Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id QAA10004; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <C01DFFE86D46D411A91400D0B78487793848BD@mail.doe.mass.edu> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Monteiro, Marilyn" <MMonteiro@doe.mass.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:801] RE: Feminism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Status: O Content-Length: 2981 Lines: 68 Mostly I agree with you Tracy. But the alternative to gender equality relationships that you indicate is also a reflection of the impact of the affect of gender inequality. For many individuals who would like to be in a relationship to have to choose no relationship is in itself a form of inequality of relationship opportunity because of the existence of gender inequality. So, the best thing might be to advance the idea of continual struggle directly against gender inequality while maintaining at least a non-violent and non-dependent heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Learning to read, as I said earlier, can be an instrument that fosters a degree of independence and change in the individual and ultimately in relationships, especially among those who are illiterate. And it does so in a way that living a celebate life does not. Marilyn Monteiro, -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Carman [mailto:tcarman@literacyvolunteers.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:57 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:790] RE: Feminism In response to Andres' comment, it strikes me as an odd notion to state that if a woman rejects male-female unions because of gender inequality issues, then she her only option is to adopt lesbianism even though she is attracted to men. One of the major arguments for gay/lesbian rights is that the lifestyle is not a choice. Also, if the argument that we live in a society in which ALL its institutions foster gender inequality is valid, then even an institution of female-female unions would foster inequality. A woman who thinks that a male-female union, for them, would result in an intolerable gender inequality situation, and who is not a lesbian, does have another alternative. If the point is to resist gender inequality, why not simply argue for the option of living without a partner? The radical view Andres recounted just doesn't make any sense to me. What's your favorite reason to read? Visit http://www.2000reasons.org! Tracy Carman, Communications Specialist mailto: tcarman@literacyvolunteers.org Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. 635 James Street, Syracuse, NY 13203 Tel: (315) 472-0001 ext. 201 Fax: (315) 472-0002 http://www.literacyvolunteers.org -----Original Message----- From: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Andres Muro Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:10 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:786] Feminism I guess feminism can emerge and be expressed in both radical and conservative ways. I have read a radical view of feminism that argues that we live in a society in which all its institutions foster gender inequality. The union of men and women is one of those institutions that fosters gender inequality. Therefore, radical feminists, even though they may be attracted to men, must choose lesbianism as a form of resistance to this gender inequality. Can anyone comment on this? Andres
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:46:39 EST