From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:30:43 GMT

In article <=7qn#w-.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.223943.8127@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>In article <dzqnzsr.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>That women can be sexist at all is denied by prominent feminists like
>>>Dworkin, who confuse social context for sexism.
>>
>>I never claimed to agree with Andrea Dworkin -- she may be "prominent"
>>but she doesn't represent either my views or any school of thought I
>>tend to subscribe to.  I don't want to defend her and I'm not especially
>>surprised if I happen to be saying something different than her.
>
>But you do make pretty much the same "social context argument". Do you
>agree with her on this? If not, why do you use the argument?
> 
>>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. 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.

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.

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 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.

- 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.)

- 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. ;)

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".

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................