From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 8 10:19:13 1998 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:19:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU, matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Kate Millet update (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:55:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Joanne Naiman To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Subject: Kate Millet update (fwd) This depressing message came my way today. Joanne Naiman ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > The feminist time forgot > > In 1970, Kate Millett wrote Sexual Politics, a groundbreaking, > bestselling analysis of female oppression. And what is she doing now? > Read her and weep > > The Guardian (London) Tuesday June 23, 1998 > > Another season at the farm, not that bad, but not that good either: > the tedium of a small community, shearing trees, so exhausted > afterward that I did nothing but read. A season without writing or > silk screening or drawing. Back to the Bowery and another emptiness. I > cannot spend the whole day reading, so I write, or try to. A pure if > pointless exercise. My books are out of print, even Sexual Politics, > and the manuscript about my mother cannot find a publisher. > > Trying also to get a job. At first the academic voices were kind and > welcoming, imagining I am rich and am doing this for amusement, > slightly embarrassed as they offer the new slave wages. I hear the > guilty little catch in the administrative voice, forced maybe to make > a big concession of $3,000 in my case. But I couldn't live on that, I > demur. "Of course, no one does," they chuckle from their own > $50-80,000 "positions". A real faculty appointment seems an > impossibility, in my case as in so many others now. I have friends > with doctorates earning as little as $12,000 a year, eking out an > existence at five different schools, their lives lived in cars and on > the economic edge. I'm too old for that and must do better. "Oh, but > our budget," they moan, "we really have no funds at all, much as we'd > love to have you." "Surely I'm qualified?" I ask, not as a "celebrity" > but as a credentialed scholar with years of teaching and a doctorate > with distinction from Columbia, an Oxford First, eight published > books. They'll get back to me. > > But they never do. > > I begin to wonder what is wrong with me. Am I "too far out" or too > old? Is it age? I'm 63. Or am I "old hat" in the view of the "new > feminist scholarship"? Or is it something worse? Have I been denounced > or bad-mouthed? By whom? What is the matter with me, for God's sake? > Has my feminism made me "abrasive"? Surely my polite, St Paul manner > should be reassuring. God knows I'm deferential enough to these > people. > > I begin to realise there isn't a job. > > I cannot get employment. I cannot earn money. Except by selling > Christmas trees, one by one, in the cold in Poughkeepsie. I cannot > teach and have nothing but farming now. And when physically I can no > longer farm, what then? Nothing I write now has any prospect of seeing > print. I have no saleable skill, for all my supposed accomplishments. > I am unemployable. Frightening, this future. What poverty ahead, what > mortification, what distant bag-lady horrors, when my savings are > gone? And why did I imagine it would be any different, imagine my > books would give me some slender living, or that I could at least > teach at the moment in life when every other teacher retires, having > served all those long years when I was enjoying the freedom of writer > and artist, unsalaried but able to survive on the little I'd been used > to and to invest in a farm and build it into a self-sufficient women's > art colony and even put a bit by. The savings might last 10 years, > more like seven. So in seven years I should die. But I probably won't; > women in my family live forever. > > Much as I tire of a life without purpose or the meaningful work that > would make it bearable, I can't die because the moment I do, my > sculpture, drawings, negatives and silkscreens will be carted off to > the dump. > > The Feminist Press, in its first offer last fall (it took them 12 > months to come up with this), suggested $500 to reprint the entire > text of Sexual Politics. Moreover, they couldn't get around to it till > the year 2000, since they'd need to commission one or two fancy > prefaces by younger, more wonderful women's studies scholars. My agent > and I were happy to refuse this offer, and the next, for $1,000. > > The book also fails to attract interest from the powers that be at > Doubleday, who have refused to reprint it, even though another > division of the company is celebrating Sexual Politics with a long > excerpt in an anthology of the 10 most important books the house has > published in its 100 years. A young female editor at Doubleday gave my > agent to understand the work of more recent feminist scholarship had > somehow rendered my book obsolete in the "current climate". I am out > of fashion in the new academic cottage industry of feminism. > > Recently a book inquired Who Stole Feminism? I sure didn't. Nor did > Ti-Grace Atkinson. Nor Jill Johnston. We're all out of print. We > haven't helped each other much, haven't been able to build solidly > enough to have created community or safety. Some women in this > generation disappeared to struggle alone in makeshift oblivion. Or > vanished into asylums and have yet to return to tell the tale, as has > Shula Firestone. There were despairs that could only end in death: > Maria del Drago chose suicide, so did Ellen Frankfurt, and Elizabeth > Fischer, founder of Aphra, the first feminist literary journal. > > Eizabeth and I used to run into each other at a comfortable old hippy > cafe in Greenwich Village that I visited in the afternoons, writing > some of the darker passages of The Loony Bin Trip in public to avoid > the dangers of suicidal privacy at home. She'd just finished a book > that was her life's work. Probably it wasn't getting the reception > she'd hoped for in the already crowded new market of "women's studies" > texts written by sudden specialists in this field. Elizabeth and I > would eat an afternoon breakfast and chat, carefully disguising our > misery from each other. Feminists didn't complain to one another then; > each imagined the loneliness and sense of failure was unique. > Consciousness-raising groups were over by then. One had no colleagues: > New York is not a cosy town. > > Elizabeth is dead and I must live to tell the tale, hoping to tell > another generation something I'd like them to know of the long > struggle for women's liberation, something about history and America > and censorship. I might also hope to explain that social change does > not come easy, that pioneers pay dearly and in unnecessary solitude > for what their successors take for granted. Why do women seem > particularly unable to observe and revere their own history? What > secret shame makes us so obtuse? We did not create the community > necessary to support each other against the coming of age. And now we > have a lacuna between one generation's understanding and that of the > next, and have lost much of our sense of continuity and comradeship. > > But I have also spent 40 years as a downtown artist habituated to the > existential edge and even as I proclaim that all is lost, I am > planning a comeback . . . imagining a sinecure in human rights for > extreme old age, matched editions of my collected works, and final > glory. > > Just last week, after a good dinner and a good play (Arthur Miller's > American Clock), I lay awake scheming, adding up the farm rents and > seeing the way to a summer of restoration, figuring to replace the > slate roof on the farmhouse, to paint every building, the lavender > house, the blue barn.. Bundling my sums together, ecstatic that I have > finally paid off my credit cards, scribbling at three in the morning > that I will plant roses again, the ultimate gesture of success. I will > have won out after all. Living well is the best revenge. > > And then a trip to see my elder sister, the banker/lawyer, caps my > determination. The Elder has a computer programme that guarantees you > survival on your savings at 5 per cent interest if your withdrawal > rate does not exceed 7 per cent - a vista of no less than 30 years. My > savings plus my rat's turd of social security: the two figures > together would give me a rock-bottom, survival existence. Thanks to > the magic of programmed arithmetic, I am, at one stroke, spared the > humiliations of searching for regular employment, institutional > obedience, discretion or regimentation. Looks like I can stay forever > footloose and bohemian, a busy artist-writer free of gainful > employment. Free at last - provided I live real close to the ground. > > A longer version of this article appears in the summer issue of US > magazine On The Issues. > > Kate Millett's life > > Born 1934 in St Paul, Minnesota. Educated at University of Minnesota, > St Hilda's, Oxford, and Columbia, New York. > > Moved to Japan in 1961. Married fellow sculptor Fumio Yoshimura in > 1965; split up in the 70s. > > Published Sexual Politics (1970); The Prostitution Papers (1973); > Flying, her autobiography (1974); Sita (1977), about her doomed love > affair with another woman. > > Active in feminist politics in late 60s/70s. In 1966 became committee > member of National Organisation for Women. In 1979 went to Iran to > work for women's rights; was expelled. > > In 1990 published The Loony Bin Trip, about her mental breakdown. > > In 1991 was back in the news after Oliver Reed, drunk, tried to kiss > her on C4's After Dark. > > In 1994 published The Politics Of Cruelty. > > > Print version > > > > > > > > CRICKET | FOOTBALL | N&Q | ONLINE | PASSNOTES | RECRUITNET | THE > OBSERVER > > © Copyright Guardian Media Group plc.1998 > > > The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in everything humiliating. Gandhi From mreeves@chass.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 12 21:19:43 1998 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:18:11 -0400 From: Margaret Reeves To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Kate Millet update (fwd) Hi Heather: This is bit of depressing info I thought I'd pass along (although seeing as it's so depressing, I'm not sure I should be sending it to anyone!) Anyway, I thought you might be interested. It's given me lots of food for thought. Margaret Martha Gimenez wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:55:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: Joanne Naiman > To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK > Subject: Kate Millet update (fwd) > > This depressing message came my way today. > Joanne Naiman > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > The feminist time forgot > > > > In 1970, Kate Millett wrote Sexual Politics, a groundbreaking, > > bestselling analysis of female oppression. And what is she doing now? > > Read her and weep > > > > The Guardian (London) Tuesday June 23, 1998 > > > > Another season at the farm, not that bad, but not that good either: > > the tedium of a small community, shearing trees, so exhausted > > afterward that I did nothing but read. A season without writing or > > silk screening or drawing. Back to the Bowery and another emptiness. I > > cannot spend the whole day reading, so I write, or try to. A pure if > > pointless exercise. My books are out of print, even Sexual Politics, > > and the manuscript about my mother cannot find a publisher. > > > > Trying also to get a job. At first the academic voices were kind and > > welcoming, imagining I am rich and am doing this for amusement, > > slightly embarrassed as they offer the new slave wages. I hear the > > guilty little catch in the administrative voice, forced maybe to make > > a big concession of $3,000 in my case. But I couldn't live on that, I > > demur. "Of course, no one does," they chuckle from their own > > $50-80,000 "positions". A real faculty appointment seems an > > impossibility, in my case as in so many others now. I have friends > > with doctorates earning as little as $12,000 a year, eking out an > > existence at five different schools, their lives lived in cars and on > > the economic edge. I'm too old for that and must do better. "Oh, but > > our budget," they moan, "we really have no funds at all, much as we'd > > love to have you." "Surely I'm qualified?" I ask, not as a "celebrity" > > but as a credentialed scholar with years of teaching and a doctorate > > with distinction from Columbia, an Oxford First, eight published > > books. They'll get back to me. > > > > But they never do. > > > > I begin to wonder what is wrong with me. Am I "too far out" or too > > old? Is it age? I'm 63. Or am I "old hat" in the view of the "new > > feminist scholarship"? Or is it something worse? Have I been denounced > > or bad-mouthed? By whom? What is the matter with me, for God's sake? > > Has my feminism made me "abrasive"? Surely my polite, St Paul manner > > should be reassuring. God knows I'm deferential enough to these > > people. > > > > I begin to realise there isn't a job. > > > > I cannot get employment. I cannot earn money. Except by selling > > Christmas trees, one by one, in the cold in Poughkeepsie. I cannot > > teach and have nothing but farming now. And when physically I can no > > longer farm, what then? Nothing I write now has any prospect of seeing > > print. I have no saleable skill, for all my supposed accomplishments. > > I am unemployable. Frightening, this future. What poverty ahead, what > > mortification, what distant bag-lady horrors, when my savings are > > gone? And why did I imagine it would be any different, imagine my > > books would give me some slender living, or that I could at least > > teach at the moment in life when every other teacher retires, having > > served all those long years when I was enjoying the freedom of writer > > and artist, unsalaried but able to survive on the little I'd been used > > to and to invest in a farm and build it into a self-sufficient women's > > art colony and even put a bit by. The savings might last 10 years, > > more like seven. So in seven years I should die. But I probably won't; > > women in my family live forever. > > > > Much as I tire of a life without purpose or the meaningful work that > > would make it bearable, I can't die because the moment I do, my > > sculpture, drawings, negatives and silkscreens will be carted off to > > the dump. > > > > The Feminist Press, in its first offer last fall (it took them 12 > > months to come up with this), suggested $500 to reprint the entire > > text of Sexual Politics. Moreover, they couldn't get around to it till > > the year 2000, since they'd need to commission one or two fancy > > prefaces by younger, more wonderful women's studies scholars. My agent > > and I were happy to refuse this offer, and the next, for $1,000. > > > > The book also fails to attract interest from the powers that be at > > Doubleday, who have refused to reprint it, even though another > > division of the company is celebrating Sexual Politics with a long > > excerpt in an anthology of the 10 most important books the house has > > published in its 100 years. A young female editor at Doubleday gave my > > agent to understand the work of more recent feminist scholarship had > > somehow rendered my book obsolete in the "current climate". I am out > > of fashion in the new academic cottage industry of feminism. > > > > Recently a book inquired Who Stole Feminism? I sure didn't. Nor did > > Ti-Grace Atkinson. Nor Jill Johnston. We're all out of print. We > > haven't helped each other much, haven't been able to build solidly > > enough to have created community or safety. Some women in this > > generation disappeared to struggle alone in makeshift oblivion. Or > > vanished into asylums and have yet to return to tell the tale, as has > > Shula Firestone. There were despairs that could only end in death: > > Maria del Drago chose suicide, so did Ellen Frankfurt, and Elizabeth > > Fischer, founder of Aphra, the first feminist literary journal. > > > > Eizabeth and I used to run into each other at a comfortable old hippy > > cafe in Greenwich Village that I visited in the afternoons, writing > > some of the darker passages of The Loony Bin Trip in public to avoid > > the dangers of suicidal privacy at home. She'd just finished a book > > that was her life's work. Probably it wasn't getting the reception > > she'd hoped for in the already crowded new market of "women's studies" > > texts written by sudden specialists in this field. Elizabeth and I > > would eat an afternoon breakfast and chat, carefully disguising our > > misery from each other. Feminists didn't complain to one another then; > > each imagined the loneliness and sense of failure was unique. > > Consciousness-raising groups were over by then. One had no colleagues: > > New York is not a cosy town. > > > > Elizabeth is dead and I must live to tell the tale, hoping to tell > > another generation something I'd like them to know of the long > > struggle for women's liberation, something about history and America > > and censorship. I might also hope to explain that social change does > > not come easy, that pioneers pay dearly and in unnecessary solitude > > for what their successors take for granted. Why do women seem > > particularly unable to observe and revere their own history? What > > secret shame makes us so obtuse? We did not create the community > > necessary to support each other against the coming of age. And now we > > have a lacuna between one generation's understanding and that of the > > next, and have lost much of our sense of continuity and comradeship. > > > > But I have also spent 40 years as a downtown artist habituated to the > > existential edge and even as I proclaim that all is lost, I am > > planning a comeback . . . imagining a sinecure in human rights for > > extreme old age, matched editions of my collected works, and final > > glory. > > > > Just last week, after a good dinner and a good play (Arthur Miller's > > American Clock), I lay awake scheming, adding up the farm rents and > > seeing the way to a summer of restoration, figuring to replace the > > slate roof on the farmhouse, to paint every building, the lavender > > house, the blue barn.. Bundling my sums together, ecstatic that I have > > finally paid off my credit cards, scribbling at three in the morning > > that I will plant roses again, the ultimate gesture of success. I will > > have won out after all. Living well is the best revenge. > > > > And then a trip to see my elder sister, the banker/lawyer, caps my > > determination. The Elder has a computer programme that guarantees you > > survival on your savings at 5 per cent interest if your withdrawal > > rate does not exceed 7 per cent - a vista of no less than 30 years. My > > savings plus my rat's turd of social security: the two figures > > together would give me a rock-bottom, survival existence. Thanks to > > the magic of programmed arithmetic, I am, at one stroke, spared the > > humiliations of searching for regular employment, institutional > > obedience, discretion or regimentation. Looks like I can stay forever > > footloose and bohemian, a busy artist-writer free of gainful > > employment. Free at last - provided I live real close to the ground. > > > > A longer version of this article appears in the summer issue of US > > magazine On The Issues. > > > > Kate Millett's life > > > > Born 1934 in St Paul, Minnesota. Educated at University of Minnesota, > > St Hilda's, Oxford, and Columbia, New York. > > > > Moved to Japan in 1961. Married fellow sculptor Fumio Yoshimura in > > 1965; split up in the 70s. > > > > Published Sexual Politics (1970); The Prostitution Papers (1973); > > Flying, her autobiography (1974); Sita (1977), about her doomed love > > affair with another woman. > > > > Active in feminist politics in late 60s/70s. In 1966 became committee > > member of National Organisation for Women. In 1979 went to Iran to > > work for women's rights; was expelled. > > > > In 1990 published The Loony Bin Trip, about her mental breakdown. > > > > In 1991 was back in the news after Oliver Reed, drunk, tried to kiss > > her on C4's After Dark. > > > > In 1994 published The Politics Of Cruelty. > > > > > > Print version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CRICKET | FOOTBALL | N&Q | ONLINE | PASSNOTES | RECRUITNET | THE > > OBSERVER > > > > © Copyright Guardian Media Group plc.1998 > > > > > > > The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in > everything humiliating. > Gandhi From mreeves@chass.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 12 22:20:41 1998 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:19:13 -0400 From: Margaret Reeves To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Woops - sorry Dear Mat Fem List: My apologies - I wanted to forward Martha Giminez' recent posting on Kate Millett to a friend, and should never have tried to do so late at night! Perhaps I could tell the list instead that as a graduate student, Kate Millet's story as told in this posting certainly made me stop and think about what I am doing. Thank you to Martha for sharing this with the list. Margaret Reeves From dpavese@hotmail.com Mon Jul 13 13:14:00 1998 X-Originating-IP: [204.108.131.57] From: "Daniel Pavese" To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Kate Millet update (fwd) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:07:07 PDT Why would you begin to share such a depressing story? Why is it with feminists that the world must revolve around women? I think, although I admit my ignorance of the subject, that feminism is an excuse to give women a more educated way to do all of their complaining. >Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) >Received: from artemis.chass.utoronto.ca (artemis.chass.utoronto.ca [128.100.160.6]) -0600 (MDT) >Received: from chass.chass.utoronto.ca (ppp19.chass.utoronto.ca [128.100.160.139]) >Message-Id: <35A97C73.6CD7@chass.utoronto.ca> >Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:18:11 -0400 >Reply-To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu >Sender: owner-MatFem@csf.colorado.edu >Precedence: bulk >From: Margaret Reeves >To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM >Subject: Re: Kate Millet update (fwd) >References: >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by csf.Colorado.EDU > >Hi Heather: > >This is bit of depressing info I thought I'd pass along (although seeing=20 >as it's so depressing, I'm not sure I should be sending it to anyone!) > >Anyway, I thought you might be interested. It's given me lots of food=20 >for thought. > >Margaret > > >Martha Gimenez wrote: >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:55:55 -0400 (EDT) >> From: Joanne Naiman >> To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK >> Subject: Kate Millet update (fwd) >>=20 >> This depressing message came my way today. >> Joanne Naiman >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>=20 >> > >> > The feminist time forgot >> > >> > In 1970, Kate Millett wrote Sexual Politics, a groundbreaking, >> > bestselling analysis of female oppression. And what is she doing no= >w? >> > Read her and weep >> > >> > The Guardian (London) Tuesday June 23, 1998 >> > >> > Another season at the farm, not that bad, but not that good either= >: >> > the tedium of a small community, shearing trees, so exhausted >> > afterward that I did nothing but read. A season without writing o= >r >> > silk screening or drawing. Back to the Bowery and another emptiness= >. I >> > cannot spend the whole day reading, so I write, or try to. A pure = >if >> > pointless exercise. My books are out of print, even Sexual Politic= >s, >> > and the manuscript about my mother cannot find a publisher. >> > >> > Trying also to get a job. At first the academic voices were kind a= >nd >> > welcoming, imagining I am rich and am doing this for amusement, >> > slightly embarrassed as they offer the new slave wages. I hear th= >e >> > guilty little catch in the administrative voice, forced maybe to ma= >ke >> > a big concession of $3,000 in my case. But I couldn't live on that,= > I >> > demur. "Of course, no one does," they chuckle from their own >> > $50-80,000 "positions". A real faculty appointment seems an >> > impossibility, in my case as in so many others now. I have friend= >s >> > with doctorates earning as little as $12,000 a year, eking out an >> > existence at five different schools, their lives lived in cars and = >on >> > the economic edge. I'm too old for that and must do better. "Oh, b= >ut >> > our budget," they moan, "we really have no funds at all, much as we= >'d >> > love to have you." "Surely I'm qualified?" I ask, not as a "celebri= >ty" >> > but as a credentialed scholar with years of teaching and a doctora= >te >> > with distinction from Columbia, an Oxford First, eight published >> > books. They'll get back to me. >> > >> > But they never do. >> > >> > I begin to wonder what is wrong with me. Am I "too far out" or to= >o >> > old? Is it age? I'm 63. Or am I "old hat" in the view of the "new >> > feminist scholarship"? Or is it something worse? Have I been denoun= >ced >> > or bad-mouthed? By whom? What is the matter with me, for God's sak= >e? >> > Has my feminism made me "abrasive"? Surely my polite, St Paul mann= >er >> > should be reassuring. God knows I'm deferential enough to these >> > people. >> > >> > I begin to realise there isn't a job. >> > >> > I cannot get employment. I cannot earn money. Except by selling >> > Christmas trees, one by one, in the cold in Poughkeepsie. I canno= >t >> > teach and have nothing but farming now. And when physically I can = >no >> > longer farm, what then? Nothing I write now has any prospect of see= >ing >> > print. I have no saleable skill, for all my supposed accomplishment= >s. >> > I am unemployable. Frightening, this future. What poverty ahead, wh= >at >> > mortification, what distant bag-lady horrors, when my savings are >> > gone? And why did I imagine it would be any different, imagine my >> > books would give me some slender living, or that I could at least >> > teach at the moment in life when every other teacher retires, havi= >ng >> > served all those long years when I was enjoying the freedom of writ= >er >> > and artist, unsalaried but able to survive on the little I'd been u= >sed >> > to and to invest in a farm and build it into a self-sufficient wome= >n's >> > art colony and even put a bit by. The savings might last 10 years= >, >> > more like seven. So in seven years I should die. But I probably won= >'t; >> > women in my family live forever. >> > >> > Much as I tire of a life without purpose or the meaningful work th= >at >> > would make it bearable, I can't die because the moment I do, my >> > sculpture, drawings, negatives and silkscreens will be carted off = >to >> > the dump. >> > >> > The Feminist Press, in its first offer last fall (it took them 12 >> > months to come up with this), suggested $500 to reprint the entir= >e >> > text of Sexual Politics. Moreover, they couldn't get around to it t= >ill >> > the year 2000, since they'd need to commission one or two fancy >> > prefaces by younger, more wonderful women's studies scholars. My ag= >ent >> > and I were happy to refuse this offer, and the next, for $1,000. >> > >> > The book also fails to attract interest from the powers that be a= >t >> > Doubleday, who have refused to reprint it, even though another >> > division of the company is celebrating Sexual Politics with a lon= >g >> > excerpt in an anthology of the 10 most important books the house h= >as >> > published in its 100 years. A young female editor at Doubleday gave= > my >> > agent to understand the work of more recent feminist scholarship h= >ad >> > somehow rendered my book obsolete in the "current climate". I am o= >ut >> > of fashion in the new academic cottage industry of feminism. >> > >> > Recently a book inquired Who Stole Feminism? I sure didn't. Nor di= >d >> > Ti-Grace Atkinson. Nor Jill Johnston. We're all out of print. We >> > haven't helped each other much, haven't been able to build solidl= >y >> > enough to have created community or safety. Some women in this >> > generation disappeared to struggle alone in makeshift oblivion. O= >r >> > vanished into asylums and have yet to return to tell the tale, as h= >as >> > Shula Firestone. There were despairs that could only end in death= >: >> > Maria del Drago chose suicide, so did Ellen Frankfurt, and Elizabe= >th >> > Fischer, founder of Aphra, the first feminist literary journal. >> > >> > Eizabeth and I used to run into each other at a comfortable old hip= >py >> > cafe in Greenwich Village that I visited in the afternoons, writin= >g >> > some of the darker passages of The Loony Bin Trip in public to avo= >id >> > the dangers of suicidal privacy at home. She'd just finished a boo= >k >> > that was her life's work. Probably it wasn't getting the receptio= >n >> > she'd hoped for in the already crowded new market of "women's studi= >es" >> > texts written by sudden specialists in this field. Elizabeth and = >I >> > would eat an afternoon breakfast and chat, carefully disguising ou= >r >> > misery from each other. Feminists didn't complain to one another th= >en; >> > each imagined the loneliness and sense of failure was unique. >> > Consciousness-raising groups were over by then. One had no colleagu= >es: >> > New York is not a cosy town. >> > >> > Elizabeth is dead and I must live to tell the tale, hoping to tel= >l >> > another generation something I'd like them to know of the long >> > struggle for women's liberation, something about history and Ameri= >ca >> > and censorship. I might also hope to explain that social change do= >es >> > not come easy, that pioneers pay dearly and in unnecessary solitud= >e >> > for what their successors take for granted. Why do women seem >> > particularly unable to observe and revere their own history? What >> > secret shame makes us so obtuse? We did not create the community >> > necessary to support each other against the coming of age. And now = >we >> > have a lacuna between one generation's understanding and that of t= >he >> > next, and have lost much of our sense of continuity and comradeshi= >p. >> > >> > But I have also spent 40 years as a downtown artist habituated to t= >he >> > existential edge and even as I proclaim that all is lost, I am >> > planning a comeback . . . imagining a sinecure in human rights fo= >r >> > extreme old age, matched editions of my collected works, and fina= >l >> > glory. >> > >> > Just last week, after a good dinner and a good play (Arthur Miller= >'s >> > American Clock), I lay awake scheming, adding up the farm rents an= >d >> > seeing the way to a summer of restoration, figuring to replace th= >e >> > slate roof on the farmhouse, to paint every building, the lavende= >r >> > house, the blue barn.. Bundling my sums together, ecstatic that I h= >ave >> > finally paid off my credit cards, scribbling at three in the morni= >ng >> > that I will plant roses again, the ultimate gesture of success. I w= >ill >> > have won out after all. Living well is the best revenge. >> > >> > And then a trip to see my elder sister, the banker/lawyer, caps m= >y >> > determination. The Elder has a computer programme that guarantees y= >ou >> > survival on your savings at 5 per cent interest if your withdrawa= >l >> > rate does not exceed 7 per cent - a vista of no less than 30 years.= > My >> > savings plus my rat's turd of social security: the two figures >> > together would give me a rock-bottom, survival existence. Thanks t= >o >> > the magic of programmed arithmetic, I am, at one stroke, spared th= >e >> > humiliations of searching for regular employment, institutional >> > obedience, discretion or regimentation. Looks like I can stay forev= >er >> > footloose and bohemian, a busy artist-writer free of gainful >> > employment. Free at last - provided I live real close to the groun= >d. >> > >> > A longer version of this article appears in the summer issue of U= >S >> > magazine On The Issues. >> > >> > Kate Millett's life >> > >> > Born 1934 in St Paul, Minnesota. Educated at University of Minnesot= >a, >> > St Hilda's, Oxford, and Columbia, New York. >> > >> > Moved to Japan in 1961. Married fellow sculptor Fumio Yoshimura i= >n >> > 1965; split up in the 70s. >> > >> > Published Sexual Politics (1970); The Prostitution Papers (1973); >> > Flying, her autobiography (1974); Sita (1977), about her doomed lo= >ve >> > affair with another woman. >> > >> > Active in feminist politics in late 60s/70s. In 1966 became committ= >ee >> > member of National Organisation for Women. In 1979 went to Iran t= >o >> > work for women's rights; was expelled. >> > >> > In 1990 published The Loony Bin Trip, about her mental breakdown. >> > >> > In 1991 was back in the news after Oliver Reed, drunk, tried to ki= >ss >> > her on C4's After Dark. >> > >> > In 1994 published The Politics Of Cruelty. >> > >> > >> > Print version >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > CRICKET | FOOTBALL | N&Q | ONLINE | PASSNOTES | RECRUITNET | THE >> > OBSERVER >> > >> > =A9 Copyright Guardian Media Group plc.1998 >> > >> > >> > >> The first principle of non-violent action is non-participation in >> everything humiliating. >> Gandhi > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From lvermeer@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Mon Jul 13 13:30:48 1998 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:34:45 -0600 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu From: lvermeer@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Leslie Vermeer) Subject: Re: "feminist complaining" "Daniel Pavese" posted: >Why would you begin to share such a depressing story? Why is it with >feminists that the world must revolve around women? I think, although I >admit my ignorance of the subject, that feminism is an excuse to give >women a more educated way to do all of their complaining. How did this get by the moderators? I don't expect to find this kind of commentary on a feminist list. (Is this some sort of subtle irony test that I'm failing?) The Kate Millet post was depressing indeed. A critique of the conditions that brought her to that point would be welcome; this mean-spirited accusation is not. Leslie Vermeer From dhenwood@panix.com Mon Jul 13 13:54:17 1998 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:54:23 -0400 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: "feminist complaining" Leslie Vermeer wrote: >"Daniel Pavese" posted: > >>Why would you begin to share such a depressing story? Why is it with >>feminists that the world must revolve around women? I think, although I >>admit my ignorance of the subject, that feminism is an excuse to give >>women a more educated way to do all of their complaining. > >How did this get by the moderators? I don't expect to find this kind of >commentary on a feminist list. (Is this some sort of subtle irony test that >I'm failing?) The Kate Millet post was depressing indeed. A critique of the >conditions that brought her to that point would be welcome; this >mean-spirited accusation is not. This is just some ignorant jackass baying for attention and stirring up controversy. If no one falls for his bait, he'll go away. Doug From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Mon Jul 13 14:43:19 1998 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:43:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM Subject: Re: "feminist complaining" In-Reply-To: Matfem is not a moderated list. Unfortunately, I see the time has come to change the situation. in solidarity, Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology Campus Box 327 University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309 ******************************** On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Leslie Vermeer wrote: > "Daniel Pavese" posted: > > >Why would you begin to share such a depressing story? Why is it with > >feminists that the world must revolve around women? I think, although I > >admit my ignorance of the subject, that feminism is an excuse to give > >women a more educated way to do all of their complaining. > > How did this get by the moderators? I don't expect to find this kind of > commentary on a feminist list. (Is this some sort of subtle irony test that > I'm failing?) The Kate Millet post was depressing indeed. A critique of the > conditions that brought her to that point would be welcome; this > mean-spirited accusation is not. > > Leslie Vermeer > > > > From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Mon Jul 13 21:48:03 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:56:20 -0700 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Woops - sorry Margaret Reeves wrote: >Perhaps I could tell the list instead that as a graduate student, Kate >Millet's story as told in this posting certainly made me stop and think >about what I am doing. I remember when Kate was in her heydey and I was working full-time at mind-deadening jobs and raising two kids by myself -- not exactly the artist's life. Not that I would take all that away from her, but we should remember that not everyone had it. Today, I know women (including my daughter-in-law) who are pursuing degrees in women's studies not for fame and/or fortune, but because such credentials will help them get jobs in social service agencies, especially family planning, women's services, etc., not to mention all those jobs for which you need some kind of degree -- any kind of degree. Like any other degree beyond the high school diploma, the women's studies degree will give you more alternatives than you had without it. Like any other degree, it will open some doors and close others. Ultimately, you yourself will be the person who determines what this degree will do for you. So stop worrying and enjoy your studies! (Sorry if this sounds patronizing and soppy -- it's not meant that way!) Nancy From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Jul 14 12:45:13 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:45:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM , m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Marxist Feminism/Materialist Feminism In-Reply-To: On Sat, 30 May 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > Could people share with me the assumptions, propositions, and methods that > make up the materialist feminist standpoint? I am familiar with historical > materialism, it is the perspective I work in, and am interested to know in > what ways materialist feminists have elaborated the Marxian perspective, > and where and what, if any, differences have been drawn between the > materialist feminism and historical materialism. Andrew asked a very important question and Nancy Brumback was the only who responded (you can see her message in the Matfem archives). This question prompted me to spend some time educating myself about materialist feminism and its relationship with marxist feminism. I will send the results of my efforts in several installments and welcome your comments and suggestions. In solidarity, Martha ****************************** Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Jul 14 12:47:33 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:47:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU, m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: MarxFem/MatFem I MARXIST FEMINISM/MATERIALIST FEMINISM It was possible, in the heady days of the Women's Liberation Movement, to identify four main currents within feminist thought; Liberal (concerned with attaining economic and political equality within the context of capitalism); Radical (focused on men and patriarchy as the main causes of the oppression of women); Socialist (critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that avoidance of Marxism's alleged reductionisms resulted in dual systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between capitalism and patriarchy); and Marxist Feminism (a theoretical position held by relatively few feminists in the U. S. -- myself included -- which sought to develop the potential of Marxist theory to understand the capitalist sources of the oppression of women). These are, of course, oversimplified descriptions of a rich and complex body of literature which, however, reflected important theoretical, political and social cleavages among women that continue to this date. Divisions in feminist thought multiplied as the effects of post-structuralist and post-modern theorizing merged with grass roots challenges to a feminism perceived as the expression of the needs and concerns of middle and upper middle class white, "First World" women. In the process, the subject of feminism became increasingly difficult to define, as the post- modern critique of "woman" as an essentialist category together with critiques grounded in racial, ethnic, sexual preference and national origin differences resulted in a seemingly never ending proliferation of "subject positions," "identities," and "voices." Cultural and identity politics replaced the early focus on capitalism and (among Marxist feminists primarily) class divisions among women; today class has been reduced to another "ism;" i.e., to another form oppression which, together with gender and race integrate a sort of mantra, something that everyone ought to include in theorizing and research though, to my knowledge, theorizing about it remains at the level of metaphors (e.g., interweaving, interaction, interconnection etc.). It was, therefore, very interesting to me to read a call for papers for an edited book on Materialist Feminism. The description of Materialist Feminism put forth by the editors, Chrys Ingraham and Rosemary Hennessy, was to me indistinguishable from Marxist Feminism. This seemed such a promising development in feminist theory that I proceeded to invite the editors to join me in creating an electronic discussion list on Materialist Feminism, MatFem. Initially, I thought that Materialist Feminism was simply another way of referring to Marxist Feminism, but I was mistaken; the two are, to some extent, distinct forms of feminist theorizing. There is, however, such similarities between Materialist and Marxist Feminist thought in some feminists' work that some degree of confusion between the two is to be expected. My goal, in this short introduction (short response to Andy's question) is simply to explore the differences and the similarities between these two important currents within feminist theory. This is not an easy task; theorists who self-identify as materialist or as marxist feminists differ in their understanding of what those descriptive labels mean and, consequently, the kind of knowledges they produce. And, depending on their theoretical allegiances and self-understanding within the field, feminists may differ in their classification of other feminists works, so that clear lines of theoretical demarcation between and within these two umbrella terms are somewhat difficult to establish. Take, for example, Lise Vogel's work. I always considered her a Marxist Feminist because, unlike Socialist Feminists (whose avoidance of Marx's alleged reductionisms led them to postulate ahistorical theories of patriarchy), she took Marxism seriously and developed her analysis of reproduction as a basis for the oppression of women firmly within the Marxist tradition. But her recent book's subtitle (a collection of previously published essays), is "Essays for a Materialist Feminism;" self-identifying as a socialist feminist, she states that socialist feminists "sought to replace the socialist tradition's theorizing about the woman question with a 'materialist' understanding of women's oppression" (Vogel, 1995, p. xi). This is certainly news to me; Socialist Feminism's rejection of Marx's and Marxism's "reductionism" lead to the deliberate effort to ground "patriarchy" outside the mode of production and, consequently and from the standpoint of Marxist theory, outside history. Materialism, Vogel tells us, was used to highlight the key role of production, including domestic production, in understanding the conditions leading to the oppression of women. (But wasn't Engels' analysis materialist? and didn't Marxist Feminists [Margaret Benston and Peggy Morton dome to mind) explore the ways production -- public and domestic -- oppressed and exploited women?) Materialism was also used as "a flag," to situate Socialist Feminism within feminist thought and within the left; materialist feminism, consequently cannot be reduced to a trend in cultural studies, as some literary critics would prefer (Vogel, 1995, xii). Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Jul 14 13:22:04 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:21:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU, matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: MarxFem/MatFem II These brief comments about Vogel's understanding of Materialist Feminism highlight some of its problematic aspects as a term intended to identify a specific trend within feminist theory. It can blur, as it does in this instance, the qualitative differences that existed and continue to exist between Socialist Feminism, the dominant strand of feminist thought in the U.S. during the late 1960s and 1970s, and the marginalized Marxist Feminism. I am not imputing such motivations to Lise Vogel; I am pointing out the effects of such an interpretation of U.S. Socialist Feminism which, despite the use of Marxist terms and references to capitalism, developed, theoretically, as a sort of feminist abstract negation of Marxism. Other feminists, for different reasons, would also disagree with Vogel's interpretation; for example, for Toril Moi and Janice Radway, the relationship between Socialist Feminism and Materialist Feminism "is far from clear" (Moi and Radway, 1994: 749). Acknowledging the problematic nature of the term, in a special issue of The South Atlantic Quarterly dedicated to this topic they do not offer a theory of Materialist Feminism, nor a clear definition of the term. Presumably, the articles included in this issue will give the reader the elements necessary to define the term for herself because all the authors "share a commitment to concrete historical and cultural analysis, and to feminism understood as an 'emancipatory narrative'"(Moi and Radway, 1994:750). One of these authors, Jennifer Wicke, defines it as follows: "a feminism that insists on examining the material conditions under which social arrangements, including those of gender hierarchy, develop... materialist feminism avoids seeing this (gender hierarchy) as the effect of a singular....patriarchy and instead gauges the web of social and psychic relations that make up a material, historical moment" (Wicke, 1994: 751);"...materialist feminism argues that material conditions of all sorts play a vital role in the social production of gender and assays the different ways in which women collaborate and participate in these productions"... "there are areas of material interest in the fact hat women can bear children... Materialist feminism... is less likely than social constructionism to be embarrassed by the occasional material importance of sex differences.."(Wicke, 1994: 758-759). Insistence on the importance of material conditions, the material historical moments as a complex of social relations which include and influence gender hierarchy, the materiality of the body and its sexual, reproductive and other biological functions remain, however, abstract pronouncements which unavoidably lead to an empiricist focus on the immediately given. There is no theory of history or of social relations or of the production of gender hierarchies that could give guidance about the meaning of whatever it is observed in a given "material historical moment." Landry and MacLean, authors of MATERIALIST FEMINISMS (1993), tell us that theirs is a book "about feminism and Marxism" in which they examine the debates between feminism and Marxism in the U.S. and Britain and explore the implications of those debates for literary and cultural theory. The terrain of those early debates, which were aimed at a possible integration or synthesis between Marxism and feminism, shifted due to the emergence of identity politics, concern with postcolonialism, sexuality, race, nationalism, etc., and the impact of postmodernism and post- structuralism. The new terrain has to do with the "construction of a materialist analysis of culture informed by and responsive to the concerns of women, as well as people of color and other marginalized groups" (Landry and MacLean, 1993: ix-x). For Landry and Maclean, Materialist Feminism is a "critical reading practice...the critical investigation, or reading in the strong sense, of the artifacts of culture and social history, including literary and artistic texts, archival documents, and works of theory... (is) a potential site of political contestation through critique, not through the constant reiteration of home-truths" (ibid, pp. x-xi). Theirs is a "deconstructive materialist feminist perspective" (ibid, p. xiii). But what, precisely, does materialist mean in this context? What theory of history and what politics inform this critique? Although they define materialism in a philosophical and moral sense, and bring up the difference between mechanical or "vulgar"materialism and historical materialism, there is no definition of what materialism means when linked to feminism. Cultural materialism, as developed in Raymond William's work, is presented as a remedy or supplement to Marx's historical materialism. There is, according to Williams, an "indissoluble connection between material production, political and cultural institutions and activity, and consciousness ... Language is practical consciousness, a way of thinking and acting in the world that has material consequences (ibid, p. 5). Williams, they point out, "strives to put human subjects as agents of culture back into materialist debate" (ibid, p. 5). The implications of these statements is that "humans as agents of culture" are not present in historical materialism and that Marx's views on the relationship between material conditions, language, and consciousness are insufficient. But anyone familiar with Marx's work knows that this is not the case. In fact, it is Marx who wrote that "language is practical consciousness" and posited language as the matter that burdens "spirit" from the very start, for consciousness is always and from the very first a social product (Marx, [1845-46] 1994, p.117). Landry and Maclean present an account of the development of feminist thought from the late 1960s to the present divided in three moments: the encounters and debates between marxism and feminism in Britain and the U.S.; the institutionalization and commodification of feminism; and "deconstructive materialist feminism." These are "three moments of materialist feminism" (ibid, p.15), a very interesting statement that suggest that Materialist Feminism -- a rather problematic and elusive concept which reflects, in my view, postmodern sensibilities about culture and about the subject of feminism -- had always been there, from the very beginning, just waiting to be discovered. Is that really the case? If so, what is this materialism that lurked under the variety of feminist theories produced on both sides of the Atlantic since the late 1960s? Does reference to "material conditions" in general or to "the material conditions of the oppression of women" suffice as a basis for constructing a new theoretical framework, qualitatively different from a Marxist Feminism? If so, how? The authors argue that feminist theories focused exclusively on gender and dual systems theories that bring together gender and class analysis face methodological and political problems that "deconstructive reading practices can help solve;" they propose "the articulation of discontinuous movements, materialism and feminism, an articulation that takes the political claims of deconstruction seriously... deconstruction as tool of political critique (ibid, p. 12-13). But isn't the linking between deconstruction and Marxism what gives it its critical edge? It is in the conclusion that the authors, aiming to demonstrate that materialism is not an alias for Marxism, outline the difference between Marxist Feminism and Materialist Feminism as follows: "Marxist feminism holds class contradictions and class analysis central, and has tried various ways of working an analysis of gender oppression around this central contradiction. In addition to class contradictions and contradictions within gender ideology... we are arguing that materialist feminism should recognize as material other contradictions as well. These contradictions also have histories, operate in ideologies, and are grounded in material bases and effects.... they should be granted material weight in social and literary analysis calling itself materialist.... these categories would include...ideologies of race, sexuality, imperialism and colonialism and anthropocentrism, with their accompanying radical critiques" (ibid, p. 229). While this is helpful to understand what self-identified materialist feminists mean when they refer to their framework, it does not shed light on the meaning of material base, material effect, material weight. The main concept, materialism, remains undefined and references to ideologies, exploitation, imperialism, oppression, colonialism, etc. confirm precisely that which the authors intended to dispel: materialism would seem to be an alias for Marxism. Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Jul 14 13:32:21 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:32:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU, matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: MarxFem/MatFem III Rosemary Hennessy (1993) traces the origins of Materialist Feminism in the work of British and French feminists who preferred the term materialist feminism to Marxist feminism because, in their view, Marxism had to be transformed to be able to explain the sexual division of labor (Beechey, 1977: 61, cited in Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978: 8). In the 1970s, Hennessy states, Marxism was inadequate to the task because of its class bias and focus on production, while feminism was also problematic due to its essentialist and idealist concept of woman; this is why materialist feminism emerged as a positive alternative both to Marxism and feminism (Hennessy, 1993: xii). The combined effects of the postmodern critique of the empirical self and the criticisms voiced by women who did not see themselves included in the generic woman subject of academic feminist theorizing resulted, in the 1990s, in materialist feminist analyses that "problematize 'woman' as an obvious and homogeneous empirical entity in order to explore how 'woman' as a discursive category is historically constructed and traversed by more than one differential axis" (Hennessy, 1993: xii). Furthermore, Hennessy argues, despite the postmodern rejection of totalities and theoretical analyses of social systems, materialist feminists need to hold on to the critique of the totalities which affect women's lives: patriarchy and capitalism. Women's lives are every where affected by world capitalism and patriarchy and it would be politically self-defeating to replace that critique with localized, fragmented political strategies and a perception of social reality as characterized by a logic of contingency. Hennessy's views on the characteristics of Materislist Feminism emerge through her critical engagement with the works of Laclau and Mouffe, Foucault, Kristeva and other theorists of the postmodern. Materialist Feminism is a "way of reading" that rejects the dominant pluralist paradigms and logics of contingency and seeks to establish the connections between the discursively constructed differentiated subjectivities that have replaced the generic "woman" in feminist theorizing, and the hierarchies of inequality that exploit and oppress women. Subjectivities, in other words, cannot be understood in isolation from systemically organized totalities. Materialist Feminism, as a reading practice, is also a way of explaining or re-writing and making sense of the world and, as such, influences reality through the knowledges it produces about the subject and her social context. Discourse and knowledge have materiality in their effects; one of the material