Max, Max, your end isn't up high enough! :-)
In any society there emerge certain norms and standards of behavior and knowledge. Girls may just want to have fun, but most modern women expect that civilized men will have picked up on at least a few crumbs from the banquet of feminist thought.
In terms of civil discourse in a pluralistic setting, that means learning at least the basics of how not to offend, and being educated enough to know what prejudiced myths and stereotypes are a mound of crap.
(sorry, I was beginning to feel too stuffy)
Anyway, here's how I learned what this means in practice.
My spouse, an early feminist, finally banned two of my friends from our apartment in the early 1970s:
Phil Ochs, the folksinger, and Tom Forcade, the publisher of High Times magazine (for which I wrote).
Her argument was simple. Not only were they sexists (that was pretty common in the early 70s), but they didn't have the common courtesy or intelligence to figure out that they shouldn't ACT sexist in our home. You don't order a feminist to go get you a beer from the refrigerator. Any idiot can figure that out. They didn't show her the respect of even trying and failing. That she would have tolerated.
So when women on this list argue that there should be a modest baseline of knowledge about feminist ideas before a man posts some argument that was axed into kindling 20 years ago--that seems quite reasonable to me.
I hate organized sports and just watch the Superbowl for the ads...but at least I end up knowing who won, so I know what 90% of the men I meet for the next month are talking about. :-)
Another Gender Interest Traitor for Actual Thought Enhancement
-Chip Berlet
----- Original Message ----- From: Max B. Sawicky <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> To: Lbo-Talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 11:24 PM Subject: Keeping My End Up
> Hi folks.
>
> Been away from my machine since Thursday a.m.
> Just deleted 400 messages. A bit much to read.
> Did I miss anything good?
>
> I'm sorry I don't have much to contribute to all
> this sex stuff. Except to say I've never lactated
> and have no plans to do so. But enough about my
> nipples. Tell me about yours. No Doug, I didn't
> mean you.
>
> As for the five-gender model, I'm not
> against it, as long as I get first pick.
>
> I would also like to indicate my firm
> opposition to being turned 'outside in.'
> Not even metaphorically.
>
> I appreciate the need for the feminist-ignorant
> such as myself to bone up. I'm still trying to
> read The Psychic Life of Power. It's hard to
> stay focused -- too much like work.
>
> It is telling to me that the only place I
> have heard anything remotely like the talk
> on this list is . . . nowhere, actually.
> And I don't spend all my time in bowling
> alleys. There is palaver all the time
> about the economy, the budget, division
> of work responsibilities in the family,
> relationships, etc. But nothing like what
> I hear on this list. Seems to be much more
> of an academic thing here (sex, that is)
> than most stuff that comes up.
>
> Here's a old principle that I just made up.
> We all devote as much energy as we have to
> self-improvement in the mental department,
> since that's what our self-conceptions and/or
> professions demand. We read what we are able
> to, what we can best understand, or what we
> find most entertaining. I read
> reports from the Congressional Budget Office
> and econ textbooks (most of what you need
> is in there), so I can laugh at what economists,
> pundits, politicians, and Nathan say about
> fiscal policy.
>
> In a diverse list, there is not much point in
> demanding that someone read YOUR stuff, nor in
> excessive references to it as a resort to
> argument. If the handful who have read,
> say, Lacan, want to have a specialists'
> argument, they don't need the list. In
> fact, for that the list is an impediment.
>
> While I often understand little that goes
> on, it does appear that the arguments are not
> among specialists who share a discipline.
> They are cross-cultural (culture in the
> mundane sense of a span of interests,
> disciplines, and related reading). If you're
> on the list, that's what you're into. No point
> in gnashing teeth because someone hasn't/won't
> read the source for some idea that you would
> like to impress upon them.
>
> If it's good enough to read, it's good enough
> to paraphrase and simplify. If promulgating
> the idea is for the greater good, then defending
> it to the unwashed is your mission. (Did Carrol
> say that? Another startling unity of views.)
> If you can't convey it to an LBO-talker, how
> could you hope to do so to a general audience?
> And if you don't aim for such an audience,
> what's your trip?
>
> If I'm trying to explain something about the
> Federal budget, I'm not going to tell you to go
> read Ott, Ott and Yoo and come back next month.
>
> cheers,
> mbs
>