NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3061

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!remarque.berkeley.edu!muffy
From: uunet!infmx![e-mail] (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: >slamming Women's Bookstores
Date: 1 Jan 1993 01:42:44 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 110
Sender: [e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy)
Approved: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Seidman) writes:
>
> ... I happen to think that the concept of Women's Literature
>with a Women-only-(essence) is sheer madness.

Well ... you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  In my view, this
is precisely one of those areas in which it is counterproductive for
people of one sex to meddle with the ideas and consciousness-raising
efforts of the other.  If this is madness, then it will be recognized
eventually and outgrown.  But as long as women have ideas that they
want to discuss among themselves, I believe that men's only concerns in
that regard are in understanding those ideas and how they apply to men
and men's behavior.  And I feel the same way about women's reactions
to the new crop of "men's movement" books.

>First (WARNING: deep ideology follows:)
>In theory it is possible for a male author to produce
>a book fitting into some sort of Lesbian/Women's Literature Scheme.
>(and should such a thing ever happen, it could get shut out of the
>mainstream *just* as easily as the typical Lesbian/Women's book do)

Yes, that's possible.  But as a practical matter it seems less than
likely.  Any man with a basic understanding of the audience would
most likely choose a different one.

>Second (WARNING: incipient deconstructionism follows:)
>Books can take on a life of their own in the minds of the readers
>that isn't linearly related to the sex of the author.  Also, there's
>been women authors credited with writing like a man.

One response to this would be to say that women have a lot of
catching up to do among themselves, and in a few decades or
centuries, there won't be a need.  Meanwhile, women feel that there
is a need, at least some do, and as long as the business continues
in the black, that's all that's necessary to justify its existence.

>Third (WARNING: incipient Jungian psychology follows:)
>I happen to suspect that there's a masculine and feminine component
>to everyone's personality; it's just weighted differently in people.
>The concept of Women's literature that is sooo women-oriented as to
>be beyond men rubs against that grain.  And if such a thing were really
>true there wouldn't be any point to even discussing the issue because the
>OTHER couldn't possibly understand (which seems to be a totally pointless
>way of looking at the world)

To you, yes.  Other people may believe differently.  Why shouldn't
there be a shop where they can buy what they choose, and not have to
sift through anything else?  After all, there are all sorts of
religious bookstores where you won't find Darwin.  You might find
dozens of religious refutations of Darwinism, but no Darwin.

>Finally (WARNING: shallow ideology follows:)
>This is to address the diversionary conterarguments in the followup
>posts.  I have nothing against this or other Women's bookstores,
>I wasn't made to feel uncomfortable there; no one was rude; no
>one asked to see my feminist-id card; and no injustice was done
>(and I never said or implied such a thing).  And I see no reason
>why I won't go back to that bookstore when appropriate.  (But from
>now on I will think there is a touch of MADNESS to such an
>establishment)

And you're entitled to that opinion.

>I never challenged the private property rights or entitlements of
>the proprietors to sell whatever they want to, nor do I think that
>reverse discrimination, or seperate-but-equal has anything to do with
>what I've been saying.  I think these legal arguments are typical
>of "constitutional freedom"-arguments that are brought up as a
>RED-HERRING, and it's exactly the same tactic that is used to divert
>discussions about the meaning of pornography. (How many times have
>you heard: "well say what you want, but porn is constitutionally protected"
>when that NEVER was the issue)

Good point.

>Lastly (WARNING: mild sarcasm follows:)
>Someone suggested there were more important "injustices" to talk
>about.  Another RED-HERRING! (and so typical in soc.feminism).
>There are *always* more important things to talk about!!!! So What!!
>I hope this wasn't a suggestion to censor the topic *I* happen to be
>talking about.  Make a post of your own!!  Nyah Nyah ;-) (toungue out too)

Hmmm.  Well I'm not so sure about this point.  After all, this is
soc.feminism, and this audience might legitimately have a stronger
interest in those injustices that seem nearer to women.  I don't like
being dismissed, and I'm sure you don't either.  But in all honesty, I
don't see that there's much of a problem with that bookstore (as long
as they don't toss men out for no good reason)--except insofar as it
hurts to feel abandoned or excluded in any way.  This is something that
adult men often aren't used to.  And yet women have to put up with it a
lot of the time.  So identifying those feelings and learning to
empathize with others who have to endure it more often might not be
such a bad way to respond.  I suspect that the women who run that store
know that some men will feel that way and have decided that they can
live with it.  That might be madness, or it might be simple politics.
I don't know.

>
>Have a nice day,

You too!  Happy New Year to all.

-r


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.