ignore this, it's about women and sexism ...

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Tue Nov 30 15:13:42 PST 1999


Oh , I just found this one.


>>> kelley <oudies at flash.net> 11/23/99 09:48PM >>>
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?

((((((((

Charles: Yes, the end of racism will be mainly a change in the conduct of white people, not black and other people of color. So, in the main anti-racist whites will have to persuade other whites not to be racist. It is sort of like the Civil War. It was mainly whites who fought to end slavery.

Similarly, it is mainly on anti-sexist men to persuade other men. Although, women can directly teach and demand of men a lot more, because most men's happiness and self-esteem is importantly related to some relations to women.

((((((((((((( 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.

(((((((((((

Charles: Actually, Yoshie did speak for herself on this issue. Also, women I referred to may be silent to you, but they are not silent. In other words, they tell me. ((((((((((((

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.

((((((((((((((

Charles: As I say, it is not just my judgement, but most women I know's judgment. That's a full brainer. It's not so hard to believe. It makes my life a lot happier to genuinely respect women as women , and show it. They appreciate it and let me know it, and reciprocate. Given that a huge fraction of the people that anybody knows is women, this makes life a lot better. Whenever, I urge men to be feminists, I argue from self-interest. I tell them their lives will be a lot better. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's a real smart reply, and the only reason I can't make it into a full argument is that ,as I say, most women who are not already on an e-mail list are not going to come on to just tell you that. And I'm not going to go through all the trouble of arranging letters from them.

You are just too overwhelmingly outnumbered in my experience. I am a very militant feminist and women appreciate it, especially since the vast majority of men are not. I can't really get people to join an e-mail list to tell you.

(((((((((((((((

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.

(((((((((((((

Charles: No, I am not denying diversity, but there is a wide variety of women who recognize my feminism. It's not "anyone" who disagrees with me. It is your specific specious attack that is wrong.

But the added problem here is that you jumped into a conversation between me and someone else with an interpretation of my discussion that I was talking down or whatever to her. However, in that you failed to take account of another major social issue, I am Black and you and she are White. So, when I talk to you or her, I may be responding to you talking down or whatever to me. So, a response to you talking down me has a different social significance than just a man talking to a woman. It is also a black person rebuffing a white person. Your account of the matter doesn't take that into account as a reason why my tone cannot be so certainly labelled sexism.

Black women and women of color are about the only appropriate judges in that situation. I mean that is all complicated and we aren't going to do it ( though Yoshie already replied to you), but you can't just throw out race and discuss this in terms of gender alone. That's why what I said was not at all stupid.

(((((((((((((((((

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?

((((((((((((((((

Charles: I'm not getting into this much, because Angela and I seem to have a different understanding of this than you. And Angela and I are the ones who were talking to each other. Angela and I have had enough conversations, including arguing and hassling, such that we can make cutting remarks about each other without losing our comradely relationship. As a matter of fact, in the instance you are referring to, she had been hassling me for several posts, and I just lobbed something back at her, so you didn't even have the facts right. She is a woman and I am Black, but we don't take the sharp remarks as sexist or racist. That's the way I understand it, and that's the way I understand that Angela understands it. Seems to me you are an officious intermeddler in our discussions, not the referee, whether Angela and I are disagreeing or not.

CB



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list