Subject: RE: The Co-optation of Feminism
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 02:34:28 PDT


>I tend not to believe you here.

Straight from the Catholic Register here is Colorado.  There was also a show 
about being a Catholic Feminist on the Catholic cable channel, but I tried 
to block it out as quickly as possible.  You really think I would lie about 
something as sick as that?

>My experience is that women such as those mentioned above bristle at >the 
>word "Feminism" <snip>

Wow, you really have a lot of experience with Catholic women don't you?

>But, of course, I could be wrong.  It's certainly possible. <Gasp!>  >Given 
>that line of reasoning, I can call myself a fish, but I'm not.

You are absolutely right!  But why, might I ask, do you then assume that 
calling oneself a capitalist feminist makes one a feminist?

>I, in fact, did offer several prime examples through the citing of 
> >Feminist organizations (who meet the required definition of Feminism >as 
>rooted in the striving for social, economic and political equality) >that 
>aren't anti-Capitalist -- i.e., the sentence from my post:
>
>  "For SOME <combating Patriarchy> includes the abolition of a >capitalist 
>economic system.  But certainly not for all (see: ***the >League of Women 
>Voters, the National Organization for Women***, AND >Paglia for that 
>matter, etc.)."

Your USDA prime examples seem to support an argument along these lines: If 
there are women who call themselves feminists yet are not anti-capitalist, 
then feminism itself must not be anti-capitalist.

Gee, most of the "self described" feminists I know would not fit your 
definition, because they want much more than equality.  But what the hell is 
this talk about meeting a required definition?  Did you set up these 
requirements?  Where can I take the test?

And who the hell are you to say that a bunch of pro-capitalist women calling 
themselves feminists are actually striving for equality?  I have yet to meet 
one capitalist who wants any kind of real equality.  In fact, I know a 
number of anarchists that could care less about equality.  Perhaps by your 
definition a person can be capitalist and still seek out equality, but my 
definitions are different than yours eh?

Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Is the world appearing just a tad 
bit bigger?  Let me put this bluntly, YOUR definitions are not MINE, 
precisely because your values are not mine.  Unless you feel that a neutral 
starting point for discussion is to impose your values over and on top of my 
own at the beginning, then I don't understand how you can without hesitation 
state that feminism is definitively and absolutely neutral concerning 
economic systems.  Some people don't feel that way, no?

>Because the dictionary (and thus, general understanding) says the 
> >definition of Feminism is: "Belief in the social, political, and 
> >economic equality of the sexes."
>Obviously the above description of the Catholic housewives doesn't >meet 
>it.

Ah, but they would beg to differ.  You see, those wonderful women believe 
that true equality comes from recognizing that men and women are inherently 
different, and that good old God has allowed things to turn out so that a 
woman who strives to be what a woman is supposed to be (whatever that is) 
will live a life just as rewarding as a man being whatever the hell a man is 
supposed to be.

Feminists by your proposed definition?  Well, yes actually.  Not mine 
though...  But, to be totally honest, I could care less what the accepted, 
or acceptable, or standard, or legal definition of feminism is to the people 
that wrote your dictionary.  Personally, I've listened to one too many 
people define freedom fighters as terrorists, or anarchists as 
"self-described" anarchists, to give a rats ass about your precious 
definitions anymore.

>But Anarchist Feminists and Capitalist Feminists (now that we have a 
> >working def. of Feminism)<we do?> do because they fall under this 
> >definition as evidenced by their stated goals.

Sure, just like Catholic feminists, Fascist feminists, and Women-Hater 
feminists do.  After all, I can come up with wonderful arguments by which 
all of them are included in your officially licensed and monitored feminist 
definition.

><<Well then, I can prove to you that there are fascist anarchists, 
> >christian atheists, and intelligence government officials.>>
>
>And I can prove to you that there's a word in the English language 
> >spelled: o-x-y-m-o-r-o-n. It's examples like these that necessitated >the 
>development of a word that indicates their inherent mutual >exclusiveness.  
>Again, I can call myself a fish but that doesn't make >me one.

And I thought I had no sense of humor.  I truly hope old goat or carp are 
reading this so they can accept my humble apologies for all past and future 
dense behaviour on my part.

><<Does the existence of pro-capitalist "anarchists" mean that anarchism
>proper is not against capitalism?>>
>
>Nice try, but I don't eat Red Herring.  Though it is an interesting >topic 
>for discussion at a later date.

Whoa, back up nelly.  YOU are the one that believes that the existence of 
capitalists who call themselves feminists proves that feminism is not 
anti-capitalism.  Seems to me a valid extreme under which your logic becomes 
absurd.  Why does your logic work for feminists but not anarchists?

Wait...  Maybe you have the almighty definition from GOD that will make all 
those anarcho-capitalists crawl back under the rock they came from!  Can you 
give us the one TRUE definition of anarchism please?  (go ahead, look in 
your dictionary, the whole debate between anarcho-caps and the rest of us 
anarchists only continues because we are all too lazy to look in ours)

BTW - Should I star my jokes from now on so you don't loose track?

><< Some people, not me of course, might say you were being rude to call
>people uniformed and incorrect in such an atmosphere.>>
>
>Agreed.  My post was a bit on the self-righteous side.

