|
|
Re: General broadsides and agendas
Mr. E (jackechs@EROLS.COM)
Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:44:06 -0500
There are also quite a few feminist discussion listservs as well as
newgroups that maybe more appropriate.
At 11:36 AM 02/02/96 -0400, Kotliar wrote:
> I don't think it is helpful to launch general broadsides against
>"feminism" and "radical feminism" etc. etc. That would be equivalent as
>labelling any critic of any work labelled as "feminist" as being a
>"Reactionary", "Radical Hominists", Male Supramacist" etc. You might as
>well use terms like "Pig face" and "Mush brain" to make your arguments. If
>there is a particular scholar whose ideas you wish to engage, engage their
>ARGUMENTS directly and specifically with counter arguments ("You suck"
>doesn't count). The strength of the Internet is its ability to circumvent
>the mass media tendency towards soundbites and mudslinging. I hear radical
>used an an adjective agaisnt Republicans, feminists, economists etc. but
>the term is less informative than it is inflammatory. Radical compared to
>whom? Statements like "Feminists have gone beyond the laudable aims of the
>early advocates women's rights". What does this mean? Which Feminist
>agenda? Which feminists support this? Which specific aims of this
>"agenda" are objectable? Reproductive freedom? Advocating for better
>child-care opportunities? Protecting wives and husbands from spousal
>battery? Allowing greater flexibilty for gender roles? Trying to eliminate
>favortism and bias towards males in primary schools? Freedom of the
>individual to select an adult sexual partner appropriate to preference and
>not the specifications of State and community?
> Is the extension of freedoms and opportunity the objectionable
>"agenda", or is not the "agenda" but the particular methods of particular
>activists which are objectionable? If you answer "They are all the same",
>and cannot come up with any particular incidents, objections or arguments
>but only exhibit a gut feeling of reaction and antipathy, than perhaps
>there is an "agenda" at work here. We have met the enemy and it is us.
> Since this is an anthropology list, perhaps it might be more
>interesting to various members to discuss the cultural aspects of
>perceptions and attitudes towards feminism in the various societies that
>members of the list belong. For example in the States many women are
>loathe to identify themselves as feminists, yet are in broad agreement with
>many of the goals of modern feminists. Is this the case in other
>societies? I think there is much anthropological fodder here.
>
>
|