At 06:37 PM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Stephan,
>
> Foucault's deep attack upon western rationality crushed the ideology of
>gender.
>He specifically states that reproductive sex roles are ideological.
where does he say this? i have not seen him take such a stance, but note
that in "Truth and Power," for instance, he rejects the notion of
"ideology" as a critical tool.
He
>advocates, nay agitates and polemicizes for homosexuality. It is very
>difficult to take his ideas seriously.
>
>Vunch
>
F. sure had a lot to say about the gay rights struggle, but this sounds
like you're some reactionary school board in alabama afraid to let your
kids read oscar wilde because it will make them gay. Am I reading you
incorrectly? Consider this exchange in an interview, "Sexual Choice,
Sexual Act" in volume 1 of the Essential Works (142).
"Q: Does this focus on cultural context and people's discourse about their
sexual behavior reflect a methodlogical decision to bypass the distinction
between innate predisposition to homosexual behavior and social
conditioning? Or do you have any conviction one way or the other on this
issue?
MF: On this question I have absolutely nothing to say. "No comment."
Q: Does this mean you think the question is unanswerable, or bogus, or
does it simply not interest you?
MF: No, none of these. I just don't believe in talking about things that
go beyond my expertise. It's not my problem, and I don't like talking
about things that are not really the object of my work. On this question I
have only an opinion; since it is only an opinion, it is without interest."
rob
>Stephan,
>
> Foucault's deep attack upon western rationality crushed the ideology of
>gender.
>He specifically states that reproductive sex roles are ideological.
where does he say this? i have not seen him take such a stance, but note
that in "Truth and Power," for instance, he rejects the notion of
"ideology" as a critical tool.
He
>advocates, nay agitates and polemicizes for homosexuality. It is very
>difficult to take his ideas seriously.
>
>Vunch
>
F. sure had a lot to say about the gay rights struggle, but this sounds
like you're some reactionary school board in alabama afraid to let your
kids read oscar wilde because it will make them gay. Am I reading you
incorrectly? Consider this exchange in an interview, "Sexual Choice,
Sexual Act" in volume 1 of the Essential Works (142).
"Q: Does this focus on cultural context and people's discourse about their
sexual behavior reflect a methodlogical decision to bypass the distinction
between innate predisposition to homosexual behavior and social
conditioning? Or do you have any conviction one way or the other on this
issue?
MF: On this question I have absolutely nothing to say. "No comment."
Q: Does this mean you think the question is unanswerable, or bogus, or
does it simply not interest you?
MF: No, none of these. I just don't believe in talking about things that
go beyond my expertise. It's not my problem, and I don't like talking
about things that are not really the object of my work. On this question I
have only an opinion; since it is only an opinion, it is without interest."
rob