As I have been in replying to you.  Come on, let’s kiss and make up.*

><<that statement was made among friends....The you barge in and give >your 
>unsolicited opinion about the status of feminism,>>
>
>BARGE in?  My UNSOLICITED opinion?  I suggest that if you (or the >authors 
>of the original e-mails who, by the way, never even got >involved in this 
>discussion, but of whom you seem to be the self->appointed mouthpiece) 
>don't want my UNSOLICITED opinion and only want >to post among FRIENDS, 
>that
>
>1) You guys set up your own private, "Kevin Kinkel & Friends only"  >list
>OR
>2) Post among yourselves and not to a public *discussion* list
>
>What a stupid thing to say.  So much for the encouragement of open 
> >dialogue.

Ugh... Sorry, really, a bit of a misunderstanding.  See, where I come from 
the phrase "among friends" need not indicate some kind of buddy buddy club 
that you are not a part of.  Actually, it meant that the statement was made 
among a bunch of people who know what he is talking about because there have 
been numerous discussions about this sort of thing around here before.  
Incidentally, that may be why I am the only one responding to you, I am 
likely the only one immature enough to bother.  And then there are those who 
agree with you, but lets just pretend they don't exist.

Oh, and by barging and unsolicited I just meant that you replied to a rather 
innocent post made "among friends" by correcting someone on an issue they 
didn't even mean to address, then implying that the person was ignorant and 
their views dangerous.

><<Please trace the history of the Feminist movement...  The 1st women's 
>rights (Feminist) convention in the US was held in the >1840s and was 
>centered on the principle of women's suffrage.
etc, etc, etc...

Now that was cool.  I couldn't get most of my friends to waste that much 
time for money, much less to reply to a joke.  Thanks for the refresher 
Neuro, but its nothing I haven't heard and read before

>My argument IS firmly rooted in the "facts" of Feminism.  To say that
>Feminism is being co-opted by a Capitalist agenda is to assume that 
> >Feminism was originally an anti-Capitalist movement that has been 
> >appropriated in order to further the Capitalist project.

Well no, one need not assume that feminism was originally anti-Capitalist in 
order to believe that it is now being co-opted.  One could instead feel that 
feminism has changed quite a bit from that specific date when a bunch of 
wealthy white women decided they had lots of time on their hands.  Of 
course, one could even believe that feminism didn't start with a bunch of 
wealthy white women, but I'm sure you'll correct that belief with the 
official textbook version.  Anyway, if feminists HAD changed over time 
(heaven forbid), they might even have quickly integrated ideals similar to 
their own, realizing that true liberation could only come for women if it 
also came for everybody else.  Others could take the opposite route, and 
somehow convince themselves that by supporting a system of economic wage 
slavery for most of the world inhabitants they will bring about the 
liberation of all women.  Either way, any of these people can logically 
maintain that their view of feminism is the exclusive version without 
needing to worry about obtaining official license from bean counters like 
you.

>And as far as arguments go, I have yet to hear YOURS.  You have >mentioned 
>at least three POSSIBLE arguments, always pre or post-facing >them with 
>noncommittal qualifiers.

Ah, the sad life of a radical skeptic.  Truth is that I don't totally 
believe any of those arguments Neuro.  Still, it is funny that even with 
their flaws all of those arguments still sound better than yours.  But 
really, I don't think that has anything to do with my point.  I was only 
trying to demonstrate to you that some people have fundamental beliefs about 
feminism that rule out the possibility of a marriage with capitalism, and 
that those beliefs are actually founded by arguments.  In other words, for 
some people it is completely legitimate to say that capitalism is co-opting 
the feminist movement.  Of course, -I- never said that capitalism was 
co-opting the feminist movement; I only called you on your attempt to 
belittle someone who said something you didn't approve of.

You, on the other hand, are going to have to stick by your little struggle 
to -prove- that feminism is exactly what you say it is, originates when you 
say it does, and gets co-opted only when you give your permission.

>You know what?  I could go on and on here, but I just realized I don't 
> >have to.  You've already conceded that I'm right.

I did?  Cool, I conceded and didn't even know it!  That rocks man...

>In your first post your wrote:
>
><<Actually, whether or not Feminism proper is inconsistent with 
> >>capitalism totally depends upon the variety of Feminism to which one 
> >>subscribes.
>
>Indicating that you assert there are "varieties" of Feminism that don't
>consider Capitalism and Feminism to be inconsistent, and they are >included 
>under the title "Feminism."  From here, a claim of co->optation doesn't 
>work.

Wow, you are absolutely right... Good for you!  Of course, I never claimed 
that feminism was being co-opted, but never mind that.  Also, I had tried to 
point out that many who subscribe to a particular branch of feminism do not 
consider themselves to be subscribing to a particular branch, but rather 
consider their view to be the one and only correct view of feminism.  In 
fact, that sounds kinda like you Neuro, except that you don't even have an 
argument to back up your exclusivist view, only "official" examples and 
definitions.

>A suggestion:  the next time you try to insult me, you should at least 
> >have the class to spell the offending word right.

Class?  Me?  Trust me Neuro, I don't need any class to insult you.

                                                     Kevin K.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com