Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!willett.UUCP
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: What is Feminism?
Message-ID: <9008070018.0.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 90 18:24:31 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Lines: 74
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R

IN <56304@microsoft.UUCP>, t-ellens@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen SPERTUS) writes:

> grouping of people.  I probably have more in common with computer scientists
> or engineers in general than with females or feminists.  Can anyone

I see one of the goals, if not the ultimate goal, of the feminist movement
is so that everyone can legitimately feel just that way.  I'm not disagreeing
with you here, I just wanted to reinforce this point.

> I can't find a good reason why feminist positions exist on vegetarianism,
> South Africa, etc.  To me, they seem based on the stereotype that
> women are more compassionate than men, to say nothing of the arbitrary
> grouping of people.  [...] Can anyone
> illuminate this phenomenon for me?

I want to avoid any pre-emptory replies like "You obviously haven't tried
very hard to find..." or "you don't want to find...".  Having personally
been through a change of perspective on this issue, I think that it is
very hard to generate a new point of view by one's self, so I do not
intend any of the following to be deliberately inflammatory, just as
I do not take your statement to be deliberately inflammatory.  I do
intend it to be deliberate though.

[Of course, qualify this all with: "In *my* opinion..."]

Perhaps the explanation you seek can be explained by the various
definitions of feminism.  I think that those various definitions are easily
divided into two groups:

    a)  Those that seek "equality" only.
    b)  Those that seek "equality" plus some other ism's.

I think the fundamental split is due to a philosophical difference in the
perception of the nature of the cause of the oppression of women:

Camp 'a', which I used to be in, thinks that the oppression of women is an
isolated phenomina which can be solved without either effecting or being
effected by the "other isms".

Camp 'b', which I am now in, thinks that women's oppression is not
independant of other social ills, but is rather just another manifestation
of a deeper problem.  This has nothing to do with a "stereotype that women
are more compassionate than men."  It is based on the fact that women and
Black South Africans are both groups oppressed by males (even sometimes by
white males).  That is certainly an *arbitrary* grouping, but at some level
all groupings are arbitrary.  The point really is: "Is the grouping helpful
in understanding some phenomina?"

This is a very thumbnail sketch answer to your question.  Personally, I
changed camps (a -> b) during my first formal exposure to feminist
thought: a course entitled "Feminist Perspectives on Philosophy".  For
example, consider the economic benefits that capitalists gain by having a
pool of very cheap (if not free) labor.  Are not women a cheaper source of
labor in many developed countries?  Are not Black South Africans a cheaper
source of labor in South Africa?  I believe that many of these things are
interrelated.  I do not think that they can be solved independantly.  That
does not mean that they all have to be solved simultaneously either.  I
think that progress along any front helps, at least somewhat, the others.

Further food for thought:

Is not the oppression of women an expression of domination?
And does not that domination share some (if not a majority) aspects
with the domination of "others" in general?  (i.e. animals, the environment)

Do not set up that old tired straw argument that says that I must be
implying, if not out and out demanding, that animals and the environment
are to be treated on the same moral plane as individuals.  I'm not.

Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]