rakesh writes:
>. At the very least, we can now add Kelley's own
>silence on this carelessly made point by Eagleton to the list of
>compulsive anti feminism on LBO-talk. I think I would rather have
>Spivak's tortured, meandering and unintelligible prose than such
>off-handed, simple minded, and pernicious comments by Eagleton.
the carelessly made point is that eagleton upholds spivak's criticism of white western feminism as reinscribing third world oppression. [there is on this logic a laundry list of carelessly made points that are all unsubstantiated with evidence. though somehow i don't believe i've ever understood a book review to be a forum wherein such points are argued in the first place. could someone correct me if i'm wrong here?]
you know, this is very sweet rakesh, and i really appreciate this. i don't think i could have wished for something more clearly anti-feminist in my wildest dreams. you do realize that it highlights precisely ange's point about appropriating a theoretical Other in order to get away with saying things you might not otherwise. careless, indeed. in order to call me anti-feminist, presumably because we're a bit upset over recent events? [dunno], you decide to become Mr. Feminist and to do so without one shred of evidence yourself to show how US feminisms have NOT contributed to the oppression of third world. [and there are some, but that was not spivak's point] rakesh, armed with some commitment to feminisms' integrity, suggests i'm part of the compulsive anti-feminism of the list.
stunningly clever but just doesn't quite give my skirt a lift the way i usually like.
if you regularly attended to feminist thought or mobilized it in your discussions, rakesh, i might take you seriously. but you don't and so, therefore, on ange's critique of Eagleton you will notice that you're slipping and sliding all over the place in an effort to prove what i'm not clear.
what i find particularly incendiary about this approach is that you seem unaware that, as i've argued at other times, one of the things about the diverse body of feminist thought that i value most is that it seems to be fairly capable of internal critique. not an easy process, not one without walking wounded but nonetheless one that seems to be sustained without completely destroying the project -- the for and against that i alluded to as being at the heart of habermas's project and the projects of other thinkers who i critically appropriate into my own theoretical and rhetorical arsenal.
my ignoring what eagleton said on that point was hardly anti-feminist and i suggest that it's not entirely wise to engage in such rhetoric if you can't be bothered to know what you're talking about. i have never understood you to be one to demonostrate a facility with the diverse body of feminist thought in the US or elsewhere.
finally, i see that the archives reveal that you didn't bother to address the issue either but were quite obsessed at the time with the asiatic mode of production --you didn't like spivak's discussion and you wanted eagleton to address it in his review. so i guess then you're part of the complusive anti-feminism of the list?
about the only thing you could do then was assume that any critique of spivak or her followers who i thought misused her theories/analyses must therefore be racist. of course. i never heard from you after three lengthy posts providiing a sympathetic rendering of her work--hardly anti-spivak, anti- poco, or anti-subaltern studies group.
anticipation and projection is a marvelous phenomenon
so, yes doug, we have more anti-feminism here. but it sure as heck is not mine.