Radical Feminism

PAGE 2 OF 2
This is part 2 of a two-part discussion of radical feminism that took
place on WMST-L in late November/early December 1998.  For more
compilations of WMST-L messages, see the WMST-L File Collection.

 
Priscilla Stuckey wrote:
"I'm noticing a certain watering down of the meaning of radical
feminism, an equating of radical feminism with all feminism. (*)
 
Twenty years ago it looked like radical feminists were those
who saw oppression of women as THE root problem, lying behind
oppression by race and class. More recently, radical feminists
seem to be those who focus their attention on male violence toward
women. Both of these definitions are pretty fuzzy, and often
they're hostile definitions--given by detractors.
 
What is a more precise definition? How do radical feminists
on this list define yourselves? What theory of oppression or what
practices distinguish radical feminists from other feminists?"
 
RESPONSE:
Radical feminism *does* mean "getting to the root of things" and yes, radical
feminism *is* about seeing male supremacy as the "root problem,lying behind
oppression by race and class" (lying behind oppression of *women* !!)
Radical feminists have pinpointed, among other things, the family as a
primary site of women's oppression and many radical feminists (or radical
lesbians in France) extend this analysis to the institution of
heterosexuality.  Radical feminists also look at ways in which the domination
of women =AD including violence against women (domination being in any case a
violent phenomenon on some level, whether physical or psychological) =AD is
culturally coded, through such things as advertising and pornography,
certainly, but also through religion, for example, and through the
construction of "cultural identity".  Many radical feminists focus on "overt"
physical violence against women (e.g. rape, prostitution etc), but many of us
(myself included) focus on things like "culture", "nation", "religion", and
on racism and classism as *gendered*, and not "separate" from male domination
of women.
 
What distinguishes radical feminism from other expressions of feminism is
then
a) getting to the root of the problem and understanding women's oppression as
not just limited to things like wage inequality or how many women there are
in parliament
b) what might be called a "holistic" approach, i.e. seeing the different
forms of oppression as forming part of a coherent system of domination which
many of us call "male supremacy".  Looking at the different ways in which
women are oppressed is not a matter of arithmetic (this oppression plus that
oppression etc).
c) positing that the "universal' category of "women" *is* possible, in that,
while diversity and the differences in the ways we experience oppression are
important, there are many many commonalities to women's experiences and
women's political choices.
d) refusal of libertarian arguments for "free expression" as such arguments
are usually a defence of the "right" of some to exploit others and the
"right" for individuals to 'sell themselves' into such exploitation
e) refusal of "cultural relativist" or "group rights" arguments that usually
give tacit or even overt support to various forms of oppression of women in
the name of "national" or "cultural" or "religious" identity.
f) seeing oppression, and women's "identity", as a social and not a
biological problem.
Bronwyn Winter
bronwyn.winter   AT   french.usyd.edu.au

 
In response--Just my thoughts--
 
On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Jane Olmsted wrote:
 
> Mev Miller:  "I think those in the academy may spend too much time
> reading/thinking and not enough time "doing" in some community activist
> sense. I'd venture to say that trully radical feminism demands a serious
> level of 'getting your
> hands dirty.'"
 
I think about mothering the next generation of women and men as "getting
your hands dirty" or to put it differently,becoming a full time
activist.It is about role-modeling, teaching, getting in the mud and
rolling around with ideas, challenges, and ideals.
Its about believing that change is possible-- and possible for the next
generation  even if it is in small incremental steps.I do believe that
mothers of three can be radical, community feminist activists, womenwho
study feminism the philosophy and act as a feminist in daily life.
Carolyn Wright

 
Jane Olmstead asked "Can anyone do radical feminism without  believeing
social change is possible".
I do, as an act of witness and to create a historical record.  Also, because
I can't help it.  I can not stand by while evil occurs, if I can do
something about it, whether it works or not, because what happenned in the
Holocaust permeates my consciousness.
Pauline   pbart   AT   ucla.edu

Sender:       Women's Studies List <WMST-L   AT   UMDD.UMD.EDU>

 
WMST-L Listmembers,
I read with great interest and appreciation for its clarity, and
emphasis on distinguishing radical feminism from other feminisms,
Bronwyn Winter's response, specifically to Priscilla Stuckey's remark
concerning "watering down" of the meaning of radical feminism.  What
seems to be missing, particularly in item
c): "positing that the 'universal' category of "women" *is*
possible...," despite the nod to "diversity and difference in the ways
we experience oppression, "  is an acknowledgement of, or problematizing
of the ways that certain categories of "women" -- particularly those in
countries where they exercise voting privileges -- continue to exercise
political choices that are designed to keep in place the status quo;
and,  continue *not* to discuss the ways in which they benefit from
same.  While the discussion certainly is not solely about the
multiplicity of intersecting of oppressions, it ought to include, at a
minimum, discussion of the elisions of power and privilege that obtain
in tandem with the maintainence and reinforcement of (patriarchal)
powers and privileges to the detriment of those who are allegedly
included in the category.
In anticipation of the argument that men control the institutions that
keep oppressions in place, I offer the consideration that most women in
relationships (mother, sister, daughter, lover, etc) with those men
seem, by their observable behaviors, not too intent on inverting power
relationships, at the peril of their own privilege.  Thus, regardless of
what one thinks of the first lady of the United States as she relates to
her mate, she has struck her bargain(s), and hasn't missed a day of her
associated privileges as a result of  the President exercizing his
patriarchal ones.  It is discussions of the vicissitudes of such
arrangements as these that seem not to take place among many of us
within or outside these ivory towers.  Perhaps it is because we
recognize, on some level, the precariousness of our situations, and the
associated hazards of probing too deeply those conditions that hit a bit
too close to the source of bed and board.  In what ways are the various
presidents' houses (regardless of their occupants being male or female)
on our campuses smaller scale versions of the one at 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave., Washington, DC,  and what are our relationships to them?
Any illusions of solid numbers to the contrary, there are only a handful
of Peck's Bad Girls, if you will, among us -- regardless of race,
nation, culture, or religious identities (postro, pomo, poco, homo,
deco, or neo).  What seems lacking from our various stands taken in this
conversation is the concept of feminist movement (as bell hooks
describes it) as a verb, what we in the old days called 'an action word'
-- neither a noun, nor a watered down adjective.  This is no mere
nostalgic longing for the bad old days on my part.  Rather, it is an
expression of a deeply rooted longing and hunger for trustworthy allies
as we grope and grasp our ways toward various utopic (and sometimes
dystopic) visions.
Along with those who have gone before me, I am yours in struggle,
Frances Wood
--
Frances E. Wood
Institute for Women's Studies
Emory University, Atlanta, GA
fwood01   AT   emory.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We have been raised to fear the yes within ourselves, our deepest
cravings.  The fear of our
desires keeps them suspect and indiscriminately powerful, for to
suppress any truth is to give it
strength beyond endurance. -- Audre Lorde
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 
I have it in my head...
 
Bloodroot Collective
85 Ferris St.
Bridgeport, CT 06605
 
203-576-9168
 
Political Palate
Second Seasonal Political Palate
Perennial Political Palate
(and a 4th - a pamphlet addendum - just called the addendum)
 
btw - don't even ask about an email address -- they are also firmly
against the use of personal compuers.
 
Mev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Women's Presses Library Project
..keeping women's words in circulation
Mev Miller, Project Coordinator
1483 Laurel Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104-6737
 
651-646-0097
651-646-1153 /fax
 
wplp   AT   winternet.com

 
Interesting and valuable discussion!  As one who's been out of academia for
several years, and is yet well-aware of the need for intellectual development
of our concepts and activities, I'd like to suggest that "out here" (I live in
rural Utah) the notions of "self-defined" and "situational" feminism seem
critical to the long-term success of the movement.  Seems to me that every
time a woman experiences her first "click," however small (e.g., her husband
is mistreating her and she doesn't have to take it, or it's not right that
she's getting paid less than a male co-worker), it's another step in the right
direction.
 
Believe it or not, in some places it's very effective to simply quote the
definition that we've seen on bumper stickers for years:  "Feminism:  the
radical notion that women are human beings."
 
Kathleen Preston
Humboldt State Univ. (retired)
Arcata, CA
KathKnight   AT   aol.com

 
>On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Mev Miller wrote:
>
>> "I think those in the academy may spend too much time
>> reading/thinking and not enough time "doing" in some community activist
>> sense. I'd venture to say that truly radical feminism demands a serious
>> level of 'getting your hands dirty.'"
 
I was a "professional activist" for 11 years, and a volunteer for many
more. As action coordinator of California NOW, a chapter president, and in
many other positions for the movement, I "taught" women's studies 101 to
many new activists: I did workshops and organized on choice/abortion, on
ERA, on poverty and women, on any number of issues. If I was lucky, I might
have the opportunity to work with a group of women for more than one
session.  More often than not, I might spend a weekend with them before
moving on to another chapter.  They were self-selected, just as our women's
studies students are. Now, as a professor of history and women's studies, I
have the opportunity on a daily basis to raise the consciousness of young
men and women who would never seek out a women's studies class or a NOW
meeting or anything of the sort by integrating women's issues and women's
concerns into every level of what I teach. In my classes, students taking
an Introduction to Latin American Civilizations learn how Europeans systems
of law discriminated against women; how Andean cosmology treated men and
women as equals. They learn about women who participated in the conquest
and the laws that protected the women who were left behind in Spain; they
learn about the oral histories that have been done by women scholars to
bring to light the history of women. In fact, one of the books that I use
is Daphne Patai's _Brazilian Women Speak_.
 
As a professional activist, I learned that for every hour spent on a picket
line or lobbyying a legislator, hundreds of hours were spent doing
grassroot organizing, education and consciousness-raising. As a professor,
I have the opportunity to work with larger numbers than I did as an
organizer and to do a more thorough job of feminist education.
 
I AM getting my hands dirty every single day.  I think that it creates a
false dichotomy to juxtapose women's studies professors against activists
and then imply that we academic feminists are spending too much time not
getting our hands dirty.  ALL of us our needed to create a more just and
egalitarian society; all of us working at every possible level. I challenge
anyone to compare their radical feminist credentials with mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rosa Maria Pegueros
Assistant Professor             PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Department of History              rpe2836u   AT   postoffice.uri.edu
    & Women's Studies Program
Department of History
University of Rhode Island         Phone:(401) 874-4092
113 Washburn Hall             Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Kingston, RI 02881
 
"Politics is great entertainment--better than the zoo,
better than the circus, rougher than football, and even
more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."  --Molly Ivins

 
>
> I AM getting my hands dirty every single day.  I think that it creates a
> false dichotomy to juxtapose women's studies professors against activists
> and then imply that we academic feminists are spending too much time not
> getting our hands dirty.  ALL of us our needed to create a more just and
> egalitarian society; all of us working at every possible level. I challenge
> anyone to compare their radical feminist credentials with mine.
  
here, here!
 
i think that anyone who works with students in specialised -- and
traditionally marginalised -- studies areas *is* an activist.  if you
enlighten two people in a classroom every lecture or seminar meeting, you
have reached out into a community.  those people will, in turn, reach out
to others.  isn't that what activism is all about -- bringing important
issues to people's attention and making a difference?
 
rosemary peters crick
cricket   AT   fidalgo.net

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
>Its about believing that change is possible-- and possible for the next
>generation  even if it is in small incremental steps.I do believe that
>mothers of three can be radical, community feminist activists, womenwho
>study feminism the philosophy and act as a feminist in daily life.
 
This is a terrific discussion.  Lots of us are lurking out there and
aren't posting messages because our hands are too dirty from doing
radical feminism.  Indeed, I decided to take a break from working on my
"Crown Him Patriarch" article to post some thoughts.
 
As a single, heterosexual, middle class, high-tech professional woman
who goes on ski trips and loves opera, I live a counter-revolutionary
yuppie liberal feminist lifestyle.  At yet, most of my feminist energy
is geared to getting that 'p' word out of the closet.  I am working
on a website, "Out of the Cave:  Exploring Gray's Anatomy" which takes
a sociological view of the Mars&Venus phenomenon.  I had a great time
writing about masculinity/femininity and got great feedback from
students and teachers on the article.  I giggle when people say I'm
a voice of reason, for much of my material comes from people who've
been influenced by the radicals.
 
My sources are Masculinities, After Eden, The Gender Knot, The
Creation of Patriarchy, The Chalice and the Blade, Gender and Grace,
The Mismeasure of Woman, Love Between Equals, Loving to Survive and some
articles from Ms.  None of these excellent books could have been written if
radical feminists hadn't kicked the doors open and challenged us
"moderates" to face the music.
 
It took me a long time to acknowledge my debt to radical feminists.
When Dworkin's "Intercourse" was published, I was embarassed.  I hated
"that book" and thought "women like Andrea" gave feminism a bad name
 . . until Mr. Mars&Venus did the infamous Yahoo interview.
 
Yes, "Dr" Gray tried to order women to give their husbands two-minute
hand jobs because "he's been working hard all day".  He said "sex was
always for the man" and that "feminists have brainwashed women".  As
I read through the interview, I started thinking, "Thank God for
feminists like Andrea."
 
As I got acquainted with Susan Hamson of "The Rebuttal From Uranus",
the WWW feminist critique of the Mars&Venus books, I learned even
more about Gray's views on sex.  He's a great beliver in "quickies"
and uses every trick in the book to get women to submit to them.  As
I read through Mars&Venus In the Bedroom (a real character-building
experience), I caught myself thinking, "Thank God for feminists like
Kitty."
 
My experiences with Mars&Venus haven't exactly turned me into a die-
hard champion of activists like Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Daly.  I still
think they go over the top.  But I'm disgusted with the media
cariacatures and will not let anyone trash them.  As long as men like John
Gray exist, we'll need feminists like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine
MacKinnon, and Mary Daly.
 
Kathleen Trigiani
ktrig246   AT   airmail.net
 
*********************************************
"Out of the Cave:  Exploring Gray's Anatomy"
http://web2.airmail.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave
You Don't Have to Settle For Mars&Venus!

 
> Now, as a professor of history and women's studies, I
>have the opportunity on a daily basis to raise the consciousness of young
>men and women who would never seek out a women's studies class or a NOW
>meeting or anything of the sort by integrating women's issues and women's
>concerns into every level of what I teach. <snip> . . . . As a professor,
>I have the opportunity to work with larger numbers than I did as an
>organizer and to do a more thorough job of feminist education.
>
>I AM getting my hands dirty every single day.  I think that it creates a
>false dichotomy to juxtapose women's studies professors against activists
>and then imply that we academic feminists are spending too much time not
>getting our hands dirty.  ALL of us our needed to create a more just and
>egalitarian society; all of us working at every possible level. I challenge
>anyone to compare their radical feminist credentials with mine.
 
 
Thank you, Rosa Maria Pegueros for such a eloquent and graphic
illustration!! I once calculated that I had taught approximately 1500
students in the core classes I taught as a grad student, Post-doctoral
lecturer, and now teach as a Visiting Assistant Professor. I know, from
what I have read on student evaluations and from student comments, that I
have changed minds regarding feminism and women's studies. It may not seem
particulary 'dirty' work, but it certainly is gritty and difficult! I was
just speaking with a close friend who teaches in the Chicago area. We have
both noticed new, and dangerous, trends in our University students. Our
classes are not women's studies classes, but are introductory English
Composition. I have more young women who write about being abused by their
partners in high school, more who are anorexic, more writing about rape
experiences. We have older students who are struggling to improve their
economic situations by education. Her students, male and female, are
writing of their experiences in alcoholic and abusive families. These
students are no less deserving of our help because they are in a university
'ivory tower' environment. For some students, I have been their *only*
female professor and that fact alone has made women students think about
their isolation. I agree with Rosa; feminists are needed on all fronts and
when we start the battle of "I'm more feminist than you,"  we change
nothing.
 
 
******************
Dr. Amy L. Wink
Department of English and Philosophy
Stephen F. Austin State University
P.O. Box 13007, SFA Station
Nacogdoches, Tx 75962-3007
(409) 468-2007
awink   AT   sfasu.edu
 
"A Letter always feels to me like immortality because it is the mind alone
without corporeal friend. Indebted in our talk to attitude and accent,
there seems a spectral power in thought that walks alone."
 
            Emily Dickinson
              _Selected Letters_ (#330, p. 196)
 
*******************

 
A lot of list-members are making compelling points about the degree to
which as professors/teachers our work is activist.  I certainly feel that
the work I do in this realm has a strong activist component, and given my
own lack of participation in specific political organizing projects in
the past few years, it is the only realm where I am at all activist these
days (as I don't consider publishing at this time, and writing theory to
be activist although it can have a role in activism, althought that's
another thread).  However I think there's a missing thread in this
conversation that another post-er raised, namely the sense of and
yearning for a social movement.  There is a universe of issues (and one
that has gone beyond the question of the  meaning of radical feminism
specifically, to the extent that radical feminism is a specific,
political ideology, I
think, although it might be related) and questions raised by the
conversation thus far: can we call ourselves activists if we are not
trying at the same time to build a movement--or movements--to organize,
to act in solidarity in various ways *as intellectuals* and *as
professors/teachers*??  Are we activists if we are aiming to change
minds, one on one, individually, as instructors in our individual
classrooms?  While many of us are engaged in doing the same or similar
things, are we organizing on political bases, attempting to build not
only in forms of intellectual collaboration, although that is important,
and not only through forms of professional associations--but as
intellectual collaborators and professional associations are we trying to
build collective positions and actions on political issues that include
creating political space within the academy but extend to deliberating
about the relationship between feminism in the academy and feminism in
the world outside of the academy--deliberating about what is to be done?  In
short, it is watering down the meaning of radicalism
and activism to call teaching or writing radicalism and activism if these
actions are not connected to a social movement, or to even the
ideal/struggle of and for a social movement.
 
Kathy Miriam
kmiriam   AT   cats.ucsc.edu

 
Hullo all you amazing, articulate, committed and activist women,
 
I've been following this thread with keen interest even though I was out of
province for several weeks and missed the beginning of it.
 
I'm white, although I prefer to call myself "coral", heterosexual, married
(almost 25 years to the same partner) with an utterly wonderful son.  I'm
also an artist, a psychiatrized woman and a whole lot of other things.  I
consider myself a radical feminist.  Most of my activism has been around
anti-violence, anti-racism and arts-related issues (love those Guerrilla
Grrls!).  One of the wonderful things about the early women's liberation
movement was the encouragement to name *ourselves*.  It feels, in many
ways, that we've lost that - IMHO.
 
In any event, during the past number of years I have been involved in
developing, with some others, the psychiatrized women's liberation
movement.  What we mean by "psychiatrized" is women who have been
raped/battered or, otherwise, abused and have sought help through the
mental health system.  I was raped as a young girl and later raped again as
an adult.  When I sought help I was pathologized and re-traumatized.  After
being in the system for 18 months I was on a pharmacology of 33 psych
drugs, each one to counteract the effects of another.  I went from being an
active, vibrant, powerful, self-possessed woman to one could not function
on *any* level whatsoever.  I was one of the lucky ones - my partner and
some friends realized that something was *very* wrong and took steps to
bring me back to my self.  Many women never recover.
 
My story is not uncommon and it should be of real concern to all women.
Women are the majority within the MH system; they are continually being
pathologized and their experiences individualized daily in our countries;
ECT (electrocution to the brain) is now back in vogue; seclusion is common;
physical 4 point restraints (often naked because, it is claimed, the woman
may "hurt herself" if left with any clothing on"); chemical restraints and
other degrading, dehumanizing "treatments".  Rapes occur in these psych
hospitals; beatings; emotional abuse; threats and sometimes deaths that are
covered up or explained away.
 
I wasn't "mentally ill" when I entered the system but certainly became so
while there.
 
The psychiatric and drug companies are making enormous profits off our
pain.  Last year the companies manufacturing psych drugs (which, in our
view, manufacture madness) made more than all the oil companies combined.
 
And, our governments are passing new MH legislation which will *force*
"treatment".  This will take us back to the days when a disgruntled husband
can commit or force his wife or daughter to take psych drugs.  We call them
"leash laws" and believe, if anything, that the men who violate us should
wear the leashes, not us.
 
I could write a dissertation on this subject but most of us have wanted to
write articles which brings me to my point.  We wonder why those of you
within the academy - and outside of it - are not writing about this issue??
I was an active feminist before any of this happened to me.  It could
happen to any of us or our daughters.  There is no *choice* in my country
other than the "medical model".
 
When we have approached the women's press we have been received with a
stony silence.  The papers are full of the dogma of the professionals and
their "poster girls" who proclaim how wonderful their lives are since
finding these "miracle drugs".  Their eyes are glassy; they speak very
slowly and carefully; their pain has been stuffed and their voices are
silenced.
 
What's up sisters?
 
Sasha McInnes
sasha   AT   worldchat.com
sasha   AT   worldchat.com
 
The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in
everything humiliating.
Gandhi

I think that it creates a
>> false dichotomy to juxtapose women's studies professors against activi=
sts
>> and then imply that we academic feminists are spending too much time n=
ot
>> getting our hands dirty.
 
 
I'm new at this list. Let me add something because topic is very
interesting. (sorry for my poor English)
 
I'm from Poland, where feminism is not popular and little known.
However there is also dichotomy between theoretists and activists.
 
It' big fault for me, because they (rather: we) should cooperate.
 
 I think feminists who deal with support programme for women do very
important work. They deal with effects of opressive culture. It's a next =
big
problem, that many women don't want to be really free (for example they
don't want to divorce with men who beat them).
 
Thus the problem is our mentality, selfconsiousness. It's a problem of ou=
r
culture and theoretists try to work with it.
 
Undoubtedly theoretists are needed, because of chance to change this
culture.
They (we, I'm also "theoretic") can show ways of opressing women, how
feminity is constructed in our society, they can change ways of thinking
women about themselves, show how to break through opression. Thanks to th=
em
women can get know their history, start to think in a positive way about
themselves.
 
This is why opposition between theoretists and activists shouldn't exist,
this is why they should cooperate. They works are not opposition!
 
>
>i think that anyone who works with students in specialised -- and
>traditionally marginalised -- studies areas *is* an activist.
 
 
Yes, it's truth. I feel it, when I work with students. I teach art histor=
y
at university, but for many students I'm first person who give them chanc=
e
to get better know feminism. (as I said earlier feminism in Poland is
unpopular, people afraid of it and have very strange stereotypes on
feminism).
My course on modern art often change into kind of battle between feminist
and traditional points of view.
 
 
Sorry for my English, once again!
 
Regards
 
Iza Kowalczyk
izakow   AT   amu.edu.pl

 
At 09:47 AM 12/4/98 -0800, Kathy Miriam wrote:
 
snip snip
 
However I think there's a missing thread in this
>conversation that another post-er raised, namely the sense of and
>yearning for a social movement.
 
snip snip
 
 can we call ourselves activists if we are not
>trying at the same time to build a movement--or movements--to organize,
>to act in solidarity in various ways *as intellectuals* and *as
>professors/teachers*??  Are we activists if we are aiming to change
>minds, one on one, individually, as instructors in our individual
>classrooms?
 
 
Kathy, thank you - this makes a lot of sense to me, in the context of what
I wrote earlier about psychiatrized women and I hope that listers who are
teaching in the areas of women's psychology/psychiatry/health *hear* this.
 
In the early days of the women's liberation movement I recall that one
woman's pain became all of our outrage and we worked to change the
environment in which abuses could occur.  At the time and for many years
afterwards, feminist therapists and other health-related women were
involved with the rest of us and cheered us on, providing us with the
theory and historical perspective we needed to validate our demands.
During the 80s and 90s this changed dramatically.  Rather than working *in
community*, we became isolated one from another - our groups disappeared,
our radical newspapers and magazines stopped publishing, our women's
galleries and theatre groups disbanded and it became a case of "since we
can't change the world, we'll change you" - with one woman sitting in the
office of another woman, being "fixed".  There's a real power imbalance
inherent in this process.
 
I'm not against one-on-one work but the loss of community makes this
meaningless IMHO.  It is for this reason that I asked if any of you have
the early writings on CR groups - I believe we need to reclaim those heady
and empowering resources.
 
 
Sasha McInnes
sasha   AT   worldchat.com
 
The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in
everything humiliating.
Gandhi

 
At 09:47 AM 12/4/98 -0800, Kathy Miriam wrote:
 
However I think there's a missing thread in this
>conversation that another post-er raised, namely the sense of and
>yearning for a social movement.
 
And then Sasha <sasha   AT   WORLDCHAT.COM> wrote:
>Are we activists if we are aiming to change
>minds, one on one, individually, as instructors in our individual
>classrooms?
 
I find it curious that classroom instruction would be considered one-on-one
as if it were not the way organizing is most effective.  I have between 120
and 150 students a semester.
Yes, it is one-on-one but it also to a large number of people.
 
I think you mean that they--the students--don't think of themselves as part
of a movement; they don't yearn to build a movement, etc. May I suggest
that that is only one way to go about making change?  I subscribe to the
"Undermine the conservatives--educate their children" school of social
change.
 
There are lots of romantic notions attached to picketing and carrying
signs, wearing buttons, being involved in dusk-to-dawn meetings. I'm no
longer convinced that that is the best way to make change.  I dislike the
drawbacks of that kind of movement work--the power cliques and internicine
battles; the intense dedication and the inevitable burnout; the need to
focus on a few narrow issues to hold together a coalition; the party line
and the condemnations of those who don't toe it. In my case, I once had a
national leader tell me that I was "out of line," because I openly
disagreed with some of the organization's policies.
 
Women's Studies is a movement and it can be as contentious as any movement
I've seen. Do we, all, think of ourselves as members of a movement that is
revolutionizing the way students think about the world? We are doing it.
Why is there is the reluctance to think of it as a movement?  Because there
is no perfect unity? Because there are dissidents, loyal opponents, and
iconoclasts? Sounds like a healthy movement to me.
 
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rosa Maria Pegueros
Assistant Professor             PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Department of History              rpe2836u   AT   postoffice.uri.edu
    & Women's Studies Program
Department of History
University of Rhode Island         Phone:(401) 874-4092
113 Washburn Hall             Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Kingston, RI 02881
 
"Politics is great entertainment--better than the zoo,
better than the circus, rougher than football, and even
more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."  --Molly Ivins

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
I love this discussion on the meaning of radical feminism.  I do not
think all these feminisms need to oppose each other.  Rather, we should
draw on their strengths and work around their weaknesses.  When I want
to get a bill through Congress or develop a self-esteem program for
young girls and teenage women, I'll go to liberal feminists.  When I
want to analyze a situation and see what's *really* going on, I'll go
to radical feminists.  When I need help with the messiness of gender and
accepting ambivalence, I'll go to postmodern feminists.  And so on.
 
Let's face it.  There are different feminisms, but I don't think they
are nice, neat little boxes where the twain never meets.  While I view
feminism as a philosophy rather than a set of positions, I do have my
litmus tests.  Who doesn't?  There is no way I can see Camille Paglia
or Christine Hoff Summers as feminists.  However, I do not think one has
to be pro-choice to see patriarchy as an unethical, oppressive social
system.
 
For me, activism means you *act out* and *advocate* your convictions
wherever you are.  You bloom where you are planted.  There are millions
of ways to do it!  While I see a need for a grassroots-based feminist
education and anti-defamation organization, I sense that these groups
don't just spring up overnight.   It seems like we have to hit a certain
bifurcation point before the individuals working for change start to
coalesce into a rejeuvenated movement.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
>At 09:47 AM 12/4/98 -0800, Kathy Miriam wrote:
>
>However I think there's a missing thread in this
>>conversation that another post-er raised, namely the sense of and
>>yearning for a social movement.
>
>And then Sasha <sasha   AT   WORLDCHAT.COM> wrote:
>>Are we activists if we are aiming to change
>>minds, one on one, individually, as instructors in our individual
>>classrooms?
 
And then Rosa Maria Pegueros wrote:
 
>I find it curious that classroom instruction would be considered one-on-one
>as if it were not the way organizing is most effective.  I have between 120
>and 150 students a semester.
>Yes, it is one-on-one but it also to a large number of people.
 
Another thing that seems to be underlying this discussion is devaluing work
traditionally done by women, and continuing to be done by women, at all
levels--teaching.
 
Just a thought,
 
Amy
 
******************
Dr. Amy L. Wink
Department of English and Philosophy
Stephen F. Austin State University
P.O. Box 13007, SFA Station
Nacogdoches, Tx 75962-3007
(409) 468-2007
awink   AT   sfasu.edu
 
"A Letter always feels to me like immortality because it is the mind alone
without corporeal friend. Indebted in our talk to attitude and accent,
there seems a spectral power in thought that walks alone."
 
            Emily Dickinson
              _Selected Letters_ (#330, p. 196)
 
*******************

 
Amy Wink writes:
 
Another thing that seems to be underlying this discussion is devaluing work
traditionally done by women, and continuing to be done by women, at all
levels--teaching.
 
Just a thought
 
my response:
 
I think that teaching is one of the more decent forms of work available
today.  I don't think that decent, ethically and socially valuable work
is equivalent to activism.  Raising consciousness is an important
dimension of social activism and transformation but it is not the same
thing as organized political resistance.
Leonora Smith's comment about whether we can be activists and yet be
promoting patriarchal policies as is the nature of education in our
culture is spot on: I believe that feminist teaching can be part of an
activist project, a movment, if feminist educators begin to collectively,
concretely wrestle with the kinds of contradictions that inevitably come
with feminist incursion into the professions.  This doesn't mean that we
can reach a place of utopian purity; it means that without collective
struggle our work is individualized and contained by the larger, dominant
institutions.  I think that we do wrestle at times with these
contradictions individually and in these kinds of conversations (for
example about attendance policy) but they point to larger problems (the
way university policies and departments, etc are shaped by shifts in
capitalism, for a huge example) that can not be solved individually.
 
Kathy Miriam
kmiriam   AT   cats.ucsc.edu

 
Amy L. Wink wrote:
>
<snip>
> Another thing that seems to be underlying this discussion is devaluing work
> traditionally done by women, and continuing to be done by women, at all
> levels--teaching.
<snip>
 
How long must something exist to be a tradition? In many countries it
was an achievement of first-wave feminists that women were allowed to
become (secular school) teachers.
 
Cheers,
Jutta
******************************************************************
Jutta Zalud           Phone (home):     ++43-1-272 99 02
Deublergasse 48/5     Phone (office):   ++43-1-712 10 01 ext. 76
A-1210 Vienna         Fax:              ++43-1-713 74 40
Austria               email:            a7400819   AT   unet.univie.ac.at
                                        jutta.zalud   AT   magnet.at
******************************************************************

 
Thanks, Kathy, Ditmar and Amy--I'm just delighted to be having this
discussion. 
 
I agree that teaching as women's work is devalued--the younger the
student, the more s/he is at risk, the less value and prestige accrue to
the teaching--an educational practice that is the converse of triage.
 
Still, I'd would like to distinguish between teacher bashing and
cultural critique of our (capitalist and patriarchal) educational
system.  For me to say that a teacher in any public institution is in
some way a overseer for the larger culture's values is not a criticism
of the teachers them(our)selves as persons, but a description of
teachers' cultural role(s).
 
It's simply what I believe to be the facts of the case--the way
schooling works. (If we were teachers in Cuban colleges, we would be
forepersons for communism and patriarchy.)  As individuals, we struggle
with the tensions and inconsistancies between what we believe and the
requirements of our work, but we have to comply to some extent, or we
wouldn't have jobs. 
 
For example, I have no reason to believe that putting a group of
eighteen year olds in a room together in desks arranged in rows for an
hour a day is the "best" way to teach them almost anything.  This is not
the structure I would design or choose, and it does not arise a vacuum.=20
(Around the world, most education doesn't go on in "school rooms" except
under colonial influences.  These structures aren't just accidents of
history.  They serve some interests. Whose?  The students? I don't think
so.) 
 
But if I were to say, okay, we won't meet at all in this room at this
time, I'd get fired, tenure or no.  What I can do is to change the
arrangement of the chairs (if they aren't nailed down) and to call the
classroom situation itself into question--to being it into
consciousness.  I can also make the kinds of arrangements Ditmar
describes so thoughtfully--alternatives which loosen the bounds of these
structures or make them pinch less--many things I can do that are
liberatory for me and for my students, both in groups and individually.=20
But it is still guerilla work; its reach is short, and if it is too
successful, there's always a cost.
 
And as an activist, I can't just stop there.  (Perhaps this is where the
surfaces between 'liberal' and 'radical' begin to rub.)  Unless I work
with others to undermine the structures themselves, I would be fooling
myself to think I were really an agent of change. 
 
To accept that the embedded practices we carry out as
teachers--attendance, grading, even empowering 'cooperative
learning'--are neutral or in the interests of students, or that we can
take these structures and employ them to feminist ends, is always
arguable and should be argued if we want to understand where we are.
 
Not that it isn't painful.
 
Leonora Smith

 
>I do not
>think all these feminisms need to oppose each other.  Rather, we should
>draw on their strengths and work around their weaknesses.  When I want
>to get a bill through Congress or develop a self-esteem program for
>young girls and teenage women, I'll go to liberal feminists.  When I
>want to analyze a situation and see what's *really* going on, I'll go
>to radical feminists.  When I need help with the messiness of gender and
>accepting ambivalence, I'll go to postmodern feminists.  And so on.
 
I think Joanne Callahan makes a very useful point here.  I'm in the
secondary classroom and in doctoral studies, very much aware of the gulf
between academic feminists theories and the complicated situation of doing
feminist work in schools. In public schools, as in other grass roots place
(and I assume, the academy as well), we pick up and use the discourses
which allow us to say and do what we need in the particular situated
context we are inhabiting at any particular moment. Which is not to say
that we don't operate from a reasonably stable and consistent place in our
own self-defined feminism, but as other people have pointed out, words are
a form of action; words are a form of doing; the words that allow us to do
what we need to do are more important than the boundaries of categories.
In any case, I think we need to distinguish between the act of categorizing
for conceptual purposes, usually a textual practice situated in the
community of practice of the academy, and the uptake of useful discourses
to interact tactically with audiences in usually face to face situations.
At the chalk face as the British critped people say.
 
Avril Chalmers

 
>(...those in the academy may spend too much time reading/thinking and not
enough time
>"doing" in some community activist
>sense. I'd venture to say that trully radical feminism demands a serious
level of 'getting
>your hands dirty.)
 
I considered long and hard before I made my original statement, fearing
exactly the kind of reaction and defensiveness that has been occurring
over the past week-- especially those that perceives this as 'false'
dichotomy', polarization, divide and conquer, etc.
 
I want to thank Kathy Miriam for her helpful insights.
 
First let me say that I think the work feminist do in the
academy--especially that which REALLY challenges patriarchal status quo
among students and structures--is vitally important. Also, I think theory
is important not for it's own sake but especially when it is founded in
serious practice -- reflection based in praxis.
 
I do not and did not mean to devalue the work that radical feminists are
doing inside the academy. I just know that sometimes when we're in the
academy, it's easy to become distanced from the 'world out there.'
 
The university remains --  still-- a place of privelege. There are many
radical feminists who don't participate in the academy because they
identify it as a patriarchal enclave (women's studies notwithstanding),
or they can't get accepted as a student or hired as a faculty into a
program, or they plain just don't have the financial resources to become
students.
 
When i said "getting your hands dirty" I was *not only* referring to the
activism or making revolution as merely protesting on the streets. When I
said "getting your hands dirty" I was also specifically refering to the
many radical feminists (and others who who not identify themselves as
such) who volunteer and/or work-for-money in places such as: battered
women's shelters, literacy centers, rape crisis lines, advocates for
prostitutes coming off the street, homeless shelters, women's bookstores,
popular education centers, prisons, halfway houses, abortion clinics,
welfare offices and agencies, women's labor unions, transitional housing
and employment agencies, creating alternative economies, and all the
numerous other places (non-profit or non-traditional or even retail
sector) where women who are physically, emotionally, and psychically
battered by the everyday violence of the patriarchy gather. These are
women who I perceive to be placing themselves in great risk --
physically, economically, emotionally. I think it's easy for us in the
academy to forget and/or discount or devalue the important work they are
doing.
 
I'm not denying that the many women (of any age) who come through the
university or community college are not hurt by patriarchy and could be
changed by whatever revelatory experiences they have in women's studies.
 
I also want to acknowledge (and thank) Leaonora for her observations as
well ((she wrote - And as an activist, I can't just stop there.  (Perhaps
this is where the
surfaces between 'liberal' and 'radical' begin to rub.)  Unless I work
with others to undermine the structures themselves, I would be fooling
myself to think I were really an agent of change.  ))
 
I also think that all of us in the academy need to be always aware "of
the people" and remember that what is representative "of women" when
we're 'doing theory' needs to be grounded * beyond * our experiences in
the academy. I fear that the real life experiences of women confronting
the day-to-day violence of patriarchal systems ARE largely unheard by
women in the academy and that affects how we do our theory. (too many of
the university press books I review for Feminist Bookstore News bears
this out!!)
 
Wherever we're located, my hope is that we can continue to build --
together -- a successful organized  movement that changes things
systemically and creates justice for us as women.
 
of course, input of academics is important to this -- only to the extent
that it does not ignore, deny, belittle, or coopt the lived experiences
of women outside the academy -- who can be and are also very capable of
'theorizing' and many of whom are infact creating theories of their own
(though they may not be published - or only oublished in places such as
"off Our Backs" and 'zines, etc.)).
 
I agree with Bronwyn who wrote --
Among women in the academy, from what I have observed, radical feminists
are the ones who keep the closest ties between their academic work and their
activism.  *Of course* any woman is capable of thinking (and writing),
whatever her socioeconomic or "approved intellectual" status.  Any woman
is also capable of being an activists, "even" academics.  Most radical
feminists do both, fortunately.
 
Hope this helps to clarify what I meant.
Mev
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Women's Presses Library Project
..keeping women's words in circulation
Mev Miller, Project Coordinator
1483 Laurel Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104-6737
 
651-646-0097
651-646-1153 /fax
 
wplp   AT   winternet.com

 
In response to Joanne's thoughtfully pragmatic distinctions between the
usefulness of various feminisms for various purposes, Avril says:
 
----------
 
In public schools, as in other grass roots place
(and I assume, the academy as well), we pick up and use the discourses
which allow us to say and do what we need in the particular situated
context we are inhabiting at any particular moment. Which is not to say
that we don't operate from a reasonably stable and consistent place in
our
own self-defined feminism, but as other people have pointed out, words
are
a form of action; words are a form of doing; the words that allow us to
do
what we need to do are more important than the boundaries of categories.

---------------
The problem I find most difficult is not the mechanics of accomodation
but the heart-sickness I (sometimes) experience when the language I have
to use to account account for my work is in direct conflict with my own
"stable and consistant" feminism.
 
I think these tensions have repercussions for women who often experience
their 'dis-ease' as a personal psychological problem instead of a
symptom of some larger social drama.  ( I often do until I talk to
another woman who feels something similar and we say: "Oho, that's
what's going on...")
 
There isn't a cure for everything (sad as I am to admit it) but it is a
step in the right direction to hear other women discuss what they do
when the shoe they are asked to wear feels just too tight.
 
Leonora Smith