Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!hpsdde.hp.com
From: regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Is there a definition of Feminism?
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.000958.8419@sdd.hp.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 00:09:58 GMT
References: <8248@helios.TAMU.EDU> <17365@oolong.la.locus.com> <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1190@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1094@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com!hpsdde!regard@hpsdlo.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 32
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


In article <1094@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu ("Char Aznabul") writes:
>In article <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>> I don't think this is so.  Antagonists of feminism, whose
>> writings are probably available at this very moment in other
>> newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program 
>> to get special privileges for women.  
>
>> But even if it were so, so what? 
>
>If that's what their stated goal was, yer right. But, they state
>they are out for equality and fairness for EVERYONE. That's the
>'so what'.


Mostly, this is a problem of mixing your sets.  There are those (GROUPA) who
are for special privileges for women, and there are those (GROUPB) who are
for equality for everyone.  To accuse GroupB of GroupA's agenda is the
result of a lack of attention on the reader's part.

There is the subset problem of 'the lesser of two evils', too.  Generally,
the choice people are faced with is, say, a jolly old chauvinist pig who
treats his female office workers to pats on the bottom and suggestive
requests, but votes quite clearly for "feminist" causes, because he knows
upon which side his political bread is buttered, running against a female,
with little experience on important policy issues.  Who to vote for????
We don't usually have one TERRIFIC, GREAT, WONDERFUL candidate, and one
HORRID SLEEZEBAG JERK.  Nor do we usually have one TERRIFIC GREAT WONDERFUL
government program and one HORRID SLEEZEBAG program.  The 'anti' side usually
manages to attach some absurd limiter or regulation or bureauocracy on
to the 'pro' side.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Adrienne Regard