Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
Sorry! Sam Pawlett's definition of sex is sexist. It is not simply sexist because of the "penetration" thing (since intercourse is necessary). so why is it sexist then? first, sexual activity is constructed in his language as an activity "initiated" by men, so women are presented as powerless and relegated to the level of sexual insignifigance. 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)
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: Genderization (fwd)
Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology whereas Jim technology is *not* neutral. it IS political. it is already part of the definition of dominant cultural practices under capitalism just as science is. the idealist discourse of biology versus culture or whether biology sets limits or not is itself embedded in hidden normative assumptions. Recently, you can see this so called "liberating aspects of technology" advocated by geneticists who say that fetus's gender can be determined (intervened) before it is born. Besides the stupidity of the argument, this sort of reasoning is "politically dangerous". It reinforces patriarchal practices by allowing parents to opt for males rather than for females, since in the dominant culture, it is still considered to be a "pride" to have a son. another example. some african americans go under surgery to make their skin whiter. technology, again, reinforces racism by imposing "white man's biological and racial superiority" on african americans. Change your color! look cool! and become like a civilized man! Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany
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 (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 (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: 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: 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
Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
I think you should read the report of the study again. It says that boys surgically transformed to resemble girls still identify as boys and act as boys (this may be mimicing, etc.) But they were raised as girls. And identified to everyone as girls. 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
Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
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
