dear all,

i have been following the discussions around MD and like some others,
think that what is at issue here is the relation between feminism and
ethics, and the place of ethics in the practice of living and the formation
of the self (and others). i do not think that there is anything like a right to
behavioral idiosyncracies if only because they are rarely requested. they
may be simply either 'occurences' or claims to/results of space and/or
power. they all (patterns of behavior, space and power) often go hand in
hand. there is no doubt that it is a difficult issue, because of the ways in
which reasonable behavior is often misconstrued as orthodox
'femininity', and because assertive behavior in women is construed as
aggressive/masculine/threatening (that is why there is such a hullabaloo
about her behavior while patriachal privileges like wars, famines and
destroyed economies and cultures are rampant). a rock and a hard stone
situation for sure. but as barbara has pointed out, the ethical spot is not
the most comfortable of places to be in, and categories, even if
necessary, can be dangerous things.

Furthermore, the self-consciousness (that should be) incumbent on
feminist practices, discourages at least theoretically, the reduction of a
politics of theory or practice to personal grievance. feminist practice has
to a large extent been the politicisation of the personal and not the
personalisation of politics (which is exactly what a lot of routine and
hegemonic political practice is about). MD's choice of words or audience
becomes a matter of interest only because she is influential to ways of
thinking and translating those into practice. i'm afraid then that the
question of responsibility is an important one, unless we take the that
old position that sauce for the goose is not sauciness in the gander. the
point here is not about whether that troublesome category 'men' deserve
to be treated badly or not (they have done much to deserve it), but that
what is to be achieved from that? when cixous while lecturing in delhi a
few years ago, was asked about how her theory was useful to indian
feminists/context she replied, 'that's not my business'. well then what is
the business of the academic, and why was she there?? certainly not to
display power.

in one of her early mails on this issue, shan spoke of a inclusive feminist
practice. that is reasonable if not actually desirable because like it or not,
one has to device ways of making it possible for ourselves and those
who follow to live effectively and with integrity not just with men, but
with all kinds of people who cannot be wished away. if we see that the
'woman problem' is very much about men (and perhaps sometimes
women) not being able to/refusing live with the changing faces of
women, it becomes clear that the problem is not just one of the power to
deny the other's totality, but sometimes simply ignorance or
misinformation. as we know imbalances in power can be rectifed (not
reversed) only when there is dialogue. The idea I think is to persuade
people about the necessity importance of that as a general social and
political practice and not a matter of 'personal choice' which is in any
case already a political one.

i am not trying to nor think it necessary to defend or condemn MD's
behavior, because i can see both the utility of an extreme stand and the
dangers of it becoming normative. But i think that it is necessary to
situate this discussion within the context of the relation between the
personal and the political, theory and practice and the creative
possibilities and spaces which that opens.

and true enough cp, academic credentials are no guarantee of
thoughtfulness.

best,
karen



Date sent:              Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:37:10 -0500
Send reply to:          Forum for the discussion of gender related to the study and              practice of religion <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   cp <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Mary Daly
To:                     [log in to unmask]

> Barbara:  I don't think it's getting too involved at all.  In fact, I think a
> discussion of feminist ethics and feminist morals would be timely.  Feminism is
> normative, yet what we have here is a struggle among women who disagree on the
> rectitude of Daly's behavior.  There doesn't seem to be an overarching "norm"
> for women's behavior or for feminist behavior or for the behavior of
> thealogians.  Where does that leave feminism as a movement and what does it
> say about the direction that the feminisms of particular religions are going?
> They're bigger questions than whether MD should speak to men or swear at them,
> but I think they're lurking underneath the Daly discussion.
>
>
> > I was, and still am upset over the tone of cp's post
>
>
> Oh, sorry Silke.  I just found this letter and the other one which addresses
> my tone in the wrong mailbox, hence my late reply.
>
>
> About the tone of my message... The story sounded like an urban myth to
> me, probably because I've heard it several times, with slightly different
> twists every time.  Since details are never given in any of the tales I've
> heard, I've been suspicious.  I don't put any of it past her, mind you,
> just as I don't put it past teenagers to shoot people who flash their
> brights at other drivers or slightly senile elderly people to think that the
> microwave will dry a wet cat.
>
>
> Again:  I repent of my skepticism toward the story that you told!
>
>
> As far as sociobiologists go, I think the reasoning and affinities can be
> found in any discipline.  (NOT that I now think YOUR colleague is a
> sociobiologist!!!)
>
>
> >Now, would you care to share your credentials again?
>
>
> Sure, but first let me state unequivocally that the only credential which
> questioning requires is the ability to think.  College degrees do not bestow
> thinking and questioning ability nor do they bestow the right to do so.  Indeed,
> there are several people on this list who have expressed feeling intimidated
> by the degrees of some of the academics on this list.  I prefer that everyone
> who thinks and feels strongly about the issues here be allowed to speak
> without fear of academic intimidation.  (I also don't believe in fussing at
> people for misspelling words on email, though I don't mind if my own errors
> are called to my attention.)
>
>
> That said, my academic credentials include that I'm ABD at the University of
> Texas at Austin, in sociology.  After completing my M.A., I passed my
> comprehensive exams with honors.  I've got one research publication and one
> review article (solicited though, so not really anything to brag about and not
> very good either, I must say) and another article in progress at the moment,
> though not yet submitted.  There's more, but then...blah...blah...blah...
>
>
> >And your reason for your apparent anger?
>
>
> Erm...  Since I'm not angry, I think that my *apparent* anger is probably due
> to either one or a combination of two things:
>
>
> 1.  Email is less effective than face to face speaking in communicating
> emotional tone, and I don't usually use emoticons.
>
>
> 2.  Your emotional investment in the issue has adversely affected your
> perception.
>
>
> cp = Carolyn Pevey (cpevey)
> p.s. Silke is a neat name.  It makes me think of mermaids.


karen gabriel
ph:405 Institute of Social Studies
P.O.Box 29776
2502LT Den Haag
Holland
tel: 00-31-70-42-60-482
fax: ---------------799