Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel From: mlm@cs.brown.edu (Moises Lejter) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Why I Am Not a Feminist Message-ID: Date: 29 Apr 91 07:51:10 GMT References: <2805efd1.34d0@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <9104141120.6798@mydog.UUCP> <672147838@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Apr24.130437.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> <14551@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Sender: uunet!brunix!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU Reply-To: mlm@cs.brown.edu Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University Lines: 87 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In-Reply-To: farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU's message of 28 Apr 91 23:49:46 GMT Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org From: farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) [...] In this society(USA) we have a white male upper-middle class, able group in power. If you are part of what is in power you are an ??ist. For example, if you are white _because_ whites are in power (they make the laws,enforce them etc) you are racist. This means that because you are white there are certain attitudes that you grow up with, certain ways that you are treated by the people in power because you are white. It would seem to me that one can say that a group is Z-ist, based on that group's behavior or beliefs. One can also say that an individual is a Z-ist, based on that individual's behavior or beliefs. But it makes no sense to say that an individual is a Z-ist because of the behavior of a group s/he may be associated with, except in so far as the individual's behavior or beliefs matches those of the group with which s/he is being associated in those areas relevant to Z-ism. For example, take a democratic government in which a majority has determined (and enacted into law) Z-ist rules. That government, and thus that society, is Z-ist. Take now an individual Y that is part of that society, but who voted against Z-ist laws and behaves in a non-Z-ist manner. Y is, in thought and deed, a non-Z-ist individual. To call Y a Z-ist seems to me a useless, if not actually counter- productive, position to take (because it's bound to alienate Y, if for no other reason). I would further claim that this would be true regardless of any groups Y could be associated with within that society (even if it happens to be the majority group, for any particular denominator). Assume now that a second individual X belongs to the group Z-ism discriminates against. Assume further that X believes that Z-ism is "true", and so accepts that Y is to be favored over X. Is Y now Z-ist, because X is Z-ist? Does it matter if there is a whole group of discriminated people who believe in Z-ism? The answers should be no - calling Y a Z-ist should only depend on Y's behavior and beliefs, and on nothing else. Assume that the government favors Y over X, because of its Z-ist policy. If Y does not take advantage of this privilege, is s/he Z-ist? I would say not. Suppose Y does take advantage of this privilege, in such a way that it benefits those Z-ism discriminates against. Is Y Z-ist? I would say not. Suppose Y takes advantage of this privilege, in such a way that someone else is discriminated against. Is Y Z-ist? By assumption, Y would not do this, being non-Z-ist. In general? I think this is a hard one. Because you are associated with the group that makes the (sexist,racist,ableist) laws you are part of the problem. I would say that only to the extent that you do not take steps, in either your personal or public life, against those Z-ist laws are you a part of the problem. That does not however imply that you can not be part of the solution. This does not mean you should feel guilty being white. etc. But everytime you participate in something that is -ist and you are not part of the target group and you do not say "this is -ist" then you are not being part of the solution. True. I would go even farther - you are only part of the solution if you actively take steps, in either your personal or public life, to solve the problem. This is extremely hard to get across in a short amount of space - Rose actually gives day-long lectures on this stuff. So my main point is you can't be an -ist if you are not in power. I disagree. X in my example above is Z-ist. The fact that X is in the group discriminated against has nothing to do with it - X believes whatever position Z-ism preaches, and is therefore a Z-ist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: mlm@cs.brown.edu BITNET: mlm@browncs.BITNET UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.brown.edu!mlm Phone: (401)863-7664 USmail: Moises Lejter, Box 1910 Brown University, Providence RI 02912