From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom? (was: Supposed "Non-Patriarchal" Societies)
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:21:06 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <p0kjjdk.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.023303.17912@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
::	Although some feminists do seem anti-male, fortunately they
::haven't had too much power. 
:
:  This must explain why Robin Morgan, in whose books men are all
:  terrorists, baby-killers, and "demon lovers", is now the Editor-
:  in-Chief of Ms. Magazine, the most mainstream of feminist
:  publications.

	Have you read them all???

:::   . You do not seem to realize that both Friedan AND Steinem
:::   have been officially branded as 'backsliders' in "Backlash" by
:::   Susan Faludi, and hence traitors to the feminist cause. For
:::   recommending them, you are hereby found guilty of Bourgeois
:::   Right Deviationism, and are sentenced to perform Revolutionary
:::   Self-Criticism for twelve months in the Womens' Studies
:::   Curriculum of your choice. :)
::
::	I know that Faludi criticized Friedan as being one, but I've
::never heard of Faludi criticizing Steinem on that ground. Where does
::she do that? I've read that _Time_ magazine article that featured both
::of them.

	And I may add, the two looked rather friendly to each other :-).

:You might try looking in her book, "Backlash." :) I don't have a copy
:of it now, but she has a chapter that is sort of "WHo's Who Among
:Backsliders", and if memory serves me correctly, not only are Friedan,
:Mead, and Steinem, and (of course) Bly in there, but Greer and many
:other once-influential feminist leaders. Washington Post columnist
:Sally Quinn, in her syndicated article "Is Feminism As We Have Known
:it Dead?" [San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 26, 1992] paints Steinem as a
:"backslider" for admitting that she fell in love with a man who
:treated her badly (a big feminist no-no, but 'the way the world
:works'). Steinem admits to seducing him by playing down the person
:she was, and playing up the person she wanted him to be, which
:is what a feminist is NEVER supposed to do.

	Maybe she did not quite realize what she was doing until it
was too late :-). I'm a bit surprised that Scepticus Maximus has not
flayed Ms. Steinem alive for one journalistic assignment she took in
1963. I won't describe it, but it's in her book _Outrageous Acts and
Everyday Rebellions_. According to her, she had taken that assignment
before she had had her feminist awakening in 1972 or thereabouts.

	And I'm sure Faludi respects Friedan's and Greer's earlier
work; it's just their later work that she has trouble with.

:Quinn, by the way, is not terribly unhappy to see it go. She writes,
:"The truth is that many women have come to see the feminist movement
:as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine. And therefore
:it has nothing to do with us."

	This -- from a woman with a career?

	And what does she think feminism is, anyway? Some feminists
would disagree. My mother considers herself one, although she does not
consider herself anti-family or anti-male or anti-child. She even
credits feminism with having made more opportunities for women.

	It is hard to call feminism dead when Gloria Steinem sometimes
draws more people to a book signing than Ollie North and Vanna White
combined. I saw her at Cody's Books in Berkeley, and she practically
filled the building.

	And let us not forget the big abortion-rights marches in San
Francisco and in Washington not too long ago. If that isn't a feminist
issue, then what is? Or were they all shepherded by zealous activists?