1. the concrete specifics of fields' argument weren't under discussion. it's important, but there were other issues raised: a concrete charge of racism and claim that all whites are_____ as a flame of someone else. i'm going to read it and i'd like to talk more about it, if possible. in the meantime.....
if i said, in response to jim heartfield recently, that, of course, it figures that he'd respond this way because he was a man and all men are like ______ and no wonder he didn't buy my argument, don't you think jim would have had every right to be incensed. to accuse someone who's disagreeing with you of racism simply because they don't buy someone's argument or their mere assertions is hardly a productive response. that's max's point. and, as you suggest, you have experienced this.
a while back yoshie was attacked for ostensibly generalizing about men and pornography to which vigorous responses were rallied in the name of "oh how can you know what we, as individuals, think or how pornography affects us. we don't even look at the stuff. how do you know that we enjoy the money shot?" and so on. it was if systemic or institutionalized sexism doesn't exist. as if yoshie necessarily had to be speaking about individual men and what they consciously thought or said in order to lay any claim to the sexist imagery that is typical of pornography.
2. if you can't do justice to it, why should anyone else be able to? i'm not sure why you responded to kirsten, i guess. was it a criticism? an elaboration? wondering, not being snitty.
kelley
>Yours, Rakesh
>
>
>