Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Feminism is a fine word, thank you Message-ID: <46617@bbn.COM> Date: 6 Oct 89 15:23:27 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> <58903@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com Reply-To: Richard Shapiro Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 72 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <58903@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@frith.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >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.) You have to be a bit careful with your terminology here. If you mean "radical" (small 'r') to be an adjective with its usual meaning, then it's incorrect to imply that this was limited to the 60's. In fact the most developed feminist theory (addressing the kinds of issues you mention, along with a host of others) is from the 70's and 80's, and continues unabated today. Most of this is happening within what's usually called "post structuralist feminism", sometimes in alignment with "socialist feminism". Both of these stand somewhat in opposition to Radical Feminism (big 'R'). Post-structuralist feminists are sometimes accused of using the oppressor's tools (i.e. 'male' discourse); Radical feminists are accused of essentialism. As my own choice of words probably makes clear, my support goes to the post structuralists: the feminist theorists who are using semiotics, psychoanalysis, marxian economic theory, etc as tools to understand the situation we're in, and the paths which might lead toward better situations. My earlier unsuccesful attempts to explain the concepts underlying the social construction of gendered subjectivity come from this style of thinking (I contributed the "unsuccessful" part...) >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. Why should anyone be embarrased by a highly sophisticated and well developed theory like post-structuralist feminism? I don't read the other soc groups -- maybe I'm missing something here. Can you elaborate? >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. It has not cast aside its ideology. Every year, numerous books and papers appear on radical (small 'r') feminism. The only 'reasons' I hear from anti-feminist men sound suspiciously like pure selfishness, disguised (sometimes) in the language of individual rights. "These actions hurt me, personally, so regardless of their broader impact I'm against them" -- that's the kind of thing I hear (and sometimes read on soc.feminism). It's like taxes -- everybody claims to want better schools and community services, but nobody wants to pay for it. The triumph of self interest over community interest -- this is apparently the meaning some people give to the idea of individual rights. > 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.") Once again, it doesn't need to "reappear". Radical (small 'r') feminist theory is alive and well. Many men support it and recognize that in no way is "the existing political and social system...in tune...with their present culture and preferences". All one has to do is read a little of the kinds of critical thinking being done by Luce Irigaray or Teresa de Lauretis or Kaja Silverman or Tania Modleski or Michelle Barrett, to name only a few (pardon any misspellings). The theory is out there, though few people take the trouble to read it; the practice is being developed, slowly, in light of the new theory. Don't take "MS" magazine as a representative example of the best that feminist thinking has to offer...