File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 1289


From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Picking up the Pieces
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:20:45 +6600 (CST)


Yoshie wrote:

> Nancy wrote:

> >This is a crucial issue in the women's movement, because no other issue that
> >I can think of has caused as severe a split as this one has caused, IMHO.
> >
> >But I am remembering that beginning in the '60s, after the civil rights
> >movement had gained some clout, it fought for the elimination of
> >representations of African-Americans which were judged to be reminiscent of
> >the old stereotypes: the infamous little black little jockey boy statues,
> >the shuffling Uncle Tom, etc. I don't remember exactly how this came about,
> >but it seems to me that black leaders came together on this to make it
> >happen, and nobody (at least not any blacks) protested on the grounds that
> >their freedom of expression was being violated.
> >
> >Andrea Dworkin, on the other hand, inspired a great deal of anti-censorship
> >sentiment, and effectively, the feminist movement was split between those
> >women who wanted to limit the right of the patriarchy to represent women in
> >a way which was thought to perpetuate their oppression, on the one hand, and
> >those women who saw such limitations as sexually repressive.
> >
> >I have asked myself: why could the black community come together on their
> >issue while the women's community couldn't?
[SNIP]
> >Anybody have any ideas?

I think Yoshie's response (copied below) covers the matter well, but Nancy
makes on real empirical error which ought to be noted. When Nancy writes,
"I have asked myself: why could the black community come together on their
issue while the women's community couldn't?" she fails to get the terms of
the comparison straight, and therefore cannot notice that the women's
movement in fact *did* "come together," and very effectively. The common
use of "he/she" or some equivalent of "he" as generic for humans was a
hard fought achievement, every bit as significant as, say, the black
movement's elimination of "boy." And incidentally, as anyone who watches
black comics on cable TV knows, there *was* a split in the black movement
over the "right" of blacks themselves to use racist terminology (the
n-word etc). AND -- though recent discourse on this maillist might conceal
the fact -- there was also a considerable consensus among women (which had
nothing to do, in the first instance, with the issue of pornography) that
the c-word was as unacceptable as a generic reference to women as was the
n-word in reference to African Americans.

In the early 70s there really was bitter opposition to the elimination of
"he" and "man" as the generic references to "humans." Those who are not
aware of that history may also be not sharply aware of the fact that such
pressure on verbal usage can/does have substantive effectsd.

The women's movement did *not* divide on this issue, but some women left
the movement, some following the likes of Naomi Wolfe, some following the
likes of Dworkin. Both routes were simple repudiations of feminism. 

Carrol

Yoshie's response to Nancy follows:

> First of all, sexuality constitutes much more fluid fields of reality and
> representation than race does. Race as category is rooted in the histories
> of colonialism, imperialism, labor market segmentation, educational
> disenfranchisement, residential segregation, etc. Sexuality is of course
> related to the same histories, but much more indirectly.
> 
> Secondly, the women's movement has been split by not only class & race but
> also sexual identities. There is a history of lavender-baiting in the
> women's movement. Dwarkin, etc. do not seem to be interested AT ALL in
> queer women's sexual practices + identities and how they might be
> represented. Needless to say, the women's movement did not talk with gay/bi
> men as to the possible alliances + strategies for better sexual
> representations.
> 
> Thirdly, while our racial identities are often (though not exclusively)
> marked by visibility, our sexual identities are not. We don't necessarily
> wear on our bodies what we do + fantasize sexually. In fact, it's mostly
> invisible. (That's why there are such practices as 'coming out,' 'outing,'
> 'cruising,' etc.) So racial identity groups and sexual identity groups have
> different stakes in and approaches to issues of visibility + representation.
> 
> Fourthly, what sexually turns us on and off is not always clear; nor does
> it always follow our professed adherence to certain "ethical" principles
> and "moral" conduct in other areas of life. Transgressions, violations of
> bodily/psychic boundaries, flirting with dangers, playing the games of
> domination/submission, etc. are often sexual turn-ons, even for those who
> only have "vanilla" sex, at least at the level of fantasies. Now, you may
> go ahead and say that getting turned on by those ideas, images, etc. is BAD
> both at the levels of individuals and social relations; however, it seems
> that most people's sexual tastes are impervious to "ethical" persuasion,
> censorship, inept educational efforts, etc. I am not saying that people's
> sexual tastes are fixed and cannot be changed; I am merely saying that
> should we desire changes--esp. for better--in them, there might be better
> ways of working for changes than what have been often disastrous attempts
> at moral/state repressions.
> 
> Yoshie
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005