Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sparkyfs!usasoc.soc.mil!aero!aludra.usc.edu From: wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls Summary: Feminism, Socialism, and "Girls Girls Girls!" Message-ID: <12322@chaph.usc.edu> Date: 3 Oct 90 10:33:22 GMT References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> <12245@chaph.usc.edu> <9010022222.AA16693@liberty.cs.columbia.edu> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 424 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R [Some of the stuff in here is drifting from the subject and these articles are getting to be long. Please try to edit things down. I would suggest breaking things up for followups. While I left in stuff about Western domination, followups on that part of the article should probably go to talk.politics.misc. -MHN] In article <9010022222.AA16693@liberty.cs.columbia.edu> travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >>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? Certainly, many countries have aweful legal and social policies regarding women (and men too for that matter). You'll get no arguments here. I even (surprise!) think there are some problems here in the US, but I think we will disagree about the size, source, and nature of the problems in the US. >How about Purdah, for instance? Sorry, I'm not familiar with "Purdah". >Female infantcide? Of course not, but I am surprised that a group of rabid pro-abortionists would be terribly excited about infanticide (though I think abortion is OK and infanticide is not, personally). >Clitoridectomies? Yuck! >Buying and selling women? Of course not! Me? Pro-slavery? >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. That sounds bad on the surface, but I don't have all of the necessary information to make an informed decision. What seems ridiculous to me is that these are viewed as "women's issues". I am against infanticide, physical mutilation, slavery and unsafe products whether the "victim" is male or female. To hold a principle that says "Killing/mutilating/ enslaving/defrauding members of one sex is of more concern than if it happens to the other sex." is sexist. Principled stands against killing/mutilating/enslaving/defrauding are good. Bringing sexual views into these simple principles is wrong because it confuses the issue for no good reason. >> 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. Sure I do, but I don't think it's an especially important issue (compared to equal access to jobs, education, and government services). >Keeping pro-choice laws in effect is the second-best >answer, and most doubtful prospect. (Anyone else care to contribute?) I don't see how ERA would have any effect on abortion laws (aside from political fall-out). How can you go from "Equal treatment of women." to "Limiting access to abortion is illegal."? It sounds about as weak as the argument from privacy. >Either way, I was primarily addressing your "universality" view, not >specifically advocating the ERA. The original comment was explicitly about ERA (but is long gone in the back and forth of the debate). I do stick by my argument though that the idea that women should be treated equally is nearly universal in the US. If you took a poll asking "Do you believe that women and men should be treated equally on principle?" you'd probably get a 99% yes response. It is only when you ask (something like): "Since women can only be treated equal under socialist scheme X, do you believe that men and women should be treated equally on principle?" that you would get varying degrees of disagreement (depending on what X is). >> >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! I wasn't playing rhetorical games. The issue of who is responsible for whose life and who controls the product of your labor is vitally important. It is an important issue, not a rhetorical device. Attaching unwarranted implications to the word "girl" *IS* a rhetorical device, however. >Watch: "Oh, you mean, it's ok >that the US has the HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED >NATION? If the alternatives are having a high infant mortality rate (which was caused, I should ad, by the very kinds of socialistic programs you advocate to solve it) and losing my freedom, I will choose to keep my freedom. My life and my property belong to me, not to the first person to come along with some kind of problem. >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?" Sure...why should it matter to me where a kid lives? I think that good life-expectancies are good, but I would rather live in the US and be free than live in Cuba and have low infant-mortality in my neighborhood. >But this gets us no closer to the truth than your response. I agree that your comment gets us nowhere. Mine on the other hand deals with an important issue you have not addressed. Do you have no answer to it? >Perhaps >there are other ways to view treating child care than with kneejerk >responses like calling it "socialism." If you establish mandatory national child care it IS socialistic. Calling it something else is just an evasion. >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. I have no problem at all with voluntarily-funded child care systems. I believe the original posting referred to it as a "National Child Care System". >Legislative solutions aren't the only answers. I am surprised to hear that from you. Maybe there's hope for you yet. >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." That is because the activists spend time talking about issues like child care, abortion, and patriarchy and not equal treatment of women. The petty word games come in when they try to confuse these non-equality related issues with the equality issue. >>>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. I agree with that...maybe your social engineering friends would be interested in hearing this. ;-) >Even if it could, the laws against sexual discrimination >and harassment were all passed within the last twenty years, unlike, say, >laws against murder. OK, that's (partly) why the laws are broken more often than laws against murder. That doesn't mean that any substantial part of the population has not accepted sexual equality in general. >Please understand that many people use `feminism' as >a means of social criticism, not as some platform from which to advocate >laws. OK, but when that criticism goes beyond sexual equality and extends to advocation of things utterly unrelated to equal treatment there is no reason to call it feminism anymore. Talk about abuses of language! >But no, I do not think that such laws are universally accepted, even >in a country where outraged sound-bites pass for substantive debate. I don't think that the affirmative action and contract set-aside laws are universally accepted, but the anti-discrimination laws are. What leads you to believe otherwise? >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 decade are you living in? The only person I have seen express that attitude is Archie Bunker. ;-) Why do you believe this is a common attitude? >>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. I completely disagree with this. Killing someone because of his race is _exactly_ as bad as killing him because you want his wallet. This sounds like pretty dyed in the wool collectivism to me. So much for your more promising attitudes of the previous paragraphs. ;-) >The violence per se is not important in this context, nor are the number >of deaths. What a twisted perspective! >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. The difference between the drunk driving death and the rape death is the difference between suicide and murder. Both are distasteful, but the latter is objectionable, not because the victim is a woman, or because it is "an attack against a group" (which is not ALWAYS the case with rape) but because it is violence directed at another person. I repeat...violence against women is just as bad as violence against men and for the same reason. There is no justification for treating them any differently. >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. It is "unique" in the circumstances, but not unique in severity or in what makes it morally wrong. It is just as bad to be shot by an angry neighbor as to be shot by your spouse. both are immoral for the same reason. >Gender roles obviously play a huge part in the giving >and taking of this abuse. I agree that it is a large part of the cause, but what's the point? >Ultimately, this inquiry not a >Monty-Pythonesque question of "who suffers more", but of finding >reasons why some things happen. OK, I agree, but what should this have to do with government policies? >Finding "who suffers more" is good public policy, but irrelevant to >social criticism. What is the purpose of this criticism then? If it is merely advisory (ie. to help people understand how to live their lives) then I disagree that "feminist social criticism" contributes much to social harmony or improves the attitudes of men. I think that more down to earth principles of equal treatment and non-violence will improve those attitudes. They are all that is necessary. >>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. Just as "violence against men" is. So people treat one another poorly. What makes this an issue of "feminism" and not a more general matter of good human relations? >As Clayton Williams, future governor of Texas, said this >year, "they should relax and enjoy it." There is an widespread >attitude of tolerance. First, I suspect he was just kidding, but if he wasn't then that just makes him one of those "few" you mentioned. Most likely he was trying to stir up a response by the radical feminists who are not held in high esteem by Mr. Williams' political base. >>>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. What we are talking about here is not a difficulty in communication, but a juvenile refusal to understand. If my use of that word upsets you because you think it means I am thinking something and I tell you this is not true but you continue to insist that I mean something other than what I claim, then you are calling me a liar (and a sexist) when I am neither, even though you know better. That's what makes it so frustrating. >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. I plan to. It does not upset me if people misunderstand me and allow me an opportunity to explain myself. What ticks me off is when people refuse to believe (or more like admit that they recognize) what they know to be true. >> [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. I find it interesting that even the politically correct Mr. Winfrey described the regions in question as "middle east" and "far east". Does that make him a racist too? Does my use of the term "oriental" make me a racist? >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. Since I don't think feminists have a valid complaint, that's not a very convincing argument. >You might also profitably notice that you complain about labels reserved >for you, while denying others the same privilege of self-naming. What label did I complain about? I mentioned I had been referred to as a "westerner" (and that I sometimes refer to myself that way), but I never complained about it. >In any case, in the preceding paragraph, you asserted that the West >was the "center of civilization" during the colonial era. As much as you seem to reject the idea, it WAS (and mostly still is if you consider the US to be "west"). >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 Historically, an objectively true fact. > 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 This is only the case if you assume the premise that one gains some kind of superiority or inferiority because he lives in some particular geographic region. Fortunately, I am not afflicted by this collectivist assumption. By the way, I usually use that word (actually, it really doesn't come up often) to refer to physical characteristics on par with black, white, or hispanic. "Asian" used in this context is slightly ambiguous in cases of (east) indians, russians, and people born in asia but with non "oriental" traits. In any event, I don't mean to imply any kind of inferiority by referring to someone as "oriental". Statements to the contrary are either mistaken or intentionally evasive of the truth. > otherwise, what does "Center of Civilization" mean, exactly? It means that the guys who were writing the books and maps were living to the west of that place (they were also living near the west coast on the eurasian continent). It also meant that in that geographic region technology and other demonstrations of civilization were (and are) more prevalent than in "the east". Only a racist would assume that because of this fact that individuals in the "west" necessarily have/had any kind of moral or intellectual superiority or that there is any implication of inferiority on the part of individuals i nthe "east". There are and were some ideas and practices common among those in the west that resulted in the general success in that region, but assumptions about any particular individual on that basis (or worse, rejection of those commonly held ideas) are racist in nature. > Can you posit an egalitarian, non-superior Center of Civilization? Since I believe egalitarian societies are nasty, I don't believe they can be superior to non collectivistic non-egalitarian ones (though they can be superior to some other non-egalitarian collectivist societies... just a matter of degrees of evil). By the way, I don't think that the idea that the history of "the east" is one of egalitarianism (though like I said, I consider egalitarianism evil), but rather one of tribalism and various non-egalitarian strains of collectivism. >(That still > somehow colonized other countries for their material wealth?) A kinder, > gentler Center of Civilization?) Anyway, we can conclude Puleeeze! > Easterner = inferior to those from Center of Civilization "We" can only conclude this is "we" are racists. Just what do you mean by "inferior" anyway? >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. It is clear to me why people object (as it was in the case of the "girls" issue). My understanding of it doesn't make me agree with the validity of that kind of tortured reasoning. Reasoning no more tortured could result in me taking offense when not addressed as "Mr. John Wilber Sir" (since it do otherwise demonstrates some amount disrespect or familiarity) but the reasoning would be just as invalid.