Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:28:01 -0500 (CDT) From: rebecca elizabeth zorach <rezorach-AT-midway.uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: chloe=bad What I find even more unfortunate is something I've mentioned before: our tendency (on this list as on many others) to read each other's messages poorly if at all. I believe you reacted not to what Don actually wrote, but to a stereotype of a certain kind of man (fueled by the prior reactions of some others on the list). I take Don's question not to be a plaintive cry for education, but a considered objection to a certain version of feminism. I also find it interesting that the Audre Lorde essay you paraphrase is one ("The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House") cited by me (in partial response to Don). I take her argument to be not one primarily about men, but about white women feminists. Can we talk about (for example, and this is only one example of a conversation we could have on this list) the bourgeoisification of feminism, and (to quote myself again) "the exclusions wrought by a feminism that has been white, bourgeois, possibly homophobic, and primarily academic" rather than just flinging petty invective? Personally I find it frustrating that whenever I try to start a substantive discussion, nobody bothers to read, but if I fling invective... (It may be that my interests just don't intersect with those of other people on this list. In that case, fine, it's nobody's fault, and I may simply end up unsubscribing.) Rebecca On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, chloe sekouri wrote: > I'm sorry you are outraged, Patrice, and I find it interesting that you > understood my post to be an attempt to "dickwave" at someone who was > struggling to understand challenging academic material. *I* understood my > post as petty invective hurled at someone who was struggling to understand > challenging material, *and* seemed to expect the other members of this list > to educate him. Perhaps I have misinterpreted Don's motives; if that's the > case, it's most unfortunate. What is equally unfortunate is that > > 1) many lists just like this one are dominated by the requests of men who > are *trying really hard* to understand, but can't seem to grasp they must do > rudimentary work around feminist issues *on their own without asking girls > to help them* before they particpate in feminist lists (like I don't have > enough to do already, what with systemic sexism and all), and > > 2) many women seem to feel the need to protect poor Don from mean ole' me. > (you did mention paternalism, didn't you ? ). > > It seems I can't swing a cat without hitting a man who feels that it's my > job as a feminist to help him understand the texts associated with feminisms > (as if I could; as if I've read them all; as if I don't perceive cleaning > matted cat fur and old spaghetti out of the kitchen drain as a more > edifying activity; as if it would do any good anyway . . .) I think, given > the sorts of assertions Don made, he would do well to take a trip to the > library before he posted again. I'm in good company when I hold this > opinion; Audre Lorde says something like it, roughly paraphrased by me as > 'one of the classic tools of the oppressor is to demand lessons about > oppression from the oppressed' (sorry, can't find the exact quote right now, > but I will if someone needs it) > > As to whether I would take a paternalistic, condescending attitude toward a > woman-- I'll leave that for you to judge. > > > gleefully yours, > > chloe > > > > >I am really outraged at the tone of the postings from chloe. Would you, > >chloe, take such a condescending (one might say paternalistic!!) tone > >toward a woman who dared to post to the list and to engage in its > >conversations without being an expert on F-F. This sort of whatever the > >female equivalent of dick-waving is why I have left lists dominated by > >male academics (their dick-waving, obviously, not the female equivalent). > >I agree that one should have a more than glancing familiarity with a list > >topic before getting too active--but Don is only apparently so active > >because so few women are posting (myself included--and I do know > >something about the topics, I just don't have the summer break to engage > >in them). > > > >I am glad to see others are also responding. I would hate to see some > >really intriguing discussions derailed by petty invective. > > *************************************************************** > "The women who hate me cut me > as men can't Men don't count. > I can handle men. Never expected better > of any man anyway. > But the women, > shallow-cheeked young girls the world was made for > safe little girls who think nothing of bravado > who never got over by playing it tough" Dorothy Allison > > *************************************************************** >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005