Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!tittle
From: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying
Message-ID: <8910192058.AA01304@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 89 21:01:44 GMT
References: <47014@bbn.COM> <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> <47127@bbn.COM>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 47
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

In article <47127@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes:
>
>This really goes back to the first question.  Most of what constitutes
>feminism has been about understanding the processes involved in gender
>identity and about general principles for combating the discriminatory
>effects of those identities.  By focusing exclusively on the immediate
>effects of affirmative action (the supposedly "discrinatory" effects),
>you have completely lost sight of these larger issues (as demonstrated 
>by the utter inadequacy of your suggested approach). What I'm really
>asking in question (1) is this: is this oversight just an accident? Or
>is it a sign of a much more fundamental disagreement, not with the
>specific goals of affirmative action, but with the more basic and
>general goals and ideas of feminism itself?

I would be interested in hearing about noncoercive methods of
accomplishing the goals of greater justice for women.  (By
noncoercive, I don't mean failure to prosecute rapists and wife
beaters.)  I think that while coercive measures such as forced quotas
may raise the starting salaries of some (middle class) women, it can
not effect truly permanent change in the basic attitudes that make it
more difficult for a woman to pursue her legitimate goals in the
society (hopefully that is part of what feminism is about).  Women do
have some very powerful weapons at their disposal.  One is their
influence on their children.  While we can't do much about the
"nature" side of the equation (I know you don't believe in that
anyhow, Richard), mothers can certainly do a lot about the "nurture"
side, with or without the help of the fathers.  Since most elementary
school teachers are also women, it would seem that the instilling of
better attitudes about women in the boys and about themselves in the
girls would be an important move that women are in a good postion to
effect and men are in a poor position to block.

Since I know little about feminism, I would be interested in hearing
from you all just what *are* the fundamental principles of feminism.
Is it just the liberation of women from male oppressiveness?  Or does
it include bringing feminine influence and values into the society in
a greater proportion, perhaps counteracting some of the more nasty
masculine attributes that have run it for so long.  I can certainly
see where society would benefit from that influence.  Am I treading on
thin ice in even talking about that?  It seems so many people who call
themselves feminists reject the notion of masculine and feminine
traits at all, preferring to believe that there are no innate
behavioral characteristics that are sex related.  Of course, I happen
to believe otherwise and also that the male influence in society has
been often very negative and would like to see more females in
positions of leadership and influence.  But not if they are merely
doppelgangers of the male figures that now are in control.