From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:30:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep8.153043.22075@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
[opps, attributes messed up]
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>>I'm trying to be self-consistent in presenting my views of feminism
>>>and there is no particular authority responsible for my opinions.
>>
>>OK, no problem there. But you are not using your own arguments. It is
>>difficult to use the same argument, and deny all the underlying assumptions.
>>In fact, with these issues, I doubt that it is possible. If you grab
>>arguments from two feminists who have contradicting assumptions (not at
>>all impossible), it may also be impossible to be self consistant. Note,
>>most often, when I mention Dworkin, I am told that "I (some feminist) do
>>not feel that way at all", or "feminists do not think that way". The latter
>>is demonstratably wrong, the former shows that there are many opinions.
>
>If I say something, it's my argument. 

All arguments you mentioned have been put forth by feminists, some of them
long ago. Are you claiming that they got their ideas from you? :^)

Seriously, you may agree with them, and take the argument to heart, but
that does not make them your arguments.

>                                 I haven't read enough of Andrea Dworkin
>lately to give you a point by point summary of how our views differ.  You
>will clearly misunderstand me if you assume my views are connected to hers.

But you used several of her arguments, namely the sociopolitical argument,
one one other which I do not recall. I really have no desire to hunt up the
material, do you want to argue words (pointless IMHO), or ideas?
 
>I've been reading feminst stuff for about 20 years - that ought to give
>me time to put together some collections of ideas on my own. Yes, there
>are lots of feminist with different ideas. If they were all extremists
>I would have given up on them long ago.

Longer than I, but that does not disqualify my observations. But tell me
what pro-female goals been achieved in this period? Note, anti-male
leglislation and rallies against the 'male chauvenistic pigs' are not
pro-female.
 
>Let's see if I can hit some high points:
>
>- I am a man. Perhaps a little deviant from the norm ;) -- but this makes
>it less likely that I would accept a point of view that treats men as
>hopeless.  

I do not see that this follows, although it may well be true.

>        I don't evaluate feminists on how angry they are with men, but
>rather on whether their world view allows for the possibility men can
>change.
 
Most, from my observation, would change things to what females would
desire, without regard to males. Bring up the toilet seat sometime.
You'd be amazed at how angry some women get at not having things left
exactly as they need it, they could care less that men have to go
through the opposite ritual after they have used the toilet. There is
no balance even in small things. 
 
>- I don't favor censorship as a solution to pornography -- I don't know
>anyone I'd trust as the censor even if there was a consensus as to what
>to censor. I would like to promote sex-positive erotica with different
>values than the erotic "tunnel-vision" thay characterizes much of 
>mainstream pornography.  (In this I likely have more in common with
>Susie Bright or Betty Dodson than A. Dworkin.)

Neither do I.
 
>- I am a social constructionist; I haven't looked at the details lately
>but Dworkin sounds like an essentialist.
>
>- I believe in the existence of male privledge -- which in our society
>grants unjustified advantages to men as a group. I do *not* think it
>is an absolute, which should be considered to be the most important factor 
>in every situation. Because I consider sexism a relative factor
>I will tend to keep bringing in other considerations which you
>may well regard as muddying the waters. ;)

Sexism will end only when we are conqured by the Borg and are members of
the collective. Note, no smiley. All other things are not equal, and they
probably never will be.

>I think it is politically silly and theortically shaky to rank oppressions
>and claim that all other oppressions derive from and are secondary to
>sexism -- which distingushes my view from one definition of "radical 
>feminism".

Dworkin and MacKinnon may be a statistically insignificant percentage of
the number of feminists, but they are doing far more than most of the
rest put together. They are not minor players. If the major effect of
the feminist movement is achieved by a few extremists, how then can it
be claimed that the feminist movement is not extremist? Like the lurkers
on the net, most who claim to be feminists contribute nothing. This is
not good nor bad, but I see no point in counting them in either.
 
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism