Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!usc!aero!rshapiro@BBN.COM From: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying Message-ID: <47228@bbn.COM> Date: 22 Oct 89 00:53:18 GMT Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Lines: 84 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <8910192058.AA01304@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >I would be interested in hearing about noncoercive methods of >accomplishing the goals of greater justice for women. So would I. Unfortunately no one (on soc.feminism) has any to offer. I suggest we consider the possibility that there may not BE any. What, after all, are we asking for (those of us who support gender equality)? We're asking that a certain privileged group GIVE UP their privileges. Is it likely that this will happen voluntarily or even non-coercively? The situation in South Africa is worth considering in this context. People don't give up privilege without a fight. > 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). I think this misunderstands the intention of affirmative action. That a few individuals are helped here and now is really only a side effect. The real importance is in changing gender-based role models -- the meaning of 'male' and 'female' for future generations is what's at stake here, not the immediate effects on a handful of individuals. In this sense, affirmative action works fairly well, certainly better than any other course of action I've ever seen offered. It works explicitly for "truly permanent change" as opposed to short term immediate change (i.e. the opposite of what you suggest) by focusing on (implicit) attitudes rather than behaviors. Thus one supposed objection to affirmative action, that it treats classes rather than individuals, can be seen to be, in fact, a point in its favor. The other supposed objection, that it's coercive and discriminatory, has been explained above. I'm not sure what objections this leaves, except that it's not perfect. That one stands. >Women do >have some very powerful weapons at their disposal. One is their >influence on their children. Consider what you're suggesting for a minute. At the same time that the child is being "influenced" by its mother, it's also forming the implicit belief that "woman" = "mother". I would contend that the maternalization of women is one of the most significant factors underlying sexism. In the immediate context of the work place and gender-based division of labor, what you really wind up teaching the child is that mommies are the (unpaid) caretakers of home and family, and it's this which makes workplace discrimination possible (at least its one of the big factors). This "powerful weapon" is two sided. I think you really need to abandon the idea of direct, explicit transmission of "attitudes". What we're talking about here is part of the very formation of individuals as gendered subjects. It happens at a much more basic level than direct discourse. >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 Aargh, not "feminine influence".... Of course everybody has their own ideas about the fundamental principles. For me, feminism is about *understanding* gender (first and foremost, understanding that it's different from "sex"), with the ultimate goal of reorganizing our system of gender into one which does not put women at a disadvantage. > 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. Not exactly. What some of us believe is that masculine and feminine traits are culturally determined -- social, not natural. I'm not sure anyone rejects the masculine/feminine ordering in general; they reject the specific one we live with, the one in which the masculine has an advantage. As Luce Irigaray demonstrates in her book "Speculum of the Other Woman", our ordering of male/female is seriously warped -- it's really male/not-male, the feminine having been completely absorbed into the non-masculine. We need *new* ideas of masculine & feminine.