From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.EDU (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Version Five -- I better shut up!
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:18:34 GMT

harikuma@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (G. Harikumar) writes:

>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.EDU (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>In conclusion, I would like to suggest two New Year's resolutions, for
>>myself and the readers of soc.feminism. The one is to *pay attention* to
>>people's true characters -- to try to figure out what's going on behind
>>the mask. The other is, not to thrust daggers of unwarranted blame into
>>ourselves, when we should be blaming society.

>In other words, what you are suggesting is the following.
>If you hear someone criticizing the feminist movement or
>one of its proponents, you merely categorize him into
>on of the following groups:

>1) Those with psychological problems

>2) Those who use women and want to continue doing so.

>3) Those undergoing a "paradigm shift", ie, confused.

I am sorry that you took undergoing a paradigm shift to mean confused. I
meant people who are in the process of questioning their own views on
social justice, and those of others.

I specifically mentioned that such people should be taken very
seriously.

>4) Those who have been given the short shift in a professional/
>	social environment and are angry, confused and
>	mistakenly blaming their travails on feminism.
>	(I read: Immature).

Why do you take socially or organizationally inept, to mean immature?

I think the equation of the two is one of the main things wrong with
this culture.

Consider how vulnerable a gentle, unworldly man like Kurt Goedel would
be, in a modern organization full of backstabbers. But would such
a man be less mature than the backstabbers? (And would he not feel pain when
he was backstabbed? Would he not, probably, be unable to figure out what
went wrong?)

One of the main points I was trying to make, was that we should not
judge the worth of peoples cases, by their ability to communicate.
I am sorry I did not make this point more clear. ( :-) )

>How convenient. A very nice way of escaping criticism/scrutiny.
>"Anyone who criticizes what I believe in is not worth listening
>to, anyway." I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you.

Once again, I specifically said that some of these people *are*
worth listening to. Read my posting again!

>I agree with most of what feminists say; but I do believe that
>they have gone overboard a lot of times. Constructive criticism,
>scrutiny and a healthy transfusion of common sense will not
>hurt feminism; it will only strengthen it.

We are agreed on this.

>Let me point out specifically what is wrong with your reasoning.
>Your classification is not different in principle from the
>right wing classification of feminists...

I don't hear many right-wingers, or nonfeminists, saying that some
feminists are in the process of questioning their beliefs, and these
feminists should be taken quite seriously. If I did hear a right-winger
saying this, I would take him or her quite seriously!

I wonder, by the way -- have you read alt.feminism? I think if you did,
you would be much less defensive about the ethical motives of *some*
of the antifeminist posters. I think there are some who are quite
sincere and/or thoughtful, and others who are not!

Lenore Levine

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.