Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: <9104220218.AA18024@rutgers.edu> Date: 23 Apr 91 17:33:17 GMT References: Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon Lines: 34 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: > > come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a > feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist > organizations, only various organizations with little linking them > other than general attitudes. >If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her >"feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself >(the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will >further a "feminist objective." So far as I know there is no single group called "feminist" or "feminism" and certainly no single, accepted "feminist agenda". A large part of most brands of feminism urge the politicization of the personal as part of the effort of exposing the value of personal experience in the face of formalist "objective" studies of their positions. So, in keeping with that spirit, there's no real way to critisize the woman who poses for Playboy except in the way that it interfers with your _own_ agenda, not theirs. It amounts to about the same thing as saying Democrat A is not furthering the "Democratic agenda" because she does not agree with Democrat B. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."