From: joanna bujes
I'm sorry but I just don't get this. Truth is truth. It is not an exclusive province of males or females.
If we can't talk to each other, we are lost.
^^^^^^
CB: Well, you got me here, because if I "explain" it to a woman, I'm slightly doing what I am saying not to do sort of...but we're liberal here.
I don't mean that men can't understand the truth that sometimes women say something mysogynist, anti-woman, participate in their own oppression. ( Kelley sketched some examples). I'm saying that, if a _man_ criticizes women for saying something sexist, that act of criticism is likely sexist in itself. Anyway, I'm not going to go around criticizing women for self-hatred or whatever. It's a reflexivity alert.
Sure we can talk to each other honestly, as now.
Brian said:
More theory. Well, from my humble and limited experience in my corner of reality, sexist talk has come out of men's and women's mouths.
^^^^^ CB: This emaillist is talk. It's either gonna be theory or facts. Nothing wrong with more theory.
My position is it's not men's place to correct women's sexist talk. I'm not sure whether you are saying that women's prejudices against men are "sexist". I don't agree if that is what you are saying. Women are the oppressed group. Men are the oppressor group. It's not symetrical. That's theory and fact.
^^^^^^
I think it is silly to rule a priori that some type of talk is/is not sexist. Only once the speech has occurred and had its consequences can it be deemed sexist or not. The gender/sex of the speaker is irrelevant.
^^^^^ CB: I guess I'll go to Carrol's analogy. No it is not silly to say ahead of time that certain type of talk is racist. There is an analogy with respect to sexist talk. The context can change it, but, we can discuss the contexts "a priori" to a large extent, and spell out the exceptions.
The gender of the speaker matters often. To take the example here, a woman referring to a female body part, especially in slang, is not as likely to be sexist as a man saying the same word; the latter is almost a priori or presumptively sexist. The burden is on him to demonstrate it is not. This is a generalization, and of course, particular women may have a relationship with the man such that it is not sexist, by "agreement", convention and background, for him to talk about women's body parts. For example, at parties, people have fun. It's not necessarily sexist.
Further, it just doesn't work for a man to criticize women for their sexist language. Think about it. It should be obvious why, if you understand male supremacy, and recognize it as a general social fact, institution.
> The left definition of "obscenity" starts with the issue of male supremacy
as it impinges on sex. Rape is the main left "obscenity".
Brian: This sounds like what a feminist once said to me on a panel: "All sex with men is rape since it involves penetration." Needless to say she was anti-porn as well.
^^^^^^ CB: It may sound like it to you, but it's not the same thing. I didn't say all sex between men and women is rape; and I didn't say anything about penetration.
Rape involves the exploitation of the generally superior male physical strength in our species ( part of sexual dimorphism),to force a male's will on a female, dominate her. It is palpable male supremacy. (It is the stupidest thing a man can do, pretty much.)
The left opposes actions, language and representations that express and reproduce male supremacy, because a main part of our "program" is to end male supremacy.
^^^^^
Brian: Rape is non-consenual sex and violence, so it obviously an obscenity. Again, the gender/sex of the rapist is irrelevant. It is the ACTION that is the obscenity. And both men and women are capable of committing that action. Or are you arguing that a woman is incaple of rape? I think the left needs a new dictionary.
^^^^^ CB: I said rape is the main obscenity for the left,because left "dictionary" definition of obscenity focusses on _male supremacism in sex_. Not all definitions of obscenity take that approach. It specifies and differentiates left def. of obscenity from your generalized discussion of any and all "antagonisms" toward sex. It is _not_ a puritanical definition of obscenity or attitude toward sex. I am no more of a puritan than you are about sex. You are mistaken when you try to make me out a puritan compared to you. The problem is not sex , but male supremacy in sex.
My fundamental criticism of what you are saying is that you do not acknowledge that male supremacy impinges on sex; and with respect to male supremacy, women and men are not in the same position. Even though, as Kelley says, women can express sexism, participate in male supremacy, there remains a big difference between the participation of an oppressed group in their own oppression and the participation of the oppressor group in that oppression.
If you are talking about women raping men, then ,yes I would say the problem of women raping men is like _nothing_ , zero,zip,nada ,compared to the problem of men raping women. That's a fact, not a theory.