From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:12:24 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <gyjnsld.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> >> Well, you probably percieve the material in a different light than I.
> >> By the standards of Dworkin, I should do all in my power to make this
> >> sexist material go away, I think.
 
Which standards of Dworkin do you mean?  Are you saying that she promotes
censorship?  How far would you like to go in making sexist material go
away?
 
> There is a difference between a "personal attack", and that which can
> be taken personally, even though no names are mentioned. If I made a point
> of saying -all women are evil-, etc... whenever you were around, but
> never mentioned your name, would you not notice that you were a member of
> the group containing "all women", and that everything said also applied
> to you?
I do hear statements about "all women..." all the time.  My own reaction
is that the statement says more about the speaker than it does about me. 
And sometimes it contains something interesting and sometimes it doesn't. 
I don't take it personally unless it is meant personally.  If my boss
says, "all women are dumb therefore I can't use you anymore," I'm
obviously going to take that very personally.  But if he goes around
saying that all women are dumb but treats me as an exception, then I'm
going to treat his statements as some kind of bizarre rhetoric.
  
> 
> It need not be a personal attack to be taken personally. 
 
I'm not sure I understand the difference.  What is personal about what
someone says, if that person doesn't even know you exist?
  
> How does she exclude men from her book. I would assume that she is
> talking about 'every man", rather than any individual man. What's the
> difference?
  
Are you saying that all study and description of groups of people is
unacceptable?  And that all statements about classes of people MUST be
true of every single individual?  You not only want to stamp out feminist
writers like Dworkin but also sociology, political science, economics,
psycholog, and every other attempt to distill general principles WRT human
groups?
 
> And I question the direct relevance of the hisorical data.  I accept
> that it could show how we got to where we are today, but not that it
> describes our situation now.
 
I agree with you that the ideas are either relevant or not.  And if it
isn't relevant, you probably shouldn't waste time talking about it.  So
why are you?  
  
> How much did you accept? There are different ways to go about things. One
> way, favored by fundamentalists, is to start with a -fact- they are already
> 100% certain about, and look for data to 'prove' it. Since they already
> know the answer, any data that does not fit is tossed or ignored. The 
> other way is to gather all relevant data possible, and see what conclusions
> can be drawn from it. Which has Dworkin done? 
  
I think she probably uses the former, fundamentalist approach.  And I
think I use the latter, although I may never get to the conclusions part. 
I'm not sure which you use.  You seem pretty ready to condemn 100% of
Dworkin, which may imply that you are using the fundamentalist approach
too.  Where do you think you fit into your scheme?
>   
> >If we destroy all broad observations about people as groups because the
> >observations are unfair to individuals, we eliminate the opportunity to
> >think about very large social issues.
> 
> Is it also not possible that by such classification, we create the
> conditions necessary for abuse? In fact, is this not more of less the
> same claim made about the current situation. Those other posters who
> answered the question about blatant sexism all posted instances
> where such "sweeping generalizations" were made about females, and
> about them by implication. Is it right to make such generalizations
> about men, but wrong to make similar generalizations about women?
>
I'm not sure if you are saying that you would like to censor Dworkin and
keep her from saying bad things about men or not.  No, I don't think that
incorrect or unfair generalizations lead to abuse.  If someone is being
abusive, then THAT's the behavior that needs to be dealt with, not serious
scholarship that happens to contain some personal emotion and happens to
be unsympathetic to your own gender.  I support the right of Dworkin to
write books about the political side of intercourse AND I support the
right of male sexists to tell jokes about women drivers and make erroneous
claims about female math abilities.  I even support racist scum who slur
minorities, because I think people are smart enough to evaluate the source
take whatever, if anything, is useful.  Censorship and bookburning is
obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in power more than it will hurt the
one that IS.  Overall I see the squelching of odious ideas as being a lot
more dangerous than any fanatical idea anyone can think of.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--