Re: Kate sighting (I mean, hearing)

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (Chris Williams)]

Ann Cahill wrote:
>I was working peacefully at my computer yesterday when my housemate started
>yelling that Kate was on TV.  Well, it was a bit of a false alarm, but
>nevertheless an interesting one.  It was a spot by some shelter for runaways,
>and the only sound was Kate's part of "Don't Give Up."  The video was of a
>young woman curled up in a doorway; at first, because it was from quite far
>away, my housemate thought it was Kate herself, but it wasn't.  Anyway, I
>thought it was quite a good use of the song - has anyone else seen this (it was
>on the Fox network, but perhaps it was a local, i.e., New York, thing)?

     It was a spot for the "National Runaway Hotline" and is a national PSA.
It has aired in Chicago and Kansas City, and I believe that it has appeared
nationally on several different networks.

>I have been trying really really hard not to jump into this whole feminism
>thing, because I really don't think this is the proper place for it, but as
>someone who does feminist theory for their profession, I have to make just a
>couple of comments.  First of all, "reverse sexism" (like "reverse racism") is
>not at all simple, for the very reason that there are existing power dynamics. 
>So switching the gendered character of any given statement doesn't really tell
>us that much. 

    Well, it works for Vickie and I. (Note: We've been together for 13 years,
and tend to borrow the best of each other's ideas. Rightly so, as Vickie
has strengths that I lack, and vice-versa.) If X says Y about Z, and Z saying
Y about X sounds just as bad, it's a reasonable indication that some deep
rationalizations are at work. Possibly the rationalizations are justifiable
depending on the circumstances, but equal injustices is not the same as
equality.

>  Second - and this is a very general point - feminism, whatever
>brand you ascribe to, is not *supposed* to be comfy, for men or women.  This is
>an important point when the "they've gone too far" arguments come up.  Were we
>to interrogate completely the ramifications of gender dynamics in our lives,
>and our identities, we'd be shaken to our very cores. 

    Not "comfy", but the position that I, and I believe Vickie and |>oug and
Aaron share is that feminism is a logical extension of humanism, in recognizing
the essential humanity of each individual person.  

    You didn't bring it up directly, but I feel that it is an important point, and
it's been scratching at me: The claim that the radical wing, the Dworkin/
McKinnon faction is a tiny, and punitively powerless part of the feminist
movement seems like a bit of wishful thinking. NOW sadly failed
in it's attempt to pass the Equal Right Admendment in the US. But
McKinnon's model anti-porn statute is the law in Canada. They are
not directly comparable, but it does show the power that a minority
can exert when the majority does not distance itsself. Dworkin &
McKinnon seem to believe that they represent all women in the
time-honored fashion of zealots. 

    (McKinnon's law was so poorly conceived that some of the first books
to be procecuted under it were by her compartiot, Dworkin. And it has
been applied to eliminate virtually *all* gay male porn. The creator of
a bad law has no defense.)

> Given that those gender
>dynamics have been most detrimental to women (certainly men aren't spared
>completely either), women have more incentive, perhaps, to undertake that
>interrogation.  But let's beware of our own wariness! 

    Again, this examination is also the natural realm of humanism. Not to
attempt to steal this from feminism, but there are many paths to freedom.

> And finally, it's very
>interesting what "rights" are perceived to have been trampled on by feminism.
>Someone, I forget who, claimed that his "right" to have Playboy available at
>his corner newsstand had been "violated."  Geesh.  And they say that feminists
>are sensitive...

   Me, and it is one of the most outragious exanples of censorship in the US
currently. There are maybe 20 places in my hometown of Kansas City that
sell Playboy; a town of 1,000,000 people mind you. I really am amazed that
you fail to see the enormity of this, or the implications of that sort of
censorship being practiced against something that *you* might happen
to care about. The Religious Right did not censor Playboy because it
featured naked women. They censored Playboy because of it's strong
liberal stance.

>Whoops.  One more thing.  Someone else - again, I can't remember - did call
>someone else, a feminist woman whose views this person obviously disagreed with
>a "bitch."  (The posting was very short, very curt.) 

    I suspect the reason Vickie found it so upsetting is that is was *not* used
by any of the people actually involved in the discussion, *none* of whom
would such a derogotory term. For the UMASS-Kate to use the word, and
to unfairly tar us with that brush was the first time that this discussion
plunged into flamage.

>   The use of such a
>gendered insult in this context was not only inappropriate, but telling, as it
>highlighted the degree to which gender really *wasn't* being addressed in much
>of this discussion.  

     Thank you. I, and I believe the other posters, were trying to keep this on
an adult level and treat each other as human beings of differing opinion.

>   But if that term refers to a woman who analyzes our
>gendered world in such a way which challenges men's position and privilege
>(which are often veiled as some sort of natural rights), then count me happily
>among those so called.

     Sorry. It's a derogotory term. I don't use it, and I don't like the pseudo-
ironic usage that a lot of the "grrrl" bands put it to. I just find it as distasteful
as blacks calling each other "nigger" or gays calling each other "faggot."
It's a personal peeve, but important enough that I take offence at anyone
putting it in my mouth by implication.

"Who are you calling a 'bitch'!?" - Queen Latifa

PS, you have access to the best, and most mature of  all the Love-Hounds,
Peter Manchester. He's also at SUNYSB. Drop him a line sometime.
Tell him his wise council is sorely missed here.


                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)