File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9804, message 164


Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:57:59 -0500
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Self-Emancipation of Women or Hetero-chauvinism?


Malgosia puts Charles and other Procreationists in place:
>
>>          It is a shame that this argument would have two
>>     women thinking that I am anything but an ally on this, or
>>     have you trying to discourage me from promoting
>>     feminism among men.
>>          However, I will continue to promote feminism among men
>>    and  women, on and off the list, because I think
>>     what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
>
>We differ on what "the shame" is.  To me, the shame is that you, and several
>other men on the list who insist that they are "allies" of women, can't even
>seem to conceive of the fact that if they want to be allies they may have
>to change their thinking, learn to think differently.  You seem to be
>incapable
>of listening to the people you are supposedly solidarizing with.  "Listening",
>to oneself and others, implies a willingness to stop thinking what one is
>thinking.  I get the impression that the image of being an "ally" of women
>is for you a point of male pride the way the size of dick might be to another,
>or "chivalry" to another.  You remind me of men who insist on opening doors
>for women out of insistence that they, the men, _know_ what "real respect for
>women" is, whereas the women are too stupid or too brainwashed to appreciate
>such fine things.  _You_ know what is "good for the goose", and the goose
>better
>learn to appreciate this.  _You_ will continue to "promote feminism" without
>even re-evaluating whether what you are promoting is, or is not, in any
>meaningful sense, "feminism" to those people who you are supposedly serving.
>
>I am not saying that the activities you are engaged in, or propose to be
>engaged in, are not of service to the cause of women.  I agree that the views
>expressed by the women on this list are not necessarily representative of
>"women" (whatever this means), not necessarily correct, not to be taken
>as some kind of gospel.  Nothing should be taken as representative, correct,
>or gospel.  But when I read most of your posts, and posts by other loudly
>self-declared "allies", they sure do not sound to me like allies discussing
>things with allies.  They sound like a bunch of male chauvinists trying to
>pose as feminists and getting angry at the women for not being in enough awe.
>They sound like very old and familiar crap, only now clothed in "Marxist"
>trappings.

Hear, hear! Well said, Mal.

The only thing I want to add is that the way they REPRESENT (in both the
senses of linguistic representation and political representation) women is
nothing less than PORNOGRAPHIC, and irony is that none of them can ever see
it that way. In their eyes, women are nothing but OBJECTS of THEIR THEORY,
and the theory proposed is one of the age-old reduction of women to our
alleged 'nature.' And representation is done to us and 'for us' WITHOUT OUR
CONSENT.

Yoshie




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005