From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:46:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.123617.20006@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:

gf:
> I don't quite see how what I said could mean much more than
> that I found classical liberalism incomplete or otherwise
> unsatisfactory in some way.  The question you ask, however, 
> is interesting.  Do people adopt political philosophies in 
> order to mark themselves out as special?  Do you?

I failed (and still fail) to understand how an "ism" that covers all
genders could be "incomplete" in comparison to another "ism" that centers
on one gender only.  
Do I adopt views in order to mark myself out as special (or "different") ?
Sometimes, I'm afraid. 
Do you ? I reckon.

> gk:
> | > | Whatever the "feminine" is (let me guess: the nice things ?). 
> gf:
> | > Yeah, the nice things.  You don't like the nice things?
> gk:
> | I just don't define the "nice" things as "feminine".
> gf: > Nobody else likes the nice things.
> gk:
> | Untrue, and self-indulgent.
gf:
> Sorry, I should have put up an Irony Alert.  I thought
> your suggestion silly, perhaps ironically so.  That's two
> levels of irony, I admit, but I figured you were going for
> broke.

Which suggestion was silly ?  The one that you choose to present things
"feminine" as inately "nice" in a way things masculine aren't ?

[... deleted ...]
  
> gk:
> | There is a prevalent (and correct) view that a good deal of current
> | feminist action involves improving the lot of women *at the expense of*
> | men.  You can argue that the zero-sum game is invalid, but that's the way
> | it's being played. Now.
gf: 
> I think it depends what you mean by "at the expense of" men.
> If competent managers and engineers are denied work because
> they're women, I think it hurts men more than it helps them,
> even though a few men may get jobs they might not have gotten 
> otherwise.  It hurts them because less wealth is
> created, if for no other reason.

This sounds suspiciously like a vague defense of trickle-down economics to
me.  (Don't worry, jobless people, the well-off are doing fine.  You should
be happy that extra wealth is being created).  
The issue is strictly one of *fairness*, your logical gyrations in this and
other threads notwithstanding.

gf: 
> I find the concern over man-hating fairly weird.  I
> don't think it's been honestly handled.  For one thing,
> the people who are so concerned with it don't seem to be
> stating what they're really afraid of; maybe they don't
> know.  When as virulent an enemy of civil liberties as
> George Bush is president of the United States, it seems
> absurd for non-feminists to worry about MacKinnon.

I have seen some pretty good expositions on this subject here, in soc.men
and elsewhere.  The major problem with MacKinnon is that she blends a
traditional negative approach to sex with New Sexism (Man Bad - Woman
Good). The combination is psychologically potent, with the result that
legislation is being passed all over the place.  I wouldn't be terribly
worried if I thought she was a fringe phenomenon, but she ain't.  Since
this is alt.feminism, the wider civil rights practises of the Bush or other
administrations are not terribly relevant.

It might surprise you, but most people don't like to be devalued on the
basis of their birth.  Some of us thought that this was a feminist
principle until recently.

> gk:
> |  ...   Your problem is that MacKinnon and The D Thing are perceived to be
> | "on your side" (don't tell me you don't have a side: to repeat, you
> | wouldn't call yourself something as literally exclusive as a "feminist" if
> | you didn't), and you have to work out what to say about them.  
> | To be fair, I'll ask directly: what are your considered views on 
> | MacKinnon?
> 
> Mainly that I don't know what she wants or represents.
> At the moment -- having read only the quotations in this
> newsgroup, and an article in the _New_York_Times_Magazine_
> -- it seems to me that MacKinnon may have some reasonable 
> ideas, but goes wrong in trying to invoke the power of the 
> state in attempting to bring about what she sees as 
> desirable goals.  But I'm working with very little
> evidence -- not that that's unusual around here.

Don't be too hard on yourself.
I'll make a suggestion:  She wants to criminalize male sexuality.  Not just
to bitch about the perfidy wrought by testosterone, but to divide men into
two classes: the criminal and the suspected criminal.

I was disappointed that you didn't answer my question re your apparent
break with the rest of us (men), but if you've answered it elsewhere, just
point me at the appropriate article.

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism