From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:26:56 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1993Jan27.200125.29198@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.161733.18089@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>[opps, attribute ommitted, sorry]
>
>>GA>I'm pretty sure you are in the minority (among feminists) on this
>>GA>issue.  But if I'm wrong and this is a big issue with most feminists,
>>GA>I'd like to know so that I can disassociate myself from the 
>>GA>Women's Rights [hah!] Movement".
>>
>>This just once more shows how varied and how impossible it is to
>>label anything or anyone as "feminist."  So many people call themselves 
>>that (I do not) and carry such widely varied beliefs that it is
>>useless to judge a person on the label "feminist."  
>
>What if you judge based upon their words and the ideas they seem to be
>conveying?

Judging on actual words and what a person seems to be saying can
be tricky, especially on the net.  I don't think anyone here
is innocent of jumping to conclusions or severe extrapolation.

The problem is that often you can explain 'til you're blue
in the face (or fingers) that you don't believe X.  But you still
get attacked because "if you believe Y you MUST believe X!  And
I don't believe you if you say otherwise!"

And yes, I am aware that this goes on with all sides.  Myself,
I'm trying very hard to cut back :)

>
>>                                                            When I've 
>>posted about women's rights, I get jumped on by some people screaming
>>about the horrible things "all feminists" believe.  
>
>On the flip side, it is impossible to say anything not a glowing
>testimonial to feminism, and not be accused of attacking feminism
>as a whole (which is also claimed to be nonexistant).

Well, I've always tried to attack for specific things :)
Not for amorphous ideas like "feminism."  Equality, maybe.
But I certainly don't attack someone for discussing men's
problems unless I feel (subjective of course) I'm being
attacked or being "blamed" for it in some manner.  As with
above though, I'm trying to cut back.

>
>>                                                       When I say
>>I don't, I'm called a liar and the assumption women's rights ==
>>"feminism" == all one belief structure, is made.  But I also get jumped
>>on by people telling me my "feminism" is wrong or flawed.  I feel
>>like if I'm to be included in the "feminist bunch" and be counted
>>as a true "feminist" (whatever that is) I have to follow a strict 
>>party line (as shown on the net) or be cast out.  
>
>The situation is almost exactly parallel on the other side of the fence.
>BTW, what is this "strict party line (as shown on the net)"? I would
>really like to know what it is.

Well, it depends on who you talk too.  I've been flamed or 
(mildly) complained at for (most recently) the women in draft
issue, for being against women only clubs (got accused of
'cozying up to the guys' on that one).  Other things I believe but
I haven't been flamed for, but feel I'm in the minority, are no 
quotas for women in jobs, no lowering of physical requirements
(for police etc) for women, and other issues.  I'm certainly
not the only woman who feels this way, but some (vocal) groups
say much different things.

> 
>>I feel it's very ironic.
>
>So do I.

Well, most of the time the net just confirms a wonderful description
I saw of it a while back.  I'm sorry I can't remember the person's
name, but it was

"Internet resembles a first-grade glass with a substitute teacher."

Time for my nap....

Julie  
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Xref: sparky soc.women:22956 sci.skeptic:22720 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9555