Tagline: Little Light
Wondering why Queer Dewd? Wondering what happend to Bitch | Lab? Read Why Queer Dewd and Shame Affirmative.
Skip all this. Take me straight to the comment form »
Leave a comment, a trackback from your own blog, or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry.
"For what it’s worth, I don’t like Bitch Lab, I don’t read her, I don’t think she’s very bright, and I think the main thing she piggybacked on recently was a comment thread to a post she didn’t author. Nice appropriation, that. ... Don’t like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and don’t read her. Read the women she rips off instead. They’re better." - Ilyka Damen
"Really, I mean you no personal harm, but please, stop the lying. Stop undermining feminists and feminism. Make your living doing something else." Feminism Gone Wild, Ann Bartow
Listed on Top 10 Sources
"Come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." Â Michael Berube "I hereby nominate Bitch | Lab for the role of my inadvertent theory djinni." Â Prosphoros
"The sanctimonious Bitch | Lab, a multi-degreed asswipe (with) a tedious blog of regurgitated theory..." Â Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon
Note: This blog is a natural product. Slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and are not to be considered flaws or defects.
Could teachers teach about white prviledge in a way that doesn’t start with race but class? If I were poor or working class, maybe the leap would be smaller if the instructor showed some appreciation for how squashed people felt about the fact that all the people in positions of power, the ones with the megaphone, are middle class or higher.
I just think it’s hard to leap headfirst into a topic, white priviledge, that is so tightly woven into the narrative of who we are as a people. Look at the gawd-awful way we teach our children to this day about the history of slavery in this country.
So it’s like when that kid walks into a college class whose theme is race, s/he basically hears, everything you’ve been taught up until now has been a lie. That would be hard for me to swallow, too. I think consciousness is a proccess and ultimately, not everyone is open to experiencing it.
*nodding*
I get that. And I’ll probably be passing this post - or at least that paragraph! - on to some of my friends who don’t really grasp this concept, and to whom I’ve been struggling (and failing) to explain it adequately.
However, my question wrt all this always is… now what? What do we do? You say we have to “get rid of those norms” - and I agree. But this post, and the citation, also point out that privilege is bigger than the individual, and this can’t be solved simply by individuals modifying their behavior. And yet… white individuals are still “implicated.”
It leaves us in a bit of a bind… and I wonder where we go from here. As an individual, all I can directly affect and change are my own actions. I really wish I could change the world, but I alone can’t do that. So…. now what?
JK –
Yep.
Funny thing is JK, I’ve read and taught Peggy MacIntosh’s article on white privilege and male privilege several times. Because I happened to be teaching to white and upper-middle class students, I read it with their perspective in mind.
After I read it again, thinking thru it as if I were 20 and white working class, I was struck by how much that article will make you feel as if you don’t exist if not upper middle class and white.
The examples she gives are completely geared to her adult colleagues who understand work as having lots of autonomy, for instance. That is decidedly not the experience of a working class kid where jobs have comparatively less autonomy.
Others conflate economic advantage with white privilege which makes little sense. Working class whites certainly don’t have access to a neighborhood of their choice when they go to rent or purchase housing.
Were it me, I’d use ‘Tired of Playing Monopoly’ which I have archived here at the blog. Tired of Playing Monopoly which is written by a white working class woman. She shows how, although she’s experience economic oppression, she still benefits from white privilege in certain ways. E.g., when she goes to a school counselor s/he suggests certain career options s/he might not suggest to a woman of color from the same class background.
I also suspect that the biggest reason why Aspazia senses resistance is that most white working class kids are cognizant of the “fear of falling” described by Barbara Ehrenreich in her book by the same name, Fear of Falling
In it BE shows how the identity racist was thrust on the white working class, often with little statistical evidence for doing so. While white working class kids won’t know this history, they *will* be familiar with the stereotype because it all over the media. and yet they will also be familiar with evidence to the contrary — white middle class people exhibiting racist sentiments and actions.
MacIntosh’s article about privilege subtly reinforces that by naming examples that make no sense — e.g., that a white person looks at the arts and high culture and see him/herself represented in ballet, opera, art museums, and literature. To which they respond internally, “Are you serious?”
