From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Followup-To: soc.women
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:03:00 GMT

In article <stricher-220892115750@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu>
stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.101322.1714@lloyd.Camex.COM>, ma@lloyd.Camex.COM
>(Mary Ann Purcell) wrote:
>> "look at how the feminists think of men".   Where are the quotes from
>> the mainstream feminists?  How about me?  I think of myself as radical
>> and I don't hate men.  You can quote me.

>Ok. But...how come the radicals get invited to speak to the mainstreamers?
>Over and over and over again? with the same message? Where are the movers
>and shakers in mainstream feminism? Who is your counterpart to Dworkin
>and MacKinnon?

>See? They DO things: enact legislation, make statements to the media and
>make themselves known. And known as feminists. Where is the vaunted middle?


The "radicals" that call themselves feminists do a better job at reaching
certain groups of people with their statements than reaching out to the
general population.  For instance I only had a passing knowledge of the
existence of Dworkin until reading the net - here, her name is mentioned
all the time.  Most people I know have never heard of her or have a vague
memory of seeing her name in print.  So, in this respect I don't think
these radicals have "center stage".

The other aspect of visibility which you mentioned is enacting legislation.
It does seem to me that the radicals pursue this with more vigor than
"mainstream" feminists - is that a false perception?  MacKinnon's drafting
of a bill to regulate pornography in MA (I think) is one example.
It is a shame that more people are not aware of such attacks on their
liberties that a such a proposal represented; but that's our fault not
the radicals.

I think there is a mouthpiece for one kind of "mainstream" feminism
(its not M. Yard or E. Smeal either).  It's something like the Oprah show.
That sounds kind of funny even as I write it but it still seems reasonable
to me.  Oprah and other shows like it, from time to time, cater to a female
audience seeking "exposure" of those things their "nasty" male husbands
and/or lovers do.  It must be like a bonding experience or the good feeling
one gets when we reach a consensus, in this case - shared disgust.

Oprah (like Cosmo and the girl teen magazines) have the ability to
communicate "feminist" ideas to the general population even though they
don't follow up with legislation.  Read carefully here.  I am not saying
that Oprah herself is the mouthpiece of mainstream fem. but the environment
that her show and others like it create is the mouthpiece.  This form of
communication is decentralized as opposed to the more traditional postures
of the radicals you point out.  The decentralized aspect of the talk
shows/glamour magazines should not lull us into believing that they are not
powerful communicators of values.

Now, before I'm flamed to death, I would add that the talk show version
of mainstream feminism is just that: a version.  The other versions are
those I encounter while talking to my friends (who don't normally have
ready access to the media).  The other players in mainstream feminism
could be Steinem and Freidan.

I don't want to get into an arguement about what is really and truly
mainstream feminism but the talk shows profess a concern for the
betterment of women and so have to be included in the definition of
"mainstream".  You will note that I am not one of those who think that
feminism is a single monolithic enterprise.  It's beliefs are quite
varied as are those who hold them.

>All I'm saying is that as long as you permit them to grab center stage
>and let them define themselves as feminists *without* providing a counter
>point, then you will be defined (in the public's eyes) to be similar to
>them.

I don't think the radicals grab the whole stage in the public's eye.
There are many different roles that men and women can play and still be
called a feminist.  However, if I'm interested in verbally slamming
someone (happens from time to time :-)) then I might say "You're a
feminist, just like that nut-cutter Dworkin".  There is the implication
that: IF feminist THEN you are like Dworkin; not right, right?

>K'Char

-=] Steve [=-   SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU