File spoon-archives/french-feminism.archive/french-feminism_1996/96-10-07.165, message 24


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
> 
> ***************************************************************
> 





   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005