 |
 |
Josephine wrote: > And while we are talking about Utopias (I found a number of > major flaws in the original model, I might add) the other > thing we need to do is reduce the world's population by 75%. > WHich is what I thought mother nature was trying to do when > she designed aids. > I'm sorry, Josephine, I like a lot of your posts, and your poems, but I think that is one of the most otiose remarks I have ever seen on a list, and far removed from Alison's sensitive arguments, even though e-mail format and occasion may reduce them. When people talk about matters like decimating the world's population they always think of it happening to others. Would you like to see you and your loved ones 'reduced by 75%'? This is as bad as the right-wingers rhetoric. David Bircumshaw Leicester, England Home Page A Chide's Alphabet Painting Without Numbers www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Printmaker" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:55 PM Subject: Re: Moral (in)visibility > Thanks Al, I agree. > > Couldnt help but think of Boaedecia (spelling?) she managed > to wipe an entire legion of roman troops (from memory) but > she certainly paid for it later. > > I did make a few broad assumptions with my suggestions, one > of which would be that my propposed matirachal govt would > address (and solve) the issues you are raising. > > And while we are talking about Utopias (I found a number of > major flaws in the original model, I might add) the other > thing we need to do is reduce the world's population by 75%. > WHich is what I thought mother nature was trying to do when > she designed aids. > > > > J > > Alison Croggon wrote: > > > > At 4:00 PM +0000 3/12/2001, Christopher Walker wrote: > > >Against that view of the world in which the US is both the actor and the > > >audience, in which the rest of the world is reduced to a sort of disposable > > >stage set, assertions (joking or not) that women (or persons over, or under, > > >5'6" tall, for that matter) would do better if only they were in power do > > >seem to me rather odd. They're no solution to what is a figure/ground > > >problem with moral implications, the only change being along the > > >(rhetorical) axis of (in)visibility. > > > > If there were something that could be practically done by poets to > > address the US assertions of power, I guess we'd be doing it. Tell > > me, what can poets do? Write poetry. Will that make any > > "difference"? No. Did Neruda's poem about Nixon make him apologise > > for the assassination of Allende? No. Has any poet's condemnation > > of war stopped war? No. Etc. Is that a reason not to write poems? > > No. > > > > Untangling what is possible out of the impossibilities of reality > > might be something a poet could imagine. So why not imagine a world > > where men and women are equal? It is harder than you think - for > > example, to imagine thus can not assume that women are simply victims > > of men. (I am thinking here of Gillian Rose's objection to feminism: > > that it does not acknowledge the power of women). One of the poisons > > of contemporary bourgeois psychologising (a phrase of Barthes' that > > at the moment I find useful) is the sanctification of victimhood: one > > who has the status of a victim may be excused everything. (The US, > > as a victim, may be excused the horrors that is being done under the > > eyes and bombs of its army.) Victimhood somehow elides moral agency. > > It also cheapens the situation of those who are real victims (those > > who actually died in the WTC, for example) by equating their reality > > with a negative emotion which is really a covert assertion of power. > > > > To return to my point: by this I mean that in this world, with the > > power relationships which we generally experience, the negative power > > associated with victimhood is one commonly asserted by women (but not > > only women), as the only option open to them. I remember my mother, > > for example, instructing me that I must never undermine the authority > > of a man; nor must I ever show my intelligence to a man, because men > > don't like intelligent women; women must be "feminine". Instead, a > > woman must exercise power indirectly, by manipulation under a cover > > of weakness. So indeed feminine power has always existed, and can > > indeed be tyrannical, but it is always covert. Female power that > > asserts itself overtly as a desire _not_ to manipulate, as a desire, > > perhaps, simply to _be_, is not only discouraged but attracts > > hostility from both men and women, as being "unfeminine". The > > punishment for both men and women for flouting those stereotypes has > > always been a kind of social desexing. > > > > Since my mother's generation there has opened another option, which > > is for women to copy traditional masculine norms of power. This is > > the option which people often point to to show that women now have > > power. Yes, that is true: and it's quite true that women are no > > better than men when exercising this power, and might even be more > > ruthless, because it's harder for women (still) to get there. > > > > I realise this analysis is somewhat Nietzschian, not to say > > simplistic. But obscurely behind this surely is something else, > > another possibility, of which these expressions of power betray the > > lack. Our understanding of power is that it is measured by "power > > over" something or someone, the ability to coerce. What if power > > wasn't construed this way? What if instead power was the ability to > > create a whole and dynamic self, the ability to nurture other selves, > > if strength was measured by gentleness rather than brutality (and I'm > > not talking here of a "feminine" construal of power, since restraint > > has been also considered a masculine virtue). When I have tried to > > imagine a society where men and women are equal, the first necessity > > has been to remove both the masculine and feminine definitions of > > power, and also to remove the gendered assignations of human > > qualities (intelligence = male, gentleness = female, etc etc). If it > > were possible, then, men and women might be able to perceive > > themselves more clearly, both their differences and their > > similarities, without needing to derogate either sex in order to > > assert their own superiority. In such a world, brutal assertions of > > power of any kind could only be seen as weakness. > > > > Would be ok, perhaps. Anyway, back to the real world, where of > > course this solves nothing. > > > > Best > > > > A > > -- > > > > Alison Croggon > > > > Home page > > http://users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ > > Masthead > > http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ >