t-ellens@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen SPERTUS) (08/05/90)
In article <11103@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%nunki.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >Think it is an agends that lumps feminism, socialism, and an odd >grab-bag of other isms together that has stalled the feminist >movement. I very much support women's rights, but I am absolutely >opposed to pacifism, socialism, environmentalism (as practiced these >days), and affirmative action. By lumping together the good positions >of feminism with these other (and might I say *wrong*) ideologies, the >feminist movement looses the support of the majority of the >population. Agreed! I've been reading a lot of feminist works lately, and it's driving me crazy. In one place, Gloria Steinham (for example) defines feminism as a belief in the equal humanity of men and women (agreed!), but in other places, a feminist is expected to believe in all the things you list. They're squishing out people like me --- an aspiring computer scientist ("male science") who's politically libertarian (pro-capitalist and for minimal government) --- even though I agree that women are treated poorly and that much social change is needed and have worked to do what I can. I can't find a good reason why feminist positions exist on vegetarianism, South Africa, etc. To me, they seem based on the stereotype that women are more compassionate than men, to say nothing of the arbitrary grouping of people. I probably have more in common with computer scientists or engineers in general than with females or feminists. Can anyone illuminate this phenomenon for me? Ellen Spertus ellens@ai.mit.edu
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (08/08/90)
IN <56304@microsoft.UUCP>, t-ellens@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen SPERTUS) writes: > grouping of people. I probably have more in common with computer scientists > or engineers in general than with females or feminists. Can anyone I see one of the goals, if not the ultimate goal, of the feminist movement is so that everyone can legitimately feel just that way. I'm not disagreeing with you here, I just wanted to reinforce this point. > I can't find a good reason why feminist positions exist on vegetarianism, > South Africa, etc. To me, they seem based on the stereotype that > women are more compassionate than men, to say nothing of the arbitrary > grouping of people. [...] Can anyone > illuminate this phenomenon for me? I want to avoid any pre-emptory replies like "You obviously haven't tried very hard to find..." or "you don't want to find...". Having personally been through a change of perspective on this issue, I think that it is very hard to generate a new point of view by one's self, so I do not intend any of the following to be deliberately inflammatory, just as I do not take your statement to be deliberately inflammatory. I do intend it to be deliberate though. [Of course, qualify this all with: "In *my* opinion..."] Perhaps the explanation you seek can be explained by the various definitions of feminism. I think that those various definitions are easily divided into two groups: a) Those that seek "equality" only. b) Those that seek "equality" plus some other ism's. I think the fundamental split is due to a philosophical difference in the perception of the nature of the cause of the oppression of women: Camp 'a', which I used to be in, thinks that the oppression of women is an isolated phenomina which can be solved without either effecting or being effected by the "other isms". Camp 'b', which I am now in, thinks that women's oppression is not independant of other social ills, but is rather just another manifestation of a deeper problem. This has nothing to do with a "stereotype that women are more compassionate than men." It is based on the fact that women and Black South Africans are both groups oppressed by males (even sometimes by white males). That is certainly an *arbitrary* grouping, but at some level all groupings are arbitrary. The point really is: "Is the grouping helpful in understanding some phenomina?" This is a very thumbnail sketch answer to your question. Personally, I changed camps (a -> b) during my first formal exposure to feminist thought: a course entitled "Feminist Perspectives on Philosophy". For example, consider the economic benefits that capitalists gain by having a pool of very cheap (if not free) labor. Are not women a cheaper source of labor in many developed countries? Are not Black South Africans a cheaper source of labor in South Africa? I believe that many of these things are interrelated. I do not think that they can be solved independantly. That does not mean that they all have to be solved simultaneously either. I think that progress along any front helps, at least somewhat, the others. Further food for thought: Is not the oppression of women an expression of domination? And does not that domination share some (if not a majority) aspects with the domination of "others" in general? (i.e. animals, the environment) Do not set up that old tired straw argument that says that I must be implying, if not out and out demanding, that animals and the environment are to be treated on the same moral plane as individuals. I'm not. Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
johnson@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David K Johnson) (08/08/90)
I wonder how one might be in favor of the "equal humanity of men and women" (sounds like a tautology to me) and reject as ill- conceived all those egalitarian "ideologies" you listed: each of them, in theory at the very least, sets out from the initial assumption that something very important remains unequal -- the distribution of the benefits and burdens of social action; the relations between the sexes, between races, between species. I wonder what plans you have for addressing these inequalities, once you have done away with every interesting liberatory project in the name of the almighty market.. Johnson@andromeda.rutgers.edu.
travis@houston.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) (08/14/90)
>In article <56304@microsoft.UUCP> t-ellens@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen SPERTUS) writes: > In article <11103@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%nunki.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: > > >[I] Think it is an agends that lumps feminism, socialism, and an odd > >grab-bag of other isms together that has stalled the feminist > >movement. I very much support women's rights, but I am absolutely > >opposed to pacifism, socialism, environmentalism (as practiced these > >days), and affirmative action. > > Agreed! ... I can't find a good reason why feminist positions exist on > vegetarianism, South Africa, etc. To me, they seem based on the > stereotype that women are more compassionate than men, to say nothing > of the arbitrary grouping of people. I probably have more in common > with computer scientists or engineers in general than with females or > feminists. Can anyone illuminate this phenomenon for me? Part of what you're seeing is no more than a rhetorical device -- "All true Americans believe...", "Every good engineer knows...", "The smart car shopper reads..." -- that neatly incorporates a common desire to identify with a group with whatever idea they would like you to believe. To that extent, the rhetorical device should be noted and duly ignored. You may also find stereotypical reasoning: "I believe in women's rights and vegetarianism, therefore everyone who believes in women's rights should also be believe in vegetarianism or be damned as hypocritical." This, too, is ludicrous. However, beyond rhetoric and sterotypes, many people do believe that some attitudes should come as a unified group, and can argue this quite convincingly. More than that, advocating some political positions is seriously undermined by a strategy of dividing the issues. For example, AIDS-oriented organizations like ACT-UP and Gran Fury have skillfully noted the linkages between deaths from AIDS and the entirely separate issues of homophobia, racism, sexism, and the lack of a national health insurance. (For instance, there is "myth of heterosexual aids", despite the many black and latino deaths from AIDS spread by heterosexual activities.) Yet, although these linkages have been energetically pointed out over the last decade, public opinion and health policies march on with few major changes. It's good to remember that just because you're not immediately able to follow the links in someone's argument (or worse, someone's anger) doesn't mean that they're not present, either in fact or in a common moral principle. After all, many people deny that sexual or racial harassment still exists until it happens to them. Apart from immediate experiences, there may be evidence that the writer has absorbed, but not made available to you. For instance, you might take a dim view of arguments that linked patriarchal structures to child abuse, without knowing that over 90% of the incest cases reported to the police and mental health professionals are in fact cases of father-daughter incest, and most of them occur in stereotypically patriarchal families. This datum does not indict that type of family per se, but it is very disturbing, and it lends some weight in attacks on inflexible patriarchal structures and gender roles. t