From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Florence King
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:37:07 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

Heather (HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu) writes, quoting me:
>>[Florence King's] descriptions of sexism encountered in her 1950's
>>college life and her reactions thereto are the only writings I've ever
>>read that could fairly be described as "feminist" that didn't make me
>>want to slap the author silly.
>
>This is interesting.  What was it about the other writings that irritated
>you?  What *were* the other writings?

Uh-oh.  I should have known the above comment would draw me into a
discussion I didn't want.  Still, it's my own damn fault, and it
wouldn't be right to ignore this question and hide, so let's just try
to keep it from becoming a flame war.  

I have no particular interest in feminism, so I can't say I've read a
tremendous amount of its literature.  Certainly what I have read is
not much more than what a moderately well-read American man runs
across here and there by chance.  Beyond that, I have read substantial
sections of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" (my decidedly non-feminist wife
owns an old copy) as well as some of Dworkin and MacKinnon's stuff.
If you consider Ayn Rand a "feminist" (some do, believe it or not),
well, I've read all of her fiction and some other stuff, too (though
she doesn't even register on my man-I-want-to-slap-this-person meter).

What drives me crazy about most of this stuff (exclusive of Rand and
Dworkin) is the stance of almost-professional victimhood that runs
through it.  I just feel like shaking the author(-ess), slapping her
silly and telling her to stop her damn whining.  King, on the other
hand, is a rugged individualist par excellence (as is Rand).  Anita
Hill, professional (not even near-professional) victim, would never be
a hero to Florence King.

There is also an almost-apocalyptic view of whatever sexist slights
these women have suffered.  It seems sometimes that a redneck who
calls women "honey" in an auto body shop is used as a harbinger of the
coming anti-female Holocaust.  (OK, hyperbole on my part.)  Feminist
literature, as I read it, reeks of total lack of perspective on these
things.

There is also a strong theme of collectivism running through most of
the stuff I've read, and this downright repels me.  Again, King (and
Rand, whom King admires somewhat) comes down firmly on the side of
individualism.  Related to the collectivist themes are the usual
hypocritical calls for "affirmative action" and distinctions based on
sex when and only when it serves the interests of a particular group.
Examples of this are left as an exercise for the reader.

Also related are some of the calls for outright censorship.  (Contrary
to some feminist propaganda, these are *not* outside of the
"mainstream" of feminism.  The past three presidents of NOW, for
example, have endorsed these laws.)  The Dworkin-MacKinnon
censorship/liability laws are dangerous excesses which are
(thankfully) unconstitutional and more disgusting in principle than
any pornography I've ever been exposed to (though that's not a lot).
Unfortunately, King seems to endorse these laws as evidenced by her
extremely favorable review of one of Dworkin's books, reprinted in
"Lump It Or Leave It."

And please don't bother telling me that there are counter-examples to
everything I've written here.  I'm quite sure there are.  (The whole
discussion started because an author whom I believe is a "feminist" by
any reasonable definition *is* a refreshing counter-example.)  I'm
sure I'll also hear about how I've "stereotyped" (one of the five
most-abused words in the English language) feminist writing.  I'm sure
I have, but I am also of the belief that "stereotypes" don't happen by
accident.  If my view of this literature is a stereotype, all that
means to me is that my view is widely shared.  (I am quite aware that
doesn't mean it's correct.)

What I've found in feminist writings that does NOT repel me includes:

1) Lesbianism.  I'm pretty much indifferent to (i.e., not offended by)
   it, though I must admit I never expected to be actually enthralled
   by the story of a Lesbian love affair until I read King's account
   of her affair with "Bres" in "Confessions."

2) Man-hating.  Big deal.  Men who whine about this are as bad or
   worse than the whining feminists themselves.  There's a lot about
   men to hate, as any card-carrying misanthrope (damn, left my card
   in my other pants again) knows.

As for the person who wrote (in an article now expired on my site)
that King merely reinforces the prejudices of her readers, I think
that's an oversimplification.  The thing for which I am most thankful
to King is that she helped me see what my prejudices *are*, in some
cases in which I wasn't quite admitting it to myself.

Her article in Harper's about southern rednecks may have appealed to
popular prejudices, but I'd be willing to bet (I'm not familiar with
the specific article in question) that it was anything but a stale
re-hashing of those prejudices.  Anyone who's lived in the South (or
some places in California, for that matter) can tell you that there IS
such a thing as a redneck and there ARE certain things that you can
say are characteristic of such people.  It goes without saying that
not all people with that geographical background fall into this
category, and I'd be quite surprised if the article in question made
that error or left the reader with the impression that that is the
case.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books