> 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
I think it is worthwhile to distinguish between systemic racism, sexism, classism, which is institutionalized in law, policy and procedure, and the rhetoric of racism and sexism. So I agree with your distinction here. Certainly I wouldn't want to reduce this kind of analysis to intention. However, I think different methods are necessary for approaching an institutional analysis and an actual political conversation. The implications are different. Pointing out that Canada's immigration laws are racist is one thing, pointing to a specific person and caling them racist is another.
This is something that has been bothering me for quite some time now. "Outing" someone as a racist in public discourse, time and time again, has often lead to the literal destruction of their lives (public and private). I'm certainly not in favour of letting people off the hook for saying offensive things... but we need to be careful with what we say and how we approach this. There is a certain lack of compassion that I've experienced in recent protests. When people start chanting "kill the rich!" or start looking lingeringly on rocks to throw... I start getting nervous. When Serbia was being bombed, the first week of protests here in Toronto began with fire bombs hitting the US embassy - causing injury to people on both sides of the fence, police officers and protestors. Lifewise when some student protestors, in another instance, started "moshing" against police riot shields.
So when I said narrow, I was refering to rhetoric, not institutional analysis.
> Following Zizek and Salecl,
> good of you to include salecl in this instance.... is
this authorization in operation, ken?
What, I include Salecl's name just to make sure my Zizek ref doesn't stand alone? I was thinking specifically of her analysis of hate speech. Salecl and Zizek, despite their Lacanian commonality, both have different interests and different approaches. Salecl has a distinctly legal, political and sociological interest, Zizek is more philosophical. Zizek is explicit about the strategy of silencing in his book Plague of Fantasies while Salecl takes a slightly different approach in her work on hate speech in regards to Butler. So, no, I wasn't trying authorize my position.
> 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.
I agree. The strategy cuts both ways.
> 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.
I know. I don't think it is taken seriously. You tend to call people on it, and then there are a series of (predictable) evasions and ad hoc justifications... sometimes a glib apology. But, all in all, nothing much changes. I tend to take a different approach - a kind of social boycott, a refusal to engage someone who's clearly an idiot. And, all in all, nothing much changes. I don't know which works better. I must admit, my approach seems particularly helpless in these instances (and sometimes I feel like an accomplice to it all). There seems to be advantages and disadvantages to both. I always respect your decision to say something, even when I disagree. And often I don't jump in precisely because I know damn well that you don't need my two cents.
I've been called a racist and a sexist on line and off. And I try to take this seriously, very seriously. I know I write with an authoritarian hand, as you noted above (and I even tried to weasle my way out of it too). I also try to be flexible, and open to contrary arguments. But I recognize that when I'm criticized, I don't take it well (you've probably seen enough of my defensiveness to last you a lifetime).
Salecl has an important point, which might be helpful here.
>From no. 4: "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 on their
individual person." This is exactly what Salecl tries to
uncover regarding hate speech. When confronted with an
abstracted passionate attachment ("the money shot") (or
hate speech) people who identify with the abstraction
become either defensive, hostile, or aggressive. The
point, then, is to find a way to break the identification
and transference, to bring the discourse back into
something we can all talk about. This is what Lacan means
when he talks about traversing fantasy - shifting the
overall framework of identification and transference. An
interesting article was published in the Toronto Star last
week: a student protest in Serbia - "student's claim Serbia
no fun" - it was interesting because it changed the
dynamics of the debate - from aggressive nationalism vs.
"western" liberal democracy (the two poles in which it is
often discussed) to "fun" stuff. The students were
protesting over the cancelling of all student trips abroad.
In my mind, this traversed a fantasy... if shifted the
context of the debate. It wasn't about "how much do you
love Serbia?!" rather, "we're not having any fun!" Now I'm
not saying this is the answer... but it was an interesting
tactic.
ken
> 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