From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:32:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Dec19.233920.27027@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:

>In <1992Dec17.150111.9700@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca
>(Brad Booth) writes:
>>Iseult wrote:
>>> But what bothers me most, in discussions with anti-feminists, is 
>>> a constant insistence that feminism is an anti-male movement.  To
>>> me, feminism is a movement about women, for women. It cannot
>>> be defined in terms of men. 
>>
>>I agree, but the feminist movement is defined in terms of men
>>because that is who is seen as the oppressor.

>I disagree that that any X movement is defined in terms of non-X. For
>example, I don't think that any GLB (or a subset thereof) movement is
>defined in terms of straight people. 

Surely it is? If there was no unjust imposition of a heterosexual norm,
there would be no need for a GLB movement to resist its imposition -- just
as, if there was no unjust imposition of a masculine (or "masculine") norm,
there would be no need for a feminist movement to resist *its* imposition.

Of course GLB people would still tend to associate with one another!
But it would be for reasons which are personal, and not (in the ideal
world) political. 

(BTW, what positive examples are there in history and anthropology
to reassure us that this "ideal" -- or as Zeleny might say in a
sloppy moment, "modally possible" -- world *can* come into being?)

I'm only a neophyte, but if I'm missing something, neither you (Ciaran)
nor Iseult nor Vikki has yet made it clear. An even bigger clue seems
to be required.

What Vikki and the rest seem to be trying to say (not altogether
in good faith, IMO) is that they wish women would be allowed to
get on with loving one another, without having a lot of men butting
in on them all the time. 

But I must say that soc.bi seems, on the face of it, an inappropriate
place in which to be expressing such a wish!

However, the flame war has generated extremely interesting and 
intelligent debates on such topics as (1) pornography, and (2) people's
understanding of one another's pain (to name only the two which have most 
impressed me); so perhaps it will all have been worth while in the long run.

I don't know of any other group with such good communication between men
and women -- so perhaps soc.bi is even a uniquely appropriate forum for
this sort of argument.

>This is quite contrary to what Sara Hopkins said a while back:

>	Why the fuck can't it be recognised that women love women
>	through *positive* reasons of loving women, not necessarily
>	negative reasons of hating men.

Well, of course we all (in soc.bi) recognise this, don't we? But
lesbianism (*) is, as I just said, personal; whereas feminism is
political.

(*) [Or just love, if sexual love wasn't specifically intended
    as the referent here. I've got to be careful -- might get
    burned!]

Now I *know* that someone is going to post an article accusing me of 
having made some or all of the following untrue statements:
(i) whatever is personal cannot also be political; (ii) feminism is 
bad, because it is political; (iii) feminism is nothing but man-
bashing; (iv) feminists shouldn't bash men; (v) all feminists are
lesbians; (vi) feminists shouldn't be lesbians; (vii) masculinity
is intrinsically oppressive to women; (viii) men know more about
feminism than women.

And because I've anticipated all of these accusations, I'll be taxed
with having uttered some other calumny, equally unrelated to what
I've actually been saying. (If that hasn't by now been lost amidst
a flurry of only-too-necessary defensive qualifications.)

If all else fails, someone will resort to telling me at great length,
and in vitriolic language, how very, very uninterested she is in the
opinions of a mere *man* on the topic of feminism, which isn't *about*
men, etc..

You may gather that I didn't really want to get into this thread!

I shall try to bear the slings and arrows with saintly dignity -- 
although even this defensive tactic will probably lead to me being
called "hypocritical, judgemental, ignorant, overbearing, and self-
righteous". :-)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert