[Comp.Sci.Dept, Utrecht] Note from archiver<at>cs.uu.nl: Since januari 2019, this archive is no longer maintained/updated.
This page is part of a big collection of Usenet postings, archived here for your convenience. For matters concerning the content of this page, please contact its author(s); use the source, if all else fails. For matters concerning the archive as a whole, please refer to the archive description or contact the archiver.

Subject: soc.feminism Terminologies

This article was archived around: 11 May 2006 04:21:22 GMT

All FAQs in Directory: feminism
All FAQs posted in: soc.feminism
Source: Usenet Version

Archive-name: feminism/terms Version: 1.5 Last-modified: 15 February 1993
Copies of this FAQ may be obtained by anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu under /pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism/terms. Or, send email to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with send usenet/news.answers/feminism/terms in the body of the message, leaving the subject line empty. A variety of movements in feminism means that calling one's self a feminist can mean many things. In general, members of the following categories of feminism believe in the listed policies; however as with any diverse movement, there are disagreements within each group and overlap between others. This list is meant to illustrate the diversity of feminist thought and belief. It does not mean that feminism is fragmented (although it often seems that way!). Much of the definitions presented here are inspired from _American Feminism_ by Ginette Castro; there is a definite American bias here. Other sources were _Feminist Frameworks_ (2nd ed.) by Jaggar and Rothenberg (which is a worthwhile but incomplete reader that tried to sort out these various schools of feminist thought). Any additional, balancing information from other countries and/or books is more than welcome (and will be incorporated). Defining various kinds of feminism is a tricky proposition. The diversity of comment with most of the kinds presented here should alert you to the dangers and difficulties in trying to "define" feminism. Since feminism itself resists all kinds of definitions by its very existence and aims, it is more accurate to say that there are all kinds of "flavors" and these flavors are mixed up every which way; there is no set of Baskin Robbins premixed flavors, as it were. Amazon Feminism Amazon feminism is dedicated to the image of the female hero in fiction and in fact, as it is expressed in art and literature, in the physiques and feats of female athletes, and in sexual values and practices. Amazon feminism is concerned about physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look or behave as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless. Amazon feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of heroic womanhood. Thus Amazon feminism advocates e.g., female strength athletes, martial artists, soldiers, etc. [TG] Anarcho-Feminism Anarcho-feminism was never a huge movement, especially in the United States, and you won't find a whole lot written about it. I mention it mostly because of the influential work of Emma Goldman, who used anarchism to craft a radical feminism that was (alas!) far ahead of her time. Radical feminism expended a lot of energy dealing with a basis from which to critique society without falling into Marxist pleas for socialist revolution. It also expended a lot of energy trying to reach across racial and class lines. Goldman had succeeded in both. Radical feminist Alix Schulman realized this, but not in time to save her movement. She's put out a reader of Goldman's work and a biography, both of which I recommend highly. [JD] Cultural Feminism As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD] Cultural feminists can sometimes come up with notions that sound disturbingly Victorian and non-progressive: that women are inherently (biologically) "kinder and gentler" than men and so on. (Therefore if all leaders were women, we wouldn't have wars.) I do think, though, that cultural feminism's attempts to heighten respect for what is traditionally considered women's work is an important parallel activity to recognizing that traditionally male activities aren't necessarily as important as we think. [CTM] I have often associated this type of statement [inherently kinder and gentler] with Separatist Feminists, who seem to me to feel that women are *inherently* kinder and gentler, so why associate with men? (This is just my experience from Separatists I know...I haven't read anything on the subject.) I know Cultural Feminists who would claim women are *trained* to be kinder and gentler, but I don't know any who have said they are *naturally* kinder. [SJ] As various 1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks got pessimistic about the very possibility of social change. Many of then turned their attention to building alternatives, so that if they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as much as possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical feminism to cultural feminism was about. