Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: js@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jay Sekora)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: How feminism has failed me
Message-ID: <11724@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 25 Nov 89 07:45:35 GMT
References: <48390@bbn.COM> <6014@unix.SRI.COM>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Organization: Princeton University Computing and Information Technology.
Lines: 41
Approved: ambar@ora.com
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents.

I think a large part of the problem is that feminism as practiced has
had to focus almost exclusively on women and their position in
(male-dominated) society.  In my opinion, feminism is really one facet
of respect and love for people as people, as themselves, as individuals.
We need a term for `feminism' because we live in a society where we are
taught not to love and respect men and women equally; and women get the
shabby end of the deal.  But the point of feminism is making *individual
people's* lives better.  Another way of saying this is that we call what
we do `feminism' when it's directed at undoing the damage of sexism, or
`the civil rights movement' when it's directed at undoing the damage of
racial discrimination, or `the democracy movement' when it's directed
against the oppression of totalitarian governments.  This is not to say
that labels like these are not appropriate and useful, but when we
pigeonhole things like this, things get lost in the cracks if we're not
careful.

Since so much of the feminist struggle has had to be preoccupied with
clearing a way for women in the workplace, and since men (and women in
patriarchal society) have put so much energy into forcing women into
roles as nurturing, self-sacrificing wives and mothers, a woman's
desire to raise kids and support the people she loves may be one of the
things that tend to fall into the cracks in the nomenclature.  In my
opinion, a person's right to be affirmed and appreciated in the (chosen)
role of caregiver *is* important, and it *is* part of my ideological
commitment, and it is "of whole cloth" with those parts of my commitment
to justice and love and human dignity that have more specific names.

As a man who considers the most important and worthwhile part of
himself to be his ability and willingness to nurture and support and
listen to the people he cares about (and incidentally, who melts into
the floor to the accompaniment of muffled cooing noises when he sees a
baby), I think I share some of Liz's feelings.  It is ironic that,
within a `traditional' feminist framework, I as a man can be proud of
them while she as a women feels somehow guilty or traitorous because
of them.  But if feminism can sanction and support my nurturing side,
it certainly can sanction and support hers as well.

Sorry if this isn't terribly coherent; I should have gone to sleep a
long time ago.

-j.