Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!tittle From: mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: theory and action Message-ID: <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> Date: 17 Oct 89 17:11:20 GMT References: <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS Lines: 118 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Richard Shapiro again: >I'm interested in examining the "poles" because the positions are most >clearly defined there. People live at the poles; the "middle ground" >is an abstraction. One is *either* male or female, and the social >consequences of that distinction affect everyone. The problem is that the "social consequences" here is itself an abstraction. The real consequences of gender vary from individual to individual; in spite of the limited number of genders, the range of consequences are spread all over the place. Also, a lot of those supposed consequences are contaminated by many other factors over which there is a lot of variation. Income stands out as an example here. One's gender creates two poles only under the assumption that the reaction of others to this gender is a constant. In practice, it is not. >In my thinking (lessons learned from feminism), the most productive way to >understand social phenomena like gender is to look at individuals as >secondary creations, as products of various larger classes. The problem is, this is known to be a fallacy: the fallacy of composition. The behavior and interest of groups need be those of its members. The two can only be connected to the extent that the behavior/interests of the group derive from that of the members. The fallacy of composition is frequently found in political writings (and all writings about social action are by their nature political writings). >It's a comforting illusion to imagine that each individual is fully >autonomous and self-willed; but it's nothing more than an illusion. It is seemingly comforting to the social scientist to imagine that the individual autonomy and will are illusory, but the very real variation in individual action shows that this is also an illusion. The truth is in the middle. People have some degree of self-will, but they also participate in the direction given by groups in which they fall, again to some degree. >Actually I said "sexist", not "discriminatory". But the two are more or >less equivalent in this context. You can pretend that calling an >action "discriminatory" is factual and not moral, but this is >disingenuous, to say the least. Well, the two are NOT equivalent. All you have to do is look in the dictionary. Besides the fact that they are given quite different definitions, there is also the very real matter of etymology. "Discrimination" as a social pejorative grows out of the older sense of the word; the moral connotation attached to it arises from the judgement that certain characteristics are not properly grounds for choosing between two people. Sexism, on the other hand, has no such roots. And the dictionary reflects this. I'll admit to being somewhat disingenious here, but you seem to have missed the point. There is a moral opinion here about the propriety of sex as a basis for decision. Regardless of what word you use, this opinion is what the word expresses. >Who says neutrality is a desirable thing? As explained before, >neutrality has the effect of keeping things as they are. I say neutrality is a desirable thing. No one has right to gender as an advantage, and especially not without regard to what other advantage they may have. The notion that the husband in a homeless family enjoys a meaningful advantage over Kathryn Graham is laughable, and Ms. Graham is not entitled to any "counteracting" advantage over him simply because of her gender. If neutrality is the goal, and the current situation is not neutral, then neutrality means change. >Women "suffer" BECAUSE they're women; blacks suffer BECAUSE they're >black. There is nothing specific to any given individual which >underlies this, it is a group phenomenon. Nonsense. A woman suffers because ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL acts on the basis of her gender. It is a group phenomenon only to the extent that her membership in the group is made the basis of action. >We end the suffering of particular woman by ending discrimination against >women AS A CLASS. But to end this means to end acts of discrimination against women. Adding a supposedly compensatory discrimination against men doesn't do this. On the average, things may look better, but this may well be acheived by simply improving the lot of already privileged women and worsening the situation for disadvantaged men. >So let's appease the redneck males? Is that your suggestion? Anything >for a vote? Feminism IS an assault on male advantage. If "redneck >males" actively or passively support these advantages, feminism is an >assualt on them. The point you are missing is that these people are *already* getting screwed by *other* factors. If a man is already worried about losing his job, he is hardly going to lie down for someone (who, it might be noted, is not usually at any risk of beig hurt here) who suggests that he give up his job in the defense of some abstract social virtue. *Especially* since he isn't the one who made the decision in the first place! People ought to object to suggestions that they be harmed for the sake of another's sins. The practical issue here, may I remind you, is whether action beyond insistence upon non-discrimination is legitimate. My position is that discriminatory action against men is not legitimate. It oversteps getting rid of "male advantage". It does not end discrimination against women. I should point out, Richard, that you cannot legitimately claim to speak for all men. And I would suspect that you are confident of not losing your advantages because of the actions you advocate. This is an example of my complaint. Your interests are not the interests of those who are not as secure as you are. When you start throwing economic leverage around as a weapon for social policy, economic divisions loom large against all others. And, as never seems to register, ecomonic differences within the genders vastly predominate differences between the genders.