Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!ctrsol!ginosko!usc!aero!gcf@frith.UUCP
From: gcf@frith.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism is a fine word, thank you
Message-ID: <58903@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 4 Oct 89 17:13:39 GMT
References: <1880@convex.UUCP> <851@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <4504@ncar.ucar.edu> <2637@hp-sdd.hp.com> <4525@ncar.ucar.edu> <2766@tymix.UUCP> <4537@ncar.ucar.edu> <4014@unix.SRI.COM> <RBERLIN.89Sep29230303@birdland.sun.com>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: gcf@frith.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Organization: Beauty in the Beast
Lines: 86
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org

)gary@cgdptah.ucar.edu (Gary Strand), in <4537@ncar.ucar.edu>
)> pw: Pamela K. Whitehurst
)> gs: Gary Strand
)> 
)> gs: I don't expect feminism to deal with the problems I face, because
)> gs: sexism directed against men is outside their 'charter'. As such, they
)> gs: are fighting only half the battle, and by implication, are seeing only
)> gs: half the problem.
)> 
)> pw: Fighting one battle does not imply being unaware or unsympathetic to
)> pw: another battle. ...
)> pw: It does not imply that one does not or cannot give encouragement or
)> pw: even support to those who are fighting other battles.

rberlin@birdland.Corp.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) writes:
)Let me make a somewhat stronger statement than Pamela's.  Not only is
)there no inconsistency here, but the encouragement and support she
)mentions are common in our everyday life.  Whatever your feelings on
)the matter, consider the example of unions honoring each others'
)picket lines.  It couldn't be otherwise: even though the cause belongs
)to someone else, we honor it because we share something of importance
)with those who are actively engaged in the struggle.  The bell tolls
)for all of us; there is no other way.
)
)And there is no other way with the feminist organizations.  It would
)be crippling for them to assume a posture that says to men "we're only
)interested in taking care of women."  If self-interest is established
)as the rule, and the status quo truly favors men, what can men be
)expected to do but fight to preserve that status quo? ...

I think one of the problems which gave rise to this thread, and a
lot of other conversation, is that there is more than one current
in modern feminism.  I see two major currents, which have become
divergent in recent years.

One form of feminism involves fundamental social values, and was
the form espoused by the radical feminists of the '60s.  This
form involves an analysis of social problems as deriving from
"patriarchy", that is, male domination (first, of women and
children, and subsequently of other males through hierarchy and
slavery.)

The other feminism accepts, for the most part, contemporary
social values, insisting only that women should be able to
participate fully in things as they are.  That is, rather than 
overthrow patriarchy (in the form of capitalism or whatever), the 
adherents of this view would rather see women populating its 
higher reaches in equal numbers with men.

These currents have generally been mixed both among both the
leadership and the ranks of feminists, although pure examples
of either are not hard to find in the literature.  (In real
life, radical feminism has pretty much disappeared.)  This
mixture offers feminists both advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand, much of the spiritual energy developed by 
radical feminists has proved useful in such practical
struggles as the fights for equal opportunity and abortion
rights.  On the other hand, the full radical theory provides
the opposition with many targets.  One need only read the
soc groups for a short while to find quotations from radicals
used to embarrass people who would not dream of challenging
present structures of domination.

Although many of the male complaints about being victims of
sexism are completely specious, one can see the origins of
their resentment.  Once feminism casts aside its ideology,
it becomes just one more group-interest movement, and the
men ask with reason why they should support it to their own
apparent disadvantage.  On the other hand, a reappearance
of the radical element in feminism would be unlikely to
make supporters of these males, since the existing political
and social system is apparently already in tune, by and 
large, with their present culture and preferences.  (Thus 
the "gender gap.")

I can't say that I see a solution to the dilemma, given
things as they are.  (Like all arrangements, the current
arrangements of power will someday fall apart and others will
supplant them, but probably not today.)  I suppose one might 
ask the complainants just what part of the feminist agenda they 
_would_ support -- materially support -- as part of their own 
allegedly egalitarian program.  Or correspondingly, what actual
anti-sexist struggles they are now involved in, to which
feminist assistance might reasonably be applied.
--
Gordon Fitch  |  ...uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf