baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (01/02/91)
From: mydog!gcf@hombre.masa.com "There have been several related threads in this newsgroup centering around the question, "What is feminism?" There are several answers to the question, but the leading one as far as popularity goes is "to secure equal rights for women." This is generally called "reformist" feminism, because it does not, _per_se_, question the status quo as a whole, merely the position of women within it. "Rethinking values that have ... caused ... damage" is not part of it. In fact, if you accept the reformist position generally, it's hard to say just what this rethinking is to be called, politically speaking, since it's excluded from feminism and all other equal-rights movements." If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone who should be redefining society? Won't that simply replace the current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men, with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them? Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group oppression? Yet, feminists cheerfully do this. In any dominant & submissive situation, *both* sides must give up their roles and they *both* must adopt roles that they *both* agree upon, to make a lasting change. If a submissive person continues to be submissive, they literally force anyone interacting with them to be dominant. There are some things feminists object to about men, and perhaps some of them can or should be changed, but not without consensus with men. Likewise there are some things many men would like to see changed about women, which they must be allowed to have their voice in, but again consensus with women is needed. Can each side be allowed to formulate the rest of their own group's roles? And individuality must be preserved, instead of forcing all individuals to toe the 'party line'. Jim Baranski
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/02/91)
In article <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone >who should be redefining society? Possibly because they have an interest in changing a social system which subjugates women, whereas anti-feminists have an interest in preserving that system? >Won't that simply replace the >current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men, >with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them? Why should it? Feminists are interested in understanding what goes into a "female role" or a "male role", and understanding the methods by which individuals assume these roles (of course, disregarding the specious free-will argument that we simply "choose" them). They're not interested in prescribing what those roles should be, except to say that neither should be intrinsically inferior to or less privileged than the other. Actually there are any number of male and female roles, and any number of ways individuals relate to these various roles. The problem comes, not from one role being oppressive to another, but from the fact that the amorphous complex of roles we call "female" is a less privileged position than the amorphous complex of roles we call "male". That, ultimately, is what feminists want to change. >Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group >oppression? I suppose it would be, but no group defines roles for another group. Roles are defined as part of a overriding system that determines each role within it, in just the same way that phonemes are defined by the language of which they're a part. No one sits down and decides what they are; they evolve over time for reasons that have little to do with anyone's specific intentions. "feminism and simplification" indeed...
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/03/91)
In article <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone >who should be redefining society? Well, lucky for everyone they could not possibly ever do so short of a dictatorship. >Won't that simply replace the >current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men, >with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them? Yup. >Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group >oppression? Yup. >Yet, feminists cheerfully do this. As does everyone. It's not much of a point really. To belong to a group you have to identify with it, that means creating ties that are stronger on some issues than your ties to other groups. That involves both a definition of the group by itself, and a group-generated definition of non-group members. It's called opinions. Like I said, not much of a point. >In any dominant & submissive situation, *both* sides must give up >their roles and they *both* must adopt roles that they *both* agree >upon, to make a lasting change. Why? Total equality isn't going to happen tomorrow, or the next day, or even maybe in the next 5 generations, so why treat the situation today as if it held the possibility of eliminating the D/S aspects of society? Also, I wonder how you're going to get *total* agreement on *anything* from a large group of people. Humans are not herd animals, we don't have herd instincts to group together completely on any issue. However, even if you can get total agreement, who is going to form the groups? Or the different sides if you will. >There are some things feminists object to about men, and perhaps some >of them can or should be changed, but not without consensus with men. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have to question your definition of a feminist. Are you saying that only females can be feminists? I know several men who consider themselves feminists. So, since they're men does that mean they can't be feminists? By whose authority? And if they *are* feminists and are still considered men, then doesn't that mean that any redefinitions of society that feminists propose are done so with the consent of both men AND women? Consider this. Only a relatively small fraction of the population actively considers itself feminist. That fraction consists of both men and women. Therefore, one must assume that that fraction is working towards a goal that will satisfy them *regardless* of their sex. Drawing lines and saying that its a case of "men against women" or "feminists against men" is pointless. First of all, you can't define two opposing sides by gender when there are both sexes present on both sides. That's patently ridiculous. >Likewise there are some things many men would like to see changed >about women, which they must be allowed to have their voice in, but >again consensus with women is needed. But what about things that men would like to see changed about men? Where do they come into this scheme? >Can each side be allowed to formulate the rest of their own group's >roles? Can they? That is the point after all. It's one of the reasons I don't call myself a "feminist" -- I think the word has too many connotations linking it with a single gender, so that, to be a feminists is to be mis- understood. As your comments which tried to break this down by gender proved. It sucks, y'know -- cuz most of these issues *are* gender issues, but it's impossible to speak of them that way, using gender-linked language because you simply *can't* ignore individualism which transcends gender. You can't speak of gender issues and draw a black and white picture of men on one side and women on the other. It's simply a wrong picture and self- defeating to try to portray it as anything more than it really is: two (or more) groups of _people_ shouting at each other over how they think men and women should conduct themselves. The very fact that these groups are often arbitrarily labelled "men" and "women" is indicative of just how far away we really are from a time when people can interact with each other based on their humanity and individual merits and demerits, not their gender. >And individuality must be preserved, instead of forcing all >individuals to toe the 'party line'. Yes. And no one should be forced to toe any 'line' just because of their sex either. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) (01/04/91)
me: | "There have been several related threads in this newsgroup centering | around the question, "What is feminism?" There are several answers to | the question, but the leading one as far as popularity goes is "to | secure equal rights for women." This is generally called "reformist" | feminism, because it does not, _per_se_, question the status quo as a | whole, merely the position of women within it. "Rethinking values | that have ... caused ... damage" is not part of it. In fact, if you | accept the reformist position generally, it's hard to say just what | this rethinking is to be called, politically speaking, since it's | excluded from feminism and all other equal-rights movements." baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com: | If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone | who should be redefining society? Won't that simply replace the | current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men, | with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them? | Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group | oppression? That depends on what you think feminism is. If you adopt a reformist or female-supremacist position, the answer is yes, in the sense of taking part in the oppression/counter-oppression games played by competing groups in a dominance system. "The feminists" are just one more group in the struggle for power; the struggle itself is unquestioned. The answer is no if you define feminism as a political, social, and cultural critique of things-as-they-are, which happens to be associated with femaleness by the fact that the domination structured in things-as-they-are has been particularly visited upon women. There has been a similar divergence of tendencies in, for example, the Civil Rights / Black Liberation movement(s). It's not unusual for people to decide the existing state of things (in this case, social, economic, and political domination of some groups by others) is okay if they and theirs can only get on the right side of the screws. This is called "equality of opportunity." | Yet, feminists cheerfully do this. Some do. Others don't: the radical or cultural feminists call for a change in society, not merely a reshuffling of the elite. However, they have largely been excluded from public attention by the media, partly because the media are directed by people who benefit from and practice domination, and partly because the general public quickly becomes bored with difficult or uncomfortable issues about which it believs nothing can be done. -- Gordon | gcf@mydog.uucp
bloch%thor@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) (01/05/91)
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >The problem comes, not from one role being oppressive to >another, but from the fact that the amorphous complex of roles we call >"female" is a less privileged position than the amorphous complex of >roles we call "male". That, ultimately, is what feminists want to >change. But the EXISTENCE of "the amorphous complex of roles we call 'female'" and its "male" counterpart is a problem too, in that it excludes (or at least discourages) people of both sexes from playing certain roles. In a society (purely hypothetical :-) in which one sex is trained to speak up and originate ideas in a group while the other is trained to listen attentively and nod a lot, members of the first will never learn to listen, to analyze what another person says before presenting their own views, and members of the second will never learn how to frame a coherent argument or proposal, nor gain the self-confidence to do so in public. If one sex is trained to empathize and show emotion, while the other is trained in pure logic, each will in effect be deprived of the other's mode of thought, and members of both sexes will be incomplete human beings. It happens that, perhaps partly because women are trained to be more introspective and aware of their feelings than men, women (on the whole) feel more oppressed by the current system than men do. But it really is oppressive to both. -- "I'm nobody's savior, and nobody's mine either..." -- Ferron Steve Bloch bloch@cs.ucsd.edu
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (01/07/91)
Richard Shapiro in the article <1991Jan2.155342.1414@arris.com> writes: ]In article <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com>baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: ]>If we need to change our society, why should it be the feminists alone ]>who should be redefining society? Won't that simply replace the ]>current situation where female roles are supposedly defined by men, ]>with a society where feminists define male roles and oppress them? ] ]Why should it? Feminists are interested in understanding what goes ]into a "female role" or a "male role", First, you have to be a feminist that believes in female and male roles to believe in any of Richard's disertation. We should be tearing down the barriers between thinking that there are any roles that go with a certain sex. In that way only will men and women be equal because they will be doing the same things. It is incongruent to say that cooking and plumbing are equal. They are not; they do not achieve the same goal, nor were they ever meant to. ]and understanding the methods ]by which individuals assume these roles (of course, disregarding the ]specious free-will argument that we simply "choose" them). They're not ]interested in prescribing what those roles should be, except to say ]that neither should be intrinsically inferior to or less privileged ]than the other. Actually there are any number of male and female ]roles, and any number of ways individuals relate to these various ]roles. The problem comes, not from one role being oppressive to ]another, but from the fact that the amorphous complex of roles we call ]"female" is a less privileged position than the amorphous complex of ]roles we call "male". That, ultimately, is what feminists want to ]change. I believe that feminism should be going one step farther into 'Now that we realize these are the roles people used to take, and we realize that these roles are no better or worse than eachother, we should make an effort to allow people to choose the role they wish to pursue without labeling it 'male' or 'female'. ]>Isn't mere definition of a group's role from outside the group ]>oppression? ] ]I suppose it would be, but no group defines roles for another group. ]Roles are defined as part of a overriding system that determines each ]role within it, in just the same way that phonemes are defined by the ]language of which they're a part. No one sits down and decides what ]they are; they evolve over time for reasons that have little to do ]with anyone's specific intentions. I tend to disagree with no group defines the roles of another. The tribes of Africa defined the roles of their enemies when they sold them into slavery to the whites. Those whites further defined the slaves roles into what was required of them. A role is not completely defined by another group, it can however be severely constrained. What the opressed group does within that broader definition is thier own doing. I do think that women's roles have been defined by men through the years. So much so that much of the work women have done has been covered up by men in an effort to put women in a certain place. The more I read about women in history the more I see them doing things for money, as opposed to being in the home taking care of only thier families' needs. This has indeed been glossed over in an effort to keep women out of the work force and in the home. ]"feminism and simplification" indeed... Indeed? Andrea Gansley-Ortiz
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan2.211619.22870@ora.com>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...
"Also, I wonder how you're going to get *total* agreement on
*anything* from a large group of people. Humans are not herd animals,
we don't have herd instincts to group together completely on any
issue. However, even if you can get total agreement, who is going to
form the groups? Or the different sides if you will."
Oh, I beg your pardon, I was fantasizing about this society where
people could objectively divide things up into black and white and at
least agree on where the grey area was. I often do that. (sarcasm
directed at myself)
"I have to question your definition of a feminist. Are you saying
that only females can be feminists? I know several men who consider
themselves feminists."
My definition of a feminist is someone who advances the welfare of
women (often without regard for the welfare of men). Then there are
those who call themselves feminists, but who are really interested in
making the world a better place for everyone. I think people should
be able to label themselves however they wish to, but it's less
confusing if people stick to labels which bear some resembance to
their dictionary definitions.
"But what about things that men would like to see changed about men?
Where do they come into this scheme?"
