Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!ora!daemon From: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: feminism & simplification Message-ID: <1991Jan2.211619.22870@ora.com> Date: 2 Jan 91 20:54:21 GMT References: <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon Lines: 100 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone >who should be redefining society? Well, lucky for everyone they could not possibly ever do so short of a dictatorship. >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? Yup. >Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group >oppression? Yup. >Yet, feminists cheerfully do this. As does everyone. It's not much of a point really. To belong to a group you have to identify with it, that means creating ties that are stronger on some issues than your ties to other groups. That involves both a definition of the group by itself, and a group-generated definition of non-group members. It's called opinions. Like I said, not much of a point. >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. Why? Total equality isn't going to happen tomorrow, or the next day, or even maybe in the next 5 generations, so why treat the situation today as if it held the possibility of eliminating the D/S aspects of society? Also, I wonder how you're going to get *total* agreement on *anything* from a large group of people. Humans are not herd animals, we don't have herd instincts to group together completely on any issue. However, even if you can get total agreement, who is going to form the groups? Or the different sides if you will. >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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have to question your definition of a feminist. Are you saying that only females can be feminists? I know several men who consider themselves feminists. So, since they're men does that mean they can't be feminists? By whose authority? And if they *are* feminists and are still considered men, then doesn't that mean that any redefinitions of society that feminists propose are done so with the consent of both men AND women? Consider this. Only a relatively small fraction of the population actively considers itself feminist. That fraction consists of both men and women. Therefore, one must assume that that fraction is working towards a goal that will satisfy them *regardless* of their sex. Drawing lines and saying that its a case of "men against women" or "feminists against men" is pointless. First of all, you can't define two opposing sides by gender when there are both sexes present on both sides. That's patently ridiculous. >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. But what about things that men would like to see changed about men? Where do they come into this scheme? >Can each side be allowed to formulate the rest of their own group's >roles? Can they? That is the point after all. It's one of the reasons I don't call myself a "feminist" -- I think the word has too many connotations linking it with a single gender, so that, to be a feminists is to be mis- understood. As your comments which tried to break this down by gender proved. It sucks, y'know -- cuz most of these issues *are* gender issues, but it's impossible to speak of them that way, using gender-linked language because you simply *can't* ignore individualism which transcends gender. You can't speak of gender issues and draw a black and white picture of men on one side and women on the other. It's simply a wrong picture and self- defeating to try to portray it as anything more than it really is: two (or more) groups of _people_ shouting at each other over how they think men and women should conduct themselves. The very fact that these groups are often arbitrarily labelled "men" and "women" is indicative of just how far away we really are from a time when people can interact with each other based on their humanity and individual merits and demerits, not their gender. >And individuality must be preserved, instead of forcing all >individuals to toe the 'party line'. Yes. And no one should be forced to toe any 'line' just because of their sex either. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."