Since they are generally represented as having no culture, no class, no taste, no refinement, they certainly don’t feel like someone represented by ballet, opera, art, literature.”
It’s a tough issue to negotiate because denial of white privilege exists. Without fully developing these concepts — which happens in 16 week semesters where we try to distill a lifetime of experience into a two week unit — it’s easy to continue to deny when exposure to the concepts is shallow.
I’d wondered aloud at Mad Melancholi c Feminista, if anyone had written a follow up piece from MacIntosh’s article which helps people to see it in lives that look more like the lives of the student audience. Some of those examples MacIntosh uses aren’t even relevant to the lives of *most* students.
I’ve heard a lot of resistance to the idea of privilege (who hasn’t?) because white people like to point out their lives haven’t been easy. But during blogging for racism day, I managed to break through to a few people by comparing race to consumer choice. I pointed out that Coke is going to be bought more then an upstart soda, because that is a recognized “brand”; if you think of a cola, Coke comes to mind, or maybe Pepsi, but rarely RC.
Similarly, if you think “banker”, there’s usually a middle aged white dude who gets pictured in your brain. We carry these stereotypes with us; and the stereotypes are no less effective than the Coke market penetration at influencing our habits. By necessity, people of other skin colours and ethnicities have to sell themselves at a level that usurps that normative banker in our brain: and that’s hard work, even if the employer or admissions rep doesn’t consider themselves racist. We have normatives that exist for other races - the asian person may have a normative help at becoming a math or science major, but will suffer more difficulty interrogating the stereotype when launching a career as a gospel singer or basketball player. For some reason, people seemed to get that comparison: I imagine naming instances of white privilege is sort of like interrogating a single snowflake in a blizzard.
Anyway, when I asked a writer who was on the “I hate affirmative action because it should be about ability not about race, and so affirmative action is racist to me” trip, I suggest the writer come up with a list of roles of importance: politician, banker, scientist, doctor, guy on the bus - and then ask what colour those normatives were.
Amber –
Don’t know if you read my “Why I’m not an ally” post awhile back. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Too often, the analysis of white privilege points us at unconscious, unintentional racism (or sexism, imperialism, ablism, etc.) while at the same time sending the message that the only way to overcome the problem is for whites to change their behavior and thinking.
it’s a confusing message because it doesn’t explain the relationship between social structure and on-the-ground human agency and practice. It _assumes_ an explanation, but that may not always be easy to grasp or intuit just from the article — particularly since it goes against the grain of our thinking in the US especially.
But thinking about this, I think what folks want when they bring up a white privilege analysis is for whites to change their behavior where they _can_ change and where it might matter.
E.g., there is a lot of talk about why white bloggers don’t typically blog about race.
1. they don’t normally see themselves as having race to beginwith, so the only time race is an issue is when it’s about some Other race.
– noone is intentionally racist in this scenario in the sense that they think people of color are inferior.
–everyone is just going about their business as usual: blogging should be about writing about what you want to write about, right? it’s a voluntary activity. you aren’t getting paid, so you blog about what interests you.
–it’s the US way of thinking, that you have no responsibility other than to you r own interests. That’s precisely what Adam Smith said about capitalism, the beauty of it was that you simply registereed your preferences in the market, pursuing your own self interest, and the invisible hand of the market would produce just results.
– that is a *norm* about blogging. what animates its institutional imperative is the idea that blogging is this radically libertarian, free-wheeling environment where people just do their thing and no one controls anything in particular.
*magically* it’ll turn out to represent the best, more progressive interests — or so goes the kind of claptrap you hear about the unending delight that is technology brought to the people and, once the people speak, they will speak and do things that are radically different than the evil Mainstream Media.
*ahem*
It turns out that, with regard to race and gender, bloggers ain’t any different than the mainstream media.
2. Even when whites blog on race, it is an issue someone else has. How many articles discuss whteness as a race? Race is something someone else has if you are white.
when race is brought up, like this post, it’s not about whiteness. when do we think about whiteness being a race? Most of us don’t. But we do think about it if we write about the issues conventionally seen as ‘race issue.’
