From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Has the Fight changed before my very eyes?
Keywords: feminism change fight indicators
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.135144.2075@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Malcolm Pon) writes:

   [self-description/credentials]

>Lately, perhaps alerted to it by _Backlash_ (Faludi), I've been seeing a
>lot of new arguments that for some reason we don't need to actively
>pursue feminism, for instance, because apparently all its goals have
>been fulfilled and those of us who continue are just nuts who are
>overcompensating.  We are told that the things we used as indicators
>years ago, indicators of our plight and of how bad it had gotten are now
>an indication of our new freedoms.

I think it would be more correct to say that the nature of the work to be done
has changed.  Feminism is no longer the underdog.  The ideal of equality for
women is far more universally accepted.  Feminists need to change tactics to
realize this, and many feminists have failed to do so.  As a result, people who
would support feminism [here defined as equality for women], are being turned
away by rhetoric that is no longer valid.
It is time for feminisn to stop screaming for help [the help is there] and
start quietly working on the nuts and bolts.  Not that this hasn't happened
some, but not enough.


>A good example is this debate about swimsuit calendars and Chippendale
>calendars and inherent sexism in objects and objectification.  I've
>skimmed through the replies for a while, and I've seen all manner of
>argument, old and new... the most alarming arguments I've seen (ones
>that put me most on edge) seem to imply that the freedom to be
>objectified - to be able to be photographed so that her primary and
>secondary sexual characteristics fulfill our beauty standards and then
>to have her photographs sold to people who like to look at these things
>- is a new one, and that it should be taken as just that, a freedom,
>that we got through our pursuit of women's rights.  I've also seen

I must have missed the argument that this freedom was a result of the pursuit
of women's rights.  Basically the arguments I saw boiled down to 1st amendment,
and that the inequality is going away because the Chippendale's are here.


>arguments that the Chippendale calendars balance out the objectification
>of female swimsuit wearers with objectification of male strippers.  And,
>I've seen arguments about how we can find equality in inequality - that
>these calendars are a good way to show off and enhance "women's natural
>attractiveness" and that we should be proud that we are able to do that
>- that we shouldn't threaten that wonder by being too feminist.

I don't recall the phrase "equality in inequality" either.


>Please forgive my skepticism.  I was taught, in the seventies, to be wary
>of such arguments.  Faludi reminded me of those warnings when I read her
>book recently.  Regardless of who's saying it here, it sounds a lot like
>the garbage the New Right's been feeding us since it started talking.
>
>On the other hand, there are a lot of people who post here, sounding
>like they've been careful about what they talk about, and careful aboutt
>what they think... careful with logic and with language, who are saying
>these same New Right things, so what do we do?  Has feminism's weave
>changed under my hardwalking feet, while I wasn't looking?  Or is it
>that the New Right is a closer enemy than we thought?

Feminism has changed, in that it has come a long way.  It needs to change more,
though.  Specifically, feminists who are interested in justice and in actually
meeting their goals must adopt an equalitarian stance.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism