From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:47:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.022135.24065@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:
> gk:
> | Dictionaries are not notorious for their currency.  Today, "feminism" is
> | whatever a "feminist" wants it to be, which is a handy debating tool (see
> | the absurd attack on Rich Payne by some dickhead earlier in this thread).
gf: 
> A "dickhead"?  A "_dickhead_"???  Garry, are you
> deprecating male physiology?

Yeah, I have to.  I promised some little turd that I'd use male terms of
contempt for a while as an atonement for my virulent misogyny.  Feel free
to substitute something I'd *really* say :-).

[silly game deleted]

gf: [Hillel Gazit]
> It's odd, this fixated engagement with feminism.  One is
> tempted to psychoanalyze, but as I already gave Kenn Barry
> a hard time about psychoanalyzing I have to lay off.

I have no idea what Hillel Gazit's motivation is (you could always ask
him), but feminism is no less reasonable a target than any other.  If you
were going to pick a nominally non-materialist "ism" that is
well-entrenched in the educated middle classes, "feminism" would be near
the top.  To me, he looks like a radical equilatarian who consistently
attacks the female-preference aspect of feminism.  
As I've said before, so much of many people's opinions are based on inner
fears, unspoken assumptions etc. that remote psychoanalysis is pretty
difficult to avoid. 
 
gf: 
> The homeless-men thing is an interesting discussion to me
> because it gets at something I have not yet found it
> possible to construct a coherent theory about: why it is
> virtually forbidden to men to act (traditionally)
> feminine.  That is now running in a different thread.
> It's also interesting in another sense: it has been used
> as another stick to beat feminism with, and I hope to
> examine that use in the near future.

Yeah, and you went overboard, again.  You know, for someone who decries
traditional masculine values, you have a rather retrograde attachment to
the construction of all-encompassing theories (subduing the world by
"understanding" it ?). 
 
> gf: [ describes hierarchical society ]

... after dodging the tricky bits.
 
gf:
> Are you saying you have to have a penis and a hierarchical
> society to build a dam?

You know what I said.  I assume this means the you have come to realise
that your original statement was dopey.

[Affirmative Action]
> gk:
> | No, not *already* going on, but going on *in the past*.
gf: 
> I'm talking about the _theory_.  Are you saying that
> affirmative action is a good thing when undeserved special
> treatment _is_ going on in the present?  In that case, you
> may be more favorable to it than I; I see it as a last-
> ditch kludge when all else has failed.

The point is, the "last ditch kludge" fails too, for the same reasons. 

> gk:
> | Not so.  The *aggregate* level of unfairness *could not* be reduced by
> | favouring minorities.
> 
> Yes, it could, if the policy of favoring a given group
> were introduced into a situation where another group was
> already favored.  The problem with this sort of thing is
> that it's going to be very hard to fine-tune the favoring so
> it just happens to balance the prior favoring.

Gordon, you said "aggregate".  This insistence on viewing things in terms
of groups clouds your vision.
 
> gk:
> | No.  "Fairness" is a general idea that most people appreciate at an
> | intuitive level.  For example, women could not have entered previously
> | all-male settings without many men holding this intuitive concept.
gf:
> Sure they could.  Most of the working-class people I knew in
> the '50s and '60s considered the Black push for equality to
> be unfair -- because "everyone knew" that Blacks were lazy,
> dirty, insubordinate, and incompetent -- but in the end it
> was more trouble to resist than to make some concessions.

"Everyone" didn't.  When *everyone knows* that another group is
undeserving, things get very nasty, like ex-Yugoslavia.

gf:
> I think this is the usual mechanism for such things.  The
> bourgeoisie may have subsequently rationalized or glorified
> their decisions as being made for the sake of fairness or
> justice, but in general I think their computations involve
> more down-to-earth matters, balancing profit, power,
> trouble, and expense.  You'll notice that nobody decides to
> be fair until a conflict develops -- yet there's nothing
> holding them back, is there?  How come we didn't have
> "racial justice" in 1910?

There was not *enough* support for it.  Most people have enough on their
plates without worrying too much about someone else's misfortune.  However,
when an issue comes to a head, after the partisans on either side have been
beavering away for ages, the unconcerned usually side with natural justice.
 
gf: 
> But I am not a fan of affirmative action; I have merely
> reported some of the theory behind it.  

Good.
 
> gk:
> | Almost everything is a social construction.  On one level, the kind of
> | argument you make is very sophisticated.  On another, it is profoundly
> | trivial, and can cause its proponent to disappear up their own arsehole.  
> | Suffice it to say that concepts of ultimate subjectivity are usually evoked
> | when someone wishes to get their own way.
gf: 
> _Everyone_ wishes to get their own way.  Admitting to
> subjectivity at least avoids ringing in God and The
> Ultimate Truth on your side, which I think only polite.
> People with God on their side are dreadfully tedious,
> don't you think?

Sure, but you're doing more than admitting to subjectivity.  You're using
it to dimish an opposing case, while conveniently ignoring it with respect
to your own.  

gf:
> By the way, I like the idea of something being "pro-
> foundly trivial."  Although it's sort of a heist from
> Andy Warhol.

I never met the man, but it's a serious point.  There are people (I guess
Stanley Fish is one who comes to mind) who are master exponents of the
simltaneous recourse to, and avoidance of, subjectivism.  You get a
scintillating argument, and much entertainment, but in the end he's little
more than a brilliant buffoon (also mine).  
 
gf:
> I guess I _am_ pretty alienated.  I've never felt
> responsible for men's deeds or attitudes in general.
> Most of the things men do as such bore me, so I guess that
> keeps me out of trouble.  I've felt responsible for things
> like the U.S. bombing other countries, but that was because
> it was my tax money and done in my name.  However, you
> should take Al and the professor with a grain of salt.
> Both of them are in politics, one in government, the other
> in Academia.  My guess is that they think they're going to
> get something out of saying certain things to certain
> people at certain times.  Right now, I'll bet ol' Al is
> not feeling a scintilla of self-hatred -- what do you
> think?

No, I think Al's and the professor's concerns run deeper than that.   

gf:
> If I had to point out men with a real case of self-hatred
> I'd pick on some of the people in this newsgroup.  They seem
> to feel threatened or overpowered by women, as if the women
> had, you know, _powers_, while they themselves were weak and
> helpless.  Big, evil Mommies; poor helpless babies.  Look at
> the discussion of the draft, where NOW was supposed to get
> out in front for them while they hung out.  Strange stuff.

Most of the posts I've seen from men involve criticisms of the
female-preference faction, which makes sense to me, since it is currently
gaining considerable political influence.
The "Big, evil Mommies; poor helpless babies" stuff is a bit harsh, no ?
You seem to adopt a different approach to poor helpless female babies.

gf:
> I concede that it must be more difficult to become a man in
> these times than a generation or two ago.  When I was a boy,
> everyone knew what a real man was like: John Wayne.  Today,
> while the culture is ready to tell men they're wrong, it
> doesn't tell them what's right.  The gender system doesn't
> fit our lives any more, yet few seem to want to just drop
> it or invent a new one.

I'm not sure that few want to drop it.  The problem is that women, who
*had* more to complain about, got in first.  Given the feeling I get from
some younger men, a bit of equalization is coming-up in the next decade.  


Garry.