Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 04:25:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Nancy Ann Nield <nanield-AT-midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: "Woman=good"


A little early Sat. morning post to Rebecca, Chloe, Don, and all the 
other list members---

	I think I'll add my "voice" to this cyber-dialogue:  after all, 
French feminist is about multivocality!

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, rebecca elizabeth zorach wrote:

> >  I'm a boot-wearin', granola-eatin', natural fabric lovin', womyn
> > -with-a-"Y"- spellin', head-shavin', carpet munchin', traditional family
> > destroyin', young girl convertin', performance art-lovin',  man-hatin'
> > separatist dyke.

 Truly a breathtaking introduction!

> >  Far be it from me  to suggest a more complex answer than that.  My great
> 
> Well, fine. Me, I like complexity. 
> 
> > hope is that Don has something to fear. If he spends all his time cowering
> > in a bunker somewhere, twitching with excitement because he's afraid  the
> > para-military feminist insurgency is about to kick in the door and
> > "deconstruct" him, then at least he won't post to this list. ( Hopefully,
> > he'll take some FF library books with him to his bunker.)
> > 
> > I thought that preaching to the converted *was* what we were supposed to do
> 
> I don't really think there's any way to control what happens on a list 
> like this. If you really want to preach to the converted, find a reading 
> group of your three closest friends. Or, set up a truly separatist 
> (members-only) list. But don't expect, here, to shout down any views that 
> diverge from yours. 

Chloe, although I don't quite think that this list is solely for 
"preaching to the converted" (I think you'd have a difficult time 
converting this non-homophobic, but vehemently anti-separatist het 
woman), I do agree with your assumption that all of the people who went 
to the trouble to subscribe to this list have some, and preferrably, a 
lot of knowledge about french feminism. So, in a very real way, Rebecca, 
this list, *should* indeed function as a reading/discussion group.  
Otherwise, why join? As Chloe pointed out in an earlier post, if you want 
to learn about FF, you check out a stack of books from the library and 
start reading.  If you don't even have a foundational familiarity with 
the tenets of FF, you're not going to learn them from this list and more 
importantly, you really can't contribute to the discussion, unless it's 
off-topic.
> 
> However, I'll give you credit for consistency if you really are a separatist.
> In that case, you certainly should address your comments only to women. 
> Only to dykes. Only to separatist dykes. Only to separatist dykes of your 
> particular political stripe. Wait, "young girl convertin'"? So you 
> sometimes preach to the non-converted? Hypocrite lectrice, ma semblable, ma 
> soeur?
> 
> > on this list. Really. I did. I  thought this list was for folks who have
> > read at least some of the  texts of  the thinkers collectively called
> > "french feminists", and would like to discuss some of the ideas with others.
> > Others who have also read the same books.  Or so I thought.  Am I wrong? Did
> > I miss something? Have I committed a faux pas by suggesting that Don  know
> > something of that which he speaks before he comments on it? (not that I'm
> > any less guilty of that sin; add "hypocrite" to the adjectives above)
> > 
IMNSHO, Don should indeed know "something of which he speaks" before 
he formulates opinions about the possible misuse of feminist political 
power, which *may* occur in my grandchildren's generation. (The political 
power, not its misuse, that is.)

> 
> Don has mentioned having read some FF. I think a lot of people post here 
> without knowing much about 'the topic.' You seem to admit to it yourself. 
> So, the real sin is having uh, excuse me, a dick? Well, I for one would 
> like to get beyond the penis=phallus thing. I've seen enough female 
> professors who mistreat their female grad students, lesbian 
> relationships that are physically abusive, women friends stabbing each 
> other in the back, etc., etc. -- as well as the fact that some of the 
> kindest and most generous people I know are men -- to think that 
> feminism needs to be more complex than the equation I mouthed and which 
> you seem to accept. I'm sure your separatist world is a f**king utopia. 
> Me, I wouldn't want to live there. 
> 
Rebecca, I agree, that women can be out-and-out bitches, whatever their 
sexual preference and men can be kind, gentle, loving, and 
supportive--but they can be malicious too.  This has nothing to do with 
having a penis or not.  After all, we're communicating through a medium 
that quite effectively strips us of any gender attributes (who knows, 
Chloe could be masquerading on-line as a dyke when in fact s/he's a 
firmly heterosexual family man with 3.5 kids and plans to vote for Bob 
Dole! ;) Perish the thought!

	I think, at least my concern--and it seems Chloe's as 
well--revolves around the fact that Don 1) has only a minimal knowledge 
of FF and 2)espouses very modernist (as opposed to postmodernist or 
poststructuralist) viewpoints regarding a variety of philosophical 
issues.  (I'm recalling his defensive response to another list member who 
asked him to define what he (Don) meant by spirituality.) If one remains 
wedded to Platonic, Hegelian, or scientific materialist accounts of 
philosophical discourse, it's *very* hard to take any French 
poststructuralist writing seriously since everyone from Derrida to 
Levinas to Irigaray seeks to undermine the Western dialectic.

	In closing, I'd just like to say that if certain list members 
(yes, that includes me) are bothered or annoyed by Don't posts, then 
let's not take up valuable time and list space trying to counter or 
refute his arguments.  Just read his posts and then pass over them 
quietly.  It just places him in a position of centrality and 
thus of power b/c we're busy talking about him rather than talking about FF.

Best wishes, all,

Nancy Nield
Dept. of Art History
University of Chicago
nanield-AT-midway.uchicago.edu