fab9452@csseq.tamu.EDU (Allan Bailey) (09/17/90)
I have been reading this newsgroup waiting to see if there would ever be a posting of what feminism is. I haven't seen one, so I'm asking: What is Feminism? [Alright, everybody! Brace for the contradictory deluge! The answers should be interesting, but they won't all agree. I hope you're not counting on that? --CLT] -Allan
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (09/18/90)
This is what I think it should mean, but probably not what it does - at least not anymore. feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal opportunities within society and that these opportunities should not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. Now, isn't that simple? Judy
jet@karazm.math.uh.EDU ("J. Eric Townsend") (09/19/90)
In article <17365@oolong.la.locus.com> judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal > opportunities within society and that these opportunities should > not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. How many of us consider this an aspect of "egalitarianism"? Then again, why are we arguing about semantics? Will it make a difference to J. Random Sexist what we call ourselves? [I don't believe we're arguing about semantics, at least not yet. Someone asked for a definition of a term that has *many* definitions! --CLT] -- J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r)
tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) (09/21/90)
In article <17365@oolong.la.locus.com>, judy@altair (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: | |This is what I think it should mean, but probably not what it does - at least |not anymore. | |feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal | opportunities within society and that these opportunities should | not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. | |Now, isn't that simple? Hm, let me take my stab at it. I would include the above, ALONG with: The recognition that gender roles have been stereotyped to the point where masculine traits are idealized and feminine traits are considered second-rate, and that there is a need to recognize the shortcomings of masculine traits and the strengths of the feminine traits. Furthermore, that there is no need to restrict masculine/feminine traits to people of the "matching" sex. In my opinion, well balanced people display both feminine and masculine traits. A little more complex... (note that this is a personal definition, and if it is found anywhere else, it will be a pleasant surprise for me) --Cindy -- And if thou holdest to any thinge, the Ende thou canst not enter in. If thou guardest nae thinge at alle, to Alleman's Ende thou'lt passe and falle. And Destruction'll take thee alle! ==tittle@ics.uci.edu==
clong@remus.RUTGERS.EDU (Chris Long) (09/24/90)
In article <9009181556.aa17125@ICS.UCI.EDU>, tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) writes: ... > Hm, let me take my stab at it. I would include the above, ALONG with: > The recognition that gender roles have been stereotyped to the point > where masculine traits are idealized and feminine traits are > considered second-rate, ... How about: The belief that ONLY masculine traits are idealized and that all feminine traits are considered second-rate. > ... and that there is a need to recognize the > shortcomings of masculine traits and the strengths of the feminine > traits. Additionally, the belief that there is something inherently wrong, weak, and evil about "masculine" traits whereas "feminine" traits are right, strong, and good. Also, the belief that there are "masculine" and "feminine" traits. -Chris
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (09/25/90)
In article <17365@oolong.la.locus.com>, Judy Leedom Tyrer writes: > feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal > opportunities within society and that these opportunities should > not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. And in article <9009181556.aa17125@ICS.UCI.EDU> Cindy Tittle writes: >Hm, let me take my stab at it. I would include the above, ALONG with: > >The recognition that gender roles have been stereotyped to the point >where masculine traits are idealized and feminine traits are >considered second-rate, and that there is a need to recognize the >shortcomings of masculine traits and the strengths of the feminine >traits. Furthermore, that there is no need to restrict >masculine/feminine traits to people of the "matching" sex. > I think you can see where this leads. The definition of feminism varies from person to person and from time to time. I used to have a running argument with a rad-fem friend of mine that went roughly like this: She: I can't see why you don't consider yourself a feminist. Me: Well, what's a "feminist"? She: A feminist is someone who believes men and women should be equal. Me: Well I certainly believe that; I guess that makes me a feminist. She: Well, if you're a feminist, then you must believe that the world is messed up because men run it, that patriarchal society is inherently evil, that monogamy and traditional marriage are bad, that it's sexist not to be bisexual, that you should be a vegetarian, that all heterosexual sex is rape, that a transsexual can't be a feminist, and that socialism is the only right kind of economy. Me: Ummm, well I don't necessarily believe all those things. She: Then I don't see how you can call yourself a feminist! Me: I guess I'm not a feminist then. [go back to beginning] The rad-fem subculture I hung out with had developed such a complicated set of rules of behavior, known as "politically correct", that I got sick of the whole scene and refuse to be labeled feminist any more. -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (09/27/90)
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >This is what I think it should mean, but probably not what it does - at least >not anymore. > >feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal > opportunities within society and that these opportunities should > not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. > >Now, isn't that simple? The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only part of feminism. The other part, the cultural critique of patriarchy or patriarchal residues, capitalism, and so forth, has also been an important part of feminism. The equal-opportunity branch assumes that society is pretty much okay as it is, and all that's necessary is to give women a fairer chance at the better slots. The other branch, or I should say branches, assume that society is not pretty much okay, and giving a subset of a discriminated class a better shot at opportunities within it is not going to solve the real problems. -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (09/28/90)
----- judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >> feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal >> opportunities within society and that these opportunities should >> not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, gcf@mydog.UUCP writes: > The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only > part of feminism. The other part, the cultural critique of > patriarchy or patriarchal residues, capitalism, and so forth, has > also been an important part of feminism. The equal-opportunity > branch assumes that society is pretty much okay as it is, and all > that's necessary is to give women a fairer chance at the better > slots. The other branch, or I should say branches, assume that > society is not pretty much okay, and giving a subset of a > discriminated class a better shot at opportunities within it is > not going to solve the real problems. I have some sympathy for the above line of thought, but also considerable qualms about it. If I may play the devil's advocate, the main qualm concerns in what sense the other branches represent ideology that is appropriately labeled feminist, as opposed to political ideology that has little to do with gender issues. Pace many of the writers on these other branches, I think it is quite easy to imagine a liberal society in which gender (and race) inequalities do not exist. (Indeed, from the history of other political forms, it is hard for me to imagine anything other than a liberal society where this comes to pass.) Given such a society, these writers must still criticize it. If they are purely egalitarian, they will criticize its social classes, even though these are no longer based on sex (or race). If they oppose private concentrations of capital, they will criticize this, even though these no longer correlate with gender (or race) divisions. If they oppose technology, they will criticize its use, even though the women and men participate equally in it. In what sense would such criticisms then be feminist? One might argue that such a society evolved from a patriarchal stock, but that will be true for all future societies, and if ancestry taints culture in this way, then *all* future societies are of necessity tainted by the sexism, racism, ancient superstitions, slavery, war, etc, that are common to our past. Feminism in the equal opportunity sense appeals to our liberal ideals. Socialism, Marxism, luddism, and various other ideologies do not. Proponents of these ideologies link these to feminism in an attempt to make them more attractive. But is there any reason for us to put stock in such links? Russell
cel@cs.duke.edu (Christopher Emery Lane) (09/28/90)
ed falk said: The rad-fem subculture I hung out with had developed such a complicated set of rules of behavior, known as "politically correct", that I got sick of the whole scene and refuse to be labeled feminist any more. ---- I say: bell hooks suggests that one should not "be" a feminist, but one should "advocate" feminism. This is what I generally say. A labelling scheme that has "feminists" and "non-feminists" is inherently non-inclusive, i.e. hierarchical (that's bad;-) ). There are many experiences that might make one not wish to be called feminist (like ed's experience), but who really cares. The important thing is the ideas and actions and people that people support or oppose. How about: feminism is a movement that attacks the idea of hierarchy in the guise of gender. It affirms the fundamental value and connectedness of all humans (or living beings?) and seeks a way of life that is in greater harmony with our human nature than the current setup. "Seek not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Pleasure shared is pleasure increased; pain shared is pain diminished. etc., etc. Chris Lane -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
robh@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Rob F Hoeye) (10/04/90)
In article <654526686@romeo.cs.duke.edu> cel@cs.duke.edu (Christopher Emery Lane) writes: > >feminism is a movement that attacks the idea of hierarchy in the guise of >gender. It affirms the fundamental value and connectedness of all >humans (or living beings?) and seeks a way of life that is in greater >harmony with our human nature than the current setup. > I like your concept of attacking hierarchy. So much of what I've been reading lately that has been self-described as "feminism" has really seemed healthy, balanced "HUMANISM" One aspect of some of the most positive and constructive items I've seen has been the respect for ALL LIFE - not just our own as human beings. It's certainly almost impossible to truly comprehend the experience of people without the gifts we on this network enjoy - minds that (kind of) work, skills and education, resources, and on - people that cannot sometimes even recognize the existence of such lofty, abstract concepts as subjugation or opportunity. Our effort to be truly human needs to encompass as much of the world as possible, beyond our own small sphere of experience. Ah, but it's time to bellyache: I have naively been plodding along under the handy theory that all this patriarchy and paternalism stuff has been just a set of bad and lazy habits everyone (men AND women) have allowed themselves to slip into for various irresponsible reasons over the centuries. You know - if you're careless then "accidents" happen? Yikes! I had my eyes opened yesterday! >From the Idaho Statesman, September 29 issue - "MALE RAPE: The first person convicted under Idaho's male rape law has been sentenced to life in prison in 1st District Court." Egadzooks!! Now HERE'S SEXISM! Disregarding the obvious differences in the possible impacts of such a crime on the victim, I would like to know on what grounds the government of Idaho feels the rape of a male is so much more ghastly than the rape of a female that the punishments are so different!!! This is no careless, casual accident in lawmaking - it required a considerable number of legislators to back. This may be the wrong forum to ask for a justification from Idaho; but I am led to abandon my earlier hopefulness for the nonexistence of such conscious injustice and sexism and admit I have become a believer in the existence of real wrongness. [Does someone out there know what Idaho laws list as the punishment for raping a woman? - MHN] I don't know what to do or say. - Jeff Danforth c/o robh@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (10/09/90)
In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP writes: >judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >> >>feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal >> opportunities within society and that these opportunities should >> not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. > >The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only >part of feminism. This "part" of the definition seems to be the only common idea that everyone includes in their definition of feminism. -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/09/90)
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): #feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal # opportunities within society and that these opportunities should # not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP writes: $The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only $part of feminism. In article <1190@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: >This "part" of the definition seems to be the only common idea >that everyone includes in their definition of feminism. In *practice*, the only part that most feminists agree is that women should have more rights.
cel@cs.duke.EDU (Christopher Emery Lane) (10/09/90)
In article <1190@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: >In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP writes: >>judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >>>feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal >>> opportunities within society and that these opportunities should >>> not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. >>The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only >>part of feminism. >This "part" of the definition seems to be the only common idea >that everyone includes in their definition of feminism. >Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 >marla@eng.sun.com There used to be something called the "Women's Movement", or the "Women's Liberation Movement". I don't know too much about the shades of distinction between these and early feminism, but I think that they adequately cover the ground that the gcf@mydog is concerning about including. However, to me it is important to maintain the distinction between the women's movement and feminism, not least because I believe feminism speaks to men as well. Well, rah, rah, gotta go work, have a good day all, Chris -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) (10/10/90)
Jeff Danforth writes (speaking about male vs female rape): >Egadzooks!! Now HERE'S SEXISM! Disregarding the obvious differences in the >possible impacts of such a crime on the victim, I would like to know on what Well, you got one part of the above correct. HERE'S SEXISM! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misundertanding
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (10/11/90)
>judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >> >>feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal >> opportunities within society and that these opportunities should >> not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. In article <86828@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP: >The problem with this sort of definition is that it covers only >part of feminism. ... marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker): >This "part" of the definition seems to be the only common idea >that everyone includes in their definition of feminism. I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose writings are probably available at this very moment in other newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program to get special privileges for women. But even if it were so, so what? Are least-common-denominator or most-common-intersection definitions necessarily the best ones? Or is that not what is being implied? -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
wilber@usc.edu (John Wilber) (10/11/90)
In article <655436645@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer): >#feminism (n) - the belief that women and men should be allowed equal ># opportunities within society and that these opportunities should ># not be based on social prejudices based upon sexual stereotypes. >In article <1190@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: >>This "part" of the definition seems to be the only common idea >>that everyone includes in their definition of feminism. >In *practice*, the only part that most feminists agree is that >women should have more rights. I hate to pick nits (well, not really ;-), but a more proper way of putting it would be that feminists agree that women have the same rights as men and those rights should be recognized. Under some definitions, I am a feminist, but not really under the "more rights for women" definition. I think there are a lot more folks like me than those who just want "more rights" regardless of the nature of rights (whether you stop having them when they are violated) and whether wanting "more" is necessarily good (since eventually, they would have "enough" rights) since "more" is relative to how "many" they have now.
wilber@usc.edu (John Wilber) (10/11/90)
In article <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose >writings are probably available at this very moment in other >newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program >to get special privileges for women. Certainly this IS the case with many feminist organizations and some individual feminists. It sounds like you don't agree. >But even if it were so, so what? Are least-common-denominator or >most-common-intersection definitions necessarily the best ones? >Or is that not what is being implied? No, I think the idea was to discover the fundamental idea behind feminism. Clearly, "eco-feminism" is is not fundamentally feminist, or at least the views of eco-feminists are not characteristic of the majority of feminists (like me for example!).
stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu ("Char Aznabul") (10/16/90)
In article <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose > writings are probably available at this very moment in other > newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program > to get special privileges for women. > But even if it were so, so what? If that's what their stated goal was, yer right. But, they state they are out for equality and fairness for EVERYONE. That's the 'so what'. James (aka Char) --------*****------ "Vox populi, vox humbug" - William T. Sherman
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/16/90)
#In *practice*, the only part that most feminists agree is that #women should have more rights. In article <12445@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: >I hate to pick nits (well, not really ;-), but a more proper way of putting it >would be that feminists agree that women have the same rights as men and >those rights should be recognized. Under some definitions, I am a feminist, >but not really under the "more rights for women" definition. Do you know even one large feminist group that has fought against women's rights and/or extra-rights? Do you know even one large feminist group that has not fought for some women's rights and/or extra-rights? [Are fighting for rights and fighting for extra-rights the same thing? - MHN] If a animal looks like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, then what is it?
regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) (10/17/90)
In article <1094@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu ("Char Aznabul") writes: >In article <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >> I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose >> writings are probably available at this very moment in other >> newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program >> to get special privileges for women. > >> But even if it were so, so what? > >If that's what their stated goal was, yer right. But, they state >they are out for equality and fairness for EVERYONE. That's the >'so what'. Mostly, this is a problem of mixing your sets. There are those (GROUPA) who are for special privileges for women, and there are those (GROUPB) who are for equality for everyone. To accuse GroupB of GroupA's agenda is the result of a lack of attention on the reader's part. There is the subset problem of 'the lesser of two evils', too. Generally, the choice people are faced with is, say, a jolly old chauvinist pig who treats his female office workers to pats on the bottom and suggestive requests, but votes quite clearly for "feminist" causes, because he knows upon which side his political bread is buttered, running against a female, with little experience on important policy issues. Who to vote for???? We don't usually have one TERRIFIC, GREAT, WONDERFUL candidate, and one HORRID SLEEZEBAG JERK. Nor do we usually have one TERRIFIC GREAT WONDERFUL government program and one HORRID SLEEZEBAG program. The 'anti' side usually manages to attach some absurd limiter or regulation or bureauocracy on to the 'pro' side. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Adrienne Regard
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (10/18/90)
(The original material, deleted here, asserted that
"obtaining equal rights for women" was common to all
definitions of feminism.)
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch):
>>I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose
>>writings are probably available at this very moment in other
>>newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program
>>to get special privileges for women.
wilber@usc.edu (John Wilber):
>Certainly this IS the case with many feminist organizations and some
>individual feminists. It sounds like you don't agree.
To say that someone is pressing for "special privileges" is
simply putting them down, or at least taking up an adversarial
bargaining position. It's not some kind of absolute truth, and
in fact it _can't_ be an absolute truth. But I already bored
everyone analyzing this; so much so, that, as we can see, some
people didn't read the articles.
>>But even if it were so, so what? Are least-common-denominator or
>>most-common-intersection definitions necessarily the best ones?
>>Or is that not what is being implied?
>
>No, I think the idea was to discover the fundamental idea behind feminism.
>Clearly, "eco-feminism" is is not fundamentally feminist, or at least
>the views of eco-feminists are not characteristic of the majority
>of feminists (like me for example!).
It's not clear to me that cultural or radical feminism, of which
eco-feminism is a part, isn't just as "fundamental" as equal-
rights feminism, if not moreso. And I don't think it's clear
that "the views of the eco-feminists are not characteristic of
the majority of feminists," unless, of course, you define
_feminist_ in such a way as to exclude eco-feminists, and, I
suppose, anyone who is concerned enough about the destruction of
the environment to be political about it.
[We need to define what we mean by fundamental in order to address this. I
think people may be talking at cross-purposes. - MHN]
I don't think that would leave you with a whole lot of people,
but they'd be safe from the point of view of preserving the
the current political and economic arrangements, which I guess is
the general idea.
--
Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcfgcf@hombre.masa.com (10/18/90)
stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu ("Char Aznabul") quotes me as
follows:
| In article <88257@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| > I don't think this is so. Antagonists of feminism, whose
| > writings are probably available at this very moment in other
| > newsgroups, often assert that feminism is nothing but a program
| > to get special privileges for women.
|
| > But even if it were so, so what?
and then goes on:
| If that's what their stated goal was, yer right. But, they state
| they are out for equality and fairness for EVERYONE. That's the
| 'so what'.
This is a misquotation. In the quoted article, "it" in the phrase
"but even if it were so" did not refer to the quoted paragraph but to
the assertion that the movement for equal rights was common to all
forms of feminism.
I'm not sure what the author is objecting to here, if anything. Maybe
if he read the articles again, he could clarify? This time quoting
them as they are, if at all.
--
Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcfgazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/23/90)
In article <656090533@lear.cs.duke.edu> I wrote: >Do you know even one large feminist group that has not fought for >some women's rights and/or extra-rights? >[Are fighting for rights and fighting for extra-rights the same thing? - MHN] The difference between rights and extra-right is not well defined. e.g I see affirmative action as extra-right, Miriam sees it as her right. Instead of opening this can of warms once again I preferred to put an and/or and make my article a little shorter and more to the point.