Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    A feminist is a person who believes in women's rights. (there are
    many of these, but that is not in the scope of this note to explain)
    
    A "women's libber" is a feminist someone doesn't like. Usually,
    her ideas are too "radical" for the speaker/writer's taste, and
    she is <*gasp*> STRIDENT.
    
    --DE
    

    Jim,
    
    Your timing is interesting, and somewhat unfortunate; I've gotten
    too big a dose of feminist baiting lately, and the fact that it
    even happens _here_ has got me on a bit of a hair-line trigger.
    
    As Dawn said, "women's libber" is an old term, outdated, and usually
    perjorative.  Calling me a "libber" is not a good idea.
    
    What you seem to refer to as "feminism" is to my mind way-out radical
    extremism compared to your Jane_Average Feminist: if a feminist
    believes there is no good use for males, she is typically a separatist
    and could not be found on this network [since she would be working
    for a man].  My impression is that even most separatists acknowledge
    that men _are_ necessary for reproduction at least.  But we will
    never have a bona-fide separatist come here and tell us that.
    
    More later, I promise... :)
    
    Lee

Does anyone have any references/information on separatists? I find a lot of
good and interesting ideas come out of places that are women-only. Since I'm
married I'd never qualify as one, but I'd sure like to listen to what they say.
	Mez

Jim,

When I say I am a feminist I mean something like this:  I recognize and
acknowledge that our culture/society is basically sexist; that is, that
men (at least white men) are in power relative to women and that
our society is based on sexist assumptions about the nature, abilities,
roles, etc., of men and women.

TO ME, a feminist is someone who:
   - Is aware of this endemic sexism
   - Is aware of the harmful effects of this sexism on both women and men
   _ Believes that the sexist assumptions and structures of our society need to
     be changed and CAN be changed
Coming to this awareness is the major goal of consciousness-raising, at least
as it was done in the early 70's (I've been out of touch in recent years).
Both men and women can be feminists.

Since we are all caught up in this sexist society together, there does not
seem to me to be any point -- or any fairness -- in laying blame on men
for sexism.  I believe we should judge ourselves on the basis of the
"light" (awareness, education, etc.) that we have at any given time.  What
I'm trying to say is that I don't criticize or feel angry toward people
in history (either men or women) who behaved according to the standards of their
culture.  Likewise, I'm very sympathetic toward those who find it hard to
change the assumptions of their upbringing (especially regarding male/female
roles.)

I don't blame individual men for the fact that our culture is sexist; I DO
believe we all have a responsibility to work to change it!  I can't totally
change the assumptions I grew up with -- but I CAN work to improve and change
as much as I can!

******

"Women's libber " is a put-down term used usually by people who feel threatened
by, or strongly disagree with, women's liberation, equal rights, feminism, etc.

******

"Equal rights" is basically as you stated, but people who say they support
equal rights do not always acknowledge the SYSTEMATIC (system-related) sexism.
Achieving equal rights cannot be done just on an individual basis because
the social, familial, educational, political, etc., systems of our society
support sexism (and racism).  Thus, to me, supporting equal rights is not
enough by itself. 

***NEW QUESTION****  How does "radical feminist" fit into today's terminology?
Is that the same as "separatist"?

Nancy

re: .3:

> ***NEW QUESTION****  How does "radical feminist" fit into today's terminology?
> Is that the same as "separatist"?

Radical means "of the root", and therefore tends to refer to that 
variety of feminist that feels that we live in a patriarchal society,
sexism is endemic to that society, and the fundamental root structures
of our society must be changed in order to achieve liberation.  Such
feminists are likely to feel that issues like equal pay and equal
opportunity are quite valid ones, but in and of themselves do not
address what is wrong with our society at the core.  They see feminism 
as trying to change this core, not just trying to get women a piece 
of the pie in a corrupt society.

Separatists are women who feel that patriarchy is fueled by the energy 
of women, so they choose to deny that source of fuel to the patriarchy 
and devote it as much as possible to the empowering of other women.  
This is seen as a strategic response to a society that neglects and
abuses women, and not necessarily as a utopian goal.  Separatists have 
chosen to make women their top priority in all things, and this is 
commonly misunderstood as meaning that they do this because they 
hate men.  This is generally not the case, although it is 
only natural that some women do respond to oppression by hating their 
oppressors.

    re: .5:
    
    Interesting.... This def. of radical feminist is nearly identical
    to my def. of feminist.  Separatist (a new term to me) apparently
    is what I thought radical feminist was.  Oh well...
    

Only six replies to what a feminist is?? How surprising!
     
     I always felt that feminism meant the belief in equal rights
     for women and men.   ...  But if you want another definition,
     let me quote from a talk given by Margaret Atwood, a Canadian 
     author best known nowadays for her latest novel 
     _A_Handmaid's_Tale_ .  It was transcribed by Judy McMullen from 
     a talk Ms. Atwood gave:

           I felt and still do feel that Feminist issues are not just
        for women.  They are human rights issues just as war should
        not concern men alone though it's mostly men in the front
        lines.  I find men who react to women's issues or women's
        studies with the standard paranoia, "Why do you hate men?" and
        so forth, understandable but ignorant.  A university is not a
        place where ignorance should be encouraged.  I look forward,
        however, to the time when both feminist groups and wars will
        no longer be with us, having become obsolete.

           Here's another answer.

           Any woman who can read and write is a feminist.  People
        chained themselves to fences and starved and were beaten up
        and killed to get you that right.

           Any woman who has legal rights over her own children is a
        feminist.  Remember the origin of the word "family".  It comes
        from Roman "familia" which meant the total group of people
        controlled by a male householder including women, children and
        slaves.

           Any woman who is allowed to vote is a feminist.  We've only
        had that right here for 52 years [I believe this speech was
        given in Canada].

           Any woman or man who believes in equal pay for equal work
        is a feminist.

           Any man who doesn't believe it's his God-given privilege to
        beat up or kill his wife or sexually molest his children is a
        feminist.

           Any woman or man who is against rape and violent
        pornography, who isn't turned on by movies of women being
        strangled, disemboweled and hung up with meat hooks, is a
        feminist.

           Any one, woman or man, who thinks a man should be judged as
        to his worthiness by qualities such as a sense of humour,
        admirableness of character, helpfulness in a tight spot, moral
        integrity, inventiveness, creativity of any kind,
        courteousness and courage, and not just as a money-making
        robot, is a feminist.  Because if women are forced to depend
        on men for food, that is how they will tend to evaluate men
        and no man I've ever met really likes to be loved just for his
        bank account.

           Hands up for the feminists in this room.



     Quite a speaker, eh?

     Tamar

I wrote a three paragraph reply, then thought better of it.
Here is my definition of these terms, as they are used by our
society:


FEMINIST: person who believes in equal rights but refuses to be 
	called a feminist


RADICAL FEMINIST: person who believes in equal rights and calls 
	herself a feminist

 Roberta
       
    

RE:  .8

>RADICAL FEMINIST: person who believes in equal rights and calls 
>	herself a feminist
	^^^^^^^

So no man could ever be a radical feminist?

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

re: .9

Her, as in her and/or him. You know; all people.
	Mez

    Ah, just the topic string I was looking for.
    
    A noter in another file has euphemistically referred to something 
    the noter feels were outdated, obsolete, and discredited
    ideologies...I got the distinct impression this noter was referring
    to "feminism" but that was not stated explicitly.  The noter cited
    a book by "Levin" as though it were gospel writ.
    
    My sense of that discussion is that perhaps some radical theories
    espoused by feminist authors in past decades have been targetted
    in part by this Levin, and that my partner-in-discussion feels
    that Levin has pounded many nails into the coffin of "feminism"
    and thus feels that "feminism" has been discredited. It is somewhat
    a difficult discussion for me to carry on, because the references
    were so vague.  In any event, I'm looking for pointers to Levin
    and Levin's targets.  My immediate feel is that Levin's definition
    of "Feminism" differs a great deal from mine and from others as
    described in the previous entries to this topic.  I need to read
    up on that issue in order to continue that discussion.
                                                              
    If anyone has a good general sense for the key references in feminist
    thought ("ideology", my opponent would claim) over the past several
    decades, and/or the thoughts of opponents to same (particularly
    this "Levin"), please, provide them for this would-be scholar.
                                                            
    DougO

    In a recent note (80.74?), someone mentioned "ultra-radical feminists".
    Could someone elighten me and explain what one of these is? Do
    "ultra-radical feminists" work at DEC? Has anyone ever met one? 
    
    Thanks
    Liz

    Well decomposing the phrase, Liz, appears to yield 
    
    "a person who believes in the immediate and complete [radical]
    restructuring of society without limitation as to method/cost [ultra]
    in order to achieve equal rights and social advantages for women
    [feminist]." 
    
    Doesn't sound like anyone *I* know.
                                       
    						=maggie

An ultra-radical feminist is a woman who wants to have a say over how shes
referred to.

I love it!
	Mez

    An ultra-radical feminist is a woman who goes around with
    machine-gunning down men, of course.
    
    Uh-oh, here comes one now...
    
    < Budda...budda...budda...>
    
    Arrrrggggggghhhhhhhh.....

    How about an ultra-radical extremist revolutionary insurgent rebellious
    intransigent feminist.
    
    That about covers it. ;)
    
    -Jody

    Uh,. .  .extremely ultra transient. . .no, that's not it. . .um,
    revolving, detergent, rebellious. . .no. . .
    
    Grump, grump. . .
    
    Easy for *you* to say. . .
    
    Steve
    
    P.S. But now that I think about it, would you consider doing my next
         presentation for me, Jody?

    Wordsmith for rent.
    
    Extremely overblown overstatements creatively made upon request.
    
    love them uzi's...
    
    -Jody
    

>>    love them uzi's...

	Jody,

		You found me out.  Believe it or not I am the one
		everyone is making a fuss about - sorry I just 
		could not stand another man trying to get through
		the door I was holding FWO - and then there were 
		the men with the "I have to give you the answer"
		mode of behavior that interrupted me once tooooo
		often when I was speaking to my female cohorts -
		Oh yes, I am also the one who slipped in and
		did a number on all of the men in that conference
		room that were explaining why DEC doesn't need
		daycare (for children or seniors).  I have been so
		busy as a "Ultra Radical Feminist" that I have
		even forgotten to buy presents for my bunker-mates.

			_peggy

				In the words of my 18 year old

				"Know any ultra radical Feminist -
				Get real - they don't have uniforms,
				and they don't work in mainstream
				corporate America."

				In the words of the Goddess

					ME

moved by moderator
    
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 520.0               Feminists: The good and the bad              No replies
TROA01::DEAK                                         32 lines  24-MAR-1989 18:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	An interesting point was brought up to me by a feminist noter which 
	made me realize a few things. She, through mail, challenged my 
	assumption that 'feminists' were bad. Her challenge truly enlightened 
	me to the fact that it was not clear that I was not opposing feminists 
	as a whole but rather my view of 'bad' feminists, yet that was not 
	what I was conveying to other noters. I was conveying an attitude of 
	'feminists as the enemy'. The problem being my interpretation (of bad 
	feminism) and applying it to the universally(?) accepted definition, 
	ie., people for equality whom I saw as 'equalists'. 

	I saw the 'bad' feminists (eventually became simply feminists) as 
	those attempting to gain dominance over men rather than equality with 
	men. The good feminists (equalists) were the ones working towards 
	true equality with men. I now realize that there are good and bad 
	feminists.

	So my questions are:

	What, to you, is a good and bad feminist? 
	Do bad feminists foster any resistance to feminism?

	This is not meant to be "what is a feminist" as that is already 
	covered off in another topic. This is simply meant to be a topic 
	where a difference can be discussed regarding how feminism has been 
	helped and hindered from those within.

	Arpad

	(Moderators, if this is being covered in another topic, or has a 
	 topic of it's own, then could you please move it, or cantact me and I 
	 will move it.)

moved by moderato
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 520.1               Feminists: The good and the bad                  1 of 1
TUT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith" 20 lines  25-MAR-1989 15:44
                            -< No "bad" feminists! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I certainly don't think of "bad" feminists, merely those who are
    more or less "radical" or "extreme" or whatever than I happen to
    be on an issue.  While it saddens *me* to see women express really
    "anti-male" views, I don't see it often, and I have no right to
    label them "bad" feminists because I may disagree!
    
    As for whether some feminists bring "bad press" to the term, or
    cause the women's movement to lose adherents/sympathizers, that
    still doesn't make them "bad" feminists!  The very best causes in
    the world have often aroused anger and retaliation from those who
    stood to lose something, until the justice of the cause 
    has finally been recognized.  So you can't use public response as
    the *only or primary way* to judge a movement/adherent/strategy!
       
    How about changing your terms?  "Bad" and "good" are too often
    "fighting words" and we've got enough of those goin 'round as it
    is!

    Nancy

moved by moderator
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 520.2               Feminists: The good and the bad                  2 of 2
TROA01::DEAK                                          6 lines  25-MAR-1989 16:27
                                -< any ideas? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: .1
    
    Nancy, I have no problem with anyone changing "good" and "bad" to
    anything that may be better suited to the topic.
    
    Arpad

    There is a long note in tamara::mennotes that discussed the
    issue of perceptions of 'good' versis 'bad' feminists. The
    discussion starts around note number .70 in the string.
    I wrote a fair number of replies in that note, which is why
    it comes to my mind.
    
    Bonnie
    

         This was the last paragraph in a response to note
713 in quark::human_relatons about a report on gender
bias in the judicial system. I have the permission of
the writer to enter this here. To my mind it relates to the
topic underdiscussion.

Bonnie
         ---
         
         As a quick aside...I have been burning "bras" for more
         years than I care to mention...and this sort of
         jingoistic report does noone fighting for equality
         among the sexes any good. If you alienate *all* men
         because they are forced to defend their own humanity
         you will win no battles...women have to identify
         *causes* not symptoms to fight...Men are not the
         *cause*...the *system* that allows/educates/encourages
         men to act in certain manners...is the *cause*.
         
         

    re: .26
    
    Equality may exist, but I have seen it most often in people's minds.
    The wish for equality exists, the hope for equality exists, the
    dream of equality exists, and some people have put it into practice.
    With the informing of those who are not aware of it there should
    come a strong call to put it into practice.  And as more people
    grow to learn, some will be shown to obstruct equality.  It is these
    that will be toughest to convince that equality is plausible, let
    alone laudable.  It is these that will stifle societal growth.
    
    -Jody
    

What I get out of feminism is the ability to play with thinking about all
traits that I have acquired by being born and raised female in New England USA
in a positive light.

It isn't the same as equality. It means I'm not ready to think about equality
yet, because I'm still working on feeling good about me [insert old platitude
about loving yourself before loving others].

I don't think this activity gets in the way of being a decent human being and
fair to others on a daily basis. It's sort of an extra-curricular activity so I
can jettison to higher planes of existance. 
	Mez

    
   "Feminist is understood to include recognition of the unequal status
    of women economically, socially, culturally, and politically and
    a commitment to redress this condition" --Women's Foundation

    
    re:.29
    I *really* like this definition!
    

A recent reply I read surprised me in defining a feminist not according
to what she or he believes, but according to the methods s/he chooses
to work towards those goals.  This differs from my own definition of 
a feminist, which is a person who believes in equal rights and equal 
respect for women, and works towards that in whatever way s/he chooses.

(Also, as I believe traditional feminist thought encourages individuality
and respecting ones own choices, I find my definition reassuringly
recursive :-))

So, I found this old topic, which has a title (though not basenote)
which reflects my question -- what is *your* definition of a feminist? 
And, second, why would you want/not want to be called one?  

	MKV

    
    This silly discussion of some woman saying:
    
    "I believe <something about the equality of men and women>, *BUT*
    I'M NOT a <eek, gasp, horror of horrors!!!> FEMINIST!"
    
    comes around in Womannotes about every 6 months or so.
    
    
    Once again, from my Dec-issue American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    FEMINISM: n. Advocacy of the political, social, and economic
    equality of men and women.
    
    It doesn't say how *much* you have to advocate it.  I read it
    to mean one who simply believes in it.
    
    Now, I would like to know WHO in this file doesn't believe in the
    political, social, and economic equality of men and women?
    

re: .32

Interesting historical (kind of) note -- I was reading a memoir by
Lillian Hellman the other day (_An Unfinished Woman_), and she mentioned
growing up in a time where the battles had already been fought, and
so many of her generation were taking for granted the gains won for them
by earlier feminists.

Note that she was talking about the late twenties/early thirties, and
not that long after (40's/50's) women were, for the most part, pushed
back into the kitchen, smiling while they waxed their floors.  Feminists
had to re-fight many of the same battles, sociological and psychological, to
get to where we are today.  I worry that this means we could have the 
50's-type era again (and again and again)...

	MKV

(yeah, yeah, I know, rehash)
    
>    Once again, from my Dec-issue American Heritage Dictionary:
    
>    FEMINISM: n. Advocacy of the political, social, and economic
>    equality of men and women.

There are a lot more to words than the dictionary definition, as
everyone knows.  Probably people who wish to disassociate themselves
from feminism really want to disassociate themselves with the views,
tactics, actions, reputation etc. of those people and groups who are
most associated with feminism.

Perhaps what they really mean is "I align myself with the dictionary
definition of feminism, but don't wish to be called a feminist because
the connotations the word implies aren't accurate."  But that is an
awkward sentence...

I think there is feminism (as in defition above), and Feminism, which
is the Movement...it is NOW and radicals and this and that and the other...
which may or may not include the tenets of feminism.  Like communism
and Communism.  Surely you wouldn't get upset if you heard someone
say "I believe in the power of the working class, equal distribution
of wealth, etc, etc...but I am *not* a Communist." (implied: I am, however,
a communist.)

The dictionary defines "democrat" as "One who believe in government by
the people and rule by the majority" (or something close to that.)  I
would say most Republicans would agree with this sentiment but would be
mighty upset at the suggestion that this belief makes them Democrats.
    
>    Now, I would like to know WHO in this file doesn't believe in the
>    political, social, and economic equality of men and women?

I most certainly do, and therefore I am most certainly a feminist.  However
I do not consider myself a Feminist, because many of those who most loudly
proclaim themselves Feminists reject my ideas, values, and beliefs, and
represent and even ahold ideas, values and beliefs I find repugnant.

One must take into account connotations and social context in addition to
dictionary definitions.

D! 

    
>    This silly discussion of some woman saying:

	 I would hardly call it a "silly discussion."


	 The note implying that was probably mine.  I do not want to
	 have my name associated with demonstrators, activists, people
	 pushing mandatory legistlation, etc.  Perhaps that brings up
	 the point that D! brought but......the accepted understanding
	 of a word versus the dictionary defination.
	    

>    FEMINISM: n. Advocacy of the political, social, and economic
>    equality of men and women.

	 ADVOCATE: v. 1)  To speak in favor of.  n 2) A person that
	 argues for a cause; supportor, defendor.  3) A person who
	 pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor.

	 ADVOCACY: n. Active support, as in a cause.
	 
>    Now, I would like to know WHO in this file doesn't believe in the
>    political, social, and economic equality of men and women?

	 To believe and to advocate are very different actions.


	 kath   

	A number of years ago I started seeing a counselor, to help
	in dealing with Greta's rebellion.  I asked for a Feminist
	counselor.  The woman I met with asked me what my definition
	of Feminist was.  My reply was something like this:

		A person who values women lives, thoughts and 
		experiences and who will support a woman in her
		quest to find out who she is.

		Oh, yes, someone who knows that women are not
		a subset of men.

	This woman began by saying she was not a Feminist, by the
	end of the time that I was seeing her - she was a Feminist
	and knew it told me so.  I didn't even charge her for
	the education.

	If you don't identify yourself as a Feminist, how do you 
	identify yourself?

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			A label is just that a label, but
			the ones we use for ourselves
			says alot about who we are.

	A UU Feminist Witch or a Feminist Witch UU or a Feminist UU Witch.
	All say the same thing but the emphasis is different so take your
	pick.

     <<< Note 178.35 by SSDEVO::GALLUP "by the light of a magical moon" >>>
    
>>>	...To believe and to advocate are very different actions.
    
    In this particular context, I'm having a difficult time reconciling
    the distinction.  It really sounds like "I'll be happy to accept the
    gains that other people get for me, but I won't have myself identified
    with them or support them."

    re .34:
    
    You're right: it's not silly.  It's very serious, and I'm
    tired of the same discussion every 6 months.
    

>      <<< Note 178.37 by HACKIN::MACKIN "CAD/CAM Integration Framework" >>>

>                    -< nothing like the "me" generation... >-

         please elaborate...are you saying that I'm only out for "me"? 
         (sounds like an insult, I assume you didn't mean it that way.)
	 
    
>    In this particular context, I'm having a difficult time reconciling
>    the distinction.  It really sounds like "I'll be happy to accept the
>    gains that other people get for me, but I won't have myself identified
>    with them or support them."

         You're wrong.  I don't advocate "women's issues", I advocate
         "people issues." I BELIEVE in women's issues, however. 
         Whether I'm a woman, or a man, or gay, or straight, or black
         or white.......I'm a person.  Simply that, a person.  I
	 believe all people should be accepted as themselves, not
	 under certain guidelines, and because of who or what they
	 are.  I believe that you can't force anyone to believe
	 anything.  

         Hence, I fight for "people" rights, not "women" rights.  And
         I don't expect anyone to understand that because every time I
         try to explain where I stand, I do a miserable job of getting
         this concept across, so, unless you really UNDERSTAND what I
	 am saying here, please don't challenge it with caustic words.
	 I promise nothing will be resolved (because it has been
	 challenged in other places at other times).

	 I advocate acceptance of all without force.  I advocate
	 belief in anyone can be what they want to be as long as it
	 does not interfere with others having their rights to be what
	 they want to be. (Be a bigot in your own house, with
	 yourself, but not publically, because others have the right
	 to feel they are equal and important as well.)

	 I do not believe in a lot of the tactics the feminist movement
	 uses to reach their goals.  I believe in making a difference
	 on a personal level.  With the people I have contact with, by
	 example, not by preaching, but teaching.  


	 So, I don't call myself a feminist.

	 kath

    in re .38
    
    Ellen I think instead that this is one of our more important
    issues. The womannotes population is not static it is always
    growing and changing. As other women (and men) find out about
    the file they want to discuss issues that others of us have already
    delt with. If we are to continue to reach out and teach and grow
    with women (and men) then issues like what is meant by feminism
    will come up over and over again. *and* I believe that this is
    one of the values of a place like womennnotes.
    
    I remember my 'I'm not a feminist' days, and my pro-Vietnam war
    days, and the time when I didn't understand about the need for
    civil rights. Because other people who were already 'there' were
    willing to share and teach I changed my point of view.
    
    I'm sorry that you have a problem with rehashing such issues,
    maybe we need a file for the more committeed feminists who can
    set the agendas more to their interests?
    
    I don't know right now.
    
    Bonnie

    	As a number of longtime Womannoters can attest to, I came to the
    	realization that I was a feminist right here in this conference,
    	over a period of time.
    
    	When I first got here, I was one of those who said, "I believe in
    	<women's rights, etc.> but I don't call myself a feminist because
    	I'm for all people" (or whatever.)
    
    	What it really boiled down to (in my case,) was that I was very
    	happy with the benefits of feminism, but I didn't want to take
    	the heat for it in my own life.  I saw myself as a soldier for
    	the cause, but only in the sense of being out in the world as
    	an equal peer in non-traditional jobs, etc.
    
    	After being here for awhile, I knew that it was time to come to
    	grips with what I believe (and to give credit where credit is
    	due for the advances we've seen in cultural attitudes towards
    	women in the past 20 years.)
    
    	Now, I don't mind the heat anymore - in fact, I welcome it, because
    	it offers the possibility that people will re-think some of the
    	more persistent (yet equally inappropriate) attitudes about women
    	that still exist in our culture.
    
    	Change didn't happen for us by millions of women smiling quietly
    	and trying hard not to offend anyone (by denying that we care *a bit 
    	more* about women's rights issues than about all the other worthy 
    	causes.)  Not to imply that anyone here is doing that, of course.
    
    	The feminist movement may take the heat for social change, but
    	women's rights in general have improved precisely because the 
    	feminist movement *exists* to bear the brunt of the resistance to 
    	the social changes we're seeing.
    
    	I'm very proud indeed to feel that I'm part of it.

    
    	   I never gave it much thought until recently, but the fact
    	of the matter is that I am a feminist too.  In general, I 
    	support most causes which are based upon the rights and 
    	freedoms of the citizens, be they male, female, or ambiguous.
    	However, my most vocal and active support lately has gone to
    	women's rights issues, most particularly the abortion issue.
    
    	   A lot of my feminist attitudes have been with me as long
    	as I can remember.  Having a strong mother-figure in my life,
    	I was not raised under the false assumption that women are in
    	any way less than men.  
    
    	   I am proud to align with feminist causes.  I am honored to
    	be accepted among their ranks.  I feel privileged to join
    	the marches and circulate the petitions and make whatever
    	contributions I can to the cause of freedom and justice for
    	all.
    
    	   Chauvinists seek to exclude female participation in their
    	cause.  Feminists have invited male participation.  That alone
    	tells me which side of the coin has the least tarnish.
    
    	- Greg

Hey, I just had a great insight into myself (and I'm gonna share it with
_you_). One of the reasons I label myself feminist is I take delight in
attaching labels to myself that are stereotypically negative in (what I
perceive as) popular culture (like nerd, slut, politically correct, and
feminist). And then showing people what an earth-shatteringly wonderful human
being I am anyway :-). It's part of how I do the 'personal' advocacy that kath
seemed to be talking about.
	Mez

>    	   Chauvinists seek to exclude female participation in their
>    	cause.  Feminists have invited male participation.  That alone
>    	tells me which side of the coin has the least tarnish.
>    

My understanding is that this is not always the case especially among
separatist feminists.  (No judgement implied).

john

Hey, I understand what Kath is saying, and I agree with her, but those are
not *my* reasons for "not calling myself a Feminist."  I used to call myself
a Feminist.  But when time and time again I get told that my views aren't
"right"...and "How can you call yourself a Feminist and do the things you
do?"...and "If you really supported women's rights you would give up your
own happiness to support it"...I say *fine*.  If those are the rules of
Feminism, then, damn it, I am *not* a Feminist.  It those are the rules of
Feminism then by God I will fight Feminism till one of the other of us gives
up in exhaustion.  (Any guess who gives out first?)

The big problem is that Feminism is *not* feminism, and it is not what it
claims to be.  While it claims to support every woman in her choice to be
herself, it *doesn't*.  I have heard so many women who call themselves
Feminists say "Sure, home makers have just as much right to choose their
line of work as do engineers, etc. etc." but when you really start digging
you find out that these so-called Feminists *do* look down on their non-male-
world-oriented sisters.  I say "How can you call yourself a feminist and
yet deny (deep inside) the right of every woman to do what calls her?"

I am not a Feminist because the Feminist agenda goes far beyond the quoted
"advocacy of equality."

And don't tell me I am "reaping the benefits without being willing to take
the heat."  I never *once* got heat for calling myself a feminist.  Not
*once*.  And when I finally started taking the stance I do now, I get more
shit than I care to think about! (Like this note right here!)  I have *my*
cause which gets more heat from the feminists themselves than I ever got 
from anyone as a feminist.

D! (who calls herself a humanist, when what she really means is feminist, but
    knows anyone who hears that will think she means Feminist.)

	 RE: .45


	 D!.....well put, thank you.


	 kath_who_agrees

	I don't know why I am doing this, again - but here goes.

	There are many "Feminist" ideas that I do not personally
	agree with BUT my ideas are mine and another person's
	ideas are their and I will fight for them to have the right
	to hold and express those ideas.

	There are many "hot buttons" for many women and men who	
	are "Feminists" but their hot buttons are not necessarily
	mine.  I have stated elsewhere in this file that I have
	a real problem with a large number of middle class activist
	in NOW - Does this mean that I don't consider them to 
	be real Feminists?  Or does that make me a non-Feminist?

	Feminism (with a capital F) is a label that one applies
	to oneself or to others, feminist (with a small f) is
	generic concept of a way of looking at the world. (This 
	is all my opinion, mind you.)  The difference is for me
	to be willing to stand up and be the know as a FEMINIST
	and know that not everyone applies the same descriptions 
	to that label.  I am willing to accept others definitions
	of what a Feminist is or is not being applied to me, because
	I know that feminism is made up of all of them.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Feminist Thealogy is seeing 
			the Goddess is in all.

Sort of like Peggy said -- I will call myself a feminist
because I believe in the basic concept which I believe
defines feminism.  Knowing that I believe that, I believe I have
as much right to the word Feminist as anyone, and can define it
for myself.  If someone *else* decides Feminist means 3-legged green
person, that's not my problem.  I won't say "Hey, I'm not a 3-legged
green person, so I'm not a Feminist".  

I think feminism is good so therefore I am happy to call myself a 
Feminist and define it for myself.

What I *don't* understand is 1) believing in feminism (equal rights for
women) and then 2) accepting someone else's (to you) negative definition of
the word Feminist (which is, at core, someone putting into action
the concept of feminism, right?  The *how* is just implementation 
details.), and on that basis rejecting (giving up) the label.

I guess the difference is in my choosing to claim and define the word/label
for myself, positively -- as opposed to picking the definition of the people
I disagree with as the correct one and then rejecting it.

	MKV

    	RE: .49  Mary
    
	> Sort of like Peggy said -- I will call myself a feminist
	> because I believe in the basic concept which I believe
	> defines feminism.  
    
    	> Knowing that I believe that, I believe I have as much right 
    	> to the word Feminist as anyone, and can define it for myself.  
    
    	Very well said!!
    
    	I've never understood it when people say that they used to use
    	a certain label for themselves until some person from that group
    	defined the word a different way (causing those people to vigorously
    	cast off the label in protest!)
    
    	Why would I want to allow *someone else* to ruin a label (for a
    	cause) that I feel comfortable with simply because s/he defines the 
    	label a bit differently than I do?  
    
    	> If someone *else* decides Feminist means 3-legged green
	> person, that's not my problem.  I won't say "Hey, I'm not a 3-legged
	> green person, so I'm not a Feminist".  

    	Agreed!
    
	> I think feminism is good so therefore I am happy to call myself a 
	> Feminist and define it for myself.

	> What I *don't* understand is 1) believing in feminism (equal rights 
    	> for women) and then 2) accepting someone else's (to you) negative 
    	> definition of the word Feminist (which is, at core, someone putting 
    	> into action the concept of feminism, right?  The *how* is just 
    	> implementation details.), and on that basis rejecting (giving up) 
    	> the label.

    	I'm with you.  I don't understand it, either.  
    
    	As a woman who is also a Civil Rights advocate, I wouldn't even 
    	*consider* rejecting that label on the basis of someone defining
    	Civil Rights differently than I do.  Same goes for "feminist."
    
	> I guess the difference is in my choosing to claim and define the 
    	> word/label for myself, positively -- as opposed to picking the 
    	> definition of the people I disagree with as the correct one and 
    	> then rejecting it.

	Well said - thanks very much!!

    
    re:.49
    yes! i am a feminist because i believe in what feminism *should*
    mean. 
    

    For additional supplementary discussion on feminism, please see:
    
    womannotes-v1
    369 - who is not a feminist
    511 - feminist consciousness
    750 - feminism?  help.
    
    womannotes-v2
    651 - the myths of feminism - rebuttal
    
    -Jody
    

I think this is pretty bizarre.  Why label yourself at all? When I say I
call myself a humanist that is only a label I use in conversation.  With
other people.  When we are verbally interacting.  In the act of verbal
interaction, there must be common definitions of the words, or it is not
communication at all.

I could call myself a Cantelope, and say "I don't care if everyone else thinks
a Cantelope is a sweet melon...*I* say it is a person with blue eyes and
short brown hair, therefore I have defined my own label."  That is all
well and good as if it makes me feel good to call myself a Cantelope, and
I like that word for myself.  But I don't choose labels for myself, *for*
*myself*, I choose them because it makes verbal (including written) 
communication with others so much easier.  I don't understand you folks
who get some sense of satisfaction out of simply calling *yourself* something,
without regard to the people listening...sounds a lot like talking to yourself.
When disucssing things with myself, I use no labels at all...it doesn't
matter whether I call myself a humanist, a feminist, or a cantelope, 
*to* *myself*.

To call myself a Feminist, when most other people, Feminist and otherwise,
would *not* call me that if they knew how I felt about things, will induce
confusion and misunderstanding to any discussion in which I apply the label
to myself.  In discussion with others, I like to use common defintions to
ease communication as much as possible.  The words and labels are irrelevent
to *me*, so why not use their definition.

D!

"Words mean exactly what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "can you make words mean so many different
things?" 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be the master?" 

    <--(.53)
    
    D!, consider the social value of labels as propaganda to third parties.
    They're not at all unimportant existentially.
                                                               
    							=maggie

    	RE: .53  D!
    
    	> Why label yourself at all?
    
    	It's a personal choice.
    
    	> When I say I call myself a humanist that is only a label I use
    	> in conversation.  With other people.  When we are verbally
    	> interacting.  In the act of verbal interaction, there must be
    	> common definitions of the words, or it is not communication 
    	> at all.
    
    	The definition that most feminists use (to define feminism for
    	ourselves, without being subject to those who define feminism
    	in a negative way) comes right out of the dictionary!  We're
    	not making this up out of the blue.
    
    	The definition of feminism is inclusive enough to cover any
    	person who believes in the items mentioned in the dictionary
    	definition (and is also willing to be acknowledged as a feminist.)

I must admit D!, I started thinking of the S&M topic when I got to your
Cantelope analogy (probably because I almost had PB&J the weekend you came up
with your PB&J analogy, so it's stuck with me). A group of people (_the_ group
of people?) have defined their S&M as consensual. A group of other people have
defined it to include lack of consent. And you feel comfortable with that (at
least, your noting skill makes me believe that). The only difference I've noted
(at the analogy level) is that you're convinced that the people who 'are'
feminists have defined it differently than you do.
	Mez

    
    	   Labels, such as "feminist," are ideological short hand.
    	They allow us to express a fairly large group of ideals in
    	a single word.  It is much easier to say, "I am a feminist,"
    	than it is to list all the things you believe that make you 
    	a feminist.  It might well be more concise to list all of
    	the attributes individually, but few people would elect to
    	do so, and even fewer would care to read them.
    
    	   So we use short hand.  Just as D! has done by eschewing
    	the label "feminist" and opting for the label "humanist".
    	If she spelled out what "humanist" means to her, it's entirely
    	likely that I'd adopt that label too.  In fact, the chances
    	are fairly good that it's a better description of how I feel.
    
    	   However, there exists a group of people today who call
    	themselves feminists.  This group of people is struggling 
    	for their rights as human beings.  By adopting the label,
    	I inform them that I have joined their struggle, that I
    	support their cause, and that I accept their definition
    	of the label (though not necessarily everything that it
    	implies to them).
    
    	   Should there be a marked movement of humanists struggling
    	for their rights, I will doubtless join their struggle too.
    	At present, however, the title "humanist" seems to me to be
    	a way of simply avoiding the negative ramifications of the more 
    	powerful title "feminist".  Sure, I take heat for supporting 
    	feminist viewpoints... it sorta comes with the territory.  
    	However, the heat I feel tells me I am nearing the battle 
    	lines, where the struggles are more intense.  I welcome the
    	heat. 
    
    	   Of course, fighting on the front lines is not for everyone.
    	Some people don't handle that sort of pressure as well as 
    	others.  If they choose to avoid that fight by adopting 
    	lesser labels (or eschewing labels altogether), then I support
    	their right to do that, as well.  I don't pretend to know
    	what's best for everyone, only for myself.  
    
    	- Greg

    	RE: .57  Greg
    
    	Well said!!
    

>    	At present, however, the title "humanist" seems to me to be
>    	a way of simply avoiding the negative ramifications of the more 
>    	powerful title "feminist". 

  Perhaps humanist is a label that describes all of the positive aspects of
feminism without including the aspects of feminism which some people are
uncomfortable with. I don't think that the title "feminist" has any more 
intrinsic power than humanist; indeed one could consider that humanist is a
more accurate term for a movement than is defined as seeking equality between
the sexes. (Equalist?)

 I believe in sexual equality. I oppose those who do not. I am willing to work
towards a color and gender blind world. However, I don't think that too many
feminists (F?) would appreciate me adopting their label (considering the
reactions I have received).

 I also reject the notion that one who does not wear a certain label necessarily
contributes less to the cause or is someone who wants to reap the benefits
without expending any energy of their own.

 The Doctah

 All I can think of when asking myself "Am I a feminist?" is "What would a
_real_ feminist say?" When I think of the people that represent my concept
of feminist in this file, and realize how little we have in common (besides
the dictionary definition of feminism) I cannot be comfortable in adopting
that label for myself.

    One can have more than one label - you can be both a humanist
    and a feminist.

	 Oh no!  Not another "labels" note......do I dare?  (Since I'm
	 infamous for the last one, I might as well....)


	 I don't like being misrepresented to people that I am trying
	 to "make a difference" to.  The label "feminist" does that,
	 so I don't choose to wear it.

	 I would much rather explain me and my ideals than wrap it all
	 up in a nice neat bundle so that a person can misinterpret.


	 Humanist?  I'll have to think about that one.


	 kath

    Moreover, "humanist" already has a denotation:  someone interested in
    humanity's earthly rather than spiritual welfare.  (remember the nasty
    "secular humanists" that Falwell and his ilk rail against?)
    
    						=maggie

    stray disturbing thoughts...
    
    i keep having these conversations with (usually younger) women
    who say, 'i'm not a feminist' and then when asked what they think
    about various issues, especially 'women's issues', all seem to have 
    'feminist' or at least 'mostly-feminist' views. i don't quite know 
    how to react.
    
    how on earth did feminism get such a bad rap? (i have some
    theories...) what have we done wrong?

    I find the term "feminist" to be too restrictive, perhaps even sexist.
    As maggie stated, the term, "humanist", generally is accepted to
    mean "secular humanist" , and I am strongly opposed to that view.
    
    I really appreciated D!'s and kath's notes as being much closer
    to my views.  I want political, employment, etc decisions to be
    color, sex, age, religion, national origin, etc blind.  Basically,
    this is my mode of action and reaction.  No one should be judged
    or measured with any basis on these things.  I have found an internal
    conflict with this ideal that was very difficult for me to resolve
    until I took a Valuing Differences course a couple of years ago.
    Valuing Differences describes my behavior best for me.  I do
    discriminate in favor of including minority presence and acceptance,
    and really valuing their contribution.  It was a real relief to
    have a name that I could feel good about for my exception behavior.
    
    As a male, I feel excluded and devalued by the title, "feminism".
    The word does not denote equality and fairness, but rather a supremacy.
    "Humanist", without looking at the historical context of the word,
    would denote the inclusive beliefs I hold about equality.
    Unfortunately, I don't support the views of the secular humanists
    so I cannot take that label either.  So, unlike D!, I still haven't
    a label that sufficiently fits to wear it.  Or how about "Equalist"
    (Although I'm not sure what equal means when it comes down to it).
    
    Bud

re: .64
    
>    The word does not denote equality and fairness, but rather a supremacy.

Maybe "connote" is what you mean?  Neither the dictionary definition,
nor mine, nor that of any admitted (:-)) feminist I know personally
believes that.   

	MKV

    Yes, connote is what I meant. 
    
    (feminist=supremist is the connotation)
    
    I am glad to hear that no feminist you know personally believes
    that, but I have heard and read statements of some that do.
    
    BTW supremist is not meant to connote the current usage of one who
    believes quite falsely that s/he is superior, but rather that s/he
    is simply superior.
    
    Bud

    re .53

    And here I thought "cantelope" was the label you put on people who are
    already married.

    	RE: .64  Luebkert
    
    	> I find the term "feminist" to be too restrictive, perhaps even 
    	> sexist.
    
    	In our culture, the standard (dating back through thousands of
    	years of our civilization) has been to regard "maleness" as the
    	default for "human".  Our species is called "man" and "mankind,"
    	as an example.
    
    	Compared to these standards, it seems to *some* in our culture that
    	women must have a lot of nerve to do a 180 degree turn by actually 
    	naming a movement after our own sex.  To some, it's too much of a
    	blatant turn against the tradition of "male default."
    	
    	> As a male, I feel excluded and devalued by the title, "feminism".
    	
    	Of course, you're free to feel any way you like, but the term
    	(as used by those who call themselves feminists,) is not *about*
    	you (or *about* males in particular.)  It's about the struggle
    	for women's rights as human beings.
    
    	If you thought of it in terms of *women* instead of in terms of
    	yourself, perhaps it would be easier to tolerate.
    
    	> The word does not denote equality and fairness, but rather a 
    	> supremacy.
    
    	You get all that just from the fact that we named a movement
    	about *our* rights after *ourselves*?

    	RE: .66  Luebkert
    
    	> (feminist=supremist is the connotation)
    
    	You do realize that this is a perception of yours, right?
    
    	> I am glad to hear that no feminist you know personally believes
    	> that, but I have heard and read statements of some that do.
    
    	You may have *perceived* it that way, but that says nothing
    	about what the authors of those statements actually believe.
    
    	> BTW supremist is not meant to connote the current usage of one who
    	> believes quite falsely that s/he is superior, but rather that s/he
    	> is simply superior.
    
    	It is quite common for some people in our culture to assume that
    	most statements centered around women are *really* statements about
    	men instead (because our culture defaults males as the center of
    	concern.)
    
    	Therefore, many statements made about women are "translated" to be
    	something about men (meaning that most positive things that feminists
    	say about women are often translated to be something negative about
    	men.)
    
    	Meanwhile, the fact that the statement is about *women* (and not
    	about men at all) is completely overlooked.

    re: .64 (Bud)
    
    	   Well, it seems to me that you are one who eschews 
    	being labeled.  That's fine.  I used to feel that way
    	too.  "You can't put a label on me," I'd say, "my 
    	attitudes are far too unique to fit into a pigeonhole."
    
    	   Of course, others immediately started referring to 
    	me as a "separatist," since I wouldn't join any of their
    	groups, and wouldn't invite them to join mine.  It's very 
    	hard to avoid labels.
    
    	   Then I discovered something about the labels.  They 
    	spark interest in others (be it positive or negative).
    	They make it easier for me to engage someone in a 
    	discussion wherein I can describe my attitudes more
    	clearly.  
    
    	   In other words, I found out that the labels didn't
    	necessarily have to pigeonhole me.  
    
    	   But as I said before, some people simply prefer not
    	to be labeled.  Perhaps they consider it dehumanizing.
    	Perhaps they are lone wolves, seeking the path less 
    	traveled.  Whatever their reasons, I wish them well.
    
>    The word does not denote equality and fairness, but rather a supremacy.
    
    	   However, I do not allow them to make incorrect 
    	assumptions regarding my positions or the path I
    	travel.  You have done so by asserting that 
    	feminist=supremist.  Look up the word in a good
    	dictionary.  It connotes equality, not supremacy.
    	
>    As a male, I feel excluded and devalued by the title, "feminism".
    
    	   As a male, I do not feel excluded or devalued by the 
    	title "feminist".  I see the complaints women have 
    	regarding the way society treats them as completely 
    	valid.  I acknowledge that their rights are the same
    	as those that men (particularly white men, such as 
    	myself) have enjoyed all along.  I do not feel that
    	their equality in any way devalues my equality (or
    	anything else, from my rights to my life).  Indeed,
    	it enriches my life when freedom and fairness win 
    	out over oppression and injustice.  For that reason,
    	I consider the term "feminist" to be of significant 
    	value to me, as it stands for fairness and equality.
    
    	   That's what feminists want... pretty much the same 
    	thing the term "equalist" might imply (if it meant 
    	anything at all, which, of course, it doesn't).
    
    	- Greg

>It <feminism> connotes equality, not supremacy.

 Actually, the annotation is equality. Small nit.

>    	   As a male, I do not feel excluded or devalued by the 
>    	title "feminist".

 That's great. However, not everybody feels that way. I am uncomfortable using
a label that (to me) describes a movement of women, by women, and for women-
because I am not a woman. I think "feminist sympathizer" is more accurate, if
clumsy.

 Another thing that makes me uncomfortable is that there are some people
that describe themselves as feminists who differ vastly in opinion with
me. I would expect that to call myself a feminist would be a slap in the face
for some of these women.

 And I think that the connotation of feminist is very different from the 
annotation. If you asked a random assortment of 100 people the question "What
is feminism?" I bet you'd get less than 10 people that would give the dictionary
definition. Some wouldn't have a clue. Some would say "man haters" or "female
supremacists" or "separatists" or other things. 

 The Doctah

>    	Of course, you're free to feel any way you like, but the term
>    	(as used by those who call themselves feminists,) is not *about*
>    	you (or *about* males in particular.)  It's about the struggle
>    	for women's rights as human beings.
 
Well, there you go!  And people keep asking why I (we?) don't call myself
(ourselves?) feminists.  I am concerned with the struggle of all human
beings to be themselves, and to have their selfness upheld and valued
in both law and culture.  I do not *stress* women in particular in my
ideals, but people in general.   Of which women are approximately half.
Using the label "feminism" would imply that I am *more* concerned with
the rights of women than with the rights of "men".  I like the term
"equalist" (tho I never heard it before.)
   
>    	If you thought of it in terms of *women* instead of in terms of
>    	yourself, perhaps it would be easier to tolerate.

I want a word that sums up my views that can be equally valid viewed from
*any* *human's* point of view.  If a word has to be thought of in terms
of a particular segment of the population, then it does not represent *my*
feelings about equality.

Perhaps my "fault" is that I consider all ____centrisms and all ___isms
to be bad, but that I don't consider sexism and malecentrism to be any
worse (or better) than heterocentrism, racism, or what-have-you?
    
D!

    
re .72:
     
>I am concerned with the struggle of all human
>beings to be themselves, and to have their selfness upheld and valued
>in both law and culture.  I do not *stress* women in particular in my
>ideals, but people in general.   Of which women are approximately half.
>Using the label "feminism" would imply that I am *more* concerned with
>the rights of women than with the rights of "men".  I like the term
>"equalist" (tho I never heard it before.)
    
    Feminism from The American Heritage dictionary:
    
    "Advocacy of the political, social, and economic equality of men and
    women."
    
    This *does not* say only women!
   

    
    Even though I too consider myself a humanist/equalist, or maybe even a
    personist, I have a lot of respect for what Suzanne is saying. There
    have been discussions here before about words, and their relative
    importance. And I think it is sad when people make light of the power
    of words or how they can re-inforce certain images.
    
    The idea that the word man can include women, but woman cannot include
    men is a very negative double standard. It means that you cannot tell
    when "man" is being used to include or exclude women, but you must
    assume that woman is meant to exclude. For example, when we had the
    "women of note" shirts, the title couldn't be considered inclusive of
    men, because its neither part of the denotation NOR connotation of the
    word. So, the question arose of how to fit men into the scheme of
    things. And that was unfortunate. There are men who are womannoters,
    and that causes less problems, but still some.
    
    The efforts within the "feminist movement" that some people have taken
    to suggest new words comes from a sense that we are frequently
    unuwilling to give an old word new meaning. I don't see it as trivial,
    any more than I see the changes in the term for the Americans of the
    Negroid race. 
    
    As to feminism itself, I'm truly beginning to understand its
    unpopularity. It comes in part from the very fact that it is a movement
    for change, and change is disruptive and unsettling. Have you ever
    noticed that for everything that is suggested by the women's movement,
    someone comes along and points out where the pinches are. There is no
    such thing as painless change. And the more change occurs, the less
    people will look forward to it continuing. So, movements stagnate,
    until the new wave comes. People who don't know what the old change
    cost, but can see that they are NOT where they NEED to be.
    
    So, perhaps there will even be a new name for the new generation. And a
    new, hopefully more inclusive agenda. I hope that the old guard will
    support, as we all try to advance.
    

	NEW YORK -- A majority of women believe the women's movement helped
their lives but only a third call themselves feminists, a poll released
Sunday said. The joint Time magazine-Cable News Network poll found that
76 percent of women surveyed said they pay little attention to the
women's movement. In the nationwide poll of 1,000 women, 94 percent said
the movement helped women become more independent and 82 percent said it
was still improving women's lives. It also said 33 percent of the women
considered themselves feminists while 58 percent said they were not.

(.73)
>    Feminism from The American Heritage dictionary:
>    
>    "Advocacy of the political, social, and economic equality of men and
>    women."
>    
>    This *does not* say only women!
 
Whoa, this is where we started.  As I said before, definitions do not include
connotations, but the connotations exists in communication.  The connotations
that make it a *woman's* word clearly exist in at least some people's mind;
Suzanne's, for one, as in the quote I quoted.

Secondly, you missed my point.  Feminism is advocacy of equality between
*genders*.  I believe that using the word feminism as a label implies a
*particular* advocacy of equality along that particular dividing line (that
of gender), whereas I would prefer a word that indicates that I want
equality among all people along and within every division, and that
emphasizing the inquality along one particular line *de-emphasizes* the
inequality along different lines.

Oh boy, I *hate* arguments along the lines of "My group is more oppressed
than your group".  I believe comparisons are silly, and that oppression is
bad no matter who is being oppressed.  "Feminism" to me implies that
gender-based discrimination is somehow "special" along the spectrum of
discrimination.

I believe *everyone* is a minority (or functional minority, as in the case
of female-ness) is some respect or another, and so everyone is in some respect
oppressed.  (Data-points to the contrary happily accepted.)

D!

*Note 874.6            How has Feminism changed your world?                6 of 6
*GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      63 lines  27-NOV-1989 16:37

Dorian, 

I am replying to your note here, since my reply is more relvent here...

>	I think you're a feminist if:

>  	  3) you feel a sense of connectedness with others who also see it
>	     as a wrong [ie = women as 2nd classers]

Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head.  I don't feel a *particular*
connectedness with self-labeled "Feminists".  Which doesn't mean I don't
support their cause (doesn't mean I do, either).  Which doesn't mean I
don't like them, or don't have anything in common.  Which doesn't mean we
don't share goals.  I just don't feel a strong "bond" with someone just
because they call themself a Feminist.

It seems that just about everyone I meet feels that oppression of women
is wrong...if I felt connected to everyone who felt that way, I would feel
connected to *everyone* I meet, in which case connectedness would loose 
it's meaning.  when I meet someone who feels that way, i don't feel
connected or disconnected - I reserve judgement until I learn more about
the person, if we share more goals or whatever.

Of course, I do feel some connectedness, in the sense that a feminist and
I share at least some goals, most likely.  But I don't feel a bond any
stronger than I do when I hear someone is Polish or Jewish (I am both by
descent.)  Just a mild "Oh that's nice".  I feel a much stronger sense
of connectedness with someone who identifies themselves as homosexual or
bisexual, a pro-choicer, an anarchist, or a variety of other groups (which
I may or may not belong to but for some reason feel affiliated with.)

I guess it's just that I feel some sort of kinship/common-bond/"It's us
against the world" that positively predisposes me towards someone from
some groups, but "feeling oppression of females is wrong" isn't *enough*
to evoke that feeling of kinship.  

Similarly being female isn't enough, being a computer science major isn't 
enough, being from Massachusetts isn't enough.  Perhaps it is because people
in those groups are so common in my life.  (Many women have been surprised
the sharing their gender doesn't automatically make me feel more connected
to them than some man who might share more goals and experiences with me.)

D!

    	RE: .72  D_Carroll
    
    	>> [Feminism is] about the struggle for women's rights as human beings.
 
	> Well, there you go!  And people keep asking why I (we?) don't call 
    	> myself (ourselves?) feminists.  
    
    	Why does the idea of focus bother you so much?
    
    	When you see groups that focus to help "the Homeless," do you
    	protest the idea because it doesn't include help for those who
    	*do* have homes?  
    
    	Per the man who felt "excluded" from the women's movement because
    	the word "feminism" is used, do *you* feel specifically excluded
    	from the movement for "the Homeless" because *you* don't happen
    	to live on the street?  Do you feel threatened by this movement?
    
    	Would you take specific action to *work against* the movement to
    	help "the Homeless" because you feel that it denies that other
    	people need help as well?
    
    	Is any of this starting to sound as petty and counter-productive
    	to you as some societal comments against feminism sound to me?
    
    	> I am concerned with the struggle of all human beings to be 
    	> themselves, and to have their selfness upheld and valued in both 
    	> law and culture.  
    
    	Do you assume that being an avowed feminist means that one vows
    	to care *ONLY* for those who are female?  That is *NOT* the case!
    
    	As Ellen mentioned, one can be both a "feminist," *and* a "humanist,"
    	*and* an advocate of a number of other causes.  In no way are these
    	labels mutually exclusive!
    
    	> I do not *stress* women in particular in my ideals, but people in 
    	> general.   Of which women are approximately half. 
    
    	Lucky for you that there *have* been people who *did* take extra
    	time to stress women in particular, or you would not be allowed
    	to vote or own property in this country.  
    
    	> Using the label "feminism" would imply that I am *more* concerned 
    	> with the rights of women than with the rights of "men".  
    
    	Lucky for you that there have been people who realized that when
    	women lacked the same basic rights as men, the logical way to correct 
    	the inequity was to spend more of one's time pointing this blatant
    	inequity out.  If not, you wouldn't have the rights you enjoy today.
    	
    	> I want a word that sums up my views that can be equally valid 
    	> viewed from *any* *human's* point of view.  If a word has to be 
    	> thought of in terms of a particular segment of the population, then 
    	> it does not represent *my* feelings about equality.

    	If you pick a word that includes *all* worthwhile causes and groups,
    	it might make you feel better about it, but the lack of focus on
    	specific societal conditions might make it difficult to provide help 
    	for *anyone* in particular (or hadn't that occurred to you?)
    
    	If you want to help the Homeless, but you eschew the title of the
    	movement (because it doesn't specifically include any other group
    	that you think is also worthwhile,) then you have withdrawn what-
    	ever help you *might* have given to that group.
    
    	If our whole society decided to eschew such labels, and formed a
    	big "Help for Everyone Who Needs It" movement, imagine how difficult
    	it would be to educate the public on the specific needs of each group.
    
    	Imagine the logistical difficulties in trying to help *anyone*
    	if the movement had that little focus!
    
    	> If a word has to be thought of in terms of a particular segment 
    	> of the population, then it does not represent *my* feelings about 
    	> equality.	
    
    	As you suggested earlier, labels do imply certain things, and if you 
    	are afraid to have yourself associated with the labels for certain 
    	causes, I can certainly understand it.
    
    	However, others of us are *not* afraid of what people will think
    	about us if we carry those labels, and that's what it's *really*
    	all about.  
    
    	It's not that we don't care about anyone else, I can assure you.

re: .78 - Suzanne --
	Yes, exactly!


One can embrace lots of causes, lots of -isms -- the labels are there
to focus on the particular oppressions being fought, not to identify
exclusively the person claiming the label.  I can be a feminist
*and* a political lesbian *and* a <pick-a-cause>, etc.  I am not
*only* a feminist because feminism does not focus on my other
causes, but by choosing the label I say to the world that I support
the cause, and am not ashamed of the label.  I am *not* saying that
I support *only* the feminist cause, but that it is among my causes.
I am not saying I support *only* equal rights for women, but that
I see that work has to be done to gain (and keep!) rights for women
to make them equal.

And I do believe that if more people were not ashamed of the label,
if more people identified with <pick-a-cause>, in this case, feminism,
there would be an impact.  Politicians would see that there
*is* a constituency that regards equal rights for women as important.
Businesses would see that there *is* a market for non-sexist
children's books and toys.  Etc.

If no one owns up to caring, there's no pressure to fix the inequities.

	MKV

    re .78, Suzanne:
    
    Beautifully put!
    

    
	Feeling guilty that I have not been responding to this topic
	I read .78 by Suzanne - and realize that there are some very
	"right on" women in this file.

	The only way the connotation of Feminist will be changed is
	if we are not afraid to stand up in public and accept the
	label.  The we I am talking about is the women and men who
	believe and work towards equal rights for women (all women).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The strength of the label is in
			the strength of the people who
			are proud of wearing it.

ARRRRGGGGG!  I have never found a string of assumptions so insulting as
this one.  One person after another, I could tick them off, immediately
assumed that I didn't accept the label "Feminist" for myself out of *fear*.
Fear?  FEAR?  Of what, pray tell?  What on *earth* would lead you to believe
that a women who will openly come out in support of homosexuality,
alternate lifestyles, S&M and anarchy is *afraid* of "what people will 
think", of "contraversial causes"?  What makes you think the public image
of a self-labeled Feminist is so horrible?  And what makes you think that
it is fear of being associated with that image that makes me reject the
label?  WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION FOR THESE PATENTLY OFFENSIVE
STATEMENTS?????

IF I WAS SCARED OF "PUBLIC OPINION" WOULD I HAVE STATED OPENLY IN *THIS*
*NOTESFILE* THAT I WAS *NOT* A FEMINIST???????

Yes, I am offended. Yes, this is a "vigorous note".  So sue me!  

I called myself a feminist for years.  I got some heat.  A little.
Not much.  Yeah, there were some people who figured I was man-hating,
unshaven, Lesbian, female supremisist, secretly lonely, couldn't-get-a-man
FEMINIST.  So what?  It wasn't *that* sort of innacuracy that bothered
me.  I don't *care* what the unwashed masses think of me!  I don't
*care* if someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what feminism
means thinks I am a radical.  What I *do* care about is giving a label
that will accurately reflect my *views* (not lifestyle) and *causes*
to people who are genuinely interest in my views.  I used "Feminist"
as a short-hand way of telling other people that I potentially shared
goals with what my goals were, or people that I potentially disagreed
with that wanted to have a sane and informative discussion on the
disagreement what my general views were.

And you know what?  It didn't work.  I found that the initial assumption
that if someone called themselves a Feminist that s/he and I would have
a lot of ideals/views in common *wasn't* *true*.  So I sought (and still
seek) a word that will accurately represent a short-hand way to express
my views, so that I can quickly and easily identify and be identified
by people who hold a lot of similar ideals/views/causes.  I say I am
*not* a Feminist, because when I use the word, the people that I identify
with, the people who immediately feel a bond to me, it turns out when we
discuss it further that we have different goals.

I have no inherent interest in one word or another.  When a word has
used it usefulness, I discard it and find another.  Sure, if you really
like the word "Feminist", claim it, and if you don't like it's image,
try to change it.  However, the word doesn't mean anything special
to me, it is just a word, so when it ceases to be accurate, I don't see 
why I should change the meaning of the word rather than just find a new
word that is *already* commonly accepted to mean what I want to express.
If I really liked the word "blue", but wanted people to know I meant
the color of a sunset when I said it, I could work to change to word.
But "blue" is just four letters combined, and if most people think "sky"
when they here "blue", then I will seek out a word that most people
associated with sunsets, like "orange", or perhaps I will find a new word
like "flooey".

Feminist lost it's usefulness to me - it's only use was to help in
indentification by and of people with similar views.  I don't care about
the dictionary defintion - I have found through experience that those 
people who identify with the word Feminist *don't* share my views.  So
I discarded the word and am seeking another.

Suzzane says...
    
>    	>> [Feminism is] about the struggle for women's rights as human beings.
 
>	> Well, there you go!  And people keep asking why I (we?) don't call 
>    	> myself (ourselves?) feminists.  
    
>    	Why does the idea of focus bother you so much?
 
With the quote I was demonstrating to those people who say Feminism has
nothing to do at all with gender and seeks equality among all people that
a self-identified Feminist says it *is* closely tied to gender.

I said that that is not my *particular* focus, and, further, that it's
focus *de-emphasizes* certain causes with are more important to me.

>    	Would you take specific action to *work against* the movement to
>    	help "the Homeless" because you feel that it denies that other
>    	people need help as well?
 
Yo!  Excuse me.  EXCUSE ME!  Since when did "I do not choose to label
myself X" translate to "I am working *against* the cause of those
who label themselves X"???  I do not label myself Feminist, but I also
don't label myself ANTI-FEMINIST!   

>    	Do you assume that being an avowed feminist means that one vows
>    	to care *ONLY* for those who are female?  That is *NOT* the case!

No, I don't assume that.  I said that the word *implied* that I consider
discrimination along gender lines to be "worse" than other discrimination.
I still think so.  Most accurately, I might say that "In the past, most of
those I met who identifies themselves as feminists de-emphasized other
forms of discrimination to emphasize gender discrimination."
    
>    	Lucky for you that there *have* been people who *did* take extra
>    	time to stress women in particular, or you would not be allowed
>    	to vote or own property in this country.  
 
Good for them.  I'm glad they did. What is your point?
   
>    	If you pick a word that includes *all* worthwhile causes and groups,
>    	it might make you feel better about it, but the lack of focus on
>    	specific societal conditions might make it difficult to provide help 
>    	for *anyone* in particular (or hadn't that occurred to you?)
 
First, I am not seeking a word for *all* worthwhile causes.  I think there
is a fundamental difference between anti-discrimination and, say,
environmentalism, and I wouldn't seek to combine the two.  However, I
think that inequality between blacks and whites and the inequality
between men and women and the inequality between {group x} and {group y}
all have the same root, are the same problem, and must be attacked at
the same time.  I believe trying to differentiate is self-defeating.
(Hmmm...I know what I want to say here, but not how to say it...let me
think on phrasing here, and get back to you.)

>    	If you want to help the Homeless, but you eschew the title of the
>    	movement (because it doesn't specifically include any other group
>    	that you think is also worthwhile,) then you have withdrawn what-
>    	ever help you *might* have given to that group.
 
Since when has adopting a label had anything to do with helping make the
world a better place?
   
>    	As you suggested earlier, labels do imply certain things, and if you 
>    	are afraid to have yourself associated with the labels for certain 
>    	causes, I can certainly understand it.
 
Suzanne, see above.  Everyone else: Example 1...need I continue?
   
D! (who is *steaming*, and expects a lack of coherency to show as a result)

Some feminists have in fact written that all oppression/hierarchy is patterned
after sexism. No specific writing jumps to my mind; maybe Simone de Beauvoir in
The Second Sex? Does anybody remember any? Since you can't have a generation
without women and men, but you can without cross-tribal slavery, I find the
notion attractive.
	Mez

    
    	D! I thought you were extremely coherent and I loved your note.
    
    	Once again I feel powerfully negative judgements from women who
    	label themselves Feminists against women who eschew that label.
    
    	Carla
    

Perhaps you feel it from _some_, but it is not comin from all, Carla.
	Mez

    Indeed not, Carla.  
    
    D!, that was a great response!  I hope you continue to argue rather
    than go away mad (yes I'm a bit worried about that); I know Suzanne
    will hang in and defend the claim-the-label side, and it should be very
    interesting to see what comes of this.
    
    						=maggie

>    I hope you continue to argue rather
>    than go away mad (yes I'm a bit worried about that); 

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie...you really don't know me very well.  Leave mad?
Me?  Never!  You needn't worry...the madder I am, the longer I will stay
till you *throw* me out! :-) I never "give up".  I sometimes lose interest
when I think the conversation isn't going anywhere productive, and I
sometimes am convinced (which, by the way, I consider one form of
"winning" - gaining knowledge or a new viewpoint is never "losing".)

>I know Suzanne
>    will hang in and defend the claim-the-label side, and it should be very
>    interesting to see what comes of this.

As a guess, I would suspect that Suzanne and I will soon reach a stalemate
(perhaps we already have) and I will get bored with the lack of forward
motion and direct my efforts towards other conversations.

In the mean time thanks to all who have written, here or privately, in
support of my position and feelings.

D!

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Glad t'hear it, D!.  It's great t'see two articulate gyns hacking away
    at one another.
    
    Can I make a suggestion?  Very often two people will "reach a
    stalemate" because in effect they quit trying to understand what the
    other person is trying to say.  Before you decide that you can't make
    further progress with Suzanne, would you try the scheme in which if you
    don't agree with her position you try reflecting it back to her in
    pieces to make sure you understand just what it _is_?   
    
    That's a very productive technique in general and I'd be very
    interested to see how well it works with you two (Suzanne is trained in
    it, so she'll likely find it easier to use than you will, but that
    should just make it even more effective).
    
    						=maggie

Brian, 

First, I thought your note was wonderful.  I want to comment on a few
things that 1) made it clearer in my mind what I am trying to say (as
I said a few notes back, I was having trouble finding words, and you
helped me find them, and 2) I disagree with.

>	  There is a second stage to feminism, one where women draw their
>     OWN target.  [...]
>     This desire for women to choose their own values, and to have them
>     accepted as valid by society, is, I believe, current "mainstream"
>     feminism.

I would more or less agree with this.  And I don't think it is a bad
goal, I don't *disagree* with it, but it is not my goal, and I think it
might even be counter-productive to my goal.  But I am not fighting
the people who are working towards this goal, I think it is admirable...
so I am not "anti-feminist", despite claims to the contrary.

I feel that the labelling of targets as "male" or "female" is the *real*
problem here.  Perhaps it is better for women to define a "woman's
target" than it is for women to be shooting at a "man's target", or at
a "woman's target" that they didn't choose.  But I think it is better
still to get rid of these labels altogether.  And I feel that Feminism
is *increasing* the rigidity with which targets are created and labeled
by buying into the fact that targets need labels.

As Suzanne said, feminism is an -ism *about* *women*...about developing women's
targets, in your analogy.  And I think that is a basic flaw to validate
the concept of a "woman's target" at all.  I am not a Feminist because I
don't believe in that there is, or should be, a "woman's target".  I
believe this segregation of goals harms all causes who's end goal is non-
discrimination.

>	  Because "mainstream" feminism is at this stage, and not at a more 
>     advanced stage, certain battles are being fought.  

This is interesting...the last stage you describe is the one I identify
with, you call it more "advanced" than mainstream feminism.  I don't think
it *is* feminism, but if it is, does that mean I am a "radical feminist"
since I am fighting for goals beyond that of "mainstread feminism"?  :-)
What an interesting idea!

>	  There is a further stage to this feminist progression, a stage
>     that provides true liberation for all humanity, rather than apparent
>     liberation for half of humanity.  

Yes.  I believe that each person has their *own* targets.  Or perhaps
there are a number of targets which are labelled by other things than
"man", "woman", "black", "white", etc.  Maybe they are labelled "economic
success", "artistic success", "internal peace", etc, and each person
may choose his or her own target.

I disagree that this is a natural progression beyond the second stage,
what you claim is "mainstream feminism".  I don't think the temporary
development of a seperate "woman's target" will move us towards unlabelled
or more appropriately labeled targets.  I think the latter is a differernt
and to me, more desireable goal, and needs it's own word!

You could argue (as others have) that we should simply redefine the
popular usage of the term feminism to incorporate this. Or that it already
does.  But as I said, I use labels only for the value they have in
attracting and identifying people with corresponding views.  And the
people I attracted/indentified as a self-labeled "Feminist", while they
would certainly agree that this last stage is a desireable thing, 
concentrated mostly on the second (mainstream, now) stage, which I do
*not* feel is desireable.

This brings up something important...a lot of people in this discussion
have expressed anger that I would "reap the benefit of feminism" but be
"afraid to call myself a feminist."  I say, I am reaping the benefits
of feminism as it existed in the first stage, when women were trying to
at last shoot at the men's target.  This I believe *is* the first step
towards the end goal.  I would be proud to be indentified with that kind
of feminism.  But that goal has been (more or less) achieved (or at least
accepted as a mainstream goal) and feminism has moved on.  The definition
has changed via the moving of the mainstread to a different goal.

When I called myself a feminist, I supported stage 1. Women should be able
to shoot at the men's target.  I am sure I got this from my mother, who
has never forgiven "society" for not "letting" her be a Doctor, like she
wanted to be, instead "forcing" her a teacher (and if you listen to her
story, it's very real how "society" affected her life.) but then I got out
there and realized that other feminists weren't working on this goal too
much anymore, were instead working on developing a "woman's target".

I find that woman's target to be just as restrictive as the woman's target
that *men* set up for women.  I don't think that Women (as a group) are
any more able to define my goals than Men (as a group.)  I don't think Men
should be defining goals for a woman.  I don't think Women should be defining
goals for a woman either.  And I find that that is what most of the self-
identified feminists are trying to do (despite lip service to the contrary.)

This got pretty long, but doesn't even come close to summarizing all I want
to say.  But I'll think about it some more, and write more later...

D!

    re .89
    
    Brian, that gets a wow in my book!
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    
    Maggie and I just finished trying desperately to save my long-winded
    monologue on feminism that the computer was obviously telling me I
    should not have been writing instead of working, and thus aborted
    before I could complete it.
    
    As I try to reconstruct the thoughts, knowing that the nuances and the
    skilled verbage will not flow the same way, I promise to try to make
    this one less long-winded, and I am indeed grateful at having the
    opportunity to have read Brian's note.
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    
    Suzanne and Diana have struck the most unique chord in me, for I have
    had to look at the fact that I feel caught smack between them, and wish
    that I could pull them together toward some happy medium... but
    probably cannot.
    
    I am NOT a feminist. I know I am not, because every once in a while, I
    deny it. And the people to whom I deny it are the feminists who wish to
    call me such.
    
    At the same time, to all of my friends, by and large, NONE of whom are
    feminists, I certainly am, and a radical one to boot. And though I
    don't wear the label, I don't shy away from being labeled such by those
    who are not, and wouldn't understand if I said I wasn't.
    
    To my friends, I *MUST* be a feminist! Because I am pro-choice, while
    most of them are confused. Because I quote sex statistics when few of
    them care. Because I know who Betty Friedan is, who Gloria Steinem is,
    because my mother has a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves, which is hidden
    in her bottom drawer and I snuck it out and peeked at it as a teenager.
    
    I am a feminist because I go dutch on dates, because I carry my own
    condoms, because I espouse financial independence as a necessity for
    all women, because I can't see myself staying home - the thought of
    trusting my partner to take care of me is alien. And involves risks
    that scare the shit out of me, instead of being a normal part of
    marriage.
    
    And they INTRODUCE ME as one! Can you imagine: Hi Dave, I'd like you to
    meet my friend 'ren. She's a Feminist. Oh? You have to go walk your pet
    tarantula and wash your hair? But you only just got here! Well, see you
    later...
    
    Or hey Ken, watch it with those male domination jokes. There's a
    feminist in the room! She doesn't do dishes either! You should see her
    apartment. She won't even pass the sugar unless you prove its not an
    attempt to subjugate her. And she definitely insists on being on top in
    bed...
    
    But, honestly, I didn't mean to joke. I just point out that I live in a
    world where feminist issues simply aren't a priority. And because they
    are on my priority list, the label is given to me to wear. What they
    don't know is that I'm NOT wearing it.
    
    I had a roommate who was a feminist. No, Feminist, with a capital F. I
    thought she was crazy. I also thought she was backwards and naive and
    just getting her feet wet, and going through phases of rebellion to
    upset her father. Her cause made a lot of sense to me. But I wanted to
    make DEAD SURE that no one EVER put us in the same category. 
    
    I began to go to women's workshops. I looked at the issues being
    discussed. Some of them were germain to my needs. Some only scratched
    the surface. And I learned, as I never understood before, that the women's
    movement was not going to open the doors for me, a black woman, all by
    itself. It could try, but it wasn't going to happen. And I learned that
    there's a big difference between a movement where the enemy is someone
    who lots of people sleep with vs one who makes laws so that you can't
    even drink at the same fountain or use the same entrance or ride the
    same bus. Or live in the same neighborhood.
    
    And every time I looked at this, I knew I wasn't a feminist. But
    every time I open my mouth, that label gets plastered right over it.
    Any of you who read Blacknotes may have noticed that Karen Wharton and
    I (and Monica Scott) have implicitly won the Feminist Notoriety
    Awards... without really trying. For being black WOMEN, and bringing up
    such issues in BN, we shake the status quo. The painful part, for me,
    is the accusations from my black peers that any investment in the
    women's movement dilutes the efforts toward equality for blacks in
    general. Its not the reason why I don't wear the label, but it makes a
    damned good excuse.
    
    Its strange to look at both movements with the eyes of a youngster, one
    who has had the advantages of both without fighting in either war.
    Affirmative Action has certainly made my life easier. So has legalized
    abortion, over-the-counter condoms, access to credit without a male
    co-signer. So has the end of Jim Crow, and exclusion clauses in
    housing, and Valuing Differences statements that keep me from reading
    nigger jokes on the net.
    
    I know I can be an engineer, or even a carpenter or athlete or truck
    driver. That I can bring home the bacon, and still find a man. With all
    this, I, like many of my generation, am blind to the next waves. We've
    won so much, must the fight continue?
    
    So, I look at the label of feminist, I look at what it represents. And
    for me, it is the old Guard. It is the women, my mother among them, who
    fought the fight so that I could enjoy a lot of freedom, and begin to
    know equality. And I begin to understand that being a feminist has the
    underlying implication of not only espousing the cause, but also
    fighting for it.
    
    So, in respect, I submit that I am not a feminist. Because I have not
    yet begun to fight. 
                                                            

    	RE: .82  D_Carroll
    
    	> ARRRRGGGGG!  I have never found a string of assumptions so insulting 
    	> as this one. 
    
    	Sounds like you find the mere slight suggestion ("If you are afraid..")
    	*almost* as insulting as I've found many/most of your accusations about	
    	Feminism.  However, I'm trying very hard not to lose my temper.
    
    	Perhaps you don't see the self-proclaimed morally superiority that 
    	your stand suggests to me (when you imply that you refuse to be called 
    	a feminist because you *care* more about the rest of the world than 
    	feminists do.)
    
    	If I happened to hit your hot button with the words, "If you are
    	afraid...," it was unintentional, I assure you.
    
    	> What makes you think the public image of a self-labeled Feminist 
    	> is so horrible? 
    
    	That's another indication to me that you don't seem to realize how 
    	negative some of *your* statements have been about feminism.
    	
    	> With the quote I was demonstrating to those people who say Feminism 
    	> has nothing to do at all with gender and seeks equality among all 
    	> people that a self-identified Feminist says it *is* closely tied to 
    	> gender.
    
    	The goal of feminism is equality for all people, but how can we
    	ignore the fact that we are talking (almost exclusively) about 
    	*gaining* rights for one gender that the *other* gender already
    	has??  
    
    	In our culture, women have been born and raised to live "in service"
    	to everyone else for so many thousands,/millions of years, that it
    	is almost considered an abomination for a woman to say openly that
    	(at some point in her life or even in just her *conversation*) she
    	puts herself - and other women - first!
    
    	You may not fear being called a feminist, but I sense that society
    	feels a *great deal* of fear (and is specifically threatened) by the
    	sense of what would happen if women *did* put our own lives first
    	more often.
    
    	Our culture has functioned so long with MEN as primary, and women
    	(in small letters) existing in service to men - society wonders how
    	it would ever function if the primary focus became MEN and WOMEN
    	(where "service functions" were *not* divided along gender lines.)
    	
    	More than once, I've heard the women's rights movement blamed for
    	what people project as the complete collapse of our civilization.
    	It's no joke, believe me!
    
    	You keep saying you don't see "the heat" given to feminists, but
    	it is there (whether you see it or not.)  And it is about *much*
    	more than just a disagreement about the definition of labels.

>Some feminists have in fact written that all oppression/hierarchy is patterned
>after sexism. No specific writing jumps to my mind; maybe Simone de Beauvoir in
>The Second Sex? Does anybody remember any? Since you can't have a generation
>without women and men, but you can without cross-tribal slavery, I find the
>notion attractive.


	Mez

	There is a more recent book by Gerda Lerner - A Historian of the
	reput at University of Wisconsin - called "Creation of the
	Patriarchy" that discusses this concept in a scholarly manner.

	That is that the first oppression was of women, because they were
	the first other and than this led to the oppression of other
	peoples and then on to the whole world (the planet is treated
	the same as a woman).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
	

    	RE: .82  D_Carroll
    
    	> Yo!  Excuse me.  EXCUSE ME!  Since when did "I do not choose to 
    	> label myself X" translate to "I am working *against* the cause of 
    	> those who label themselves X"???  I do not label myself Feminist, 
    	> but I also don't label myself ANTI-FEMINIST!   
    
    	If so, then please explain the following:  [Quoted from your .45]
    
    		"If those are the rules of Feminism, then, damn it, I am 
    		*not* a Feminist.  
    
    		"If those are the rules of Feminism then by God I will 
    		fight Feminism till one of the other of us gives up in 
    		exhaustion.  (Any guess who gives out first?)"
    
    	By the way, in regards to who would give out first if/when you
    	chose to "fight feminism," I should remind you that the movement
    	is at least 150 years old (over 200 years old, if you count the 
    	women's movement in Europe,) and the *majority* of those years
    	were spent before women had the right to vote!  
    
    	Yet, you notice, we're still here (after the many, many generations 
    	of women who were born, lived and died in the movement without ever 
    	having the chance to *see* the progress that is visible to us all 
    	*now*!)
    
    	Considering the length of time it took us to get where we are today,
    	is it any surprise to you that some of us put this movement a bit
    	higher on our list of priorities than many/most of the other worthy
    	causes to which we also give our time?

    	By the way, I'm mostly *off* the net for the next three weeks, so
    	I may be a bit slow in responding if this debate continues -
    	(and many/most of my responses will likely be delivered in the
    	middle of the night.)
    
    	Thanks much for your patience during a time that is both personally
    	and professionally quite busy for me.
    

    
    re .91, 'ren
    
    >We've won so much, must the fight continue?
    
    Because there are those people who would take away what people
    worked so hard to gain, like the right to a safe abortion, and
    even some forms of birth control.
    
    [Note that this reply does not mean to repudiate the remainder
     of your thoughtful and personal reply.]
    

    Going back to .89
    
    (there are days when I would swear that I missed my calling as a social
    scientist, but mom always swore that there was more money in
    engineering... and its easier to get experimental material!)
    
    Diana, I wish you wouldn't dismiss the "second stage" so lightly. It
    is, to my way of thinking, a rather natural progression.
    
    When I was in 11th grade, I went to Carnegie-Mellon's week long Women
    in Science and Engineering program. This was the year after I went to
    RPI's Preface Program for Women & Minorities, which is one of the major
    reasons I ended up there... At any rate, the most memorable part of
    going was a lecture given by a woman math professor. She worked damned
    hard on making it clear that women had NOT arrived. And that she was
    not well received, and that engineering and science weren't going to be
    a bed of daisies. She probably turned a lot of the women off. But she
    left such an impression on me that I raved about her for months, and my
    mother kept track of her address as she moved from college to college.
    
    Her research dream was to find out what math would have been like if it
    had been developed by females. Would it have been Euclidean? Would it
    have had conundrums and paradoxes that are different from the ones we
    have now? She wanted to take girls who were 3 and 4, and see where they
    went with math. She wanted to re-invent the wheel.
    
    At this point in my life, I cannot recall the woman's name. She ended
    up here in Massachussetts. I think at Wellesley; she was shooting for
    Yale or Harvard or MIT, but that kind of experiment takes enormous
    backing... and is virtually impossible. Without inhuman isolation and a
    sprinkling of genius, it would be a long-shot to answer the question:
    what math would females develop? And of course, if females developed the
    same math, it would be a disappointment to some.
    
    But as a dream, I will always understand the why's of it. If you've
    never had the opportunity to draw your own target, you may (if you're
    curious) always wonder what it would have been like. Just as science
    fiction writers sometimes create worlds where women rule. Being able to
    draw the target is the ultimate in empowerment. It says that you don't
    believe that the current way is the only way to play the game. For
    women who couldn't play for years, it has to progress this way. You
    have to beat the current champs at their own game before you can change
    the rules.
    
    I think that as women move into this new stage, they will start to
    incorporate the women who never wanted to shoot at the men's targets.
    And this will be good. And in time, they will begin to attract the men
    who always wanted to shoot at the women's target. And THIS will be even
    better.
    
    And in time, if we don't get into a shooting match about who draws
    better, we will move to stage 3.
    
    Maybe it seems aggressive. More assertive than it needs to be.
    Seperatist. Or a continuation of the story: anything you can do, I can
    do better. But I honestly think that if we stop before we've challenged
    everything, there will still be a question: could we have done it,
    could we have done it better? I also SINCERELY believe that until women
    have a lot of practice in drawing targets, ESPECIALLY targets that
    appeal to both sexes, it will be hard for men and women to draw targets
    together.
    
    Its part of the process of gaining confidence in ourselves. If you
    already have that confidence, GREAT. But for some who are unsure, or
    insecure, it needs some nurturing, and perhaps some space away from
    those who are already practiced and secure.

>     <<< Note 178.82 by TLE::D_CARROLL "It's time, it's time to heal..." >>>



	 D!, wonderful note!  Thank you, thank you, thank you.....



	 I'e promised myself that I would not note when I was angry,
	 and I've been so angry when I got to this topic that I
	 haven't even been able to respond.


	 Your .82 expressed all my anger for me, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



	 kath 

    	It's ironic, but true, that it's more sanctioned in our culture for
    	women to express anger towards feminism than it is for women to 
    	express anger about the hundreds/thousands/millions of years' worth of 
    	oppression that made the women's movement necessary in the first place.
    
    	Having women's anger sanctioned in our culture *at all* is probably
    	a step in the right direction, though, I suppose.
    

    re .99 -
    
    Bull's eye!!!

    re .99 -
    
	Whim, bam, bom - you got it.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Who is never angry is never true.

    > It's ironic, but true, that it's more sanctioned in our culture for
    > women to express anger towards feminism than it is for women to 
    
    What are you basing this observation upon? D!'s 'ren's and some others' 
    replies within this topic?
    
    > express anger about the hundreds/thousands/millions of years' worth of 
    > oppression that made the women's movement necessary in the first place.
    
    I wonder how you seem to have the inside scoop as to what went on
    thousands and millions of years ago? At least you chose not to extend
    your hyperbole to billions/trillions.

    I've seen you use this phrasing in some other conferences and thought:
    
      "How does she know all this? Is she a time traveler? 

      My word, people are still trying to figure out if the Bible - 
      written within the past few millenia - is really the word of God. 

      But Suzanne actually knows how people lived - moreover, what women 
      *felt* - millions of years ago."   	
    	
    I'm suitably impressed - honestly!!

      Alan

Having women's anger sanctioned in our culture *at all* is probably
    	a step in the right direction, though, I suppose.
    

    	RE: .102  Alan Ross
    
    	>>It's ironic, but true, that it's more sanctioned in our culture for
    	>>women to express anger towards feminism than it is for women to 
    
    	> What are you basing this observation upon? 
    
    	My experiences as a sentient being in our culture...
    
    	>>express anger about the hundreds/thousands/millions of years' 
    	>>worth of oppression that made the women's movement necessary in 
    	>>the first place.
    
    	> I wonder how you seem to have the inside scoop as to what went on
    	> thousands and millions of years ago? At least you chose not to extend
    	> your hyperbole to billions/trillions.
    
    	Alan, we know that the oppression of women dates back at least
    	thousands of years - we have the recorded history to prove it.
    
    	There is also evidence to suggest that women were oppressed much
    	furthur back than written history has recorded.
    
    	Surely you aren't suggesting that women should be *less concerned*
    	if it could be proven that we've only been oppressed for thousands
    	of years instead of millions.
    
    	> I'm suitably impressed - honestly!!
    
    	Wish I could say the same to you.  The sarcasm and the intended
    	ridicule in the tone were all too predictable, though.

    May I pick up on something here that D! said that struck a cord in
    me.
    
    This has kind of gotten buried. She is into a particular life style
    that many strong feminists find they cannot accept (I meant to
    say antiethical but I don't know how to spell it, I hate knowing
    words but not being able to spell them!). So she received negative
    feed back (approbrium?) from such women. This appears to have fueled
    a lot of her distaste for feminism with a capital F.
    
    So this is going to come up more and more frequently. Bright outspoken
    independant women are going to say 'I'm not a feminist because some
    of the things that feminists feel I have to believe in I don't. Further
    more I've talked to some self identified feminists and they reject
    me for what I'm into and say I can't be a feminist because I'm X
    (in my case it might be that I'm a Christian, or married, or whatever).
    I've run into this occasionally. 
    
    Is this something we can deal with as women (and men, and feminists)
    to not reject someone from our common causes because they are still
    meat eaters, or prefer x or y or z?
    
    This sort of thing seems to splinter movements from what I've read
    of history, look at the early Christian church, the Russian and
    French revolutions, and the American peace movement of the 1960-1970s
    for examples.
    
    Bonnie

I adopt the labels I want to adopt and try to preserve the meaning that *I*
consider to be valid:  Christian, humanist, feminist.

The label "Christian" has been co-opted and defined by fundamentalist
Christians (the "religious right") -- much to the shame of those of us who
differ but who allowed that to happen!  Only when liberal and mainline
Christians proudly wear the label will non-Christians begin to question the
content given the term by the fundamentalists. 

Similarly, the religious right has successfully limited the "humanist" label,
so that it carries the excess baggage of "atheistic, secular" humanist.  While
I recognize that some humanists embrace those adjectives, there are also
Christian humanists, so here, too, I reject the definition that opponents
of all forms of humanism try to give the term.

Why does "feminist" have negative connotations?  Who do you think sneeringly
called feminists "those bra-burning [or man-hating or whatever-term-fit-the-
moment's-needs] women's libbers"?  Wasn't that, too the religious right?

Never mind that the "bra-burning" label was attached to something that never
happened (at least not till *after* the accusation, if at all)!  Never mind
that "women's libber" was a "cutesy" term that helped detract from the
seriousness of the cause!  The tone was set.

Well, I'm tired of people to my "right" and to my "left" trying to define the
labels of *my* causes.  If I give up every label that someone else thinks I
don't fit, then I won't have any words left to describe my beliefs and causes!

Like some other noter here, I prefer to take up the labels and let people
discover that this rather ordinary middle-aged married mother of two grown sons
is also a feminist, a humanist, and a Christian.  Then let them deal with it or
shrug it off, or whatever!

Bonnie's experience in being rebuffed by blacks in the Civil Rights Movement
brought to mind a saying that I heard about that time -- and that I think may
have been said by a black to whites in just that situation:

    "Just because someone tells you to go to hell doesn't mean you have
     to go there!"


Nancy Smith

    One of the central points of D!'s position seems to have slipped by
    in the discussion here:  that she eschews the label "feminist" not
    because non-feminists will misunderstand her, but because *she does
    not meet the definition of feminist* that appears to be dominant
    among the feminists of her acquaintance; and that therefore, calling
    herself a "feminist" will only create confusion with precisely those
    for whom the label is likely to be significant.
    
    	-Neil

    Nancy Smith's note .107 refers to my note .106 that I deleted
    because someone found what I wrote to be a problem.
    
    the issue that she spoke to was that as a white I found blacks
    in the movement didn't necessarily want me, and as an ecologist
    I found others in the movement that were vegetarians didn't want
    me, and as an ecologist and an animal rights person I found I wasn't
    wanted when I talked about normal farming practices, and
    as an x I found that other xs defined what being an x is and should
    be....and rejected me because I wasn't a perfect 'x' by their
    standards...
    
    which is why I am still a maverick and do my best to think my own
    mind and not some party line about *any* subject.
    
    So why as feminists do we reject the women who are strong and
    out spoken but don't buy *our* version of feminism..
    
    Time magazine this week has a good article on the women's movement
    I recommend it and will enter what I can of it if I have time..
    
    Bonnie
    
    and my appologies if after deleting a note on request I have now
    repeated myself about a note that is still there.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .109  Bonnie
    
    	> So why as feminists do we reject the women who are strong and
    	> out spoken but don't buy *our* version of feminism..
    
    	Well, I disagree that we (as feminists) are doing this as a group.
    
    	If someone tells another woman that she isn't a proper feminist,
    	it's a *personal opinion* (and not a proclamation from the women's
    	movement as a whole.)
    
    	We don't have any control over the deeply-personal opinions of
    	feminists around the world, after all (nor should we *want* to
    	have such control.)  Since feminists don't have as well-defined
    	a "party line" as most people think, it stands to reason that we
    	will *never* all agree on every variation of life that is possible
    	for women in our culture.
    
    	Thus, it hardly seems fair to judge the entire movement for the 
    	behavior and/or words of *individuals* when they express personal 
    	opinions that go well beyond the common definition of feminism.

    One of the problems with -ist labels is finding yourself 
    grouped with other self-proclaimed -ists, many of whom share
    only a limited number of your goals. The problem is worsened
    by the media attention that will inevitably be focused
    on the least savoury members of your particular -ism,
    resulting in your being pre-judged as holding a lot of
    opinions that you may not endorse, or actually oppose.
    
    I think that's what D! is trying to get across by *not*
    accepting the 'feminist' label. (It's the reason I wear
    very few -ist labels myself. )
    
    Dana
    

    re the "f-word" --
    
    If you eschew the label do you also have to eschew the glass?  :-)

Why do some feminists do the same things some other people do? Because they're
people too.

I just got around to reading John H's reply in the church note. Fits a lot
that's being said about feminists too. People are people, with people-type
needs.

Why do people reject other people? My guess is insecurity.

Why do people want to define the goals of an organization/movement they're in?
My guess is that we've all got a limited amount of energy, and want to spend it
the way we want to spend it, and what to help make our outlets appropriate to
our needs.
	Mez

    re: 109
    
    I came across something last night and that said (badly paraphrased
    here) that groups of people-not-in-power (in this context, women) often
    end up fighting among themselves instead of fighting oppression, and
    that the people-in-power (in this context, men) count on that and like
    it that way!!
    
    (Oops!)

			     NAME BRAND

		          by Anita Diamant


(Entered here without permission from the Boston Globe, Sunday, 11/26/89)


People have been using the term "postfeminist" for at least 10 years now, 
but except for this recurrent, flaky association with breakfast cereal, I 
have never been able to wrap my mind all the way around it.

"Postfeminist" suggests that feminism happened a long time ago, way, way 
back before anyone knew what the letters "VCR" stood for. And whatever 
happened is all over now, except for commercials selling life insurance and 
tires to women.

Or maybe "postfeminist" is something like a graduate degree that entitles 
women to have car doors opened for them without making a fuss. A designation 
that likewise credentials men to tell mother-in-law jokes, traveling 
salesman jokes, fat woman and ugly girl jokes because, well, if they can't 
take a joke like a man, they can just lump it.

Actually, I suppose I know what "postfeminist" means. It means that it is 
extremely unfashionable to call yourself a feminist, a label guaranteed to 
make people treat you like some 1960s throwback.

The word "feminist" has become such an eight-letter insult, people don't 
even have to say, "I'm no feminist but..." before they say, "I think every 
woman has a right to decide for herself on things like abortion" and "Why 
shouldn't my daughter grow up to be president?"

The weird think here is the apprehension that there is some difference 
between feminism and the notion that woman have a right to reproductive 
choice and to the highest imaginable goals. Feminism *is* the idea that 
these are rights.

But feminism has been cast in the narrowest and most unattractive terms for 
years now, as though it were a private club for earnest women wearing 
business suits and those odd little tie-substitutes. I'm not entirely sure 
how this image came to predominate, but there we have it: The feminist as 
smug, privileged noodge. Who wouldn't want to get past that?

The caricature is not just foolish, it willfully misunderstands feminism's 
basic insight, which has been raising Cain ever since its first utterance. 
Are you ready? Here it is:

Women are people, too.

Don't smirk. In this distant past, men debated whether or not women had 
souls. It was only 71 years ago that the female intellect was legally 
recognized with the vote. In the present, you still hear men whine, "What 
do women want?" as though most women cannot speak succinctly about what 
they desire. As though women did not have individual preferences for 
everything from strawberry to double chocolate fudge.

There are some people who use the term "postfeminism" cheerfully to 
describe the triumph of fairness. Look again.

A court in the Midwest recently upheld a large firm's decision to prevent 
all female employees from working with chemicals that might impair their 
fertility. The women who brought the suit, who said they had no intention 
of bearing any or more children, were told that their choices were 
secondary to the state's concerns about their female organs.

It is almost impossible to imagine a business or a court forbidding all 
male employees from making a similar, informed reproductive choice. But 
there is more here than simple inequality under the law. Somewhere, locked 
deep inside the legal palaver about corporate liability, there is revulsion 
at the idea that any woman would voluntarily and irrevocably forgo 
motherhood.

There is something truly revolutionary, and thus frightening, about the 
prospect of women as autonomous beings who might act on their own behalf, 
not entirely for and through their children, nor out of a sense of 
obligation to society or the species. Which may be why you see such naked 
anger on the faces of no-choicers, heckling women on their way to the 
clinic.

And yet, despite its bum rap, feminism is anything but "post." As insight, 
as question, at least, it flourishes.

Picking up the old history texts, students ask, "Where are the women? What 
kind of history can just ignore them? And if it leaves out half the 
population, what else is missing?"

Feminism opens windows every day, even stained glass ones. Wearing the 
robes and repeating the ancient words, voices speaking in a higher register 
challenge their congregations to confront the idolatry inherent in always 
addressing God as father.

When citizens and politicians ran away from the f-word years ago, it was 
called "toning down the rhetoric." Since "feminism" was a strong word that 
scared the spit out of a lot of people, that word had to go. With it, 
however, went the self-conscious challenge of defining a more equitable 
future.

I have a feeling that, with the resurgent resolve in support of choice that 
is abroad in America, feminists might yet reclaim their own name. But 
please, let's not call it neofeminism. For some reason, that makes me think 
of glowing pink tubes.

    I keep thinking about the earlier, very moving reply drawing the
    analogy to targets.  Something about that bothers me: namely, one piece
    is missing!  
    
    Frist (if I remember correctly) women couldn't aim at men's own targets but
    only at the targets men drew for women.  Then women could aim at the
    men's targets, too.  Then women discovered that men's targets didn't
    cover all there was to shoot at, so women drew their own targets.  Then
    the ultimate goal was for everyone to draw his or her own target.
    
    There needs to be a step where men aim at "women's" targets (in
    addition to their own) -- not out of cocercion, but as a broadening of
    their own sights -- before the ultimate step of everyone aiming at his
    or her *own* target!  As long as men are disparaged for doing so-called
    "women's" things, we'll never be able to take that final step.

    re .116       Bulls-eye!  :-)
    
    I personally like the idea of a "neofeminist"!  ;-)
    
    I'm thinking about Nancy's comments about being a Christian. They are
    so true and SO relevant. I have friends who go out of their way to
    state their denomination so that they won't have to wear the Christian
    label with its fundamentalist connotation. I have fundamentalist
    friends who are the first one's to scream "But I'm not like 'them'!"
    
    And when I think of this, I can TRULY understand why someone would not
    want to wear a label even if its DEnotation fits, if the connotation
    does not.
    
    There is a big difference between rejecting label X because of what the
    non-X's say, and rejecting it because of what the X's themselves say.
    And maybe it doesn't take a lot of X's. But if its more than a handful,
    I'd be gone too.

    I support several elements of what one might consider the feminist
    agenda, such as ERA, affirmative action, and abortion rights.  I
    believe in sexual equality as a matter of principle, just as I believe
    in economic, political, racial, and social equality.  Yet I am not a
    feminist.  I don't think anyone has ever called me a feminist, and at
    least two feminist acquaintances of mine have explicitly identified me
    as *not* being a feminist.  Even if we assume that my male genitals
    don't automatically disqualify me from being a feminist, it is still
    apparent that this label does not apply to me.

    So, since I am not a feminist, despite believing in sexual equality,
    then how can a feminist be defined only in terms of a belief in sexual
    equality?  I can think of some theories, many of which are mutually
    contradictory, and perhaps none of these are true:

    	o  There is no firm definition of "feminist".  You just have to
    	   sort of know it when you see it.

    	o  I may think I believe in sexual equality, but, alas, I really
    	   don't.  This alleged belief in sexual equality is perhaps just a 
    	   manufactured self-image, no doubt promoted in order to make me
    	   more popular with the chicks.

    	o  I may think I believe in sexual equality, but I fail to
    	   understand the full implications of this principle when applied
    	   to specific issues (i.e., I don't follow the party line.)  For
    	   example, no feminist would ever use the phrase "more popular
    	   with the chicks."  Those who are smarter than I more fully
    	   understand the full ideological ramifications of a belief in
    	   sexual equality, which I in my ignorance fail to comprehend.
    	   The doctrine that "the personal is the political", after all,
    	   is a product of the feminist movement.

    	o  There isn't a "party line"--but the fact that I may be offended
    	   by certain comments made in the name of feminism, while most
    	   feminists themselves are not offended by these comments, shows
    	   that there are certain shared but usually unstated assumptions that
    	   go beyond a mere belief in sexual equality.

    	o  Or, this is just one of those great mysteries of the universe,
    	   like why you can't buy iced tea in New England in the winter
    	   time.

    -- Mike

	The only open question on this topic I have is what are the
	ages and life experiences of the women (feminist) who told
	you that you weren't a feminist?  The thing I have had to do
	is go find a group of feminist who do share my interest and
	may goals and work with them and the ones who don't walk my
	path can walk their own.

	We all move at different times, some ahead and some behind.
	I would not expect all my friends to be in the same place
	as I am at the same time so how could I expect people who
	are more distant to me to be.

	If being a feminist means that you see women as total human
	beings and that their lives have value - then, in my eyes,
	anyone who says that you are not a feminist because of who
	you are, even though you see women as total humans and value
	their lives, is the one who is not a feminist.

	Now, on the other hand, I reserve the right to make calls
	from my point of view about which feminists I will associate
	with and when.  I guess, my problem is with people who don't
	want to associated with the term Feminist.

	I refer to myself as a witch - many "real" witches would 
	tell me that I was not a witch because I have not done x.
	Well, some of the stuff that "real" witches do and believe
	in do not fit my feminist self and I will not compromise
	that part of me.  BUT I still call myself a witch - it comes
	the closest to what I am.

	_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				The Goddess includes man in a
				way that God never did woman.
				Feminism includes men in a 
				way that the patriarchy never 
				did woman.

The word is wrong. It grates on the ears.

Other '-isms' such as sexism, racism, chauvinism, are all *bad*. To be labeled 
as such is derogatory.

The word is wrong. it is ill defined.

Other '-isms' are defined by outsiders and applied to the members by the 
outsiders. Feminism is defined by the insiders and applied to themselves to 
exclude the outsiders.

...

I would like to consider myseld a feminist, but I suspect the feminists won't
let me.

/. Ian .\

PS: Peggy - you may consider yourself a witch, and though I don't like the term 
(a nasty anglo-saxon miss-pronunciation of the correct term used as a form of 
abuse in the Dark Ages), I also tend to use it ... (though I don't consider 
myself to be a witch, though I am a dr'wic, which is not a warlock, nor a male
witch...)

May you be Strong in the Knowledge, and may the Light of the Knowledge guide
your path in the ways of the Goddess.

    re .116-
    
    > There needs to be a step where men aim at "women's" targets (in
    > addition to their own) -- not out of cocercion, but as a broadening of
    > their own sights -- before the ultimate step of everyone aiming at his
    > or her *own* target!  As long as men are disparaged for doing so-called
    > "women's" things, we'll never be able to take that final step.
      
    I think 'ren said this, too, in .97...
    
    .97> I think that as women move into this new stage, they will start to
    > incorporate the women who never wanted to shoot at the men's targets.
    > And this will be good. And in time, they will begin to attract the men
    > who always wanted to shoot at the women's target. And THIS will be even
    > better.
    > 
    > And in time, if we don't get into a shooting match about who draws
    > better, we will move to stage 3.
      
    I'm in accord with both of you.
    
    And thanks, Brian, for providing us such a versatile metaphor.
    
    DougO

    	RE: .118  Mike V.
    
    	> Yet I am not a feminist.  I don't think anyone has ever called me 
    	> a feminist, and at least two feminist acquaintances of mine have 
    	> explicitly identified me as *not* being a feminist. 
    
    	Perhaps they identified you as *not* being a feminist because *you*
    	have identified yourself that way.  They may have felt that you had
    	negative connotations with the word, and were trying to *thank* you
    	for your support of women's rights issues without possibly alienating
    	you by calling you a label that you don't claim for yourself.
    
    	> Even if we assume that my male genitals don't automatically 
    	> disqualify me from being a feminist, it is still apparent that this 
    	> label does not apply to me.
    
    	You're right - male genitals don't automatically disqualify people
    	from being feminists.  My fairly recent SO happens to be a man who
    	proudly calls himself a feminist (and is also a dedicated women's
    	rights activist.)  Other men in this note have identified themselves
    	as feminists, as well, and I accept their feminism without reservation.
    	
    	If you were *willing* to apply this label to yourself, then it likely
    	*would* apply to you.  (I've met very few people who apply this label
    	to themselves capriciously.)  99.999% of the time, I take people at
    	their word when they declare themselves feminists.
    
    	> So, since I am not a feminist, despite believing in sexual equality,
    	> then how can a feminist be defined only in terms of a belief in sexual
    	> equality? 
    
    	If you believe you are a feminist and declared yourself to be one,
    	I'd stand behind you about it (and I'm sure others would, too.)

    	RE: .121  =maggie
    
    	> The litmus test I typically apply to others is the one I apply to
    	> myself:  does this person believe in equality between the sexes AND
    	> generally act in a way that convinces me that the "belief" is not mere
    	> lip-service.
    
    	My reference to accepting someone's word about being feminist 99.999%
    	of the time was specifically because your note reminded me of the ONE
    	time (in my life) that I've seen someone declare being feminist while
    	holding a sinister hidden agenda.  I know you know who I mean.  :-)
    
    	However, that was some years ago, and the hidden agenda was obvious
    	quickly enough (at least to me :)) that it rarely crosses my mind
    	that *anyone* I ever meet could be operating with that same specific
    	agenda now.
    
    	In general, I don't have a problem accepting people's word when they 
    	say they are feminists.

 I don't think I'd have such a problem labeling myself as a feminist if the 
following conditions were true.

 a. Feminism = feminism
 b. real feminists wouldn't be offended by my adopting their label

 The doctah

	Who are the "real" feminists?

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Would the real Goddess please stand up.

    Regarding Maggie's comments that feminism is what you do rather than
    what you believe, I am reminded of the anecdote about William Penn's
    sword.  Penn wore it at his side, according to the custom of the day. 
    As a Quaker, he was concerned about the "political correctness" of this
    behavior, so he turned to his friend, George Fox (the founder of the
    Quaker movement) for advice.  Fox's response was, "wear it as long as
    thou canst."  In other words, Fox believed that the matter was up to
    Penn's own conscience.  Political correctness was not Fox's concern.

    If I support the feminist political agenda, and yet I am not a
    feminist, then feminism must be more than just a political ideology. 
    This is surely is demonstrated by the feminist dictum, "the personal is
    the political", a principle that I categorically reject.  Feminism
    often concerns itself with sociological or personal issues, sometimes
    in ways I disagree with.  Therefore, I am not a feminist.

    -- Mike

    P.S. By the way, after our esteemed moderator introduced me to the word
    "lacuna" last year, I have actually seen it in print a couple of times,
    and thanks to her I then knew what the word meant.  I am grateful to
    her for expanding my vocabulary, but now here she goes again, using the
    phrase "mutatis mutandis", which of course I have never seen before.  I
    am beginning to think that she does this on purpose just to make me
    feel stupid.  I wish she wouldn't do that.  :-)

    See new string 878 for discussion of "The Personal is Political."
    I'd like to know what that means but didn't want to sidetrack this
    string.
    
    Nancy

It's nothing personal Mike; she does that to everyone. She's just showing off
:-).
	Mez

    Mez always smokes me right out!
    
    "mutatis mutandis" = lat., roughly "having made the necessary changes"
    
    						=maggie

I said:
    	> I do not label myself Feminist, 
    	> but I also don't label myself ANTI-FEMINIST!   

Suzanne said:
>    	If so, then please explain the following:  [Quoted from your .45]

(In which I said:)
    		"If those are the rules of Feminism, then, damn it, I am 
    		*not* a Feminist.  
    
    		"If those are the rules of Feminism then by God I will 
    		fight Feminism till one of the other of us gives up in 
    		exhaustion.  (Any guess who gives out first?)"

You quoted me out of context.  Permit me to include the context here.

I said:
>But when time and time again I get told that my views aren't
>"right"...and "How can you call yourself a Feminist and do the things you
>do?"...and "If you really supported women's rights you would give up your
>own happiness to support it"...I say *fine*.  If those are the rules of
>Feminism, then, damn it, I am *not* a Feminist...

I still agree withthat.  If the rules are of feminism that it requires
that I (or another) give up what I believe in, and what makes me me,
then I will fight it.

Are you suggesting then that my "if" clause is correct?  If you are, then
I think no more discussion on "why I am not a feminist" is necessary.

>    	By the way, in regards to who would give out first if/when you
>    	chose to "fight feminism," I should remind you that the movement
>    	is at least 150 years old...

Huh?  What makes you think you should remind me of this?  I said "any guess
who'll give up first?"  Is this a guess?  Or is this an assumption about
*my* guess.  You obviously misunderstood my rhetorical question.  Permit
me to rephrase...

"Given that Feminism is 200+ years old and still many people call themselves
feminists, and probably will till I am long dead and forgotten, any guess
who'll give up first?"

There, is that clearer?

'ren says:
    
>    (there are days when I would swear that I missed my calling as a social
>    scientist, but mom always swore that there was more money in
>    engineering... and its easier to get experimental material!)
 
Heh heh.  Sounds like you had the exact same experience I did.  
   
>    Diana, I wish you wouldn't dismiss the "second stage" so lightly. It
>    is, to my way of thinking, a rather natural progression.
... 
>    could we have done it better? I also SINCERELY believe that until women
>    have a lot of practice in drawing targets, ESPECIALLY targets that
>    appeal to both sexes, it will be hard for men and women to draw targets
>    together.
 
I don't understand.  Why is my suggestion that "everyone draw their *OWN*
target" not giving women the chance to practice drawing their own target.
I seems to me that individual women will not get the chance to practice
target-drawing if if only one target gets drawn for Women.  Who gets to
draw it, anyway?  (Presumably the Feminist movement.)
   
>    insecure, it needs some nurturing, and perhaps some space away from
>    those who are already practiced and secure.

If you mean Men, I don't think individual men have any more practice in
drawing their own targets than we do.  Throughout history, targets have
been defined for everyone...men who stayed off the "Men's Target" were
accused of bad aim, too!

I don't think having a "Woman's Target" will nurture any women into learning
to define their own goals with respsect to *themselves*, and not to their
gender (after all, they are still being encouraged to shoot according to
their gender, and not their interests or abilities.)

This conversation has taken many tangents, all of which are interesting
to me, and unfortunately I haven't the time or organization to respond to
them all.  Thanks to Mike and Niel for both saying what I was trying to
say.  I missed yesterday, and therefore was about 50 notes behind on this
topic, so I am a little overwhelmed. I will try to reply more tomorrow...

A final note to Suzanne, though...

I don't know you personally, so I can't know for sure about how *you*
would feel, but I know that the *vast* *majority* of feminists I have known 
would deny the label *Feminist* applies to me if the really talked to me 
about my views.

For instance, I support the right (and validity of the choice) for a woman
to enslave herself to a man, to gain her sole satisfaction from the level
to which she pleases him, to define herself in terms of him and to give up
her will and self-direction.  I support the right (and validity of the
choice) for a man to take control over such a woman, to insist on obedience,
repspect and self-denial, at the risk of punishment, and to take her will
and self-direction.

(Also, please include mentally the above paragraph with all possible
combinations of genders, for I feel such choices are equally valid.
The reason I include this particular combination of genders in specific
is because the scenario epitomizes the position that women historically
been coerced into, and is therefore the most contraversial.)

I suggest that the men and women who do this have every right to do so,
and that an organization which claims to support the right of the 
individual to draw his or her own target would also support these people.
I suggest further that the people who take this path are *not* undermining
the cause for all people to make their own targets, including targets
witch are nothing like theirs.

And I suggest that most Feminists, at least among those I have met, which
as I say, is not few, would be appalled at the actions of the women an
man described in the paragraph above, and would describe their actions
as non-Feminist.

That is one example of why I don't call myself a Feminist.

    	RE: .131  D_Carroll
    
    	> If the rules are of feminism that it requires that I (or another) 
    	> give up what I believe in, and what makes me me, then I will fight it.
    
    	What I've been trying to tell you is that there are *no* rules for
    	Feminism!!!  There are personal opinions which differ from yours!
    	You are calling these opinions "rules" capriciously, and are then
    	slamming the whole movement because some/many feminists have different
    	opinions than you do (even though feminists are making progress towards
    	goals that benefit *you* as much as anyone!)
    
    	> Are you suggesting then that my "if" clause is correct?  If you are, 
    	> then I think no more discussion on "why I am not a feminist" is 
    	> necessary.
    
    	If you've read my notes, you *know* this isn't what I'm suggesting.
    
    	> You obviously misunderstood my rhetorical question ["...any guess
    	> who'll give up first?"]
    
    	You placed it in such a way that the meaning you now suggest is the
    	last thing that would have crossed my mind (given the posture you
    	were holding when you made the statement.)  It was a poor communication
    	attempt on your part if the true meaning is the opposite of what
    	it sounded like to some/many of your readers.
    
    	> For instance, I support the right (and validity of the choice) 
    	> for a woman to enslave herself to a man, to gain her sole 
    	> satisfaction from the level to which she pleases him, to define 
    	> herself in terms of him and to give up her will and self-direction.  
    
    	If this is a woman's CLEAR CHOICE (and not something she has been
    	forced into by ANYONE) - then it is *my opinion* (as an individual)
    	that it falls within the goal of preventing women from being "FORCED"
    	into roles like these against our wills!
    
    	> I support the right (and validity of the choice) for a man to take 
    	> control over such a woman, to insist on obedience, repspect and 
    	> self-denial, at the risk of punishment, and to take her will
	> and self-direction.
    
    	Again, if the woman has entered into this by HER OWN CHOICE, and
    	was not forced into this role, then it falls within the goal of
    	preventing women from being subject to this treatment against our
    	wills.
    
    	> And I suggest that most Feminists, at least among those I have met, 
    	> which as I say, is not few, would be appalled at the actions of the 
    	> women and man described in the paragraph above...
    
    	...which is a personal opinion!!!!!!!  And why shouldn't feminists
    	as individuals be allowed to have personal opinions about lifestyles 
    	as one of *your* rules???
    
    	Yes, I would be personally appalled at the slave lifestyle, too -
    	but then, why shouldn't I be allowed to be appalled at the theoretical
    	description of something that I personally abhor?
    
    	You may not know this, but I came from an abusive marriage, so I
    	know what it's like to be physically "punished" (to the tune of
    	broken bones) when one says/does something that one's mate doesn't
    	like.  
    
    	According to *your* rules, am I not allowed to dislike the *idea* of
    	the physical punishment of women simply because you stipulate that
    	it is the woman's choice?  
    
    	What else about *ME* do *I* have to change to gain *your* approval???
    
    	> ...and would describe their actions as non-Feminist.
    
    	So, someone describes their *actions* (in slavery, etc.) as being
    	non-Feminist.  That's not the same thing as saying that *you* (as
    	a person) are non-Feminist for believing that people should have a
    	CHOICE to be slaves/slaveholders, if all involved agree with said
    	choice.
    
    	Sounds to me like you're really *reaching* for ways to be offended
    	by feminism.  If that's the case, then whatever floats yer boat,
    	as they say, but don't blame it on the movement as a whole, because
    	it's obvious that *nothing* would make it acceptable to you (unless
    	we all gave up *our* right to form personal opinions.)

    	Hold the phone, D!  
    
    	Something about your note struck a cord in me, so I went back to
    	read it again.  (It was the words you used in your description of
    	a woman enslaving herself to a man.)
    
    	Your description appalls some people because it was deliberately
    	*meant* to be appalling.
    
    	You're into mode of living/acting in ways that are intended to
    	"shock" people (as part of your general rebellion mode,) right?
    	You like to describe things to people for the shock value, correct?
    
    	So, now, you think that feminism and/or support for women's rights
    	issues has become mainstream enough for you to rebel against.
    
    	Ok, if that's what's happening, I can accept it.  (I went through my 
    	own rebellion mode some years back myself.)
    
    	However, I think you are mistaken about how "mainstream" support
    	for women's rights issues are.  We are currently in danger of losing
    	much of the ground we've gained (and it wouldn't be the *first* time
    	women's rights have spent decades being set back, if that's what
    	happens now.)

.132 (csc32::conlon)

>    	> If the rules are of feminism that it requires that I (or another) 
>    	> give up what I believe in, and what makes me me, then I will fight it.
    
>    	What I've been trying to tell you is that there are *no* rules for
>    	Feminism!!!  There are personal opinions which differ from yours!

What I am trying to tell you is that for me the only purpose of a label
like "Feminism" is to show that you agree with the goals/ideas of the majority
of people who also adopt that label!

Therefore there *are* rule.  The rules are by definition the opinions of
the majority.  If the only purpose of calling myself "X" is so that people
hearing that understand that I agree with the majority of opinions of people
who call themselves "X", then the "rules" of being an "X" *are* those of
the majority.

You tell me.  What would the point be in my calling myself a Feminist
if I hold opinions quite contrary to the majority of those calling themselves
a Feminist (given my previously stated position that *words* hold no
*inherent* important to me except insomuch as they aid communication.)

>    	> Are you suggesting then that my "if" clause is correct?  If you are, 
>    	> then I think no more discussion on "why I am not a feminist" is 
>    	> necessary.
    
>    	If you've read my notes, you *know* this isn't what I'm suggesting.
 
I didn't think it was, but you accused me of stating position "Y", when
what I had actually stated was "If X then Y", so I can only assume that
1) you thought I was also stating that "X" was true, or 2) you don't understand
logic.

>    	If this is a woman's CLEAR CHOICE (and not something she has been
>    	forced into by ANYONE) - then it is *my opinion* (as an individual)
>    	that it falls within the goal of preventing women from being "FORCED"
>    	into roles like these against our wills! [with regards to female
     voluntary enslavement]
 
I won't argue what you think or what you don't think, since I haven't met
you.  However, I state that I believe that Jane Self-labeled Feminist
would make the same statement, but not *really* believe it.  That she would
offer lip-service to the fact that every woman should have the right to make
her own choices, but deep inside Jane (no offense intended to any real
"Jane"'s out there) would feel that this woman was hurting the cause of
women to decide not to take such a path, and that therefore what she (the
woman who chose enslavement) was doing was anit-feminist, therefore she
*shouldn't* have made that choice.

>    	Yes, I would be personally appalled at the slave lifestyle, too -
>    	but then, why shouldn't I be allowed to be appalled at the theoretical
>    	description of something that I personally abhor?

It is irrelevent whether you personally would be appalled at being a slave
(I would assume you wouldn't stand for it no-how!) But are you not
invalidating our (theoretical my ass!) slave-woman's choices?  I think
the "last" stage of feminist that Brian described means that each person
can design their *own* target, and it's validity is judged not by some
arbitrary standards, but on how well that target matches that person?

>    	You may not know this, but I came from an abusive marriage, so I
>    	know what it's like to be physically "punished" (to the tune of
>    	broken bones) when one says/does something that one's mate doesn't
>    	like.  

This comparison between consensual and nonconsensual "punishment" is
offensive to me, but the discussion of it is inappropriate to this discussion.
If you do want to talk about it, I would prefer to move it to the "Is S&M
PC" note, or, even better, off-line.

>    	What else about *ME* do *I* have to change to gain *your* approval???

Suzanne, I neither approve your disapprove of you.  I disagree with some
of your definitions of what Feminism is, but I make not statements as to
approval.   You know that.  This "question" is needlessly inflammatory.
    
>    	So, someone describes their *actions* (in slavery, etc.) as being
>    	non-Feminist.  

The said person (as I said, this is NOT a hypothetical situation) considers
(considered) *herself* a feminist!  She was told (and I was told) that her
actions and decisions were not only non-feminist but anti-feminist.  So
many people said that that I can only conclude it was the majority 
opinion, and if so I choose not to accept the label that goes along with
such a majority.

>    	Sounds to me like you're really *reaching* for ways to be offended
>    	by feminism.  

I'm not reaching.  As I have said (over and over again) I used to label
myself a Feminist.  I am now talking about a non-hypothetical situation,
which happens to be the *very* situation that *caused* me to reject the
label "Feminist".  (There have since been other different situations
that result in a reaffirmation of that rejection.)

As for your "right" to form personal opinions (which you believe that I
won't grant you) have it!  But you are asking me, over and over again, why
I won't label myself with a label currently used on a group whose majority
hold some (a lot, perhaps) opinions that I disagree with.

    I perhaps should stay out of this, but...
    
    D!, I think you'll agree that in many important ways, any individual's
    "world" is made up only of the people she actually knows or with whom
    she interacts in a non-trivial way.  No?
    
    Presuming for the moment your agreement, would you think carefully and
    actually come up with a count of the self-identified feminists--people
    you can put names to, people in your phenomenological world (I'm one,
    for instance)-- who have expressed either:  (a) rejection of you
    because of your s&m advocacy (i.e., who confirm for you that
    "feminists" are unaccepting/intolerant/hostile) or (b) acceptance of
    you and your position regardless of whether they would choose (if
    indeed it is actually a choice) the same for themselves.   What are the
    respective counts?
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .134  D_Carroll
    
    	> What I am trying to tell you is that for me the only purpose of a 
    	> label like "Feminism" is to show that you agree with the goals/ideas 
    	> of the majority of people who also adopt that label!
    
    	Ok, so most feminists believe women should have choices, and *you*
    	agree that women should have choices (but we *disagree* about the
    	wisdom of some of those choices.)  I don't see that difference as
    	being as significant as you do, perhaps.
    
    	> I didn't think it was, but you accused me of stating position "Y", 
    	> when what I had actually stated was "If X then Y", so I can only 
    	> assume that 1) you thought I was also stating that "X" was true, or 
    	> 2) you don't understand logic.
    
    	If "X" is that you believe feminism has rules, then I contend that
    	you have already shown that you believe it.  As for whether or not
    	I know logic, I have a 4 year degree in symbolic logic.  
    
    	> However, I state that I believe that Jane Self-labeled Feminist
	> would make the same statement, but not *really* believe it. 
    
    	So, you're objecting to what you think goes on in feminists' minds,
    	and not what we say.  Didn't know you were a mind-reader.
    
    	> It is irrelevent whether you personally would be appalled at being 
    	> a slave (I would assume you wouldn't stand for it no-how!) But are 
    	> you not invalidating our (theoretical my ass!) slave-woman's choices? 
    
    	If the slave-woman is looking for validation from me, she is going
    	to have to accept the fact that I have personal opinions about the
    	idea of women being slaves (apart from my philosophy that women are
    	entitled to make any CHOICES we want.)
    
    	I'm human.  I'm going to have personal opinions about things.
    
    	> But you are asking me, over and over again, why I won't label myself 
    	> with a label currently used on a group whose majority hold some (a 
    	> lot, perhaps) opinions that I disagree with.
    
    	Baloney, D!  I'm only responding to your attacks against feminism.
    	You can call yourself anything you like, as far as I am personally
    	concerned.

Responding to .136 and 1.33 (csc32::Conlon):
    
>    	If "X" is that you believe feminism has rules, then I contend that
>    	you have already shown that you believe it.  

X was that those rules specifically involve the position that certain
people "should" give up certain targets, etc...  (And I never questioned
your knowledge of logic...just listed it to be complete...I assumed it
was [1].)

>    	> However, I state that I believe that Jane Self-labeled Feminist
>	> would make the same statement, but not *really* believe it. 
    
>    	So, you're objecting to what you think goes on in feminists' minds,
>    	and not what we say.  Didn't know you were a mind-reader.

Yes, on what they say. *after* some discussion, and questions designed
to get around knee-jerk "Oh yes we support individual choice" responses.
I don't purport to read their minds.  I am saying that they feel this
way from things they said in discussion that went beyond the initial
response.  And on what they *do*, and how they treat other *people*, not
just on what they say, but certainly not mind-reading.
    
>    	Something about your note struck a cord in me, so I went back to
>    	read it again.  (It was the words you used in your description of
>    	a woman enslaving herself to a man.)
    
>    	Your description appalls some people because it was deliberately
>    	*meant* to be appalling.
 
Not at all.  Actually the wording I chose was roughly paraphrased from
a sample "slave contract" that appeared in the "Lesbian S&M Safety Guide"
by Diane Vera, combined with a couple other real-life slave contracts I
have seen.  Both people sign the contract, under the section that described
their part (Master or slave.)  The wording in the contracts (and thus in
my description) probably *would* be appalling to most people, but it is
meant to be exciting and sobering to people who choose to sign such a
contract.

>    	You like to describe things to people for the shock value, correct?

Actually, you figured me out, I do!  But only incidentally.  I might
deliberately include a particular example because I know it might shock
people more than some other examples I might choose, but I don't change 
the wording to produce that effect.
    
>    	So, now, you think that feminism and/or support for women's rights
>    	issues has become mainstream enough for you to rebel against.

I think that support for women's rights *is* mainstream, yes.  And I don't
rebel against women's rights...women's rights are one half of a cause I
actively support.  I am not convinced that "women's rights" is synonymous
with "Feminism" (as I have made clear).  And I am not sure whether Feminism
is mainstream or not.
    
>    	Ok, if that's what's happening, I can accept it.  (I went through my 
>    	own rebellion mode some years back myself.)

This sounds very condescending - I hope you didn't mean it that way.  I
resent the implication that my ideals are "just a phase I am going through".
That would imply that my feelings are just a knee-jerk response to the
presence of a percieved "authority".  They aren't.  They may change, with
more information or more thought or more time, but a lot of information,
thought and time has already gone into them.
    
>    	However, I think you are mistaken about how "mainstream" support
>    	for women's rights issues are.  

Perhaps. It is certainly mainstream to *talk* in support of women's rights.
And as you say, the women's rights movement has been losing ground of
late, so one can only assume that either of lot of people just talk, but
don't really believe, or they believe they are for "women's rights" and
just disagree with The Movement as to exactly what those rights entail.
I still haven't seen any of this "heat" people keep describing.  Maybe
some people really don't think women should have the same rights as men,
but those opinions are "politically incorrect" and therefore most people
holding them keep them, and any "heat" they might otherwise reap upon
Feminists, to themselves.  (In my experience.)

D!

    	RE: .137  D_Carroll
    
    	>> So, you're objecting to what you think goes on in feminists' minds,
	>> and not what we say.  Didn't know you were a mind-reader.

	> Yes, on what they say. *after* some discussion, and questions designed
	> to get around knee-jerk "Oh yes we support individual choice" 
    	> responses.
    
    	In other words, you had to do some digging - until you reached the 
    	level of people's personal convictions/opinions about lifestyles, and 
    	you found something worth attacking.
    
    	That's sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy on your part (as if you'd
    	made up your mind ahead of time.)
    
	> I am saying that they feel this way from things they said in 
    	> discussion that went beyond the initial response.  
    
    	Again, it sounds to me like you were looking for this disagreement
    	(by probing their *feelings* and then reacting negatively towards
    	them.)
    
    	> This sounds very condescending - I hope you didn't mean it that way.
    
    	No, I didn't mean it to sound condescending.  I appreciate your giving
    	me the benefit of the doubt about it.
    
    	> And as you say, the women's rights movement has been losing ground 
    	> of late, so one can only assume that either of lot of people just 
    	> talk, but don't really believe, or they believe they are for 
    	> "women's rights" and just disagree with The Movement as to exactly 
    	> what those rights entail.
    
    	Actually, the women's movement *itself* has never been stronger than
    	it is right now (in my opinion.)
    
    	We are in danger of losing rights as the result of a direct assault
    	on our rights by groups that have other philosophical/religious
    	reasons for wanting to see women pushed back where they think we
    	belong.
    
    	However, we *are* in the process of fighting back now, which is one
    	of the reasons why women's rights issues are so high in priority to
    	many, many people right now.

 re: Peggy

 Who are the real feminists?

 Well, you are one. Maggie, Mez, Suzanne, Catherine, Ellen, Liz, Anne-Marie,
Bonnie, -jeez, I know there are alot more, but I have a mental block right now.
I can think of several people on this list that would undoubtedly have one of
two reactions to a claim that I was a feminist: they'd either become angry or
they'd burst out laughing. Perhaps both.

 The Doctah

    
    re:.115
    thank you for entering that!
    

    
    re: many previous
    
    it seems to me that one of ms. carroll's points is that 'the choice
    to be a slave' would be rejected out of hand by most feminists (if
    i've got it wrong, feel free to skip to the next note). i should think 
    any normal rules of philosophical/logical discourse would throw out
    such a point as a meaningless paradox. what, after all, is the sense
    of having the choice to not have a choice?
    
    re:.139
    
    mark, i *am* hurt that you did not include me as a feminist!
     

    re joe-
    
     Don't take it so hard...
    
     I am still having some trouble dealing with the notion of men being
    feminists to the degree of women, but I coming along. I think I'd put
    you down as a feminist, DougO for sure, and a number of others...
    
     And Peggy even said (at the gathering in your honor) that she would
    reserve judgement if I claimed I were a feminist until after she saw
    what I did (this was indeed after the knife was returned to the table).
    I really expected her to reject the notion out of hand (or pick the
    knife back up) or laugh or something!!! 
    
     Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
    
     The Doctah

    Mark, I have found that there are many ways to get a woman to laugh at
    me (using my name and the word "sexy" in the same sentence is usually
    guaranteed to cause a woman to roar hysterically, for example), so I
    wouldn't worry about the possible reactions from women if you describe
    yourself as a feminist.  This does raise the question, though, of how
    most female feminists feel about men in general applying the feminist
    label to themselves.

    In an earlier discussion in this topic, I was assured that my genitals
    would not disqualify me from considering myself a feminist; and
    although my genitals are certainly grateful to hear this, the rest of
    me is still a bit wary.  But no matter.  You being among the famous
    noters (or should I say "notahs"?), your views tend to speak for
    themselves; the rest of us, who are more or less unknown, have no
    reputation to either uphold or refute.  So if I deny being a feminist
    today, perhaps tomorrow I can say the opposite and no one will be the
    wiser.  Alas, you have not been so blessed, and hence the knife.  I
    won't even ask where the knife was specifically pointing.

    -- Mike

>    Mark, I have found that there are many ways to get a woman to laugh at
>    me (using my name and the word "sexy" in the same sentence is usually
>    guaranteed to cause a woman to roar hysterically, for example),
    
    Yeah, that usually works for me, too. :-)
    
>So if I deny being a feminist
>    today, perhaps tomorrow I can say the opposite and no one will be the
>    wiser.
    
    I guess there is something to be said for being quiet (not sure what it
    is though). ;-)
    
>Alas, you have not been so blessed, and hence the knife.  I
>    won't even ask where the knife was specifically pointing. 
    
    Fortunately, Peggy was being kind. She only pointed at my heart/neck.
    (Heart being in my throat, it was a strategic spot.) :-)
    
    The Doctah

    	After what happened in Montreal, I guess no one needs to ask
    	"where's the heat" against feminists anymore.  We all *know* where 
    	the heat is now.
    
    	If it's going to be physically dangerous in our culture to be a
    	feminist, I will raise my own voice that much louder (and will
    	claim the label more publicly and more often.)
    
    	I'm also going to be taking gun safety instruction in the next
    	couple of months.  

Re:               <<< Note 178.145 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>
    
>>    	I'm also going to be taking gun safety instruction in the next
>>    	couple of months.  

    Caswell's (one of the two ranges here in the Springs) runs an excellent
    firearms training session for women. I don't know when the next class
    is, though. Their phone number is 597-3202.
    
    If you're just interested in safety and seeing what it's like to shoot
    (not knowing your level of experience) I'd be more than happy to
    introduce you to firearms some Friday after work at Caswell's.
    
                                      Roak
    
    Ps.  I'm in an all day, all-week project review this week which is why
         I havn't gotten back to you.

    	RE: .146  Roak
    
    	Thanks for the offer, but my SO (who also happens to be self-
    	proclaimed feminist) is going to spend time familiarizing me
    	with his collection of firearms, as well as instruction on
    	gun safety.
    
    	

    Good!  Have you read Paxton Quigley's (spelling) "Armed and Female"?
    
    If not, I'd recommend it.
    
                            Roak

    Its really interesting how there are such widely varying opinions of
    what a "feminist" is.  I got to see the "hate mail" that Worcester NOW
    has received in the past few weeks (only about 3-4 pieces) and am
    incredulous as to how prejudiced people are.  In almost every piece
    feminists were stereotyped (as if this was all negative) as lesbian,
    jew-loving, atheist baby killers.  The underlying negativeness was
    really scary.  Not to mention deranged ... one had somewhat incoherent
    jokes about Barney Frank liberally peppered through it.

Well gosh, I _do_ love my Jewish friends (particularly my 'brother', who's
moving to LA on Xmas day...).
	Mez

    >were  stereotyped as....jew-loving atheist(s)
    
    Strange juxtaposition, that. 
    
    

    Is it really a surprise that there are anti-feminists in this world? 
    I'm having a lot of difficulty reading the current notes in 892.* 
    since simply acknowledging the existence of such people has caused a
    McCarthy-esque inquisition on the poor noter who suggested that such
    exist.  Now she's being accused of "promoting" their cause.  Horse
    manure!
    
    They exist, and they will continue to exist.  There, now, accuse me of
    promoting their cause.
    
    disappointed,
    Marge

I had to smile wryly when I heard on woman on the NPR series on Women
and Guns say that, "I not a feminist but I think women should feel
safe."  Thanks to this discussion I certainly have become much more
aware of some of women's thoughts and feelings on this issue.  I think
alot of this is that people equate feminism with some of the more
radical feminists and specifically also to stereotypes of the above. 
Personally, I think the people who note here agree with the basic
issues around women's equality with men much more that you would think
from reading some of the discussions.

I feel that it is important to acknowledge some of feelings that
radical feminists have and I'm sure many have been brutalized and
suppressed by men for a long time.  Some women (and I've met them)
just don't want to deal with men and I have to respect their wishes
and have enough self-security to realize that is it not a reflection
on me personally.  I'm not going to help angry people but telling
them they shouldn't be angry.  What I will try and do is live my life
the best I can and truly treat women with love and respect as 100%
human beings just like myself and try and be aware of the conditioning
in myself that sometimes gets in the way of living this way.

I do worry and have concerns that when you start making up ideologies
from a position of anger and hatred (however justified)   and live
separately that balance can be lost and groups can start becoming like
the groups they are revolting against.  So I wonder if a lot of the
backlash results from these reasons.  When this kind of backlash stuff
occurs, I try and go back to the core issues.  How are women being
treated, how is society doing, how I am doing with respect to these
issues?

    I heard the same radio story ... her comment about "I'm not a feminist
    but..." was really marked.  Maybe we should have sub-classes of
    feminism (ahhh, dare I say, object-oriented feminism? ;^), where
    feminist is the basic definition (equality for women) and you have
    variants like feminist-activists, radical feminists, left-handed
    radical feminists etc.

    	RE: .152  Marge
    
    	> Is it really a surprise that there are anti-feminists in this world? 
    
    	No, it's no surprise at all, which means that it hardly makes sense
    	to insist on reminding people about it in notes that were written
    	to memorialize those who died at the hands of a man who was targeting
    	feminists specifically.
    
    	> I'm having a lot of difficulty reading the current notes in 892.* 
    	> since simply acknowledging the existence of such people has caused a
    	> McCarthy-esque inquisition on the poor noter who suggested that such
    	> exist. 
    
    	Speculating on the thoughts of anti-feminists in such explicite
    	detail (with strings of insults in QUOTES, for example) amounts to a 
    	heck of a lot *more* than the mere acknowledgement of their existence.
    
    	> Now she's being accused of "promoting" their cause.  Horse
    	> manure!
    
    	Talking *about* anti-feminists is one thing, but using their *own*
    	*words* *repeatedly* amounts to promoting their messages, in my
    	book.  My opinion on this is every bit as valid as yours.
    
    	> They exist, and they will continue to exist.  There, now, accuse me 
    	> of promoting their cause.
    
    	You didn't repeat their views (in quotes or otherwise,) so all I can
    	do is to assert that you unfairly represented my position in 892.*
    	(and to request that you not continue to paraphrase my viewpoint until
    	you understand it.)
    
    	> disappointed
    
    	So am I.  Deeply disappointed.

    Unfairly representing someone's viewpoint without fully understanding
    it is certainly a problem, if such exists.  I believe that is what the
    argument has been about in 892, and the reason for the repetition.
    
    regards,
    Marge

    	RE: .156  Marge
    
    	> Unfairly representing someone's viewpoint without fully understanding
    	> it is certainly a problem, if such exists.  I believe that is what the
    	> argument has been about in 892, and the reason for the repetition.
    
    	The repetition (and citations regarding such repetition) occurred
    	after one person cited an opinion (about what anti-feminists might
    	think) and others simply responded by voicing alternate opinions.
    
    	If the original person had simply allowed people to voice their
    	alternate *opinions* without arguing back about them, other noters
    	would have been less likely to start their own elaborate recitations
    	using the exact words they speculated that anti-feminists would use
    	(while denying that they felt this way themselves.)
    
    	In any event, the expression of anti-feminist viewpoints that AGREE
    	with those of the person who killed 14 women in Montreal was *hardly*
    	appropriate in a topic set up to memorialize those women (whether
    	the person expressing the viewpoints happened to ascribe to them or 
    	not.)
    
    	That was the whole point of my protest.

    
>    	In any event, the expression of anti-feminist viewpoints that AGREE
>    	with those of the person who killed 14 women in Montreal was *hardly*
>    	appropriate in a topic set up to memorialize those women (whether
>    	the person expressing the viewpoints happened to ascribe to them or 
>    	not.)


	 I don't believe 892 was set up to memorialize anyone, but
	 rather to DISCUSS the incident.

	 If you wanted a memorial only note, you could have started
	 one....(placing SRO somewhere in the title).

	 As for the rest of this, I finished discussing this two days
	 ago, and I'm not going to be egged into carrying on about it.

	 To those that have supported me off-line and understood my
	 point, thank you.

	 kath

    	RE: .159  Kath
    
    	> I don't believe 892 was set up to memorialize anyone, but
	> rather to DISCUSS the incident.
    
    	Is this supposed to be some kind of justification for the blatant
    	disregard for those who wished to express their grief and outrage
    	at the murders of 14 women (without hearing the views of their
    	murderer spelled out in explicit detail over and over)?
    
    	> If you wanted a memorial only note, you could have started
	> one....(placing SRO somewhere in the title).
    
    	When this started, it never occurred to me that some people would
    	use the note as an opportunity to express sentiments that would amount 
    	to gloating over this tragedy (whether they ascribe to these sentiments
    	or not.)  
    
    	I can still barely believe it now.
    
    	> As for the rest of this, I finished discussing this two days
	> ago, and I'm not going to be egged into carrying on about it.
    
    	Good.
    
    	> To those that have supported me off-line and understood my
	> point, thank you.
    
    	Thanks to those who understood and supported my position off-line,
    	too.
    
    						    Suzanne ...

    	RE: .160 Suzanne

    
>    	When this started, it never occurred to me that some people would
>    	use the note as an opportunity to express sentiments that would amount 
>    	to gloating over this tragedy (whether they ascribe to these sentiments
>    	or not.)  


         Suzanne, if you are going to make accusations (ie, gloating
         over this tragedy) then I expect you to back up those
         accusations with proof.  You're grossly misrepresenting me as
         well as others and that could be easily interpreted as
         slander in my book.

	 If you are going to accuse, then back up your accusations or shut
	 up.


	 kathy
	    

    	RE: .161  Kath
    
    	Every time I state that anti-feminist views were *expressed*, I try 
    	to be exceptionally careful to *also* state that the persons who wrote 
    	the notes did not (or did not necessarily) ascribe to those views them-
    	selves.  From my perspective, your personal beliefs are not the issue!
    
    	You even *quoted* one of my disclaimers in your last note, although
    	you consistently fail to comprehend what it means.
    
    	> Suzanne, if you are going to make accusations (ie, gloating over 
    	> this tragedy) then I expect you to back up those accusations with 
    	> proof.
    
    	What I said was that viewpoints were expressed that *amounted* to
    	gloating over this tragedy (although the persons who expressed those
    	viewpoints indicated that they did not ascribe to the viewpoints
    	themselves.)
    
    	Before you go non-linear about this, Kath, stop and think what
    	that means.  It means that I objected to the EXPRESSION of these
    	viewpoints in the topic where they were first entered (and I can 
    	*definitely* provide proof that statements were made that, in my 
    	opinion, *amounted* to gloating.)
    
    	That's not an accusation.  It's my *opinion* about statements that
    	were written in 888 (and subsequently moved to 892) as a matter of
    	record.
    
    	> You're grossly misrepresenting me as well as others and that could 
    	> be easily interpreted as slander in my book.
    
    	You don't know much about slander, obviously, and you still fail to
    	comprehend my words.
    
    	> If you are going to accuse, then back up your accusations or shut
	> up.
    
    	My statements are not accusations.  They are opinions about statements
    	that are a matter of record.
    
    	"...or shut up"???  Is this another example of how you don't note
    	while angry (as you mentioned earlier in this very string)?

>              <<< Note 178.162 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>

>             -< I thought you said you were finished with this... >-

	 Well, it seems you want the last word, and I don't want to
	 give it to you.
	 
>    	> Suzanne, if you are going to make accusations (ie, gloating over 
>    	> this tragedy) then I expect you to back up those accusations with 
>    	> proof.
>    
>    	What I said was that viewpoints were expressed that *amounted* to
>    	gloating over this tragedy (although the persons who expressed those
>    	viewpoints indicated that they did not ascribe to the viewpoints
>    	themselves.)

	 In YOUR MIND, Suzanne, it "amounted to gloating".  You did
	 not state that as your opinion, Suzanne, you stated it like
	 it was very plain that everyone knew that I was gloating over
	 this.

	 If you're going to make statements like that, then you better
	 make it VERY APPARENT that you're stating your opinion.  The
	 implications of your statement against me (and others) are
	 staggering.

	 BTW...I FULLY comprehend your statements.  You're just not
	 doing a good job of getting them across.  Your accusatory and
	 condemning in expressing your comments and that is not
	 appreciated.  You're making me and others seem like fools,
	 and twisting the meanings of what we say to your own benefit.

	 	    
>    	You don't know much about slander, obviously, and you still fail to
>    	comprehend my words.

	 Used the wrong word, sorry (I'm not much up on legal terms,
	 but I knew there was one to fit your note).  Thanks
	 Marge.....I believe "libel" is the word I was looking for.
	    
>    	My statements are not accusations.  They are opinions about statements
>    	that are a matter of record.

	 Sure didn't look like it to me (nor to the 4 people that
	 commented on your note off-line within 10 minutes of you
	 entering it).
	 
>    	"...or shut up"???  Is this another example of how you don't note
>    	while angry (as you mentioned earlier in this very string)?

	 None of us are infallible.  Yes, I'm angry, no....I take that
	 back, I'm LIVID with anger!  The restraint I've shown so far
	 has been about as much as I can handle and I won't restrain
	 much longer.

	 kath

    	RE: .163  Marge
    
    	>  -< Suzanne's correct.  It's libel.  >-
    
    	You're correct in noting the difference between slander and libel,
    	but I defy you to prove that my statements (regardless of your
    	*assumptions* about my statements) amount to libel, either.
    
    	If I were to cite statements from a KKK brochure, stating that the
    	views were not my own, I could well be accused of specifically
    	expressing (eg, writing) the racist views of others.
    
    	Were I to repeatedly express these views (in explicit detail) in
    	a note about racist murders (*in spite* of the protestations of
    	those who were both outraged and griefstriken by those murders,)
    	I could well have my sense of taste and decorum questioned.
    
    	If some of my statements included speculations about what words
    	the KKK would use to blame the Civil Rights movement for the murders
    	of African Americans (who were killed while being *called* Civil
    	Rights workers,) it could be said that the statements themselves
    	amounted to gloating (whether they were my personal beliefs or not.)
    
    	Saying that certain "statements" amount to gloating is not the same
    	thing as saying that certain individuals (who *wrote* those statements
    	without *believing* the statements themselves) were actually *doing*
    	the gloating.
    
    	My accusations are only about the nature of the statements, and not
    	about the beliefs of those who made them.
    
    	There *is* a difference between the two.

    	RE: .164  Kath
    
    	> Well, it seems you want the last word, and I don't want to
	> give it to you.
	 
    	Thanks for the insight into your character, Kath.
    
    	> In YOUR MIND, Suzanne, it "amounted to gloating".  You did
	> not state that as your opinion, Suzanne, you stated it like
	> it was very plain that everyone knew that I was gloating over
	> this.
    
    	Kath, I was careful with the wording I used to make my statements
    	(and I *always* indicated that the statements "amounted to gloating")
    	which is not the same thing as saying, "You gloated."
    
    	Your level of reading comprehension when you read my notes is not
    	my responsibility, except when it comes to correcting your errors,	
    	which I have every right to do.
    
    	> If you're going to make statements like that, then you better
	> make it VERY APPARENT that you're stating your opinion. 
    
    	You should assume that I'm stating my opinion unless declared
    	otherwise (and keep in mind the *difference* between a statement
    	of fact and an opinion.)
    
    	> Yes, I'm angry, no....I take that back, I'm LIVID with anger!  
    	> The restraint I've shown so far has been about as much as I can 
    	> handle and I won't restrain much longer.
    
    	Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?

    Suzanne, I don't claim to be a lawyer, nor do I play one on television,
    but I can very easily tell when you're dumping on someone.  You've
    systematically dumped on Kath Gallup for the past few days.  She has
    systematically defended herself, and you've turned that against her by
    saying she's being repetitious in her statements.  
    
    Please reconsider this continued harangue; you're not helping the 
    feminist cause one iota.
    
    The foregoing is my personal opinion, and therefore not subject to
    dispute.
    
    Marge

    	RE: .167  Marge
    
    	> You've systematically dumped on Kath Gallup for the past few days.  
    	> She has systematically defended herself... 
    
    	The argument finished days ago, until you felt the need to bring
    	it up in this topic with a gross misrepresentation of *my* views 
    	(calling them "horse manure," if you recall.)
    
    	Had you not felt the need to dredge all this up again, it would
    	not have been subject to discussion in the conference again on
    	this particular day (at least, not with regard to the exchanges
    	that took place several days ago in topic 888.)
    
    	Had it been my intention to systematically dump on Kath, I would
    	hardly have waited for you to provide the opportunity for me (when
    	there are so many other topics here with responses from Kath.)

Kath and Suzanne, please take discussions of what each of you meant in
particular notes, particularly in response to comments made by the other, 
off-line. My guess is most of the rest of the community have formed an opinion.
	Mez

    And, may I add, that future arguments of a similar ilk (unpleasantly
    provoking shots back and forth, back and forth) that generate much heat
    and little or no light may (I say *may* not *will*) be removed from the
    file under the trashnotes policy. 
    
    -Jody
    

	 RE: .169 (eagles)
	 
>    it as an attempt to communicate how at least one male feels about
>    watching this fighting between two supposedly feminist writers...


         	 Ah, eagles....but I'm not a Feminist!  ;-)


	 k

    	RE: .167  Marge
    
    	> you're not helping the feminist cause one iota.
    
    	The "feminist cause" is equal rights, not the self-perpetuation
    	of feminism or feminists (and certainly not the promotion of
    	feminist individuals for their own sakes.)
    
    	If we could realize the goal of complete equality (for women and
    	men) tomorrow, I'd be only too happy to see the movement disband 
    	for lack of work left to do (leaving us free to join together for
    	other work yet to be accomplished.)
    
    	Meanwhile, I am an individual human woman, with my own unique voice,
    	who also happens to be a feminist.
    
    	Those individuals who are rabid anti-feminists and/OR outspoken self-
    	declared non-feminists will find a way to discredit feminism whether
    	I ever open my mouth or not, so there's very little point in holding
    	back when it comes to discussing my opinions as an individual.
    
    	Disclaimer:  Not to suggest that we necessarily have any of the
    	anti- or non-feminists (referred to above) in this conference, of 
    	course.

    Thank you for those thoughts, Suzanne.  I do believe the feminist cause
    is equal rights, but I also believe it encompasses those strategies
    which help to achieve those rights.  I believe there's room for honest
    difference of opinion in that area, and I respect yours.
    
    regards,
    Marge

    Moved from a new topic into an existing topic.
    
    -Jody
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 899.0              What is a Feminist?  (capital F)              No replies
MILKWY::ZARLENGA "dumb luck? well, that counts too!"  6 lines  13-DEC-1989 20:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	What is a Feminist?

	What distinguishes a feminist from a Feminist?

-mike z

    	RE: .174 Suzanne
    
    
>    	Those individuals who are rabid anti-feminists and/OR outspoken self-
>    	declared non-feminists will find a way to discredit feminism whether
>    	I ever open my mouth or not, so there's very little point in holding
>    	back when it comes to discussing my opinions as an individual.


	 I can understand how an anti-feminist would wish to discredit
	 feminism, but I fail to see how a non-feminist would.

         Many non-feminists fight for feminism in very different ways
         than mainstream feminists...they just choose to not wear the
         label (for whatever reason).  That does not conversely mean
         that non-feminists don't respect the right of feminists to
         believe in what they want.

	 Or does it?

         Could you please expound (if you'd like to) on how a
         non-feminist can undermine feminism?

	 kath_curious

    Re: -.1
    
    Easy.  Every time someone says "but I'm not a feminist", that can't help
    but lead people to wonder "hmmm, must be something bad or wrong about
    being a feminist since this person made a point of saying they aren't
    one."  At least, that's been my own experience.
    
    So when you make such a big deal about how you're not a feminist (and
    I've come to really agree with you on that!) or that woman on NPR makes
    a point about it, then it implicitly says "I don't want to be
    associated with these people."  And by inheritance, their cause.  This
    isn't completely accurate, but I think its close.

    ... (RE: .178) 

    or maybe when they say they are not a feminist, its because they don't
    want to be associated with some of the ideas that seem to come from
    people who claim to be one.

    I will always say I am *not* a feminist...  (but then again, you and I
    have debated that issue more than once :-)....).. I am an individual
    with her own beliefs that may or may not overlap with what the feminist
    movement proclaims as their beliefs.

    Gale

    
    
    	D!,  you can add this to your list of stereotypes about
    	feminists (weren't you the one who wrote in an earlier
    	note that stereotypical Feminists were unshaven, lonely,
    	can't-get-a-man, etc... ?) : 
                                                             
    	      |    Feminists have seven rows of teeth.   |
                                                    
    							nancy b.
                                                          
    	{hmmm... maybe that's why =maggie chews glass so well ;-}

>    	      |    Feminists have seven rows of teeth.   |
    
    Yowsa! Sounds like a shark.
    
     The Doctah

    Back from the project review.  I apologize for missing out on the
    continuing debate. :-)

    In my opinion Suzanne hobbles herself and lessens her effectiveness as
    a spokesperson for feminism.  Why?

    To promote any philosophy, you *must* know and understand your
    opponent.  If you fear loosing yourself in their rationale by studying
    it, you obviously aren't as decided on the philosophy as you thought.

    I can effectively drive a stake through most (but not all) *PRO-GUN*
    arguments.  I probably know more of the HCI (Handgun Control, Inc.)
    party line than most HCI members know.  The same for many of my
    friends.  We get together, I or someone else takes an anti-gun stance;
    we argue.  We shoot at one another (just kidding).

    The bottom line: We hone our arguments to a razor edge.  If we come up
    against a reasoning individual, we can parry every one of their
    thrusts, counter every argument.  All because we *study* their stance.
    We actually put ourselves in their mindset for the exercise.

    If you're not willing to do that, if you want to hear SRO responses to
    feminism only, then you're not willing to do everything you can to
    further your philosophy.

    Perhaps 888 and the other note were not the places for such a
    discussion, but I see the same old "I don't want to hear about it"
    responses here, too...

    Know your opponent.  If you fear their philosophy, or hearing their
    reasoning, they've already won and you might as well give up now...

                           Roak

    Disclaimer:  Note I said "The People" and "Their" not "Me" and "My."

    	RE: .177  Kath
    
    	This is a rough question to answer without stepping on anyone's
    	toes.  Suffice it to say that my answers are not meant to insult
    	anyone (and are not geared toward *ANY* particular individual
    	at all, but merely a number of people I've seen over the *MANY*
    	years I've been in Notes.)
    
    	In other words, Kath, this is *NOT* about you or any other person
    	in Womannotes in particular.
    
    	> I can understand how an anti-feminist would wish to discredit
	> feminism, but I fail to see how a non-feminist would.
    
    	Well, it depends on how one defines "anti-feminist" versus "non-
    	feminist," I suppose.  My basic definitions for both of them
    	are as follows - an anti-feminist is one who fights feminism tooth
    	and nail at every opportunity (and may or may not actually state
    	that s/he is anti-feminist,) while a non-feminist is one who *may*
    	or may *not* fight feminism tooth and nail at every opportunity (but 
    	sometimes vigorously declares her/himself a non-feminist.)
    
    	My ideal definition for non-feminist is one who remains fairly
    	neutral during discussions of whether one is or is not a feminist
    	(and supports the movement without actually claiming the title
    	for her/himself.)
    
    	What I often see, however, is that some non-feminists will fight
    	feminism (eg, disagree with nearly every word some feminists say)
    	and yet, are also willing to fight to the death to claim the label
    	NON-feminist rather than anti-feminist.
    
    	Believing as I do that people should be allowed to claim their
    	own labels, I must agree that if someone says s/he is a NON-
    	feminist and not an ANTI-feminist, s/he has a right to her/his
    	choice of label.  Thus, my definition of non-feminist has had
    	to become inclusive of some who actively fight feminism.
    
    	> Many non-feminists fight for feminism in very different ways
        > than mainstream feminists...they just choose to not wear the
        > label (for whatever reason).  That does not conversely mean
        > that non-feminists don't respect the right of feminists to
        > believe in what they want.
    
    	If someone were to fight *for* feminism, and simply choose not
    	to carry the label, then it would seem that their energies should
    	be turned *more* toward fighting sexism, etc. and *not* on fighting
    	feminism and feminists.
    
    	However, I *sometimes* see self-declared non-feminists put *all*
    	associated visible energies into only fighting feminists, without
    	*any* visible energy being spent towards fighting *for* feminism in
    	other ways.
    
    	> Could you please expound (if you'd like to) on how a
        > non-feminist can undermine feminism?
    
    	When feminists and non-feminists fight each other, we have much
    	less energy to fight for women's rights, so we all lose (and the
    	enemies of women everywhere rejoice!)
    
    	That explains why so few feminists are actually willing to argue
    	with non-feminists (and very, very, very few are willing.)  The
    	only reason I tend to do it myself (often against my better
    	judgment) is because I do it during my "off" hours while doing
    	other things around the house (and it tends to energize me for
    	other kinds of activities.)
    
    	We all need to remember that we are on the same side in this
    	fight (for our rights) - our differences are quite small compared
    	to those we have with the forces that are trying to keep us from
    	having equal rights.
    
    						    Peace,
    						      Suzanne ...

>    In my opinion Suzanne hobbles herself and lessens her effectiveness as
>    a spokesperson for feminism.  Why?
    
    I think Suzanne is very effective as a feminist spokesperson (;-)) most
    of the time. I don't consider her wishing to have SRO on a single topic
    to be ignoring her opponents. If she never wanted to hear opposing
    views; that would be one thing. But Suzanne is more than willing to
    entertain positions from her opponents. It is my opinion that she
    thrives on them. :-)
    
     The Doctah

>    	When feminists and non-feminists fight each other, we have much
>    	less energy to fight for women's rights, so we all lose (and the
>    	enemies of women everywhere rejoice!)

Hmmm. A fine lesson to be taken to heart by all combatants might be this:
if a battle is obviously non-productive, don't continue it. Leaving some
challanges unresponded-to might not taste as sweet, but the lasting effect
is better.

Pick a number - say, 3. (That's a high number; 2 is better.) If you've
written this number of responses in a particular rat-hole, and it hasn't
been resolved, just let it lie. I view this as taking the high ground,
rather than quitting a fight.

If the discussion is making more forward progress than just Brownian
motion, maybe the number is 4.

>    Here's the difference.  When someone brings up a point, she has on
>    several occasions attacked the messenger, rather than the concept and
>    accused the messenger of supporting the concept.

     I won't debate that. :-) (I haven't paid that much attention to the
    wars- kp3. :-)
    
    The Doctah

    	RE: .186  Roak
    
    	> I agree [that Suzanne is an effective feminist spokesperson at
    	> times.]
    
    	As I've said before, I'd like to make it very clear that I do not
    	consider myself a spokesperson for feminism (or anything else.)
    
    	I am an outspoken Digital noter who also happens to be both a woman
    	and a feminist.
    
    	The only real connection that my feminism has with my noting habits
    	(other than often being the *subject* of my notes) is the fact that
    	I absolutely refuse to buy into the idea that I should behave in any
    	certain way because I am a woman (*or* because I am a feminist.)
    
    	In another notesfile, someone chastised me for not being ladylike -
    	even suggesting that I should be both "spanked" and have my "mouth
    	washed out with soap" for daring to say the things I'd said in the 
	file (although the specific words of mine to which he objected had 
    	*often* been used by men in the same notesfile before me.)
    
    	I found it impossible to take seriously.  As long as *any* employees 
    	at Digital are allowed to speak openly in some notesfiles, women damn 
    	well better be allowed to be as open as men are.  There isn't a reason 
    	in the world why women should be required to follow special forms of 
    	etiquette in notes (that men are not required to follow) simply on the	
    	basis of being a woman.
    
    	Of course, being outspoken to that degree does not necessarily make
    	one a proper spokesperson for anyone else.  I only speak for myself
    	and my own perspective on women's issues. 
    
    	It's important for you to understand this when you read my notes.
    
 	> When someone brings up a point, [Suzanne] has on several occasions 
    	> attacked the messenger, rather than the concept and accused the 
    	> messenger of supporting the concept.
    
    	When it comes to being a "messenger" of bad news, there are certain
    	things that careful messengers should keep in mind.
    
    	If we were back in the times when "messengers" often *were* shot
    	(or attacked) for delivering bad news, I'm sure that the messengers'
    	employers would have offered the following advice to new employees:
    
    	     Rule 1:  If the news is bad, try to deliver it at a time when
    			the recipient isn't already in a very bad mood.
    			(Example:  If the message is from the recipient's
    			enemy, try not to deliver it during a memorial
    			service for the recipient's fallen comrades.)
    
    	     Rule 2:  If the news is not well received by the recipient,
    			take your tip and leave!  Under no circumstances
    			should you stay around to argue with the recipient
    			about what the message means (or try to get the
    			recipient to *like* having received it.)
    
    	     Rule 3:  Under no circumstances should you goad the recipient
    			with comments like "Oh, so now I suppose you'll SHOOT
    			me for bringing this when *I* didn't even write it!!"
    			The recipient *will* proceed to shoot you in that case.
    
    	> I agree [that Suzanne thrives on entertaining positions from her
    	> opponents.]
    
    	You betcha!  (The one exception is when there is a tragedy involved
    	and I feel that some statements from opponents are significantly less
    	than respectful under the circumstances.)
    
    						    Suzanne ...

>      	I am an outspoken Digital noter who also happens to be both a woman
>    	and a feminist.
    
      Seems that Suzanne is fond of understatement as well as exaggeration.
    :-) :-)
    
    The Doctah

Suzanne, I reject this idea of "non-feminism" being a label.  I started
using the term "nonfeminist" to describe myself in this note only after
I got bored of typing "someone who is not a feminist" (I come from the
Unix school of thought on number of keystrokes.)   The use of a label
(as I have said before) is in identifying members of a group where as a
member of that group, you can expect someone holding that label to have
certain idea/goals/etc.

"Nonfeminists" have no necessarily adopted a cause or group.  They don't
necessarily identify with other people who claim they are "not feminists".
They don't necessarily have any common ideas.  You can't simply remove
a subgroup X from a population and then label all the remaining people
non-X.  While it is true that they are non-X, using that as a *label*
implies some sort of *community* associated with not being an X.  And it
ain't necessarily so.

I said I rejected the label "Feminist" because I found that I did not
share a sense of community with those carrying that label.  Therefore
I am a "non-feminist", but that doesn't mean I share any sense of community
with those who aren't feminist, either.

The problem is that in the *logical* world it makes perfect sense to group
everything into two categories, those that meet some criteria and those
that don't.  But in discussion, that *doesn't* make sense, because the
aplication of a label implies that the people sharing that label share a
*cause*.

Your assertion that there are three groups, anti-feminist, non-feminists 
and feminists, doesn't make any sense.  "Non-feminist" is simply short
hand for "someone who is not a feminist".  Clearly Anti-Feminists aren't
feminists, and are therefore a subcategory of non-feminists.  I don't
associate with them, and do not share their goals and ideas, in general.

You can't stick a label on me simply because i refuse to wear some other
label.

Furthermore, on this idea that "non-Feminists" loudly proclaim their
non-feminism, or that they must think there is something "wrong" with
Feminism or they wouldn't go out of their way to state that they aren't
Feminists (as Jim Mackin suggested), that isn't necessarily true
either.  I, for one, don't "loudly proclaim it" nor even go out of my
way to announce it.  In fact, I only discuss it when it comes up in
conversation, someone asks me, or it somehow become relevent.  I brought
it up here because the conversation turned to "Who is a feminist?" and
people referring to this as a "Feminist notesfile" etc.  Were it not
the subject of conversation, I wouldn't have mentioned it, any more than
I would mention that I do *not* own a Jaguar, unless someone started a
conversation on "Who here owns jaguars?" or "I think there are only
Jaguar-owners in this file" or something along those lines.  IN such a
situation, would you claim that the non-Jaguar owner thinks there is
something "wrong" with being a Jaguar owner because they brought it up
the fact that they didn't own one in conversation?

And, using the same analogy, would you apply a label and refer to 
"non Jaguar owners" as a group?  It would be absurd to assume that everyone
who does *not* own a Jaguar has some common motive.

I think the use of 'non-Feminist' as a *label* (one that carries implications
of commonality/groupness) reinforces the "IF you are with us you are against
us" idea.

D!

    	RE: .190  D!
    
    	> Suzanne, I reject this idea of "non-feminism" being a label.  I 
    	> started using the term "nonfeminist" to describe myself in this note 
    	> only after I got bored of typing "someone who is not a feminist"...
    
    	No problem, D!  Sort this out in whatever way makes you most
    	comfortable for yourself, honestly.
    
    	> Your assertion that there are three groups, anti-feminist, 
    	> non-feminists and feminists, doesn't make any sense. 
    
    	That wasn't my assertion.  I mentioned these three labels (or whatever
    	we choose to call them) and was asked for some clarification, which
    	I then gave.
    
    	It was never my intention to divide up all human beings into one
    	of these three categories.
    
    	> You can't stick a label on me simply because i refuse to wear 
    	> some other label.
    
    	D!, I've made it more than clear that I allow people to assign (or
    	*not* assign) labels for themselves. 
    
    	> I think the use of 'non-Feminist' as a *label* (one that carries 
    	> implications of commonality/groupness) reinforces the "IF you
    	> are[n't] with us you are against us" idea.
    
    	You might want to discuss this with those who *have* claimed this
    	label, since it wasn't the idea of the feminists here to promote
    	this.  As you mentioned earlier in your note, it sprang (originally)
    	from those who did not wish to call themselves feminists.  
    
    	As for me, I accepted the non-feminist label out of courtesy to those 
    	who wished to claim it.  If you don't claim *any* labels for yourself
    	- I don't have a problem with it.  It's your choice.
    
    						    Suzanne ...

	 On thing I'd like to touch on that D! mentioned that I don't
	 believe Suzanne commented on is this "Non-feminist Agenda."

	 Non-feminists come in all shapes and sizes and beliefs and
	 actions.....I can't agree with the statement that "an
	 outspoken nonfeminist can work against feminism."  This would
	 imply that nonfeminists have an agenda.....a cause.

	 Everyone that chooses to not be called a feminist, yet does
	 not align against feminism (Antifeminists), has their OWN
	 agenda.  There is no common ground, no common agenda, for these
	 people.

	 It's hard to say what a nonfeminist will do or not do.  A
	 nonfeminist has their own goals....not the goals of a
	 group...  I believe a person out to undermine the feminist
	 movement would have to be called an antifeminist, not a
	 nonfeminist.

	 If there is no common ground, no common agenda, no common
	 cause for non-feminists, I don't see how they can be lumped
	 into a group.

	 I don't consider the word "non-feminist" to be a label,
	 because there is nothing in common between these people
	 beyond their desire to not be a feminist.  There is no common
	 reason for their desire to not be called a feminist.

	 kath

>	 Non-feminists come in all shapes and sizes and beliefs and
>	 actions.....I can't agree with the statement that "an
>	 outspoken nonfeminist can work against feminism."  
                               ^^^
	But you just said that:

>	 It's hard to say what a nonfeminist will do or not do.  

	In other words, they can in fact, on any day at any moment,
	do something that works against feminism.  Not to say they
	they *always* will or that they have a concious goal to
	work against feminism, but that they might.

	For example:
	I have a brother who I might describe as a non-feminist -- I
	think he wouldn't call himself either a feminist or an
	"anti-feminist".  He just doesn't really concern himself with
	it, for no malicious reasons.  He might on one day, conciously
	or not, do something for feminism -- for women's equal rights
	and respect -- and on the next day, he might do something against
	it.  

	My point is, someone who is not a feminist does not have a concious
	agenda to consistently work towards, in whatever fashion they choose,
	women's equal rights, and therefore may, unconciously or conciously,
	help *and/or* hurt the cause.

		MKV

p.s. This example is less complicated than the "Not-a-feminist-but.."
case, which does seem to imply there is something wrong with feminists
and then, by association, their cause -- at least that's the perception I
get when I hear the denial of a label but the theoretical embracing of 
the principle.

>    Now I know that 90% of
>    the feminists are not man-haters or sepratists but that's the image
>    that comes to mind when I think Feminist.

Another option is, if you embrace the principle, to help change
the inaccuracies of the image.  For the sake of furthering the 
principle that you believe in.

	MKV

    I messed up the string sequence by deleting and readding my note
    after there was a reply. sorry, but I wanted to add more.
    
<p.s. This example is less complicated than the "Not-a-feminist-but.."
<case, which does seem to imply there is something wrong with feminists
<and then, by association, their cause -- at least that's the perception I
<get when I hear the denial of a label but the theoretical embracing of 
<the principle.

    I've been thinking about this a lot over the past days. I'm one of
    the "not-exactly-a-feminist" crowd. I do have some problems with the
    feminist label because of extremists. My impressions are pretty much
    media driven since I've never personally met a "radical" feminist
    but I find I don't want to be in that group. Now I know that 90% of
    the feminists are not man-haters or sepratists but that's the image
    that comes to mind when I think Feminist.

    I feel more comfortable with the idea of humanist or equalist
    because they don't carry the rest of the baggage.

    It's been said somewhere in the discusssion that feminist is a
    powerful word and that's why it causes such a reaction. I'm not sure
    that can be changed at this date. Also, the fact (I believe) we
    have entered the 2nd stage of the struggle for equal rights means
    this is a good time for a new standard. If the 1st phase hadn't been
    fought I wouldn't have the job I have today, but the battle front
    has shifted and it's time for a change in tactics. We had to fight
    to get into the system. Now that we are there we need to work from
    within to make the next set of changes. liesl

        I'm for:
        
                Ignoring gender in business transactions
                Ignoring gender in discussing technical matters
                Ignoring gender in pay vs. performance reviews
                Ignoring gender in any professional issues
        
        I'm against:
        
                Ignoring gender in human interactions
        
        

>              <<< Note 178.194 by THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas" >>>


>	In other words, they can in fact, on any day at any moment,
>	do something that works against feminism.  Not to say they
>	they *always* will or that they have a concious goal to
>	work against feminism, but that they might.

	 Perhaps I should have said it more clearly (things have been
	 rushed lately).

	 Yes, you're right....in a way....I could even say that at
	 times feminists work against the feminist movement.  But that
	 some nonfeminists might, at times, work against the movement.
	 But that, at times, nonfeminists might, at times, work FOR
	 the movement.  There is no way to make generalizations about
	 nonfeminists for/against the movement because nonfeminists
	 don't have any cause like that in common.

	 I guess I just don't understand (still) what Suzanne means by
	 "an outspoken non-feminist".  I'm outspoken, and I'm a
	 non-feminist.  But the only time that has been brought up is
	 in this topic (ie, asking "who is a feminist?").  Yet, most
	 of my goals are parallel to feminists, so it can't reall be
	 said that I would work against the feminists.

	 I don't believe nonfeminists to have a common cause,
	 therefore it would be hard to say what a nonfeminist would do
	 to the feminist movement.  If they are not a feminist, yet
	 don't actively work against it, the determination could ONLY
	 be on an individual basis.
	 
>	My point is, someone who is not a feminist does not have a concious
>	agenda to consistently work towards, in whatever fashion they choose,
>	women's equal rights, and therefore may, unconciously or conciously,
>	help *and/or* hurt the cause.

	 Very true.

	 But a feminist could also unconciously help/hurt the cause as
	 well.  In fact, anti-feminists could actually do/say
	 something to help the cause as well.

	 I think it cannot be generalized at all, but rather taken on
	 a case-by-case, individual basis....it's not possible to
	 address it any other way with a non-feminist.

>case, which does seem to imply there is something wrong with feminists
>and then, by association, their cause -- at least that's the perception I
>get when I hear the denial of a label but the theoretical embracing of 
>the principle.

	 The feminist cause has certain things they fight for, that I
	 do not agree with for myself.   That does not mean the cause
	 is wrong or bad, but just rather that I don't align with it.

	 I think, though, you would have a hard time finding a place
	 where I 'condemn feminism' because of these things.  I would
	 support my position on those topics, but never address the
	 relationship between it and feminism.

	 A question here...would me supporting my position on a topic
	 that was contrary to the feminist movement, without
	 addressing the feminist connection be undermining the
	 feminist movement?

	 kath

>              <<< Note 178.196 by THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas" >>>

>Another option is, if you embrace the principle, to help change
>the inaccuracies of the image.  For the sake of furthering the 
>principle that you believe in.


	 But, the principle can be embraced, without the baggage the
	 label has, with just as much effectiveness.

	 Is it not possible to fight for the feminist cause without
	 EVER mentioning the word "feminist"?

	 kath

    
    	   Ahh, a really good semantic debate.  On the one hand,
    	we have the term "non-feminist," coined by a self-proclaimed
    	non-feminist and picked up by others for general use.  On
    	the other hand we have feminists, who view the term 
    	"non-feminist" as a label, no more or less meaningful 
    	than the generic label "feminist".
    
    	   Now, when that feminist seeks to define what the term
    	"non-feminist" means to her, the self-proclaimed non-feminist
    	says, "That's not what it means..." and proceeds to 
    	define the term "non-feminist" as "anyone who is not
    	a feminist," after having made several erroneous
    	assumptions (according to the feminist) about what it
    	means to be a feminist. 
    
    	   So, since we can clearly see that we may not define
    	the meanings of the labels others apply to themselves,
    	let's agree to stick to defining those labels as they
    	are defined by the users.
    
    		Feminist:	Anyone who supports equal rights
    				for women
    
    		Non-Feminist:	Anyone who is not a feminist, and
    				seeks to avoid affiliation with 
    				feminism
    
    	   Having established these definitions now, perhaps we can
    	move on to defining more labels, which allow for an even
    	greater degree of granularity of opinion.
    
    		Neo-feminist:	Anyone who thinks women should have
    				equal rights, but doesn't want to get
    				involved in the fight
    
    	        Non-concernist:	Anyone who is not a non-feminist, a
    				neo-feminist, or a feminist, and
    				believes it's time to forget all about it
    				and have another cup of tea
    
    	- Greg

    I like the idea of coining of new terms.  Some more possibilities
    include:
    
    	Faminist--one who supports equal rights for Ethiopian women.
    	Foaminist--one who supports equal rights for women with rabies.
    	Filminist--one who supports equal rights for movie actresses.
    	Flimflaminist--one who isn't a feminist, but tries to con others into
    		believing that they really are.
    	
    The list could go on, I'm sure.
    
    -- Mike

>    		Non-Feminist:	Anyone who is not a feminist, and
>    				seeks to avoid affiliation with 
>    				feminism
 
No.  Non-feminist is the logical compliment of feminist.  Someone who does
not fall into the feminist category.  Period.  (Either bcause he/she doesn't
wnt to, says she doesn't, others believe she doesn't whatever.)  It simply
refers to those outside the group, and says nothing about "avoidance".  

However, since y'all insist on treating the word "non-feminist" as a label
(complete with capitalization) I won't argue.  From now on I will use the
*phrase* "Someone who is not a feminist" to avoid any further confusion.

So my previous statements are now rephrased to "I am not a feminist".
Which is logically equivalent to "I am a non feminist", and *should*
be semantically equivalent, but isn't.

Oh well.

Also, on the issue of "avoiding affiliation with", please note that in 
general I will not avoid such affiliation.  If someone refers to me as
a feminist, in most contexts I won't argue.  The less the person knows
about feminism, or the more negative their image of feminism, the *less*
likely I am to argue that I don't fit their image.  Just about the only
time I bother to discuss the "Am I a feminist" issue is with Feminists.

Which goes to show that it is certainly not fear of being associated with
"man-hating glass-chewing plaid-wearing un-shaven lesbian Feminists", since
if that is the speaker's impression of Feminism, not only will I not reject
the label, I will most likely defend Feminism (if I think it's worth my
time...most people with images like that are too closed-minded for me to
bother.)

D! (Who just got a new workstation, and realizes that the 44-line terminal
    windows encourage her to write even *longer* notes, and therefore 
    apologizes to everyone for her lack of brevity.)

    The following article is reprinted without permission from the December
    18, 1989 Nashua Telegraph.  FYI - John


		'Feminist' moniker has fallen from favor
				by June Lemen

    Something sad is happening this month, something that I personally feel
    a stake in.  "Ms." magazine is being pulled off the shelves, and it
    will not reappear until spring, at which time it will be adless.  "Ms."
    will become a circulation-only magazine.  Magazines that stay alive
    without advertising are very rare - the only one I can think of off the
    top of my head is "Consumer Reports" - and I worry that "Ms." will not
    survive the transition.  And I want "Ms." to survive, not just because
    it was the first magazine to print anything by me, but because of what
    "Ms." is.  Or, as some people would argue, was.

    "Ms." is unique.  Not only is it one of the few magazines for women
    whose editorial message is not limited to recipes, hairstyle and makeup
    tips (not that I have anything against makeup tips, it's just that I
    can never complete those "How to Create a New Face in 10 Minutes with
    Blusher and 2 Q-Tips" articles in less than 45 minutes using heavy-duty
    power tools.)  "Ms." was also one of the first magazines to acknowledge
    that there are more kinds of women than housewives and six-figure,
    high-powered female execs.  And, of course, "Ms." was the magazine of
    the feminist movement.

    Feminist.  Now before all of you throw this paper down in disgust, I
    want to tell you what feminism is.  To be a feminist means that you
    advocate the social, political and economic equality of men and women. 
    (I didn't make it up - I got it straight out of the American Heritage
    Dictionary.)  Feminism says nothing about women being better than men,
    or about women taking anything away from men.  It makes no requirements
    on dress, or makeup, or whether or not someone wears a brassiere.  And
    this is why I get so furious when I hear a woman say, "I am not a
    feminist."

    My friend Michelle and I were talking about this recently.  It's bad
    enough when regular working women claim that they are not feminists,
    but she had heard someone quite prominent (whose name I do not care to
    mention) say that she was not a feminist.  Here is a famous woman, who
    gets paid large sums of money to do what she does, whose ability to get
    paid those large sums is based in large part upon the hard work of
    feminists who came before her, saying that she is not an advocate of
    women's equality.

    Why is it so frightening to be in favor of equality between men and
    women?  What is it that bothers us so?  I know that most people are
    frightened of things that are different from themselves, and let's face
    it, men and women differ.  (I would say Vive La Difference! myself, but
    I understand that not everyone feels that way.)  I mean, the idea of
    having men and women be equal under the Constitution is so threatening
    that we have not managed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  And
    that's all the Equal Rights Amendment says: that people's rights not be
    abridged under the law because of their sex.  It has nothing to do with
    who uses what bathrooms, no matter what Phyllis Schlafly says.

    If, as you read this article, you find yourself saying, "I don't care
    what SHE says, I am NOT a feminist," ask yourself what you really mean. 
    Do you really mean that you do not believe that you should have the
    same political, economic, and social rights as men?  If you do, you're
    right, you're no feminist.  But if that's not what you believe, please
    don't say it.  There's a whole generation of little girls out there
    listening.

    (June Lemen is a free-lance writer from Merrimack, NH.  Her column
    appears weekly in The Telegraph.)
    

    
    
    	Are there any women reading this file who 
    
    	1) are under age 25     and    2) will apply the term "feminist"
    	                                  (or "Feminist") to themselves?
    	
                                                            
    							nancy b.
    

    yes
    
    But I forget, I'm no longer *under* 25
    
    Manisha 25_and_feminist

    re .204:
    
    To get a good survey, Nancy, don't you need to also ask which
    women who are under 25 do *not* consider themselves [F/f]eminists?
    

    
    I've never used the term "Feminist" to describe myself because I never
    thought it necessary.
    
    Ever since I moved to NH in 10th grade, most of my friends and
    acquaintances have been male.  I was always more interested in what the
    guys were doing than the girls.  I always liked math and science, I
    liked to play with computers, I didn't like spending eight zillion
    years doing my hair,  I dress the way I want to dress, I don't wear 
    make-up.  Since I often did what the males were doing and hung out with
    them, instead of doing the traditional "feminine" things, I never found
    a need to use the term "feminist".  
    
    I personally don't like the term because I'd rather be judged on my
    actions and let people call me whatever they like rather than be
    labelled this or that.
    
    Lisa

	 RE: .207 (Lisa)
	 
>    I personally don't like the term because I'd rather be judged on my
>    actions and let people call me whatever they like rather than be
>    labelled this or that.


	 I like that, I agree.........


	 RE: .206 (Surveying all under 25 to get an accurate stat)

	 I think Nancy already knows that D! and I are under 25 and
	 don't wish to be labelled a f[F]eminist....I think she's just
	 doing a sanity-check! ;-)

	 kat

     Oh, and by the way, for what it's worth, etc......
    
    The guys that I hung out with (and still continue to hang out with),
    were not the "football jock, macho, preppie, 110% all-American stud"
    types.
    
    The one I hang out with were the ones that were somewhat different for
    some reason, maybe a little too interested in science, or not good
    looking enough, or listened to weird music, or dressed strange, or
    basically didn't fit the "popular guy" mold quite right.
    
    I still can't stand the "macho 110% male" types and if I mentioned the
    way I think about certain issues they'd probably think I was a
    feminist, but the men I hang out with these days would probably not use
    that term, they would probably just think that I was a smart woman who
    wants to be independant and able to support herself.
    
    Lisa

   For the record, I call myself a f/Feminist, and wear the label gladly
   and proudly.

	Sharon	

          re: .205 (Manisha Kher)

          >    But I forget, I'm no longer *under* 25

          Not sure why I picked 25.  Maybe because when I was back at Duke
          for Homecoming weekend this year, my female friends who graduated
          before me (now age 25) were all *much* more aware of feminist
          issues than we were while in college.  I was surprised to see
          this, because one is in med school, one is in law school, and one
          is in b school (i.e., they are all still in academia), and
          because 2 of them had previously stated very similar  objections
          to "feminists"/being called a feminist that I've heard here so
          frequently.


          re: .206 (Ellen Gugel)

          >   To get a good survey, Nancy, don't you need to also ask
          >   which women who are under 25 do *not* consider themselves
          >   [F/f]eminists?

          I didn't ask that because I didn't want those who fell in both
          categories of being feminist and under 25 to not reply due to all
          the initial replies that would have consisted of who is not a
          feminist and why (and I think I've heard about every reason
          imaginable now)...


          re: .208 (Kathy Gallup)

          >     I think Nancy already knows that D! and I are under 25 and
          >     don't wish to be labelled a f[F]eminist

          If I didn't know that by now, I think I would opt for a remedial
          course in reading comprehension.

          > ....I think she's just doing a sanity-check! ;-)

          That's part of it...

                                                            nancy b.

    Sigh, I feel like a traitor to womanhood because I don't feel
    comfortable calling myself a feminist. I feel I've lived my work
    life as a feminist (though at times I've had grave doubts about my
    ability) but not my personal life. At times I don't feel at all
    strong and able to handle "everything". I have strong views about
    several issues that don't seem to fit into what I think of as the
    feminist agenda.

    I feel lost between both sides. The dream has not materialized for
    me on either front. I tried to be the good wife and got dumped when
    I wasn't convienient anymore because I got tired of working two
    jobs. I don't want to live for my career and fight my way up the
    ladder just because it's there. I'm tired of being alone and yet I
    don't think I'll ever be able to be a wife again.

    There is no joy in growing older when each year you see the men
    around you gain value as they age while your value diminishes. After
    a while it seems pathetic to even try anymore. I'm tired of fighting
    and proving myself and having my failures somehow indicate how all
    women may fail. I don't want to be anyone's role model. I just want
    some happiness. liesl

    I guess I still qualify for under 25 (for a few more days at least) and
    I do call myself a feminist.  I do have a lot of friends my age who
    believe in the same things I do and still refuse to call themselves
    feminists. I don't agree with everything some feminists believe in and
    I'm sure there are many out there that don't hold the same exact
    beliefs I do - but realistically we are all not of the same mold.  I
    believe in the basic premise of equality and personally that's what I
    think makes a feminist.  Just because someone labels themselves a
    Republican does not mean they have to have all the same exact views as
    George Bush.  
    
    I also personally feel that if it were not for the feminist movement I
    wouldn't be where I am right now.  I feel I owe it to the feminist
    predecessors to call my self a feminist and I'm proud to be associated
    with them.                                  
    
    Suzanne
    
    P.S.  As a side note, because of this discussion I asked my husband if
    he would call himself a feminist and he answered yes.  So I asked why -
    "Because I believe in woman's equality."  I guess he doesn't read into
    the word feminist a lot of the garbage that other people do.

    
    	Hmmmm.
    
    	I'd rather be a Feminist than be under 25 any day of the week!
    
    	Carla (who believes experience bears wisdom)
    
    	P.S.  I don't mean to offend any pre-25 year-olds, I'm just very 
    	      glad that part of my life has passed.
    

	re .211 Nancy,

	> my female friends who graduated
        > before me (now age 25) were all *much* more aware of feminist
        > issues than we were while in college.  I was surprised to see
        > this, because one is in med school, one is in law school, and one
        > is in b school (i.e., they are all still in academia), and
        > because 2 of them had previously stated very similar  objections
        > to "feminists"/being called a feminist that I've heard here so
        > frequently.           

	Hmmm, this sounds familiar. When I was an undergrad, I did not call 
	myself a feminist. As I read through some of the reasons for 
	"why I'm not a feminist", I was saying to myself - this is exactly 
	what I thought a few years ago. I am not sure what has changed, or
	when and why I started calling myself a feminist. I think for me 
	it was simply a part of "growing up".

	It had nothing to do with getting into the "real world" and
	experiencing discrimination. I was still in school when I
	started calling myself a feminist. Most of my friends are still
	in school and I'm sure at least a couple of them would call
	themselves feminists now.  

	There were a few feminists in my school, mostly grad students, 
	and they often seemed like man-haters. They were not, but I 
	misinterpreted a lot of things they said. Then it was sometimes 
	more important to be accepted by the guys in my class, than to 
	stand up for my rights. ( I was in an engineering school with a 
	pathetic male:female ratio.) Now I'm a lot more comfortable about 
	myself and my values. Not as insecure as I was at 19.

        I have realized that feminists are after all human. (what a 
	concept!) That means that there is going to be a wide range of
	beliefs and I don't have to agree with everything that a feminist
	says. If some of us identify ourselves as feminists, maybe we
	can get together and do something for the equality of men and women.

	Manisha

    Sometimes a label is earned (as in "What a Brat," "She's a Real
    Saint," etc.), and sometimes it's claimed ("I'm a Democrat/Pro-Lifer/
    Whatever).           
    
    I claim to be a feminist. I hope I've earned the label.
    
    Kathy
    
    

    
    re:.216
    nicely put!
    

Herb Nichols in 930.20:  (not asking you to defend this, Herb, just using your
note as an example.)

>    I also think the MOVEMENT is perverted each time a woman suggests she
>    wants to fight in battle; 

Another example of "you aren't a *real* Feminist if..."

rhetorical question: if it's really true that Feminism is synonymous with 
advocating equality, how can it be true that advocating equality in some
specific area (combat, f'rinstance) is damaging to Feminism.

[To be fair, the "movement" Herb was referring to was "the women's movement".
If by the phrase he meant something other than the Feminist Movement, my
apologies.]

D!

>    Not sure whether in the minds of many 930.20 makes me more a chauvinist
>    or a feminist. :-)

One way or another, it is certainly sexist.  (As in, stating that one half
of the race is different and superior to the other.)

>    I had in mind more the Women's movement than the Feminist movement, 

Uh...please explain.  What is this "Woman's movement"?  Who's in it?  Who
started it?  What have they done?  How does it differ from Feminism?

D!

	re: 932.29 (Bonnie Randall)

	>    And needing men in this sense means that "rejecting the
	>    patriarchy" is very close to a life-threatening thing to do.  I
	>    can be my own person, do what is right for me, try to work and
	>    teach men that strong, capable women make the whole race better. 
	>    But at the same time, at the back of my mind . . . 
 
	I think this inspires a lot of the misgivings that some women express
	about feminism.

							nancy b.

re: previous (long-dead) discussion on labels, and on SOAPBOX 408 on Feminism...

(I admit it, I opened up SOAPBOX for the first time *ever*.  Probably a
mistake, but...)

These (the stuff in SOAPBOX) are attitudes that I have never encountered from
the people I share my life with on a day to day basis.  It is not clear to me
from their existence in SOAPBOX, of all places, that they are commonplace.
Nevertheless, the blatant prejudice, anger, disregard and apparantly
deliberate misunderstanding was shocking and disappointing.

If this *is* commonplace (or if particular Feminists encounter these attitudes
regularly in *their* lives), I can understand why they would be sensitive
to references to "Feminists" that seem to imply a great monolithic 
movement against men, and why they might be inclined to assume that anyone
who made not-terribly-positive statements about feminism had the views
represented in SOAPBOX.  And I can understand why a statement such as
"I am not a feminist" would be taken by those who are used to defending 
themselves against such stereotypes as a disclaimer, and in fact as 
defending/supporting/agreeing with those stereotypes.

I still stand by my statement that I am not a Feminist.  But I would never
say it in a discussion like the one in SOAPBOX.  I just want to point out
that you (generic) should remember that not every negative statement about
Feminism comes from the same ignorant and prejudiced mind-set as those
in SOAPBOX.  And not every disavowal of the label is a negative statement
about Feminism.  And not everyone who doesn't defend/support Feminism is
anti-Feminist.

The replies there made *me* sick.

D!

    Re: .222 D!
    
    Another way to look at the views expressed in soapbox...
    Though many opinions may well be distasteful, I think it's
    important that they be out in the open where they can be heard
    and dealt with. 
    
    								Hank

>	All of them?

No, most of them.  And the general gist of the notes by non=wn=ers.

D!