Letters To the Editor...

Dear Editor,

Knowing Peter Hanus, having read his article on radical feminists and having seen his sources, as well as having read Vaughn Jelliffe’s response to it, I would like to make a few comments on Prof. Jelliffe’s response.

The definition of radical feminism given by Peter Hanus was a direct quote taken from a book by Marlene Mackie (a book used in some courses on the campus). It was not taken out of context. As to being ‘*condescending’’ to Dawn Ambler, she said that ‘‘radical,’’ according to the Oxford dictionary, means to get to the root of the problem. Peter stated this was not completely accurate (it’s only a defini- tion of ‘‘radical’’), he expanded upon it by showing what the *‘root’’ of this ‘‘problem’’ (presumably patriarchy) was according to most radical feminists. This ‘‘root’’ was “‘women’s child-bearing function and subsequent dependence on menas the root of female oppression... ‘‘ This was a direct quote not taken out of context.

As faras a smear campaign, giving direct quotes not taken out of context is not a smear campaign. Itis telling the truth. The articles by Anne Koedt (‘‘The Myth of the Vaginal Oragasm’’), Charlotte Bunch (‘Not for Lesbians Only’’), Susan Hawthorne (‘‘In Defence of Separatism’’), Susie Orbach (‘‘Fatisa Feminist Issue’’), and Joan Cassel (‘‘Externalities of Change’’) are all relatively well known works among radical feminist scholars - the quotes from them were fair. Tosay what were given were ‘ ‘taken out of context’’ was(1) done out ofignorance or (2) alie. As such, who is conducting the smear campaign? ‘‘Taken out of context’’ is quite an ironic statement coming from one who fits Joan Cassel’s description Lodagste:

In reference to the ‘‘lack of female representation’’ on university faculties, this does not change the fact that affirmative action is ‘‘reverse discrimination,’’ and the number of women hired in relation to their hiring pools tends to show this fact. Are you, Prof. Jelliffe, arguing that equality is a ‘‘numbers game’’ (50% males and 50% females on faculty is equality)? Most people view equality as a matter of every individual, no matter what their sex or race, playing by the same rules. Affirmative action doesn’t provide this envi

ronment. Orshould I assume that you believe t vat equality is the question? ay I would also like to respond to one of the dumbenl comments I have everread. You stated ‘‘one of th most fundamental beliefs of feminism is that ‘the |y is the means.’ There is no separate means to an en” I place before you a glass. The ‘‘end’’ that you aij achieve is to break the glass. Youcan jump onit, take a baseball bat to it, sing a high pitched note, There are several means to achieving this ‘‘end,’”| |

there is to any ‘‘end.’’ To deny this is sheer stup ity. 1

As for using the ends to justify immoral means, ty examples were illustrated: (1) Affirmative Action ‘“reverse discrimination’’ and thus acts as immore means, and (2) by presenting ‘““women’s child-bealy function and subsequent dependence as the root of) female oppression... only a biological revolutions] free women ’’ is trying to presenta ‘‘value judge-| ment’’ as ‘‘fact.’’ I can find several women who |” would say this is not so--if you state this is some!” form of *‘false consciousness’’ then you don’t un I stand the problem (it’s epistemological).

As well, I have spoken to ‘‘feminists’’ on campus | who have both agreed with Peter’s article and hay) stated that radical feminists are making the moveriii look bad. Some have taken your courses. So muti your statement *‘Feminists of many different bacl) 7 grounds and viewpoints value each other... ** :

In conclusion, your failure to note the immorality! radical feminism displayed in Peter Hanus’ articlh would lead me to conclude either one of two thiny (1) you are trying to deny their existence and mal] Peter Hanus look like a ‘‘ feminist basher’’ or (2)! own feminist ‘‘beliefsystem’’ has closed yourm? so much that you find nothing immoral, as longi! serves your interests. |

»

Signed, All Men Don’t Hold Identical Beliefs Ei”

aed i . a

UPEI X-P RESS

J anuary 23 ei] 992 Pa 4