Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: How feminism has failed me
Summary: addicted to love
Message-ID: <199@ora.ora.com>
Date: 26 Nov 89 21:36:12 GMT
References: <48390@bbn.COM>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Reply-To: gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch)
Lines: 84
Approved: ambar@ora.com

eboneste@BBN.COM (Liz Bonesteel) writes:
}                              ... [T]he crux of this posting is (as
}the title implies) how feminism, as practiced today, has failed me.
}
}...[recounts the accomplishment of feminism in getting women
}into the formerly mostly-male middle-class job world]...
}
}This is all well and good, but sometimes I think it undermines the
}whole point.  By entering the workforce, we have indeed shown that
}professional productivity is a human ability, not restricted or
}partitioned by gender.  But what of the traditionally female realm?
}What of putting compassion before success?  What of valuing - and
}perhaps sacrificing for - a loving and supportive family?  What of
}trying diplomacy before grandstanding?  These are things that have
}always been considered "feminine", but in my (albeit limited)
}experience has led me to believe otherwise.  My male friends often
}feel these things too, but they are loath to discuss them because
}they're not *supposed* to feel them.  We have told women that it is
}okay to have a strong and full intellectual life, but we have yet to
}tell men that it is okay to have a strong and full emotional life.  We
}have failed to take that which is traditionally "feminine" and give it
}true value.

Several weeks ago I posted something which I think relates to
the author's problem with feminism:

}                                 [T]here 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.

The second feminism mostly succeeded, at least in breaking 
holes in the walls, but the first seems to have disappeared, 
except for literary work.  It is no longer a political force 
of any significance.  Consequently, "feminism" simply led to 
the incorporation of more people into the existing system of
domination, much as the civil rights or labor movements did
for the people to whom they referred.

Thus, while women are now theoretically free to make as much 
money as men, neither women nor men are free to exhibit
certain "feminine" characteristics, at least not without 
paying for them as if they were an expensive addiction.  The 
one who is concerned with her or his home life, children, 
community, and so forth is not the one who succeeds in 
business.

That, in itself, would not be a great problem if it were not 
for certain contingencies.  One, a very important one, is the
falling standard of living of the middle and lower classes.
As it gets harder and harder to get by, one's "addictions" 
become relatively more and more expensive.  In 1965, choosing 
a less worldly, ambitious way of life may have meant not having 
the latest Nikon; in 1989, it may mean becoming homeless.

There are many other such contingencies.  One of the most
important is the effect of profit-oriented corporate behavior
on the physical and social environment, which in the next few
years will reach a crisis level -- not a journalistic crisis,
a real one.  A "caring" attitude toward the environment would
never have allowed things to reach this point, but such an
attitude would have produced fewer Nikons -- in the short run,
anyway.

The system of domination reaches from the top to the bottom:
the personal is indeed political.  This is where feminism 
begins to connect to very general political and economic 
questions: to wit, why are we supporting this kind of society? 
Do we care?  What can we do about it?
--
Gordon Fitch  |  uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf