katie roiphe

[Jim heartfield]

In message <199906190155.VAA04428 at panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n
<gcf at panix.com> writes
>kelley <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net>: 
>> > i still don't think men are inherently
>> >violent.  it's clearly something that is learned and connected to power
>> >dynamics that take place in the family, at work, in academe.  no i'm not a
>> >cultural determinist...did i say all men were violent? 
>
>Jim heartfield:
>> Yes, I think you just did - or at least it was an exception to the rule.
>> ...
>
>I'd agree with Doris Lessing who wrote in a little book
>called _Lies_We_Tell_Ourselves_ or something like that that
>_human_beings_ have a strong tendency to violence which they
>need to recognize and deal with.  Men will tend to do more
>noticeable violence because they're bigger and have more
>muscle mass, and in many cases are given cultural permission,
>even injunction, to engage in it.
>
>It might be interesting to include political support for
>violent politicians and parties, e.g. the present U.S.
>administration, as a species of violence and see how the
>sexes lined up.  

In Europe women have, throughout the greater part of the century, tended
to vote to the right of men. The respectable wing of the British
suffragette movement embraced the war effort in 1914, many of them
playing a leading role in the 'white feather' campaign, in which men who
failed to enlist were denounced as cowards. Today women play a war-
mongering role again, with Louise Arbour, Madeleine Albright and Clare
Short all playing their part. Catharine Mackinnon, played an important
card in the propaganda campaign when she participated in a civil action
in New York against Radovan Karadzic for organising 'rape camps' a
couple of years ago. And of course women have played a leading role in
the campaign against the war, too. Here Alice Mahon, MP, has been the
most vocal opponent of the war.

But nothing seems to suggest to me that women are 

-- 
Jim heartfield