JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  April 2006

POETRYETC April 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Feminism: an aside on the classroom

From:

Rebecca Seiferle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:26:21 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Thanks for the clarifications of your last post,
Alison.  I've had mostly women bosses, heads of
departments, deans, but also supervisors in
non-academic jobs and didn't find any of them took on
the particular 'ideology sevenfold' but rather were
supportive of other women's work, usually aware of the
ways in which women had been previously disadvantaged,
and any number of writing opportunities and work I've
had were from women who might well have viewed
themselves as competitors. And similarly I have
published, helped to publication, by editing,
recommending, etc, any number of women. I've known
only one woman really who viewed all other women as
competition and I don't know as it had to do with
competing for male attention, or the issues of
patriarchy, as so much an issue she had with her own
mother, or so I came to think of it, which might just
be an erroneous conclusion on my part. On the other
hand, I do think that sometimes strong women clash,
that they have different viewpoints, perceptions, and
experiences, and tend to demonize each other. 

best,

Rebecca

--- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> With the absolute certainty that what I say will
> fall upon deaf ears, 
> please note that "that deadly competitiveness that
> is a
> feature of women's relationships under patriarchy"
> isn't much use as 
> thought unless you can bring forth an example of an
> industrial or 
> post-industrial economy that isn't what you call
> "patriarchal."
> 
> This is not a personal argument. If your views were
> only yours I 
> wouldn't care much. But I'm aware that this bit of
> mythologizing is 
> pervasive in much of feminist theory. I can also
> understand that it 
> may have been a useful myth in the past. Now it
> seems to be a way of 
> discrediting the very broad advances of women by
> claiming that 
> they've only advanced by becoming like men or worse.
> The explicit 
> implication is that none of this counts unless the
> souls of men and 
> women change in a specific way. I sympathize with
> the motive, but it 
> doesn't usually work, and I think we've seen more
> than enough 
> attempts at engineering the soul in the past
> century. A lot of round 
> pegs got permanently damaged by being forced into
> square holes.
> 
> I agree very strongly with the rest of what you say.
> Your first 
> paragraph doesn't add to its power as explanation.
> 
> Mark
> 
> PS. I'll be departing the list tomorrow night until
> April 19th--off 
> to Scotland and parts south to pass some time with
> Carlos. I'll still 
> be available b/c to any who wish to reach me,
> preferrably not about 
> discussions on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Women who adapt to the given mores of the workplace
> seem to take on the
> >ideology sevenfold. The worst, most extreme
> authoritarian bosses were always
> >those women who had to be three times as tough as
> men in order to get and
> >keep the job in that earlier generation. They often
> took it out on young
> >women in particular, and they had that deadly
> competitiveness that is a
> >feature of women's relationships under patriarchy
> honed to a bitter point:
> >any woman was competition, and had to be disabled
> or eliminated.
> >
> >The issue is probably more that the basic
> social/economic structures just
> >haven't shifted very much, despite appearances;
> those who think that
> >democratic western societies (Australia, Britain,
> the US) are heading
> >steadily towards various versions of corporate
> fascism might argue that
> >things are probably much worse than they were 20
> years ago, and not going to
> >get better any time soon.
> >
> >Our new IR and Terrorism laws, shunted in by
> gagging parliamentary debate
> >last December, change the balance of power
> radically in favour of the
> >centralist State. Even right wing employer groups
> are complaining about
> >them, because of their intrusive nature.
> Personally, I think these IR laws
> >are a culmination of a process that began in the
> 80s under a Labor
> >government, when the ACTU began to centralise its
> own power and got rid of
> >all the radical unions (I remember watching that
> happen as a young IR
> >reporter). It's rather desolating to see the French
> rioting over what is
> >comparatively speaking a much smaller change, while
> here the most radical
> >changes to workplace laws in 50 years, which remove
> protections for _all_
> >workers, have gone through with barely a peep, side
> by side with laws that
> >have serious implications for our freedoms. Aside
> from a few alarmed opinion
> >pieces and objections from lawyer groups and
> artists and media, nobody seems
> >to really have absorbed what these laws will mean.
> They make alarming
> >reading, I assure you.
> >
> >Women, especially women with family demands, won't
> do well under these laws,
> >in both official and de facto ways. Unions barely
> exist any more (a union
> >official in the paper the other day saying they
> can't take industrial action
> >any more, because they're not allowed - !). The
> fact that in many ways it's
> >the unions' fault doesn't make it any better.
> That's just how it goes.
> >Women's rights have always had lower priorities
> than other rights; when the
> >battle is about fair rights for anybody, women's
> specific concerns fall
> >below the general purview. Interesting times,
> indeed.
> >
> >All best
> >
> >A
> >
> >
> >Alison Croggon
> >
> >Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> >Editor, Masthead:  http://masthead.net.au
> >Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager