timr@sco.COM (Bad Hurts Value) (01/02/91)
In article <8b9A4B200WB608Wo4P@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") writes: ><...> >The word feminism is defined in my dictionary as: the theory of the >political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. It is also >defined as: organized activity on behalf of women's rights. >The word feminism by itself means nothing else... ><...> >My definition of feminism is the definition in the dictionary. >However, I don't think feminism can survive if it doesn't include the >equal rights of all humans. This is (so I've been told) egalitarianism... ><...> egalitarianism's in the dictionary as well, btw... i think it's essential that we have some common definitions so that we may talk about the same things in this kind of forum. i realize that the definition of feminism will vary with every feminist, but i believe we can at the very least break it down to the lowest common denominator... my definition of sexism covers both sexes, not just women. i don't see sexism as the oppression of women by men, but as a societal ill that oppresses all. egalitarians believe in equality for all, so if one defines the goal of feminism as equality for both sexes (as some, including my dictionary, do) then the sexist feminist is a contradiction. if one defines feminism as a doctrine/movement advocating the liberation of women from social, political, and economic oppression (as i do), then there is no such contradiction. you can be as bigoted and prejudiced against men as you want, and still be a feminist. i don't expect the liberation of men to be on the feminist agenda. i don't think that i have an inalienable right to live in a separatist household, or participate in any other womyn-space. i don't expect feminists to support my right to a men-only space, though i certainly have a problem in respecting any bigot. i don't believe that one form of sexism (men are success objects, etc.) somehow excuses another (women are sex objects, etc.). i may have an understanding of a prejudice, but i cannot accept it. and i'll never neither understand nor accept the mindset of the censor... i suppose my thesis is this: i don't think it's fair to expect all feminists to be egalitarians, and i don't that it's reasonable to expect all feminists to have a fair view of all men. and furthermore, i feel that a mediocum of decency demands that we have some understanding around why we may encounter some hostility towards men and (goddess forbid) outright sexism from women. i truly feel that the folks you most disagree with are closer to agreeing with you than you might realize... -timr -- There is war between the rich and poor, a war between the man and the woman There is war between the ones who say there is a war and the one who say there isn't. --Leonard Cohen Usenet: !{uunet,ucbvax!ucscc,decvax!microsof}!sco!timr, ...!mcsun!ukc!scol!timr Internet: timr@sco.COM,timr%sco.COM@ucscc.UCSC.EDU,@ucscc.UCSC.EDU:timr@sco.COM
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/08/91)
In article <12916@scorn.sco.COM>, timr@sco.COM (Bad Hurts Value) writes...
"i don't expect the liberation of men to be on the feminist agenda. i
don't think that i have an inalienable right to live in a separatist
household, or participate in any other womyn-space. i don't expect
feminists to support my right to a men-only space, though i certainly
have a problem in respecting any bigot."
If feminists wish men's cooperation on their agenda, they should be
prepared to cooperate with men's agenda. Or prehaps more accurately,
both sides must listen to each other and discuss reasonable
compromises if any headway is to be made at all other then setting
each side in opposition to each other.
Jim Baranski