From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:35:49 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct15222900@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.041900.20100@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.165802.27866@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>[ sigh ]  Feminism is not a boilerplated, monolithic ideology
>>>or political movement.  It is what St. Augustine called a
>>>community of affections.  
>
>>Good so far, although this will make it terribly difficult
>>for "anti-feminists" to find a target, will it not.
>
>Nope.  It makes it *much* easier, since in the great diversity of
>feminist views, there are some pretty bizarre and even repugnant ones.
>Here's a sample of what an anti-feminist can do with this:
>
>Anti-Feminist: Feminists hate men, hate sex, and really just want to
>  oppress men.
>Pro-Feminist: That's not true at all, look at <some moderate feminist>.
>A-F: Look at Andrea Dworkin!
>P-F: Yes, but she doesn't speak for *all* feminists.
>A-F: I never hear any of them denouncing her.  She *calls* herself a
>  feminist, and they don't spend all their time disagreeing with her, so
>  they must accept her and therefore her views are "feminist views."
>P-F: I disagree with her, as do many other feminists I know.
>A-F: Oh, yeah?  Well, what about *this* statement?  I haven't seen
>  anyone publically denounce that.
>etc.
>
>Some of us feel that our time could be better spent accomplishing
>something rather than disagreeing with the multitudes of people who also
>call themselves feminists but who have views that we disagree with.  The
>anti-feminists just pick some particularly extreme view and attack us
>for believing it.  

To take a stand against the ideas espoused by Dwor/MacK is no more taking
a stand against all feminism than supporting gender-neutral job qualificatins
is a taking a stand against all men.

And yet both you and GF are asserting that this is so.

Yet another case of some few who hypocritically bash a group for something
which they are not doing, then do it themselves.

Taking a stand on some few issues is -just- that.

>               Then they go for another, then another.  Because of
>the great diversity of feminist views, this can go on pretty much
>indefinitely.

So can you and GF, you have no complaints till you yourselves stop.
 
>It is definitely a great advantage for the anti-feminists to have so
>many different views coming from "feminists."  Not that they generally
>acknowledge that there *are* differences.  They ascribe all the most
>extreme, indefensible views to all of us.  

Who here has done this, give examples (except for that flame-bait post
a bit). If this is the way things are, you should be able to pick
practically -any- damn post for an example. If things are not the way
you paint, you will have to look hard for something marginal, or open
to misinterpretation to make even a weak case.

Or if you are not talking about the net, give some examples who are
not themselves the extremists you complain are non-representative.
A few come to mind who make as outstanding examples as Dwor/MacK.

>                                       That's why Gordon says (quite
>correctly) that they treat it as a "monolithic political movement."
>It's not.  For some of us, it isn't even "political."  For others, it's
>*very* political.

And you both treat "anti-feminists" pretty much the same way, so what?
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism