>[Postmodern critical feminism]
> tells me that our (yes mine too) theory must not leave out gender, and
>must not deny its role in power relationships. Fine... but still... why
>should I call this "feminist"... when that only distinguises me from
>"masculinist"? I trust we will not leave out racism and its role in power
>relations... but nobody suggests calling an encompassing theory "color
>based theory" or "race theory". These would be theories about color and
>race. Is "feminism" then just a theory about gender? I think I detected
>broader aspirations.
>
Bob -- I think that feminism, as distinct from "masculinism" helps us
to highlight the ways in which women and women's roles have been dominated in
history. I agree that "humanism" would be an inclusive way of integrating
all of disempowered groups under a single umbrella term. However, feminism
(like African-American Studies, etc..) focuses our attention on the the
specific ways power and domination have affected women. Such an issue
would be less salient if studied under an umbrella concept like humanism.
I say let's have humanism, but this should not make feminism go away.
Mike Mascolo
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%