tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post2706882088825901749..comments2023-12-23T19:04:18.739-05:00Comments on The Crow's Eye: Feminism Cannot Address Sexism?Jack Crowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-24996858678533911822010-07-27T01:06:03.085-04:002010-07-27T01:06:03.085-04:00That is to say, a handle is a trackable name, pote...That is to say, a handle is a trackable name, potentially with a history of its own. Does it track with the poster's "real-life" "identity"? Who knows? Who cares?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-55325307519203522772010-07-27T01:03:01.713-04:002010-07-27T01:03:01.713-04:00"Jack Crow" is not the same as "ano..."Jack Crow" is not the same as "anonymous"; not even close. I don't like comments that are posted by "anonymous". But posting anonymously by itself doesn't make a comment cowardly. It's the nature of the comment plus the anonymity. I maintain that this anonymous comment, which amounted to a drive-by trolling, was cowardly. It has not a thing to do with identity.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-40464993079807436052010-07-25T01:53:44.543-04:002010-07-25T01:53:44.543-04:00I don't know about funny, but it does seem to ...I don't know about funny, but it does seem to show how two people can get it so wrong. <br /><br />First, "stupid" doesn't apply. It's an inept comment which misses the mark. People who vote for Dems, hoping that they'll somehow turn out to be anything but - those folks are stupid. That aside, I see no merit in the theory myself, so I'll vote for "wrong."<br /><br />Second, there's nothing wrong with posting anonymously. Seriously, Richard. It's a genuinely silly angle to take. Can't get through one of favorite blogs (IOZ) without reading dozens of anonymous posters. Can't read 2/3 of the remaining ones without reading posts from handles which are clearly not names. There, well, anonymous user tags. <br /><br />I post anonymously, since "Jack Crow" is an anagram of a portion of my actual name. An actual name that differs from the one my parents gave me, since I also took my wife's name, after we married.<br /><br />Which identity is "correct," in that case? Which one is "cowardly."<br /><br />The one I had for the first two or so decades? The one I've had for the following two decades? The one which isn't actually mine, but serves as my anonymous internet identity?<br /><br />Anyway - I have some thoughts for the other posts, later...Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-82337763834217369992010-07-23T20:11:52.547-04:002010-07-23T20:11:52.547-04:00The exchange between Richard and Anonymous is one ...The exchange between Richard and Anonymous is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-73277392389908290462010-07-22T11:10:29.619-04:002010-07-22T11:10:29.619-04:00Wow, JC, see how many readers you have? You really...Wow, JC, see how many readers you have? You really got everyone to come out and comment on this one.Andromedahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339939069458146288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-61229783565389677032010-07-22T00:35:57.879-04:002010-07-22T00:35:57.879-04:00Richard, thanks for the book recommendations, much...Richard, thanks for the book recommendations, much appreciated.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05389974401782795345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-20876633562662410342010-07-21T14:42:48.068-04:002010-07-21T14:42:48.068-04:00It's not stupid. It could be wrong, but it'...It's not stupid. It could be <i>wrong</i>, but it's not stupid. Read a fucking book you goddamned cowardly anonymous fuck. Possibly even the one or several mentioned.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-7226433531430010062010-07-20T16:09:49.645-04:002010-07-20T16:09:49.645-04:00That's some crap, Richard. Women don't fuc...That's some crap, Richard. Women don't fuck so people develop verbal signs? Stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-27625540613994142672010-07-20T13:41:43.418-04:002010-07-20T13:41:43.418-04:00Interesting thread.
Regarding the origins of capi...Interesting thread.<br /><br />Regarding the origins of capitalism, I would recommend, rather than EM Wood's very fine book, Giovanni Arrighi's <i>The Long Twentieth Century</i>. He doesn't specifically address Wood's argument (mainly because the book originally appeared well prior to it), but to my mind effectively demolishes the point she was making. <i>Her</i> book is on the origin of the capitalist <i>mode of production</i>, which misses much, frankly.<br /><br />For the stuff regarding the conditions of women pre-capitalism, and even in the evolutionary period, I recommend:<br /><br />Chris Knight, <i>Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture</i><br />Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, <i>Mothers and Others</i><br />Maria Mies, <i>Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale</i><br />Sylvia Federici, <i>Caliban and the Witch</i><br /><br />My overly short, very loosey-goosey synthesis of these books? Culture (language) emerges out of a collective sex strike by women. All of the myths/stories collected and reported by Levi-Strauss and others in some way refer back to the rules emerging out of this moment. Men ultimately took power, began to control women, controlling the movement of women, <i>accumulated property</i>, inverted the rules while creating religion as a mode of control... and so on and so forth till you get to the rise of a sequence of systemic regimes of capital accumulation (Arrighi). <i>Feminism</i>, understood most helpfully, closer to what JRB suggests above, and not as an adjunct to power, is an emergence out from under this situation.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-50773443487945307952010-07-20T13:18:33.085-04:002010-07-20T13:18:33.085-04:00"Institutions will try to preserve the proble..."Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." -- Clay Shirky<br /><br />Ah, yes, the Replication of Power.<br /><br />And so "feminists" must somehow preserve female inequality in order to exist.<br /><br />Even <i>talking</i> about female inequality invokes said inequality---but this is not to say it should be a taboo in conversation.<br /><br />I humbly submit that the very notion that females are inherently deserving of "everything" is a limitation in and of itself.<br /><br />Why? You can't have everything all at once---<i>no one can</i>---and so therein lies the limit: extreme "feminists" believe that until they have everything all at once, they will not be satisfied.<br /><br />Therefore there can be no ultimate satisfaction.<br /><br />I'm going to get heat for this one, I can already feel it.Andromedahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339939069458146288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-38609419707474948572010-07-19T15:38:00.105-04:002010-07-19T15:38:00.105-04:00Hey Jack,
I see now that I may have been challeng...Hey Jack,<br /><br />I see now that I may have been challenging you within assumptions that you don't share -- which isn't fair. For that I must apologize.<br /><br />This has been a great thread. I really appreciate you hosting it, not to mention writing the kind of post that sparks such discussion in the first place. It is a rare talent, my friend.<br /><br />I look forward to many more stimulating, if sometimes contentious, exchanges in the future.<br /><br />JRJRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-14081911005454795672010-07-19T10:56:26.137-04:002010-07-19T10:56:26.137-04:00Jack, this seems to be the fulcrum:
Women and men...Jack, this seems to be the fulcrum:<br /><br /><i>Women and men can live in a society which has absolutely functional and legal equity in all matters, and it won't alter the form of the hierarchy which governs them, because social relations don't change the purpose of power.</i><br /><br />The very nature of power, its aim of being able to control and manipulate others, is what causes the negative effects. Not gender. Not misogyny. Power itself -- the application of one's energies toward obtaining and wielding power.<br /><br />This is one of the main reasons why I don't like the po-po. Taking such a job necessarily means the prospective po-po wants that power, seeks that power, intends to wield that power.<br /><br />Po-po will of course defend him/herself by saying that the power is there already, and better to be on its side rather than the side of the powerless.<br /><br />Which is an interesting way to manage negative feelings about power -- the use of cynical assimilation into power's social workings.<br /><br />The problem I have with those who seek power is that the ones I've known have had that cliche'd "chip on the shoulder," a past wrong that tainted their outlook toward their fellow human, one that made/makes them want to experience some form of power over others. Po-po are a simple example within reach of most Americans, but politicians are another, as are "bosses," as are the more subtle forms like priest/preacher/minister/pastor.<br /><br />An egregious example of using power in a negative way can be found in the world of "social work" where "social workers" go into a home and strip a child from his/her family, "for the good of the child."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-76611176588267348682010-07-19T10:21:09.607-04:002010-07-19T10:21:09.607-04:00Jack,
I tend to agree, though I do remain sympath...Jack,<br /><br /><i>I tend to agree, though I do remain sympathetic to a number of feminist critiques, in the same way that I remain sympathetic to marxist and bakuninist critiques.</i><br /><br />Yep. Hear you loud & clear, agree with you too. That's why I focused on individual change, and on blanket-blaming.<br /><br />The human nature seems to be to think one's self irrelevant and to look to "experts" and others for what to think, do, feel, say. I must be ur-human or something, because I don't much care what "leading feminists" have to say about "leading man-haters" at the blanket-blame levels where most public discourse of "feminism" seems to occur. I distinctly recall parting company with some of Stan Goff's blanket-blaming of all men for the troubles certain women face today. Look, I'm not taking that blame, not shouldering it, not even giving it companionship.<br /><br />So I'm not accepting anything on behalf of other XY genetic humans.<br /><br />I haven't done anything but be a boy growing into a man. I haven't engaged in a man-world power structure to oppress women, and whatever foul treatment a woman received at my doing, it had nothing to do with me as a man wanting to derogate or denigrate all those XX genetic humans.<br /><br />Driving gender into situations like a log-splitting wedge is one of the most counter-productive things any person can do. It quickly turns into caricature and fast ripens for lampooning.<br /><br />In my humble, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-2118585471809240042010-07-18T23:40:14.803-04:002010-07-18T23:40:14.803-04:00I'd like to say, because it appears like that ...I'd like to say, because it appears like that from my comment but this wasn't my intention, that my previous comment wasn't intended to imply your observations <i>need</i> to speak to me or address my experience or whatever, that I have the right to demand this from you or something. I'm just trying to clarify, perhaps, why you and I constantly fail to agree on these things.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05389974401782795345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-79004994879773755992010-07-18T23:20:47.811-04:002010-07-18T23:20:47.811-04:00The logic of power and obedience concerns me. If a...<i>The logic of power and obedience concerns me. If a person gets something from this, all the better. But I could care less if a figment of social identity takes umbrage with my observation that identity/sociality do not alter the form or shape of power.</i><br /><br />Different groups of people have different forms of power exercised on them, and power that is exercised over one will not be (or cannot be) exercised over another. This is manifestly evident to anyone who has been underprivileged because of some aspect of their identity. You exclude this from your considerations of power, which is the main reason why I find your analysis of power ultimately inadequate. You don't have to listen when feminists are speaking if you don't want to. But don't think that your analysis speaks to everyone and about everyone's experience. It doesn't. And if you won't take that into account then you will speak only to yourself, even as you think you are engaging with someone else.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05389974401782795345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-46013378031291706172010-07-18T18:03:42.516-04:002010-07-18T18:03:42.516-04:00Men who write about feminism don't have to &qu...Men who write about feminism don't have to "make these choices." You might think they do, but they don't have to do anything. Just like women who write about men don't have to make any choices about how men will receive their opinions. <br /><br />And it's really just silly to suggest otherwise.<br /><br />I can write about Mount Monadnock on every second Thursday. Writing about Monadnock does not obligate me to consider the imaginary dialogue I might have with the people who happen to climb it on that given day.<br /><br />I don't have to consider them at all. I don't have to make that choice. <br /><br />In the same way that a woman who writes or lectures about rape doesn't have to take a single moment to think about the feelings of all the men who don't rape women.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-33221245789238323682010-07-18T17:59:11.080-04:002010-07-18T17:59:11.080-04:00Who cares if he's just "talking to himsel...<i>Who cares if he's just "talking to himself?" It's his idea, not theirs. He's not trying to keep women from being feminists. Is he?. Why does it have to be about dialog the way you need it?</i><br /><br />It doesn't have to be the way <i>I</i> need it, but I do think it should be "about dialogue" anytime we offer our perspective on things that primarily affect others. <br /><br />Of course, it doesn't <i>have</i> to be about dialogue: I can say "Jesse Jackson is a fraud," and people within that community can say, "Well, it's not that simple;" and I can say, "Yes, it is." In which case I am talking to myself -- unless I make some persuasive argument that accommodates their concerns, or I only hang out with like-minded people.<br /><br />Men who want to talk about feminism ultimately have to make these choices -- that is all I am trying to point out.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-70442044609891060192010-07-18T17:56:54.640-04:002010-07-18T17:56:54.640-04:00A "gotcha" Ms. Xeno? Really? Kindly, go ...A "gotcha" Ms. Xeno? Really? Kindly, go pound sand. I think that power forms the greater part of the problems within society. I found an essay which shares at least part of that focus, and I asked a question about it.<br /><br />If you think that's a "gotcha," I can live with that. But it's so wrongheaded that you must either write in jest, or think I don't spend my time reading what the rest of you have written in reply.<br /><br />Good day to you, all the same,<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-62232621461997593682010-07-18T17:54:27.871-04:002010-07-18T17:54:27.871-04:00JRB,
I don't know about writing my opinions i...JRB,<br /><br />I don't know about writing my opinions in order to listen to others, really. I read what others write, to get their view of things. But I don't write what I write on account of an unexpressed need to engage [insert whatever group concerns you] people on terms of identity.<br /><br />I don't care to persuade women to do, believe or agree with anything, as women. The point of this post has nothing to do with reaching out to a people on account of their identities. The quoted material touched upon a subject which concerns me. <br /><br />The constitution of power. I don't write about machining sheet metal, Hillary Clinton's electoral opportunities, Modern Monetary Theory, Victor Davis Hanson's monthly misreading of events or Oprah fucking Winfrey, because I don't care.<br /><br />I care about power. <i>I write about power.</i> Not power for [insert identity group that will magically change the whole world once it gets some].