Chuck Grimes wrote:
>... I understand the dignity aspect, but again, that is a personalized or
>psychological view. ...
In the women's liberation tradition I'm part of, we understand that feelings are not personal or psychological at all. Instead we see them as data about--and sometimes even analysis of--our conditions. Yes, we develop a collective analysis, because without comparing experiences we can't address a problem, or even think about it properly. But it's a great relief at the outset to discover that feelings are not something we have to 'get over' or subdue in order to understand things.
>Bodies are the focal point of coercion and oppression.
As distinct from what? We get lied to a lot, too.
>(This conceptualization of the Body by feminist
>theory was its core insight for me, because it focused and made
>explicit what was there in some laten form in other work.)
>
>The working woman with too many kids, the work broken old black man,
>the white kid in a wheelchair can all nod their head when you start
>talking about the body as an instrument of oppression. They all feel
>the weight and interpret it as a loss of dignity and respect as
>human beings. But that psychological evaluation is also an oppressive
>mechanism, which obscures the political economic dimension, which is
>of course in these cases one big zero for `productivity'. They are
>non-productive, useless, a burden, yet another big budget item in the
>social services column.
Of course in the case of the woman with lots of kids, she's producing a lot of 'value' for very little 'cost.' Well, no time to go into the whole 'body' thing.
In a message dated 8/31/02 6:10:42 PM, owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com writes:
Chuck Grimes wrote:
>More later on. I am work.
Hope you recovered swiftly. For my part, I am deadline.
Jenny Brown