From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:15:48 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
| > As I see it, feminism is a project with three aspects.
| > 
| > First, it seeks to secure equality for women.  As I share
| > with classical liberals the ideal of political and social
| > equality, I am a feminist for this.

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
| Why not call yourself a classical liberal then ?
| Parochialism is seldom a virtue.

Classical liberalism doesn't go far enough.  In any case, it
doesn't mean much of anything any more; with the exception
of fascist social reactionaries like Buchanan and Robertson
and their followers -- not a large proportion of the
population and practically nonexistent on the Net -- we're 
all classical liberals; modern liberalism and modern 
conservatism both descend from it and accept most of its 
ideas.  This subject is much more general than feminism and 
frequently discussed in talk.politics.theory.

gf:
| > Second, it seeks to enhance the choices and opportunities
| > of women.  As there are many women whom I love, I am a 
| > feminist for this. 

gk:
| This would appear to be the same as your first point, or by "enhance" do
| you mean obtain preferential treatment for ?
| The other obvious question is:  are there no men you love ? 
| or, why are their choices and opportunities less important to you ?

Given our history and culture, and to some extent our 
biology, "choices and opportunities" require different
things for different people.  Men don't need to establish 
that their right to control their bodies includes the right
to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  They do need to
establish that this right includes the right not to be
kidnapped for military service.  Since women seem to wind up
doing most child care, they have different needs for support
in this area than those who don't do child care.  And so on.

I don't know what to do about the condition of men.  For
many generations, being male was the only way to be fully
human.  As a result the majority of them still seem to be
interested only in preserving their own oppression.  There's
no credible movement to liberate them -- except feminism, of
course.

gk:
| I feel a warm, fuzzy protective impulse emanating from this one.  That's
| nice, and most of us are trained to protect any girlies in the vicinity,
| but it's pretty patriarchal, to coin a phrase, no ?

There's nothing wrong with warm and fuzzy, but I 
don't think that's what I said.

gf:
| > Third, it seeks to increase the scope and the freedom of
| > the feminine in both men and women.  As I respect and
| > delight in the feminine, both in myself and others, I am
| > a feminist for this.

gk:
| Whatever the "feminine" is (let me guess: the nice things ?).

Yeah, the nice things.  You don't like the nice things?

gk:
|                                        So you seem
| to like having a label.  That's fine, but why one as literally exclusive as
| "feminist" ?

Nobody else likes the nice things.

gf:
| > That some see feminism as part of a sour, sterile battle 
| > between interest groups is sad.  One can only hope they 
| > will decide to emerge from behind their barricades. 

gk:
| Until we all bend to your will, contention between interest groups is the
| only way to go.  It can be sour, dull and sterile, or vigorous, challenging
| and fun.

The idea of synthesis doesn't occur to you....

gk:
| I've seen enough logical gymnastics in this newsgroup to keep me quietly
| amused for days.  I particularly like the reference to barricades.  You'll
| have to forgive me, but I'd have thought that you were one of the prima
| barricadistas.

I'm not referring to having an opinion; I'm referring to
treating every social interaction as a conflict in which
there's a winner and a loser -- a zero-sum game.  That goes 
from the people who read articles only to find knock-off 
points, to those who evidently feel that any success for 
feminism somehow detracts from their well-being.  The name
of MacKinnon was brought up, for example, only to make
feminism look bad.  To provoke a demonstration of this, 
all I needed to do was point out that the quotations from 
MacKinnon seemed fairly rational.  Immediately, I became a 
"supporter of censorship" because I did not ritually 
denounce MacKinnon as totally evil -- I wasn't on the 
team.  Q.E.D.  So strong was the smell of team spirit that 
some of those who tried to portray me as a "supporter of 
censorship" were almost certainly well aware that I had 
posted several articles promoting the idea that social 
repression of sexual material was not only undesirable 
but impossible.  

As a famous un-feminist said, "Winning isn't everything.  
It's the only thing."  Maybe I should require you all to 
denounce Lombardi by name.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism