Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ora!daemon
From: judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: A Moral Question
Message-ID: <18764@oolong.la.locus.com>
Date: 26 Oct 90 01:01:39 GMT
References: <16098@s.ms.uky.edu> <26082.2714c3d1@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <16187@s.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA
Lines: 23
Approved: ambar@ora.com

>Certainly you are not FOR nuclear armament.  You would have to be
>pretty sick, or a defense contractor I suppose, to want that.

Since this argument was made as a statement that all feminists are...
I feel compelled, as a feminist, to argue with it.  In my lifetime (37
years) there has been no global warfare.  There has been some
agression and battle skirmishes but they have been geographically
contained FAR more than either WWI or WWII.  The earth has not been
blown to smithereens.  Economic boycotts have become the modus
operandi for fighting aggression.  And all this has been during a time
when nuclear weapons have proliferated.  I believe it is because the
threat of nuclear destruction which has made us begin to explore
alternative methods of handling war and aggression.  And without the
threat of global destruction we would have MORE war, not less.

So, regarding the original argument, no, feminism is not an all
encompassing political stance.  Not all feminsists buy the populist
liberal line unquestioningly.  Not all feminsists blame acts of war,
pollution, poverty, and any number of additional social sins on
patriarchy nor do we all believe that simply switching to matriarchy
will solve all our problems.

Judy