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps justifying) the abandonment of working for social change. Cultural feminism's justification was biological determinism. This justification was worked out in great detail, and was based on assertions in horribly-flawed books like Elizabeth Gould Davis's _The First Sex_ and Ashley Montagu's _The Natural Superiority of Women_. So notions that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences might not be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable. There is no inherent connection between alternative-building and ideologies of biological determinism (or of social intracta- bility). SJ has apparently encountered alternative-builders who don't embrace biological determinism, and I consider this a very good sign. [JD] I should point out here that Ashley Montagu is male, and his book was first copyright in 1952, so I don't believe that it originated as part of the separatist movements in the '60's. It may still be horribly flawed; I haven't yet read it. [CTM] Erotic Feminism [European] This seemed to start (as a movement) in Germany under the rule of Otto von Bismarck. He ruled the land with the motto "blood and iron". In society the man was the _ultra manly man_ and power was patriarchal power. Some women rebelled against this, by becoming WOMAN. Eroticism became a philosophical and metaphysical value and the life-creating value. [RG] Eco-Feminism: This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchical society will exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchical/hierarchical society. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchical culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM] This is actually socially-conscious environmentalism with a tiny smattering of the radical and cultural feminist observation that exploitation of women and exploitation of the earth have some astonishing parallels. The rest of "eco-feminism" turns out to be a variation on socialism. The Green movements of Europe have done a good job of formulating (if not implementing) an environmentally aware feminism; and while Green movements were not originally considered a part of eco-feminism, they are now recognized as a vital component. [JD] (If I remember correctly, a couple of feminist groups, including NOW have joined up with Green parties. [CTM]) Feminazi: This term was "invented" by the radio/tv host Rush Limbaugh. He defines a feminazi as a feminist who is trying to produce as many abortions as possible. Hence the term "nazi" - he sees them as trying to rid the world of a particular group of people (fetuses). This term is of course completely without merit, but there's the definition of it FYI. [CTM] Feminism and Women of Color: In _feminist theory from margin to center_ (1984), bell hooks writes of "militant white women" who call themselves "radical feminists" but hooks labels them "reactionary" . . . Hooks is refering to cultural feminism here. Her comment is a good introduction to that fractious variety of feminism that Jaggar and Rothenberg find hard to label any further than to designate its source as women of color. It is a most vital variety, covering much of the same ground as radical feminism and duplicating its dynamic nature. Yet bad timing kept the two from ever uniting. For more information you might want to also read hooks' book and her earlier reader, _ain't i a woman?_ Whereas radical feminism was primarily formulated by educated white women focusing on women's issues, this variety was formulated by women who would not (because they could not) limit their focus. What is so extraordinary is that the two converged in so many ways, with the notable exception that the women of color were adamantly opposed to considering one form of oppression (sexism) without considering the others. [JD] I think an important work in the history of feminism and women of color is Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga's anthology, _This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women of Color_. It's my belief that the unique contribution of women of color, who experience at least two forms of discrimination daily, provides balance and reality to much of the more theoretical forms of academic feminism favored by educated white women. [EE] Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism Individualist feminism is based upon individualist or libertarian (minimum government or anarchocapitalist) philosophies, i.e. philosophies whose primary focus is individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence and diversity. Lesbianism: There are a couple of points to make here. First is that Lesbianism is not necessarily a *de facto* part of feminism. While it is true that merely being a lesbian is a direct contravention of "traditional" concepts of womanhood, Lesbians themeselves hold a wide variety of opionions on the subject of feminism just as their straight sisters do. On the other hand, Lesbianism has sometimes been made into a political point by straight women "becoming" lesbian in order to fully reject men. However, it is never accurate to characterise all feminists as Lesbians nor all Lesbians as feminists. The reader should also note that homophobia is as present among feminists as it is in any other segment of society. Lesbianism and feminism, for all their common points and joint interests, are two very different groups. [CTM] Liberal Feminism: This is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals, they slog along inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. [JD] Marxist and Socialist Feminism Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg point to significant differences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical," but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system. [JD] Material Feminism A movement in the late 19th century to liberate women by improving their material condition. This meant taking the burden of housework and cooking off their shoulders. _The Grand Domestic Revolution_ by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is one reference. [RZ] Moderate Feminism: This branch of feminism tends to be populated by younger women or other women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They are closely affiliated with liberal feminism, but tend to question the need for further effort, and do not think that Radical feminism is any longer viable and in fact rather embarrassing (this is the group most likely to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist"). [CTM] 