Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel
From: fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: re: Radical (and Other Types of) Feminism
Message-ID: <68803@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 91 18:25:04 GMT
Sender: uunet!brunix!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU
Reply-To: fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 56
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



(This is also in response to Jeanette Dravk's posting under the
subject heading "Re: The Equality of Men & Women".)

In an earlier article, I said "... if `feminism' is practically
meaningless, and I believe it is, then it makes little sense to
try to subdivide it."

Jym Dyer (jym@berkeley.edu) responds:
___
 __ I find that making those subdivisions helps me deal with
  _ feminism much better.

I admit that I felt more comfortable about feminism once I had a
(slight) grasp of its subdivisions.  But it doesn't take a terribly
long time to acquire such an understanding and I am not convinced
that one must understand the nuances separating socialist feminism
from Marxism in order to practice a brand of feminism that rests on
a solid theoretical foundation.

If there is such a thing as an "average feminist", she is someone who
emits "feminist" rhetoric on the one hand, while denying the "feminist"
label on the other.  Such is the state of feminism today and I think
we can attribute the ambiguity surrounding feminism to its chronic
subdivision.

I agree with Jeanette Dravk's statement about there being common goals
and rather than focus on the differences between the various camps, I
would rather focus on what these common goals are.  Feminism will never
enjoy a broad base of support if its liberals and its radicals refuse
to even agree to disaree.  I feel that such an understanding can only
come about if we stop talking about differences and start talking about
our "common" goals.  A society that gives men and women equal oppor-
tunities does not necessarily give women (men) the opportunities that
men (women) currently have.  Shouldn't we agree on our destination
before we argue over which route is best?

A final digression: returning to our "average feminist", her refusal
to wear the "feminist" label can be compared to people refusing to vote
in certain parts of the world.  I remember growing up and learning how
certain governments did not hold elections and how others insured that
their "candidates" would win.  I remember thinking how nice it was to
live in a country where "free elections" were held.  Now the candidates
seem more and more alike and many run virtually or literally unopposed.
How will we know when the situation has deteriorated to the point where
not voting becomes the "correct" choice?  Have we reached this point
already?

Disclaimer:  These are my thoughts and they should not be associated
             with my host computer's generous owner.  I apologize if
             you found this overly extremist.


                                    Felix

                                    CSNET    fwy@cs.brown.edu
                                    UUCP     uunet!brunix!fwy