kelley,
>>What are you talking about? I thought I made a point of not knowing how
>>feminists were thinking/reacting. Where did I indict any feminists, let
>>along all of them?
>
>people here are claiming that some people are feminists, when they're not.
I wish I saved all the posts on this topic. I don't remember anyone doing that - did Chris? My recollection is that he said feminists (unspecified as to who they were) have been guilty of focusing on the burka, and posted an article about a female Afghan general. But I might have missed something. I don't remember Angie's posts.
>and if the offender are feminists, such as (arguably) Hilary Clinton, then
>they are trying to suggest that their actions indict ALL feminists. that
>was what the discussion was about. angie replied on the same order to
>Chris's post. I was suggesting that Chris was using the topic as a
>political football since he was clearly making claims about a topic--what
>western feminists think and write about "the veil" -- when he seemed to
>know nothing about what they are actually writing and thinking.
>
>when you jumped in, you chose to ignore that and talk about the media?
Exactly. Regardless of whether or not feminists, of any stripe, are or are not focusing on the burka, I claimed the media is doing so. I mentioned something related to the original post. I'm not sure why you are objecting to that.
>who
>cares other than that the media, like the article chris forwarded, and the
>ppl who take it seriously, are choosing to construct Oprah as feminists,
>representatives of some sort of singular feminism.
Obviously you don't care, but that doesn't mean others won't. This is another example of how the media focuses on the horrible nature of our official enemies, but fails to put our allies (in this case the Northern Alliance) under the same microscope. Stuff like that is frequently discussed on the list.
And why this insistence that Oprah is being constructed as a feminist? I'm the one who brought her up, but as an example of the mainstream media, not as an example of a feminist, and certainly not as being representative of singular feminism.
>maybe you could have actually spoken to the problem _under_ discussion in
>the first place: the homogenization of feminisms. given my discussion with
>you, on YOUR request, which was about the homogenization of feminist
>thought (by reducing feminism to Mary Daly) you have the knowledge to do
>so: you should know that, even if some feminists are advancing the claims
>under consideration, they don't represent all feminists.
Pardon me, but I thought the "claims under consideration" were also part of the discussion, and that was the part I decided to comment on.
As for homogenization of feminism, have I ever denied the existence of various strains of feminist thought? Have I ever advanced the idea that there is a set of ideas which all feminists necessarily agree on? I've admitted to not being an expert in this area, but I am aware that the feminist community is not homogeneous.
Brett