From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:42:14 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

[Sorry folks.  I trimmed a lot, but...]

In article <718229403@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.214715.26119@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
>(Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>Do you not think the draft is anti-male?  
>
>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.  I can only figure out which is liberal and conservative
from the context you gave.  [Politicians pretty much all seem the same to me.]

>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.  The
thinking may have been flawed and it's been (being) discussed, but I don't see
anything anti-male.

>>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?
And I don't give a $%*& about using PC criteria.  I thought the criteria used
in those studies (the ones _with_ experience and education accounted for) was
reasonable.
Time will take care of equalizing experience and education, and hopefully
hiring practices.

>#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?  Again time will take care of this.  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.  Or I'll bet that the
custody goes 50/50 when half the judges are women.  Take your pick.  The LAWS
are there, now it's time for the people to change.

I repeat what extra rights are you talking about?

While we're at it, she's *already* made a pro-equality statement here.  ie, the
laws are [and should be] unbiased by gender in custody cases.  The fact that
it hasn't happened yet is the fault of the court system, NOT hers.

>>So your point is that since two statements are wrong, a third by the same
>>person MUST be garbage?  
>
>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?
Sorry I got lost.  [no news there, eh?]

>>>I don't think that even farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) will try
>>>to defend such opinions in a non-moderated forum, so I wonder why
>>>she tried to give us such false impression about MacKinnon?
>
>>Maybe she won't, but I have.  :-)
>
>ljf doesn't have the guts to defend MacKinnon main agenda (the anti-
>porno is a *main* issue in the book.)  She preferred to take a sentence 
>out of context as a way to give a false impression.

ljf didn't defend the main agenda.  In fact, I think she even prepended her
original with a statement that said that the quote was something MacKinnon had
said that was unexpected.  I think I also saw a 2nd post that she doesn't even
*want* to defend MacKinnon because she doesn't agree with her (usually).
She just wanted to show that MacKinnon has made one intelligent statement, and
might have made more.

>>The statement seems to me to be cogent and relatively well-thought-out.
>
>The ideas are more important than the ways they are written.

By COGENT and well-THOUGHT-out I meant the ideas themselves as well as
their presentation.

>>It certainly has some flaws, but as it's rather long and complex I wish you had
>>expressed your (sort of) labeling it as garbage.
>
>OK, let's pick a couple of statements:
>
>#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?  Do you want to
limit nudity to certain standards?  This would appear to be analagous to the
regulations you speak of.

>#_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.

[minor flame on]
MacKinnon complains that Playboy reduces women to JUST their sexuality.
She says this is bad.
You say that people view their sexuality as part of themselves.
I don't see a disagreement here.

Fortunately for you, others have already commented on this.  Don't bother to
say anything in your next post unless you've got something new to say.  Or at
least something that's not a non-sequitor.
[minor flame off]

>#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, 
>
>Why is it so wrong of Playboy to push its view on the First Amendment?
>
>Is it wrong of MacKinnon to push her views on the First Amendment?

Her main contention is that what Playboy does is wrong.  Playboy, natch, pushes
the idea that this is not so.  No, of course it's not wrong to push your own
view on the 1st amendment.

># Ever wonder why men are so passionate about the First Amendment?  
>
>Instead of debating the issue of the First Amendment she gives a 
>snide remark against men who don't want to give up their freedom
>to read what they damn like.  No comment about pro-porno women.
>
>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.  I see the same reasons that have always
been there.  Her side-stepping and slamming is on a par with most of what you
see.  About the same as your continual posting of small excerpts in your sig,
I'd say.

>>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?  :-)  :-)

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.

>2) Please explain why "_Playboy_ really shouldn't exist in that 
>   better world" without using the "everybody knows" "logic."

I don't resort to everybody knows logic.  I've complained about its existence
here a lot.
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.
Sure you still want out?

>>But, I don't think cencorship is a valid answer.  
>
>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.

>>Anyway, my point
>>is that if you want somebody to defend the opinions expressed (or at least 
>>discuss them with you) I don't know where to start unless you specifically
>>outline your disagreements.
>
>"I agree with what MacKinnon" said is a simple way to express agreement.

"I DON'T agree with what MacKinnon" said.

>%"WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex
  [remainder gone.]

>>Why would they be expected to make statements on these issues?
>
>Califia listed (and I agree) better ways to fight violence in 
>general and violence against women.  
>
>>How are:
   [more gone]
>>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
(assuming they don't try to forcibly involve me).  There might be less of it,
or even none of it, though.  But it won't be through censorship.

>>The various political groups at all ends and in the middle of the spectrum have
>>long been non-cooperative, even when they shoulda.  What else is new?
>
>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.  When was the last time the gay rights supporters helped
feminist causes that would help them?

>If WAVMP wanted to prevent violence (fat chance...) then 
>supporting gays' right for example could give gays (and 
>lesbians) better protection from violence.

You're right that they probably should.  And the gay rights groups should help
the feminists by the same token.  They don't.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu