Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu
From: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Hypothesis for discussion
Message-ID: <6653@columbia.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 89 03:58:47 GMT
References: <5953@unix.SRI.COM> <8318@rosevax.Rosemount.COM>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Followup-To: soc.feminism
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 60
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R



In article <5953@unix.SRI.COM>, trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) writes:
>
> Argue for or against the position:
> 
> Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact
> that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the
> next generation.  This leads to the problem that feminist women, who
> often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less
> influence over their children than traditional women. This imbalance
> will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of
> traditional values.

The analysis is just too simplistic to be valid.  It is limited by its
assumptions of who does the education, of who is being educated, and
of what is being taught.  Children aren't vessels filled up by the
attitudes poured into them by their parents.  If this were so,
societal change would be a very quiet thing.  Rather, children are
sponges that soak up information and attitudes from every possible
source.  Parents, other relatives, school, their friends, the media
all affect a child's views on gender roles.  This ranges from the
subtle aspects of passivity and responsibility to the grosser aspects
of gender roles, such as who does the cooking, and who does the spanking.

Also, as Carole Ashmore points out, feminists will not come only from
progressive families -- my god, you must differ with your own parents
on some subject! -- nor will all progressive families produce only
feminists.  (My personal nightmare is someday having sons that will
tell me, "Dad, fuck the poor, they're losers.  I just want to get
rich, snag a tasty babe, and the whole world can go to hell.")
Besides, at this point, I don't think you can say "feminist women" and
"traditional women" and assume that you're talking about different
groups of people.  As much as people hoot over details of
``feminism'', whatever that is, even the most rabid anti-feminists are
arguing from the feminist agenda.  It's not a question anymore that
women belong in the workplace; it is instead debated whether AA itself
is morally, or if there is a glass ceiling on women's rise, etc.  Just
as Reagan did with issues like Central America or the defense
department, or as 60's civil rights marches did with racial equality,
the agenda of discussion has been forever changed.

Finally, it is not just the "next generation" that is being taught.
Although our own lives frequently seem to move in the age groups of
our peers, society is really shaped by the endless waves of
generations, each with its own abilities, values, and hangups that
change as society does.  One counter `post-feminist' hypothesis I
could offer is that because things appear to have changed more than
they have really changed (e.g., Margaret Thatcher is PM -- but where
are the female Members of Parliament, and Maggie made it in on her
husband's money, etc.), I see many people blithely assuming that the
social revolution, as it were, is complete.  While it's wonderful that
some people are completely empowered, it is occasionally empowerment
without the relevant experiences, a history-free consciousness that
has completely bought the vision that Everything is Just Fine.

That's all moderately pretentious, but I'm in too much of a hurry to
clean it up, or give more examples.  bye!

t

Arpa:	travis@cs.columbia.edu	Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com