I agree that it is very humble, reasonable, and open-minded of Laurie to
present disclaimers with her opinions.	If those qualities are "feminine"
rather than "masculine", then that is one more way in which the world
could benefit by becoming more feminine.

However, that is clearly not the way to get ahead in the masculine world.
One reason people hated John Kerry so much, even those who respected him
ideologically, is that he was always willing to allow for some gray areas
surrouding the important issues.  Bush, on the other hand, blustered right
ahead with his opinions with 100% conviction, independently of the extent
to which they were based in fact.  No matter your political allegiance,
you can't deny that this conviction was a factor that worked in Bush's
favor in the previous election.

So, is the answer for women to be more like men, to fit into the masculine
world precisely the way men do?  I think not, and that is why I am not a
liberal feminist--instead I would rather see the world change, but I
understand that this is unlikely to happen.

-Victoria

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Melanie Reeves wrote:

> This response helps me understand exactly why I agree with the ideas of equal
opportunities for women, yet have no desire, in fact negative desire, to call
myself a feminist.  It's the same reason I don't call myself anything really; a
republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic.  I don't like labels.  I
like to simply decide how I feel per issue.  The only label I'll take is
"reasonablist", I like that.
>
> I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making disclaimers about her response is
clearly a way of 1) showing humbleness and plurality of opinion, as James
mentions as a possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a discussion
about a subject she's not well read on.  It's very possible that someone's
response could change her opinion, so she's showing up front that's she's not
100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be in general - humble and
open-minded.
>
> Melanie
>
> James Mickens   wrote:
> What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it
> trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can do
> and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a somewhat
> different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that should be
> cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist goal
> some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists trying
> to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
> Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly
> gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that
> the "better" way to make a point is to use the stereotypically male
> voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However, one
> could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates humbleness and an
> openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of feminism to get
> women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the
> inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me.
> In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the extent to which
> "feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability of
> human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which gendered
> differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
> example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of professionalism
> in society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive
> consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of
> intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women must fit
> into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize."
> Presumably, the word "consumption" was modified with "excessive" in a
> pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly male
> trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait? In positing the
> existence of one form of intelligence that is overvalued, we
> implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female" intelligence
> that is undervalued. But is this female intelligence *intrinsically*
> linked with the biological condition of being female, or is an
> artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this time? By
> saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
> seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female
> characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable
> male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men and women are in
> fact essentially different at their cores. If this is true, then
> should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate but
> equivalent?
>
> Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she
> directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
> left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
> live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man can." I
> agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people comfortable with
> themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
> equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
> adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective, it's
> unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever completely go
> away. It's true that notions of beauty are socially constructed, but
> just because they're imaginary doesn't mean that people will stop
> daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness---this is
> just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy ideals of
> attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and less
> self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
> "radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering
> goal which is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered
> aesthetics. Once again, I think that the feminism should be
> formulated in terms of making people comfortable with themselves, not
> in terms of eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity.
> The former is acheivable, the latter is not.
>
> I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though (from
> my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women. Instead of
> describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "reasonable."
> This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame the
> debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
> public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases
> such as "radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender
> paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk in plain terms of
> fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss gendered
> differences in the salary received for equivalent jobs, there's no
> reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist complex, ossified
> patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal---simply
> put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money than a man for the
> same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist ideology, it's
> an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the name
> "feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our allies.
> Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at
> semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral
> Politics." Think about what used to be called tax "cuts"---the
> popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans stopped using the word
> "cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more difficult to
> say that one is against "tax relief." But note that in introducing
> this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes are
> a burden, when one could argue that they are really the
> responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society. In
> terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to support
> our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the quality of
> the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist" (or
> even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive,
> particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as generic
> fairness issues.
>
> I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
> theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of
> hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why
> things are the way they are. I also realize that as intellectuals, we
> have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
> necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses. Nevertheless,
> by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e., by accepting
> that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think we
> get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and
> men too!). Then, by framing "feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
> that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we have a
> better chance of actually improving the world, as opposed to
> alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies.
>
> ~j
>
>