Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 larry 2/4/84; site hlexa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!hlexa!pcl From: pcl@hlexa.UUCP (Paul C. Lustgarten) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories Message-ID: <1624@hlexa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Mar-84 01:13:19 EST Article-I.D.: hlexa.1624 Posted: Tue Mar 20 01:13:19 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 06:28:08 EST References: <1997@mcnc.UUCP> <511@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ Lines: 61 I have one comment on Rich Rosen's question about conspiracy theories. In my mind, it's important to distinguish the presence of an *explicit intent* from some *functional effect*. I think that it's just the explicit intent version that is really a 'conspiracy theory', but that it's very easy to confuse the two. In fact, I think it is just such a confusion that causes some of the problems with Brownmiller's book "Against Our Will" that's been discussed in net.women recently. In the discussion, there's been a lot of talk about what I gather is one of the books assertions, that men (categorically) oppress women (categorically) by rape. This seems confusing, given that only *some* men and *some* women are ever directly involved in rape, and that most men are clearly opposed to it. From the quotes that people have given from the book, it sounds like Brownmiller uses language suggesting it is some kind of conspiracy among men that they keep women in fear, etc. by the existence of rape - i.e. that it is a conscious, intentional, and collective arrangement on the part of men to maintain this state of affairs. While this may actually be what Brownmiller means, I think it is very confusing to lose track of the distinction between such an intentional situation and one of 'mere' functional effect. In particular, I think it is patently absurd to suggest that there is some explicit coordination among men to maintain some kind of class oppression of women through rape -- just as such an explicit conspiracy is pretty unlikely in the other cases that Rich mentions. (Like he says, what large groups are *that* organized?) However, I think it is *quite* true that there is the functional effect of class oppression, as a result of the prevalence of rape in our society. (I happen to think the causality really goes both ways here, and that rape is also a *manifestation* of the class (power) distinctions between men and women.) It is this functional effect that is reflected in the observations from other commentators about women (in general) developing a wariness, if not downright fear, of men. Further, one can charge that the general situation (remember, the functional effect, now) is maintained by the actions of men, in their status as the socially more powerful group - e.g, when women are systematically excluded from being co-workers with men in many jobs, or when any of the other zillions of things are done that reinforce the divisions between the sexes. This is *NOT* the same as a charge that the men are 'conspiring' to create a situation that fosters rape, just that the things that they are (were?) doing - and doing more or less independently of one another - had a systematic effect of creating that situation. (In this case, an effect of creating a grossly unbalanced power & status relationship between the two groups, which I suspect is one of the things that fosters rape.) Soooo, what I'm saying is that while the "intentional" (conspiracy) situation and the "functional effect" situation may be quite similar in their effects, and thus easy to confuse, they are *quite* different in what they say about the intentions, etc. of the 'conspiring' (or oppressing, or ruling) class. They are also quite different in what they say about how one might go about changing the situation. I think it is important to avoid confusing the two situations for both of these reasons. Paul Lustgarten AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ ihnp4!hlexa!pcl