Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ora!ambar From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Radical (and Other Types of) Feminism Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 22:49:06 GMT Article-I.D.: remarque.JYM.91Apr5143400 References: <27F26F4E.6963@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <9104030712.11574@mydog.UUCP> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Berserkeley Lines: 18 Approved: ambar@ora.com gcf> The whole point of individualism is to discount the validity, if > not the effect, of that sort of categorization and the relations > that may go along with it. ___ __ Except that feminism arose to counter the treatement of women _ as nonindividuals. I grant that cultural feminism was into categorization, but it's certainly not true of feminisim _per_se_. > Therefore -- since the book contradicts expectation -- it seems > like it might be pretty interesting. ___ __ I'll lay even odds that it's just a marriage of libertarianism _ and feminism, with libertarianism as the dominant partner. If you *really* want to contradict those expectations, check out Alice Echol's _Daring_to_Be_Bad_ (radical feminism) and Emma Goldman's stuff (anarcho-feminism). <_Jym_>