Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: gender roles
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.151953.4513@arris.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 18:50:12 GMT
References: <1991Jan5.142726.5081@arris.com> <663265517@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jan8.233427.22767@arris.com> <1991Jan9.154241.15961@iti.org>
Organization: ARRIS Pharmaceutical, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 71
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

In article <663265517@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>(Hint: what you call "understanding the gender system," I call
>"suggestion a new gender system which is more oppressive
>toward men than what we have now.")

To which I respond (after supplying an extensive list of
counter-examples):

>What I call "understanding gender systems" is just that, as even a
>casual glance at any of these books will show you.

And then, this:
>In article <1991Jan9.154241.15961@iti.org> dhw@iti.org (David H. West) writes:
>
>It's just *an* understanding; others are possible, and *all* are
>"merely social constructs", no matter how polysyllabic their names.

I'm not sure I see the point of this. I don't understand exactly what
you mean by "merely social constructs" (despite the fact that this
phrase appears in quotes, I doubt I've ever used it myself), but I
think I agree with this sentiment. Do you think we disagree?


>But since you seem to think that a quote somehow has more weight than
>a netter's opinion...


I'll explain my point again since it's disappeared amidst the partial
quotations. Mr Gazit claimed that I could not come up with any
feminist books or articles that *explain* gender "roles" (that
unfortunate term again) rather than prescribe them, because what I
call "understanding gender systems" is actually something else (see
above). He's mistaken, as I pointed out in the article quoted above.
There are indeed plenty of such books. It's just that Mr Gazit hasn't
read them. The reason?

>[Gazit again:]
>I look at what the feminist movement *does*.  I don't care too much
>what they write, till this writing becomes the basis for the actions.


So that was my point. It is a simple factual error to claim that
feminism is always geared towards suggesting "a new gender system
which is more oppresive toward men than what we have now," an error
caused by a simple refusal to consider any other sorts of feminism. Of
course, if Mr Gazit were correct, he would have a good basis for his
anti-feminist positions. But this particular basis simply won't stand
up to scrutiny.

Obviously this has nothing to do with "a netter's opinion" vs a quote.


Finally:

>     "But there is enormous resistance to be overcome from those to
>      whom exposing ideology _as_ ideology is truly shocking and
>      outrageous, since for them ideology is _truth_, and to
>      question it is to question the whole foundation of their world."
>
>      Cate Poynton, "Language And Gender: Making The Difference",
>      Oxford University Press, 1988; p88. ["_" = emphasis in original]


Understanding gender, which is what I claimed theoretical feminism is
about, means exactly to understand it as ideology, thereby shaking its
apparant connection to truth or nature.  As we see on soc.feminism
(and elsewhere) there is indeed enormous resistance to this project.

Again, I'm not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me or not.  I
don't see any disagreement at all, at least if the quote from Poynton
is intended to buttress your own position.