Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I think that if I or anyone did so
characterize her that that would mean that her views did not matter. Whether or not
Mine or Piercy or you or I adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is
whether our views are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has
concluded that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not think that
labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It would not tell Carroll
anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, because it would not tell him whether I
believed the things he things are most important.
Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics
determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to
characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that
P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it. it is
somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She has written some political
theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during
the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike
you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions
intended to be directly evaluated.
I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various
ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as
she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French
revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to
very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She & It of the matriach of her New
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
> She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
> poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
> lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
> not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
> thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
> she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
> difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
> she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
> Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
> problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
> from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
> Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
> problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
> "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
> problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
> (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
> effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
> naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
> feminine practices.
>
> We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
> be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
> biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
> equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
> biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
> discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
> intimacy!! >>
>>
