[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re:

Peter Kilander peterk at enteract.com
Tue Nov 23 22:17:02 PST 1999


t byfield:
> yet what had happened, in a way, was that fem-
>inist battles had succeeded to the point where any actual
>return was well-nigh impossible, because the advances had
>become 'naturalized'--an almost transparent aspect of soc-
>iety. so i think it's fair to say that there *is* a gener-
>ational dimension to these changes.
>
>i'm quite convinced that 'feminist' advances will proceed
>apace--thanks, of course, *in part* to explicit effort on
>the part of feminists. but as time goes by the impersonal
>imperatives you recited will become ever-less compelling--
>so you really ought to think twice about dashing them off
>as though they're self-evident truths. for a lot of young
>people they *aren't*--

yes and no. utilizing the method popularized in a recent batch of books by the notorious, conservative solipsisters, my own experience has shown that my peers - mid 20s to early 30s - are a pretty evenly mixed bunch - the media makes us look worse then we are. in my opinion, the ones who don't know better, should know better and I don't know why Katha shouldn't have similar standards.

it's not like it's that difficult a history to learn. plus there's plenty of atavistic display by our parents and grandparents. as 'naturalized' as some advances have become, the lack of acknowlegment of the history of the advances strikes me as weird. for the women who do this, it's almost as if they don't want to admit to belonging to a group that has been oppressed (and still is) for to admit that - for them - it's like admiting they're unlucky and got the short end of the stick, among other things, like they're indebted to the second wave, and maybe they should payoff that debt with similar social activism. as for the guys, well...

Peter K., free associating



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list