'pop-feminism' This term has appeared several times on soc.feminism. It appears to be a catch-all for the bogey"man" sort of feminism that everyone loves to hate: you know, the kind of feminism that grinds men under its heel and admits to no wrong for women. It is doubtful that such a caricature actually exists, yet many people persist in lumping all feminists into this sort of a category. [CTM] Radical Feminism: Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides an important foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesireable" element of feminism, Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism. [CTM] Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example, cultural feminism. In addition, radical feminism is not and never has been related to the Maoist-feminist group Radical Women. [EE] This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. [JD] Ironically, this get-to-the-roots movement is the most root-less variety of feminism. This was part of its strength and part of its weakness. It was always dynamic, always dealing with factions, and always full of ideas. Its influence has been felt in all the other varieties listed here, as well as in society at large. [JD] To me, radical feminism is centred on the necessity to question gender roles. This is why I identify current "gender politics" questions as radical feminist issues. Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines between biologically- determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior in order to free both men and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles. [EE] The best history of this movement is a book called _Daring to be Bad_, by Echols. I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply titled _Radical Feminism_ and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt, a well-known radical feminist [EE]. Radical feminist theory is to a large extent incompatible with cultural feminism. The reason is that the societal forces it deals with seem so great in magnitude that they make it impossible to identify any innate masculine or feminine attributes except those which are results of the biological attributes. (This is what I think the [above] "view[s] the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of oppression," [is getting at] although I don't agree with that statement in its context.) [DdJ] Separatists: Popularly and wrongly depicted as Lesbians, these are the feminists who advocate separation from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. Women who organize women-only events are often unfairly dubbed separatist. Separatists are sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. The core idea is that "separating" (by various means) from men enables women to see themselves in a different context. Many feminists, whether or not separatist, think this is a necessary "first step", by which they mean a temporary separation for personal growth, not a permanent one. [CTM] There is sometimes some overlap between separatist and cultural feminists (see below). [SJ] It is equally inaccurate to consider all Lesbians as separatist; while it is true that they do not interact with men for sexual fulfillment, it is not true that they therefore automatically shun all interaction with men. [CTM] And, conversely, it is equally inaccurate to consider all separatists Lesbians. Additionally, lesbian feminism may be considered a category distinct from separatist feminism. Lesbian feminism puts more emphasis on lesbianism -- active bonding with women -- than separatism does, in its emphasis on removing bonds with men. [EE] [Other categories? Both formal and informal are welcome.] Men's Movements: [Largely contributed by Dave Gross. Exceptions noted.] It may seem odd to include some notes on men's movements in a description of feminism. However, many of these movements were started in reaction to feminism: some inspired by and others in contra-reaction to it. In this context, examining men's movements tells of some specific reactions to feminism by men. [CTM] Most men's movement historians date the men's movement back to the early seventies. In 1970, according to Anthony Astrachan ("How Men Feel" p. 291) the first men's center opened in Berkeley, Calif. and the magazine "Liberation" published an article by Jack Sawyer entitled "On Male Liberation." The men's movement equivalent to the catalyst provided to the women's movement by Betty Friedan, was "The Male Machine" by Mark Feigen Fasteau in 1975. My edition has a forward by Gloria Steinem in which she writes: "This book is a complement to the feminist revolution, yet it is one no woman could write. It is the revolution's other half." But a reexamination of the male gender role certainly predates the 1970s. In fact, the book "The American Male" by Myron Brenton, complained that "when the plight of woman is given such intense scrutiny, a curiously distorting effect tends to be created. Suddenly the world is seen only through the feminist prism." This quote, which would be comfortable coming out of Warren Farrell's mouth in the 1990s, was published in 1966. The book was essentially a male-friendly, pro-feminist examination of the male sex role, and started a theme of portraying masculinity as dangerous and destructive (physically and emotionally) to men -- a theme that was to also provide the basis for the works of Fasteau, Goldberg and Farrell in the 1970s. And R.F. Doyle, who was to form one of the rare traditionalist men's groups, was already fighting for male-friendly divorce reform in the early 1960s (his Divorce Racket Busters in 1960 is in a direct line of parentage to his Men's Rights Association in 1973). Barbara Ehrenreich in "The Hearts of Men" traces the men's movement back even further. She believes that the current men's movement is only the latest representation of a long-term male revolt against the "breadwinner ethic:" "I will argue that the collapse of the breadwinner ethic had begun well before the revival of feminism and stemmed from dissatisfactions every bit as deep, if not as idealist- ically expressed, as those that motivated our founding 'second wave' feminists." -- p. 12 Furthermore, she writes that "The great irony... is that the right-wing, antifeminist backlash that emerged in the 1970s is a backlash not so much against feminism as against the male revolt." -- p.13 In the mid- to late-1950s (although she traces the roots even further back than this), non-conformity becomes a hip topic. Playboy magazine started publishing in 1953, and by the early sixties had started offering "something approaching a coherent program for the male rebellion" (p. 50). The magazine's trademark T&A was only a side-issue, designed to make the rebellion against the male sex role (aka The Playboy Philosophy) a safely heterosexual one. The Beat movement "establish[ed] a vantage point from which the 'normal' could be judged, assessed and labeled -- square" (p. 67) and then "cardiology... passed its own judgement on the 'normal' masculine condition, and [came] down, without fully realizing it, on the side of the rebels" (p. 87). The Human Potential Movement combined with cardiological concerns encouraged a change in men's lives; the Vietnam War further tarnished the image of masculinity; the 60s counter culture allowed androgyny; the second-wave of the women's movement pushed for a critique of gender roles; gay liberation groups differentiated themeselves from heterosexuals, allowing straight men to change their roles without being accused of homosexuality. Voila! The genesis of the men's movement in a nutshell! The men's movement, as a movement, has from almost the beginning been split into various camps based both on ideology and on what concerns the members most wish to concentrate on. What were once scattered "consciousness raising groups" have evolved into the following sub-movements: Feminist Men's Movement: ------------------------ These groups are closely aligned ideologically with the feminist movement. They believe that we live in a patriarchal system in which men are the oppressors of women, and that the men's movement should identify this oppression and work against it. Most of the [City-name] Men Against Rape groups fall under this category. The largest feminist men's group is the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (Formerly the National Organization for Changing Men). Some publications from this viewpoint are "Changing Men," the journal of NOMAS, and the following books: "The Liberated Man" by Warren Farrell, "The Male Machine" by Marc Feigen Fasteau, "The 49% Majority" ed. by Deborah David & Robert Brannon, and "Refusing to Be a Man" by John Stoltenberg. "For these men," according to James Doyle ("Sex & Gender" p. 341), "the question of unfair divorce settlements, child-custody cases, and the like are a ruse used by some men who favor perpetuating their own dominant status in society." This perhaps is a little harsh, but many in the feminist men's movement are suspicious of those who would work for men's political concerns without first relinquishing the patriarchal reins of political power. "They may feel only a vague pricking of conscience about their own complicity in the imbalance," writes Anthony Astrachan of the feminist wing of the movement (How Men Feel, p. 302), "or they may openly acknowledge that men as a class (which does not mean all men) oppress women as a class (which does not mean all women). In either case, what they feel is guilt." (Astrachan dismisses what I will call the Men's Liberation movement as "the no-guilt wing.") As can be expected, there is much debate among feminists, women, and other men about the validity or real intentions of such groups. The entire question of "feminist men," especially ones that disagree with aspects of "conventional feminism" sparks much debate. Some accuse them of pandering to the feminist movement, others of having a hidden agenda that's really against feminism. Female feminists disagree wither men can be feminist, some arguing that there is nothing to prevent men from being feminists, and others arguing that you have to know what it is like to be a woman -- or even BE a woman -- to be a feminist. [CTM] Men's Liberation Movement: -------------------------- Other names: Masculist movement, Men's Rights movement. These groups, while quite similar to feminists in several areas (gay rights, belief in equal opportunity in the workplace, etc.) generally do not believe in the theory that we live in a patriarchy in which men oppress and women are oppressed. "My thinking has led me to conclude that men as a class do /not/ oppress women as a class. Nor do I believe that women as a class oppress men as a class. Rather, I feel that men and women have cooperated in the development of contemporary male and female sex-roles, both of which appear to have advantages as well as disadvantages, but which are essentially restrictive in nature, growth inhibiting, and, in the case of the male, physically as well as psychologically lethal." -- Richard Haddad "Concepts and overview of the men's liberation movement" Characterization of the men's liberation wing as being a reactionary or traditionalist movement is common among feminists, but doesn't seem to hold under closer observation. Fred Hayward addressed this view in his keynote speech to the National Congress for Men in 1981: "We must not reverse the women's movement; we must accelerate it... [Men's liberation] is not a backlash, for there is nothing about traditional sex roles that I want to go back to... "We must give full credence to the seriousness of women's problems and be willing to work