jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (04/24/91)
brad> For more of the history of individualist feminism, I
brad> strongly recommend the introductory essay of the book, "The
brad> Roots of Individualist Feminism in 19th-Century America."
___
__ Deja-vu . . . libertarians also find their roots in past
_ American movements and ideologies. Does the introductory
essay tell us whether or not "individualist feminism" is
a branch of libertarianism?
brad> You might also investigate the writings of the 18th and 19th
brad> Century feminists Mary Wollstonecraft ("Vindication of the
brad> Rights of Woman"), Voltairine de Cleyre, Sarah Grimke, or
brad> Lillian Harman.
___
__ Liberal feminists one and all, and as such, they are the
_ forebears of every variety of feminism not descended from
Marx.
gcf> In order to reinvent feminism, feminists had to recognize not
gcf> their individualities -- existing society was all too ready
gcf> to do that -- but their commonalities.
___
__ I can't see how existing society recognized women's individ-
_ ualities when it treated them more as property than people.
(And laws to that effect are *still* on the books in places.)
gcf> That's why consciousness-raising groups were formed and
gcf> slogans like "Sisterhood is Powerful!" emerged. Once
gcf> successful to any degree, the movement fragmented . . .
___
__ I tend to view CR groups as a dynamic, experimental thing when
_ they started out. Commonalities were found (though some were
the result of the groups consisting of a people form a narrow
socioeconomic spectrum), but the idea was exploration. Of
course, some later CR groups turned into indoctrination
sessions.
___
__ There was always fragmentation, but mostly along radical vs.
_ Marxist lines at first, followed by navel-gazing vs. political
action lines.
me> If you *really* want to contradict those expectations, check
me> out Alice Echol's [sic] _Daring_to_Be_Bad_ (radical feminism)
me> and Emma Goldman's stuff (anarcho-feminism).
gcf> But Echol [sic] and Goldman will write radically, and not
gcf> very individualistically, which I expect!
___
__ Echols (sorry 'bout my typo) actually writes in a straight-
_ forward historical/scholar style. The people she writes
about are indeed radicals, but she doesn't shrink from
presenting the contradictions, factionalism, personality
clashes, etc.
___
__ Goldman is in fact *very* individualistic. She pissed off
_ a lot of her contemporaries (who saw individualism as some
kind of bourgeois luxury).
gcf> But we cannot proceed further in our critique without a text.
gcf> We are like lions in the zoo, pacing about, waiting for the
gcf> meat to be thrown.
___
__ But can't we grrrr a bit in the meantime, just to keep the
_ audiences happy? :-)
<_Jym_>