The democrats represented in Congress are almost as bad as the
republicans. All politicians in power are supported by special interest
money, making all politicians in high positions of power politicians for
big business not for the people. The only way to have a completely
"fair" political system is to seriously reform campaign finance laws. Of
course democrats are capitalists!
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 8 22:02:06 MDT 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 21:05:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Call for papers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am coorganizing a workshop for the biennial conference of the European
Association of American Studies, which will meet in Warsaw, Poland,
March 21-25, 1996. The general theme of the conference is the impact
of American thought and culture since WWII on Europe.
The specific workshop I am cochairing is "European American
Studies and US Feminist F(r)iction: Contacts and Contamination." It will
focus on feminist discourse, both imaginative and documentary writing, as
it is born in one place, received in another, altered to suit the body of
its new recipient, and then, perhaps, relaunched, often finding its way
"home" in a different guise (e.g. "French" feminism in the U.S.)
Participants are invited to explore the controversial aspects of
U.S. (colonial?) influence on a variety of issues: for example, ASlice
Walker's influence on the current discourse of excision in Europe; U.S.
women's studies influence on and in the post-Communist world.
We would also like to receive papers on the impact of ecofeminist
theory and practice in the United States on European thinking about and
approaches to the environment(al crisis), or on cross-currents and
reciprocal influences of European on American thought and practice. Papers
might explore issues of "cultural imperialism," such as the borrowing or
appropriation of American Indian attitudes toward the land; the
relationships between ecofeminism and other environmental movements; the
"green quilts" movement.
Participants must be members of their national American Studies
Association to appear on the program. Presentations are 20 minutes, and
presenters are urged to talk from a paper rather than read it. A session
will contain four presenters, and we may run two sessions, depending on
response to our call for papers.
Please send paper, or substantial abstract, plus a one-page cv
and fax, e-mail and phone numbers by the deadline of September 15, 1995, to
Elaine Hedges, 317 Hawthorn Rd, Baltimore, MD 21210
fax: 410 830 3469; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
Tobe Levin, Martin Luther Strasse 35, 60389 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany; fax: 49 69 46 40 69
Please contact Elaine Hedges for further information, and feel
free to post this call to other relevant lists.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 9 08:35:49 MDT 1995
Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 10:37:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by acs.wooster.edu
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Susan Clayton)
Subject: male-bashing
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 7th, Michael Golden wrote:
>Hi Jackie recently stated:
>>
>> Well, would you LOOK at the men come out of the woodwork! How
>> UNUSUAL- "Democrats vs. Republicans" - THAT's their REAL interest!
>> And you, David, of course, agree with Michael, who agrees with
>> Lee? Wood? (whatever!) - stick together, birds!
>
> ah, is this what one might refer to as a flame? Is this
>constructive dialogue. I've been waiting for some comments from the
>list...but alas, have seen none. Is this because:
>
>a) most list members are sympathetic to Jackie's tone;
>b) no one thought it a serious enough argument to comment on;
>c) list members are intimidated by this type of flameing posts? (BTW, how
>do you spell flameing...my dictionary has not caught-up with the
>information highway).
My response was more on the order of "b"; besides which I only today read
Jackie's message. But you have made me realize it is worth responding to.
There is a strain of anti-male philosophy that has emerged from time to
time on this network, and from different people, that I am very
uncomfortable with. Absolutely I think patriarchy is bad, and that men
tend to benefit from it, and that many men are invested in maintaining it,
and that it is hard for men to understand what the less privileged are
experiencing. But I disagree strongly with any stance that says men (or
any other group of people) are incapable, by virtue of their group
membership, of seeing the truth, or trying to do right, or in general being
as good as "we" are.
I would urge people to avoid this kind of ad hominem criticism. Dispute
people on the basis of what they've said, not who they are. (Although if
it were really true that all the men on the list said the same thing, that
would be worth pointing out.)
Michael and Wood seem to be as different as any other two people on this list.
Susan
