tschneider@watarts.UUCP (09/13/83)
I once joined a Women`s Centre on my campus, hoping to make some use of my time by helping out the cause of women. (I'm male.) Actually, it wasn't as liberal-guilt-catharsis as all that, but nevertheless... After a while, the Centre's volunteers got involved in a Take BAck The Night march which was restricted to women. I raised a fuss about this -- sent a letter to the student newspaper calling the supporters of such a strategy "feminist fascists" -- and promptly found myself persona non grata around there. I was bitter about this for a long, long time. Then I realized that I was learning a couple of good things, the hard way. One, was that the women's struggle is *primarily* a woman's struggle, and that my energy, aid or whatever should only be employed to their ends when enlisted by them. It's presumtuous and arrogant to assume the plight without securing some sort of accord first. Secondly, it made me reflect on the very basis of feminism -- that *women* are in a poor state because of sexism, and that all men benefit and all women lose because of this prejudice. Sound too extremist to you, too narrow-minded a picture of that sociakl movement? Well, then explain to me why the root word is "fem". If the movenment really cared about changing both sex' behaviour and attitudes, it would take on another name that would reflect the dual-gender concern it supposedly has. Please take note that I am not anti-feminist, just anti-terminology. Any further comments out there? Todd Schneider UniWaterloo