dear hugh and malgosia, a few points if i may.
nowhere in my post did i say anything about men or women being innately
one thing or another. i was speaking of the circulation of a specific set
of discursive elements (those relating to the construction of male
sexuality as a "drive" - with all its attendant connotations of
irresistability, etc.) and its effects within a heterosexist matrix of
power relations. i said absolutely nothing about men being innately
"evil" or women being innately "good" - and i said as little about men
being innately "predatory" and women being innately "prey". But allow me
to attempt to clarify a few points i'm working with:
1. i do not arrange men and women on either side of a neat and tidy
"evil" and "good" binary, respectively. But the fact that some women do
evil things bears no relevance to whether all men do. Otherwise put, the
fact that women are not innately good in no way invalidates the claim the
claim that men are innately bad. i'm not arguing this, i'm just making a
logical point.
2. my suggestion that all men be gay is not self-serving: don't flatter
yourself.
3. if men turn their sexual aggression upon each other, at least its not
directed towards women.
4. to say that "normal" heterosexuality is constructed along deeply
oppressive lines, and that all men benefit from this and enjoy those
benefits is *not at all* to say that men are "inherently" this way. it is
to recognize the pervasiveness of a cultural system, not to postulate an
essence. the fact that everybody does something is not sufficient
evidence for its naturalness. just because everybody does something
doesn't make it natural. and i am not saying that heterosexual men are
"naturally" predatory, even when i say that they all are.
5. oh i can just hear it now: "malcolm, first you say "men", then you say
"heterosexual men" - how about you clarify your terms." well then, let me
offer this proposition: "heterosexual masculinity in this culture, as
something represented, as a mode of representation, as a practice, as a
lived experience, is deeply and perhaps irretrievably sexist. to the
extent that one partakes of it, one participates in systemic sexism. it
is however a culturally specific mode of subjectivity and social
practice, one that is not insurmountable. but in order to surmount it, it
will take a lot more than men being nice."
6. malgosia, what would be your great personal loss? the loss of the
privilege of being in the one-up position in every romantic relationship?
(meow!)
perhaps i've said enough. bye for now.
malcolm
When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
proletariat will exert toward the classes over which it has triumphed
a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can't see what ob-
jection one could make to this.
-- MF
nowhere in my post did i say anything about men or women being innately
one thing or another. i was speaking of the circulation of a specific set
of discursive elements (those relating to the construction of male
sexuality as a "drive" - with all its attendant connotations of
irresistability, etc.) and its effects within a heterosexist matrix of
power relations. i said absolutely nothing about men being innately
"evil" or women being innately "good" - and i said as little about men
being innately "predatory" and women being innately "prey". But allow me
to attempt to clarify a few points i'm working with:
1. i do not arrange men and women on either side of a neat and tidy
"evil" and "good" binary, respectively. But the fact that some women do
evil things bears no relevance to whether all men do. Otherwise put, the
fact that women are not innately good in no way invalidates the claim the
claim that men are innately bad. i'm not arguing this, i'm just making a
logical point.
2. my suggestion that all men be gay is not self-serving: don't flatter
yourself.
3. if men turn their sexual aggression upon each other, at least its not
directed towards women.
4. to say that "normal" heterosexuality is constructed along deeply
oppressive lines, and that all men benefit from this and enjoy those
benefits is *not at all* to say that men are "inherently" this way. it is
to recognize the pervasiveness of a cultural system, not to postulate an
essence. the fact that everybody does something is not sufficient
evidence for its naturalness. just because everybody does something
doesn't make it natural. and i am not saying that heterosexual men are
"naturally" predatory, even when i say that they all are.
5. oh i can just hear it now: "malcolm, first you say "men", then you say
"heterosexual men" - how about you clarify your terms." well then, let me
offer this proposition: "heterosexual masculinity in this culture, as
something represented, as a mode of representation, as a practice, as a
lived experience, is deeply and perhaps irretrievably sexist. to the
extent that one partakes of it, one participates in systemic sexism. it
is however a culturally specific mode of subjectivity and social
practice, one that is not insurmountable. but in order to surmount it, it
will take a lot more than men being nice."
6. malgosia, what would be your great personal loss? the loss of the
privilege of being in the one-up position in every romantic relationship?
(meow!)
perhaps i've said enough. bye for now.
malcolm
When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
proletariat will exert toward the classes over which it has triumphed
a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can't see what ob-
jection one could make to this.
-- MF