Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:25:52 -0700 From: David Stevens <phylstevens-AT-postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Subject: M-FEM: APST Querant Seeks Basic Definitions Some readers of this list might not read the newsgroup alt.politics.socialism.trotsky [APST], perhaps in part because it is an unmoderated swamp with more than its share of trolls. I'd like to invite readers with Usenet access to address the earnest questions posed by Sayan Bhattacharyya <bhattach-AT-skynet.eecs.umich.edu> in article <5o9rcb$lmu$1-AT-skynet.eecs.umich.edu>. This was published to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky on Wed 18 June, at 19:35 EDT under the title, "Re: Trotskyists elected in Algeria". I'm sorry that Martha's out of town, as her distinction between socialist-feminism and Marxist-feminism would be topical. But I can't let slip this opportunity to hope that somebody better spoken than I might elevate the level of theoretical discussion at APST. - David Stevens <phylstevens-AT-worldnet.att.net> (Sayan's posting is reproduced below) _______________________________________________ Peter West <Peter_West-AT-duntone.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Since feminism is a form of bourgeois ideology, it would be next to >impossible for a revolutionary socialist to be a feminist. If so, surely >a 'trotskyist feminist' is an oxymoron. > >A trotskyist who is an activist in the women's movement (where there is >one - there certainly isn't one in the UK) is another matter altogether. Isn't the distinction sought to be drawn here between "feminism" and "women's movement" just a semantic quibble? If not, why not? In other words, to the socialists, 1) What is feminism? 2) What is the "women's movement?" 3) Why is F a "bourgeois ideology" while WM isn't one? Would any of the socialists here care to elaborate on this? Thanks.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005