3. Other topics often get bracketed off from an analysis of race and class issues. There are probably a million and one ways this happens — for as many issues as we can think of that most of us assume have nothing to do with race.
E.g., the marriage and weddings thread where it was assumed that all women experience the pressure to marry and have a big wedding in the same way regardless as to race, ethnicity, class.
Another example, BfP, nubian, and Blackamazon have all complained that sex positive feminism is a concern that is central to white women simply by virtue of the fact that we are privileged by whiteness that we do not see how trivial it is compared to other issues.
I have a lot of problems with that claim and I just registered my concerns at BfP’s place last night.
How much of my reaction is, in fact, denying white privilege? To me, the issue of sexual minorities doesn’t seem to be about something trivial. *Would* I care about it were I Chicana? Black? Japanese?
When I expend my energies at Punkassblog or Pandagon or writing about Catherine MacKinnon, am I expending them on things that are of no value or interest to women of color and whites from poor and workng class backgrounds?
kactus often thinks so.
what obligations to i have to ignore my self interests in order to attend to the other things that I claim politically animate me — racism, capitalism?
Are my arguments about the relationship between seg negativity, race, capitalism rationalizatons.
I believe a lot of people think so.
frankly. I have no clue what to do about it.
“But privilege does not require the conscious participation of Whites, & it is a mistake to try to locate privilege simply in the psychology of Whites.â€Â
This implies a false dichotomy. The unconsciousness of it is highly ideological, mostly a matter of fiercely defended willed ignorance. Pharr’s reference to “willingness to see†seems to take the point, but she still draws a distinction between this & bigotry. In the world, it’s just a different form of bigotry, & present in psychology as much as the overt kind.
Well, I know the feeling. And maybe that is another reason why more whites don’t blog about race.
Another reason I think whites don’t blog about race (specifically wrt white race, not wrt “someone else’s problem”) is because they’re afraid of being seen as racist. It ends up being a can’t win for losing situation. Don’t blog about race at all, and you’re ignoring that race is a factor. Do blog about race - white race - and you’re ignoring/subjugating people of color by placing the focus, again, on whiteness.
It’s enough to make one’s head spin.
It makes my head spin, and I think I have a better understanding of the whole race/class/privilege thing than a lot of my friends (although I’m not nearly as well versed in it as you are, BL, and many other, WOC bloggers). So while I do get annoyed with them when they seem to get all reactionary and defensive when I bring up “privilege” - I can kind of understand why, too.
Amber –
Just to be clear “I have no clue what to do about it” refers specifically to an instance where I think I’m blogging about something that should be seen as a legitimate issue of oppression — sexual minorities — that is seen by others as in direct conflict with my other assumed interests infighting racism and capitalism. Where something I care about as an issue of oppression is seen as something that turns me into an enemy of women of color for instance.
I do know what I think I should do about it when that isn’t an issue — where two oppressions are ostensibly in conflict
.e.g, I blog about race, racism, racialization. I do see representing feminism as about representing feiminism from the position of women of color and other marginalized groups. But this is normal to me since I’ve been steeping myself in the literatures of WOC for nearly 20 years. Well, it’s relatively “more normal”.
I do put off blogging about things that are easy — bitching about work — in order to blog about something that isn’t as trivial — e.g., a post I’m working ona bout ‘This Bridge Called My Back’. I *do* think I should work harder, etc.
I *do* think I should try to raise the issue of how to combat white privilege in blogging among *us* as whites. And the last time I brought it up, it all went crazy when James showed up to complain about my affirmative action social engineering plan.
As I said to him at the time, “So? Affirmative action is used every season in the NFL, dude, we can use it in blogging, too.”
What I don’t know what to do, though, is whether to continue blogging about sex positive feminism where and when the mood strikes me. Because if it is seen as that much of an offense, I seriously think it’s time to turn my back on feminism and do something else — because it is really no longer my home.
So, I have been mulling over, today, whether I ought to just reinvent this blog’s identity and just do queer blogging — maybe even be a gay man for awhile (joke about Halley) and say, “you know?
fuck feminism.”it may well be that feminism simply cannot address sexuality — cannot theorize it in any satisfactory way.
I’ve been noticing a lot of action-oriented posts about white privilege. The question of “what to do” is ringing around the blogosphere.
One of the things that I’ve been doing is to talk about white privilege in the classroom. My students always give me the best non-verbals when I start talking about privilege, power, and discrimination. It’s like their brains are not programed to have a tall, hetero, white guy teaching about racism, sexism, etc.
I keep asking myself whether or not it’s a privilege that I can choose to write about my identity and then be seen as “progressive” or “social justicy”.
p.s. The comment about expending energy on Catherine MacKinnon made me smile.
“…the identity racist was thrust on the white working class …â€Â
And white middle-class claims of innocence are in part just anxious &/or aspirational assertions of class position. The whole concept of racism for many whites is quarantined behind sectional & class lines: I can’t be racist because I’m not a flamboyant Alabama redneck. As you say, the stereotype – which amounts to a certification of innocence for people who aren’t Alabama rednecks, & a sacrificial offering-up of those who are, in lieu of payment for the sins of the rest of us – is all over the media.
It’s in some ways more a therapeutic than a strictly pedagogical problem, inasmuch as the denial really is a defense mechanism.
It’s wrong to imagine that this exists only among whites. I myself have been granted white skin privilege by black people in nontrivial ways. In those cases, it’s not denial: what’s happening is tacitly acknowledged, but goes forward w/ a kind of leaden inevitability.
“…there is a lot of talk about why white bloggers don’t typically blog about race.â€Â
Anecdote: w/in the last week, there was a thread on a sorta-well-known feminist blog in which someone identifying herself as WOC posed a reasonable question about race & feminism. And was pointedly ignored, like she got on a crowded elevator, said hello, & got stared down. OK, so a lot of mental life goes on below the level of consciousness, but this? It’s conscious & it’s something more than just ‘not my department.’ Or maybe I overinterpret.
“What I don’t know what to do, though, is whether to continue blogging about sex positive feminism where & when the mood strikes me. Because if it is seen as that much of an offense, I seriously think it’s time to turn my back on feminism & do something else  because it is really no longer my home.â€Â
Do something else in the sense of talking about other things, or in the sense of talking about the same things under a different flag? If it’s the latter, you’re still gonna be engaged w/ feminist thinking, as Halley is, & so some of the personal costs associated w/ your current version still will be in prospect.
I understand the costs of being homeless, but sometimes you just have to get used to it.
Well, I think, at a certain point you just have a shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, you can’t be all things to all people.” Or, “You can’t please all the people all the time.” Or some other variant thereof.
More to come. Work is getting in the way of my blogging and philosophizing at the moment. Boooo.
KH: You’re not talking about the discussion at Happy’s, are you? I thought the discussion there did attempt to address the question posed by the email-er… but would be interested in hearing how it didn’t, if that’s the post you’re referencing.
Arwen, no, I was thinking about something else.
Eric –
OK. This is where I have a problem with the way this goes down. You should not be surprised that there is such a ‘programming’. And they shouldn’t have their faces shoved to the carpet for being so ‘programmed,’ even if they aren’t reading this. Other people who identify with them *are*. This approach casts the issue as one of moral superiority, Enlightened One, and them in the position of moral inferitority, Unenlightened One:
I’m special These people are programmed.
I’m sure I’ve done it in angry posts before too. But, it’s a problem to portray yourself as the enlightened one like this where you register some kind of surprise that this goes on. If this is a racist society, then it’s should be no surprise at all. And the problematic truly lies elsewhere, and *not* in puzzling over whatever 18 year old students do who weren’t as enlightened as you in a society we all acknowledge as racist.
Their refusal and discomfort — is this a moral issue — their moral failing — or not? Because if it is, fine. Then engage in a moral approach to the issue. If it is a failure of individuals to properly see the light, then pursue that analysis. Point out how it’s about individuals who are individually racist because others aren’t and these others are by, uh, what? Magic? Are you really patting yourself onthe back for being in their shoes once and not giving the non-verbals? Because if you are, doesn’t that require an explanation — one as structural as the whole conversation *purports* to actually be.
