>
>I don't think it's any different with race.
bullshit. in leftist circles it sure as heck is. i'm not saying one is worse, mind you. i am saying that the difference is that when it comes to gender and particularly when it comes to het relationships, it is much easier to revert to individualistic explanations because people think that so much about gender relations are about autonomous personal preferences.
my analogy, then, was a heuristic device. it was meant to provoke. it was meant to reveal how difficult it is to address gender oppression and the connection between social practices and relations at the micro level [face to face interaction] as opposed to the macro level of structural gender oppression. so when we're talking choices in dating/marriage it's very difficult for USers to get it in the first place, and it's still difficult for leftist men.
furthermore, just to piss you off, i do think there is something to what katha has called 'white guilt'. whites shut up in the face of racial analyses OR they disagree on theoretical terms. no such dynamic operates here because i don't think it's taken that seriously. i also think it's much easier for women to be dismissed as whiners or bitches or whathaveyou.
so while carrol's argument about shutting up is interesting, frankly the last thing i want to have happen is for men to shut up. i do, though, want them to argue with me on the basis of something other than personal exp alone. it's fine for illustration, but it seriously needs backing up with some numbers, evidence, other examples, texutal analyses. etc i don't want men to shut up because all to often i see white people shut up in the face of race analyses only to turn around and say what they really feel.
In any case, silliness that
>surfaces in this sort of discussion in an "integrated" setting due to the
>ignorance or indifference of those whom race- and/or gender-specific
>oppressions do not affect personally indicates a continuing need for
>autonomous organizing among the oppressed, along with "integrated"
>organizing.
oh oh here it is, the latch, the hook, the reason for bothering to respond in the first place. so we can attack angela.
as for this issue: why is the BRC supposed to wait for the mass mobliztion of class warfare before it joins in the struggle, eh? your defense of separatist struggle in an earlier post made no sense to me.
One doesn't want to be stuck in rehearsing Feminism 101 for
>ever. Leave it to feminist guys to deal with non-feminist guys; it's their
>responsibility.
whatever. i suppose you will tell charles next time he starts educating whites to let the anti racist whites educate the racist whites, is that it?
as for the charles exchange with noonan, charles said this:
>It is not a valid inference to say that reference to other women's
opinions on an issue differing from Kelley's means she isn't a real woman.
Just means that there's a bunch of other real women who outvoted her, and
I'm going with their judgement.
edward said and spivak would, of course, tell you that you're appropriating the voices of subjugated others to make your point. said calls it orientalism, because it invests the speaker with authority by ultimately silencing the voices of those Others. you get to wield those Others in the name of your defense and they don't have an opportunity to say a word.
nonsense.
of course you'd go with their judgment about your non-sexism. that's kind of a no brainer and why, aside from appropriation, it's a stupid inadequate argument in that context. in this context, you simply deny diversity within an identity context and maintain that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, has the wrong reading of this or that text or isn't "really radical" more inane argument.
but hey charles, why don't you retitle the posts here with a ref to joe's personal identity and geographic location--or do you just reserve that for a special few?
kelley