Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!cs.utexas.edu
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Is there a definition of Feminism?
Summary: Are these wolves wearing wool?
Message-ID: <12939@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 17:21:18 GMT
References: <8248@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 50
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


-----
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer):
>> feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal 
>>         opportunities within society and that these opportunities should
>>         not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes.

In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, gcf@mydog.UUCP writes:
> The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only
> part of feminism.  The other part, the cultural critique of
> patriarchy or patriarchal residues, capitalism, and so forth, has
> also been an important part of feminism.  The equal-opportunity
> branch assumes that society is pretty much okay as it is, and all
> that's necessary is to give women a fairer chance at the better
> slots.  The other branch, or I should say branches, assume that
> society is not pretty much okay, and giving a subset of a
> discriminated class a better shot at opportunities within it is
> not going to solve the real problems.

I have some sympathy for the above line of thought, but also
considerable qualms about it.  If I may play the devil's
advocate, the main qualm concerns in what sense the other
branches represent ideology that is appropriately labeled
feminist, as opposed to political ideology that has little to do
with gender issues. 

Pace many of the writers on these other branches, I think it is
quite easy to imagine a liberal society in which gender (and
race) inequalities do not exist.  (Indeed, from the history of
other political forms, it is hard for me to imagine anything
other than a liberal society where this comes to pass.)  Given
such a society, these writers must still criticize it.  If they
are purely egalitarian, they will criticize its social classes,
even though these are no longer based on sex (or race).  If they
oppose private concentrations of capital, they will criticize
this, even though these no longer correlate with gender (or race)
divisions.  If they oppose technology, they will criticize its
use, even though the women and men participate equally in it. 

In what sense would such criticisms then be feminist?  One might
argue that such a society evolved from a patriarchal stock, but
that will be true for all future societies, and if ancestry
taints culture in this way, then *all* future societies are of
necessity tainted by the sexism, racism, ancient superstitions,
slavery, war, etc, that are common to our past. 

Feminism in the equal opportunity sense appeals to our liberal
ideals.  Socialism, Marxism, luddism, and various other
ideologies do not.  Proponents of these ideologies link these to
feminism in an attempt to make them more attractive.  But is
there any reason for us to put stock in such links? 

Russell