Womyn

[Tom H]

Don't want to go into detail on the rights and wrongs of using the word "womyn". Just a simple question: what's the plural form?

Tom

[patio11]

Its usually "womyn", but I hysitaty to say this for fyar of homogynizing the divyrsy multitudy of pyoply who can't spyll.

Patrick McKynziy

[PancreasMatt]

sigh. Why mock something if it doesn't have any negative effects, or you just don't get it?

Its actually a pretty recognized spelling of the word, since its been prevalent in alot of womyns movements and even is recognized by alot of dictionaries- not that that is really the reason for doing it.

My debate coach, bill neeson, had a teacher that dinged him for misspelling it, so he did a little research on the word, and brought about 5 dictionaries and academic joursnals that said tit was cool- The teacher was a bio teacher, btw, she wasn't just getting some odd joy out of mocking a movement and entrenching the patriarchy.

[PancreasMatt]

jed, thats just totally dismissive. you don't engage the idea, and theres nothing bad that this spelling does. It just symbolizes a movement and an idealogy.

Ok, so womyn have left the feminist movement because i spell the word this way? That may be the stupidest thing i have ever heard. Kind of like a judge who told me that she used to like the feminist movement (i ran Feminism all year with ICC) before it got hi-jacked by a bunch of "angry dykes". Hmm... if people like that get pushed away from the movement (or men get angry cause them womyn and other guys are just being "high and Mighty" and "deconstructiing patriarchy" then i guess screw off, and stay out of the movement)

[PancreasMatt]

well, if you're owrking from the assumption that the structure that is patriarchy, even parts that are ingrained in language, are going to "cooperate" with womyn, then you're pretty "silly" yourself there, jed.

Sure, some people say its important to cooperate in movements, but when you reject a spelling of a word that resresents a movement and a purpose because its "silly" (and dare i say downright uppity!), i doubt many people who spell the word that way really need cooperation from people who call the movement silly- i mean, if seeing the independant spelling of a word can make people so mad, maybe thats a good way to see who gives a flying shit.

[boredguy8]

Matt,

I think Jed's point is that people try to pretend using the word "womyn" is doing things like destroying patriarchy. The aggrivation is at what they percieve as pointless changes with no real benefits. I think it does not undermine patriarchy, but hey - whatever floats your boat (in a manner of speaking) is cool with me.

It's like people who rejected A.D. because it meant "in the year of our Lord" and instead started to use C.E. (common era) - even though it was based on the same date (i.e. 1984 A.D. = 1984 C.E.).

--Joey

[PancreasMatt]

gee jed, thats the whole point- I guess, if patriarchy is "in your interests" like you say, you don't have an incentive to try to do something about all the rapes in the world, or the female genital mutilation, or the sexual slavery etc- I think you're just being flippant when you say "it isn't in your interests" to reduce patriarchy, either because your not making a serious comment, or you don't know what it means. Sure Jed, if male dominance to the extent of mass rape is cool, I guess your argument is right! men should not resist patriarchy, because hey, they get to rape womyn if they don't.

If you think upholding patriarchy is in your interest, I think you have a bigger problem than how the word "womyn" is spelled.

You're not treating men by a lower standard- Does anything about the spelling go "btw, penises suck!" No! this is just your reactionary backlash against anything appearing liberal, whether it means what you think it means or not.

[PancreasMatt]

1. Hey jed! Mostly womyn get raped and mutilated! Thats cause of patriarchy, or male domination and control. Do you have another explanation?

The comments on rape are because either you don't know what you're talking about or you're treating it flippantly, which is what one of the problems is- the fact that it can't be taken seriously, and "oh, patriarchy isn't so bad". Bullshit dude- When you say "men should support patriarchy because its in their interests", thats a freaking problem. I htink its a damned unethical way to look at the world (uh oh! I'm imposing a moral calculus on you! you had better break out some of that conservative postmodernism stuff!)if all we do is see whats in our best interests.

And honestly, im not sure if the consent line is sarcastic or not- i havent seen anything to indicate that this wouldn't be paralell with the rest of what you've said.

[scooter]

It's like people who rejected A.D. because it meant "in the year of our Lord" and instead started to use C.E. (common era) - even though it was based on the same date (i.e. 1984 A.D. = 1984 C.E.).

--Joey

Well, it kind of doesn't mean the same thing at all.

I use CE, the latter infers common era, as in the era whereby people when using 1984 mean now, not when the calendar was counting down to zero (note, you don't tend to say, I was born in 1967 AD/CE, since it is assumed that the common period of discussion is indeed in reference to the here and now, hence the common era). Thus, from a discourse perspective, it makes sense.

Anno Domino is a statement as to Our Lord, which is truly a grand assumption at best, and a further entrenching of the notion of the sovereignty of Christ, and yes, it has been historically used in that fasion. Does using CE strike at the Christiocentrism encapsulated in the sentiment "Our Lord'? Maybe, maybe not.

But personally, I would prefer to advance the realization that several people do not share in such a favorable response to Christ, do not believe that he is lord of anything, thus, I opt for CE. On face, one removes the notion of "our lordship", and yes, even if I can't change the calendar (despite how many times I write "I was married on the 9th of Av, 5757") I don't have to be personally responsible for entrenching even more Christiocentrism.


S

[scooter]

"men can be raped too as well as have their gentials mutilated"

Um, proportionality, where art thou?

S

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink
No, Matt, you are right. I do not take you seriously when you spell a word wrong as a performative argument. That's silly. Read back. I already told you I don't take you seriously. Sorry :).

what a load of shit. If you don't give a damn, why do you attack it? i didn't say "hey jed, look at me, im deconstructing patriarchy" and i didn't even engage you when you tried to bait me with your stupidass dictionary stunt. YOU REPEATEDLY ATTACKED ME for the way i spell the word. As for taking me seriously, good, the feeling is mutual, because i can't see any serious reason to go "man, that spelling is dumb, hyuk hyuk. Patriarchy can be good!"
Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink

And my comment about consent was in no way sarcastic. I'm merely adhering to the role you've set up for me as a man. I must fit that mold in order for your bullshit to make sense. I'm helping you out there matt. Take the freebee. You need it.

Bullshit jed, i didn't set you up in a role. I spelled a word, defended my spelling, and that means Im making you out to be an evil man? what the hell???? What i think is bad is when you trivialize the shit out of rape, and Mutilation (comments like "well men get raped too") and attack the spelling of a word.... wait, you havent given a good reason, other than that a guy who thinks men get raped just as much as womyn won't join our movement. Well, cool then.

[boredguy8]

"Well, it kind of doesn't mean the same thing at all."

Right. I never claimed it "meant" the same thing. Anno Domini means "In the year of the Lord". "Common Era" means, well, I guess I don't know what it means to be in the common era, but whatever.

However, my point is that it's still based on the same system, still developed by a Sycthian (sp?) monk in A.D. 600 or so. All it does is serve to mask the underlying system that still exists, trying to pretend it doesn't.

--Joey

[jatkins]

I've read all my Gloria Steinem and Mary Daly, and I've loved it all, I was raised a radical feminist by a mother and father who were active in the movement, so I understand NotAnOrganMatt's choice of spelling.

To respond to DB8MissingLink, removing "man" from "woman" has nothing to do with holding men back. Some within the feminist movement feel that one of the most terrifying parts of the patriarchy is the robbing of women of an identity separate from men. To be a wo-man is to be defined within a framework of masculine conception; not as a man, mind you, but as a sub-man. This theft had manifested itself, Steinem argued, in the archaic laws preventing women from owning property, or the cultural value of virginity for women, but virility for men, to name just two of the many examples.

Another Steinem quote in a similar vein: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." She didn't mean this to suggest that women should not marry. She meant this to suggest that women did not need men to define their existence for them; they were strong, independent individuals, with their own rights and freedoms, and their own ability to pursue happiness. And hey, if the fish wants a bicycle, she can go out and get one. Steinem did. She was happily married a couple of years ago.

Still, you will note that I do not use the spelling "womyn." It will not annoy me if this becomes common usage, but I certainly hope that one day both sides of this issue will cease to be so petty as to quibble over this pathetic bit of grammatical history. I am sure that the movement can go on, and women finally liberated, without this addition to the lexicon.

[AhhAlegra]

To briefly answer the ORIGINAL question Tom H asked, "womyn" IS the plural. The singular can be a wommon, a womyn, or a variety of other variations. Mostly I just see the plural form used though.

I do appreciate gender neutral language like "fire fighter," "police officer," "Time's Person of the Year," and the like. Inclusive and accurate. As for the argument for "womyn," well, I understand the argument on both sides, but I choose not to use it. Since the original words for a female and a male were "wifman" and "waepman" (or vir or some other stuff), respectively, I know that "man" originally was equivalent to "person." The implications of the loss of the "waep-" part can really be cut a number of ways, and I don't see it as uniquely tied to the establishment of patriarchy, since I can prove patriarchy existed before that. I choose to focus my attention in the matter of gendered language elsewhere. But I do understand the argument that the terms as they stand imply that women are a subset of men (who are the default "person",) so if you choose to use "womyn," rock on with your bad self.

:sexy Andrea

Here's a couple links if you want:
http://www.smcox.com/language/woman.html
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html
http://orion.csuchico.edu/Pages/vol40issue10/o.3.feminist.html

[boredguy8]

A great paper on language in pronouns:
A Person Paper on Purity in Language
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/personpaper/

If you can find it, the article that goes with the paper is more interesting. I'll give two possible citations:

"Changes in Default Words and Images, Engendered by Rising Consciousness", Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern Hofstadter, Douglas. 1985.

"Changes in Default Words and Images, Engendered by Rising Consciousness", Scientific American Hofstadter, Douglas. November, 1982.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

i do believe that much of the feminist movement has been used as a way to oppress men. when you have any type of "movement", there is an agenda. once that agenda has been met, the group will always want more. look at the PGA tournament...the club was for men...you don't see a hell of a lot of men busting down the doors to get entry inot women's "tea clubs" do you?

i believe that if women want to be treated as equals, they ned to be prepared to mneet the standards that men do. for instance in the army (i don't know if this is correct, so please correct me if i am woreong) women are allowed to do teh "girl" push-ups instead of the original push-ups. and i believe that in golf, woman meet a lower standard than men. if we want equality, shouldn't we get equality-----the whole 9 yards of it?

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink


Matt, you do attack me with your very use of the word. The word is loaded - or you wouldn't use it. It has meaning beyond the dictionary definition of "woman" - it becomes political speech. I disagree with the argument that is implicitely made by the use of this word and this becomes offense when that argument is later denied as ever having been made at all.



hahaha! was i "needlessly provacative" in my spelling? I mean, come on, you make it seem like my verbal skirt was too short.

The argument is against you saying "why do you think you deconstruct patriarchy matt? huh? huh? why why?" because i never claimed to do that. I just spell it that way because it represents a movement that i sympathize with. Whats bad about that? Sure, some words can cause effects, but aren't you the one who always spits that bullshit abvout how "words can't hurt because they don't have a meaning apart from your interpretation"?

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink

John (back to you). It is interesting that you - and others - assume that women need to change the word in order to separate from men. The way I see it, men are sharing the word just as much with women. That is to say, you could equally argue that it's not the word "women" that depends on the word "men" but hte word "men" which depends on "women." Both have "men" in them. jEd

Huh? what? huh? yes jed... Both have "men" in them... but one of them is "men" and the other depends on it... this seriously doesn't make sense. I mean, it seems like you think you can just take the words, switch them around, and then say that there really is no difference and that will make it true- i mean, really, what does this mean?
Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink

When you change the word for women, you assume that "men" somehow belongs to the gender that has a penis when I contend that it belongs equally to both genders. You're assumption that women much change their word for themselves perpetuates the power hierarchy because it requires women to change while allowing men to remain the same.
jEd
huh? who requires womyn to change? all i do is spell it differently as a way to signify the support of the movement. And since people only spell it that way if they want to, i don't see how this perpetuates a power hierarchy... You know, this sounds like its saying something, but its just a re-arrangement of words again.
Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink

This just comes back to what I've said over and over again. By changing the spelling to differentiate women from men, you put women's interests directly opposed to men's interest. Thus, you create two groups who must compete for rights (such competition need not be inherent). I personally am opposed to rape and genital mutiliation not because I think it's patriachal but because I think it's dehumanizing. The fact that it proportionally happens more frequently to women is because there is currently a dichotomy between men and women. Your miss-spelling of the word women to differentiate men from women merely exacerbates the problem.
jEd
wait wait, so first the spelling does nothing, and is just me performing to empty sound a fury, and now it dichotomizes and exacerbaates? Wow, new turns! wellyou make NO warrant for the connection between dichotomization and rape, you have NO warrant for why its ok to ignore the fact that more womyn are raped than men (the response here is literally "its a dichotomy, and thats exacerbating") wtf does that mean? Its not a dichotomy anymore once i cede that "yes, some men do get raped".
Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink

If you want to make it men vs. women, that's fine. I'm on men's side 'cause I got a penis and I'm loath to paternalistically "give" my rights away. If you want me on your side, let's try to find a solution where we don't have to destroy the current system to achieve equality.

jEd

If having you on our "side" means that we can't talk about problems that womyn face because there "is no such thing as man or womyn" then i think thats pretty messed up. How are you supposed to fix the problems of rape if your response is "well, rape doesn't happen more to womyn because thats a gender dichotomy and those are bad!"?

[syphos]

Side note: Gender roles...

http://www.crimethinc.com/gender/

Can buy bundles of them here to distribute :):

http://www.buyolympia.com/crimethinc/sid=779603376/new.html

and an apology to all for being off topic.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

even though statistically women are raped more than men, we should never trivialize the fact that men are raped. it does happen (more often than you think), but men are sometimes VERY reluctant to admit it. the same woth sexual harassment...it does happen to men, but they don't report it (or abuse the privilidge to report it) as often as women do.

i'm not the next Ann Coulter or anything, i just think that men are starting to get the short end of the stick now that the women's movement is becoming more powerful (READ:GREEDY)

[jatkins]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink
John, first things first. I love your sig-quote.
It is, in fact, awesome.

John (back to you). It is interesting that you - and others - assume that women need to change the word in order to separate from men.
I don't. I'm merely saying that this is the argument that I have heard in my long experience with feminism. I don't use "womyn."

The way I see it, men are sharing the word just as much with women. That is to say, you could equally argue that it's not the word "women" that depends on the word "men" but hte word "men" which depends on "women."
Daly argued that "man" must inherently imply the masculine conception, since it is used to indicate maleness. Also note that it is used to denote the species "mankind." We are also all "human" not "human and huwoman." The study of humanity is anthropology, not gynopology. Thus women are included entirely within the framework of masculine conception. The prefix "wo" is implied to create a subset of "man," or articulate an inherent identity relationship with "man."

both have "men" in them
Umm, yeah, that was kind of the point. Women, then, are man-like, but men are not woman-like.

When you change the word for women, you assume that "men" somehow belongs to the gender that has a penis when I contend that it belongs equally to both genders.
But it doesn't. "Man" implies "male individual." It is inherently masculine as a result, just as the prefix "anthro" and "andro" are. It has been this way since ancient days, and if you asked the Greeks or the Romans, they would tell you that since men shape the world, they are implied dominant. I doubt the germanic culture that gave us "man" and "woman" were much more enlightened.

You're assumption that women much change their word for themselves perpetuates the power hierarchy because it requires women to change while allowing men to remain the same.
Choosing to change is an act of empowerment, not of slavery. By choosing to assert one's identity and ability to define oneself, one cannot truly perpetuate any kind of power hierarchy. Also, I don't buy that this issue is important enough to perpetuate or disestablish the power hierarchy.

This just comes back to what I've said over and over again. By changing the spelling to differentiate women from men, you put women's interests directly opposed to men's interest.
"Separate from" is a very strange definition of "directly opposed to."

Thus, you create two groups who must compete for rights (such competition need not be inherent).
No, the domination of women by men since the dawn of time pretty much did that.

I personally am opposed to rape and genital mutiliation not because I think it's patriachal but because I think it's dehumanizing.
I'm glad to know you're not a rapist or genital mutilator. There is no question that it's dehumanizing. It is the patriarchal nature of world society that allows it to continue, though. Rape and genital mutilation are expressions of the impulse to dominate, an antisocial male impulse. It is no accident that in the vast majority of the cases of men being raped, a man was the rapist. This is not to say that women cannot demonstrate these traits; it is merely to say that it is far, far, far, far more rare than when men do. Also, non-rape violence against women is perpetuated by the male sexual domination impulse; in Oregon, last year, all but two murders of women were committed by men with whom they had had sexual or otherwise romantic relationships. The vast majority of murders of women nationwide share the same trait. Look it up on the DoJ website.

The fact that it proportionally happens more frequently to women is because there is currently a dichotomy between men and women.
So testosterone and the aggressive/domination-centric emotions we know it creates are socially constructed? Male production of male hormones is a result of the modern media?

Your miss-spelling of the word women to differentiate men from women merely exacerbates the problem.
Your misspelling of misspelling merely exacerbates your problem with conventions ;)

If you want to make it men vs. women, that's fine. I'm on men's side 'cause I got a penis and I'm loath to paternalistically "give" my rights away.
No one has implied that women getting rights implies men losing them. That is merely your insecure and egotistical fear, as you are afraid of losing your position of dominance you manly man.

If you want me on your side, let's try to find a solution where we don't have to destroy the current system to achieve equality.
SPELLING WOMEN "WOMYN" DOES NOT DESTROY THE CURRENT SYSTEM! For the love of Gandhi people, this is not that big a deal.

[syphos]

Originally posted by bnm
even though statistically women are raped more than men, we should never trivialize the fact that men are raped. it does happen (more often than you think), but men are sometimes VERY reluctant to admit it. the same woth sexual harassment...it does happen to men, but they don't report it (or abuse the privilidge to report it) as often as women do.


There are 3 times as many rapes in jail than there are in "civil" society. Or at least that's the statistic I have been commonly told.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Originally posted by syphonhail
There are 3 times as many rapes in jail than there are in "civil" society. Or at least that's the statistic I have been commonly told.

what exactly are you saying?
:confused

[syphos]

Originally posted by bnm
what exactly are you saying?
:confused

That men do get raped, quite often. It is prevalant in jails due to a number of problems with the criminal justice system and the incentives for protecting inmates.

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Jed, the funniest thing I see out of your beef with Matt's spelling of Womyn was the point that femminist movements are neccesarily playing the "zero-sum rights game", and that not recognizing the A or E in a spelling that recognizes societal norms of gender classification is somehow the equation of setting the Man back in THEIR rights.
Am I the only one who finds this laughable? I'm not simply backing up my friend and ex-partner here, but in exactly what way does a rhetorical habit to begin de-entangling a particular group of persons from the recognized forces that oppress them hurt the cause of Men everywhere. Flash: Not EVERY male on Earth is complicit to patriarchal oppression because they were born with male reproductive organs! The impirics state that the vast majority of patriarchal outlashings, [rape, FGM. etc.], are comitted by man upon womyn, that's the explicit oppression. However, in the course of fighting this force of patriarchy, any male should also be allowed to empower any movementthat they choose with thier sympathy and solidarity.
By taking a step to no longer inextricably tie a movement with it's antithetical counterpart that is, in fact, largely responsible for the injustice and suffering they are forced to endure, we can help the movement help themselves.
If you are not uniquely responsible for furthering partiarchal oppression, how does the ommission of A or E possibly take away rights from the empowered person; male female or otherwise? If you are uniquely responsible for furthering oppression, well I feel ethically sound in helping take some of that power away.
In any case, belittling and dismissing another person's personal politic based on the ommission of an A or E because "it rubs you the wrong way" should be fairly easily dismissed as well.
Much love and respect to you, Jed.




btw- for those keeping score, that last one wasn't an actualy quotation, just a rhetorical device.

also- I agree wholeheartedly that the facts of male-rape are vastly under-recognized, and that that sort of oppression is horrible as well; but in the patriarchy arguement I made the safe call.

[jatkins]

Yes, men do get raped in jail. By men. Who are expressing their frustrated masculine instinct to dominate. In civil society this generally happens to women. In jail, this generally happens to men who are considered to be woman-like for some reason, whether it is their size, their attitude, or some other characteristic. Men are raped as stand-ins for women.

[AhhAlegra]

You fellas do not need to back down on the rape thing. Even the prison thing proves the point that rape is largely about male power. The majority of rape victims are women. And a minority of rape victims are men. Does this prove it is a genderless crime? Hell no. And why? Because the proportion of rape perpetrators who are men is so great that "vast majority" doesn't begin to describe it. There is something about the way we socialize ourselves to let out our angers and pains that leads some men and almost no women to sexual violence.
(pre-empt: I'm not saying women never do bad things. They just aren't prone to this crime.)

and hear, hear, brendo, for your comments on the "zero-sum" nature of the alleged feminist agenda. hee hee, what a silly idea.

go liberal feminists! draft registration for girls and paternity leave for boys!

wait...actually, even better, no draft registration. but that's another thread...

[jatkins]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink
First of all, I don't think that rape is a gender crime. It's a crime against an individual stripped of gender. Rape can happen to a man or a woman and can be perpetrated by a man or a woman. When a man rapes a woman, he's not oppressing all women everywhere - although I'm sure you'll try to claim he is because all women are at risk. He's violating one woman - the woman he is raping. This goes for the rape of a man as well.
It is very, very, very rarely perpetrated by a woman against a man. The statistics bear this out. When men are raped, it is almost always by a man. This is because female hormones and brain chemistry don't generate the same tremendously competitive/controlling attitude that male hormones and brain chemistry do. This is pretty basic gender psychology, and there's very little dispute in the scientific community on it. Rape is always a sign of an unhealthy mind, but the male psychology is way more prone to this particular extreme. Thus, in a hypothetical society dominated entirely by men (who dominate because of their drive to do so), the culture will value, implicitly or explicitly, dominance over women. And the most complete demonstration of that dominance is rape. It can be inferred that the instance of rape could be used as an indicator of the degree to which men dominate society. Certainly Sweden, with its virtually nill rate of rape (or any violent crime, for that matter), and its 48% female national government, is an example. There are several counterexamples, though. I, personally, am uncertain whether rape is inherent in the patriarchy, but I do understand the theoretical framework for that assertion. I hope I've explained that to your satisfaction.

My problem with removing the A/E from women is this (and you have yet to address it): The word-segmant man/men does not have to belong to the male gender; nor should it belong to the female gender. It is a shared word root between the two of them. In the same way that you may claim that woman makes a female subservient to a man because it has the word man in it, I could say that man is subservient to woman because the whole word is taken from the larger parent word woman. But ultimately, I think neither of those is true.
YES I DID ADDRESS IT! Here's the quote again:
Daly argued that "man" must inherently imply the masculine conception, since it is used to indicate maleness. Also note that it is used to denote the species "mankind." We are also all "human" not "human and huwoman." The study of humanity is anthropology, not gynopology. Thus women are included entirely within the framework of masculine conception. The prefix "wo" is implied to create a subset of "man," or articulate an inherent identity relationship with "man."
Also, remember this one, from the same post:
"Man" implies "male individual." It is inherently masculine as a result, just as the prefix "anthro" and "andro" are. It has been this way since ancient days, and if you asked the Greeks or the Romans, they would tell you that since men shape the world, they are implied dominant. I doubt the germanic culture that gave us "man" and "woman" were much more enlightened.

So why should I care if someone chooses to change the spelling? Is there a negative connotation? Yes! When you change the spelling of woman to womyn, you assign ownership of "man" to the male gender, assuming that the word for woman must change to separate itself from the root man.
Empirically, "man" is inherently male, look it up. "Womyn" is used to give women an identity completely separate from maleness; to assert that they will no longer be defined by their relationship with men.

In other words, by abdicating "man" you assume that "man" belongs to the male gender and woman must stake out another linguistic root, myn. Thus, man and myn become rhetorical opponants - 'man comes to represent males while 'myn represents females.
WHY DO THEY BECOME RHETORICAL OPPONENTS? That certainly is not inherent in the use of the term "womyn." Even assuming that they did, what is the impact? Allowing women to have an identity entirely separate from men does not mean that they have to hate or oppose men.

Now, instead of sharing, a word which should be shared between genders equally,
Status quo, "man" is not shared between the genders equally. Prefix of "wo" implies women are a subset of maleness.

...now becomes a dividing line between them. That dividing line is where every bit of real oppression gets its leverage.
No, real oppression does not come from the understanding that men and women are different. Empirically, they are. Oppression comes from the exploitation of those differences by one gender to control or dominate the other. That dominance is implied in the word "wo-man." The implication is that a woman's identity is predicated upon the man, but a man's identity is not predicated upon the woman.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

quote:originally posted by jed
Now Matt and Co. I don't think you used this word maliciously. My guess is you think you're doing "womyn" a favor by helping them overthrow the shackles of oppression. I see it differently


okay...i tried to stay out of the actual "word" debate...but i now find i just can't help myself...

as a womAn..i think that the use of the spelling "womyn" actually harms more than it helps. i understand that you, matt, feel like you are supporting women by using this spelling, but don't you think that you could help more by channeling your energy into more worthwhile prjects than spelling cahnges?

i feel like this trivializes the whole "woman's movement" by focusing on minute issues.

women shouldn't be offended by the use of the word woman jsut because it has the "man" root in it. these are words. people can turn words into labels by using them as such. we (women) can vote, have abortions, have the same job as men, own property, and hold public office..i don't inderstand what else the women of the world could want....except maybe to abolish men from the planet and i fear this is exactly what many women's rights groups want.

i think we should respect men. i am 100% with jed on this issue.

[jatkins]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink
Rape isn't about sex. It's about power.
YES! THANK YOU! Rape isn't about sex. It's about power. Psychologically, men are more likely to go to this extreme in pursuit of power. THE VAST, VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF RAPES OF MEN ARE PERPETRATED BY MEN. Do as I suggested before and look it up on the DoJ website.

[syphos]

I am in a rush, and can't find new stats but from a nytimes editorial:

For too long, we have turned away from the rape crisis in these institutions, which now hold 1.3 million men and boys. In most of them, rape is an entrenched tradition, considered by prisoners a legitimate way to `prove their manhood' and to satisfy sexual needs and the brutal desire for power.

The exact number of sexually assaulted prisoners is unknown, but a conservative estimate, based on extrapolations of two decades of surveys, is that more than 290,000 males are sexually assaulted behind bars every year. By comparison, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that there are 135,000 rapes of women a year nationwide, though many groups believe the number is higher.

http://www.menweb.org/throop/abuse/usa-prison.html

Men are more often the victim of rape...not that I am trying to delegitimize the act against women, this is just what I have often been told.

[jatkins]

Originally posted by bnm
i feel like this trivializes the whole "woman's movement" by focusing on minute issues.
FINALLY! This is absolutely correct, and it is also why, while I understand why people use it, I do not do so myself. IT'S JUST NOT IMPORTANT! Substantive rights and real gains toward equality cannot be made while we're focusing on minor spelling changes to a frickin' pronoun that nobody outside debate circles and feminism even thinks about!

[AhhAlegra]

i don't inderstand what else the women of the world could want.

Except for parts of the world where women can't do any of those things you made a list of. And for good measure, have various horrible violent crimes perpetrated on them by their own families, leaders, or governments. They might not want that.
You might want your own religion to acknowledge that you exist and that your spiritual gifts and callings are not second-class. You might want that.
Or if you lived in a country where things were actually not too bad, and on paper women had equal access to the political process, except in 225 years nary a one had occupied the top political post in the country, or the two or three next most powerful positions, and were still in pretty small proportions in the more elite legislative body. You might not want a new legal right, but you might want some progress in that area. This is just a hypothetical country of course.

;)Dre

P.S. I forgot to tell you- I am an evil lesbian who is going to have a horde of girl children through cloning! Bwa ha ha!
(Just kidding, I know you didn't mean that (I hope.) Just had to slide it in there.)

[jatkins]

Originally posted by syphonhail
In most of them, rape is an entrenched tradition, considered by prisoners a legitimate way to `prove their manhood' and to satisfy sexual needs and the brutal desire for power.
To paraphrase:

RAPE IS AN ENTRENCHED TRADITION BY WHICH ONE ASSERTS MANHOOD THROUGH THE DOMINATION OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS TO SATISFY ONE'S SEXUAL NEEDS AND DESIRE FOR POWER.

Does this need to be any clearer?

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Originally posted by AhhAlegra
Except for parts of the world where women can't do any of those things you made a list of. And for good measure, have various horrible violent crimes perpetrated on them by their own families, leaders, or governments. They might not want that.
You might want your own religion to acknowledge that you exist and that your spiritual gifts and callings are not second-class. You might want that.
Or if you lived in a country where things were actually not too bad, and on paper women had equal access to the political process, except in 225 years nary a one had occupied the top political post in the country, or the two or three next most powerful positions, and were still in pretty small proportions in the more elite legislative body. You might not want a new legal right, but you might want some progress in that area. This is just a hypothetical country of course.

;)Dre

P.S. I forgot to tell you- I am an evil lesbian who is going to have a horde of girl children through cloning! Bwa ha ha!
(Just kidding, I know you didn't mean that (I hope.) Just had to slide it in there.)


sorry...i should have limited my post to U.S. women,because that's who i meant. but don't you think yhose women in those countries would want pro-women movement men to work on something a little bit more important than the speeling of their gendr label, like, say maybe, stopping the stoning of mothers of illegitimate children? taht is the point i was trying to make.
but the majority of the women's rights groups are in the u.s. i am very pleased with the progress they have made. i just don't want people to think that we (women) will never be satisfied. i would like for women (u.s.) to be happy with what they have and not come down on men so hard.

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by bnm

okay...i tried to stay out of the actual "word" debate...but i now find i just can't help myself...

as a womAn..i think that the use of the spelling "womyn" actually harms more than it helps. i understand that you, matt, feel like you are supporting women by using this spelling, but don't you think that you could help more by channeling your energy into more worthwhile prjects than spelling cahnges?


Ok. Heres the thing. Its not about me helping womyn with my spelling. You guys are really silly. Its about supporting a movement with the way i speak and talk. You very well might not be a member of that movement BNM- in fact, judgeing from your blatant heterocentrism, i bet you aren't part of it. Ok, the second part is just about the... ok, please tell me, with the energy that i use to spell the word differently than how you do, what could i do? I mean, i do do other things for my belieifs, but im just curious how i could better use the MASSIVE amount of energy required to spell if differently.
Originally posted by bnm

i feel like this trivializes the whole "woman's movement" by focusing on minute issues.


Huh? what movement are you talking about? Cause if we're gonna talk feminism, fine, but which movement? Queer movements? womyns movements? Post colonial Feminist Movements? and wheres the warrant for this? Like, is this really a focus, or is it merely proclaiming a political affiliation?
Originally posted by bnm

women shouldn't be offended by the use of the word woman jsut because it has the "man" root in it. these are words. people can turn words into labels by using them as such. we (women) can vote, have abortions, have the same job as men, own property, and hold public office..i don't inderstand what else the women of the world could want....except maybe to abolish men from the planet and i fear this is exactly what many women's rights groups want.


ok, this is also silly. None of us want to abolish men. I know some things womyn could want. heres some stuff: Equal pay, equal employment, a treaty that recognizes rape as a war crime, any international recognition of forced pregnancy, etc, reproductive right etc. Despite what you may think, BNM, not all womyn live in the united states, and there are a whole lot who deserve more than they have now (even though the womyn in the US by no means hav everything.) Womyn are forced into pregnancy camps in wars, and lots of bad stuff happens to them.

Also, i think its the movements perogative to decide whether we want to use the word- I'm very very happy that you think we don't need to, but no-one has answered shit of what Jatkins has to say about a lingual justification, or what i have to say about the symbolization of movement.
Originally posted by bnm

i think we should respect men. i am 100% with jed on this issue.

Yeah! cause respect means subservience! yeah!

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by bnm
sorry...i should have limited my post to U.S. women,because that's who i meant. but don't you think yhose women in those countries would want pro-women movement men to work on something a little bit more important than the speeling of their gendr label, like, say maybe, stopping the stoning of mothers of illegitimate children? taht is the point i was trying to make.
but the majority of the women's rights groups are in the u.s. i am very pleased with the progress they have made. i just don't want people to think that we (women) will never be satisfied. i would like for women (u.s.) to be happy with what they have and not come down on men so hard.

Jed, if this is what you think womyn should say, im really depressed.

BNM- Perm, i can spell shit the way i want AND i can help in stopping global oppression.

Come down on men so hard????? oh boo hoo! men don't have enough power and privelidge! Womyn shouldn't be so damn mean to them. I mean, come on, bitching about rights and shit is just downright... Bitchy! yes indeed, 75% of what a man makes is good enough for me!

[AhhAlegra]

but don't you think yhose women in those countries would want pro-women movement men to work on something a little bit more important than the speeling of their gendr label, like, say maybe, stopping the stoning of mothers of illegitimate children?

Yes. I do think they'd want that. Although if they (regional movements) also wanted to subvert language, that's cool too. They know what they need.

Brandi didn't say feminists were bitches, yo. Y'all are just spoiling for more of a fight, huh? :hammer

[Intellectual Fugitive]

matt, you keep talking about how silly this is and how silly that is.. maybe it's your own argument that's "silly".

helping the woman's movement with the way you talk? come on...if anything is "silly", it's this statement. okay...i'm going to go out and talk ebonics to support the NAACP.

i am not trying to oppress women with my "blatant heterocentrism". i just believe that changing the spelling of a GENDER LABEL is going to have some GREAT impact on women's rihgts.

here's another thing that's silly: eqquating respect with subservience.

the only thing your "alternative use of spelling" does is create another trivial issue to take on.

[nomad]

I have a couple of thoughts to share.

First, groups and social movements have both avowed identities and ascribed ones. In the case of the womyn's movement the avowal includes changing the spelling of their label. Given the belief that language matters and that labels matter this is not such an unusual event. Race labels provide a good example. Black people have held a variety of labels - some derogatory and some positive. People have called blacks niggers, negros, coloreds, and African Americans. It is pretty easy to eliminate some labels from consideration. After all, we all pretty much agree that calling feminists 'bitches' is wrong. Likewise, we think calling black people niggers is wrong. So the closest comparison I see is the label colored or negro. There is a risk that you will offend a black person using this language especially if the prefered term and spelling are black or African American. I think the case for womyn is similar. Nothing about the avowal of a change in spelling is harmful. The same arguments for the labels black and African American were forwarded thirty years ago as what we are seeing on this thread. Why change language - fight for real civil rights. But groups coalesce around names and I think the changes in the labeling from coloreds and negros to blacks and African Americans was meaningful. If womyn feel that the new label shows members that they are not a derivative of male or man then more power to them.

Second thought, refusing a group right to a preferred label should only be done in extreme situations. We do not say to republicans that they do not believe in a republic so they should be called fascist fuckheads. We let them have their preferred label and try to argue the issues. Letting a group have their avowed identity is about showing decency and civility. Telling a group that they cannot name themselves is pretty violent and should be reserved for extreme cases. Ascribing a stigmatized label to a group over thats groups vocal objections is disrespectful of that groups very right to exist and the examples of groups whose right to self-identify should be so restricted is very small.

Last, language is not static and the intersections between language, thought, and the material world are very real. How we think and how we speak matter. Words and advocacy can be used to build strong and vibrant communities or to demonize and demean. If we ask a woman her preferred label and she self-identifies as womyn then I believe we should support her decision.


If language is irrelevent and other issues matter more then why have this thread - just spell it womyn and get on to what you think are serious issues. Obviously it matters a great deal. Arguments that womyn cannot self-identify and must stay with old stigmatized labels are arguments that people have no right to avowal and must accept whatever is ascribed to them. It would be most unfortunate for all types of movements if that ends up becoming the norm.

Feminism is incredibly important and worthwhile. Suggesting it is in any way limited to the world of debate ignores the reality of the transformations that have occurred and are occurring due to many bright and bold womyn and men.

Peace,
nomad

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by bnm
matt, you keep talking about how silly this is and how silly that is.. maybe it's your own argument that's "silly".

Gasp! maybe it is, but i don't know why! Thats cause you don't have a warrant!
Originally posted by bnm
helping the woman's movement with the way you talk? come on...if anything is "silly", it's this statement. okay...i'm going to go out and talk ebonics to support the NAACP.
[/B]

WOW! what a terrible racial sterotype! And its not the same thing. Why are you so damned mad that i spell the word differently? It doesn't make sense that this much rage can come from spelling. I think it reveals your deeper ingrained patriarchy! Moreover, its a symbolization with a movement.

Originally posted by bnm i am not trying to oppress women with my "blatant heterocentrism". i just believe that changing the spelling of a GENDER LABEL is going to have some GREAT impact on women's rihgts.[/B]

Ok, do you know what heterocentrism means? Its about not liking gays.
Maybe it will, maybe it wont, but it doesn't do anything bad- And at least its drawn attention to an issue.
Originally posted by bnm
here's another thing that's silly: eqquating respect with subservience. [/B]

I just note that you don't say men should respect womyn.
Originally posted by bnm
the only thing your "alternative use of spelling" does is create another trivial issue to take on. [/B]

And yet you can't manage to take it on, or make a coherent argument against it. Read the above posts, and pretty much everything is answered there.

[PancreasMatt]

Originally posted by nomad
We do not say to republicans that they do not believe in a republic so they should be called fascist fuckheads.

This is going in my "book o' cool shit"

[scooter]

"Ok, do you know what heterocentrism means? Its about not liking gays."

Not exactly.

Heterocentrism is not disliking Gay folk. It's about the notion of "centeredness" (yes, I just made up that word) that is presumed to be synomimous with Heterosexuals, the idea that Heterosexuality (and all of its manifestations thereof) is the norm, the measuring stick by which all others should be judged, thus a normative standard through which GLBT folk appear to be in direct contrast, and are therefore presumed to be "othered" (yep, number two) by just being so different, so GLBT, so... unhetero (third times a charmer).

All right, please carry on.


S

[PancreasMatt]

i Cede my incorrectness to scooter, who has read more books than me (I would never ever admit that about anyone else when it comes to gender, but hey, scooters scooter.)
Plus, i was being flippant!

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Originally posted by NotAnOrganMatt
Gasp! maybe it is, but i don't know why! Thats cause you don't have a warrant!


WOW! what a terrible racial sterotype! And its not the same thing. Why are you so damned mad that i spell the word differently? It doesn't make sense that this much rage can come from spelling. I think it reveals your deeper ingrained patriarchy! Moreover, its a symbolization with a movement.


Ok, do you know what heterocentrism means? Its about not liking gays.
Maybe it will, maybe it wont, but it doesn't do anything bad- And at least its drawn attention to an issue.


I just note that you don't say men should respect womyn.

1. it is the same thing whether you want to see it or not. you are saying because you speak the same "language" as women, you are advancing their cause. i am saying that if i go to other rallies and speak like them am i helpng their cause or drawing attnetion away from the main issue?


2. i never said anything about liking or not liking gays...where the hell did that come from???


And yet you can't manage to take it on, or make a coherent argument against it. Read the above posts, and pretty much everything is answered there. :confused

[nomad]

scooters' post reminded me of yet another group whose avowed identity and acribed identity are sometimes in conflict. Supporting GLBT preferred labels is again about respect. Saying they must be called by other labels that they do not prefer is equally wrong.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

i'm sorry about that last post...i still can't figure out the quote system..please bear with me.

[PancreasMatt]

um... i dont know what it says. It looks like me talking, and then saying a bunch of inane things every now and then.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Originally posted by NotAnOrganMatt
um... i dont know what it says. It looks like me talking, and then saying a bunch of inane things every now and then.

inane huh? so now that i called you out on the excessive use of the word silly, you're going to use adjectives...cute.

what i said was: i never said anything about liking or not liking gays..why did you throw that in there. i don't know about NPDA, but where i'm from, we call taht a red herring.:P

[scooter]

"P.S. I forgot to tell you- I am an evil lesbian who is going to have a horde of girl children through cloning! Bwa ha ha!"

Damn it to hell Dre! There you go, letting up on the secrets of the movement! Sheesh, next thing you know you'll be telling everyone about the latest edition of (drum roll as the earth quakes) "The Homosexual Agenda." Haven't we told you about keeping these things secret? Did you forget everything that the family talked about back in that lavender cabin in Iowa?!

Some people...

S
PS: Actually, I had heard that the "wo" in woma/yn was actually in reference to "womb of man," as in the biblical reference that Adam's rib was a womb, from which new life emerged. Definite queering of the lingua, for those familiar with the verb, and a rather interesting idea. Of course, the Judea Christo centrism of such a tradition bugs me, but...

For those interested in the perception of the genders and bodies, consider Hawkes writing on Sex and Sociology, complete with a chapter on the Adam and Eve mythos, as well as some pretty funky Middle Ages' explanations on the origin of the vagina.

[scooter]

From BNM: "what i said was: i never said anything about liking or not liking gays..why did you throw that in there. i don't know about NPDA, but where i'm from, we call taht a red herring."


[Both of us added responses to this, so, please feel free to clarify Matt, but] I think that the notion, BNM, was your use of the term "heterocentrism" in one of your earlier posts. That phrase has been linked with a potential dislike of GLBT folk, hence the response. That is, heterocentrism is often linked with heteronormalty (I would argue outside of debate that they are used synomimously) which often does indeed entail at least some aspect of homophobia, about as close to dislike GLBT folk as one can get. That is the term that I saw used in your post and that I was responding to. I would argue it probably was the onus for Matt's comment as well.

S

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Okay, short tirade:

What has begun to piss me off in this thread is not the clash of views on a pretty cool and oft overlooked rhetorical habit in the graeter scope of anti-patriarchal movements- that's actually pretty cool.

What pisses me off is that there are persons who actually want to claim that it should make no difference, or worse even hurt a cause to believe in the merit of A/E omission because it is a "trivial" detail.

1. WHAT DOES IT F#*!ING HURT? Matt said the exact thing that I was thinking when he posed the question: What other valid and effective use should I put the exorbinate amount of energy I'm apparently expelling in this massive alteration to public discourse that would somehow better and more legitimately show my support of this group? What is the gigantic waste of time that I am causing by altering MY verbiage? How am I counter-productive? If you think you have an answer for this that will possible be satisfactory, you're probably wrong. [And if anyone says this thread is a waste of time, check the original point]

2. It is this sort of thinking that small things don't matter that has fucked up the world to the point it's in right now. The majority of people aren't the ones who commit rape, set wages below equitable levels or maintain involuntary genital mutilations. The reason that the physical and structural violence of patriarchy in the modern world even still exists to the level it does today is that of apathy. Most people, [certainly in our society and culture anyway], think rape sucks and would never want it to happen to them. But these people will not devote thier time to victims outreach programs. They'll not give thier money to building battered womyns' shelters. They won't even turn out at the polls to vote for better rape-shield laws or to appropriate the taxes they already pay to fight the problems that ravage our society. They just sit at home watching Law and Order: SVU and say "There but for the grace of God..."

Our society has maintained for too long that the personal is not political. We have all actually begun to believe that the way we live our lives and interact on an inter-personal level is not the radical and direct outgrowth of our Political Selves, which in fact is EXACTLY what it is. Giving a coin to the March of Dimes is not an impressively huge feat, but the rammifications of that act are very real. The direct outgrowth of the Personal Politic is only fully realized on the individual level.

To claim that "focusing on the details" is bad is assinine. I don't focus on my spelling of "womyn", [outside of this forum, of course]. I just do it. It is consistant with my personal politic and it has the very real effect of showing suppost and solidarity with a group that fights a very real oppressive power structure that exists as powerfully as it does today because all my life, I and persons like me were taught not to make a big deal out of things. I am not directly involved in oppressing womyn so it doesn't matter that it happens, and that is bullshit.

No, I'm not saying that unless you actively fight the bad you are the bad. But if you turned a blind eye to the nazis in Hamburg in 1938, a whole lot of people were going to die anyway. Whether you gassed them or not.

When given opportunity to act on any level at all, as I always am by virtue of my political self, I'd like to think that I won't waste it.

[Tom H]

I almost wish I'd never asked - but I'm glad to know now, thanks for telling me, all of you.

On this, I'd recommend "Man Made Language" by Dale Spender, which I found very persuasive when I read it a while back, but which doesn't (so far as I can remember) tell you the singular/plural forms of "womym". And although this discussion has passed me by, it does strike me that those who object strongly to the use of "womyn" on the grounds that it's anti-male implicitly concede the point its users want to make about the sexism inherent in language.

I don't use "womyn", largely because I think it looks a bit silly (I do employ feminine pronouns as generics). Also, whichever way you spell it, it's the same old word, it sounds the same, and it piggy-backs on "man" as much as the word "woman" does.

Tom

[Pattybar]

Hey all,

I'm really not into changing the spelling of the term, simply because it seems to be downright insulting to men, and I reject the idea that feminism is about all of that....

I also think that it is a transformation of the language for purely political reasons and as such it does nothing more to describe its object -- so, while I don't want to be as militant about the non-mutation of English as the French are about French... I still don't think it is a good idea.

But, if having "man" in "woman" is so disturbing -- what are the alternatives??

"Female" -- nope... even more testosterone -- ("male" has 4 letters, "man" only 3)

"girl", "Chica" "ho, slut, skank" --- ummmmmmmmm no, for real derogatory reasons....

"bitch" --- hmmmmmmmmm there's a term I can live with.... has implications of strength and assertiveness, no troubling male roots, yea, I think that's it...

A bitch for life,
Patty

[syphos]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying rape is not a gendered crime. I was just pointed out that it is more prevalent in jail and it is an issue we tend to ignore when reporting rape statistics. Such as saying 90% of rape victims are women heavily ignores what conditions we keep our prisoners in.

To quote the imperialist pig-dog Winston Churchill, "the mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country."

Or more directly, Dostoyevsky's quotation: "the standards of a nation's civilisation can be judged by opening the doors of its prisons".

[AlohaNAU]

Hats off to BNM to pointing out the problem of male rape. In and outside of the criminal justice system, this portion of the problem has been largely and shamefully left out of the anti-rape movement. Especially because of homophobic overtones, many men are unwilling to report or admit the crime, but hopefully the recent scandal with the Catholic Church, tragic as it is, will help to remove some of those barriers.

Jed, I'm unclear as to how "women" and "men" both containing the word "men" makes them share the term equally. It seems that "men" being the word in its entirety makes women seem like a subset. Would you elablorate?

Appreciating the discourse...

[nomad]

I just don't get how the label 'womyn' is insulting to men. That makes no sense. If you find the label men insulting without the 'root' then you can certainly call a man a nam. Trying to force the label women on womyn by ascribing that identity to womyn is a callous disregard for their right to choose their label of preference.

Further, and more importantly, if Patty wants to be called a bitch I am cool with recovering that term from its negative conotation. Bitch can be a powerful label for challenging dominant linguistic assumptions when it is reclaimed. I saw the movie Dolores Claiborne and I remember hearing the important line that "sometimes being a bitch is all a womyn has." I respect Patty's right to choose her avowed label of choice. The movie is a powerful statement about the position of womyn in the world and the strength of the protagonist is inspiring. In light of that movie I can't help but think of the implications for how we use the label bitch. That so many womyn have been called bitches for being independent and confident is powerful testimony to how significant labels are. Yet even the most demeaning of labels has the transformative potential to become a linguistic badge of courage. To all womyn who have been called bitches I believe you have been marked for your courage and will to succeed. I agree with Patty that that label can be worn with pride. It has taken millions of bitches to get womyn the right to vote, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to have children and careers. It will taken more bitches to get equal pay and shatter the glass ceilings that persist today. It will take more bitches (womyn) to raise the conditions of womyn worldwide. It will take more bitches to raise the next generation of womyn to have pride in themselves, their work, and their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the world.

We can and should change language. It is not insurmoutable and it is not about demeaning men. It is about a groups right to decide who they are and what they should be called. If a group of womyn want to use that label it is not about insulting men. It is about finding pride and worth in who they are and challenging a language that codes women as derivative of men. If we end up with nem and womyn that is far preferable to imposing our definitions and categories violently upon a group who asks us to think differently.

[AlohaNAU]

Question for any linguistics experts out there...

Does the root of "man/woman" have anything to do with a Christian biblical ethic? As in the creation story of Eve being made from a rib from Adam, thereby making her a subsidiary of him?

[syphos]

Originally posted by nomad
If we end up with nem and womyn that is far preferable to imposing our definitions and categories violently upon a group who asks us to think differently.

:evil We are going with the traditional role here of an advocacy the is representative of some theological manifestation of "evil." However, with such evil argumentation, there are tokens of legitimacy and potential Truth (notice the capital "t," ) to be had.

Reclaimation and self-identification are all good, happy, and, potentially, intellectually orgasmic on the individual level. However, when in reference to a group of individuals, how do we know when a word for the "other" is empowering as opposed to divisive and unwanted. I am sure most "women" are not upset over the words "woman" and "women," and would probably blink their eyes a couple times when they read "womyn." You will not be able to reach a consesus on it, so who do we listen to? For as many feminists there are out there, there are bound to be as many, if not more traditionalists who are "happy" with their roles. It can even come down to a conflict between the "middle class white woman" version of feminism versus every other kind (black feminism, 3rd world feminism). Finally, there will be those who see such language spellings as a roadblock to having a place at the table of the system.

(Okay, so there wasn't much discussion happening on NB, and frankly, that saddens me when I come to work and realize that I can't get paid to post on NB.)

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

"When is the other empowering as opposed to devisive and unwanted?"

1. Genetics otherized these people already enough so that oppression has been levied.

2. You said it yourself, the right to self identify is pretty damn important. It becomes even more important when you realize that Partiarchy not only oppresses womyn all over the world, but even has linguistically subsumed them. "Women" everywhere are currently inexplicabley tied to thier oppressors by virtue of the old ways. There currently is no alternative mode of identity, and while womyn do not need me to recognize their use of any tool for use in self identification to validate thier decision, the fact that I choose to is how I am able to use my Personal Politic to show sympathy and solidarity with the cause of beating back partiarchy.

3. How would you claim that the spelling of womyn uniquely hurts these people? In what way do I exacerbate the oppression that already exists? Quick answer, I DON'T. The only point you make on this is that I somehow divide the feminists, but I'll address this a little later.

"...there are bound to be as many, if not more traditionalists who are 'happy' with thier roles."

1. I find your use of quotation marks funny on the word "happy". It sounds like you don't even buy that they can be happy in thier roles, which is wierd because I do. However, the fact that some womyn, [and trust me, it's not the global majority, but MAYBE a slim cultural majority here], are alright witht thier status is not neccessarily proof that oppression does not exist, but more proof that patriarchy is the norm. So much so that these people don't even realize that there is an alternative. You said that most womyn would blink thier eyes at the spelling- YES!!! Because they've been denied any alternate mode of self identification that doesn't intrinsically tie them to the status quo of inequity!

2. For every womyn who claims to be happy in thier current situation, I would never challenge that these people can in fact be happy or that their happiness is any less valid than anyone else's; but I also pose the question of whether these womyn would be even happier if they lived in a truly free and equal life where patriarchy doesn't legitimately keep them down. In the 1950s in America, middle class white womyn were often very happy with thier roles as being "provided for" by males and living in basic subserviance to husbands and children. Yet in those times, there were untold cases of domestic violence that ravages the nation- the extent of which we are just now learning about. Today, the liberated workin womyn can finally have a career in field that were previously open only to men- just don't expect to be paid equally or anything. Watch you head on that glass ceiling, and be a dear and get me some coffee.

"...you will not be able to reach a concensus, so who do we listen to?" "It can even come down to a conflict between the 'middle class white woman' version of feminism and every other kind [black feminism, 3rd world feminism]."

1. Good question, who do we listen to? Ummm... how about everybody?

2. This was the point I think that was alluded to earlier; that somehow essentialism is needed and dividing them is a conflict that is a "...roadblock to having a place at the table of the system." The fact of the matter is, yes, there are many different feminist groups. Yes, they all have unique intersections of oppresseion, and yes we must recognize their unique needs rather than just throw them all together under the same banner just because it's easier. To do so is to invite the conflict and infighting that comes from several groups with unique goals nd perspectives being forced to compromise themselves at every turn. The net result is then a problem of counterproductivity to each groups original goals.

I think that matt's the one to ask on intersectionality, since I don't know the core texts well enough, but I still think I'm fairly right on.

[nomad]

[PancreasMatt]

hey brendo, i don't know if your PM is working, i've been trying to reach you.

[AhhAlegra]

Does the root of "man/woman" have anything to do with a Christian biblical ethic? As in the creation story of Eve being made from a rib from Adam, thereby making her a subsidiary of him?

AlohaNAU- No, it has nothing to do with that, especially since Genesis is written in Hebrew (and isn't uniquely Christian.) If you read my post on page 1 of this thread I provide the Old English roots for both words- 'waepman' evolved to 'man' and 'wifman' evolved to 'woman'. It is the equivalent of "heperson" and "sheperson." And 'Cristaemasse' evolved to 'Christmas', and 'chalkboard' evolved from 'cealc' and 'bord,' and.....you get it. Even m-w.com can tell you most of this.

[nomad]

couldn't resist couldja Jason? It is serious for many of us. Nuff said.

[AhhAlegra]

Laugh in our general direction? That means nothing when we have already FARTED in yours! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!

Now go away, before I taunt you a second time...

[syphos]

Originally posted by BrendoForHisOwnSake
"When is the other empowering as opposed to devisive and unwanted?"

1. Genetics otherized these people already enough so that oppression has been levied.


1. This argument does not make sense in the context of the original question. I ask what to do when you are given a word of empowerment that is not universally accepted. There are "women" who reject the term, yet when discussing the particular social construction that are "women" you use it to apply in an essentialist manner, and the people you prop up are the minority.

2. This is not responsive to the question. Genetics did not "otherize" "women," people did. I think you are missing a word in here to make this a grammatically correct sentence, otherwise you are stating that genes are also oppressors and it is just rather confusing.

2. You said it yourself, the right to self identify is pretty damn important. It becomes even more important when you realize that Partiarchy not only oppresses womyn all over the world, but even has linguistically subsumed them. "Women" everywhere are currently inexplicabley tied to thier oppressors by virtue of the old ways. There currently is no alternative mode of identity, and while womyn do not need me to recognize their use of any tool for use in self identification to validate thier decision, the fact that I choose to is how I am able to use my Personal Politic to show sympathy and solidarity with the cause of beating back partiarchy.

1. Right, and you are not allowing self-identification by labeling at all. Tell me, why is your act of labeling all "women" as "womyn" less partriarchical in the status quo when "women" did not ask for that. Self-identification is the process of people speaking out and saying this my term for my self. Not males saying "ah, I read this really cool law review, so you all ought to use this term now."

2. Ah, it's great that you are being paternalistic in this argument as well. "They can't see past their own oppression so it is my job to liberate them through my discourse and relabeling."

3. Yes, there are multiple ways of re-labeling. One is not to label, and step out such silly binary patterns. You are reinforcing dualism by subscribing to it.

4. Okay, so you claim that you are beating back patriarchy with your re-spelling. However, this does ignore the majority of people who don't use the term. You are showing sympathy with a faction who claims their self-identification is the "right" way to go. One form of intellectual hierarchy is traded for another when you subsume this label for all "women."

3. How would you claim that the spelling of womyn uniquely hurts these people? In what way do I exacerbate the oppression that already exists? Quick answer, I DON'T. The only point you make on this is that I somehow divide the feminists, but I'll address this a little later.

1. So you can claim that you empower and deconstruct linguistic patriarchy, but there is no risk of reversal. There are several problems that you can create that would be detrimental to women's movements.

a. is the mask. Woo, we deconstructed patriarchy, now I don't need to worry about real oppression because it was the language that was the problem. It is a hollow victory that really doesn't change anything. I am not patriarchical because I write "women" in my paper, I am by my actions. Language may create reality, but saying "womyn" doesn't create equality.

b. is the division. There are multiple factions and people will fight you over simple change as we never get to discuss the real issues of oppression. I think Ward Churchill has the upper hand in this debate when he says (paraphrased) "Fuck it, call us Indians. This allows to do two things. First, not have debates over things that do not matter, and two, allows us to recognize the oppression that does exist. The physical oppression has translated into language and it is evidenced by our name." You risk masking oppression by being cute and changing the language and making it look like our society is taking a step in the right direction. There are real battles to be fought in our civilization before we can really accept that "womyn" is proper term that our language deserves to have. We need to earn it, not have it bestowed with the hopes of a better tomorrow, when the present is as bleak as it is.

c. Essentialism is bad. If a "women's" group call's itself the "Womyn's solidarity group" then use the term, but until a majority portion of self-identified "women" identify as "womyn" allow them to use the label. I don't think I need to explains this to a person who claims that self-identification is a good thing, or do you allow people to selectively self identify as it falls into the happy liberal pc feeling?

2. Division over self-identification is emperically true. Look at any movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement over the words such as Bitch, and Cunt, the AIM movement over words like Indigenous, Indian, American Indian, etc. Look at people struggle over terms like socialist or communist parties. People can be rather trivial, that's why blanket assertions are not productive.

1. I find your use of quotation marks funny on the word "happy". It sounds like you don't even buy that they can be happy in thier roles, which is wierd because I do. However, the fact that some womyn, [and trust me, it's not the global majority, but MAYBE a slim cultural majority here], are alright witht thier status is not neccessarily proof that oppression does not exist, but more proof that patriarchy is the norm. So much so that these people don't even realize that there is an alternative. You said that most womyn would blink thier eyes at the spelling- YES!!! Because they've been denied any alternate mode of self identification that doesn't intrinsically tie them to the status quo of inequity!

1. I don't make claims to really knowing what happiness is, or whether or not they experience, but there are claims that they exist. I also think that there are traditionalist who are more content with their lives than those who struggle, demanding the collapse of our society and die unfulfilled, but my judgements of their happiness are subjective, irrelevent, and a straw(persyn) for the debate.

2. Actually, I think you are still experiencing a bias of male from a Western society. Very few "women" on a global scale subscribe to the idea of "womyn" or "womun" as the perferred nomenclature. Not only that, not that many speak English. There is a good deal written on how middle class white feminism has been tried to applied to orientalized countries, but most women aren't simply seeking "control over their reproductive rights" and the right to join the capitalist ranks as a CEO. The movement in America is and has been a very Eurocentric movement that is not broad in scope. Black Feminism and a few other movements have widen it to include the intersections of oppression, but the challenge of using the word "womyn" does not arise from either of those movements. It's not a substantial thing worth fighting for these movements. Again, intellectual masturbation is fun, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

3. Yes, it does tie them to the status quo of inequity. Dude, you don't create substantial change. You merely sympathize with a feminist faction. Good for you, you are progressive. I am sure your professors are very happy for you.

4. Forcing a label upon all "women" is not giving them an alternative. You are saying "this is liberation, equality, and if you were free from patriarchy you would know it." Cultural imperialism is an ugly beast, but lefties are the most prone to it.

2. For every womyn who claims to be happy in thier current situation, I would never challenge that these people can in fact be happy or that their happiness is any less valid than anyone else's; but I also pose the question of whether these womyn would be even happier if they lived in a truly free and equal life where patriarchy doesn't legitimately keep them down. In the 1950s in America, middle class white womyn were often very happy with thier roles as being "provided for" by males and living in basic subserviance to husbands and children. Yet in those times, there were untold cases of domestic violence that ravages the nation- the extent of which we are just now learning about. Today, the liberated workin womyn can finally have a career in field that were previously open only to men- just don't expect to be paid equally or anything. Watch you head on that glass ceiling, and be a dear and get me some coffee.

1. Nice parlor game, but doesn't advance the question any further. Your use of the word womyn doesn't achieve this and the word "women" doesn't keep "them" down. It is simply a linguistic devise that is a result of real oppression and your attempt to change the superficial is more harmful in that direction than not. I am sure the dominant powers to be would be happy with the Orwellian change of thought, in fact, it would probably go along way to increase private enterprise as the government would have to order a whole new set of military training manuals.

2. Dude, you don't solve domestic violence. It's nice you claim all these impacts to ending patriarchy, but you don't achieve either.

3. The liberated worker...another nice term that would make Orwell giggle with glee as he look upon your rhetoric. Though ironic, it is just another reason why we should maintain the rhetoric of that the oppressor has given to us as a means to recognize the invisible that will exist post-name change. Window dressing is nice eye candy that may make the current situation easier to take in, but it doesn't change oppression. Eh, some of us liked to be numbed into passivity.

2. This was the point I think that was alluded to earlier; that somehow essentialism is needed and dividing them is a conflict that is a "...roadblock to having a place at the table of the system." The fact of the matter is, yes, there are many different feminist groups. Yes, they all have unique intersections of oppresseion, and yes we must recognize their unique needs rather than just throw them all together under the same banner just because it's easier. To do so is to invite the conflict and infighting that comes from several groups with unique goals nd perspectives being forced to compromise themselves at every turn. The net result is then a problem of counterproductivity to each groups original goals.

1. You don't answer my claim with this lengthy oratory. You just describe the problem. Essentializing the experiencing is problematic and causes problems. Forced compromise over the trivial will create bitterness and perhaps dysfunction on "real" fights. I take it you haven't worked with coalitions much? There are many great groups out there under anti-capitalist banners, even more so than anti-patriarchial banners, but once they start trying to get individual agendas past, it will create conflict and you no longer have a functioning whole. Keep the real goals in mind and don't let this happen.

2. Think about your approach to the situation. It is easier to convince people that a war in Iraq is bad when you approach them in punk-rock attire, a mohawk, and start spewing out the evils of Imperialist America and purporting to ideology...or coming to them as "one of them" dressed well, and discussing hte actual issues that relates to them. Again, standard problem with leftism. Your ideology promotes "womyn" but any one you are writing can potentially take it as an attack upon their "Values."

Your answer "yeah, well their values suck and are patriarchical. I should assault them."

Perhaps, but you are not going to go far in changing their minds. It will be rather conducive to a reactionary individual though. Using the term "women" may seem like such a vital compromise, but I think it can be something that is temporarily sacrificed as we move on to better issues and reach an agreement their first. Trust me, it wasn't the word "woman" that started oppression. If we can take steps to stop "actual" oppression, then our language will change to fit our society. It always has, as language is a social construction that is agreed upon by the populace that uses it.

So, you get a choice. Intellectual attack and name calling when we see the term used "incorrectly" or maybe working towards true equality. You answer is a permutation, but again, it will be easier to get the substantial first and the linguistic later.

I think that matt's the one to ask on intersectionality, since I don't know the core texts well enough, but I still think I'm fairly right on.

Matt's analysis on intersectionality won't back you up. He can do some creative revisionism, but it probably won't be true to the literature.

[PancreasMatt]

Wow, the first intelligent arguments yet syphonhail.

Hopefuly i can respond soon, but its freaking huge.

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Thank you for some actual argumentation!!! Response in kind...

quotation # 1. reposnses 1 and 2-
I would first like to know how the use of womyn uniquely oppresses these people anymore than the status quo does, because if you really want me to, I'll cop to committing the same oppression that "women" begs" by being a male and choosing a word to label them at all, in which case I'm just a quirky oppressor. But beyond that, the fact is that I don't demand that all "women" become "womyn", as I stated later in my post that nobody needs my recognition to validate thier choice of self identitification. I simply make the conscious decision to recognize all who prefer it for the purpose of solidarity and support.

I think you misunderstood my point on genetics, but that's cool because I got lazy with the typing: The patriarchal power structure exists already by recognizing the other. In one of the most immediate and obvious senses, that is the other of the biological sex. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but if you want to say male dominance over women as a basis for violence doesn't exist, be my guest.

quotation #2. response 1-
read my original posts on this topic, I support the right for anyone to self identify as a womyn. That means I will defend the terms legitimacy in the face of perons who will call it "silly", "pointless" and "counterproductive". Read my above point, it's anyone's right and I support it in this forum and in my personal political self.

response 2-
See, everytime some jackass is going to claim I'm "pitying the poor ignorant women-folk". Bullshit. Plato didn't claim that the people in the Allegory of the Cave were stupid, but by the nature of thier oppression, they did not realize the oppression existed. It's not a judgement of the people who are being fucked over or an elevation of myself as the one who realizes it and will save them. This is a condemnation of the system that oppresses.

response 3-
A fine and valid point. Labeling is bullshit and almost innevitabley going to piss somebody off. However, if you want these people to "have a place at the table of the system" a syou say, I am willing to advance my arguements within a framework of that system. Yeah, I need a way to recognize people, and this crude system of rhetoric is what yopu give me to work with. Besides, I will recognize womyn, women, woman, person, persyn, carrot top or whatever else you want me to in YOUR self identification. It isn't neccessarily a binary, just a point of reference.

response 4-
Hello? It's thier movement!!! I am not a part of it on any more than the peripheral level, no matter how much I would like to be. All I am doing here is defending people's rights to self identify as they choose without being laughed out of a conversation. It is "right" to them, I say I respect thier decision. That doesn't mean I support any intellectual hierarchy. If you declared yourself Princess Syphonhail and had a million people believe the devine right made you the leader, I don't have to recognize your authority, and if I call you Princess that doesn't mean I do. When Prince changed his name to that symbol I called him that.

quotation #3 response 1 pt. A-
Bullshit. I take the steps to deconstruct. Until I claim that we are winning or even making headway I don't mask the problem. In fact I still tell everyone the problem is massive and we should all recognize the self identification that fight patriarchy. When did I call this victory over patriarchy? Quit dropping stock claims, I know you've got better than that.

pt B.
This seems a little contradictory after you claim binaries are bad, yet you seem to want me to recognize the one basic one exclusively: Men and Women. Whatever. Also, READ MY EARLIER POSTS. The personal is political and it's the first place to start when you want to solve the greater issues. I choose this in my politic, now I can look toward the other evils. Moreover, when you wan tto essentialize every group of feminists and say "okay, now lets bargain" the unresolved issue [like self ID] are going to monkey wrench the progress you can make far faster than anything else.

pt C.
The "Womyns Solidarity Group" is able to and should focus on attaining the goals of the members of the Womyns Solidarity Group. Why do you assume they speak for all womyn instead of it's members? These are one group of people with a common agenda, let the next group work for thiers, and let the system actually recognize that not everybody with a vagina has the same problems and the same way to solve them. I never endorse blanket assertions, and if the Womyn's Solidarity Group claims to speak for everyone with a vagina, I decry thier inneffectiveness as well. It's really not that hard.

quotation #4 response 1-
Your use of quotation marks was grammaticaly confusing. It's all good. I'm cool in dropping the straw man, [I didn't bring him here, he came with my cousin Mikey]

response 2-
I specifically reference that I am talking about fem movements in our culture. I don't know how much more explicit I can get. No matter which group of persons is fighting thier oppression in any form, I can still recognize thier right to self ID if they so choose to identify themselves. No matter what intersection of oppression you fight, I am still able to support you and show my solidarity. In this instance and this context, I am doing just fine.

repsonse 3-
I create the most immediate and substantial change I can within my relationship to the movement. Same personal is political arguement I've been screaming for two days. My action also ha sthe added bonus of tailoring the way I interact within society. My professors are proud of me, I've provided some interseting class discussions and hopefully broadened a few minds of the people who share my life with me. Quit condescending.

response 4-
Still ooking for where I force anyone top be called a womyn. What? I don't? Oh wow, I could have sworn I used a goddamn Plato reference to point out the irrelevance of this point. Why do you make me invoke that bastard? If you tell me carrots are your favorite food because you've been force fed them your whole life, I also support your right to try brocoli. You may like it.
That was a crude as analogy, but your're making me type a whole lot here.

quotation #5 response 1-
I challenge the dominant oppressive power structure: that's good. I advance the personal politic through my immediate realm: that's good. I recognize that essentializing every fem movement is not a good way to make significant social change: that's also good. I didn't say womyn everywhere are free and equal. THAT'S making the problem.

response 2-
I don't claim to. But those happy homes of the 50s weren't so happy after all. Where do I claim to solve this finally? I'm just facilitating the better world. That's what the grammatical check does in recognizing people's rights.

response 3-
Considering I am supporting your game of how to get womyn to the table instead of simply advising them the hack the table into little tiny fucking bits with an axe, throwing them into the flames and starting over, I'd say I'm doing fine.

quotation#6 response1-
You don't get me. I don't assign that all women are womyn.

response 2-
Here's where you get assinine. If the punk rocker is pissed about how cops beat the shit out of him because he is Mexican and wears his mohawk and the dude in the suit doesn't like th esocial security situation, that takes into account the differing intersections of oppression. If two people want to end the war, which is all the differentiation you give me on background and goals, yeah the pretty one will be listened to. and thanks for assuming punks can't relate themselves in an eloquent fashion. I'm wearing black nail polish and a fin-cut right now. Their values should be attacked, but that's not what I'm doing right now. I'm supporting the most effective way others have to attack them. That's the point; facilitating a world where the better life can exist.

quotation 7
I'm not relying on Matt. Look at what I've actually written and we'll keep talking.

Much love and respect.

[boredguy8]

"Plato didn't claim that the people in the Allegory of the Cave were stupid, but by the nature of thier oppression, they did not realize the oppression existed."

Actually that's exactly what Plato is saying. He's saying that people are dumb, thinking that they are in touch with the thing itself when instead they're playing with shadows on the wall. In order to see Truth you need an enlightened philosopher to come back down* in order to bring people out.

--Joey

* Interesting aside: People rightly posit that all of the Republic can be summed up in the Cave allegory. They forget that all of the Republic can be summed up in Plato's first word: katebên, or "I went down". The plot only thickens with the second word which is chthes, "yesterday".

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Cool, I don't care. I was trying to think of a reference that most of us would get. Thanks Joe.

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by BrendoForHisOwnSake
Cool, I don't care. I was trying to think of a reference that most of us would get. Thanks Joe. Yeah, I'm just a Plato fan, so I just wanted to clarify. It wasn't meant to be germane to the issue :)

[scooter]

This most likely has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I thought of it while I was watching the latest Fame wannabe film (Camp) which is being touted for its consideration of sexuality among youth, and since, well, that's my big old research area, I thought that I would check it out.

There is this line:

"But Bisexuality doesn't exist."

"OK, I'm not confused, or anything like that. It's that, well, I like attention and being with guys too, and being with anyone (male or female) that will notice me, but I like girls."

BTW, this is said by a self-identified Hetero character who has just gotten done throwing out the biggest pass since the Superbowl to a self-identified Gay male character who has just had a sexual relationship with a woman.

So, what does the title Bisexual mean in this case, if anything at all?

From an empirical position, and the definition noted above, and if it walks like a duck etc, voila: James Dean Part Deux. With said title of identification now in play it is possible for increased attention, discourse, and dialogue to ensue concerning the very basis of said term. Having noted, of course, such a discussion could have occured otherwise, but it might be jumpstarted now. Indeed, the very beginning of persuasion, of movements, of change starts with an aspect of identification.

But wait! Let's get real: Call it Bisexual, call it trisexual, call it bicycle-- who cares! The very notion of there being a single label that could describe such an amorphous and complex thing as sexuality is innane. Not to mention, for those concerned with the GL_B_T movement, what in the hell do such discussions actually accomplish? Meanwhile, whatever the two youth noted above self-identify as, they are 6 times as likely to be depressed in high school, 8 times as likely to be attacked, 4 times as likely to commit suicide, etc. etc. (see Chapter Two). Let's focus on that for an instant instead of a name.

I see some sort of parrallel in that there appears to be two ideologies: The importance of identification as a start of a realization, a movement, a rallying point for some, no matter how small, where there was no such onus before, and then the notion that that very idea of identification is more complex and not as effective in the long term as attention being placed on other issues.

Just an observation, probably whacked.

S
PS: Most of the film, unfortunately: Kind of crap, although making one definitely think about definitions of sexuality.

[PancreasMatt]

scooter, any ideas on what i should look at to turn the rejection of the defining of sexuality into an offenseive argument (other than foucault)?

[scooter]

Let me clarify:

Are you asking for writing concerning the benefit of the creation of definitions of sexuality as it advances progress or that these definitions are bogus, and actually end up being counterproductive?

Sorry for my confusion.

S

[PancreasMatt]

oh, that defs are bogus and bad- like discourses on sexualiity being bad, and definitions of what sexuality is being bad- I have my own books, butler foucault, but you usually have different books than me.

[scooter]

Start with the stuff on Klien's rubric. It's an attack on binary forms: A nice review and bib (yea, Foucault happy, very common:

1) http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/gay-suicide-notes.htm From the first note:
All binaries have increasingly been questioned as illustrated by Englert (1995) quoting Robyn Wiegman, a co-editor of the forthcoming book, "Demanding Discipline: On the Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Studies": "Wiegman points out. The current concepts of heterosexuality / homosexuality, black / white, male / female, are artificial binaries: 'The more you think about this, the more you realize that these binaries cannot hold up. The actual multiplicity and variety of humans on the planet is absolutely non-binary, yet we're so wed to the binary concept and it scares us to think otherwise..." Challenges to the binary concepts have been embodied in titles of books such as "Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history" (Herdt, 1994) and Beyond Gay or Straight: Understanding sexual orientation (Clausen, 1996).

2) Then I would go to Klein's attacks on binary sexuality:
Klein, F. (1993). __The Bisexual option_. Harrington Park Press.

3) For some really fun stuff: Good old Queer Theory and the queering of sexual lines is always a treat:

de Lauretis, Teresa (1991) 'Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities', differences: a Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 3, 2, pp.iii-xviii

de Lauretis, Teresa (1994a) 'Habit Changes' differences: AJournal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6, 2-3, pp. 296-313.

Eldeman, Lee (1995) 'Queer Thory: Unstating Desire', GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 2, 4, pp. 343-6

Ringer, R. Jeffrey. (1994). Queer Words, Queer Images: Communication and the Construction of Homosexuality. New York & London: New York University Press.

4) And then a nice wrap up with
Hawkes, G. (1996) A Sociology of Sex and Sexuality, Open University Press.
Cuz the Middle Ages and sexuality were just plan wierd and the influence of social construction in terms of sexuality is well noted.

Hope that helps.

S

[nomad]

Dear Nomad,

We have actually been quite serious in our criticism of your use of the label womyn to represent those who identify themselves that way. While you may think that we are just being sarcastic or sabotaging the discussion we actually are quite serious in how we feel about the status and condition of women worldwide. Because you are a lefty you just 'talk' and thats really bad because its what powerful people do to pass the time in higher education.

You should not presume to know our motives or to suggest that we are too suspicious, mistrustful, or sarcastic. It is you who is preventing a dialogue informed by an ethic of care and responsibility. It is you who stops a great discussion by using jargon and calling everyone who disagrees with you sexist, racist, or homophobic. If you expect us to be considerate of your views you should begin by being respectful of ours.

This is what we hate about the far left. You assume that we are wrong and you are unwilling to consider our arguments. You silence far more than the mysterious conservative forces ever could. Your postmodern rantings reveal that your politics will forever cloud your judgment. If you ever put away the jargon and actually engaged our arguments we would be civil and could have a conversation.

Sincerely,
J&J




Dear J&J,

No really, I think the other writings on this thread show what serious argumentation looks like. I am not trying to be self-righteous and/or to short change your perspectives. If you have a point to make I am willing to give it serious consideration. I care enough about this shit to want to discuss it from all angles and to hear what you think. Just set out the reasons you feel the way you do.

Peace,
Nomad




Dear Nomad,

How dare you presume to speak for us under the label J and J. We can certainly write for ourselves. You didn't even get what we are all about. Thats exactly what we expect from people not serious about argumentation. And by the way, if you scrolled up you'd see plenty of our serious arguments. Your just IGNORING them.

Ja & jE




Dear Ja & jE,

I have obviously offended you and that was certainly (not) intentional. I sought to capture what I felt were your thoughts because I could think of no other way to get back to discussing the actual issue. It seems like you have an ethic of suspicion and I could think of no good way to be clear about why that bothered me.

Peace,
Nomad



Dear Nomad,

You really are pretty lost in your postmodern rantings. How can anyone take this blathering seriously. Don't you realize what a ripe target these letters will be for them to mock you with? They will cut and paste and ignore your point. Or they will say they are addressing the point. But never ever will they take you seriously. Why not just ignore them?

N and B




Dear N and B,

Ya I know. You both understand in a way I am still working to get. But this really matters to me. And I really do want to try to do something to say I am serious about this topic. And I never could just ignore. For the same reason perhaps as Ja and jE. I am a passionate person.

Thanks for the advice,
Nomad





Dear Nomad,

So far I count like 25 links to Speaking for Others. And you look like an ass.

Dumb Fuck,
d




Dear Nomad,

If you think this is anyway cool or trendy that just shows what an ignorant fool you are. I am getting a great laugh. I laugh at you. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha. You want to be taken seriously? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahaha,
joke!




Dear Community,

I lost sight of what matters. I have many friends and family who are feminists and womyn. They do not stand for imposing themselves on others the ways I have imposed on you. They stand for something much bigger and better. I have allowed my anger to get in the way of the message that matters. The result is this diatribe that goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. I have created enough suspicion that those who I want to change the most have no respect for me or time to seriously engage my serious posts. This pseudo postmodern revealing of my deepest feelings will be mocked or more cruelly ignored. Perhaps I will deserve it. My role is not clean. I am no innocent. And that will certainly be punishment enough for my pride. Lash at me or deny I ever wrote this. But can't we please take seriously what really does matter? Or have I so poisoned the board that that is impossible?

Peace,
Nomad




Dear Nomad,
You think you have all the answers. Still playing like your a cool cat. Your not. You deserve what you get.

You Dumb Fuck,
d


Okay all,

I should not have written any of this. I thought maybe I could get everything on track again and maybe call out some people I thought were wrecking a great conversation. I should not have tried to speak for J and J or for Ja and jE. That was wrong of me. I let strategy get in the way of what matters.

I admit this was a dumb idea. My apologies.
Nomad


Dear Nomad,

You shared some important parts of who you are and how you feel tonight. You cannot force others to change but you can change yourself. Some may realize you were authentic in sharing a bit of your soul. Others will scream FAKE. Many will ignore you. And in all likelihood the conversation about womyn will go on with the elegant arguments by Brendo and Matt making far more headway than your ramblings.

Sleep well,
w


Dear Nomad,

I actually read much of this drivel and I think you are a total idiot. Would you mind getting the fuck off this board so that we can actually talk about women. You are arrogant and your attempt to make this all about you have not gone unnoticed and will be remembered for a long time.

Please shut up,
s

[AhhAlegra]

Wow.

Thanks.

--Andrea

[PancreasMatt]

Actually, i think Nomads been more elegant than me- I mean, he articulates his arguments in a deeper way, I'm just trying to get across a point without having the usual array of people who make me feel uncomfortable with the words that i prefer to use-
diciton is mocked, etc etc. As a result, i think some of my arguments on this subject have lost their edge- its mainly because i know several people would rather make fun of words that are more than 3 syllables long than engage the arguments.

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

:hearhear

Word up.

Nomad, that was some funny shite. Lemme make sure I get this; D was the Dali Llama right? The Dali Llama called you a dumb fuck right? ;)

[scooter]

"D was the Dali Llama right? The Dali Llama called you a dumb fuck right?"

Using the Dali Llama and the phrase "dumb fuck" in the same sentence... some Zen axel of the universe surely just got thrown out of wack...

Impressive, nomad.

S

[nomad]

Just so I am clear (((:P ))) s is not S, d is not Dalai Lama, and jEd that was cruel but not undeserved.

Sorry to post this lexis article - but couldn't post the link, its old and wasn't easy to find, and my evil policy side is calling me back to rational and reasonable arguments.

The New York Times

June 11, 1991, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section C; Page 13; Column 6; Cultural Desk; Word and Image Page

LENGTH: 1818 words

HEADLINE: Nonsexist Dictionary Spells Out Rudeness

BYLINE: By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BODY:
This is an age of what could be called linguistic sensitivity, when many groups, especially feminists and minorities, have made society more mindful of the way words can wound and offend.

Now appearing on bookstore shelves is a new dictionary, the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, that seems to fit the current mood. The dictionary, which was published on May 15, is, Random House contends, notable for several reasons, among them that it has far more entries than any of its competitors (180,000) and many new words and phrases, from acquaintance rape to zouk (a Caribbean style of dance music).

But the most publicized features of the new dictionary are, first, its claim to have eliminated sexist language from its definitions and, second, the scrupulous attention it pays to the potential of words to give offense. Many guidelines to usage are appended to its definitions, warning when words are "offensive" or "disparaging" and sometimes offering alternatives.

These features will no doubt be welcomed by many people who see them as accurate and helpful descriptions of the new meanings and connotations that have been attached to words in recent years. But Random House lexicographers acknowledge that the dictionary is also likely to arouse opposition, particularly from those who feel it has bent to political fashions, dropping its role as an arbiter of correct usage in favor of a kind of anything-goes descriptivism.

'Girls' and the Like

The dictionary's new features are illustrated by the entry for "girl." The usage note points out that "many women today resent being called girls." It says further that the phrase "my girl," in reference to one's secretary, "has decreased but not disappeared"; it points out that the use of the term "bachelor girl" for an unmarried woman is "frequently regarded as offensive," while "working girl," meaning a woman who works, "is declining in use."

Similarly, a usage note appended to the word "Eskimo" points out that "Inuit" is preferred in Canada and that "many Inuit consider 'Eskimo' derogatory, in part because the word was, erroneously, long thought to mean 'eater of raw meat.' "

Backing their claim to have dropped sexist language from their definitions and explanations, the Random House lexicographers cite the elimination of "he" to indicate a person of unknown sex. They have also written an appendix called "Avoiding Sexist Language," which advises, among other things, substituting "humankind" for "mankind," "business person" for "businessman" and "homemaker" for "housewife."

"Avoiding Sexist Language" recommends against such phrases as "the fair sex" to refer to women, and it provides several solutions to the problem of the pronoun "he." Among them is using the plural "they" or "their"; alternatively, it informs the reader that the forms "he/she" and "s/he" are available and are used in some circles.

The new dictionary, in what its potential detractors will find to be the ultimate in the easy acceptance of prevailing trends, lists "womyn" as an alternative spelling for "women," -- in order, the usage note indicates, "to avoid the suggestion of sexism perceived in the sequence m-e-n."

Random House is not the first publisher to address the question of sexist language or words that give offense. A couple of years ago, the Modern Language Association published "Language, Gender and Professional Writing," by Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler, which provided "guidelines for nonsexist usage" to academics. As long ago as 1980, Harper & Row (now HarperCollins) published the "Handbook of Nonsexist Writing."

What Dictionaries Do

The new Random House dictionary arrives at a time of other concerns about the way language can hurt. At universities across the country, people are trying to impose rules forbidding offensive speech on campus, in particular speech insulting to women and to homosexuals, blacks and other minorities.

Given the context of these other efforts and concerns, the question is whether Random House has produced a dictionary or a kind of social commentary, giving its weight and authority to certain political trends. Is it, in short, the politically correct dictionary of the 1990's?

"We put emphasis particularly on things that might be offensive," said Sol Steinmetz, the executive editor of Random House Dictionaries. "We were very sensitive to people's perceptions of words."

"I spent a lot of time reading definitions in previous dictionaries," he said, "and I found that there was intrinsically a male-centered attitude in them. We're not changing the dictionary to make it more feminist but validating a point of view that has been neglected."

Mr. Steinmetz asserts, however, that the dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. It shows the ways language is currently used and perceived, he says, and this has always been the purpose of dictionaries, to provide information about the world as it exists, rather than how some people might wish it to be. Thus, to explain that some people are offended by certain usages, or to indicate that words like "chairman" or "postman" are regarded as sexist, is a useful function, not a demand that certain meanings be avoided. Some people may not be happy with some trends in the language, Mr. Steinmetz argues, but it is still the dictionary's role to describe them.

If You Know Sanskrit

The new dictionary has not circulated much among experts on the English language, and few wanted to comment on the book without having seen it. Still, some scholars interviewed raised criticisms of the overall approach of the dictionary. The very stress on the offensive meanings of words seems to some people to be at least in part a kind of political decision, a bending before a powerful trend.

Critics of the dictionary might find here that feminist views of usage have outweighed other views, even though surely the other views exist. Beyond that, there is an argument to be made that the dictionary's striving to avoid sexist language has only shaky linguistic justification.

Jacques Barzun, professor emeritus at Columbia University, has written, for example, that the word "man" has its roots in the Sanskrit "manu," which means human being. Its counterpart in Latin is 'homo.' Thus, he argues, the word "man" has always had a double meaning -- both male human being and human being in general. Following Mr. Barzun's argument, the use of the supposedly nonsexist "humankind" instead of "mankind" is ridiculous, since both have the root word "man" in them and both carry exactly the same connotations.

Mr. Barzun has written, "Being derived from 'homo,' 'human' and 'humanity' should therefore be damned and suppressed if 'mankind' is forbidden.' " The same could be said of the pronouns "he" and "his," which, since the Middle Ages, stood for both men and women.

Asked about that possible objection, Mr. Steinmetz acknowledged that Mr. Barzun is correct in his etymology.

"But what Jacques Barzun and others don't take into account is the whole question of emphasis," Mr. Steinmetz said. "Children go to school and they see the whole emphasis on 'man' and on 'he.' Eventually, it makes a dent, gives the sense of the physical, biological man as the center of things."

John Simpson, co-editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, has not seen the new dictionary, but he said in a telephone conversation from England that the tendency toward greater sensitivity in word usage, while most acute in the United States, was evident in Britain as well.

Words, he said, are losing their multiple meanings, particularly as they gain political significance for various groups in society. The word "gay," for example, in coming to be the acceptable term meaning "homosexual," is losing its former primary meaning of happy, bright, merry.

"It seems a pity," Mr. Simpson said, "that some of the old meanings are being, as it were, blacklisted."

Indeed, the word "gay" may give some indication of the approach taken by the lexicographers at Random House as they decided at what point a particular meaning becomes dominant or offensive. Recent experience might show that the use of "gay" to mean happy has virtually disappeared. Still, the book's primary definition of the word is "having or showing a merry, lively mood."

Mr. Steinmetz said the compilers took a cautious approach in listing new words and meanings, wanting to be sure they were well established. For example, some trendy expressions deemed politically correct on campuses these days are not included. Users will not find "lookism," or "ableism," for example -- both describing negative attitudes toward people with different habits or characteristics. But the dictionary does include the words "heterosexism" and "homophobia," relatively recent terms defined as a prejudiced attitude toward homosexuality.

Words like "handicapped" and "disabled" are not labeled offensive or disaparaging, even though editors of newspapers know from the letters they receive that these words are sometimes seen as offensive by the people described. The word "crippled," on the other hand is labeled "sometimes offensive."

"Our citations show that handicapped or disabled are written commonly and not considered offensive," Mr. Steinmetz said. "It's only now that people who are politically correct are pushing 'differently abled' instead of 'disabled' or 'handicapable' instead of 'handicapped.' But this has not come into general usage."

"Time is an important element in all of this," Mr. Steinmetz said.


THE MEANING OF 'WEBSTER'

The name Webster appears on all the major competing abridged dictionaries on the market today, one of them Random House's new Webster's College Dictionary; another, Merriam-Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, and a third, Webster's New World Dictionary, published by Simon & Schuster. They are all labeled Webster's, editors say, because in the minds of the readers, the name is the mark of a reliable, trustworthy dictionary.

The original Webster, of course, was Noah, the first major American lexicographer. His own work, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, was published in 1806 and was followed in 1828 by an unabridged work, An American Dictionary of the English Language.

The Webster name was sold after the lexicographer's death in 1843 to the company in Springfield, Mass., that was the ancestor of today's Merriam-Webster. But the company never registered the name and it quickly entered the public domain, available to anybody who wants to use it.

"The truth is that Random House has lost to the competition by not using the name in previous dictionaries," said Sol Steinmetz, executive editor of Random House Dictionaries. "For better or worse, most people associate the name Webster with a dictionary, so using it is simply a way of selling dictionaries."


Thoughts?

[scooter]

The contention on the changing notion of words as indicators of power is definitely one of the big topics right now in hermaneutics. I would say that Foucault would have more than a few reactions to the concept of "gay" as noted above (arguably, some suggest that the creation of a "different" word for same-gender attraction was the worst thing possible for GLBT inclusion). Chesebro also write of similar contentions, but notes that Gay is a much better choice, as homosexual assumes a sexual orientation that does not take into consideration affectional interest, although a physical (sexual) attraction (and, some respond, this is a bad thing because...)'

I suppose what I am noting is some paralanguage here: The wonderful aspect of studying discourse and meanings is that it inherently creates more discourse and consideration of meaning.

So, if that's the result of Womyn, Ableism, and Gay, talk on!

S

[nomad]

How does the spelling of womyn imply that the letter combination m-e-n is intrinsically wrong? I would think the implication would be either that the word combination w-o-m-e-n is problematic and in need of rethinking or that a group wishes to name itself and have that name respected. I see no one saying that m-e-n is a bad word. After all, we are for the most part not second wave feminists. Post modern feminists are about collaboration and coalitions.

In addition, my opinions about what stifles discourse varies a bit from yours. I think these types of conversations can be meaningful and worthwhile. I am not asking you or bnm or syphonhail to censor yourselves. That your grad school has people who would engage in that behavior is a great reason to transfer. I want to hear the reasons why you think a group of womyn that are motivated to make changes in the world should not be allowed to designate themselves or their gender as womyn. Why does their ability to self-identify and my respect for their wishes trample discourse or cause you to self-censor? I am not calling you sexist if you do not. I am just inviting you to speak and think differently. I don't mean it to be hostile or overly judgmental. My argument is that people should have a right to avow identities and that we should only ascribe over that avowal in the most extreme of circumstances.

Lets have a conversation about imposing meaning. You assert that the spelling womyn imposes meaning and I assert that calling a group by a non-preferred label imposes meaning. How do we resolve the tensions between our desires to impose our meanings upon one another? I think the case has been made fairly well that a group should be able to designate their own label. In fact, we are not even saying the label woman is wrong. I believe we are just arguing for a right to write womyn without being told we are silly or wrong. There is nothing silly or wrong about rethinking language or about choosing a label to gather around.

Peace,
nomad

[scooter]

You see, Jason, I see two threads in there:

1) Discourse related to intent behind language choices (thus determining amount of historical, organizational, epistemic, etc. influences)

and

2) A self- or other imposed censure.

I could argue that calls of censure make us reconsider the concepts of power, etc that would serve as motivator for upholding such claims (ie, students say "you can't say X"-- I say go to hell; my chair says "you can't say X"-- I rethink, my Dean says.. you get the drift). That type of discussion, arguably, doesn't really lead to much save to think: Hmmm, what group freaks me out, and Penoptican aside, it just bores me, and yes, such censure of discourse is as wrong and stifling as the Penopticon, however one spells it.

But the first area, I would argue, is indeed intriguing.

By looking at the concept of Women vs Womyn, Gay versus Homosexual, Black versus African-American, etc., it forces communicators to not only consider the (potentially differing)influence and impacts of such words, but to also consider the communicative, political, etc. discourse that went into their being and usage. I argue that such discussions and research actually tell us as communicators __far__ more about the complexity and varying views of the differences emergent within such groups. For example, I know many feminists who spell the term women, some who use womin, some womyn. Yes, each has their reason and suggest elements of the complexity of the movement that would be advantageous for additional erudition.

Of course, if such was not just one component but the entirity of the movement, and all discussions ceased therein, yes, I would have a problem. But to further investigate such terms, I contend, suggests leagues about the function of language and the different ideologies that various parties within the movement uphold.

In short, such discourse suggests another facet of a larger corpus of discourse and ideology. By investigating such nomenclatures and their variations, we must inherently research additional aspectgs of the movement/group in question, I argue a certainly advantageous investigation.

S

[nomad]

It seems kind of unfair to me to disregard our explicit advocacy that the project is about stretching language and letting groups choose their avowed labels to assert that our project is about stifling. You seem to be suggesting you know my motives better than I do and that you have penetrated my discourse to unmask me for what I am. I can't help but think that this is the very ethic of suspicion that has been plagueing this thread.

Is there a way to ask for trust to be restored or will this just pass on into another thread where we repeat over and over. Perhaps the walls are so high that they are insurmountable. And perhaps I must share a portion of the blame. But I feel I have done what I can to say why this matters and why I think it is worth discussing. If you choose to spell woman/women/womyn in a way not consonant with my spelling I will not tell you that you are wrong and sexist. I do not understand, however, why you are insistant that me choosing to spell it in a potentially different way means I am silencing or stifling discourse.

If you find yourself thinking ways to win this argument then post away. I do not have any clue how to reach through the suspicion or mistrust. I made the best argument on that point that I know how to make. Or at least the most honest anyway.

[nomad]

Why is my spelling womyn sanitizing but your imposition of your spelling woman not? Are you not keeping language pure and clean?
Is there no imposition in your saying that your spelling is correct and mine dangerous? Why can you say my spelling is dangerous but my identical question for you becomes silencing or stifling?

[scooter]

Intent.

I thought of that with Jason's post:

The real problem I have with many post-modern projects, including this one, is that "meaning" is forcibly divorced from intent. It no longer matters what the speaker/writing meant to say, it only matters what the post-modern analyst wanted to exploit.

For example, some note that such is a debatable and arguably ineffective attempt, doomed practically (potentially Campbell). Others, including I would argue Foss (SK) and Griffin suggest that dialogue could and should ensue in order to determine intent via a colaborative endeavor. Others (the immediate response is to think of a number of monument as rhetoric theorists) suggest that intent is part of the puzzle, not devisive but part of a greater search.

I don't assume intent, and I agree, such essentialized notions of practice are contrary to the creation of meaningful dialogue and discussion. But I also argue that many postmodern theorists would advance that such essentialization deserves deconstruction within and of itself.

S

[nomad]

S,

I suspect that the charge that meaning has been severed from intent could be leveled at all sides. Certainly it is not just postmodernists (if there is such a thing) who are analysts ascribing meaning. I think an ethic of care would begin the analysis by trying to figure out what an individual avows.

Campbell - faculty of UMinn - but not poli sci... Are you being mischevious with Jason? Almost carnivalesque. Can we share what she says? Foss and Griffin too? Whats with all the NON-Postmodern feminists who would definitely support the spelling womyn?

:P

[nomad]

I appreciate your frankness.

Let me summarize where I am at with all this. I feel we are two people who both feel that using one spelling of a word is preferable to another spelling of that word. We both contend there may be harms to alternative/opposite spellings of the words that get imposed upon others. We are both examining the word and hypothesizing how communities will react to it.

You feel that people will be silenced and judged if they do not participate in a PCesque mandated use of words in higher education.

I feel that womyn are currently forced to use the label woman throughout grammer school, high school, and across the business world.

Now at this point I could shift into debate mode and suggest the harms and scope of your imposition of the word woman are more stifling, silencing, and sanitizing than what happens in the academy. That the people told that 'womyn' is wrong and dangerous number far more and experience more sanctions than the small number of people who will be told not to write woman. But that just leaves us mired in the muck of trying to see who has a bigger and more expansive set of impacts. Is the use of the word womyn more dangerous than the use of the word woman. Will a persun be fired for writing womyn in a companies brochures? Will a student fail their comprehensive exams if they use the word woman? Those would be the types of questions we would ask in crafting arguments for why the other is wrong.

I think there is a superordinate issue here that should be discussed beyond the lists of impacts we could generate in a debate and that is what right a group has to label themselves. Given a world where people will be damaged whether the spelling is woman or womyn, I believe that several of us here have been trying to make the case that people should get to choose their label of preference. The term Native American was criticized because it implied that "Indians" were somehow more "American" than other "Americans." I obviously feel there is a parallel.

Finally, you set out to deconstruct the usage of the word womyn in a satirical and sarcastic way I wonder if you realize how much that performs the power of the postmodern critique. Even if there was not this superordinate point to be resolved I would think you have made a great postmodern performance of exactly what you are calling a state of alarm about. It is certainly ironic that if we fall back into debate mode (I am trying not to but its largely a part of who we are) that your deconstruction of postmodernists asserts a meaningmaking and suggests that people self-sanction in response. You are the analyst suggesting what the postmodernists mean and how they will interpret words and the punishments they will create. I would suggest that there is no postmodern advocacy per se but rather just a group of people who acknowledge that we exist in a postmodern condition where narratives compete for legitimacy. In that world we are all engaged in a hermaneutic project of understanding what others mean and what their intentions are. I think you are pretty decent postmodern critic. But unlike other postmodernists I feel the time has come to turn to Derrida and his notion of hospitality. There is a level beyond base postmodernism with all the baggage attached that I would graft onto argumentation. That is to only ascribe intent upon others after considering their sincere avowals.

[PancreasMatt]

I'd like to say sorry- i started this arguemtns, and now its way gotten away from me because of a flurry of work commitments (mainly caused by a few very dumb attorneys) :-(

So i probably wont be able to post as much in the future, on many things, but ill still be hanging around, and can always be reached by PM.

Plus, Dylan gets back from boyscout camp soon (trust me, you can't make it any funnier with any comments, since i've made fun of him from every possible angle) and we have to start getting ready for tournaments.

[nomad]

Jason,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. It is the first week of school here and I have been losing my mind at a rather astonishing pace.

Some good places to look for works by Derrida on the subject of hospitality are On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness trans Dooley and Hughes (Routledge 2001) and a book coauthored with Anne Dufourmantelle called Of Hospitality trans Bowlby (Stanford U Press 2000). Also worthwhile is the eulogy given for his friend Emmanuel Levinas Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas trans Brault and Naas (Stanford U Press 1999).

He also has a book on the politics of friendship I have not yet become familiar with that I think also contributes to his philosophy on hospitality. Finally, the French had a series of public debates in the 1990s on the subject of immigration known as Sans Papiers and that would provide a context/case for applying cosmopolitan citizenship and hospitality to political subject matter.

Derrida, who also faced immense criticism and terrible misreading of his work, his ethics, and his idea of deconstruction shared your concerns with the industry of the academy. After all, after producing thousands of brilliant pages on deconstruction I now hear students sum up this deep concept as criticizing and tearing things down with no advocacy afterwards. As if deconstruction was a turn to an empty form of nihilism. Derridas enemies have created a caricature of deconstruction that is horribly misleading. So I guess my comment from all of this is that the ability to be cruel, to misread and misrepresent, and to impose norms that stifle open dialogue and debate will happen anywhere we go. Religion is a great example. How an ethic of love, care, and hospitality got transformed by institutions into an ethic of self-righteousness is tragic. But like many who remain religious even in the face of potential misuse, I remain faithful to the reflexivity I believe is built into a postmodern politics. I know all to well that it may be misapplied and may be used for all the wrong reasons.

There is always hope with christianity that someone who misuses it will actually at some point read a few of the words of Christ and make a change. Likewise, with deconstruction, those who misuse Derrida can certainly read his work and realize what it has to offer.