toward their solution, but if the others do not return the favor, it is they who are the sexist pigs. It is they who are reactionary. When I look at feminists today, I don't want to call them names -- I only want to call their bluff." Some of the groups with this viewpoint are: Men's Rights Inc., National Coalition of Free Men, National Congress for Men, National Center for Men. Some of the publications from this viewpoint are "Transitions," the journal of the NCFM, and the following books: "Why Men Are the Way They Are" by Warren Farrell "The Hazards of Being Male" by Herb Goldberg "Men's Rights" by Bill & Laurie Wishard "Men Freeing Men" ed. by Francis Baumli. Mythopoetic Men's Movement: --------------------------- These are the ones you see on TV and in magazines wearing masks and beating drums. Robert Bly, the father-figure of this movement, says: "I see the phenomenon of what I would call the 'soft male' all over the country today. They're not interested in harming the Earth, or starting wars, or working for corporations. There's something favorable toward life in their whole general mood and style of living. But something's wrong. Many of these men are unhappy. There's not much energy in them. They are life-preserving, but not exactly life-giving...." "Men are suffering right now -- young males especially. But now that so many men are getting in touch with their feminine side, we're ready to start seeing the wild man and to put its powerful, dark energy to use. At this point, many things can happen." -- interview by Keith Thompson Utne Reader, Nov/Dec 1989 This talk of "powerful, dark energy" worries some, including Bly's ex-wife, who compared this movement to fascism: "The men's separatist movement is frightening. Separatism, breeds feelings of superiority and imbalance -- male bonding usually offers permission to regress." -- "The danger in men's groups" Utne Reader, Nov/Dec 1989 A more common reaction to these groups by outsiders is bewilderment and ridicule. "[T]heir words revealed a kind of gooeyness wrapped in clinical psych jargon," wrote Jon Tevlin of his Wild Man Weekend. It's possible though, that these groups outnumber all other men's groups combined. There are a surprising number of magazines, books, journals, retreats and gurus associated with the mythopoetic men's movement. "Iron John" led sales of hardcover nonfiction longer than any other best seller in 1991, according to the 1993 Writer's Market. "What I'm interested in is the return of mythology, and he timportance of initiation -- I think that's essential... I'm not interested in all the men having opinions on men's rights, and attacking women. I'm not interested in a national men's movement." -- Robert Bly, quoted by Tim Warren in the Baltimore Sun, 28 October 1990 On the other hand, "I don't want to omit people like Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg who are doing men's stuff; they get omitted far oo toften when the Men's Movement is discussed. If Robert [Bly] is one of the leaders and perhaps the father of the mythopoetic Men's Movement, then Goldberg, Farrell and Pleck are the Grandfathers..." -- John Lee, quoted by Woody Harper in the Men's Council Newsletter, August 1990 This movement is less political than spiritual, and it's difficult to identify just what these folks stand for. But if you want to try, check out the interviews with Bly and with Shepherd Bliss in the Nov/Dec 1989 Utne Reader, or pick up "Men's Council News" or Robert Bly's surprise best-seller "Iron John." The New Traditionalists: ------------------------ I don't know much about these groups. The only one I'm aware of is the National Organization for Men run by Penthouse columnist Sidney Siller. Maybe R.F. Doyle's Men's Rights Association (if it still exists) qualifies as well. These groups look, on the surface, much like the Men's Liberation groups, but underneath there is a current of resentment that the old sex roles have dissolved. Some openly say that women just aren't men's equals, and should have stayed home with the kids. This is that "male backlash" you've probably read about. Read "The Rape of the Male" by R.F. Doyle for a good idea of how these folks think (the front cover is a picture of the crucifiction). Also, Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man" (written by a woman in 1972, and pretty scary). The Father's Movements: ----------------------- Some people hold that this is a separate group from the Men's Liberation Movement. There are some groups that are only interested in issues like divorce reform, and ignore issues like violence toward men, gay rights, and the draft. Many of these groups are very similar to Men's Liberation groups, and only differ by their concentration. Some explicitly exclude issues like gay rights in order to not risk offending some of their members, and this could itself be considered an ideological position which would separate them from the Men's Liberation groups. Anthony Astrachan ("How Men Feel," p. 311) reports that some Father's Rights men boycotted the 1983 National Congress for Men meeting in Los Angeles, and speculates that this was because men's liberation members had proposed resolutions supporting gay rights. Publications would include: "How to Win Custody" by Louis Kiefer "Weekend Fathers" by Gerald and Myrna Silver -------------- My thanks to: Ellen Eades[EE] David desJardins [DdJ] Jym Dyer [JD] Thomas Gramstad [TG] Rebecca Grinter [RG] David Gross [DG] (incl. all info on men's movements) Stacy Johnson [SJ] Rudy Zalesak [RZ] -------------- Please mail in comments, additions, corrections, suggestions, and so on to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. I reserve all rights to edit material for brevity, clarity, and constructiveness. --Cindy Tittle Moore "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913