Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: mydog!gcf@hombre.masa.COM
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Feminism:separate but equal?
Message-ID: <9010211930.AA24779@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 22 Oct 90 16:18:56 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.055801.4679@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Lines: 28
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy):
>A moderator on this group, Miriam Nadel rejected a post of mine with
>the comment that "race issues are only of marginal interest to
>soc.feminism". I have often heard black women complain that the
>feminist movement is insenstive to their concerns.
>
>Is feminism simply a tool for bringing about parity between men and
>women, while preserving racial inequality? In other words, is the
>program simply to level the discrimination against white women,
>leaving blacks behind? I'm particalarly interested in comments from
>black women on this issue.

I doubt if many feminists want to preserve racial discrimination.
However, the equal-rights branch of feminism is essentially
atomistic, seeing each type of social disparity as independent
and requiring a separate movement to combat.  Presumably, then, a
working-class black lesbian pacifist would have to belong to at
least five different organizations to satisfy her political needs.

Cultural or radical feminists, on the other hand, see racism as
"patriarchal," so those who were fighting racism would be able
to count on their support as an inherent part of their feminism --
if they could find any.  And if they wanted to.  Certain black
leaders have not been very supportive of feminism or of gay rights
(while others have).  There's a certain symmetry in the distribution
of the atomistic approach.
--
Gordon Fitch  |  uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf