cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu (Christopher Williamson) (06/08/89)
Thank you for your responses. I never quite looked at it from the viewpoint
that others might be out of line by questioning my desire to participate in
women's studies classes. Also, thank you Greg for the he/she paper.
- Chris
cwilliam@umd5.umd.edugarys@bunker (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/18/89)
[I changed the subject line as the original appeared to refer to a current flame war in soc.women and was not relevant to the article - MHN] In article <46655@oliveb.olivetti.com> jan@Arezzo.orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes: >The definition >of feminism is to desire that society treat people according to their >individual traits, as you recommend, rather than their gender. Then why is it called "feminism" (from the Latin "femina," woman)? Why isn't it called "egalitartianism," for example? Gary Samuelson
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (08/22/89)
In article <6882@bunker.UUCP> elroy!decvax!bunker!garys (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >In article <46655@oliveb.olivetti.com> jan@Arezzo.orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes: >>The definition of feminism is to desire that society treat people >>according to their individual traits, as you recommend, rather than >>their gender. Well, let's call that a definition of feminism. The term means many things to different people. >Then why is it called "feminism" (from the Latin "femina," woman)? >Why isn't it called "egalitarianism," for example? Because "egalitarianism" implicitly refers to the equality of citizens, where "citizens" is a term that has almost always, implicitly or explicitly, been defined as "male." The celebrated equality in post-revolutionary America was given directly to the males, without changing the unequal status of females, slaves, native Americans, and non-land-owning white males. All the praise for the queen of the household did not change the fact that women were not allowed to vote, appear on juries, or hold jobs that had the same status as men. The same rhetoric praising the domestic goddesses appeared in other countries undergoing the Industrial Revolution. Equality in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union seemed different, since women were said to have equal status, but rhetoric did not change societal roles, and so the women were left to do their old domestic tasks in addition to their new professional tasks. Professions that became dominated by females, such as the medical profession, lost their status. The same thing has happened in the American and West European states with many professions, e.g., nursing and secretarial work. It's just another pattern. The mingled histories of the feminist and abolitionist/civil rights movements in America are no accident. They are both fighting for equal rights, but before that, the necessary understanding that equal rights have not been given. What began as a struggle for political power over a century ago (some will say centuries) has become a powerful means of analysis of patriarchal systems and gender bias, systems and biases that appear in various forms: as obvious as the lack of women in construction work, as subtle as the tendency of scientists to insist on looking for hierarchical structures in holistic systems like the human immune system, or as outrageous as the lack of funding for "women's issues" such as child care. As the t-shirt says, "same shit, different day." t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (10/24/90)
Disclaimer: If I wrote it and didn't use evidence to back it up, then it is [obviously] my opinion. 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. And in the beginnings of feminism this is what it meant. People were trying to get women rights. The rights that they were trying to get women were the same rights that men presently had. Therefore, what early feminists were trying for was 'equality' with men. How the use of the word feminism has evolved. 1. Feminism has evolved into a derogatory word that deals with people who wish to see society change from a patriarchal system into a matriarchal one. To buy into this brand of feminism you must believe that men and women are inherently different in more than a biochemical sense. 2. Feminism is a bunch of man-haters and lesbians who wish to erase any authority or power that any man may have. Although there are lesbians and men-haters who are also feminists, they do not go hand in hand. This is a very radical form of feminism and doesn't represent the majority. Remember that radicals are often the loudest and the first and last to be heard. (nor are all rads lesbians or men-haters.) 3. Feminism is a political party that lobbies for women's rights and special interests with no regard to the inequality of their own policies. This brand of feminism is often what political parties have. I see them as hypocrites. To want equality and then not want to have women drafted along with men is unfair. This is not how I see feminism and I don't understand how people stay with political parties like that. Note that I am not for the draft. But rather if one sex if drafted, the other sex should be as well. *** Those are some of the negative connotations of feminism that I have seen on this group and in the newspaper and in the literature I have read. Someone who I think is a good example of a feminist is Eleanor Roosevelt. I also don't think she would describe herself as a feminist. She made opportunities for herself and made sure that she wasn't stepped on by others. (BTW, this was in her later life, it was something she grew to do.) 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. I simply call it equalism. If people want no discrimination because of gender, I believe a long hard look needs to be taken at no discrimination because of factors that are extremely beyond our control. (In other words, no sex changes, bleaching of skin, or having nasty drugs put in you to change your sexual persuasion.) This will lead people to say that we shouldn't discriminate based on intellect or education. If someone does not make the effort to attain a skill or find that they do not possess the particular talent to succeed at that skill, then they should not get the job. This is discriminatory. However, I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination people are talking about when one talks about feminism, or blackism (to coin another's phrase). I think I've put in about $1.50 worth of opinion here. Feel free to comment. Flames to /dev/null. (whatever that means.) Andrea Gansley-Ortiz (Yes I am female and hispanic, for those who keep track.)