larryc@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry E. Carroll) (06/28/90)
The Fund for the Feminist Majority is a legitimate group, and they do some good work. However, I object to several things about them and don't contribute time or money. A historical note, first. The Fund began when Ellie Smeal finished her second US NOW presidency. It was a vehicle to retain national power in the feminist movement that would have been denied her because of NOW's two-term limit on the presidency -- or so some feminists assert. Some also believe that it was started by a NOW splinter group who felt NOW itself had too much of a white hetero middle-class orientation. My main objection is that you can't join & elect officers or (for that matter) become an officer. It's a fairly tight-knit group that isn't very responsive to those on its mailing list. (I'll be interested to see how they use the questionnaire they recently sent out.) I also have adverse reactions to most of those I've met: they seem driven and dogmatic, unwilling to listen to other viewpoints, ready to see as enemy anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone on this distribution list whose worked within the Fund? Am I being unfair? Larry Carroll
swsh@midway.uchicago.EDU ("Janet M. Swisher") (07/06/90)
In article <8516@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> larryc@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry E. Carroll) writes: > >The Fund for the Feminist Majority is a legitimate group, and they do some >good work. [...] >[...] you can't join & elect officers or (for that >matter) become an officer. It's a fairly tight-knit group that isn't very >responsive to those on its mailing list. [...] I also have adverse reactions >to most of those I've met: they seem driven and dogmatic, unwilling to listen >to other viewpoints, ready to see as enemy anyone who disagrees with them. I find it interesting that the above paragraph is very close to a description of my impression of American Atheists. In the case of American Atheists, they found that if they allowed members democratic participation, then lots of fundamentalists and other zealous religious folks would join, and then vote to subvert the atheist mission of the organization. This makes me wonder whether the leaders of FFM have had similar experiences with the membership not being as radical as they would like. But if they want to start a feminist political party, this doesn't seem like the way to go about it. Janet Swisher swsh@midway.uchicago.edu I speak for myself.