Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism & simplification
Message-ID: <9101072035.AA28264@easynet.crl.dec.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 00:55:06 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 52
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Jan2.211619.22870@ora.com>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...

"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."

Oh, I beg your pardon, I was fantasizing about this society where
people could objectively divide things up into black and white and at
least agree on where the grey area was. I often do that.  (sarcasm
directed at myself)

"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."

My definition of a feminist is someone who advances the welfare of
women (often without regard for the welfare of men).  Then there are
those who call themselves feminists, but who are really interested in
making the world a better place for everyone.  I think people should
be able to label themselves however they wish to, but it's less
confusing if people stick to labels which bear some resembance to
their dictionary definitions.

"But what about things that men would like to see changed about men?
Where do they come into this scheme?"

Of course.  However, how men wish to change themselves is likely to
impact women.  It's not like I actually expect one sex to define the
other, although people certainly do define what they want from the
other sex/their partner/etc.  What I'm complaining about actually is
that 'feminists' seem to stick their class in a bubble representing
their environment, and want to define the best possible envirnment for
their class, without regard for how it affects others.  Some add an
incoming arrow to represent all the evil men inflict on them.  What
gets left out are any good effects, and how women affect other people.

"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."

Good point.  That's kind of what I've been babbling about.  The
question is what to do about it?

Jim Baranski