Re: Re: Re: Genderization
Greetings Economists, I agree with what Mine raises about the sexist point of view that Sam Pawlett put forward as his view of human reproduction. Sam had made that remark in the context of discussing essentialism, and I would just add to what Mine wrote that, Sam's remarks show how an essentialist view of human sex fails to account for the reality of human social relations. An essential description from Sam's point of view, would be that without some property P something is no longer essential. In this case penetration of the woman to have human reproduction is essential as a conception for Sam. Essentialism cannot take into account how sex between two people has no essential to it, but is plastic and changeable, and mutual when not one sided as Sam thinks it ought to be thought of. Sexism flows out of exactly making one part of the act essential in some aspect. Sam may not make love as he thinks it ought to be theoretically understood of course, one more contradiction to resolve. One of many times where essence fails to help us understand even the most prosaic of human activities. Which is why in current research the classical point of view is in trouble explaining human minds. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
Mine, there are many many people on this list who believe that women should have children and that it is their only purpose in life. So, the argument you make is bound to be very controversial. I understand that Sam is also for keeping women bound barefoot in the kitchen...for shame! Steve On Thu, 18 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. as i said before, there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. We are not living hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for small bands to maintain their species.Time has changed; sexual roles have changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose of sex as reproduction. Many women prefer not to have children, and I don't see the reason why they should!!! Mine Sam Pawlett wrote:Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species will fail to reproduce itself. ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . ."? How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A? Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
true, Doyle.. Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:28:47 -0700 From: Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19269] Re: Re: Re: Genderization Greetings Economists, I agree with what Mine raises about the sexist point of view that Sam Pawlett put forward as his view of human reproduction. Sam had made that remark in the context of discussing essentialism, and I would just add to what Mine wrote that, Sam's remarks show how an essentialist view of human sex fails to account for the reality of human social relations. An essential description from Sam's point of view, would be that without some property P something is no longer essential. In this case penetration of the woman to have human reproduction is essential as a conception for Sam. Essentialism cannot take into account how sex between two people has no essential to it, but is plastic and changeable, and mutual when not one sided as Sam thinks it ought to be thought of. Sexism flows out of exactly making one part of the act essential in some aspect. Sam may not make love as he thinks it ought to be theoretically understood of course, one more contradiction to resolve. One of many times where essence fails to help us understand even the most prosaic of human activities. Which is why in current research the classical point of view is in trouble explaining human minds. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
I don't wanna be controversial, but why? Mine Mine, there are many many people on this list who believe that women should have children and that it is their only purpose in life. So, the argument you make is bound to be very controversial. Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
y. --jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
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!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Justin,
my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave
my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her
poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her
poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you
carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men
should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an
ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do
with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT
which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this
ground.
merci,
Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27
-0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
Genderization (fwd) 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Why don't you relax Justin?
Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:37:30
-0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19100] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
Genderization (fwd
OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
!
y. --jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
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!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol Cox wrote: So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She wins, zero to minus 1. Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the last few days. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be followed. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin, my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this ground. merci, Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd) 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
I did *not* say that P meant that her scenario should be followed. we are moving away from the subejct matter of the discussion! I have to run to finish my term paper, sorry!! Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:24:32 -0400 From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19117] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd) George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be followed. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin, my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this ground. merci, Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd) 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 h
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
