From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:11:55 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile


sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
|> | For starters,
|> |    -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
|> |    -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
|> |     censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
|> |     men the SAME power)
|> |    -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
|> |    -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
|> |     same footing.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
|> And how would you do these things?  All four would seem to
|> require a sort of fascist seizure of power.....[reasons deleted]  

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
| Huh ?  Could you explain what *fascism* has to do with this ? 
| Since the first two items on Robert's list were originally brought about by
| political pressure, could they not be removed by the same route ?

gf:
|> On the other hand, you might not be talking about state
|> power.  In that case, you have a big problem, because part
|> of the energy driving affirmative action and so on is the
|> consciousness of administrators that a major portion of
|> their constituencies are women or sympathize with women.

garry:
| Good point.  I've long thought that the "patriarchs" who are supposed to
| run things are largely shit-scared of women and their disapproval....
| 
| BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).
| I assume that I've stepped into some long-standing personal argument here. 
| If so, I apologise for taking your statements seriously.

I don't understand your last two sentences; if they're 
relevant, could you elucidate?  I thought I was just
following Robert's text, not some long-standing et cetera.

In regard your comments, let me give an example from Real
Life (tm).  I am doing work for a large corporation; where I
work, there are seven first-level managers and one second-
level manager.  Two of the seven first-level managers are
women.  The other five are men, as is the second-level.
The women almost certainly got their jobs at least partly as
a result of this corporation's being busted severely several
years ago for never giving women managerial or engineering
jobs.  Now, however, the corporation _likes_ the women, 
because it turns out, in spite of dire prediction, they're 
smart and honest and they work hard. 

Now, what does Robert want to do about this?  How is going
to get rid of the women, which is what he seems to want to
do?   If the corporation demotes or fires them because
they're women, the other women in the company will make a
lot of trouble, as will many of the men.  And the
corporation's customers will probably start boycotting the
product.  If the corporation _doesn't_ get rid of them, then
the status quo, which Robert dislikes, is being preserved.
In fact, it'll probably get "worse." So I assume that from
Robert's point of view something has to be done.

I assume, then, that some kind of external force would be
required; and it could not be a democratic force, because
I don't think you could get a majority to support the kind
of "reforms" Robert seems to be recommending.  Hence, some
kind of fascism would seem to be required.  Now, I don't
think Robert's a fascist, I just don't think he's thought
out the requirements of his position.  

In regard to the First Amendment, I pointed out that the
First Amendment specifically permits "assaults" on it, 
supposing that's what they are.  You can only get rid of 
"assaults" on the First Amendment by assaulting the First 
Amendment and getting rid of it.  I thought everyone knew 
this.  As it has many defenders, this doesn't seem like 
much of a prospect.

Of all Robert's suggestions, I'd suggest that "Men's
Studies" might have some hope, although it's going to be
very difficult to disentangle specifically male issues from
history and social theory due to the long assumption that
to be male was the only way of being fully human.  But 
that's probably another subject.  And it probably belongs
in soc.men, not alt.feminism, unless you have the idea
(as some did about the draft) that the feminists should
do it all while the men concerned do nothing.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1676 soc.men:16976 soc.women:17086