If you think it’s structural, I do think we have an obligation to ask ourselves how a moralizing claim about others being ‘programmed’ and therefore found wanting or somehow lesser than — for being in the very position we all probably once were — as if deprogramming themselves is really an act of moral willpower and not something involving a whole lot more . . . .
I mean — it just totally loses the issue: how *is* it that people come to knowledge. what social circumstancers were actually involved? if that matters –the social circumstances –, then we want to know them and what they are and how they operate.
——————————-
sorry if I sound cranky. i get exactly the same way only WAY worse when it’s a bunch of marxist bitching about how stupid “duh people” are.
BL,
I didn’t mean to come off sounding like I was “special.” Sometimes I feel like I’m still learning how to “play with the big kids.” It probably shouldn’t surprise me that my students are not used to me giving a talk about social justice. Maybe, I’m surprised with myself. I guess I should have worded my comment differently. I merely wanted to say that I have written about being white, being racist, and what I’m doing now that I’ve come to grasp with my own internal stuff.
I’m not sure if this helps or hurts. Hell, I don’t even no where to begin. I just don’t know enough about this type of analysis/language/thinking in order to come up with responses that might be close to answering your questions.
Someday, I will go back and get formal training in philosophy, ethics, sociology, etc.
Eric; You’re not alone, here. My extensive knowledge of philosophy is limited to Critical Thinking 101, Wikipedia, Sophie’s World, and the pithy quotes on the Celestial Seasonings tea boxes. *g*. Doesn’t seem to embarrass me enough to shut me up, but I do imagine it means we’ll be asked questions that will sometimes be uncomfortable ‘cuz we don’t know.
i get exactly the same way only WAY worse when it’s a bunch of marxist bitching about how stupid “duh people†are.
She’s not kidding either. You should see Rotating Bitch in action on that topic.
Except I think, BL, that you meant to spell it ‘Marxits’.
*ducking and running*
Amber –
Maybe, but I guess what I don’t like about simply shrugging is that what my objection actually is continues to be ignored — not by you. IOW, this isn’t a matter of pleasing anyone. It’s a matter of a persistent refusal to see this *as* a legit issue in the first place. As Melissa Gira of Sacred Whore pointed out a few weeks ago, this boils right down to the ancient issue: sex is silly. it’s not really political. it doesn’t really count. it’s not serious. there are real politics. get with the program.
Eric –
Well, how’s about we start again and maybe we can unpack your comments because I am still not clear how they are speaking to my post or other comments. I’m curious to know how they do, though so I appreciate the extra time.
One question, though: I’m not sure what any of this has to do with philosophy?
KH –
in 10. thanks for fleshing out my comment which was way too vague. “thrust on” sounds like they were non-racist blank slates. You captured my meaning better.
I don’t know the details, so I couldn’t say the level of intent, but it happens often enough. I’m trying to think of a time it’s happened here as an example and I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.
There have been a lot of times a discussion was started about race, only to veer off into another discussion — a tendency which gets read as a form of privilege — and accurately so.
For if the issue were crucial to our very identities and didn’t make us uncomfortable, we probably wouldn’t want it to veer off and would keep the convo zeroed in on the topic.
The trouble I have with the way privilege is often handled is that the stress is almost always on how racism isn’t about intent. But then the conversation is, regardless, always about what individuals ought to do to change their behavior and attitudes.
Thus, it is about intention.
Why pussyfoot around if the analysis really is one that sees a focus on changing individual behavior in order to change social structure?
What I don’t know what to do, though, is whether to continue blogging about sex positive feminism where and when the mood strikes me. Because if it is seen as that much of an offense, I seriously think it’s time to turn my back on feminism and do something else  because it is really no longer my home.
Well, let us down easy then, BL… say you’re ‘taking a break’.
There IS room for both, is what I think, anyway. Now I want to read this Halley book (even though I am going to have to rob someone to afford it) because the break-room’s getting full all of the sudden. I’m wondering what I’m missing if I still call myself a feminist when all of these brilliant people don’t want to identify as such anymore.
Karla –
ha ha ha. I shall endeavor to spend the rest of the week spelling it Marxit every single time.
Oh I absolutely hear you there. It frustrates me because then I end up feeling painted into a corner, as if I’m just worried about frivolous matters, and therefore must be so blinded with privilege, that I can’t see the real, important issues.
It seems like there are always plenty of people eager to try to steer the conversation to something else, something more “important” (deemed as such by them, I guess). As if you can’t be interested in issues related to sex and whatever important (and totally non-sexual, I’m sure) issue they’d rather discuss.
So, yeah. It’s frustrating, to say the least.
KH –
I’m not sure. If I blog as an antiracist — I won’t use ally because I don’t think *I* get to call myself that name — then obviously, there is hardly any contradiction. I won’t be considered an enemy by anyone on “my side of the aisle” (a phrase a crackpot rightwinger I know always uses. hi kev!)
So that would be “something else”.
I could do something else as in, oh, be Prosporos’s theory djinni *wink* and simply blog about theory which just happens to deal with various issues, but without necessarily committing to anything in particular having to do with social justice issues — unless I made them explicit. For me, theory always involves issues of social justice — even at its heights of abstraction. and really, theory is always about the nature of reason and freedom, the twin pillars of the enlightenment. [1]
I’m not sure. I could spend the rest of the year “taking a break” blogging specifically about queer theory by males. I could blog about the same things but under the banner of queer identity and say things that Halley says which will completely cast this blog as not feminist at all. consider this last passage which she writes just after saying, basically, that a queer project completely rejects the idea that there is a “top-down male/female power, and thus disagree with the idea that eroticism at work is presumptively sex discrmination that subordinates women. [...]”
she continues:
She’s saying something that makes sense especially after my exchange with BfP.
There is, on the one hand, the kind of totalizing, gender is everything analysis that we tend to see, either by purposeful choice or by neglect. This anlaysis is almost always subordination feminism where men have power and women do not. If men appear to be harmed at all, it is due to patriarchy itself. Etc.
There is, on the other hand, a commitment to convergentist feminism where it’s recognized that it doesn’t have to be a gender only approach — most definitely it shouldn’t be by choice and if it is by neglect or unthiking — privilege — this can be rectified as part of a project of consciousness-raising where we advance our interest in a New! Improved! feminist theory that can account for it *all*.
I always thought so myself.
But I’m not so sure. It’s not just that it’s a difference re: sex — whether it is important or not, whether it is valualbe to this convergentist intersectional project. It’s also a difference about how to understand power.
A queer project completely disrupts the assumptions about power that dominate Feminist and Left Bloglandia.
And, as such, like Halley, I might take the name Ian or something similar, overhaul the blog design, completely reorganize the blog roll, drop subjscriptions and join others, etc. etc. etc. and blog just about queer identity theory and politics.
I think a different banner, different focus even if purportedly on the same topics would read as very hostile to the project of subordination feminist thought that dominates bloglandia.
pietpoussin –
I’m not so sure. Don’t you think there’s a bit of head smashing against concrete wall going on here? Every time I look in the mirror I have a serious case of wallhead that not even the Elmer’s Glue Version of Dippity Doo can fix.
I mean, when you say both, it’s a commitment to convergentist feminist politics, and I’m thinking: give it up. Abandon it altogether. Not f’rever’n'ever, but for a break.
Eric –
I finally had a chance to read some of the material at the links you left. I have another question. Why isn’t social class a part of your analysis? Is that a deliberate decision — as part of how you understand what it means to blog about privilege? The choice of your prof? Did s/he explain why if so?
Who likes videos ? I like videos ! And here’s one with Michael Parenti talking about Race, Gender and Class Struggle. It’s really quite good.
BL -
I guess I was going off of Amber’s question in comment #2: “now what? What do we do?”
The choice to strip out social class was driven by the assignment. I’m not sure why the instructors left class out of the assignment.
I always thought your words were a mix of sociology and philosophy. Most of the philosophy folks that I know, use similar forms of language.
I’m sorry to have derailed this discussion.
Eric –
you didnt derail. i think you have something to contribute. i was just trying 2 find out what i misunderstood in yr post. e.g. how do the “things to do lists” you mention address *structural* racism — Amber’s question. wasn’t sure which parts of yr. blog posts addressed wh/ issues.
still not sure what phil. has to do with it? did i say something in language that didn’t make sense? poorly worded thoughts always option there —
also, forgot: what was funny abt c mackinnon comment?
not attacking. curious.
B|L,
#25 persuades me. On convergence/divergence, Halley takes pains to emphasize, on the one hand, the incommensurability of the alternative theories, & on the other, that “we can elect to ‘be for’ other interests (we can aspire & moralize differently) without losing access to feminist theory.†It’s a generous, anodyne prospect, but what if the alternatives aren’t incommensurable? Even, perhaps, at odds? Queer theory isn’t entirely just a way to tend your garden, & even incommensurable theories sometimes meet at bar.
FIY:
Brenda Cossman, ‘Sexuality, Queer Theory, & “Feminism
Afterâ€Â: Reading & Rereading the Sexual Subject,’ McGill Law Journal49 (2004): 847-876.
http://www.journal.law.mcgill......4cossm.pdf
Okay, after reading your comment to me and your last comment to KH, especially this:
It’s not just that it’s a difference re: sex  whether it is important or not, whether it is valualbe to this convergentist intersectional project. It’s also a difference about how to understand power.
Approaching your ideas about power structures/dynamics from a different perspective - to unassume certain assumptions - that sounds like pretty powerful stuff. And excellent reading. I guess right now I’m coasting on some naivete re: possibilities of convergence for divergent ideas, polyphony vs. fracture.
BL,
The first time we ever “met” was when you eviserated a paper that I wrote a long time ago :-) I mentioned Catherine MacKinnon a few times so whenever I see you mentioning her, it makes me smile in a sentimental kind of way.
Arwen: hey, don’t knock those Celestial teabags; they can really make you think.
BL
I think a different banner, different focus even if purportedly on the same topics would read as very hostile to the project of subordination feminist thought that dominates bloglandia.
And this is problematic how? I’m not just being clever; it seems like you have taken this position, repeatedly, and at points where it wasn’t clear, taken the time to clarify that yes, you mean that sexual subordination feminism is insufficient. Whether or not you feel the need to make a symbolic change to reflect this is quite another question, and one to which no one else will have an answer.
And, pshaw, it’s not like you can turn your back on theory…. right? Practice without theory is like chocolate without fishnets, or pumps without peanut butter.
>this boils right down to the ancient issue: sex is silly. it’s not really political. it doesn’t really count. it’s not serious. there are real politics. get with the program.
But it’s such obvious horseshit, that argument: if it weren’t that important then why on earth do people (anti’s included, fuck yes) go on and on and ON about it?
What I think is: call oneself what one likes, but it’s important to keep talking about this shit, and in hopefully deeper and deeper ways. You wanna talk sex and “partriarchy?” O.K. one of the main tenets is precisely that: sex is both silly and somehow dangerous. iow two different ways of avoiding really engaging with a fearsome taboo.
Break out the Freud, break out the Reich, break out the history of sexology, break out everything from “Judeo-Christian” forms of “patriarchy” and ruptures and fissures in that; talk sex and spirituality, talk sex and power, going back to the beginning as if the whole “women as sex class” business were -not- a given, so now how to look at this? Sex in the law; sex in the church; sex in the formation of society, sex from an existential POV…
fuck yeah it’s important.
>I could spend the rest of the year “taking a break†blogging specifically about queer theory by males. I could blog about the same things but under the banner of queer identity and say things that Halley says which will completely cast this blog as not feminist at all.>
I think it’d be fine to do those things; I also think, “cast” in whose minds? feminism is big. the people who want to police it are probably the same ones who’d be doing it anyway, so fuckit. Just say what you want, need to say; screw the labels, you know? -I- think anything having to do with gender & sexuality from any sort of seriously critical, even subversive way is inherently feminist. And I am (in Shakespeare’s Sister’s words) Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain, so what I say goes. There. (waves wand of Feminism over the blog).
(sorry, of course not wand; circular Xena type thing).