Of course. However, how men wish to change themselves is likely to
impact women. It's not like I actually expect one sex to define the
other, although people certainly do define what they want from the
other sex/their partner/etc. What I'm complaining about actually is
that 'feminists' seem to stick their class in a bubble representing
their environment, and want to define the best possible envirnment for
their class, without regard for how it affects others. Some add an
incoming arrow to represent all the evil men inflict on them. What
gets left out are any good effects, and how women affect other people.
"It sucks, y'know -- cuz most of these issues *are* gender issues, but
it's impossible to speak of them that way, using gender-linked
language because you simply *can't* ignore individualism which
transcends gender. You can't speak of gender issues and draw a black
and white picture of men on one side and women on the other. It's
simply a wrong picture and self- defeating to try to portray it as
anything more than it really is: two (or more) groups of _people_
shouting at each other over how they think men and women should
conduct themselves."
Good point. That's kind of what I've been babbling about. The
question is what to do about it?
Jim Baranskibaranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/08/91)
I wrote:
"Won't that simply replace the current situation where female roles
are supposedly defined by men, with a society where feminists define
male roles and oppress them?"
In article <1991Jan2.155342.1414@arris.com>, rshapiro@arris.com
(Richard Shapiro) writes...
"Why should it? Feminists are interested in understanding what goes
into a "female role" or a "male role", and understanding the methods
by which individuals assume these roles (of course, disregarding the
specious free-will argument that we simply "choose" them). They're
not interested in prescribing what those roles should be"
Funny, I have meet a lot of feminists who are not interested in
understanding what a male role is, and who are only interested in
defining the female role regardless of it's impact on men. Then
again, there are those feminists who do care that are worth putting up
with the rest :-}
Jim Baranskirshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro) (01/08/91)
In article <UbV9pQ_00Uzx40wd9A@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") writes: >Richard Shapiro in the article <1991Jan2.155342.1414@arris.com> writes: >>... >>Why should it? Feminists are interested in understanding what goes >>into a "female role" or a "male role", > > First, you have to be a feminist that believes in female and male >roles to believe in any of Richard's disertation. > We should be tearing down the barriers between thinking that there >are any roles that go with a certain sex. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "believing in female and male roles." If you mean that I believe such roles exist right now, I do indeed believe that. If you see barriers to be broken down, you must believe it as well. If you want to eliminate gender roles, you must believe that they exist right now. If gender continues to exist as a relevant social distinction, there will be gendered roles (or subject positions). So eliminating such subject positions is equivalent to elimininating gender as a social and psychological category. Is such a thing possible? Can any of us really imagine would such a social system would be like? The notion of a gender-free society seems to me to be quite utopian, and is so far distant from anything any of us have ever experienced that it seems to me unlikely that we could ever get there, or that we could hypothesize reasonably about the merits or demerits of such a system. In short, I don't think this is a reasonable goal, and I have no reason to think it's a desirable (or undesirable) goal. > In that way only will men and >women be equal because they will be doing the same things. The word "only" is incorrect here, I think. Why should this be the "only" way to equality? > It is >incongruent to say that cooking and plumbing are equal. They are not; >they do not achieve the same goal, nor were they ever meant to. I explained in a posting that came out after Andrea's what I meant by "role". Gendered subjectivity does have a connection with job categories, and I agree that such linkages should be ended, in so far as possible. And I believe that feminism has been somewhat successful in breaking those links. But this has nothing to do with the end of gender. Gender continues to be a primary form of social and psychological categorization; and our particular gender system, which tends to subjugate women, continues to flourish despite advances in job opportunities. > I believe that feminism should be going one step farther into 'Now >that we realize these are the roles people used to take, and we realize >that these roles are no better or worse than eachother, we should make >an effort to allow people to choose the role they wish to pursue without >labeling it 'male' or 'female'. Again, this is a different idea of "role" than the one I was using. Gender roles in the sense I mean are not things we choose -- they are the subject positions which form our identity as "male" or "female". Eliminating gender altogether is a losing battle, I think. Will there ever be a day in which the first question asked of a newborn isn't "boy or girl"? rs