Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 21:02:08 -0600
From: Karen Chapdelaine <kchap-AT-ripco.com>
Subject: Re: fire with fire


At 09:30 AM 7/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>The problem with such a picture of french feminist theories and/or
>deconstruction it that it remains on a level which assumes that scholars
>(including scholars who are activists) do not think beyond trying to say
>something like "See men? Us, too!" -- which is absurd. I would venture to
>hope that many who have remained in academia through all the years of the
>doctoral degree, hiring processes, etc. have done so out of a commitment to
>the materials with which they work. I.e., I rather think it is literature or
>philosophy which drives a literary critic or philosopher, and not the desire
>to partake in jeuvenile contests with "male tenured professors". What
>garbage, really. Insulting garbage, to boot. 
>--Catherine

If anyone is still wondering, this is the "original" post with the title
"fire with fire,"
it was "re: fire with fire." (from CPeebles-AT-aol.com).

It is in response (eventually, anyway) to a post by Anthony Bowers on 
June 30th which quoted Naomi's Wolf's "Fire with Fire", but that post had 
the title re: de(con)struction.  Naomi Wolf quoted an anonymous French
Feminist professor as saying that French Feminist philosophy has no
"real world" use, basically.  

I am still reading Naomi Wolf, "Fire with Fire."  I find it a rather "hard
read" 
for reasons having nothing to do with either prose style or vocabulary --- I 
just have to put it down a lot and process.  There is a lot that resonates,
there is a bunch that also doesn't or is off the mark.  I am picking through
the pieces, finding what I like and what I don't, and looking for a place to
stand.  As a straight white (and younger than me) woman, Naomi Wolf 
sees through her lense, and as a very queer bi white woman (who grew
up in the 60's), I see through mine.  I see bunches of stuff where she has 
picked up the problem correctly, describes it somewhat innacurately and 
diagnosed the solution sideways  --- because her description has some 
blinders.  And parts where she has hit the nail on the head.  There are
things she sees easily that I can't because of my age, my "living through
the struggle" in some arenas has put some blinders on, because I still
remember the landscape "the way it was," not that it is "all better" now,
but some things have really changed.  It is like someone who is old
enough and from the South (of any race) seeing the line on the bus 
where the blacks are "supposed" to be behind, and never being able
to see the bus "without" the line being there in their mind. 

I most definitely, though, see the point IN GENERAL of coming from
"power feminism" vs. "victim feminism," and in fact, I see in Irigaray
especially the "fearful rebel" rather than the woman with power in her
hands.  I need to get past a lot of prejudices to read Ms. Wolf's book, 
and I think this is a useful process in and of itself.  In between her
blinders and mine are truths that won't be illuminated until one of us
can see both sides. 

I have not "gotten to" the quoted part yet.  I suspect there is more to it 
all than what was quoted, and more of use than appears to be from the 
quote.  And it certainly doesn't reflect the general usefulness that I
have found in this book, so far.

Sincerely,

Karen Chapdelaine






  



*************************************************************************
kchap-AT-ripco.com
Karen Chapdelaine		-AT-}->--  Love is the Law, Love under Will
 
                         ....You can do what you want....
                                 ...You will get what you create....
-AT-}->--AT-}->--AT-}->--AT-}->- 
                     -AT-}->--AT-}->--AT-}->--AT-}->-