NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/bit/listserv/psycgrad/4657

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.7 KB | 80 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU!WAGNERL
X-Envelope-to: [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: IN%"psycgrad@uottawa"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:30:55 -0700
Sender:       Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List
              <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      L7 feminists and enlightened Pixies
Lines: 63

On 22-nov-1992 Kathy writes:

>>So--I'm not sure I know what you're trying to get at here......?

Actually, from the substance of Kathy's subsequent note, I believe she
understood the essence of my original message.  However, for the sake
of reciprocity I will take a moment to attempt to clarify my question
somewhat.

If we agree that one of the components of friendship is a mutual sense of
equality, and if friendship is a relative rarity (i.e.  not everyone is
our friend), then how should we understand equality with regard to
feminism (or sexism), racism, etc?  To be overly explicit:  either
everyone is our equal, in which case it isn't really pertinent to
cite it as a requirement for friendship any more than we require living
entities in the relationship.  On the other hand, if one of the difficulties
in developing valuable friendships is finding others who share many of the
same ideas, interests, as well as goals and capabilities ("equals" in
other words), then how can everyone be our equal?

This is really just one potential counter-example to the notion of
universal equality.  One reasonable tactic to avoid this trap is to
particularize the concept of equality by qualifying it with some
limiting adjetive such as "intrisically"; which Kathy seemed to
see the merit of doing.  (Another potential counter-example is in
applying the definition to children.  In what ways are children the
equals of adults?  At what age does one become "equal" enough?
I mean, clearly we want some age discrimination here with regard
to the hiring practices of children.  I digress.)

Actually, I'm surprised that more responses didn't come across asserting
that "of course we're all equal".  That gives me some hope that people
are thinking about what they say and write.  On the other hand, perhaps
nobody reads any of this.  Very few people listen.  Fewer people "read".
Perhaps these are just blinking bits in the bottomless pits of the
netherworld [signifying nothing].

In closing, I tend to agree with the gist of what Kathy is saying.  If I
can paraphrase I think she is saying that people should be fair.  If they
are fair, in "her eyes" they are "feminists".  I think I prefer the more
general term "enlightened".  However, I do have a minor problem with an
overdependence on personal idiosyncratic definitions.  They serve a
purpose up to a point.  To concretize this problem let me offer my
own definition of feminism:

Feminism:  a doctrine requiring all adherents of said doctrine to
           listen to at least an hour a year of L7 music.

Now when discussing this topic if we aren't already confused enough we
can talk about feminists, feminists a la Kathy, and feminists a la
Larry.  The latter could go by the shorter term of L7 feminists.
By the way I listen to L7 and I try to be fair.  So by my terms I am
a feminist, and by my interpretation of Kathy's definition I might be
in the process of becoming a feminist.

I hope this clarifies what was unclear before.  Some of this is said
with the intention of conveying a certain amount of humor although my
respect for the issue, and particularly the people rationally discussing
the issue, is real.

Rock on.

Larry.