Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:38:00 CDT
From:         "Love does not subtract, it multiplies." <HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pat Robertson and feminism

<"Radical feminism," properly used, refers to a fully feminist world-
<view in which, rather than seek to obtain a bigger part of the
<pie by playing by existing rules (as liberal feminists do), one
<declares the pie to be poison and seeks to build a new kitchen.

This would be the definition I have seen of "Radical Feminism."

<By radical, we mean "at the root," in that radical feminism seeks
<to rebuild society in terms that are anchored in the (superior)
<values that belong to women (such as community, compassion,
<nurturance, tenderness, and women's love for each other) rather
<than those that belong to men (such as competition, individuality,
<aggression, dominance, cruelty, and selfishness--which stink.)

This particular addition I have generally seen referred to as "Cultural
Feminism", which is a branch of Radical Feminism.  Not all Radical Feminists
see values as "belonging" to men or women outside of how they have been
assigned, and we see nothing special about that assignment which prevents their
reassignment.  Personally, I find the assignment of a value to men or to women
absurd in the extreme, and such a view is another branch of Radical Feminism.

<  This worldview seeks to overturn every aspect of life which is
<rooted in or dependent on patriarchy.  These aspects include
<patriarchal, competition-centered economic theories; male-
<dominated notions of relationships; the divisiveness that is
<a natural aspect of societies dominated by men; notions of
<ownership; protectionism; and lots of others I can't think of
<right now.

The idea is that Patriarchy (*not* to be confused with maleness) affects our
society from the ground up, and a non-Patriarchal (*not* to be confused with
female or Matriarchal) system needs to be used as a basis for interaction
instead.

<   That's *radical* feminism.  That's what Pat is talking about.
<His problem is that he reads radical feminists and assumes that
<all feminists agree with them.  They don't.  Liberal feminists
<and radical feminists disagree on many things, sometimes violently.

Heck, Radical feminists and radical feminists disagree on many things,
sometimes violently...

<While liberal feminists may run for office, radical feminists see
<the patriarchal system of government as being an object of derision
<to be overthrown, not a system within which to contend for the same
<power men have.  While liberal feminists may defend the Constitition,
<radical feminists see it as a document written by elitist white
<males for their own protection.  Liberal feminists see abortion as
<an issue of choice, and radicals see it as an issue of power.  For
<radical feminists, most heterosexual sex, all marriage, and pregnancy
<are forms of oppression that advantage men and entrap women.  Abortion,
<for radicals, is a way of demonstrating to men that their efforts to
<perpetuate their system can be overcome.  There are radical feminists
<who call for a moratorium on heterosexual sex, and there are radical
<feminists who believe that the only way to wrest the power away from
<men is to eliminate their progeny and disempower them to the point
<that they die out.

This starts to get into Lesbian Seperatism, yet *another* form of Radical
Feminism, which should not be confused with Cultural Feminism,
"run-of-the-mill" Radical Feminism, or any other form of Radical Feminism.

<   Oh, yeah.  I almost forgot.  The witchcraft thing.  This is where
<things get a little weird.  Some radical feminists (generally
<misconstruing witchcraft in the first place) advocate a "feminist
<spirituality" that prefers witchcraft and some forms of paganism
<(last I heard Native religions were very big) because they place
<the center of spiritual power in women (which, of course, is
<where it belongs.  Uh-huh.)  Any belief system that grounds its
<creation myth in a female figure stands a good chance of getting
<picked up (at least for a while) by some faction of radical
<feminism.  The Goddess, Mother Earth, Kali--whoever; if the object
<of worship is female, it's okay with radical feminists.

There's also the Dianic Seperatist ("Witchcraft is for women only"),
Dianic Lesbian ("Witchcraft is for Lesbians only"), and plain old Dianic
("Witchcraft is for Women running things, but men can play too, under our
rules") Witchcraft, none of which should be confused with having anything to do
with the worship of Diana.  These traditions form an overlap between the
Women's Spirituality community and the Wiccan Community, not without
considerable tension on both parts.

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU