>
>We talked about this a bit on method-and-theory... but i
>was wondering if you could spell out what you mean here by
>racism and sexism. I must admit, I tend to use fairly
>specific and narrow definitions.
well that's a problem from the get go. what do you mean by narrow? do you mean that it is only bigoted behavior and speech? or that we can only speak of intentions? if so, then this elides the possibility of considering institutionalized sexuation/racialization/class oppression. see marilyn frye forward
Following Zizek and
>Salecl,
good of you to include salecl in this instance.... is this authorization in operation, ken?
I've really started to wonder if "calling someone
>out" for being racist or sexist is such a good strategy.
i agree that it's not most of the time and i've said as much on this list and elsewhere. indeed yoshie and i got into it briefly months ago. i took the position that calling someone out wasn't a good strategy. yoshie disagreed.
>So my point is - if we use broad definitions of sexism and
>racism, and we use them, apply them to individuals in a
>public discourse - doesn't this threaten to make these
>ideas more widespread. If you are asking me if I'm
>supporting censorship here - you're damn right. I think
>people should be free to say these things, but as a
>strategy, if I was a journalist, I wouldn't report it. I
>wouldn't pay any attention to someone at all who was
>making deliberate racist and sexist comments (unless it
>became widespread, in which case a different strategy
>would be required). Imagine this: if sexist and racism
>rhetoric wasn't reported... if people used it and people
>started to turn their backs, it would first become
>unpronouceable. Then, it would become unthinkable (what
>fades from speech fades from memory).
what is unpronounceable today, in certain circles, enslavement, sex trafficking, beating/murdering gays/lesbians, etc, is hardly unpronounceable now because people ignored it and failed to report it.
that, on this list, men generally tend to be decent and that they generally tend to avoid sexist commentary--though i'd say not nearly as much as they try to take seriously and avoid the use of racial slurs--is the result of the fact that women have put themselves on the line for a long time now in order to call it out.
so, no. i'm not giving up on this strategy.
the real problem is this. i have been considering for a long time now, why it is that whenever we've raised the issue of sexism on this list, it isn't taken particularly seriously. here are some examples that have come up in the past since i've been around:
1. a debate over whether or not one could call themselves a black feminist simply by virtue of being a black man. when the issue of essentialism was raised it was denied and the issue of the broader sexism of the initial claim was subordinated to race and the claim that challenging a man's claims in this regard just had to be racist
2. commentary on doug in drag and suggestions that he'd do best as some famous ugly women --gertrude stein as i recall
3. a series of posts in which men thought it perfectly reasonable to tee hee over the pics in sports illustrated --like little boys in a locker room. they were just plastered on the list as if it were a-ok to go on about breast and women's nudity --as if there were no women here.
4. a thread on porn--broadly understood--and claims about why men enjoy porn was attacked as over-generalizing. no one seemed to be capable of talking about the logic of porn as it manifests itself in adverts, television and film in a way that recognized that while individual men might not respond in these exact ways, the logic of the money shot and sexual subordination was a theme that can and should be unpacked. in other words, yoshie and i were shut down by men on this list because they felt that any discussion of the logic of porn and the money shot was somehow an attack ontheir individual person. bunk.
5. concerns about mary daly were treated with condescension. first, she was denounced as a crappy thinker as if that somehow justified the sexist treatment she's rec'd. second, it was claimed that if mary daly doesn't like what's happening on her job then why doesn't she get a job elsewhere. when we replied and ingorance about her work was acknowledged, the man in question asked a woman to report on her work for him. he couldn't be bothered to do the work himself.
6. kosovoa and albright: albright has penis envy.
7. and the absurd discussion in which it was claimed that feminists somehow make up claims about violence against women and, indeed, that all of feminism can be characterized as the "sex = rape" feminism of mcdworkin variety. [katie roiphe thread]
now this bothers me and i think it should. i think it is troubling and an indication of the way in which sexism pervades this list in a *macro* way. that is, i don't think that individual men are sexist pigs. but i do think think that the responses and allowing the responses to happen and the fact that concerns about sexism are ignored or treated icily and with silence or ridicule is a form of sexism.
now why is pointing that out enjoyable on your view. what enjoyment do i get out of it. it's very painful. likewise, it is painful for anyone to take the risk of pointing out heterosexism and/or racism.
censored, kelley