NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17057

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 4.9 KB

Xref: sparky soc.bi:17057 soc.motss:53262
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan
From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Sender: [e-mail] (News id)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:57:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)
Lines: 94

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>[e-mail] (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>[ much deleted ]
>
> >I can't *see* the point of feminism if it isn't to clue in the type
> >of person I used to be, and then to continue educating the type of
> >person I've become.
>
>And this is a lot of the problem.
>
>Feminism is not (especially) designed as a re-education program for
>men, but as an empowerment program for women.  It is not my job, as
>a feminist, to use my time and energy in the education of clueless
>men, although I have been known to spend considerable time doing
>just that when I encounter a man who shows some signs of being
>responsive.

Any philosophy that excludes nearly half the human race is,
by my definition, untenable.  Since I know other feminists
who do not believe this, I can only conclude that this is YOUR
attitude and opinion, which I consider worthwhile but not definitive.


>I'm not trying to say that "feminism" shouldn't educate men (as well
>as women).  I'm also not saying that "feminists" shouldn't educate
>men (as well as women).

But you just contradicted yourself.  IF you consider yourself
a feminist, AND you believe it is NOT your job, as a feminist, to
use your time and energy in the education of the clueless [sic] men,
THEN WHO should educate such "clueless men?"

You can't have it both ways:  either feminists have an outreach
program for clueless men, or they don't.  Either its inclusive,
or its just another closed society.  But, of course, I'm not
a clueless person.  And are YOU the one to define feminism?

In my discussions with feminists who happen to be women, I have
not been faced so much anger as I've seen here.  Nor have I found
them opposed to my input - and its always a two-way street.  They
have generally agreed that feminism is often too humorless,
too restrictive, and too riddled with contradictions even for them.
They're tired of the pressure of the Supermom syndrome.  They
want MORE choices, not just different ones.

I confess:  I'm not very interested in fighting very old battles,
either.  I'm not interested in hearing the classic feminist line -
not because I'm necessarily opposed to power-sharing, genderless
language, the ERA, or all that - but because I already believe in
much of it, and I am MUCH more interested in implementation.

Implementation means overturning Colorado Amendment #2.  It means
passage of the ERA.  It means securing the full rights guaranteed
by Roe v. Wade.  It means the obliteration of the glass ceiling
through education, laws, persuasion, perhaps boycotting (the
Japanese corporations are notorious!).  It means changing expectations
for little girls growing up.  It means doing the fucking laundry,
because 1/5 of it is mine, dammit.  It means getting the right to
stay home with my sick child, because I'm her parent.  It means
that anorexia vanishes, because little girls learn to accept their
bodies as beautiful as they are.

And, implementation means WIDESPREAD acceptance.  I advocate
the use of humor, and tolerance, and education, and FUN as
techniques for doing so.  If its HIP to be like this, then it
WILL be accepted.

If this STILL pisses you off, Mara, then we have nothing left to
discuss, I'm afraid.  And if some of this doesn't meet with your
approval, then either convince me otherwise, or not, but don't
expect much change from me.  I'm not a kid anymore - I'm 33
years old, the father of three, and just as much a victim of
How Things Are as anyone out there (read Warren Farrell's
"Why Men Are The Way They Are" - Warren's a feminist, too :-)

>  I'm saying that the problem with what Brad
>has written is that he's gone so far as to say that he cannot see
>any other important purpose to feminism.  That's not all that far
>from dismissing women's reactions about the so-called "inclusive
>masculine" pronouns.

I didn't get that from what he wrote.  Can you be specific?


--
>  Mara Chibnik
>  [e-mail]                Life is too important to be taken seriously.


--
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. [e-mail] | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com![e-mail] | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea