I agree, concrete suggestions are more useful than labels and 
definitions. These all sound like good concrete suggestions to me 
(okay, maybe not Veganism for everyone :-), though steps to make it 
easier to be Vegan for those who chose it would be good).

Dave

On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:05 AM, Erica O'Connor wrote:

>      I warned Daniel that asking people to slap a
> label on themselves was premature in this stage of the
> debate.  I suspected not everyone would be
> sufficiently immersed in feminist literature to choose
> intelligently and meaningfully between the preexisting
> subcategories.  I expected some polarizing and
> posturing but I did not anticipate such an
> embarrassing cacophony of responses.	For some reason
> many of you feared the possibility that your carefully
> manicured identities might be marred by association
> with some silly tenant from the most extreme version
> of feminism out there--when in fact no one here, not
> even the self-proclaimed radical feminists, ever
> actually supported this idea.  The idea I'm referring
> to is the complete abolition of gender aesthetics or
> the categorical denial of any sort of "intrinsic"
> differences in the sexes.
>      We've already discussed the underappreciated
> plasticity of both sexes in filling traditional gender
> roles and the fact that gender stereotypes are
> injurious to individuals' freedom--both female AND
> male individuals.  You didn't even need to be
> following the debate from the beginning to glean some
> of this.  Just look at past subject titles.
> "Feminism" was placed right alongside "Masculinism"
> and both were followed by the even more inclusive
> term, "Anti-sterotypism".  I already provided a
> plausible mechanism for social change which would
> maximize freedom while circumventing worries of
> current differences in the sexes.  (And if it does
> not, someone do me the favor of telling me why not).
> This is where we STARTED and where it seems we have
> laboriously returned.  And maybe if everyone had spent
> less energy valiantly slashing at this "straw
> feminist" we could have actually gotten somewhere more
> practical.
>      Let me also remind those marching after Prince
> James the Reasonable (other than the fact that he did
> not establish any new common ground) that it takes
> sound information to reason effectively (not to
> mention EFFORT).  Those who consider misogyny and
> gender discrimination in general as occupying some
> insignificant, dark corner of the world are either
> woefully ignorant, seriously misinformed, or both.
> Augie already provided some inklings and evidence is
> heavy on her side.  Oppression of women is objective
> reality by any reasonable definition of "objective"
> and "reality."  To steal from Richard Dawkins, my
> advice to those still in doubt is simply, "go away and
> read a book."  I now know better than to politely
> spoon-feed you all articles you declare you won't read
> or interviews you won't listen to.
>     From listening to this debate I'm reminded of a
> study on racism.  For obvious reasons I won't bother
> to dig up the reference.  The study involved two
> intelligent men who went to the same high school and
> the same college.  They scored roughly equivalent
> grades, spoke the same vernacular, wore similarly
> styled clothes etc.  Their most notable outward
> difference was that one was Caucasian and the other
> African-American.  Both men were privileged and
> educated.  When interviewed before the study was
> conducted neither could recall ever personally
> experiencing racial discrimination.  They sent both
> men in person to apply/interview for jobs and try to
> secure an apartment.	The African-American went first.
>  There were many instances in which he was told the
> position was filled or that the apartment had just
> been snatched up.  Then ten minutes later the
> Caucasian man would go up to the same person that just
> rejected the African-American and be enthusiastically
> offered the apartment or job.  Importantly, at the
> time the African-American did not suspect he was a
> victim of racial discrimination.  He only realized
> this after he saw the video of the interactions
> between the other subject in the study and the
> interviewer or landlord.  My point should be obvious:
> just because you can't see it, don't mean it ain't
> there.
>      Similarly, just because you're a woman doesn't
> mean you don't discriminate against other women based
> on sex.  Studies show (the ones in the interviews I
> already sent) that both men and women are more
> critical and less forgiving regarding other women’s
> performance in the workplace.  Often a woman will say
> something insightful in a meeting and later that idea
> will be credit to a man instead.  Without realizing it
> some female teachers punish female students who speak
> with a high degree of confidence while at the same
> time rewarding the same behavior in male students.
> Awareness of both overt and convert discrimination and
> misogyny is important if things are going to change.
>
>      So, anyway I don't care if you call yourself a
> stark-raving-mad-uber-feminist or a
> misogynist-sympathizer.  Let's at least agree the
> problem exists and get on to some practical matters.
>     I’ll propose some starters.  Since gender
> discrimination is extremely difficult to destroy its
> roots (though we should solider on there as well), I
> think it makes perfect sense to legislate greater
> diversity as a short-term fix.  Advocates of equality
> can also point out to wayward companies and
> institutions that their efficiency and bottom line are
> positively affected by greater gender diversity (and
> on average it is).  We should make it easier for women
> to access resources that will enable them to
> independently raise their children.  A first step
> could be raising the minimum wage and encouraging
> quality daycare centers at work.  It is also important
> that everyone, especially those who can't afford a
> fancy lawyer, have easy access to the legal system so
> they can prosecute and punish employers who sexually
> harass them or discriminate against them based on
> gender.  We should find whoever is paying women less
> and make them suffer.  Legally.  We should do whatever
> we can to stop the oppression of women
> abroad--supporting international human rights
> organizations etc.  We should stop talking as if we
> *know* what is inherently or intrinsically masculine
> or feminine; as if it mattered; as if the debate is
> even intelligible.  This language promotes harmful
> gender stereotypes.  Psychological diseases such as
> anorexia should be handled openly and aggressively
> treated just like any other medical disease--without
> stigma or shame.  Everyone in the developed world
> should become vegan!	Ok, that last thing isn't really
> as pertinent.  Foreshadowing anyone?	Hehehehe.
> You get the idea.  Let the games begin.
> Again, thank you for your endurance.	I’m having a
> good time, I hope you are too.
> -Erica
>
>
>
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
aka thecat Æ umich.edu, aka KB8PWY
home: 734-995-5525  UofM (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
ElectroDynamic Applications Inc.
phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
morris Æ edapplications.com