for what it's worth both eric and brett wrote off list to say they quite agreed with what i had to say and thanked me for taking the time. both brett and eric had already demonstrated to me long ago that they were on our side and eager to learn--brett in fact appreciated a 20 k rant on feminisms and asked for a copy later. otherwise i wouldn't have bothered.
and clearly were a ruch limbaugh type to join up i wouldn't give him the time of day and i'd hope doug would kick him off. so i'm not advocating unlimited free speech at all. i am rather advocating dialogue and that people be treated humanely and decently. for me, that means not assuming that each and every time someone says something that's not too swift they are beyond all hope and to be written off. otherwise i would trash your posts more often
kelley
>Kelley:
>>numbers of posts and posters are quite plainly not the issue because being
>>a person of color or a white woman does not necessarily mean you will think
>>the same way about everything. <snip>
>>so the problem is qualitative, not quantitative: *how* are these issues
>>raised and responded to?
>
>I'm a believer in affirmative action, both in jobs & political
>institutions, and numbers & proportions matter a great deal in both. All-
>or nearly all-white outfits, even if they had seemingly "right-on" politics
>in their platforms, still do not measure up. In fact, such entities would
>reek *hypocricy*. It is a sign that active recruitment of women & people
>of color is not the norm in them and that informal exclusion is operative.
>Once women and members of subordinated races are in, _then_ it is the
>quality of our participation, and how others react to it, that becomes a
>question (e.g., who is setting the agenda, whose perspectives are given
>respectful attention, whether feminism & anti-racism guide political
>actions, not just theory, if so, what kind of feminism, of anti-racism,
>etc.). When we are not even in, it is impossible to evaluate the quality
>of participation. As for quality, quite often, the quality of discussion
>on not just gender but race here leaves much to be desired (it's often
>inane). The same goes for other e-lists in which I take part. We have a
>long way to go, in quality & quantity, especially if you feel comfortable
>saying that whether or not we are even here doesn't really matter....
>
>I find it especially outrageous for a nearly all-white political outfit (or
>its members) to question the existence of an all-black outfit and deplore
>its "separatism" while aquiescing to the fact of white dominance in other
>institutions (including itself).
>
>>i do not want the conversational
>>dynamics to be grounded in men's acquiesence to feminist analyses because
>>it's the right thing to do.
>
>Not shutting up unfeminist guys in leftist fora says much about the quality
>of the said fora; the same goes for race. There is no such thing as "free
>speech," and it's a good thing too, as Stanley Fish (one of the few
>postmodernists who don't pretend to be radicals and hence are more honest)
>says. White leftists & feminist guys have special responsibilities to make
>sure the political atmosphere in leftist fora (be they e-lists, journals,
>meetings, or political parties) is a welcoming one for women and members of
>subordinated races. Those who fail to do so I cannot really trust, for the
>implicit message in that case is that "while anti-feminist & racist views
>are to be tolerated in the name of 'free speech,' if such views offend,
>alienate, and drive away women & people of color, so be it."
>
>[An aside to Rakesh: Here's my honest judgment on race & gender on LBO-Talk
>and other left e-lists & institutions.)
>
>Yoshie
>
>
>
>