views, 
#including their views of the First Amendment, 

>Her main contention is that what Playboy does is wrong.  

I think that what the KKK does is wrong, but I agree with the ACLU
with respect to the KKK's freedom of speech.

MacKinnon can not give similar respect to _PlayBoy_.

>>What common to all of that is a strong belief in the badness of
>>porno, with too little real data.  *I* see it as the old feminine
>>anti-porno position with new rationalizations.

>I don't see very new rationalizations.  

Really?!

What about:
#...pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil
#inequality between the sexes.

Have you ever heard any right-wing woman claims that?

>>>that _Playboy_ really shouldn't exist in that better world we all yearn for.

>>1) Please put me out of yours "all."

>:-)  :-)   You want I should kill ya?  :-)  :-)

No, just create your own commune and run there your experiments
with people who want to be there.

>I should explain that in my world you would be perfectly free to look at
>playboy all you wanted,... I just think it unlikely that there would be 
>as much demand for porno.

You will be surprised.

>By better world, I'm thinking of one where nudity and pornography are not an
>issue because it's no big deal because people aren't hung up about it from
>illogical training.

There would always be fantasies that porno can supply.

>Sure you still want out?

Yes.

>>Try to think why MacKinnon thinks that "censorship is a valid answer."  

>She has already explained that just fine for herself.  I don't agree with her,
>but it's not garbage.

That's how I call "philosophy" that contradicts reality.

>>>civil rights of sexual minorities
>>>(presumably gay, lesbian, bisexual, and polyamorous [tried real hard not to
>>>miss any, probably did])

>>What about S&M people?  

>Damn.  Knew I missed somebody.  Sorry.

>>Will they have any right to play as they damn like in your perfect world?

>Yep.  Consenting adults who want to hurt each other and enjoy being hurt is
>fine by me.  S&M seems kinda sick to me, but I'm not gonna get in their way

30 years ago good liberals said something like "homosexuals seem kinda 
sick to me, but I'm not gonna get in their way;" today the good
liberals (and vanilla gays...) preserve the attitude to S&M.

Do you have any guess why I don't want to be in your "perfect world"?

>(assuming they don't try to forcibly involve me).  
>There might be less of it, or even none of it, though.  

I bet that in a violence-free world there will be more S&M.

>>It is one thing to ignore a group with a just cause, and another
>>to ignore a group which its causes help your causes.

>But they all do that.  

I'm well known all over the net as an MCP, and I still fight in 
talk.abortion for choice-for-women every now and then.

>When was the last time the gay rights supporters helped
>feminist causes that would help them?

Check soc.motss sometimes.

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

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

He said, in feeble alarm, "You're trying to kill me!"
She said, "No, my dear.  I simply don't want you to die a virgin."
                              --  ("Souls", Joanna Russ)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1741 soc.men:17038 soc.women:17130