Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sex/gender
Message-ID: <12605@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 12 Jul 89 01:18:35 GMT
References: <8907112038.AA14297@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 51
Approved: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu


In <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> Gretchen Chapman wrote: 

>>|All of these differences and the reasons behind them are
>>|*DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe the way the world is.  Feminism
>>|is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it states the way we should behave to
>>|change the world (not everyone agrees on exactly what feminism says,
>>|but we all agree that it is prescriptive).

In article <19431@paris.ics.uci.edu> Cindy Tittle disagreed:

>>paraphrased: [ feminists challenge prescriptive roles for women]

then Gretchen replied:

>We may not all agree on what these prescriptions should be, but I'd
>rather have us arguing over that than trying to re-describe the world
>in a way that it isn't.  (Describing the world is a fine thing to do,
>but I don't see that as the goal of feminism).

I think both of you have valid points, and both of you are slightly wrong.

I definitely agree with Gretchen's point that feminism, as a political
position, is prescriptive.  In personal and public lives, feminists
prescribe changes.

However, I don't think it's possible to urge any kind of change on any
level without a preliminary descriptive phase.  In this light, feminism
is a philosophical position, with descriptions that arise from
meditations on the status quo.  This descriptive/prescriptive mix is as
true of reactionary changes to society as it is of progressive changes.
In fact, it seems so basic as to be almost a law of rhetoric: one
phrases one's complaints so that the solution appears obvious -- or at
least a solution seems necessary.

When someone from the now-defunct Moral Majority decries the loose
morality of modern youth, that is not only a description, but a
description that urges that "something be done."  When someone from
still-alive Feminist Majority decries sexual harassment, that is also a
description that urges that "something be done."

So, in the end, I must strongly disagree with Gretchen's comment:

>(Describing the world is a fine thing to do, but I don't see that as
>the goal of feminism).

I think that if feminism does not describe the world -- well and
accurately, as Gretchen urged -- then it is useless as a basis for
political action.

Arpa:	travis@iko.cs.columbia.edu	Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis