Wednesday, May 03, 2006
(no apologies to the Black Eyed Peas)
my hunch, my hunch, my lovely lady...um... lunch (?)
ok - remember when I said this (all of three or four days ago):
"See, I just don't get the sense that this world, this culture, this neverending Waterloo of gender was really what they had in mind, the Florynce Kennedys and Shulamith Firestones and Ti-grace Atkinsons and Roxanne Dunbars of the world."
Imagine my delighted surprise when I read this at the great and way brainy BitchLab :
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/05/01/hanisch-new-intro-personal-political/
Says Carol Hanisch: "I wish we could have anticipated all the ways that “The Personal Is Political” and “The Pro- Woman Line” would be revised and misused. Like most of the theory created by the Pro-Woman Line radical feminists, these ideas have been revised or ripped off or even stood on their head and used against their original, radical intent. While it’s necessary that theories take their knocks in the real world, like everything else, many of us have learned that once they leave our hands, they need to be defended against revisionism and misuse."
So, what we have today is not exactly what the radical feminist thinkers of the 60s (the giants on whose shoulders we all stand) had in mind?
holy shit, y'all - I think I just heard someone put on their hockey skates in hell - I'm right about something.
not that I think I myself have the "correct" interpretation - far from it. I'm sure plenty of evidence can be presented that my own personal head is wedged irretrievably up my own personal ass. no argument there. it's just comforting to know that my hunch, that the world of radical feminism occasionally tips dangerously off its original axis, is a hunch shared not only by someone else, but by someone else who was really there.
my hunch, my hunch, my lovely lady...um... lunch (?)
ok - remember when I said this (all of three or four days ago):
"See, I just don't get the sense that this world, this culture, this neverending Waterloo of gender was really what they had in mind, the Florynce Kennedys and Shulamith Firestones and Ti-grace Atkinsons and Roxanne Dunbars of the world."
Imagine my delighted surprise when I read this at the great and way brainy BitchLab :
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/05/01/hanisch-new-intro-personal-political/
Says Carol Hanisch: "I wish we could have anticipated all the ways that “The Personal Is Political” and “The Pro- Woman Line” would be revised and misused. Like most of the theory created by the Pro-Woman Line radical feminists, these ideas have been revised or ripped off or even stood on their head and used against their original, radical intent. While it’s necessary that theories take their knocks in the real world, like everything else, many of us have learned that once they leave our hands, they need to be defended against revisionism and misuse."
So, what we have today is not exactly what the radical feminist thinkers of the 60s (the giants on whose shoulders we all stand) had in mind?
holy shit, y'all - I think I just heard someone put on their hockey skates in hell - I'm right about something.
not that I think I myself have the "correct" interpretation - far from it. I'm sure plenty of evidence can be presented that my own personal head is wedged irretrievably up my own personal ass. no argument there. it's just comforting to know that my hunch, that the world of radical feminism occasionally tips dangerously off its original axis, is a hunch shared not only by someone else, but by someone else who was really there.
# posted by antiprincess @ 9:20 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Well.
I wasn't actually there. I am a wee tad skeptical of some of the young'uns I've been running across online who style themselves "radical feminists," of late. Not so much that I doubt their feminist creds; more like, I doubt their, you know, being completely hinged. Or, at minimum, terribly knowledgable.
also not terribly impressed by boy Dworkinites holding forth on the evils of BDSM and high heels (for instance).
I wasn't actually there. I am a wee tad skeptical of some of the young'uns I've been running across online who style themselves "radical feminists," of late. Not so much that I doubt their feminist creds; more like, I doubt their, you know, being completely hinged. Or, at minimum, terribly knowledgable.
also not terribly impressed by boy Dworkinites holding forth on the evils of BDSM and high heels (for instance).
sorry, what I meant to imply was that Carol Hanisch was actually there.
I got that a little garbled I guess.
High heels are the devil's footwear, no doubt. I can hold forth on the evils of uncomfortable shoes with the best of 'em. but I'm no less a dirty kinky pervert because of it. I'm just a barefoot dirty kinky pervert... :)
I got that a little garbled I guess.
High heels are the devil's footwear, no doubt. I can hold forth on the evils of uncomfortable shoes with the best of 'em. but I'm no less a dirty kinky pervert because of it. I'm just a barefoot dirty kinky pervert... :)
Boy Dworkinite in question explained that he was "fighting against" high heels (among other patriarchal evils), which I thought was terrific, personally. it'd make a great B horror picture, wouldn't it?
THE ATTACK OF THE FIFTY-FOOT STILETTO
THE ATTACK OF THE FIFTY-FOOT STILETTO
See DWORKONION battle the evil STILLET-TOAD and her deadly minions FUGMEPUMPZ and BARBIEBOOTZ...
seriously - I can commit just as many heinous acts of treason against the sisterhood while wearing dirty, holey, lentil-loaf-encrusted birkenstocks...wanna watch?
for more info as regards "oh noes!", "ZOMG" and other netspeak catchphrases, try the Encyclopedia Dramatica:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Oh_noes
yours in fweebah -
H.
seriously - I can commit just as many heinous acts of treason against the sisterhood while wearing dirty, holey, lentil-loaf-encrusted birkenstocks...wanna watch?
for more info as regards "oh noes!", "ZOMG" and other netspeak catchphrases, try the Encyclopedia Dramatica:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Oh_noes
yours in fweebah -
H.
In Zen Buddhist tradition, the honing of Buddhist thought and practice, or Dharma, is refined over YEARS between teacher and student. Such students are not allowed to teach by their peers until they have attained what is called "Dharma Transmission," that is, a knowledge of Buddhist discipline whose comprehensiveness is equal to that of every single teacher, going back to the first.
Not surprisingly, Zen produces precious few true "Masters" but the result is that the philosophy of Dharma remains remarkably simple, devoid of corrupting influences which might strain the original interpretation while at the same time devoid of dogma that might render such Dharma irrelevant over the ages. Sometimes I wonder why other philosophies, including feminism, lack such restraint.
Not surprisingly, Zen produces precious few true "Masters" but the result is that the philosophy of Dharma remains remarkably simple, devoid of corrupting influences which might strain the original interpretation while at the same time devoid of dogma that might render such Dharma irrelevant over the ages. Sometimes I wonder why other philosophies, including feminism, lack such restraint.
Well, especially wrt anything related to activism, I think there's this general idea that unless one is constantly doing and changing and writing and speaking Truth To Power and so on, one isn't accomplishing anything.
as a culture, we're not very good with silence. or stillness. i think undereneath the Puritan Work Ethic thang, a lot of us aren't so much really afraid that we "aren't being productive" so much as of what might surface, from the silence and stillness.
Post a Comment
as a culture, we're not very good with silence. or stillness. i think undereneath the Puritan Work Ethic thang, a lot of us aren't so much really afraid that we "aren't being productive" so much as of what might surface, from the silence and stillness.
<< Home
