Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    It seems to me that the main "derailers" are those who shoe-horn
    allegations of male-bashing and male oppression into every conceivable
    topic, even going so far as to start provocative notes that invite
    discussions of the difficult issues of modern male-to-female relations,
    and then getting hysterical if anyone disagrees with their defense of
    what they view as "traditional" male values.
    
    Kit

Why isn't it possible to say "This is how I see this subject.  This is how
I feel about it.  How do you see it?"  Instead of "You're wrong for seeing
it your way.  You shouldn't feel the way you do because it's not correct."

Patrick

    Being open with your feelings in a public forum takes a lot of courage
    and is not recommended for the timid.  In particular, you cannot expect
    much shelter if your feelings come off more like opinions.  If you
    say "I feel all women are castrating bitches, how do you feel about
    it," then you should expect incoming rounds.  Dig your foxhole deep.
    
    It is not clear to me exactly what you were trying to express in .0.
    If you were asking why discussions get derailled, i.e., go off onto
    tangents, then the answer is that this is a notesfile and that happens 
    in all notesfiles, even in the prim and proper GENEALOGY notesfile of
    which I am moderator.  In fact, it happens in just about all human
    discourse.  If you were asking why men can't open up their feelings
    in this notesfile with impunity, then I think I answered that above.
    
    If you can give us an example of a feeling that one might express that
    shouldn't draw flak but did, then we can examine that.  You should note
    that my recent discussion of my relationship with my father drew only
    small-arms fire and Brian's touching description of his relationship
    with his father has so far remained unscathed.  When men express their
    feelings that are not opinions effecting other readers, then they 
    are largely left alone.
    
    						- Vick

    re .3
    
    Because there are many people who can only feel "right" if someone else
    is put in the "wrong" position. The side-effect, of course, being that
    communication (i.e.taking the risk of exposing yourself and your
    feelings in front of others) is discouraged.
    
    Lynn

    re .-1
    you betcha
    

    I should have added: this is, of course, not unique to MENNOTES; in my
    experience, it's the reason why most of the marriages/relationships
    that fail, do.

re .3

examples

I stated that I didn't think women had any business in combat.  I also
stated that men shouldn't be in combat.  I relived a lot of my Vietnam
experience and at first I thought it would help me let go of some of the
s*it I collected there; it didn't.  I was labeled patriarchical.

I said that I thought women had a lot more influence on their sons than
they thought.  I said that I had heard women say in front of their sons
"All men are *ssholes, but not you honey, you're not like them."  I was
called a liar.

Maybe I don't have a thick enough skin but this seems to be a
contradiction to "Men need to express their emotions more and stop being so
stoic."  I need to be more stoic so that I'm not hurt by people blasting me
while I'm opening up and expressing emotions.

patrick

    re: .7
    Stating that you don't think women belong in combat is not expressing
    an emotion.  It may be an opinion that has emotional content for you,
    but you really should expect to get push-back on a statement like that.
    
    Saying that you've heard "women" say "All men are *ssholes, but not you
    honey, you're not like them" is not expressing an emotion or feeling
    either.  It's stating a fact (from your perspective).  I 
    believe you, but I see no reason why everyone should.  I don't
    remember anyone outright calling you a liar, though someone may have
    insinuated that you were exaggerating.   You might have said "Every
    night I hear little green men from Mars talking on my radio".  If you
    did, I'm sure someone would suggest that it was something else you were
    hearing.  Would that make you feel like they were calling you a liar?
    But anyway, my point is that if you were jumped on and called a liar,
    it wasn't because you expressed an emotion, but because you stated a
    "fact" that someone took exception to.  
    
    Here are some emotions a man might express:
    
    "I felt hurt when my friend stood me up for lunch today."
    
    "The flashbacks I get from my experience in Vietnam are very scary
     and I'm afraid I'm going to totally lose it someday."
    
    "I'm really depressed because my best work buddy got the ax today."
    
    "I don't really feel competent at the job I'm doing right now."
    
    "I hate it when my wife just won't get off my case."
    
    If you go down to -wn- and read the "I Really Love..." and "I Really
    Hate..." or the "Flotation Tank" topics you will find a lot feelings
    expressed.  Those topics are pretty safe areas to express feelings,
    though I wouldn't suggest entering a reply saying "I really hate the
    fact that all women are castrating bitches."  Some feelings just aren't
    smart to express.  :^)
    
    					- Vick
    

    ...but your examples in .7 seem to me to be *opinions*, not *feelings*.
    
    Leslie
    
    P.S.  Is this a Processing Note traveling incognito?  (If it walks like
          a duck...)

    Re .8: Actually, Vick, I do recall thinking at the time that he got
    landed on pretty hard - and pretty unfairly - for what seemed to me to
    be clearly-stated opinions and recollections. But since there's so much
    of that going on, I guess one would have to consider it the "noting
    norm" (and perhaps the conversational norm, though people don't
    generally pounce as hard in person), and would have to be prepared to
    face it or ignore it if one wants to continue to participate.
    
    By the way, for some examples of (in my opinion) unnecessarily violent
    pouncings-upon (of women, by women) for a simple statement of opinion,
    check out the latest note in =wn=; what struck me as a simple and
    semi-humorous aside concerning the noter's preference for not
    considering herself a feminist seems to have prompted several people to
    derail the original topic completely... Of course, just because it
    struck _me_ as harmless doesn't prove that it _isn't_ a deliberately
    inflammatory, denigrating statement that should be thoroughly squelched
    if we're all to ever hold up our heads again. [I'll defend - to the
    mild discomfort, if not the death - anybody's right to take offense at
    whatever they want, but I'd _really_ appreciate it if they didn't do it
    so _loudly_...]
    
    -b

    re:  "I am not a feminist"
    
    The worst I heard said was that she was derailling her own topic.
    I kind of agree, but I wouldn't have bothered commenting on it.
    Not much of a put-down.
    					- Vick

    re:.2
    
    Another question, why don't some people ever seem to realize when
    the discussion has turned into "you said this" ... "yeah, but you
    said this" ... ?
    
    Those are endless bantering loops.  Once you get into one, you
    have to be able to see it and realize you're just spinning your
    wheels.
    
    Once you've said what it was you had to, give it a rest.  That's
    the way of a gentleman.

re .8

I don't know your background but I will tell you that for me anything that
has to do with Vietnam is an emotional issue.  It may not be for you but it
definitely is for me.  When someone says Vietnam some people think of 6:00
film footage they saw in 1969, I remember kneeling in the mud, crying,
hysterically trying to put my best friends instestines back into his body. 
I remember being angry at him for dying.  I remember wishing I was dead.


Patrick

    And Patrick, no one is going to deny you the feelings you expressed in
    .13.  No one.  Sorry you went through that.
    
    					- Vick

    >Once you've said what it was you had to, give it a rest.  That's
    >the way of a gentleman.

    Barring intervention by one of the other moderators, I will decide
    when I'm through talking, thanks just the same.  But I'm sure you'll
    let me know if I'm breaking the gentleman's code.
    
    					- Vick 
    

>    Barring intervention by one of the other moderators, I will decide
>    when I'm through talking, thanks just the same.

 Of course. It's not always clear to everyone when a particular string has
stopped being productive.

    
re: .2

    > Why isn't it possible to say "This is how I see this subject.  This
    >is how I feel about it.  How do you see it?"  Instead of "You're wrong
    >for seeing it your way.  You shouldn't feel the way you do because it's
    >not correct."

    It is possible.
    That's what I often attempt to do.

    What I'd love to see happen is a discussion like this.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    BASENOTE:

    I'd like to discuss Y.

    Can we accept that it was like "X" in the past, and acknowledge that
    that way may or may not have been right, and may or may not have worked
    at that point in time, and continue the discussion with that foundation
    firmly exhausted of questions, and firmly in place under what we will
    now express.

    ---------------------------------------

    this could be followed by:

    I am creating a companion topic if you wish to discuss what happened in
    the past.  

    or

    Prior to replying, please let this topic occur newly for you, in your
    mind.  Turn it over as if you've NEVER heard of it before, and consider
    how it affects you right here, right now. 

    or

    If you must express something in the past, do so without blame or
    judgment.  Just the facts.  That creates the possibility of new
    thinking, fresh insight, and shared discovery of whatever it is we're
    talking about.

    or

    Please own your attitudes and opinions, without judging others.
    People are people, we are all human, and we have all been in pain.  All
    of us.  Expressing pain is valuable, but blaming people who didn't
    cause your specific pain is not.



    -Jody

    
    
    as the person who said "I am not a feminist", I can assure you that
    there was no insult intended. I was stating my position, based on my
    OPINION of what a feminist is, so that my basenote would not be
    interpretted as another note for men-bashing, but rather I was just
    in general pissed.
    
    I AM confused about the differance between an OPINION and a FEELING.
    Seems like just words to me that mean the same thing, except that
    when I express my OPINION I don't tend to say huggy-kissy things
    like "I feel hurt and sad when I see these things". Again, I will say
    that NO ONES opinions are right or wrong or should be judged as either
    until we get a copy of the big answer book that tells us the REAL
    answers. I can tell you that I don't agree with you. I can tell you
    that I don't understand where you may have formed this opinion which
    may differ greatly from my own. 
    
    I don't think that saying "I am not a feminist" is any worse than
    saying "I am not a liberal", as a lead in to a comment that might be
    interpretted differantly depending on where readers percieve you as
    coming from.  
    
    Thanks for letting me tell MY side of the story!
    
    Cat
    

    RE: opinions .vs. feelings

    A feeling is an emotional reaction to something.  Feelings don't
    usually require thought or contemplation to occur....they just do.
    Granted some do not recognize *what* they are feeling and some
    suppress their emotions to the point where they feel very little
    at all, but generally speaking I don't think anyone can *argue* that
    someone's feelings are "wrong."

    Opinions on the other hand are quite different.  While the primary
    definition you might see states that an opinion is a belief held
    with out *positive* knowledge or proof, it nevertheless is an 
    expression of *some* kind of thought process based on *some* amount
    of knowledge.  Presumably to form an opinion about something, a person 
    has to be exposed to at least some information about that something.  
    Their life experience, educational background and state of mind then
    work together (hopefully) to place the information in a context in
    which it can be understood.

    I think it is *perfectly* reasonable to argue with someone's opinion
    about something if one believes the information base upon which the
    opinion is built is incorrect or incomplete, or the analysis of the
    information is illogical.

    I don't know about other people, but I really don't see the value
    in holding fast to an opinion, the foundations of which are made of
    sand.   There may be *emotional* reasons for holding opinions and
    those emotions should be respected, even to the point of deferring
    arguments over the facts.  But that can only go on for so long (IMO -
    because I'm impatient....and don't argue with that, it's a feeling! :-)


    /Greg

	I read the following article..and it really pointed
	out some things. I agree 100% and to me it is why
	myself and other women say that we are not feminists.
	
	kits
	--------------------------------------------------------


	reprinted without permission from U.S. News  by John Leo

		The Trouble with Feminism

	"Who Killed Feminism?" asked the headline. Readers of the
	Sunday "Outlook" section of the Washington Post did not have
	to search far for an answer: It was a quarter inch away in the
	subhead, "Hypocritical Movement Leaders Betrayed Their Own
	Cause," just above the byline of Sally Quinn, Washington 
        insider, successful novelist ("Happy Endings") and one of
	the best-read reporters the Post has ever had.

	Quinn's argument was a muscular one. She wrote that the
	established feminist leaders and the National Organization
	for Women are the domestic equivalents of Communist Party
	apparatchiks in the former Soviet Union: ideological dinosaurs,
	remote from the needs of their constituency, who should step
	down and let other people take over. "The truth is," she wrote,
	"that many women have come to see the feminist movement as 
	anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine. And therefore
	it has nothing to do with us."

	These are hardly new criticisms. In fact, they are very close
	to the ones made by allies of Betty Friedan, co-founder of NOW,
	when she broke from the group in 1975 to form a "network" of 
	feminist dissidents. The dissidents argued that NOW was rapidly
	moving away from its core constituency, that instead of focusing
	primarily on the problems of mainstream women and jobs and 	
	family, it was becoming overly mesmerized by lesbian rights,
	radical chic and what we could today call the politics of
	victimization.

	The difference today is that successful mainstream women such
	as Quinn are saying that this wrong turn by NOW 16 years ago
	has led to a dead end. What kind of shape is American feminism
	in when its leading journal (Ms.) is edited by a woman who
	thinks most of the "decently married bedrooms across America
	are settings for nightly rape" and its leading organization
	(NOW) is headed by a woman with a husband in Miami and a female
	"companion" in Washington? Is this out of touch, or is NOW
	quietly banking on a sudden surge of bisexual adultery chic
	among its membership? Quinn writes: " Can you imagine George
	Bush telling the world that he was having a homosexual
	relationship with another man and it was just swell with
	Barbara?"

	Consider the voice of another successful mainstream woman 
	trying to come to grips with the out-of-touchness of feminism:
	"I am skeptical about the women's movement. I find myself
	increasingly saying, 'Yes....but'. Yes, there may be a war
	between the sexes, but I am doubtful that it's the one the
	women's movement is currently fighting." The speaker is
	Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, editor of Commonweal, the 
	liberal Catholic magazine. Steinfel's analysis is this: Mass
	movements tend to generate a story or mythic recounting of group
	experience. These myths are healthy, but they are always in
	danger of hardening into an ideaology that no longer fits the
	real life experience of its members. "Something like this
	happened to the women's movement," Steinfels said in a recent
	speech. "It's claim to legitimacy, its declaration that it
	represents all women, is based on an all-encompassing 
	explanation for the plight of women. In other words, men."

	Since she does not feel oppressed by "the patriarchy," since
	her experience with males, good and bad, do not fit the 
	victim-oppressor mode, she feels the movement has little to
	do with her life. "By definition then," she said, "positive
	experiences of the kind I have described about my own life,
	and many other women could describe about theirs, are 
	excluded from the current discourse of the women's movement,
	and thus from the public conversation about men and women."

	The women's movement has come to depend very heavily on real-
	life and fictional stories that fit the myth and reinforce
	it: tales of abandonment, rape and vast cruelty, what Steinfels
	calls "an ideology of victimhood- stories that focus on
	destruction, on humiliation" of females by males.
	
	This is nowhere clearer than in academic feminism. On the
	campus, in most feminist-studies programs, rape is now the
	paradigm and central metaphor of male-female relations. What
	to most of us is a brutal and ugly crime is to conventional
	feminst academics male business as usual, the image of what
	men do to women all the time, sexually and non-sexually.
	("The major distinction between intercourse [normal] and
	rape [abnormal] is that the normal happens so often that one
	cannot see anything wrong with it" - Catharine MacKinnon, 
	media hero of sexual harassment.) In the secular convents
	of feminst studies, abstruse man-hating and galloping
	heterophobia are absolutely routine. These attitudes are
	not much help to real-world women, who have brothers and
	fathers they love and who might want to get married sometime.

	The trick, as Steinfels says, is to get the excluded voices
	of women back into the debate without falling into the
	countermyth of "anti-feminism," which simply wants women to
	shut up and go home. Instead of harping full time on male
	peridy, those voices want to talk about intimacy, trust,
	equality, sharing, child care and a peaceful settlement in
	the battle of the sexes. Feminists, as Quinn says, screwed
	up "by dismissing what really goes on in the hearts and minds
	of women."  Time for a change.

    Kits, I was just about to type that into WN.
    
    Thanks, you saved me some fingerwork...

    > "Who Killed Feminism?"
    
    	Why those glass-chewing dykes of course.  Who else?
    
    Seriously, it would have been nice if the author could have at
    least acknowledged that lesbians are women too and have concerns
    that are, or at least should be (IMO) a valid part of the woman's
    movement.  It was a rejection of this simple and reasonable point
    in the first place that "millitized" many of today's activists.
    And even so I would still argue that the feminist movement is hardly 
    dominated by "abstruse man-hating" and "galloping heterophobia" - 
    even chapters of NOW that I am familiar with that are dominated by
    lesbians don't subscribe to the radical anti-male, anti-straight
    viewpoints the article attempts to portray as widespread.
    
    Seems to me the backlash against feminism has additional causes
    the article ignored.
    
    /Greg

    What of a woman named Anita Hill, who at a local NOW ralley was banging
    her fist on a table demanding the castration of men. She isn't gay or
    hasn't anounced to the world she is. What of her? She is/was at a NOW
    meeting. I donno about the homophobic lable Greg. Kinda broad brush.
    
    Geo

    Well I'd like to see the source for that statement, George.  I'm
    skeptical, but I can be convinced given evidence.
    
    And speaking of a broad brush, don't you think implying that all 
    activist feminists are man haters and that the reason feminism is being
    attacked (in the media anyway) is because the leadership is
    over-run by lesbians, is a gross over-simplification of the truth?
    That's what that article tries to do.   
    
    /Greg
    

    <lesbians are women too>
    well certainly, but in a different sense than straight women are women
    
    to wit:
    my take is that lesbians are lesbian first and women second
    whereas straight women are women first and straight women second
    
    
    				herb

 Is it impossible to address the _issues_ raised in the article?

 Must any critical analysis of the article be predicated on an attack
of the author and include casual dimissal of all the issues as being
homophobic, misogynistic, etc?

 Is it a mortal sin to acknowledge that the feminist movement has 
shortcomings without being a traitor, without condemning the entire
movement?

 I think that alot of points deserve at least the appearance of objective 
analysis. It would be a nice change, anyway...

    I think it depends on the context. 

    Certainly when confronted with institutionalized homophobia,
    lesbians (and gay men and bisexuals) have to make their 
    orientation an issue to get anywhere.  My take is that they
    (we) are *forced* to make our orientation a priority, if only
    to tread water against those who would rather not "allow"
    g/l/b folk the same rights as heterosexuals.

    On the other hand, if a group of women are talking about sexism
    in the work place (for example) it isn't obvious to me that
    lesbians place their lesbianism first or that they even necessarily
    raise it as an issue at all. 

    Another way to look at it:  straight women are women first and 
    straight second (or maybe 10th or 100th or 1000th - because they
    can afford to ignore it) until they are confronted with homosexuality.

    /Greg

    Yet another "broad brush" approach.....
    
    Yes, Mark, of *course* the content can be discussed. Who's
    stopping you?
    
    In fact, I addressed the content in my reply.  
    I mentioned that I think it is in-accurate.  I also felt 
    insulted by it.  And I explained why.  And I made a comment
    about my experience with groups (NOW) mentioned by
    the author.
    
    Where would you like to take the discussion from here?
    
    /Greg

    <Another way to look at it:  straight women are women first and 
    <straight second (or maybe 10th or 100th or 1000th - because they
    <can afford to ignore it) until they are confronted with homosexuality.

    Which lesbians are doing as quickly and loudly as possible, which
    is the point of John Leo's article about the Sally Quinn story in the 
    goddamned entry in the first place.

It seems to me that in order for ANY movement to succeed in this country it
needs to reach a critical mass of thought.  In order for Feminism to
succeed it will have to appeal to a larger group of women AND men!

Martin Luther King Jr. started a movement.  He started it by boycotting a
busline.  Not all black people chose to participate.  After a while many
white people joined his movement.  While most people today would say that
we as a country have a long way to go, I don't know of any blacks and very
few whites (besides skinheads etc) that want to go back to the way it was
in 1960.  The Black Panthers gave the Civil Rights Movement mixed results.
I think that the current NOW organization will one day be looked upon as
also giving mixed results.

patrick

    Greg,
    
    Source of info was a local rep of N.H. of which names cannot be
    disclosed. But as pointed out. When we discuss the folly of our
    goverment. There is no one standing at the door with an Orange Book to
    bop us on the head. It is suposingly a healthy thing to do, to openly
    discuss the issues that effect us all. Good or bad. Gay or streight.
    And I kinda feel that just as you call someone homophic at the drop of
    a hat instead of trying to understand their fears, you kinda short
    change yourself. Remember you never know who wrote that piece of work.
    You don't know if the author is gay or streight. You think that all
    gays will stand up for the party politcs as all NOW members?
    
    With Respect
    George 

>"it was well said" - and predictably homophobic.

 I did not find it to be homophobic so much as being centered more towards the
mainstream. The lack of explicit inclusion does not equate to implicit
exclusion.

>    And even so I would still argue that the feminist movement is hardly 
>    dominated by "abstruse man-hating" and "galloping heterophobia" - 

 That's no doubt what you saw but that isn't what was written. Surely you
recognize the difference between academic feminism and feminism.

>    Seems to me the backlash against feminism has additional causes
>    the article ignored.

 This is an area which certainly has merit. But I don't think you should be so
quick to dismiss the points the article raised.

> don't you think implying that all 
>    activist feminists are man haters and that the reason feminism is being
>    attacked (in the media anyway) is because the leadership is
>    over-run by lesbians, is a gross over-simplification of the truth?

 I don't think that was the point of the article. I think the point of the 
article was that feminism has lost touch with the mainstream, and as such
enjoys less popularity than it could have if it were more inclusive in
practice than in theory.

 The Doctah

    RE. 30
    
    > Which lesbians are doing as quickly and loudly as possible, which
    > is the point of John Leo's article about the Sally Quinn story in the
    > goddamned entry in the first place.
    
    No it isn't the point.  Mr Leo didn't make any attempt to point out
    the underlying reasons why a percieved lesbian strength in feminist
    politics would create such a problem (or even why the perception
    exists in the first place) - which is what my reply alludes to.  He
    used lesbians as a scapegoat for discounting feminism (IMO).  A
    superficial look at the issue at best.
    
    

    RE: .32
    
    George,
    
    I guess you trust this local rep in N.H.  Did he/she mention
    where he/she heard the comment?
    
    FWIW, I don't call people homophobic at the drop of a hat.  If
    I use the word I try to give my reasons and support what I say
    with examples.  I don't expect that I'll always convince people 
    and I'm sure I'm more sensitive (perhaps too sensitive at times)
    so that something that might appear minor to you appears less so
    to me.  But hey, we're two different people.
    
    And I most certainly do want (and try) to understand people's fears.  
    It isn't easy though because people don't usually like to talk about
    such things.  And they are rarely willing to awknowleged *MY* fears.
    
    Respect and understanding is a two-way street.
    
    /Greg
    

    RE .33

    Ok.  How about heterocentric?

    No...that still doesn't feel right to me.  You can *say* that 
    the lack of explicit inclusion does not equate to implicit
    exclusion, and perhaps in the abstract you are correct.  
    However in the context of the article, I think it would have
    been the right thing to do to at least mention (if the author
    agreed that is) that lesbians, among others, have valid issues.

    Yes, I recognize the difference between what is happening in
    academia and what is happening in the "real world."  I don't
    see "galloping heterophobia" in mainstream, feminist, academic
    circles anymore than I see it in NOW demonstrations in Boston.
    I'll admit to not reading the works of the authors that Leo
    cites in his article.  My gut feel is that they are taken out
    of context but I don't know for sure. 

    I think an additional problem is the narrow definition of
    feminist - we aren't a bunch of radical misandrist heterophobes.
    We are men and women of many diverse backgrounds and beliefs
    who share a common view that men and women should be treated as
    equals.  I suppose if you define any movement by its most radical
    elements, it becomes easy to criticize.

    I do agree that many believe feminism has lost touch with the
    "mainstream" - I just question *why* the belief exists and I
    object to laying the blame at the feet of lesbians in such a
    way as to discount their issues.

    /Greg

>I think it would have
>    been the right thing to do to at least mention (if the author
>    agreed that is) that lesbians, among others, have valid issues.

 Maybe so. But that is not the focus of the article. I suspect that your
perceived exclusion via the lack of such an inclusive comment colored
your perception of the total article negatively.

>I don't see "galloping heterophobia" in mainstream, feminist, academic
>  circles anymore

 I think that one of the main points is that feminist academic circles
are hardly mainstream, but instead seem to have been dominated by the
radical elements. The excerpts I have read from various feminist or
woman centered writings have generally been rather radical and quite
vocally anti-mainstream.

>My gut feel is that they are taken out of context but I don't know for sure. 

 Might this be because you really don't want the criticisms to be true?
Nobody wants to hear something negative about their group. I know I cringe
when I hear some of the gems the ultra-conservatives come up with. But
that doesn't mean you can't accept criticism for what it's worth and 
investigate whether there is grounds for such a critique or not. Quite often
you'll find at least grains of truth (even though criticisms have a way of
having to be overstated to get any recognition at all...)

>    I think an additional problem is the narrow definition of
>    feminist - we aren't a bunch of radical misandrist heterophobes.

 I think that's precisely the point. In theory, feminist is supposed to
be extremely inclusive. In practice, the mainstream has been left behind and
in many cases excluded.

 the Doctah

    >Maybe so. But that is not the focus of the article. I suspect that
    >your perceived exclusion via the lack of such an inclusive comment
    >colored your perception of the total article negatively.

    	Maybe so.  I suspect the fact such exclusion (implicit, explicit
    or otherwise) is so routine and "normal" is the reason we perceive
    this differently.  I'm not willing in this case to say "I'm just being
    too sensitive."  Of course, I wouldn't expect you to say you were being
    insensitive either...

    >I think that one of the main points is that feminist academic circles
    >are hardly mainstream, but instead seem to have been dominated by the
    >radical elements.

    	Are they?  I think that is a point that should be addressed.
    	Clearly some are radical.  Do we just ignore or discount the
    	mainstream voices....perhaps because we are looking for reasons
    	to discount the movement as a whole?   Who knows.  

    >Might this be because you really don't want the criticisms to be true?

    	If you've seen my criticism of gay and left-of-center politics
    	you should know better than to suggest this.  The truth doesn't
    	frighten me.  I'm more than willing to admit to excesses and
    	outright lunacy on the part of people in groups and movements I
    	support.  That doesn't mean I can't see patterns in various
    	debates and begin to get a feeling for things.  I express such
    	feelings as precisely that, though; feelings.

    >>    I think an additional problem is the narrow definition of
    >>    feminist - we aren't a bunch of radical misandrist heterophobes.
    >
    > I think that's precisely the point. In theory, feminist is supposed to
    >be extremely inclusive. In practice, the mainstream has been left
    >behind and in many cases excluded.

    	You're stating that as if it is a given.  I *know* it is true
    	that feminists (to a person) are not a bunch of radical misandrist 
    	heterophobes because I consider myself a feminist and I know I am not 
    	any of those things.  Yet despite the protests of people such as myself
    	and virtually every other self-identified feminist here and in
    	WOMANNOTES, we still hear that the "mainstream" of feminism is
    	radical.  Well I suppose if you believe being pro-choice and
    	pro-gay rights is radical, then most of us are guilty as charged
    	(though I don't see how such a position can be viewed as radical
    	when mainstream democratic presidential candidates support the
    	same things).

    	So I'm left with the question of where this view of feminism comes
    	from.  Is it really coming from feminists?

    	/Greg

> I think that one of the main points is that feminist academic circles
> are hardly mainstream, but instead seem to have been dominated by the
> radical elements. The excerpts I have read from various feminist or
> woman centered writings have generally been rather radical and quite
> vocally anti-mainstream.

I dunno what you're reading.  When I look for radical stuff, I can find
it easily enough, but most of what I read in feminist publications like
Ms. isn't all that radical.

most of the time, I let this sort of stuff pass, but upon you, Mark,
I think I'll impose a higher standard.  Please provide some examples,
huh?  What do you *mean* by "quite vocally anti-mainstream", and how
is that supposed to be bad?

DougO

    There are two possible reactions to the USN&WR article :
    
    1. Those mainstream women who feel NOW doesn't address the
       issues most important to them are wrong.
    
    2. Those women may be right, maybe we should listen to them.
    
    Choice #1 seems to be the most popular here among the self-
    proclaimed feminists.
    
    Am I right?   Why is that?

    RE: .41

    I think you are really limiting yourself by only
    providing two possible reactions.

    1st, other than Kits (who entered the article) who *are*
    the mainstream women who feel NOW doesn't address the issues
    most important to them - and why limit it to NOW?  Remember it 
    wasn't just NOW addressed by the article.

    2nd, I would be more inclined to listen to people speak of their
    own experience within feminists groups rather than a news article
    when it comes to something vague like the perception of how "mainstream"
    feminists are.  Some stats might help here.

    I disagreed with much of what was in the article.  So far, I 
    haven't had the opportunity to disagree with "those mainstream
    women" who agree with the article.  I don't know why they agree
    for one thing....

    /Greg

Mike, I can imagine several more reactions than just those two.  Primarily,
this article is a recognizable attempt at "divide and conquer"; those people
who hate feminism and feminists think they can manipulate undecideds into
a backlash against feminism with such a load of half-truths.  USN&WR is not
what I would call an example of 'mainstream women', and their choice to publish
such an article is politically motivated.  Seen in that light, your two listed
"possible reactions" are laughably inadequate to describe the real reactions
to USN&WR's politicking with women's issues.  My reaction is more along the
lines of, man, the establishment must really be scared of the women's vote 
this fall after pissing off so many women with the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be working so hard to try to generate conflict in
between feminists and other women.  I have no need to sign up for the agenda
of fighting with "mainstream women" that USN&WR wants me to waste my energy on.

DougO

>    1. Those mainstream women who feel NOW doesn't address the
>       issues most important to them are wrong.
>    
>    2. Those women may be right, maybe we should listen to them.
    
    Not that it matters, but I'm more comfortable with
    
    2a. Those mainstream women may be right but they aren't the same as
    those mainstream women who feel NOW _does_ address the issues most
    important to them (or to me, for that matter, this being MENNOTES and
    all).  Maybe we should listen to both groups.
    
    What's with the loaded phrase "mainstream women"? Is that as opposed to
    "genre women"? "tributary women"?  Man, why not just call 'em "women"?
    
    Ray

    
    Which is followed by the somewhat predictable claim that the
    observation that many (perhaps most) women disassociate them-
    selves from NOW because it doesn't address the issues important
    to them isn't true.
    
    Ah well, I tried to point the light in the right direction, but
    no one wants to go look at the end of the beam.  So be it.

The distinction between feminist activists and what are here euphemistically 
called 'mainstream women' is not new.  It is as old as feminism as a 
contemporary philosophy, and became particularly strong during feminism's 
second wave.  Feminists traditionally refer to such women as anti-feminist, 
but a better term is around: domestic feminists.  In short, such women 
support the general principles of feminism, such as equality of opportunity 
(and hence choice), without supporting the methods or specific ideological 
goals of more radical feminist groups, which in large part have tended to 
focus on entry into the labour pool as an ideological prerequisite that 
domestic feminists refute.  

It is easy to see why these women choose to disassociate themselves from 
radical elements like the leadership of NOW, and absolutely no reference to 
homophobia is required.  Greg's defensive knee-jerk is totally unwarranted.  
NOW has become increasingly less relevant to the bulk of women, and that it 
is simultaneously becoming dominated by, among other things, lesbian 
activists is not a necessary criticism of lesbians, but of the divergence 
from NOW's supposed objectives and purpose and its present reality.

    >It is easy to see why these women choose to disassociate themselves from
    >radical elements like the leadership of NOW, and absolutely no reference to
    >homophobia is required.
      
    The leadership of NOW is considered radical in large part *because* of the 
    "taint" of lesbianism.  If homophobia were not an issue, straight women 
    could work side-by side with lesbians and bisexual women to see that *all* 
    of their issues were addressed.  

    I've never denied there are additional differences of opinion between
    many feminists; significant differences - but I maintain if homophobia
    were not an issue, it would be more likely such differences could be
    resolved.

    Suggesting homophobia is the *only* cause for alienation in the
    feminist movement is as foolish as claiming it is NOT a cause. 
    Pointing out places where I perceive such feelings as having played
    a role is hardly a "knee-jerk" reaction.   You are confusing me with
    those who see homophobia under ever rock and behind every tree. Many
    people are homophobic and I am not going to pretend otherwise just
    because some in the gay community have abused the word.  The backlash
    against charges of homophobia has become predictable and just as
    knee-jerk as you claim the complaints are in the first place.  I'd like
    to get past this...

    /Greg

>       Do we just ignore or discount the
>    	mainstream voices....perhaps because we are looking for reasons
>    	to discount the movement as a whole?

 Undoubtedly a tactic used by those who wish to discount feminism as a whole
is to point to the vocal radicals and claim they are spokespersons for the
entire group. Such an argument is facilitated by the outspoken nature of
these radicals, and the attitude they present which makes such a claim to
be easy to accept for those unfamiliar with the nonscreeching voices. I am
not convinced, however, that this tactic is behind the article in question,
nor do I subscribe to the notion that any criticism at all of feminism's
radical elements is ipso facto an indictment of the movement itself.

>    	You're stating that as if it is a given. [that many women feel left 
                                                behind by the feminist movement]

 I know many women who agree with the fundamental tenet of feminism, but
who are quite put off by NOW and many feminist leaders who are protrayed
as being representative of the movement as a whole. To put my perception
of this phenomenon into perspective, ask your self these questions: How many
women disagree with the notion of equality? How many women claim they are
not part of the feminist movement? The dichotomy between the two answers
demonstrates my point; there is a number of women who do not feel connected
to the current form of the women's movement despite agreeing with the
fundamental tenet upon which the movement is ostensibly based.

 The Doctah

>When I look for radical stuff, I can find
>it easily enough, but most of what I read in feminist publications like
>Ms. isn't all that radical.

 I do not consider Ms. Magazine to be representative of the literature common
in feminist academic circles.

 For example, last night I was reading a work written by an author that is
not generally regarded (to my knowledge) as being radical. I found that 
virtually the entire passage I read was predicated on the politics of 
victimization and the associated corollaries relating how those in power
are necessarily bad. The book was well written, and footnoted. It was written
by a woman who obviously was well educated. I smiled as I ran through a number
of quotes taken from Andrea Dworkin which were presented as being quite matter
of fact representations of what everyone should recognize as being an accurate
assessment of life as we know it. I found the quotes to be farfetched and
steeped in anger and hatred. I only wish I had found my damn library card
so I could have taken the book out to read the whole thing.

 On the issue of hatred, this is one thing that I have noticed. Hatred is a
word typically used by disenfranchised groups to describe their oppressors.
That they harbor similar feelings toward their oppressors is then explained
away as being simple "anger." I have never believed that this dichotomy in
the use of terms has been accurate, and I still don't. It is creative use
of labels to dehumanize members of the other group, a tactic that has been
used since the beginning of language. It is this tactic which brings rise
to words like misogyny while the analagous term is just being coined now 
(amidst denials that misandry even exists, of course. After all, it's just
anger...)

 Meanwhile, it is claimed that men have taken away the ability of women to
devise labels (in the face of such contradictory evidence.)

 The Doctah

 PS- Book was _Pure Lust_ by Mary Daly.

>its a smokescreen, and you fell for it

 What makes it a smokescreen? Do you really believe that the feminist leadership
is adequately inclusive of mainstream female america?

 I found alot of truth in that article. I saw many of the same reactions related
in that article that I've overheard woman make. You casually dismiss them
as simple politicking apparently without attempting to find out why people
would feel that way. I imagine that ascribing underhanded ulterior motives
to critics simplifies the process of analyzing criticism, but is that really the
most effective way to improve the system? Is it really your position that
people don't really feel the way the people in the article feel, that the
article was concocted in a feeble attempt to lash out at feminism for political
gain? I'm really taken aback at such a suggestion.

 It has always been my impression that feminist have taken any criticism
from any quarter as a direct frontal assault on the basic tenets of the
movement. The various reactions here and in =wn= reinforce this notion,
that criticism of feminism is met by shouting down the critics in the hope
that they will go away. This is precisely what people mean by the new 
McCarthyism wrt political correctness. If you don't toe the party line EXACTLY
a bevy of attackers immediately form to throw stones until you shut up.
It reminds me of the human immune system. When this happens, I feel disconnected
from the movement. I feel excluded. I absolutely refuse to accept chapter and
verse what ANY organization purports to be "the only way to view things."
I am quite capable of making up my own mind, thank you. Bludgeoning me with
scurrilous accusations of my motivations undermines support I feel for the
cause.

 I find it much easier to disagree with the NRA than I do to disagree with NOW.

 The Doctah

    Well, feminism is a very hot topic these days in the mainstream
    press (this much is for sure!)
    
    Articles discussing the women's movement appear everywhere.  Although
    almost none of these articles are written by prominent feminist leaders
    or authors, we see feminists quoted out of context all the time.
    
    The worst thing that could happen to the women's movement would be if
    no one wanted to talk about it anymore.  As long as people keep
    discussing it in our society, we'll keep moving forward.
    
    If some folks in conferences like Soapbox, Mennotes and Womannotes stopped 
    criticizing feminism endlessly, I'd start to worry.  (No chance, tho!) :)

Suzanne,

You listed two things in .52, "we see feminists quoted out of context all the 
time" and "The worst thing that could happen to the women's movement would be if
no one wanted to talk about it anymore"...

As an ardent feminist, what is your major critique against the movement?  Are 
the above two statements the key problems of the feminist movement?  From your
perception, where does the movement fail or where does it most need buttressing?

Don

I promised Mark by mail, an answer to his .49 a long time ago.  What with
being a little difficult to get through when I had it from the library, and
now out-of-print and I can't order it from any bookstores, my answer won't be
based as fully upon his example as I would have liked.  Oh well.  To recap a
few of the questions/statements that lead us to the point I am picking up,
here is some of the back and forth...

.37 (Greg Schuler)-

>   Yes, I recognize the difference between what is happening in
    academia and what is happening in the "real world."  I don't
    see "galloping heterophobia" in mainstream, feminist, academic
    circles anymore than I see it in NOW demonstrations in Boston.

.38 (Mark Levesque)-

>   I think that one of the main points is that feminist academic circles
    are hardly mainstream, but instead seem to have been dominated by the
    radical elements. The excerpts I have read from various feminist or
    woman centered writings have generally been rather radical and quite
    vocally anti-mainstream.

.40 (Doug Olson)-

>   I dunno what you're reading.  When I look for radical stuff, I can find
    it easily enough, but most of what I read in feminist publications like
    Ms. isn't all that radical.

>   most of the time, I let this sort of stuff pass, but upon you, Mark,
    I think I'll impose a higher standard.  Please provide some examples,
    huh?  What do you *mean* by "quite vocally anti-mainstream", and how
    is that supposed to be bad?

[Mark answered this in .49.  All further extracts are from that.]

>   For example, last night I was reading a work written by an author that is
    not generally regarded (to my knowledge) as being radical.
    [...] Book was _Pure Lust_ by Mary Daly.

Pure Lust, while I had it for awhile from the library, is, as I mentioned
above, now out-of-print.  I'm looking for it for my shelf, but meanwhile...
Mary Daly is most decidedly regarded as radical.  Her most oft-quoted book
is called Gyn/Ecology: The Meta Ethics of Radical Feminism.  Right there in
the subtitle, she is self-identified as a radical feminist philosopher.

So, as I mentioned before, when I am looking for radical stuff I know where
to find it, and I recognize it when I find it.  From my progress with Pure
Lust and my previous readings of Daly, I can assure you that it, too, is of
decidedly radical feminist stripe.  I don't think that's bad.  Perhaps this
reflects more your perception of what it means to be academic and feminist
more than it does Daly's.

Because you mentioned Daly as quoting Dworkin ("a number of quotes") I did
scan the footnotes; and, found 5 references to Dworkin; in 2 or maybe 3
separate chapters.  Out of what I'd guess were some 80 citations per chapter,
probably 8-10 chapters; perhaps 700 citations altogether?  I don't think that
Daly relies too much on Dworkin, nor upon any single other person.

DougO

>Mary Daly is most decidedly regarded as radical.

 That's quite possible, although almost every reference I've ever heard
to her by a feminist has seemed to indicate that she was among the main stream
of feminist theory.

>Her most oft-quoted book
>is called Gyn/Ecology: The Meta Ethics of Radical Feminism.  Right there in
>the subtitle, she is self-identified as a radical feminist philosopher.

 I dunno Doug, I don't think that you could point to that title and claim
that she self-identifies therein as a radical feminist absent actually
reading the text. Without some information about Mary Daly, a book with
such a title could have been written by one critical of radical feminist
meta ethics (thus no self-identification would be taking place.) Somehow
I feel deep in my heart that if Mike Z had stated that Mary Daly self-identified
as a radical feminist based on nothing more than the title of that book you'd
have taken him to the cleaners...

 Clearing off the cobwebs, my point was that academic feminist theory is
generally pretty radical. Not the mild stuff they put in Ms. (which is as 
representative of academic feminist theory as Field and Stream is of
fisheries biological theory.)

couple of things, Mark- as I thought I indicated in the text, it isn't solely
from the title that I know Mary Daly self-identifies as radical, but from
reading (and rereading) that book.  And, how much of the new Ms. have you
been reading?  Since it reincarnated under Robin Morgan, under a policy of
taking no advertising and thus accepting no editorial censor from fear of
losing advertisers, its a heckuva lot different magazine than it was before.
That happened less than two years ago (~August '90, I think).  Taken as a
whole, I find its contents pretty damning of our world, and pretty inspiring
as news coverage of what women have to face (and do) in the world.  Maybe its
my radical consciousness interpreting Ms, or maybe Ms is more radical than
your moderate filters let you notice.

> my point was that academic feminist theory is generally pretty radical.

I suppose.  Since I find that encouraging (anyone who does the academic work
from a feminist perspective ends up being radicalized, suggesting that when
you dig, yes, patriarchy/institutionalized misogyny is everywhere, so all
feminist academics end up taking a radical position against it is a natural
effect from that cause) I don't mind it so much.  What does that (academic 
feminism .always. radical) indicate to you?

DougO

 Limited utility.