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