> Ang argues that, by focusing on the most heinous examples of racism
> (such as crypto-fascism, the most violent types of porn (as with Dines),
> we don't bother looking at the more insidious forms of racist and sexist
> oppression.
How is "crypto-fascism" the most heinous example of racism? Etymology lesson for the day: "crypto-" == "hidden". Economics lesson for the day: "fascism" refers to a form of socialism with ostensibly private ownership of capital, whose function is nonetheless directed by the State. Fascism does not imply racism, they are two separate phenomena (though they can and do coexist, _sometimes_). At any rate, "hidden" racism seems to me more tolerable than, say, being nailed to a stump and set on fire. Immolation strikes me as "more heinous" than being called a dirty name. Or is that all the same? What _is_ the Received Truth about that these days, anyway? I keep losing track, it changes so fast.
> And, borrowing from Butler, we can talk about the ways we tend to look
> for some bedrock egregious form of oppression. I think of it the same
> way Butler does when she asks us to examine how "biology" as a discourse
> provides the bedrock against which we talk about what most of us agree
> is a socially constituted "gender".
How is biology a "discourse"? "Biology", the last time I looked at the definition of that word, meant "the study or science of life". Granted, the concept of "life" is somewhat fuzzily defined, but rather like obscenity, we can identify it when confronted with it. What "discourse" is involved in statements like "A human cell has 23 pairs of chromosomes" or "the Krebs cycle is the means of producing ATP from glucose"?
I am also curious how you arrive at the conclusion that gender is "socially constructed". (God, how I love that phrase.) I admit to a certain naivete about the state of the fashion, it sounds as though you're claiming that the war over nature vs. nurture was won when I wasn't paying attention. (Is that the fifth or sixth time that war has been "won", now?)
> Hustler (etc.) becomes the bedrock, everyone agrees its nasty bad and
> evil, and let's leave that unquestioned, a thoroughly unsupported claim
> in this convo so far.
If we deconstruct it enough, we can "support" either conclusion. Isn't critique magical that way?
Suppose I ask this question: What are the implications of your views on pornography? For that matter, what _are_ your views on pornography?
a) "Pornography is bad, and therefore: __________." b) "Pornography is good, and therefore: __________."
Which one do you pick? What goes in that blank?
> And just as it operates with the biology/gender
> dichotomy, it leaks - spills over -- into gender so that we've never
> really given up biological determinism after all.
Was there ever cause to throw away the concept of biological determinism? If you read 'The Vagina Monologues' to your male products of conception in utero and teach it that its peepee is the Root Of All Evil - after birth, of course, assuming that it hadn't fallen prey to maternal boredom and gotten the old pith'n'suck - what will it grow up to be? I believe that the most frequent answer to this question is "sexual psychopath/serial killer". I don't think that "woman" is very high on that list, if even on it.
> My kid has picked up all kinds of misogynistic ideas, I have them, we
> all do. But, my kid? Living in a feminist household? He's never seen an
> issue of Hustler. He doesn't have to in order to pick up those ideas.
These misogynistic ideas arise _because_ he is living in a feminist household. Little boys being raised as good little girls are (understandably) generally not happy about this fact, it confuses them and damages their internal sense of "who they are supposed to be". ("What's wrong with me?") I'm sure he'll get used to it eventually; since gender roles are "socially constructed", you may groom him to fulfill whatever role you wish. Isn't that a nice feeling?
> I think it's fine to criticize all of this, but to suggest that anyone
> who reads it or writes in it is, in essence, not a feminist is
> tantamount to doing precisely what Carrol has often complained about.
> _THAT_ was what started this conversation in the first place.
I think it's perfectly justifiable to say that somebody who reads or writes for 'Hustler' is not a feminist. (I will further conjecture that the lack of feminists writing for 'Hustler' is strong evidence in favor of a just and loving God, but one discussion at a time.) Is feminist cant in the pages of 'Hustler' good or bad?
--
(c) 2005 Unscathed Haze via Central Plexus <hasted at tent.heads>
I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
Big Brother is watching you. Learn to become Invisible.
|-------- Your message must be this wide to ride the Internet. --------|