:-) Can't reds have fun? Carrol Doug Henwood wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She wins, zero to minus 1. Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the last few days. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Rod writes: ... It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. ... One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms (I've got XY, while my wife has a full complement of X chromosomes) and "gender" in cultural terms. Sex starts with the "male" vs. "female" dichotomy, though it's more complicated, as indicated by the fact that some XY types are born without the full "equipment" (the topic of the story that started this thread). Perhaps it's a little like the current literature on "shadow syndromes," so that it's more than one chromosome (or several genes) that determine biological sex. In any event, there are some gray areas between male and female, biologically speaking. When it comes to gender, the (sometimes fuzzy) distinction is between "masculine" and "feminine." These seem to refer to cultural norms, norms that seem generally to be aimed at drawing a cultural line corresponding to the biological line. In other words, biologically-based differences are exaggerated by the culture. Nonetheless, the meaning of "gender" clearly has varied between cultures (including between classes) and between different historical periods. The aristocratic fop who was sent to the guillotine in late 18th century France is very different from, say, George W. Bush in terms of "masculinity" even though they probably have the same combination of "sex" chromosomes. The way in which the meaning of masculine and feminine change over time, place, and class divides suggests that biological determinism of gender should be rejected. However, there is a biological component. For example, in "normal" sex, it's the male who penetrates the female, with the latter (but not the former) facing the possibility of getting pregnant. Though there are a lot of alternatives to "normal" sex, the biological difference suggests that males and females would have completely different attitudes toward the sex act. Such attitudes seem central to the cultures of masculinity and femininity. Similarly, the culture helps determine whether the alternatives to "normal" sex are applied or ignored as taboo, so that cultural affects the importance of such attitudes. Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the sort that I didn't deal with above. Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. (It's true in the dystopia that appears in that book, too, except that the biological alterations exaggerate the differences between the sexes.) On the abstract level, there's no reason leftists should favor either brand of determinism _a priori_. But let's shift gears, getting away from the politically-charged topic of the assignment of gender to people of different sexes. It used to be thought that the incidence of autism was determined by the child's cultural environment. The Bruno Bettelheim, a Freudian, blamed the "refrigerator mother" (the mom who doesn't show enough affection for her child) for the child's autism. Among other things, this example shows that cultural determinism need not be politically progressive. By the 1990s, Bettelheim's theory had been utterly rejected by the psychiatric and psychological communities, based on the weak-to-nonexistent empirical evidence behind it. (Bettelheim is nowadays dismissed as a quack.) Instead, they lean toward a biological theory, which need not be genetic, since autism might arise due to damage while the fetus is in the uterus of a variety of different sorts (including environmental pollution, which might explain the autistic cluster in New Jersey). Some even blame the effects of early-childhood immunizations for the onset of autism (though my unprofessional impression is that this theory is picking up a correlation that doesn't correspond to causation). In any event, since there seem to be a variety of different types of autism (including high-functioning autism or Asperger's Syndrome,
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. Rod Doug Henwood wrote: Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. Jim, from what I see, 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!! Mine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the sort that I didn't deal with above. How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? If, as seems to be the case, men and women have differing "natural inclinations", this would then mean only that what Hegel called the "originally sensuous will" is gendered. What identifies men and women as human, however, is a shared capacity for overcoming this "originally sensuous will", i.e. for "autonomy" in Kant's sense, for full self-determination. This, I take it, is what Hegel and Marx mean by "freedom" as the "idea" of humanity. "That man is free by Nature is quite correct in one sense; viz., that he is so according to the Idea of Humanity; but we imply thereby that he is such only in virtue of his destiny - that he has an undeveloped power to become such; for the 'Nature' of an object is exactly synonymous with its 'Idea'. ... Freedom as the ideal of that which is original and natural, does not exist as original and natural. Rather must it be first sought out and won; and that by an incalculable medial discipline of the intellectual and moral powers. ... To the Ideal of Freedom, Law and Morality are indispensably requisite; and they are in and for themselves, universal existences, objects and aims; which are discovered only by the activity of thought, separating itself from the merely sensuous, and developing itself, in opposition thereto; and which must on the other hand, be introduced into and incorporated with the originally sensuous will, and that contrarily to its natural inclination." (Hegel, The Philosophy of History, pp. 40-41) Social contexts can be more or less supportive of such development. According to Marx, the most supportive such context would be a community of "associated producers", "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Ted Winslow -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
BUT Butler neglects the Marxist feminist critique of how capitalism underlies the construction of sex and gender. Exploitation is not only discursive, it is REAL as it is embedded in oppressive practices. Butler apolitical critique of gender categories reminds me of the absurdity of post-modern pessimism: "don't criticicize sexism and racism because you perpetuate the same discourse" B. so what? See Rosamary's book _Materialist Feminism_ for an excellent critique of Butler (edited volume).. Mine You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms... Doug writes: You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Rod writes: Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes... If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
The excellent one to start with is Marxist feminist Gayle Rubin's article published in _Towards an Anthropology of Women_ "The Traffic in Women: Political Economy of Sex". It offers a much better argument than the one offered by Butler's metaphysical post-modernism.. Mine The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes...
