Hey Marc, no sweat, that's how I - for one - read it completely; and I
really don't understand how anyone could be insulted by such an incredibly
generous list. Clearly, we're not looking here for an ultimate and newly
objective 'map', that's the whole point! We're looking more for an
approach and awareness, of different partialities, and how to robustly
Thanks for the hour, and hours, you put in :)
marc garrett wrote:
> Hi all,
> I just wanted to respond to those surprised I did not included them in
> the list.
> Well, of course I'm going to miss out names and you're missing the
> point. It's an example not a literal replacement.
> I spent an hour of my time compiling the selected 'female' names to
> highlight how extensive this issue is.
> We need to change this not by compiling lists (it's a start) but by
> challenging our own compliance allowing it to happen. It misrepresents
> our culture and practice and we should be embarrassed if we let it go on.
> When ever women and working class people, are viewed through the usual
> protocols and defaults of the patriarchal gaze of an 'assumed'
> objectivity. It implements a mythology via processes of non-inclusion.
> This enhances the condition to further introduce the idea of women and
> others not included as subordinates rather than as being part of the
> whole story.
> Recognizing this condition is the start of being conscious of it.
> Critiquing this repeated behaviour demands another level of engagement.
> To borrow a phrase from Haraway, it would have to be “a feminist voice;
> it is also a whisper of humanism”.
> Wishing you well.