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
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
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
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
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
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
aturalizes 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:
Genderiz
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
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
d 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 charact
] 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
:-)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