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
At 05:14 PM 05/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. Mine writes: Jim, from what I see, 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. I really don't care if she's a Marxist or not, since Marxism is not the sole source of truth (while some Marxists are downright wrong). I know that she does not suffer from "biological essentialism," since her utopia also involves all sorts of _societal_ changes that do not stem from biological changes. If anything, causation in her book runs from society to biology. Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. He said, citing an authority... Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. I gave it to you from the horse's mouth. The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes... If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. Doug
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. as it is "written" above, Marge Piercy is making an implicit case for biological reductionism. "Culture" enters into play to "endorse" her utopian vision of "biologically altered" men. so culture "corrects" what is biologically "incorrect" (according to her) .. Piercy's argument is *still* biologically essentialist... I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. I already read her novel in Turkish version. More useful would be if you were to improve your knowledge of feminism, since you are confusing different feminist positions.. It is FLAT absurd to compare leftist feminist position to Marge Piecy's biologically guided cultural feminism. No feminist reader would buy this.. Mine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
btw, the turkish translation of the novel is _Zamanin Kiyisindaki Kadin_ published by _Ayrinti_ publishers. I clearly remember it now.Marge Piercy represents the radical feminist tradition, not Marxist.. Mine I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. I already read her novel in Turkish version.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? Quoth Doug: Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. The idea that the distinction between sex and gender (or between biology and society) is "socially constructed" (similar to "discursively constructed" without the over-emphasis on language, which is only one aspect of society) is so trivial and obvious that I assumed that the only reason bring it up is as criticism, that I should change my point of view in some way. In any event, I think there's an objective basis for the socially constructed concepts of sex gender. I gave some evidence, some argument. Was there something wrong with my presentation? is there an alternative to the sex/gender distinction that can help us deal with these issues more effectively? does Butler suggest one? More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. He said, citing an authority... yeah, but that authority is _correct_! Actually, I wasn't citing an authority as much as using the anonymous bumper-sticker writer as a summary for a position I've been arguing on and off on pen-l for years. I'm willing to take responsibility for that view, independent of some authority figure's assertions. snip If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. There's nothing in the notion of the role of hormones that says that one can't overcome the urges that result from them. Simply bringing up the flow of testosterone (or whatever) is not that same thing as advocating determinism, essentialism, or reductionism. Look, I'm horny a lot (seemingly due to the baleful influence of hormones), but that doesn't mean that I always do something about it, right? it also doesn't determine exactly what I do about those hormones, right? That means that not only does the "natural" sphere play a role but society does too. Hey, if you and Don Roper don't mind, I'll use a dirty word. The relationship between biology and society is a _dialectic_. Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. This is not a good analogy. The natural rate of unemployment, for example, is mostly a code-phrase for capitalism's need to have a reserve army of labor, an institution created by society. On the other hand, is the fact that men have "outies" and women have "innies" somehow socially constructed? No. What's socially constructed is the fact that the former have the lion's share of the power. This shunning of the role of biology threatens to veer into prudish Platonism ... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
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!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
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!!
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
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!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol, I agree with your constructive criticism here
What I did was to present my own interpretation of Piercy and offer a
reasonable argument about why she seemed to me somewhat controversial (I
won't repeat the argument since it is in the archives of the list). If
Justin has something to say with the "content" of my analysis, then he
should offer another interpretation. Rational discussion requires logical
counter-arguments untill the parties convince each other. If Justin
challenges my reading of her as biologically essentialist, then he should
"reason" why he thinks the contrary..
Labeling me marxist feminist is not the solution here..
merci,
Mine
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!!
Re: Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
And up is down and left is right and black is white and out is in and no is yes and big is little and... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO. You are creating false dichotomies. Vulgar biological "determinism" is a already product of vulgar "idealist" mentality, which essentializes, reifies and idealizes biology.. Mine I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny the influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or absence of reproductive organs.. I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does not consider the social factors other than the "family"! Mine It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
