From willis@vax1.elon.edu Sun Oct 1 05:29:06 1995 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 07:28:52 EST From: Lucindy Willis To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Woolf, Susan Sontag, Adrienne Rich, and bell hooks Thus far I have been a silent member of matfem (though I am eagerly waiting to discuss Rosemary Hennessy's book next week). I am an instructor of english at Elon College (part/time full/time) and NCSU (part time). My spare time is spent in finishing up my dissertation on the feminine intellectual tradition from 1800 to the present day. My chair has received my tome and I am set to defend at the end of THIS month (that is, I must defend if I am to graduate). She has returned my copy and asked that I explore more fully the philosophies and economic and social views of the women I discuss (Woolf, Sontag, Rich, and hooks). I would appreciate any suggestions of sources to which I might turn. Of course the philosophies and economica and politics views of these women permeate their works, but an interview or essay etc. which more explicitly states them would be of enormous help. I love to research and if "had we but world enough, and time" I would not be interrupting the group to discuss such personal matters. Anyway, if some woolf-sontag-rich-hooks-walker scholar is lurkingout there and can suggest some sources, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Lucindy Willis@vax1.elon.edu From amagatha@mailbox.syr.edu Mon Oct 2 00:02:25 1995 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 02:01:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Anna M. Agathangelou" To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu, Martha Gimenez Subject: Re: R. Hennessy's article In-Reply-To: Martha: Thanks for the reminder. I have prepared a summary for the article and some questions on the mac. I was hoping to download and send you the material today, however, I had a hard time figuring it out. The academic computing center was closed so I am planning to do that right after I get done from classes today. Hope this delay is not going to discourage anybody from participating in our discussion--anna On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, Martha Gimenez wrote: > Dear Anna, > > I am writing to remind you that tomorrow is the big day :-) Matfem will > start the discussion of Rosemary Hennessy's article and chapter 3 of her > book and you very kindly offered to begin the process. I look forward to > your comments. > > Cordially, > > Martha > ____________________ > Martha E. Gimenez > Department of Sociology > Campus Box 327 > University of Colorado at Boulder > Boulder, Colorado 80309 > Voice: 303-492-7080 > Fax: 303-492-5105 > > > > > From amagatha@mailbox.syr.edu Mon Oct 2 22:58:59 1995 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 00:58:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Anna M. Agathangelou" To: Material Feminism Subject: Hennessy's article Hello everyone! Below you will find a short summary of Hennessy's=20 article and seven questions. I guess we are ready to start the discussion. I apologize for not sending on October 1, 1995--Anna=09 Women=D5s Lives/Feminist Knowledge: Feminist=20 Standpoint as Ideology Critique by Rosemary=20 Hennessy Hypatia, Vol. 8, no 1. (Winter 1993) Summary=20 Feminist standpoint as a theory occupies a pivotal=20 place among materialist critiques in Western epistemology=20 (p. 14). Standpoint theories challenge the assumption that=20 being a woman avails one with a feminist understanding of=20 the world. Feminist theorists like Harding and Jaggar have=20 instead argued that the feminist standpoint position is a=20 socially produced position and consequently it is not=20 available to all women. What Hennessy challenges in this=20 article is the decision by feminist theorists to not explain the=20 =D2material links between feminism as a discourse and=20 women=D5s lives [an empirical point of reference prior to=20 feminism]=D3 (Hennessy, 1993: 14). =20 Hennessy asks the following question: =D2But what=20 exactly is the material connection between a feminist=20 perspective and its starting point, between theory and lives?=D3=20 (p. 16). Her questions arise out of her assumption that the=20 social systems of power have not been adequately explained. =20 At this historical moment, she sees their explanation as=20 necessary and urgent as ever because these structures of=20 power, or regimes as she calls them, have not dissapeared. =20 On the contrary, they continue to regulate knowledge and=20 people=D5s lives and she strongly believes that the reason for=20 their persistence and ability to reform is because the various=20 aspects of the social have not been linked to our=20 knowledges. She believes that this is necessary, now more=20 than ever before as the capitalist hegemony continues to=20 depend on an interdependent world system to make this=20 linkage despite attempts in the academy and by feminist=20 theorists to eclipse this reality of patriarchical capitalism=20 which continues the oppression and exploitation of most of=20 the people in the world. =20 Hennessy locates feminist standpoint theories in=20 Marxist historical materialism and suggests that they have the=20 conceptual tools to explain the social relations (one instance=20 of that is women=D5s lives) in systemic terms. An=20 understanding of women=D5s lives that is based on systemic=20 terms requires that =D2ideology is understood in its relation to=20 social class and state power=D3, which means that it is more=20 than the cultural reproduction of ideas. She sees systemic=20 analysis as the =D2limit term of sorts in feminist thinking=D3 (16)=20 because it is the only way that provides us with tools to=20 understand why (not just how or the discursive) of women=D5s=20 lives and their reproduction within a patriarchal capitalist=20 world. She defines systemic analysis as =D2a perspective that=20 addresses social systems--structures of power like=20 capitalism, patriarchy, or colonialism--and posits=20 connections between and among them=D3 (16). By=20 conceptualizing social needs in Marxist terms, feminism=20 gains the opportunity to use concepts like exploitation,=20 materiality, and ideology. Hennessy states that according to=20 Marxism the social is =D2an ensemble of economic, political,=20 and ideological arrangements=D3 (17) and the material and=20 productive role of ideology is foregrounded in these social=20 arrangements.=20 She outlines for us two different feminist standpoint=20 perspectives expressed in Haraway=D5s work: tracing=20 Hennessy=D5s logic when she reads or is critically intervening,=20 I will say, in other feminists=D5 work is crucial. Her critical=20 intervention allows for the reading of the existence of=20 struggles (especially class I will say) in feminism which in=20 the end are resolved especially in Haraway=D5s work in favor=20 of a logic of irony and playful postmodern one which as=20 Hennessy may say the logic of patriarchical-capitalism (or=20 exchange). A counter logic to Haraway=D5s within feminist=20 standpoint theory is that of Dorothy Smith. Her feminist=20 standpoint theory =D2conceptualizes modes of knowing within=20 a much more emphatically systemic analytic=D3 (18) because=20 she locates her critique within the political, economic, and=20 ideological arrangements of capitalist patriarchy. Smith=20 (1987b) locates the emergence of the academic social=20 relations and relates them to other aspects of social=20 production in the capitalist world system (Hennessy, 1995=20 my notes from her presentation at Syracuse). Smith,=20 Hennessy writes, makes visible the ways academic disciplines produce both=20 economic and ideological value by occluding the dependence=20 of their dominant conceptual modes and their administering=20 subjects on the work of invisible subservient groups-- women, blacks, working-class people. These are the=20 workers who feed and care for the administrators and clean=20 their labor supports (Hennessy, 1993: 19 quoting Smith=20 1987b). However, Hennessy has problems with Smith=D5s=20 =D2jockey[ing] between the objective conditions of women=D5s=20 lives and the discursive construction of the feminine=D3 (19). =20 What is important and needs to be explained is the material=20 relationship between the discursive and nondiscursive. And=20 that is the task of her article. As she is interested in=20 articulating a feminist standpoint theory which is located in=20 capitalist patriarchy, she analyzes the preconstructed which=20 she defines as the =D2feature of any discursive fomation that=20 produces the effect of an =D2always already there,=D3 conveying=20 the sense of what everyone already knows=D3 (p. 24). The=20 preconstructed is the =D2place=D3 upon which social struggles are=20 displaced and the capitalist patriarchical social arrangements=20 are thus condensed of their contradictions. It becomes the=20 site upon which interventions can take place for tranforming=20 the exploitative and oppressive class, gender, sexual and=20 racial relations. =20 What is necessary in making productive interventions=20 is a theorization of discourse. Using the logic of historical=20 materialism, she argues that reading women=D5s lives as an=20 ensemble of discourses whose hegemonic articulation relies=20 on a preconstructed patriarchal and heterosexual organization=20 allows for recognizing and making visible the insistence of=20 totalities like patriarchy, heterosexuality, or imperialism=20 which continue to organize people=D5s lives in general, and=20 women=D5s lives in particular, in systematic and oppressive=20 ways. She thus theorizes discourse as ideology, and,=20 consequently, she is able to suggest that the feminist=20 standpoint can be reconstructed and articulated as a critical=20 practice. =D2It is [and should be] an act of reading that=20 intervenes and rearranges the construction of meanings and=20 the social relations they support=D3 (27). To do that,=20 materialist feminists need to rethink what is meant by=20 standpoint. The major concept among them is materiality of=20 knowledge. By this she means that in any historical=20 formation, =D2what is possible to know is shaped by and in=20 turn helps delimit the contradictory development and=20 displacement of economic and political forces=D3 (21). For=20 example, under capitalism, exploitation and oppression are=20 mystified in ways that people see such social arrangements=20 as the ways things =D2naturally=D3 are. Thus, ideology is a=20 material force because it reproduces what comes to=20 legitimately count as the =D2reality=D3--even while other=20 economic and political material forces are shaped by=20 ideology they are not reflected in it. Hennessy then argues=20 that the materiality of the social is not based in an objective=20 reality outside knowledge. Rather, it includes all of a=20 culture=D5s modes of intelligibility in an ensemble of economic,=20 political, and ideological practices. Thus, =D2from the vantage=20 point of ideology...the material is that which intervenes in=20 production of the social real by being made intelligible....the=20 discourses that constitute the material structures through=20 which ideology works are shaped by the material relations=20 that comprise economic and political practices=D2 (22). Thus,=20 women=D5s lives and the feminist standpoint are always=20 impacted by the =D2ensemble of social relations=D3 and they are=20 not just ideological. They are ideological constructs =D2whose=20 parameters are unevenly and contradictorily shaped in=20 specific historical moments by divisions of labor, and=20 relations between state and civil society=D3 (22). =20 Consequently, women=D5s lives cannot be separated from the=20 contesting ways of making sense of them. It is thus=20 important for standpoint theory to recognize that these =D2lives=20 are not exclusively ideological=D3. =20 What Hennessy then avails to the feminist standpoint=20 is the historical materialism=D5s theory of idelogy through=20 which she intervenes to shift the emphasis from a cultural=20 analysis of several discourses to addressing the gaps in the=20 dominant culture=D5s ways of making sense of women=D5s lives,=20 gaps arising out of the contradiction between the democratic=20 promises of equality and justice in modern societies and=20 women=D5s subordination in all arenas of social life=D3. For her,=20 the theory of ideology within historical materialism is the=20 starting point to explain this gap and also to critique present=20 knowledges that have not allowed an analysis of the=20 contradictions of the social production of lives and=20 knowledges. She argues that questions, problematics, and=20 contradictions within texts of culture are the site upon which=20 feminism can intervene to make explicit the historical=20 contradictions they reveal. An =D2objective=D3 logic or the logic=20 of cultural analysis (signification) could not adequately=20 address these contradictions and the self-contradictory=20 moments in a culture=D5s way of making sense. =20 Critique, Hennessy suggests, is not a way of=20 resolving cultural crisis. Its aim is to show that =D2internal=20 contradictions in a cultural text are the product of crises in=20 the larger social formation, contradictions that cannot be=20 satisfied by the system as it is at present=D3 (28). This critique=20 allows for linking one cultural text to the larger social,=20 economic, and ideological social arrangements and in=20 making visible the contradictions of the patriarchal capitalist=20 logic and its demand for exploitation and oppression of some=20 at the expense of the many. This analytic makes possible the=20 consideration of the effects of knowledges as always=20 invested ways of making sense of the world. There is much more in the text of Hennessy that I wish to=20 provide to you, however, in the interest of expediency, let=D5s=20 start our discussion now. =20 These questions are not encompassing but I hope they can=20 guide our discussion of her text: 1. In taking up women=D5s oppression and exploitation,=20 Hennessy privileges which social context? =20 2. What is the medium through which Hennessy intends to=20 chart the progress of feminist standpoint theory (critique,=20 theory, literature)? Why? How does she conceptualize=20 alterity and why? How does she define the object of=20 feminist inquiry? What is the conceptual map which she=20 provides us and how does this map make a linkage between=20 the global and the local? Why is the map useful for people=20 interested in accounting women=D5s oppression and=20 exploitation and the feminist inquiry in particular? =20 3. What are the historical conditions that make possible the=20 emergence of feminist standpoint theories that emphasize and=20 resolve the tension between the existence of the collective=20 subject (who is oppressed and exploited on gender, racial=20 and class grounds) within their texts in favor of signification=20 and a cultural analysis of women=D5s lives?=20 4. According to Hennessy we need to reconceptualize=20 knowledge, subjectivity, and cross-alliances. How can=20 feminist standpoint theorists can do that and why? Where do=20 they need to locate their knowledges and their =D2energies?=D3 =20 Why?=20 5. Why is it necessary for Hennessy to conceptualize=20 feminist standpoint theory from a global analytic and what=20 are the underlying conceptualizations of class, gender, and=20 race within this kind of feminist standpoint theory that=20 Hennessy puts forward in this article? Why is it necessary at=20 this historical moment? What kind of social transformation=20 is Hennessy putting forward through her reconceptualization=20 of feminist standpoint theory? Why? 6. What ideological conditions make possible the=20 understanding and explaining of particular institutions and=20 =D2knowledge production=D3 as autonomous sites? =20 7. Hennessy suggests that we need to make the connection=20 between the discursive and the nondiscursive. Why is it=20 necessary? How would this linkage be useful for the=20 understanding of women=D5s oppression and exploitation and=20 under what conditions would this linkage allow for=20 transformation? From hmerrick@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Tue Oct 3 01:14:40 1995 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:13:48 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: hmerrick@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Helen Merrick) Subject: apologies I'm very sorry about the double posting of the Limina message, it was sent back to me 'mailing unsuccessful - probable mail loop' so I sent it again...! Looking forward to the discussion on Hennessy. Helen Helen Merrick Department of History University of Western Australia Nedlands 6009 W.A. fax: (09) 380 1069 E-mail: hmerrick@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Ph: (09) 380 2148 From ri091162@udlapvms.pue.udlap.mx Tue Oct 3 15:37:04 1995 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:48:58 -0600 (CST) From: BARAJAS V OSCAR I To: Matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: new list advise This is more like a commercial of a new list that we are trying to implement here in Mexico. If you are some how interested on it, plese send me a reply and we will foward you a complete information package of the proyect. -----thanks. Isaac--list administrator From lejones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu Tue Oct 3 16:12:21 1995 id <01HW0EXVVXM88XXET2@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU> for matfem@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 17:12:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 17:12:03 -0500 (CDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU From: lejones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Leslie Jones) Subject: Re: new list advise To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu > > This is more like a commercial of a new list that we are trying to=20 >implement here in Mexico. > =20 > If you are some how interested on it, plese send me a reply and we will= =20 >foward you a complete information package of the proyect. > =20 > -----thanks. > Isaac--list administrator Yo puede interesado. ?De que trata? Atentamente, Leslie Jones =BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB= =BB=BB =20 lejones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu =A0 =BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB= =BB=BB =20 From nnaples@orion.oac.uci.edu Fri Oct 6 15:16:00 1995 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Nancy Naples To: MATFEM@csf.colorado.edu In response to Anna Agathagelou summary and proposed questions, I have to admit that I could not directly relate to the questions she highlights. I approached the article in two ways: one, how well does Hennessy's approach correct for her critique of standpoint theorists (Haraway, Smith) that they and others have not effectively linked the analysis of standpoint and the larger processes of oppression that shape individual/community/local worlds; and second, what mutltiple methodologies/approaches do we need in order to accomplish this linking work more effectively. Hennessy seems to be arguing that by revaluing ideology as a point of departure for understanding the relationship between multiple discourses and the structures that infuse women's lives (there may be more in common here between Smith's notion of "relations of ruling" that should be further interrogated) and by drawing upon feminist critical practice of critique to investigate the disjunctures/contradictions between the ideological and empirical relaties of women's lives, we are better equipped to challenge multiple structures of power. While I agree with her opening argument to some extent, I do find Smith's work on gender, class and schooling a compelling illustration of the contextualized work that needs to be done to demonstrate the relationship between discursive positioning of particular subjects and the work that such positioning does in masking women's everyday activities as they link the local world with larger institutional arrangements. This masking further helps to reproduce gender, race, and class relations of ruling. (see Smith and Griffith "Coordinating the uncoordinated: moterhing, schooling, and the family wage" in Perspectives on Social problems Vol. 2 edited by Gale Mill and James A. Holstein). As Hennessy proceeds, I find her argument more problematic especially as she attempts to offer another way in to make more visible the material conditions that shape diverse women's lives. I do not disagree with her point that "the discourses that constitute the material structures through which ideology works are shaped by the material relations that comprise economic and political practices," I just wonder whether an elaborated materialist feminist enterprise can ignore the productive processes and material actualities that constitute these material relations. I am drawn to Gramsci's work in particular here for his effort to materially locate the different class positions through which knowledge claims are generated. It is not simply an enterprise that interrogates knowledge claims, but one that interrogates the material site in which such claims are made. I believe this is what Sandra Harding is arguing in her book Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? In other words, I see Hennessy opening with a critique of standpoint theories, shifting to revalue the concept of ideology, and then neglecting the material ground possibly revealed by the "alternative narrative of critique." She hopes that this approach will provide "a counterhegemonic discourse, the enabling conditions for which are the contradictions produced by exploitative and oppressive social relations of patriarchal capitalism." Yet without exploring the material practices of transnational capital; the racialized, gendered and class based hidden curriculum for parents of school age children; immigration policy; sex and tourism, ...the list can go on...we have only begin the work necessary to link the discursive and nondiscursive. As someone working in the ethnographic tradition which attempts to link cultural practices, ideologies, and resistance strategies with state practices and political economy more generally, the challenge of such linking is not necessary a new one. Yet, I would argue, feminist standpoint epistemologies and more explicitly marxist variants associated with materialist feminism cry out for interdisciplinary approaches that will help contextualize the project Hennessy begins. I think her move to push discourse analysis into a more materialist direction through the revaluing of ideology is a useful one which needs further clarification. On the other hand, by reducing "materialist feminism's oppositional practice" to "critique," we miss the opportunity to interrogate how capitalisms, patriarchies, diverse racist and colonialist projects actually work in localized sites. Contradictions may not only be evident in "interdiscourse" but on the shop floor as we learn how workers negotiate their jobs -- not only as discursive practices (although an orthodox Foucaudian may disagree with this formulation), how women interact with the educational system, how women manage on low wages or inadequate state funding, how women respond to violence against them. To draw upon a contemporary issue in US social policy, the decline in support for the welfare state cannot be examined solely through attention to the contradictions in the discursive frames and ideological underpinnings of welfare reform debates but must be situated in the larger processes of global economic restructuring that is materially repositioning women and men differentially as laborers, caretakers, citizens, migrants, and "aliens." Nancy A. Naples Assistant Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies University of California, Irvine Irvine, California 92717 714-824-5749 (office phone) 714-824-4717 (fax) From willis@vax1.elon.edu Sun Oct 8 05:52:27 1995 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 07:52:18 EST From: Lucindy Willis To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Hennessy's article Did I miss something? I am relatively new to matfem so I am clueless as to where the discussion on hennessy's article takes place. I received the summary. Maybe I didn't read the fine print. Is there a separate line or time for discussion? I I'll go back and look at the summary but in case the instructions aren't there could someone reply to me privately? Lucindy Willis@vax1.elon.edu From CYSU@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA Sun Oct 8 13:38:33 1995 by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (PMDF V5.0-4 #12962) 08 Oct 1995 13:35:44 -0600 (MDT) 07 Oct 1995 22:17:54 -0400 (EDT) with TCP; Sat, 07 Oct 1995 22:17:52 -0400 (EDT) 07 Oct 1995 21:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 21:50:41 -0500 (EST) From: Margaret Susan Thompson Subject: Fwd: Help for Sarah Sender: History & contemporary concerns of Catholic women religious Reply-to: feminist-theology@mailbase.ac.uk Sarah Balabagan, age 16, has been condemned to death by the Islamic tribunal of Al Ain, on the charge of premeditated murder. She killed the man who had sexually violated her. She is now awaiting execution. A French organization is collecting appeals on her behalf. Their address, as listed below is, sarah@posso.ibp.fr They also suggest contacting the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates to request that Sarah's life be spared. For more details, please see the post below. Please redistribute these posts as widely as possible, as (also) requested below. POUR SAUVER SARAH ! Il est encore des Etats qui imaginent que la tradition, la religion peuvent aller a l'encontre des droits fondamentaux des individus, votes par la communaute internationale. Ainsi le 16 septembre 1995, le tribunal islamique d'AL Ain, situe a l'Est d'Abu Dhabi, a condamne a mort une jeune fille de 16 ans, Sarah Balabagan. Motif de la condamnation : "meurtre premedite". Les faits : en juillet 94, elle avait poignarde son patron qui l'avait violee. En juin 95, ce meme tribunal avait reconnu et sanctionne le viol (par une amende de 100.000 dirhams) tout en lui infligeant une peine de prison de 7 ans pour le meurtre de son violeur. Trois mois plus tard, revirement total, a la demande du chef de l'etat. Sarah avait du s'expatrier des Philipines pour devenir employee de maison. De nombreux temoignages font etat des abus sexuels constants que subissent ces jeunes immigrees dans les Emirats ou les droits des femmes, des enfants sont egalement bafoues, comme ceux des immigres. Gisele Halimi et Marie-Claire Mendes France ont fonde un "Comite de soutien pour sauver Sarah" (102 rue Saint-Dominique- 75007 Paris). Sa mise a mort est imminente! Manifestez votre indignation face a cette execution : email sarah@posso.ibp.fr. Diffusez cet appel le plus largement possible sur les reseaux, nous transmettrons vos messages et vos coordonnees a ce Comite. Voici egalement le Fax de l'ambassade des Emirats Arabes Unis, situee 3 rue Lota - 75016 :(33) 1 47 55 61 04. N'hesitez pas a faire part de votre opinion : vos commentaires peuvent etre edifiants... Faites vite! Chantal Perrichon, Annick Valibouze ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Milena Shteto ~~E-mail : Milena.Shteto@Issy.cnet.fr ~~Tel : (+33) (1) 45 29 50 92 PAA/ATR - piece 030B ~~TeleFax : (+33) (1) 45 29 60 69 CNET - France Telecom 38-40 rue du General Leclerc 92131 Issy-les-Moulineaux - France ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ J'utilise SFF pour mieux diffuser ce message a caractere exceptionnel. Merci Jean Louis. bruno From fmlist@newmedium.com Tue Oct 10 14:32:03 1995 From: fmlist@newmedium.com Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 16:31:46 PDT Subject: Feminist Majority -- Expo '96 To: MATFEM@csf.colorado.edu MESSAGE FROM THE FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION SAVE THE DATE! EXPO '96 FOR WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT FEBRUARY 2-4, 1996 SHERATON WASHINGTON HOTEL WASHINGTON, D.C. Dear Feminist Scholar, The women's movement is coming together for the first-ever National Feminist Exposition: Expo `96 for Women's Empowerment. The Feminist Majority Foundation and a growing list of 62 co-sponsoring organizations dedicated to the empowerment of women would like to invite you to co-sponsor this innovative exposition for the entire feminist community, to be held at the Sheraton Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C., on February 2-4, 1996. At this Expo `96, we want the nation to see the power of the feminist movement and its ideas, its vision, and the diversity of its work and constituencies. We intend to ignite the women's movement on the fight to save affirmative action; to adopt a feminist national budget for the United States; and to plan for a massive feminist exposition to be held in the year 2000. The participation of feminist scholars, leaders in Women's Studies, and feminist students is critical to the success of Expo '96. Affirmative action, budget issues, and the future of feminism clearly are of grave importance on college and university campuses. At the same time, our victories on these and other feminist priorities in this nation depend on the leadership of faculty, students, and campus staff. The Feminist Majority Foundation is investing in this new undertaking for the feminist movement because we think it is time, as we prepare to enter a new millennium, for both the nation and ourselves to see the vast diversity and power of the present day women's movement together -- under one roof. For the Expo `96 for Women's Empowerment, we are inviting women's organizations with a wide array of constituencies, services, and programs dedicated to changing the world for women and girls. We are inviting women's groups and women activists from all arenas of life -- social, economic, and political -- to share their accomplishments and visions. Expo `96 will act as a forerunner for a large-scale exposition scheduled for the year 2000. Participation in Expo `96 will provide organizations and activists the opportunity to be involved in shaping Expo 2000, which will be a major exposition open to the public, featuring the accomplishments and visions of the feminist movement for the 21st century. Expo `96 is timed to take place at the beginning of the election season so the feminist movement as a whole can help frame the national debate on affirmative action. Women must not be left out of this debate. And we plan to build on the momentum of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women and Beyond in Beijing -- to help make its Platform for Action a reality. One of the primary goals of Expo `96 for Women's Empowerment is to develop and adopt a feminist national budget. We have seen the President's Budget, the House Budget, the Senate Budget, but we have not seen a feminist budget. We must not enter the 21st century watching women's programs being defunded, the military budgets being as bloated as ever, the interest on the national debt ever-increasing, and our movement, group by group, speaking only to very small percentages of the budget. Another central goal of Expo '96 is to bring together feminists activists with feminists in the academy in order to foster greater collaboration. All 40 symposia, training sessions and roundtables will facilitate cross-fertilization of ideas, dialogue, and planning between activists and researchers, among organizations, among various academic disciplines, and among practitioners of legal, electoral, education, service, and advocacy approaches. In addition to incorporating the perspectives of scholars and activists in all Expo '96 sessions, several roundtable discussions will feature the role of women's studies in the feminist movement. Preliminary ideas for these sessions include "How Women's Studies Helps Feminists and How Feminists Can Help Women's Studies," "Building Links Between Feminist Academics and Feminist Activists," and "Roundtable of Leaders of Women' s Academic Caucuses." We very much would like to involve you in the development of these and other program sessions. I know that all of our schedules are extremely busy, especially in this year when our agenda and the very existence of women's studies is under massive attack by the Right Wing. Literally, the wolves are at our door: opponents are seeking to defund family planning and the Violence Against Women Act, to eliminate women's and multi-cultural studies at colleges and universities, to gut affirmative action programs and Title IX. Program by program, we are on the defensive. Expo `96 will help us rise together as a whole, feel our strength and the strength of our ideas, galvanize the strategy to put our opponents on the defensive and frame the debate. Participation in Expo `96 will be an exciting, new experience. Our Exhibit Hall will be innovative and will feature high-tech solutions to organizing modern women in the 21st century to visualize the feminist future. The four corners of the Hall will feature: Organizing for Feminism -- On-line and Worldwide and will encourage women's organizations to develop home pages and enter the Internet; Women in the 1996 Olympics -- Organizing for Equality; Feminist Architecture -- How Feminists are Designing a Modern World for Equality; and a Feminist Career Center. The Feminist Career Center will be of particular interest to students, and we urge you to publicize this feature among your students. Think of the Expo as bringing together feminists from different sectors of our communities: the media, the law, politics, medicine and health care, business, education, public service, trade unions, non-profit services, advocacy, sports, entertainment, philanthropy, and religion. We hope all types of feminist organizations and ideas from all sectors of our society will participate in Expo `96, as we build a national budget and mobilize to keep the doors open for women, and visualize a feminist future. We hope you will join us on February 2-4, 1996, in this exciting, new adventure for women's empowerment. Alice Cohan and Dee Martin will serve as Director and Assistant Director, respectively, of Expo `96. Please return the form below by mail, fax or e-mail as soon as possible. For Equality in the 21st Century, Eleanor Smeal Jennifer Jackman, Ph.D. President Director of Policy and Research Feminist Majority Foundation Feminist Majority Foundation --------------------------------------------------------------- REGISTRATION FORM CONFERENCE AND HOTEL INFORMATION Please return form via mail to Feminist Majority, 1600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209, fax at 703-522-2219, or e-mail at femmaj@feminist.org. [ ] Yes! Count me in for Expo '96. It's time to ignite the Feminist Movement -- to let the nation see the strength of our ideas and our vision! Early Registration must be postmarked no later than January 2, 1996. NAME: NAME AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR ON YOUR NAME BADGE: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: UNIVERSITY/AFFILIATION: TELEPHONE: FAX: E-MAIL: Regular Rate Student Rate Early Conference Fee - $96 $46 (Postmarked by 1/2/96) Conference Fee - $126 $66 (Postmarked after 1/2/96) [ ] Yes! I'll be there! I am enclosing my regular or student Conference Fee of __________. [ ] I want Expo '96 to be fully representative. I am enclosing a special tax-deductible contribution of $______ to help those who cannot afford the full fee. [ ] For those who cannot afford full fee, payment may be on a sliding scale. I am enclosing my reduced registration fee of $________. [ ] I can't be there, but I want to do my part in making this historic event successful. I am enclosing my special contribution for Expo '96 for Women's Empowerment in the amount of $________. [ ] My total amount enclosed is: $________. Check or money order should be made payable to the Feminist Majority Foundation. I would like to charge my registration fee: (please indicate one) Name __________________________________________ Bank No. (MC or Visa) _________ Card No. ______________________________________ Exp. Date _________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- HOTEL RESERVATIONS A limited number of specially priced rooms have been reserved for Expo '96. To reserve a room at reduced Expo '96 rates, contact the Washington Sheraton at 1-800-325-3535 or (202) 328-2900. Inform the hotel you are an Expo '96 attendee to ensure a reduced rate. Special Expo '96 Room Rates: King - $119 - $149 Double/Double - $119 - $169 All plenary sessions, symposia, roundtables, training seminars, and exhibits will be held at the Sheraton Washington Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road at Connecticut Ave., NW. --------------------------------------------------------------- AIRLINE RESERVATIONS Call International Travel at 1-800-741-4384 for the lowest airfare. --------------------------------------------------------------- CHILD CARE Child care will be provided for Expo '96 as a part of your registration fee. [ ] Yes, I need child care information sent to me. From chouinar@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA Tue Oct 10 16:15:28 1995 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 18:15:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Vera Chouinard Subject: Re: Hennessy's article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: Greetings all! I'd like to share a few thoughts re: Hennessy's article and Anna's questions about it. For me, the key contribution of this article is the notion that feminists can and should move toward more 'process-oriented' critiques of multiple discourses as ideology through zooming in on the complex relations between non-discursive practices and the social construction of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses as ideology or, in other words, on how material aspects of women's lives become appropriated within/articulated with ways of knowing the world which perpetuate and sometimes challenge prevailing ideologies and the material relations of class, gender, race and so on that sustain them. It is, in my view, a welcome call for materialist feminists to take the whole question of how women make sense of their positions and lives and how these ways of making sense translate into practices (non-discursive and discursive) of knowledge construction and use that reinforce or unsettle hegemonic ideologies and social relations of 'ruling' as more central and problematic to the feminist project than has been the case to date. Her paper is more a 'call to arms' than a fully fledged framework, although she does suggest key concepts like articulation and 'interdiscourse' which would help us to understand how knowledges are constructed in practice and (potentially at least) to identify cracks, fissures, and revolutionary possibilities in hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses. As she notes, understanding ideology as multiple and interconnected discourses opens the way toward considering the difference that multiple identities and standpoints make to women's ways of knowing and acting, and to how power is produced through the construction and use of knowledge. There are many issues that would have to be addressed in order to flesh out this general direction, including: 1) what exactly do we mean by 'articulating principles' (through which cultural ideas are appropriated into particular discourses)? 2) through what discursive and non-discursive practices do women come to use particular principles as the basis for associating/connecting ideas drawn from multiple discourses? 3) what exactly distinguishes feminist ideology critique from 'common sense' interpretations of women's lives? It seems to me that more is involved than critical, reflexive versus empiricist approaches to understanding women's lives and that there are political issues, like elitism within the women's movement, that have to be grappled with. 4) how do struggles to assert the authority of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses feed back into processes of empowerment and disempowerment? For example, how and why do women decide to act on contradictions in discourse identified through ideology critique in some situations and not in others--to connect ideas and practice? There are lots of other issues arising from Hennessy's proposed approach and I trust others will raise them! In closing, I wanted to respond very briefly to some of the questions that Anna raised: I don't really think that Hennessy means to privilege a particular context of social life, but rather to connect ideological, practical and relational aspects of women's lives. In practice, I suppose one could argue that the realm of ideas and knowledge production/use come to the fore in the sort of ideology critique she is proposing. I don't know that there is any causal necessity in the emergence of this sort of feminist ideology critique at this particular time, but certainly developments like postmodernism, associated intellectual 'angst' among academics and the political force of conservative/reactionary critiques in restructuring the state etc. can all be seen as problematizing the links between ideas, practices and power and encouraging interventions like Hennessy's. I think too that it is worth considering the impact of the backlash against feminism in various quarters on how we formulate problems. I think the question of the sorts of potential social transformations that one can envisage from Hennessy's framework is an important one and one that Hennessy could usefully elaborate on. I guess that generally I would see it as finding ways of unleashing or fully utilizing the power of women's critical, feminist knowledge to create more reflexive (and potentially subversive) understandings of women's ways of knowing and to think through the 'difference ideas make' to the strategies that women adopt to contest their oppressions. Connecting discursive and non-discursive practices is central to Hennessy's project and, I think, rightly so. Radical analysts often posit, but rarely demonstrate, the difference that particular ways of thinking about and discussing issues makes in political practice e.g. to coalition-building and other ways of trying to surmount divisions in the women's movement, to decisions about whether and when to participate in collective resistance efforts and so on. Hennessy invites us to look more closely at the processes through which ideas are lived and acted upon and in doing so, challenges us to come to grips with knowledge as a material force in women's lives. I must apologize for going on much longer than intended--the mark of a stimulating article! I am really looking forward to learning what the rest of the 'reading group' thinks. All the best, Vera Chouinard From mreeves@epas.utoronto.ca Wed Oct 11 10:27:57 1995 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:27:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Margaret Reeves To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Hennessy's article In-Reply-To: <009978DB.749FF300.1@vax1.elon.edu> Like Lucindy Willis, I too did not receive the initial comments and discussion questions sent on the article and chapter 3. I wonder if someone could repost the message, or if not, could you respond to me privately? Many thanks, Margaret Reeves mreeves@epas.utoronto.ca From amagatha@mailbox.syr.edu Fri Oct 13 09:57:25 1995 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Anna M. Agathangelou" To: Material Feminism Subject: Re: Hennessy's article: Resent In-Reply-To: Hello! some people sent email suggesting that they have not received=20 this summary. I am resending it and I hope it is ok with the managers of= =20 the listserv and the rest of you. If you have received it please=20 delete. ---anna agathangelou ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Anna M. Agathangelou wrote: > Hello everyone! Below you will find a short summary of Hennessy's=20 > article and seven questions. I guess we are ready to start the discussio= n. > I apologize for not sending on October 1, 1995--Anna=09 >=20 > Women=D5s Lives/Feminist Knowledge: Feminist=20 > Standpoint as Ideology Critique by Rosemary=20 > Hennessy > Hypatia, Vol. 8, no 1. (Winter 1993) > Summary=20 > Feminist standpoint as a theory occupies a pivotal=20 > place among materialist critiques in Western epistemology=20 > (p. 14). Standpoint theories challenge the assumption that=20 > being a woman avails one with a feminist understanding of=20 > the world. Feminist theorists like Harding and Jaggar have=20 > instead argued that the feminist standpoint position is a=20 > socially produced position and consequently it is not=20 > available to all women. What Hennessy challenges in this=20 > article is the decision by feminist theorists to not explain the=20 > =D2material links between feminism as a discourse and=20 > women=D5s lives [an empirical point of reference prior to=20 > feminism]=D3 (Hennessy, 1993: 14). =20 > Hennessy asks the following question: =D2But what=20 > exactly is the material connection between a feminist=20 > perspective and its starting point, between theory and lives?=D3=20 > (p. 16). Her questions arise out of her assumption that the=20 > social systems of power have not been adequately explained. =20 > At this historical moment, she sees their explanation as=20 > necessary and urgent as ever because these structures of=20 > power, or regimes as she calls them, have not dissapeared. =20 > On the contrary, they continue to regulate knowledge and=20 > people=D5s lives and she strongly believes that the reason for=20 > their persistence and ability to reform is because the various=20 > aspects of the social have not been linked to our=20 > knowledges. She believes that this is necessary, now more=20 > than ever before as the capitalist hegemony continues to=20 > depend on an interdependent world system to make this=20 > linkage despite attempts in the academy and by feminist=20 > theorists to eclipse this reality of patriarchical capitalism=20 > which continues the oppression and exploitation of most of=20 > the people in the world. =20 > Hennessy locates feminist standpoint theories in=20 > Marxist historical materialism and suggests that they have the=20 > conceptual tools to explain the social relations (one instance=20 > of that is women=D5s lives) in systemic terms. An=20 > understanding of women=D5s lives that is based on systemic=20 > terms requires that =D2ideology is understood in its relation to=20 > social class and state power=D3, which means that it is more=20 > than the cultural reproduction of ideas. She sees systemic=20 > analysis as the =D2limit term of sorts in feminist thinking=D3 (16)=20 > because it is the only way that provides us with tools to=20 > understand why (not just how or the discursive) of women=D5s=20 > lives and their reproduction within a patriarchal capitalist=20 > world. She defines systemic analysis as =D2a perspective that=20 > addresses social systems--structures of power like=20 > capitalism, patriarchy, or colonialism--and posits=20 > connections between and among them=D3 (16). By=20 > conceptualizing social needs in Marxist terms, feminism=20 > gains the opportunity to use concepts like exploitation,=20 > materiality, and ideology. Hennessy states that according to=20 > Marxism the social is =D2an ensemble of economic, political,=20 > and ideological arrangements=D3 (17) and the material and=20 > productive role of ideology is foregrounded in these social=20 > arrangements.=20 > She outlines for us two different feminist standpoint=20 > perspectives expressed in Haraway=D5s work: tracing=20 > Hennessy=D5s logic when she reads or is critically intervening,=20 > I will say, in other feminists=D5 work is crucial. Her critical=20 > intervention allows for the reading of the existence of=20 > struggles (especially class I will say) in feminism which in=20 > the end are resolved especially in Haraway=D5s work in favor=20 > of a logic of irony and playful postmodern one which as=20 > Hennessy may say the logic of patriarchical-capitalism (or=20 > exchange). A counter logic to Haraway=D5s within feminist=20 > standpoint theory is that of Dorothy Smith. Her feminist=20 > standpoint theory =D2conceptualizes modes of knowing within=20 > a much more emphatically systemic analytic=D3 (18) because=20 > she locates her critique within the political, economic, and=20 > ideological arrangements of capitalist patriarchy. Smith=20 > (1987b) locates the emergence of the academic social=20 > relations and relates them to other aspects of social=20 > production in the capitalist world system (Hennessy, 1995=20 > my notes from her presentation at Syracuse). Smith,=20 > Hennessy writes, >=20 > makes visible the ways academic disciplines produce both=20 > economic and ideological value by occluding the dependence=20 > of their dominant conceptual modes and their administering=20 > subjects on the work of invisible subservient groups-- > women, blacks, working-class people. These are the=20 > workers who feed and care for the administrators and clean=20 > their labor supports (Hennessy, 1993: 19 quoting Smith=20 > 1987b). >=20 > However, Hennessy has problems with Smith=D5s=20 > =D2jockey[ing] between the objective conditions of women=D5s=20 > lives and the discursive construction of the feminine=D3 (19). =20 > What is important and needs to be explained is the material=20 > relationship between the discursive and nondiscursive. And=20 > that is the task of her article. As she is interested in=20 > articulating a feminist standpoint theory which is located in=20 > capitalist patriarchy, she analyzes the preconstructed which=20 > she defines as the =D2feature of any discursive fomation that=20 > produces the effect of an =D2always already there,=D3 conveying=20 > the sense of what everyone already knows=D3 (p. 24). The=20 > preconstructed is the =D2place=D3 upon which social struggles are=20 > displaced and the capitalist patriarchical social arrangements=20 > are thus condensed of their contradictions. It becomes the=20 > site upon which interventions can take place for tranforming=20 > the exploitative and oppressive class, gender, sexual and=20 > racial relations. =20 > What is necessary in making productive interventions=20 > is a theorization of discourse. Using the logic of historical=20 > materialism, she argues that reading women=D5s lives as an=20 > ensemble of discourses whose hegemonic articulation relies=20 > on a preconstructed patriarchal and heterosexual organization=20 > allows for recognizing and making visible the insistence of=20 > totalities like patriarchy, heterosexuality, or imperialism=20 > which continue to organize people=D5s lives in general, and=20 > women=D5s lives in particular, in systematic and oppressive=20 > ways. She thus theorizes discourse as ideology, and,=20 > consequently, she is able to suggest that the feminist=20 > standpoint can be reconstructed and articulated as a critical=20 > practice. =D2It is [and should be] an act of reading that=20 > intervenes and rearranges the construction of meanings and=20 > the social relations they support=D3 (27). To do that,=20 > materialist feminists need to rethink what is meant by=20 > standpoint. The major concept among them is materiality of=20 > knowledge. By this she means that in any historical=20 > formation, =D2what is possible to know is shaped by and in=20 > turn helps delimit the contradictory development and=20 > displacement of economic and political forces=D3 (21). For=20 > example, under capitalism, exploitation and oppression are=20 > mystified in ways that people see such social arrangements=20 > as the ways things =D2naturally=D3 are. Thus, ideology is a=20 > material force because it reproduces what comes to=20 > legitimately count as the =D2reality=D3--even while other=20 > economic and political material forces are shaped by=20 > ideology they are not reflected in it. Hennessy then argues=20 > that the materiality of the social is not based in an objective=20 > reality outside knowledge. Rather, it includes all of a=20 > culture=D5s modes of intelligibility in an ensemble of economic,=20 > political, and ideological practices. Thus, =D2from the vantage=20 > point of ideology...the material is that which intervenes in=20 > production of the social real by being made intelligible....the=20 > discourses that constitute the material structures through=20 > which ideology works are shaped by the material relations=20 > that comprise economic and political practices=D2 (22). Thus,=20 > women=D5s lives and the feminist standpoint are always=20 > impacted by the =D2ensemble of social relations=D3 and they are=20 > not just ideological. They are ideological constructs =D2whose=20 > parameters are unevenly and contradictorily shaped in=20 > specific historical moments by divisions of labor, and=20 > relations between state and civil society=D3 (22). =20 > Consequently, women=D5s lives cannot be separated from the=20 > contesting ways of making sense of them. It is thus=20 > important for standpoint theory to recognize that these =D2lives=20 > are not exclusively ideological=D3. =20 > What Hennessy then avails to the feminist standpoint=20 > is the historical materialism=D5s theory of idelogy through=20 > which she intervenes to shift the emphasis from a cultural=20 > analysis of several discourses to addressing the gaps in the=20 > dominant culture=D5s ways of making sense of women=D5s lives,=20 > gaps arising out of the contradiction between the democratic=20 > promises of equality and justice in modern societies and=20 > women=D5s subordination in all arenas of social life=D3. For her,=20 > the theory of ideology within historical materialism is the=20 > starting point to explain this gap and also to critique present=20 > knowledges that have not allowed an analysis of the=20 > contradictions of the social production of lives and=20 > knowledges. She argues that questions, problematics, and=20 > contradictions within texts of culture are the site upon which=20 > feminism can intervene to make explicit the historical=20 > contradictions they reveal. An =D2objective=D3 logic or the logic=20 > of cultural analysis (signification) could not adequately=20 > address these contradictions and the self-contradictory=20 > moments in a culture=D5s way of making sense. =20 > Critique, Hennessy suggests, is not a way of=20 > resolving cultural crisis. Its aim is to show that =D2internal=20 > contradictions in a cultural text are the product of crises in=20 > the larger social formation, contradictions that cannot be=20 > satisfied by the system as it is at present=D3 (28). This critique=20 > allows for linking one cultural text to the larger social,=20 > economic, and ideological social arrangements and in=20 > making visible the contradictions of the patriarchal capitalist=20 > logic and its demand for exploitation and oppression of some=20 > at the expense of the many. This analytic makes possible the=20 > consideration of the effects of knowledges as always=20 > invested ways of making sense of the world. >=20 > There is much more in the text of Hennessy that I wish to=20 > provide to you, however, in the interest of expediency, let=D5s=20 > start our discussion now. =20 >=20 > These questions are not encompassing but I hope they can=20 > guide our discussion of her text: >=20 > 1. In taking up women=D5s oppression and exploitation,=20 > Hennessy privileges which social context? =20 >=20 > 2. What is the medium through which Hennessy intends to=20 > chart the progress of feminist standpoint theory (critique,=20 > theory, literature)? Why? How does she conceptualize=20 > alterity and why? How does she define the object of=20 > feminist inquiry? What is the conceptual map which she=20 > provides us and how does this map make a linkage between=20 > the global and the local? Why is the map useful for people=20 > interested in accounting women=D5s oppression and=20 > exploitation and the feminist inquiry in particular? =20 >=20 > 3. What are the historical conditions that make possible the=20 > emergence of feminist standpoint theories that emphasize and=20 > resolve the tension between the existence of the collective=20 > subject (who is oppressed and exploited on gender, racial=20 > and class grounds) within their texts in favor of signification=20 > and a cultural analysis of women=D5s lives?=20 >=20 > 4. According to Hennessy we need to reconceptualize=20 > knowledge, subjectivity, and cross-alliances. How can=20 > feminist standpoint theorists can do that and why? Where do=20 > they need to locate their knowledges and their =D2energies?=D3 =20 > Why?=20 >=20 > 5. Why is it necessary for Hennessy to conceptualize=20 > feminist standpoint theory from a global analytic and what=20 > are the underlying conceptualizations of class, gender, and=20 > race within this kind of feminist standpoint theory that=20 > Hennessy puts forward in this article? Why is it necessary at=20 > this historical moment? What kind of social transformation=20 > is Hennessy putting forward through her reconceptualization=20 > of feminist standpoint theory? Why? >=20 > 6. What ideological conditions make possible the=20 > understanding and explaining of particular institutions and=20 > =D2knowledge production=D3 as autonomous sites? =20 >=20 > 7. Hennessy suggests that we need to make the connection=20 > between the discursive and the nondiscursive. Why is it=20 > necessary? How would this linkage be useful for the=20 > understanding of women=D5s oppression and exploitation and=20 > under what conditions would this linkage allow for=20 > transformation? >=20 >=20 From patricem@rtk.net Mon Oct 16 08:41:28 1995 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 10:35:59 EDT From: Patrice McDermott Sender: Patrice McDermott Subject: RE:We have our own NGO! sex-workers To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Does anyone know what happened with this? And is there an Internet/Web site >for further information. Thanks. ------------------------------------- Patrice McDermott patricem@rtk.net OMB Watch Date: 10/16/95 Time: 10:35:59 EDT ------------------------------------- > >On Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:48:18 -0400 Doug Henwood wrote: >I'd be interested in hearing what folks think of this. > >Doug > >-- > >Doug Henwood >[dhenwood@panix.com] >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >USA >+1-212-874-4020 voice >+1-212-874-3137 fax > >====================================================================== > >>Network of Sex Work Projects-European Symposium on Health and the Sex >>Industry-Edinburgh 1994 >> >>SEX WORK AND HUMAN RIGHTS >>Systematic violation of the human rights of women who work in the sex >>industry is global and endemic. In it's most potent form this means >>imprisonment, torture and murder. At the other end of the scale are the >>liberal countries where prostitution is tolerated or legalised. But even >in those countries sex workers do not have the same rights as other workers. >> >>The persecution of sex workers is inexorably linked with the idea that >sexual services should not be sold. Churches, and other conservative >institutions, who have always held this view have been joined in recent years by feminists who argue that prostitution should be abolished because it is inherently exploitative. Sex workers are seen as victims who are 'forced' into prostitution either by violent coercion or economic circumstances. >> >>To sustain these ideas involves dismissing the voices of prostitutes, or >>listening only to those whose experience and perceptions fit the idea >that commercial sex is abusive. Conferences, no matter how well intentioned, cannot secure human rights for sex workers. What they can do is ensure that sex workers are heard. It is essential that prostitution issues are programmed in consultation with prostitutes and that prostitutes are heard at the conference. >> >>These principles apply with ease to other groups. It would be unthinkable >>to hold a conference on racism without black people, or on disability >>rights without disabled people or on sexual orientation without gay men >>and lesbians. To organise a conference in such a way would be regarded >>as a violation of human rights in itself because self determination - the >>right to speak for yourself - is a fundamental human right. >> >>It is a shameful aspect of the modern women's movement that the >>oppression of prostitutes has effectively been assisted by the exclusion >>of sex workers from important policy making areas. The sex workers >>rights movement in developed countries has made some progress in the >>struggle to be heard and sex workers from developing countries are >>beginning to speak out also. (A delegation of 10 sex workers from >>developing countries attended the international AIDS Conference this >>August and were able for the first time to challenge what was being said about them.) >> >>We are therefore asking for formal support in requesting that the 4th >>international Conference on Women in September 1995 ensure the following >>1 That sex work issues are included in the program >>2 That sex workers' organisations in developed and developing countries >>are consulted about the program >>3 That the conference takes steps to ensure the participation of sex >>workers by a) providing appropriate resources and, b) ensuring that sex >>workers are able to enter China legally. >> >>The Network of Sex Work Projects is an international NGO which >>facilitates information sharing between projects working with and for sex workers and advocates for the advancement of the rights of sex workers. >> >>Cheryl Overs >>Co-ordinator >>21a Torphicen St. >>Edinburgh EH3 8HX >>United Kingdom >>Network of Sexwork Projects is supported by the Commission of the >European Communities,WHO Regional Office for Europe, Global Programme On >>AIDS >> > > > > From patricem@rtk.net Mon Oct 16 10:59:21 1995 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 13:00:57 EDT From: Patrice McDermott Sender: Patrice McDermott Subject: FW: Call for papers: Feminist Interpretations of Marx (fwd) To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu I have not seen this on this list as yet. >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 19:23:39 -0700 >From: Gregg Miller >Subject: Call for papers: Feminist Interpretations of Marx > >For an edited volume of new and previously published essays, *Feminist >Interpretations of Marx*, we are seeking papers and suggestions for >papers reflecting a broad range of feminist engagement with Marx. > >This volume will be part of the "Rereading the Canon series, edited >by Nancy Tuana for Penn State Press. > >Please send inquiries and proposals to Professor Christine Di Stefano, >Department of Political Science, Box 353530, University of Washington, >Seattle, WA 98195-3530. > >You may also send e-mail to Professor Di Stefano at distefan@u.washington.edu > >Thanks for you attention, > > Gregg Miller > Graduate Student > University of Washington > Seattle, WA > ggmiller@u.washington.edu > ------------------------------------- Patrice McDermott patricem@rtk.net OMB Watch Date: 10/16/95 Time: 13:00:57 EDT ------------------------------------- From h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au Mon Oct 16 21:03:01 1995 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:01:05 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au (Helena ) Subject: Hennessys article Hi everyone, Just a few thoughts in response to both Anna and Nancy. We found both analyses very useful and engaging and feel that we have a clearer understanding of Hennessys text now. Nancy's call to consider the effects of ideologies on everyday practices was engaging and useful. In response to Anna however, we are still unclear about question seven. What is Hennessys definition of the non-discursive (what is delineated by it) - we have difficulties mapping the non-discursive in relation to mat fem analysis - can anyone shed some light on this for us? Thanks xxxxx Helena and Debbie Murdoch University Perth Western Australia Helena Grehan Theatre and Drama Studies Murdoch University Perth Western Australia From Jane.Haslett@UAlberta.CA Tue Oct 17 07:19:06 1995 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 07:18:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Jane Haslett To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Hennessys article I agree with Helena that the dicursive/nondiscursive binary that Hennessy sets up is a very difficult one to understand - first of all, there seems to be nothing that is not discursive, since we put everything into language, even to ourselves, in order to make sense of it. Perhaps "discourse" is seen as opposite to bodily (material) reality, but when writing about bodies recently I realize that even they are understood in terms of discourse - in other words, we translate "body language" into words at some level. I find Hennessy's book most compelling and useful, but our body reading group did have trouble figuring out the "non-discursive" that she alludes to, but never quite explains. Jane (Jane.Haslett@ualberta.ca) From chouinar@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA Mon Oct 23 10:01:25 1995 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:01:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Vera Chouinard Subject: Re: Hennessys article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: Greetings all! I too find it a challenge sorting out the discursive from nondiscursive (and not just I should add in Hennessy's writing!). Having said that, I also think it important to see the 'binary divide' as an invitation as well as an engima. I find it helpful to think about the distinction in terms of practice, i.e. the discursive being communicative practices via the medium of language and the nondiscursive being practices with direct aims other than communication, such as picketting or refusing to follow disciplinary orders in the workplace. Given this, admittedly simple (e.g. where does body language 'go'?), distinction, it seems to me that the challenge Hennessy poses is that of understanding the difference that particular ways of engaging in discourse and 'reading' ideologies makes to material practices like political resistance and, importantly, vice-versa. Understood in this way, the 'binary divide' becomes more of a 'dialectic' and indeed an invitation to really wrestle with the ways that we come to identify with particular ideologies (interpellation) and construct particular 'mind sets' or ways of understanding/knowing that are rooted not only in discourse but also in how are ideas are translated into non-discursive practices (e.g. selecting which feminist protests to participate in) which 'filter' our experiences of the world and power divisions and influence how we appropriate and 'articulate' ideas from hegemonic ideologies and ultimately, whether we can challenge prevailing relations of power in discursive and non-discursive ways. This is a 'process' or 'analytic' reading rather than a 'categorizing' one (e.g. this is discourse, that isn't etc.) and, I think, is consistent with the dynamic conception of ideology as process that Hennessy is trying to convey. What do you think? Let's have some other readings to mull over!! Take care, Vera Chouinard P.S. one of the 'are's above should be 'our'--sorry! On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Jane Haslett wrote: > I agree with Helena that the dicursive/nondiscursive binary that Hennessy > sets up is a very difficult one to understand - first of all, there seems > to be nothing that is not discursive, since we put everything into > language, even to ourselves, in order to make sense of it. Perhaps > "discourse" is seen as opposite to bodily (material) reality, but when > writing about bodies recently I realize that even they are understood in > terms of discourse - in other words, we translate "body language" into > words at some level. I find Hennessy's book most compelling and useful, > but our body reading group did have trouble figuring out the > "non-discursive" that she alludes to, but never quite explains. Jane > (Jane.Haslett@ualberta.ca) > From chouinar@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA Mon Oct 30 16:34:54 1995 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:34:46 -0500 (EST) From: Vera Chouinard Subject: Re: Hennessy's article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace readings of Hennessy--at least not in accord with Martha's proposed schedule. Since I'm the next volunteer, on chapter 1 of H's book, I wanted to get a feel for whether or not there is any point in continuing now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll assume that we're going to cancel the discussion group at least for now. I still think it's an excellent idea but obviously it won't work without participation! Cheers, Vera Chouinard From h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au Mon Oct 30 17:34:20 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:32:14 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au (Helena ) Subject: Re: Hennessy's article Dear Vera, whilst there haven't been too many replies re the reading - there have been some - and I personally am finding it most helpful - my reading of the chapter analyses has been invaluable to my engagement with mat fem and I also believe that by continuing the reading we are forging new ground for mat fem from a theoretical point of view. Please don't stop now - it took us so long to get going. Hopefully helenaxx >Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most >people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace >readings of Hennessy--at least not in accord with Martha's proposed >schedule. Since I'm the next volunteer, on chapter 1 of H's book, I >wanted to get a feel for whether or not there is any point in continuing >now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make >sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more >time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll >assume that we're going to cancel the discussion group at least for now. >I still think it's an excellent idea but obviously it won't work without >participation! Cheers, Vera Chouinard > > Helena Grehan Theatre and Drama Studies Murdoch University Perth Western Australia From BINGHAH@delphi.com Mon Oct 30 23:17:32 1995 id <01HX2LOK7H1C99EL1Z@delphi.com> for matfem@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:16:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:16:03 -0500 (EST) From: Herman Bingham Subject: Re: Hennessy's article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu -----quote----- Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace readings of Hennessy... ----- end ----- I joined MATFEM after reading Bartky's _Femininity and Domination_, being interested in learning more. The reference is to Rosemary Hennessy, no? Is the book _Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse_? What are the terms of the "slow reading" or "reading?" Time is precious now, but I would be interested in participating in such a reading if the requirements were workable. December and January are very busy, but I could say that about any month. In short, with reasonable and feasible terms I would be willing to do my part. For me it's quite an opportunity, coming so quickly on the heels of a new interest. Please repost or restate the intent of reading Hennessy, as well as the book and schedule. BTW, forgive the annoying double-spacing. I'm using QuickLink, which came with the US Robotics _Sportster_ I use. I connect from my home @ 9600 on a 286 Bondwell laptop, which is only to tell you as much as I can about the double-spacing problem. My service (Delphi) has ignored my pleas for help. Perhaps they don't know. Anyone out there with telecommunications experience who knows what settings I should have to cut out the double-spacing? Sincerely, HB From ALYNCH@hhh.umn.edu Tue Oct 31 10:15:25 1995 From: "AMY LYNCH" To: MATFEM@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:43:30 CST Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS - NEW DEADLINE CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue of WOMEN AND POLITICS Feminist Standpoint Theories Following the successful APSA panel entitled "The Feminist Standpoint Ten Years Later: Roundtable on Nancy Hartsock's Money, Sex, and Power," WOMEN AND POLITICS calls for papers for a special issue on feminist standpoint theories and feminist epistemology. We seek manuscripts directed at an interdisciplinary feminist theory audience that draw on, respond to, or critique Nancy Hartsock's work. We are particularly interested in manuscripts that explore the multicultural dimensions of such theories and that recommend the direction feminist theory should take. Manuscripts should be no more than 20-25 pages in length. The deadline is April 1, 1996 (please note new deadline). Special issue editor: Sally J. Kenney, Associate Professor, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, (612) 625-3409, email: skenney@hhh.umn.edu. Authors should send manuscripts to: Dr. Janet Clark, Editor WOMEN AND POLITICS Department of Political Science West Georgia College Carrollton, Georgia 30118 Submitted by Amy Lynch, Research Assistant on behalf of Sally J. Kenney, Associate Professor Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota skenney@hhh.umn.edu From chouinar@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA Tue Oct 31 10:39:34 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:39:20 -0500 (EST) From: Vera Chouinard Subject: Re: Hennessy's article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Greetings Helena! Glad to hear you are finding the comments on Hennessy helpful and I certainly would like to see dialogue continue and grow. I guess what I'm wondering at this point is if we wouldn't get more sustained discussion at a less hectic time--perhaps the summer. Cheers, Vera On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Helena wrote: > Dear Vera, > > whilst there haven't been too many replies re the reading - there have been > some - and I personally am finding it most helpful - my reading of the > chapter analyses has been invaluable to my engagement with mat fem and I > also believe that by continuing the reading we are forging new ground for > mat fem from a theoretical point of view. Please don't stop now - it took > us so long to get going. > > Hopefully > helenaxx > > >Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most > >people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace > >readings of Hennessy--at least not in accord with Martha's proposed > >schedule. Since I'm the next volunteer, on chapter 1 of H's book, I > >wanted to get a feel for whether or not there is any point in continuing > >now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make > >sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more > >time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll > >assume that we're going to cancel the discussion group at least for now. > >I still think it's an excellent idea but obviously it won't work without > >participation! Cheers, Vera Chouinard > > > > > Helena Grehan > Theatre and Drama Studies > Murdoch University > Perth > Western Australia > > From chouinar@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA Tue Oct 31 10:43:24 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:43:02 -0500 (EST) From: Vera Chouinard Subject: Re: Hennessy's article To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: <01HX2LOK7QOI99EL1Z@delphi.com> Hi Herman and all! Our original schedule was, I believe, to discuss ch. 1 of Hennessy's book (the one you mention) by mid-November but I wonder now if we shouldn't consider a slower timetable since many people seem to have been unable to participate to date. I think at this point that the schedule is open for discussion. Cheers, Vera From jnewman@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu Tue Oct 31 10:54:52 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:54:39 -0800 (PST) From: "Jane O. Newman" To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Hennessy's article In-Reply-To: Yes, I am, for one, too busy, or, rather, would like to have the time to consider the good thoughts that have been articulated so far with more care than academic life now permits. I think the idea of a summer discussion group is good, but would like to continue to use this list for discussion of other issues during the year too. So perhaps we can postpone, but continue to keep in touch on other selected issues. Jane O. Newman, UCI, Comp. Lit. and WS On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Vera Chouinard wrote: > Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most > people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace > readings of Hennessy--at least not in accord with Martha's proposed > schedule. Since I'm the next volunteer, on chapter 1 of H's book, I > wanted to get a feel for whether or not there is any point in continuing > now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make > sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more > time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll > assume that we're going to cancel the discussion group at least for now. > I still think it's an excellent idea but obviously it won't work without > participation! Cheers, Vera Chouinard > From jae2@mailer.york.ac.uk Tue Oct 31 13:30:18 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 20:05:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Judy Evans To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Hennessy's article In-Reply-To: On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Vera Chouinard wrote: > now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make > sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more > time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll I would agree with this. I was looking forward to this discussion. But this is my heaviest teaching term, and I spend my evenings "voice-typing"! I haven't been able to read Hennessy's book, or the edited one, or the other edited one! (Toril Moi.)Nor will I be able to for some weeks yet. I suspect a lot of people are simply overworked, and really can't take part in an informed way. --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Evans + Politics + jae2@york.ac.uk using voice-recognition software: please ignore editing errors --------------------------------------------------------------- From h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au Tue Oct 31 17:28:45 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:27:12 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au (Helena ) Subject: Re: Hennessy's article sorry Judy I called you Jane (Sorry sorry) helena >On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Vera Chouinard wrote: > >> now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make >> sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more >> time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll > I would agree with this. I was looking forward to this discussion. But >this is my heaviest teaching term, and I spend my evenings "voice-typing"! > I haven't been able to read Hennessy's book, or the edited one, or >the other edited one! (Toril Moi.)Nor will I be able to for some weeks yet. >I suspect a lot of people are simply overworked, and really can't >take part in an informed way. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Judy Evans + Politics + jae2@york.ac.uk > using voice-recognition software: please > ignore editing errors >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Helena Grehan Theatre and Drama Studies Murdoch University Perth Western Australia From h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au Tue Oct 31 17:30:23 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:26:36 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: h_grehan@central.murdoch.edu.au (Helena ) Subject: Re: Hennessy's article Dear Jane and vera and everyone - I am really disappointed - when we tried to get this going it snowballed into millions of people concerned with the timing - and where have they gone - what scares me is if we do postpone the debate/discussion will we have to go through the same trauma re the timetable - I suggest to keep it simple we keep the same timetable ie the same people provided they still can but just delay it for a few months - when you say summer is that June/July? (we are in AUstralia) could we please do it a bit earlier than that? But most importantly let's not let the organisation take over... sincerely helena xxx >On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Vera Chouinard wrote: > >> now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make >> sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more >> time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll > I would agree with this. I was looking forward to this discussion. But >this is my heaviest teaching term, and I spend my evenings "voice-typing"! > I haven't been able to read Hennessy's book, or the edited one, or >the other edited one! (Toril Moi.)Nor will I be able to for some weeks yet. >I suspect a lot of people are simply overworked, and really can't >take part in an informed way. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Judy Evans + Politics + jae2@york.ac.uk > using voice-recognition software: please > ignore editing errors >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Helena Grehan Theatre and Drama Studies Murdoch University Perth Western Australia From d_rodan@central.murdoch.edu.au Tue Oct 31 17:33:31 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:31:39 +0800 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: d_rodan@central.murdoch.edu.au (Debbie Rodan) Subject: Re: Hennessy's article Dear Vera I have found the reading so far most fruitful in terms of theoretical engagement with the text. I was also hoping for more discussion of the text but there has been some. I would like to continue as per the schedule, however if the group would prefer to shift it to the summer break I would go along with that too. But I agree with Helena it took quite a bit of energy to get going, let's not stop now. Regards Debbie >Greetings all! I think at this point it is becoming clear that most >people don't have the time and/or energy to pursue our cyberspace >readings of Hennessy--at least not in accord with Martha's proposed >schedule. Since I'm the next volunteer, on chapter 1 of H's book, I >wanted to get a feel for whether or not there is any point in continuing >now. I also wonder, if the interest is still there, if it would make >sense to resurrect the 'reading group' this summer when there is more >time and flexibility for all concerned. If I don't hear from anyone I'll >assume that we're going to cancel the discussion group at least for now. >I still think it's an excellent idea but obviously it won't work without >participation! Cheers, Vera Chouinard > > -------------------------------------- Debbie Rodan Dept. English and Comparative Lit. d_rodan@central.murdoch.edu.au