Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!apple!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls
Message-ID: <9010022222.AA16693@liberty.cs.columbia.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 05:42:42 GMT
References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> <12245@chaph.usc.edu>
Lines: 173
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

[Hi all, sorry about the length again.  Only one book reference./tlw]

>In article <12245@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes:
>
>   In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes:
>   >In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes:
>   >> [women's rights universally accepted -- only petty word games left]
>   [followup question about `which universe might that be?']
>   OK OK OK.  I meant universally in the US.  Geez.

Perhaps, then, you will admit that there are still things for
activists to become upset over, even if not "universally" in the US?
How about Purdah, for instance?  Female infantcide?  Clitoridectomies?
Buying and selling women?  How about US companies exporting the Dalkon
Shield IUD to third-world countries, even after it had been pulled
from our markets for killing "our" women?  Whoops -- somehow the US
got mentioned again.

>   There are many questions about just what additional changes the
>   ERA would require.  Just what changes in the present law would you
>   expect to see (aside perhaps from allowing women into combat units
>   in the military)?

Good question.  You gave the most obvious answer, although it's not
clear that you understand the depth of political opposition to females
in combat.  Keeping pro-choice laws in effect is the second-best
answer, and most doubtful prospect.  (Anyone else care to contribute?)
Either way, I was primarily addressing your "universality" view, not
specifically advocating the ERA.

>   >Other issues, such as the lack of national child care,
>
>   Oh, you mean taking money from childless people by force and giving it
>   to people who have children?  I don't think that has anything to do with
>   sexism.  I think it has a great deal to do with socialism or some other
>   kind of collectivism.

Hey, I can play rhetorical games, too!  Watch: "Oh, you mean, it's ok
that the US has the HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED
NATION?  Oh, you mean it's ok that children in a dozen other countries
have a better chance at staying alive until the age of five?"

But this gets us no closer to the truth than your response.  Perhaps
there are other ways to view treating child care than with kneejerk
responses like calling it "socialism."  Many wholly capitalistic
companies have realized that their own bottom line is tied up in
employees who have children, and that providing child care and
parental leave is ultimately better for everyone.  Legislative
solutions aren't the only answers.

Finally, the fact that there is a great deal to argue about here
belies your "universally accepted" assertion.  Activists have more to
deal with than "petty word games."

>   >sexual discrimination and harassment,
>
>   Sure, it happens at times.  It is also illegal.  What percentage of the
>   population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment
>   are OK?  Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted"
>   even though they are occasionally broken?

Passing laws against behavior cannot remove gender roles that cause
that behavior.  Even if it could, the laws against sexual discrimination
and harassment were all passed within the last twenty years, unlike, say,
laws against murder.  Please understand that many people use `feminism' as
a means of social criticism, not as some platform from which to advocate
laws.

But no, I do not think that such laws are universally accepted, even
in a country where outraged sound-bites pass for substantive debate.
Many people think women ought to act like women, and that doesn't
necessarily include their having a job -- or at least, one that pays
as much as men's work.

>   What makes "violence against women" any worse than "violence against men"?

The same reason that made the Holocaust worse than the other crimes of
humanity.  The same reason why a single black man chained to a tree
and tortured to death is worse than someone killed in a barroom fight.
It is always different when people are targeted as a group.  The
violence per se is not important in this context, nor are the number
of deaths.  For example, more women are probably injured from drunk
driving than from being raped.  True or not, it's simply irrelevant to
a criticism of societal attitudes fomenting rape, such as those
discussed in Chris Lane's recent reply to your article.

Also, spousal abuse is unique in the ways that economic and
psychological act together to prolong the abuse, whether the victim is
male or female.  Gender roles obviously play a huge part in the giving
and taking of this abuse.  Ultimately, this inquiry not a
Monty-Pythonesque question of "who suffers more", but of finding
reasons why some things happen.  Finding "who suffers more" is good
public policy, but irrelevant to social criticism.

>   Do you think that the idea that violence against anyone, male or female
>   has not been pretty much universally rejected?  ...  just how many
>   people do you think would say "yeah, I support violence against women"?

Few.  However, many would say that violence against women is
inevitable.  As Clayton Williams, future governor of Texas, said this
year, "they should relax and enjoy it."  There is an widespread
attitude of tolerance.

>   >In any case, the use of words like "girl" or "women" signals an
>   >attitude of respect or the lack of one.
>
>   Yes, and MY meaning when I refer to an adult female as a "girl" does
>   not carry any connotation of immaturity.  None.  Zero.  How can I tell?
>   Because I am the one using the word.  What you are saying here is that
>   you can tell what I am thinking because you know what I mean when I use
>   the word "girl" even when I tell you I mean something else.  I know
>   what I mean.  You can't tell me otherwise.

Fascinating: you're defining a one-way form of communication, in which
the sender unilaterally determines the message and the manner in which
it will be interpreted.  Perhaps you could work a science fiction
story out of that theme.  If not, ad agencies will definitely be
interested in your idea.

However, in the real world, there are quite a few people who are
offended by the use of "girl," and for the reasons I gave.  Use it all
you like, but you cannot control how other people will respond to your
words.  Sorry for the late bulletin.

>   [John Wilber asks "Why is `Oriental' so much worse than `Asian?'"]
>   Travis Winfrey responds:
>   >The feeling is that names like this are geographically relative and
>   >mediated by outmoded attitudes of racial superiority.  France and England,
>   >the primary colonizers of the Middle and Far East, chose names for these
>   >regions indicating their distance from the "center of civilization", which
>   >the colonizers felt themselves to be.
>
>   In fact THEY WERE the center of civilization at the time.  The fact that
>   they refer to themselves as "westerners" or occidentals would imply that
>   the "middle" would be around eastern europe.

It's much more complicated than that, to put it mildly.  An excellent
book on the subject is Edward Said's "Orientalism," which explores the
centuries of mystification and the historic placement of the Islamic
Orient.  I suggest you consider the possibility that Asians, like
feminists, might have solid grounds for complaints about labels.  You
might also profitably notice that you complain about labels reserved
for you, while denying others the same privilege of self-naming.

In any case, in the preceding paragraph, you asserted that the West
was the "center of civilization" during the colonial era.  Apart from
this being a cute, 19th-century attitude, it surprises me that you
would bring it up in this particular argument.  Let's recount, using
_your_ assumptions:

	West = Center of Civilization
 so
	Westerner = someone from the Center of Civilization
 then contrast
	East = not the Center of Civilization
 in other words,
	East = inferior to the Center of Civilization

 otherwise, what does "Center of Civilization" mean, exactly?  Can you
 posit an egalitarian, non-superior Center of Civilization?  (That still
 somehow colonized other countries for their material wealth?)  A kinder,
 gentler Center of Civilization?)  Anyway, we can conclude

	Easterner = inferior to those from Center of Civilization

Is the offensive side of "Oriental" any clearer?  If not, you'll have
to think further on the subject.  For those who got this far, the
correspondence to feminism, particularly to Cindy Tittle's short
definition of feminism, should be clear.

Just a round-eyed big-nosed gaijin ghost,

t