larryc@poe.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Carroll) (10/12/90)
I keep hearing statements on the net like "Feminist always ...." "Feminists believe ...." That's a bunch of crap. Feminists are a very diverse group who hold a wide range of opinions. Even on abortion rights, often thought of as a shibboleth separating "real" from "fake" feminists, there are several opinions. The Socialists and the Radical Feminists (two relatively small groups which many mistakenly lump together) sometime bitterly attack each other, the Radicals accusing the Socialists of selling out because they don't support violent revolution, the Socialists accusing the Radicals of harming the movement because violence is counter to feminist thought. The Lesbian separatists oppose those (many of whom are also Lesbians) who support solidarity with feminist men. There are those who view women in a mystical, almost angelic light; others think this ridiculous. There's a group (one contingent calls itself in all seriousness the Fat Underground) that believes women should deliberately make themselves unattractive to men. Even within groups united ideologically, strong personalities not infrequently clash -- with their friends lining up on opposite sides. NOW conventions sometimes become floor shows where Roberts Rules of Order & organizational by-laws become weapons in long & arcane battles, and victory is sometimes overturned overnight by shifting backroom alliances. Sometimes these clashes become vicious. In Texas I know of a case where one woman reported another for smoking marijuana. In California a few years back three women (only one of whom was ever publicly "credited" with it) informed the police that the NOW state president was an accused murderer. (The reported reason for the betrayal was that she rejected the sexual advances of one of the women. Though there may be some truth to that, in the California community the real reason is believed to be that the three women felt she was getting too independent.) It took much time & money to vindicate the president, whose only accuser was her convicted-killer husband, whom she had left when she was a very young woman. There are also class differences: the most active feminists are usually upper- or middle-class women without young children who can afford to work half- or even full-time for the movement. Young women & men sometimes feel older ones are behind the times, or are hogging the power. And, though happily fairly rare, there are sometimes racial tensions. Larry Carroll "Takes-us" (correct pronunciation of Texas) Dancin' Fool
avery@netcom.uucp (Avery Colter) (10/26/90)
larryc@poe.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Carroll): > There's a group (one contingent calls itself in all seriousness the Fat > Underground) that believes women should deliberately make themselves > unattractive to men. Uhhhh, you're just a tad off on that one methinks. The impression I got was the the Fat Underground (a) believed that fat women should not allow themselves to be considered "untouchables" by the police state, and (b) saw attractiveness to men as a mostly peripheral issue. There are a couple of NAAFA veterans who were in the Fat Underground, and I have never gotten the impression that they thought themselves unattractive; and they seem to be perfectly accepting of men whose views on that matter are so obviously different from yours. Enough partisan polemic. But do remember to watch those assumptions. -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "Fat and steel: two mortal enemies locked in deadly combat." - "The Bending of the Bars", A. R. Colter
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/27/90)
>larryc@poe.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Carroll): >> There's a group (one contingent calls itself in all seriousness the Fat >> Underground) that believes women should deliberately make themselves >> unattractive to men. >Enough partisan polemic. But do remember to watch those assumptions. I agree wholeheartedly. In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I find men much more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female bodies. We do not close ourselves off to people because they aren't thin prepubescent boys with tits. Jones
dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") (10/27/90)
In article <1990Oct26.170150.9341@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >[...] In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I >find men much more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female >bodies. [...] This idea (that perceived attractiveness should respond to voluntary effort of the perceiver, who should find this straightforward to do) seems very tenacious amongst women who particpate in gender-issues discussion. I (and I expect many if not most men) find it baffling because the perceived attractiveness of a MOTAS seems an immediate, almost "given" reaction, opaque to rational thought in the short or medium term as does, for example the perceived "pleasant-tastingness" of a food. I can decide that I don't really want the consequences of eating something that may taste good, or that I do want the consequences of eating something that may taste bad, but that doesn't change the perceived taste itself. Of course, both these kinds of perception are known to change in the long term, but scarcely voluntarily. -David West dhw@iti.org
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (10/27/90)
IMHO, you can change what you think is attractive (and similarly, you could probably change your reactions to the taste of food). I find that if I try, I can learn to appreciate every human body as aesthetic, on its own terms. I imagine that I could do the same thing with food. Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct26.170150.9341@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >[...] In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I >find men much more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female >bodies. [...] In article <1990Oct26.204736.17577@iti.org>, uunet!mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") writes: > This idea (that perceived attractiveness should respond to voluntary > effort of the perceiver, who should find this straightforward to do) > seems very tenacious amongst women who particpate in gender-issues > discussion. > I (and I expect many if not most men) find it baffling because the > perceived attractiveness of a MOTAS seems an immediate, almost "given" > reaction, opaque to rational thought in the short or medium term as > does, for example the perceived "pleasant-tastingness" of a food. I > can decide that I don't really want the consequences of eating > something that may taste good, or that I do want the consequences of > eating something that may taste bad, but that doesn't change the > perceived taste itself. > Of course, both these kinds of perception are known to change in the > long term, but scarcely voluntarily. To me, that's the point. If we don't work for a society where these perceptions are different we probably won't get such a society. If we do, we still might not, but at least we're trying. I don't expect your feelings to be under your conscious control. Mine aren't. Why should yours be? But you can influence your feelings by your thoughts and you can influence your thoughts by your actions. And yes, it takes time, is subtle, and is only marginally voluntary. -- Kathryn Huxtable huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct26.204736.17577@iti.org> uunet!mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") writes: >In article <1990Oct26.170150.9341@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >>[...] In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I >>find men much more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female >>bodies. [...] >This idea (that perceived attractiveness should respond to voluntary >effort of the perceiver, who should find this straightforward to do) >seems very tenacious amongst women who particpate in gender-issues >discussion. This support Jones' statement that American men *are* not open minded (note that he did not say *choose* open mindedness). It is possible that women who discuss gender have been socialized/whatever so that they *are* open minded. >I (and I expect many if not most men) find it baffling because the >perceived attractiveness of a MOTAS seems an immediate, almost "given" >reaction, opaque to rational thought in the short or medium term as >does, for example the perceived "pleasant-tastingness" of a food. I >can decide that I don't really want the consequences of eating >something that may taste good, or that I do want the consequences of >eating something that may taste bad, but that doesn't change the >perceived taste itself. Well, in my experience this is simply untrue. There are scores of foods that I have "gotten the taste" for. Everything from coffee to Cognac to Shepherd's Pie to steak. (I understand that for smokers, smoking a cigarette is a pleasurable sensation.) For that matter, I find that my hearing of new styles of music changes dramatically between the first time I hear a composition in that style and having heard it a dozen times. After the first dozen times, my reaction will be pretty stable, but I find it takes a while to get things. >Of course, both these kinds of perception are known to change in the >long term, but scarcely voluntarily. Hence, it is not true to say that the American men you refer to above are stupid, simply that they have been brought up in confining ways. Chris -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful.