Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!aero!rshapiro@BBN.COM From: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: theory and action Message-ID: <47048@bbn.COM> Date: 17 Oct 89 19:22:56 GMT References: <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: Richard Shapiro Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 90 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >> [I paraphrase the position which regards individuals as secondary formations] >The problem is, this is known to be a fallacy: the fallacy of >composition. You're entitled to your view of the world but that doesn't make other views "fallacies". The point of view I've summarized is not "known" by anyone to be a fallacy. It's a point of view, like yours. I happen to think it's more productive in its explanatory power. It's also the dominant perspective in contemporary feminist theory, so I'd say I'm not alone in employing it, or regarding it as useful. Argue if you like; a cry of "fallacy" is not an argument. >>Actually I said "sexist", not "discriminatory". But the two are more or >>less equivalent in this context. > >Well, the two are NOT equivalent. All you have to do is look in the >dictionary. The dictionary definition of sexism (Webster's New Collegiate): "prejudice or discrimination based on sex, esp. discrimination against women". OK? Perhaps it's worth remembering the larger context here. I used the word "sexism", you paraphrased it as "discrimination", I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and now you seem to be offering me a lecture on the difference between the two... >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. This is astonishing in its naivete. Sexism is about much much more than the conscious acts of individuals. It has as much (or more) to do with our feelings towards ourselves as it has to do with the actions of specific "others" towards us. These days, explicit and intentional acts of sexism by one individual against another are comparatively rare and are almost never acknowledged as such by the perpetrator. Sexism thrives in the way we look at ourselves, in the acts which we unwittingly perform with the best of intentions (i.e. not consciously on the basis of gender), in the attitues which we share as a common basis and which have therefore become invisible to us. Your statement exemplifies perfectly the explanatory weakness of the individualist position. Sexism is a group phenomenon because it *transcends* any single individual. The evidence is all around you. >> 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. I haven't missed this, you just deleted it from the your quotations. I've stressed several times the importance of race, class, etc. The interconnections between all of these are certainly complex. Within each class, male privilege continues to exist and continues to be a legitimate target for feminists. If you want to say something like "poor men have it bad enough already, we shouldn't bug them about sexism", I completely disagree with you. Sexism is no less real and no less destructive just because it coexists with other injustices. >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 await your suggestions for actions which will end sexism, but which will not work by ending male privilege. Without a concrete suggestion, I can only conclude that such a strategy is as much of a "have your cake and eat it too" fantasy as it seems to be on the surface. >I should point out, Richard, that you cannot legitimately claim to >speak for all men. Have I ever maid this claim or even suggested it? Where does the insinuation that I have done so come from? This is pretty low-class debating. > And I would suspect that you are confident of not >losing your advantages because of the actions you advocate. And you would be wrong. What possible grounds do you have for making a statement like this anyway? Perhaps for you, short-sighted selfishness is the only effective motivation. But don't assume everyone is so limited in their principles.