Prejudices

[Joe Varo]

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, David Casseres wrote:

> So, you have an example of a feminist [Gloria Steinem] (yeah, I think
> she's one) who has said something that raises some problems.  So what,
> Joe?

I'm just trying to figure out what one has to say or not say to be
considered a feminist.  Apparently you can say something really moronic
and still be part of the gang, so long as you toe the line.  But should
you dissent in some way then an attempt is made to squelch you.

To my understanding, feminism began as a struggle for equal legal and
political rights; it was a form of dissent.  Now the former dissenters,
having gained their rightful voice now wish to take away the voice of a
new group of dissenters.

By simply refusing to discuss individual such as Paglia, rather than
presenting a rebuttal, the feminists who do so are attempting to silence
her.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person wer of
the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that
one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind."
-- J.S. Mill, On Liberty

If I recall, wasn't Mill a feminist himself?

> Shall we all be down on the racial equality movement because of
> some highly controversial position that some black leader has taken? 

No, I don't believe that.

> And what does any of this have to do with Camille Paglia?

Has to do with what one can and cannot say before being told to "shut-up
and sit down".

> And what does any of it have to do with Thomas Pynchon?

Not much.  I didn't bring up the feminism topic.  I just let it ride for
awhile, figuring it to blow over.  When it seemed that it wouldn't, I
jumped into the fray.

> Some people in these discussions have stated feminist viewpoints on
> Pynchon's writing, and what happens?  Others respond with a lot of very
> ill-informed hostile commentary on feminism itself.  What are we
> supposed to think about that?

Well, let's suppose that someone were to offer a Structuralist critique of
Pynchon's writings, or a Marxist critique, or a Freudian critique.

If you don't agree with the philosophical underpinnings of these critical
viewpoints then there is a good chance you're going to argue against those
philosophies.  By showing a flaw in the underlying philosophy you would
thereby show the flaws in the literary critique.

Same thing with the feminist critique.

We can only hope that the discussion remains civil.

> So where's your line, Joe?

My line would be in maintaining consistent standards.  EVERYONE should
have a voice and the notion that one group, who having struggled immensely
to gain *their* voice should then want to stifle others strikes me as
ludicrous and hypocritical.

Joe