What then would you make of a history of "sexuality" which is not equally
inclusive of "women"? We don't even have to ask whether or not it is
sexist in order to ask what kind of history is this. If it bears on the
matter, I am not attempting to criticize Foucault. Instead, I'm more
interested in the interpretations.
[remainder edited]
On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, mjackson.DOMAIN1 wrote:
> In-Reply-To: ORUNIX:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's message of 06-11-96 01:40
>
> somebody (the masked philosopher?) recently wrote:
>
> I'm more interested in looking at the question of how feminists react to
> Foucault ...direced at Hist Sex vol I. How
> is it possible to write a history of sexuality which barely mentions women?
> With the exception of one or two pages, Foucault gives little space to a
> consideration of a "sex/gender system" in which power is unevenly
> distributed between genders. Is this an oversight which makes it
> impossible to take the book seriously?
>
> My reply:
>
> This criticism gets tossed around a lot--Foucault overlooked sexism, racism,
> classism, what have you. C'mon, he was one theorist with his own set
> of interests and insights, and an all too short life: he couldn't do
> everything...> --And I see gender as a place where Foucault's ideas about
> power, self, and discourse can be quite effectively extended and developed.
>
> One more thing: I do not think it's any major oversight not to focus on
> gender in a book about sexuality.
>
> Miles Jackson
> cqmv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>