travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/19/89)
Well, so far the discussion in soc.feminism has been dominated by men.
In light of that, I was wondering if anyone would like to comment on the
following quotation, which was from the preface to a book on the nature
of the Black community. The context was a defense of the author's
(Carol Stack) methods of investigation. She quotes another work by
Joyce Ladner.
It has been argued that the relationship between the researcher and
his subjects, by definition, resembles that of the oppressor and the
oppressed, because it is the oppressor who defines the problem, the
nature of the research and, to some extent, the quality of the
interaction between him and his subjects. This inability to
understand and research the fundamental problem -- neo-colonialism
-- prevents most social researchers from being able accurately to
observe and analyze black life and culture and the impact racism and
oppression has had upon Blacks.
-- Joyce Ladner, Tomorrow's Tomorrow, 1971, p. 6
found in All Our Kin, Carol B. Stack, 1974, Harper & Row: NY
So, given the preponderance of white men in this forum, is it possible
that actual communication here will never be more than rudimentary?
after the endless, tedious discussions of Affirmative Action and, most
recently, the raging flames in soc.women of how Alice Walker is really
the anti-Christ, I tend to lose hope. after all, it seems that a large
number of positions can be predetermined by simply noting whose ox gets
gored. White men -- no different than anyone else -- will vigorously
attack any perceived assaults on them.
t
Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travisgazit@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (07/22/89)
In article <12870@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >So, given the preponderance of white men in this forum, is it possible >that actual communication here will never be more than rudimentary? Yup, but to achieve that goal you'll have to talk *to the subject*; not about the sex/race of the poster. Why don't you try it sometime? >after the endless, tedious discussions of Affirmative Action and, most What do you try to say? IMO AA is an appropriate subject to soc.feminism, and if you don't think so you can debate with the moderators (in e-mail). I know that you don't like to hear about AA, and it's your right to put the subject in your KILL file, but other people may have other opinions. >recently, the raging flames in soc.women of how Alice Walker is really What do you try to say? Soc.women is a *different* group, you know. >the anti-Christ, I tend to lose hope. after all, it seems that a large >number of positions can be predetermined by simply noting whose ox gets >gored. White men -- no different than anyone else -- will vigorously >attack any perceived assaults on them. That's the way we are. If you don't like it, you can look for another forum. Look how many options women have: 1) Soc.women. 2) Comp.society.women (moderated by a feminist woman). 3) Soc.feminism (moderated by four women, three of them are feminists). 4) Feminist mailing list (no anti-feminist articles). 5) Lesbian & bisexual women mailing list. 6) "Informal" (not mentioned in newusers net) women only mailing list. If none of them is good enough for them then they (and you) are free to open another mailing list or try to open another newsgroup. To publish "call for vote" for soc.feminism, mention that anti-feminist articles by men will be allowed, and afterward cry loud why men publish anti-feminist articles is not honest. If you did not like the proposition you could vote against it. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "People who can't address real issues in any coherent fashion resort to analogies...and usually incredibly *bad* ones..." --- Diane Holt
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/24/89)
In article <15081@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <12870@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > > >after all, it seems that a large number of positions can be > >predetermined by simply noting whose ox gets gored. White men -- no > >different than anyone else -- will vigorously attack any perceived > >assaults on them. > >That's the way we are. If you don't like it, you can look for another forum. That's just my point: there is no other forum. No matter what the name of the group, the various white technocrats invade and offer their opinions. As with the quotation I offered -- how a white researcher in a black environment mimics oppression by "defining" it when it occurs -- it's hard to say how well men and women can communicate in such a lopsided forum of nearly all men. >Look how many options women have: > >1) Soc.women. >2) Comp.society.women (moderated by a feminist woman). >3) Soc.feminism (moderated by four women, three of them are feminists). >4) Feminist mailing list (no anti-feminist articles). >5) Lesbian & bisexual women mailing list. >6) "Informal" (not mentioned in newusers net) women only mailing list. With the exception of sappho, the lesbian and bisexual women's space, all of the above result directly from the failure of soc.women. (Under this view, you omitted soc.men and talk.rape, also fallouts from failed, flaming "discussions" on soc.women.) Gender issues are not now, and never have been, discussed reasonably and fairly on the net. (The same may be said of racial issues, as the misguided, absolutist discussion on Alice Walker shows.) I'm questioning now if gender issues ever can be discussed fairly in this type of male-dominated forum. By reasonably and fairly, I don't mean that people should agree with me (although of course they should). I mean that they should discuss an issue as if there were more than one viewpoint, e.g., to try to understand Alice Walker's point of view without immediately calling her racist or sexist, thereby dismissing her viewpoint without further thought. Alternatively, many of the postings about rape from men seemed to begin and end with their insistence that they were not to blame for it, thereby dismissing it as a problem. Rapists were some other sort of man -- obviously some type who never posted to Usenet. I could have phrased all this less provocatively, but I'm irked that these alternative groups are so quiet, if not boring. It's not as if feminists, whatever they are, all agree with each other. >If none of them is good enough for them then they (and you) are free to >open another mailing list or try to open another newsgroup. This problem won't be solved by forming another newsgroup. It will be solved if and only if people realize that the viewpoint most predominantly expressed on Usenet is that of middle-class, white, technically-trained males, and that's simply not the only view around. It's not a question of liberal or conservative politics, of feminist or anti-feminist politics, it's a question of trying to realize one's inherently limited perspective and experiences. >To publish "call for vote" for soc.feminism, mention that anti-feminist >articles by men will be allowed, and afterward cry loud why men publish >anti-feminist articles is not honest. Yes, it was indeed dishonest of me to propose soc.feminism, and then to cast all the votes for it. I would now like to apologize to everyone, and also, taking responsibility for everyone, accept my apology. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
bevans@jarthur.claremont.edu (07/29/89)
The problem with saying that the oppressor defines the problem is that the oppressor doesn't think there IS a problem. Just because a person is a member of a group that has shown that it can be bigotted, doesn't mean that said person is bigotted. There is a point saying that a person who hasn't experienced a certain experience does not have the same perceptions as one who has had the experience. But that is what research is for. If I am trying to write a paper about what it means to be a woman, I'm going to go ask women. I'm also going to go ask men (to get another viewpoint). While Shere Hite had a horrid method in gathering her material (apparently, she had a terrible return rate, like 5%, for her questionaires in her last report yet she went ahead with her report), she had a very good form of her report. That is, she published the responses she received and based her conclusions on those responses. -- Brian Evans "It has been scientifically proven bevans@hmcvax.bitnet that scientists cause cancer in bevans@jarthur.claremont.edu laboratory rats." or !uunet!jarthur!bevans