Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon
From: baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: feminism & simplification
Message-ID: <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Date: 2 Jan 91 02:32:22 GMT
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: O'Reilly and Associates Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 42
Approved: ambar@ora.com


   From: mydog!gcf@hombre.masa.com

   "There have been several related threads in this newsgroup centering
   around the question, "What is feminism?"  There are several answers to
   the question, but the leading one as far as popularity goes is "to
   secure equal rights for women."  This is generally called "reformist"
   feminism, because it does not, _per_se_, question the status quo as a
   whole, merely the position of women within it.  "Rethinking values
   that have ...  caused ... damage" is not part of it.  In fact, if you
   accept the reformist position generally, it's hard to say just what
   this rethinking is to be called, politically speaking, since it's
   excluded from feminism and all other equal-rights movements."

If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone
who should be redefining society?  Won't that simply replace the
current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men,
with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them?
Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group
oppression?

Yet, feminists cheerfully do this.

In any dominant & submissive situation, *both* sides must give up
their roles and they *both* must adopt roles that they *both* agree
upon, to make a lasting change.  If a submissive person continues to
be submissive, they literally force anyone interacting with them to be
dominant.

There are some things feminists object to about men, and perhaps some
of them can or should be changed, but not without consensus with men.
Likewise there are some things many men would like to see changed
about women, which they must be allowed to have their voice in, but
again consensus with women is needed.

Can each side be allowed to formulate the rest of their own group's
roles?

And individuality must be preserved, instead of forcing all
individuals to toe the 'party line'.

Jim Baranski