<br /><br />The logic of power and obedience concerns me. If a <i><b>person</b></i> gets something from this, all the better. But I could care less if a figment of social <i><b>identity</b></i> takes umbrage with my observation that identity/sociality <b><i>do not alter the form or shape of power.</i></b><br /><br />I type for myself. I read/listen to people, as individual selves. Not as groupuscular parts of an imaginary whole, or as functions of some transcendent group identity.<br /><br />I certainly empathize with people who exist within the confines of excluded identities, and I don't care one way or another how they devote their lives to obtaining inclusion or liberation. If a homosexual man thinks such and such an action will help him live a fuller life, it will never occur to me to discourage him from pursuing it. If a woman thinks that more women CEOs will lead to greater pay equity and awareness of women's labor, I will never seek to dissuade her from that course.<br /><br />I will, all the same, comment upon the choice if I think the methods negate the goals.<br /><br />And I rather obviously think that some feminist methods negate some feminist goals. I also think that anarchists, gay rights activists (especially those who work for gay marriage), unionists, greens, anti-war agitators, Tea Party radicals, and any number of subcommunities will on any given day employ methods which negate, corrupt, corrode or drive them further from their ends, not closer.<br /><br />If it occurs to me to point this out, I don't give a rat fuck if an anonymous blogger a thousand miles away disagrees. No either/or obtains, here. I don't need to either engage with [insert preferred identity group] or speak only to myself. It doesn't work that way. I cannot really think of a real world scenario that simple, or simplistic.<br /><br />Now, if ASP or BDB or Ms. Xeno or any other person disagrees, I have no compunction against reading what they write, and disputing the point. But their perspective does not trump mine, on account of their identities, such that my job degrades to mere auditor and listener. <br /><br />If you want or need to impose those conditions on yourself, fine with me. But I won't.<br /><br />With respect,<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-25149261735059553192010-07-18T17:11:47.539-04:002010-07-18T17:11:47.539-04:00Sorry. The above was...
-- ms_xeno (google hates...Sorry. The above was...<br /><br />-- ms_xeno (google hates my guts these days, so it's hard to log in)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-62566443726203458532010-07-18T17:10:55.704-04:002010-07-18T17:10:55.704-04:00BDB beat me to the punch, and says it better than ...BDB beat me to the punch, and says it better than I ever could.<br /><br />Too many Lefty dudes set up this kind of thing as little more than a massive game of "GOTCHA'"! Just as too many Liberal/Prog feminists point triumphantly at every ignorant, sexist Lefty dude in order to play massive games of "GOTCHA'"!<br /><br />In both cases, it's people being disingenuous so as not to disturb their own love affair with the status quo, even at the most trivial level possible.<br /><br />I believe in women's equality, and I'm not a liberal woman getting all mushy and starry-eyed every time Hillary and her ilk break wind.<br /><br />And today I simply do not have any further paitience to go 'round and 'round with this crack-the-whip garbage. It's the kind of thing that makes it so easy for me to just disappear from Blogland for months at a stretch and just stick to gardening and shit.<br /><br />Out of here now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-65719570831282993752010-07-18T17:03:22.990-04:002010-07-18T17:03:22.990-04:00Who cares if he's just "talking to himsel...Who cares if he's just "talking to himself?" It's his idea, not theirs. He's not trying to keep women from being feminists. Is he?. Why does it have to be about dialog the way you need it? What can't a person make an argument about what concerns him? Why does he have to address their concerns? To please you? To make you feel special? To give you a warm fuzzy feeling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-33474670210667837072010-07-18T15:47:45.488-04:002010-07-18T15:47:45.488-04:00Jack,
Then what do you propose instead? Specific...Jack,<br /><br />Then what do you propose instead? Specifically, that will be persuasive to women as they have related their concerns in this thread; and, without which, you are just talking to yourself?JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-39832215934092585702010-07-18T14:43:40.537-04:002010-07-18T14:43:40.537-04:00JRB,
This especially invites only a complete misu...JRB,<br /><br />This especially invites only a complete misunderstanding of power itself:<br /><br />"The point which BDBlue articulates so well is that people are excluded from their own autonomy according to various criteria, some disproportionately so. Having women "take power" is necessarily part of the process by which women assert control over their lives."<br /><br />You cannot have power separate from power over. Any person who "takes power" does so by having staffers who do his or her bidding. You cannot separate power, the taking of power, or the holding of power from the hierarchy which orders it, in the first.<br /><br />Respect,<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-50331540577355172352010-07-18T14:41:29.961-04:002010-07-18T14:41:29.961-04:00JRB,
I don't believe that the "diffusion...JRB,<br /><br />I don't believe that the "diffusion of power" every evidences in real terms, because power requires obedience. You cannot hold power - no matter how diffuse - unless you hold the obedience of those who submit to it.<br /><br />Assuming power without obedience equals assuming the head of the coin, without the tail.<br /><br />Respect,<br /><br />Jack<br /><br />*<br /><br />Charles,<br /><br />I tend to agree, though I do remain sympathetic to a number of feminist critiques, in the same way that I remain sympathetic to marxist and bakuninist critiques.<br /><br />Respect,<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.com