rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (07/19/89)
In article <773@wsu-cs.uucp> jjb@cs.wayne.EDU (J. Brewster) writes: >I'd be very happy to reach the point at which we >simply won't need to label someone's religious practices as >Inconsistent with the Goals of Feminism. This point has come up before, and I really feel I must reply. I think there's no doubt that the language of feminism has been co-opted by a society which is clearly hostile to its goals. We get plenty of characters on TV, etc. who seem to speak in a feminist fashion, but who are as traditional as can be. One of the reasons for this, IMHO, is the refusal by some feminists to be critical, to say "Yes, this is consistent with my concept of feminism" or "No, this is only superficially feminist". This is what careless liberalism does to people....Anyway, I think we must all be MUCH more critical in our thinking. We have to look around us and see that much of what passes for feminism in mainstream culture is nothing of the kind. We should not be afraid to "label" ideas in this sense. Not every practice or concept or idea which is offered in the name of feminism can be taken at face value. This is precisely how co-option happens. It may well be that Christianity, for instance, is simply incompatible with whatever feminist goals we can agree on; and if this is the case, we need to speak up and say so. We need to look clearly at what passes for feminism, understand its presuppositions (as for instance the presupposition of eternal gender in Sophia worship), understand our own goals, and MAKE NOISE when something seems to be amiss. There is no point at which critical thinking ends; if we reach the point J Brewster hints at above, feminism will be dead. This wouldn't make me very happy at all.