effects of discourse is the construction of the subject but this subject is traversed by differences grounded in hierarchies of inequality which are not local or contingent but historical and systemic, such as patriarchy and capitalism. Difference, consequently, is not mere plurality but inequality. The problem of the material relationship between language, discourse, and the social or between the discursive (feminist theory) and the non-discursive (women's lives divided by exploitative and oppressive social relations) can be resolved through the conceptualization of discourse as ideology . A theory of ideology presupposes a theory of the social and this theory, which informs Hennessy's critical reading of postmodern theories of the subject, discourse, positionality, language, etc., is what she calls a "global analytic" which, in light of her references to multinational capitalism, the international division of labor, overdetermined economic, political and cultural practices, etc, is at the very least a kind of postmodern Marxism. But references to historical materialism, and Althusser's theory of ideology and the notion of symptomatic reading are so important in the development of her arguments that one wonders about her hesitation to name Marx and historical materialism as the theory of the social underlying her critique of the postmodern logic of contingency; i.e., the theory of capitalism, the totality she so often mentions together with patriarchy as sources of the exploitation and oppression of women and as the basis for the "axis of differences" that traverse the discursive category "woman." To sum up, Hennessy's version of Materialist Feminism is a blend of post-marxism and postmodern theories of the subject and a source of "readings" and "re- writings" which rescue postmodern categories of analysis (subject, discourse, difference) from the conservative limbo of contingency, localism and pluralism to historicize them or contextualizing them by connecting them to their systemic material basis in capitalism and patriarchy. This is made possible by understanding discourse as ideology and linking ideology to its material base in the "global analytic." In Hennessy's analysis, historical materialism seems like an ever present but muted shadow, latent under terms such as totality, systemic, and global analytic. However, in the introduction to MATERIALIST FEMINISM: A Reader in Class, Difference and Women's Lives (1997), written with her co-editor, Chrys Ingraham, there is a clear, unambiguous return to historical materialism, a recognition of its irreplaceable importance for feminist theory and politics. This introduction, entitled "Reclaiming Anticapitalist Feminism," is a critique of the dominant feminist concern with culture, identity and difference considered in isolation from any systemic understanding of the social forces that affect women's lives, and a critique of an academic feminism that has marginalized and disparaged the knowledges produced by the engagement of feminists with Marxism and their contributions to feminist scholarship and to the political mobilization of women. More importantly, this introduction is a celebration of Marxist Feminism whose premises and insights have been consistently "misread, distorted, or buried under the weight of a flourishing postmodern cultural politics" (ibid, p.5). They point out that, whatever the name of the product of feminists efforts to grapple with historical materialism (marxist feminism, socialist feminism or materialist feminism), these are names that signal theoretical differences and emphases but which together indicate the recognition of historical materialism as the source of emancipatory knowledge required for the success of the feminist project. In this introduction, materialist feminism becomes a term used interchangeably with marxist feminism, with the latter being the most prominently displayed. The authors draw a clear line between the cultural materialism that characterizes the work of post-marxist feminists who, having rejected historical materialism, analyze cultural, ideological and political practices in isolation from their material base in capitalism, and materialist feminism (i.e., marxist or socialist feminism) which is firmly grounded in historical materialism and links the success of feminist struggles to the success of anticapitalist struggles; "unlike cultural feminists, materialist, socialist and marxist feminists do not see culture as the whole of social life but rather as only one arena of social production and therefore as only one area of feminist struggle" (ibid, p. 7). The authors differentiate materialist feminism from marxist feminism by indicating that it is the end result of several discourses (historical materialism, marxist and radical feminism, and postmodern and psychoanalytic theories of meaning and subjectivity) among which the postmodern input, in their view, is the source of its defining characteristics. Nevertheless, in the last paragraphs of the introduction there is a return to the discussion of marxist feminism, its critiques of the idealist features of postmodernism and the differences between the postmodern and the historical materialist or marxist analyses of representations of identity. But, they point out, theoretical conflicts do not occur in isolation from class conflicts and the latter affect the divisions among professional feminists and their class allegiances. Feminists are divided in their attitudes towards capitalism and their understanding of the material conditions of oppression; to be a feminist is not necessarily to be anticapitalist and to be a materialist feminist is not equivalent to being socialist or even critical of the status quo. In fact, "work that claims the signature "materialist feminism" shares much in common with cultural feminism, in that it does not set out to explain or change the material realities that link women's oppression to class" (ibid, p.9). Marxist feminism, on the other hand, does make the connection between the oppression of women and capitalism and this is why the purpose of their book, according to the authors, is "to reinsert into materialist feminism -- especially in those overdeveloped sectors where this collection will be most widely read -- those (untimely) marxist feminist knowledges that the drift to cultural politics in postmodern feminism has suppressed. It is our hope that in so doing this project will contribute to the emergence of feminisms' third wave and its revival as a critical force for transformative social change (ibid, p. 9). Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Jul 14 13:38:36 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:38:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: m-fem@csf.Colorado.EDU, matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: MarxFem/MatFem IV In light of the above, given the inherent ambiguity of the term Materialist Feminism, shouldn't it be more theoretically adequate and politically fruitful to return to Marxist Feminism? Is the effort of struggling to redefine Materialist Feminism by reinserting Marxist Feminist knowledges a worthwhile endeavor? How important is it to broaden the notion of Materialist Feminism to include Marxist Feminist contents? Perhaps the political climate inside and outside the academy is one where Marxism is so discredited that Marxist Feminists are likely to find more acceptance and legitimacy by claiming Materialist Feminism as their theoretical orientation. I do not in anyway impute this motivation to Ingraham and Hennessy whose introduction to their book is openly Marxist. In fact, after I read it and looked over the table of contents I thought a more adequate title for the book would have been Marxist Feminism. And anyone familiar with historical materialism can appreciate the sophisticated Marxist foundation of Hennessy's superbly argued book. In my view, as the ruthlessness of the world market intensifies the exploitation of all working people among which women are the most vulnerable and the most oppressed, the time has come not just to retrieve the Marxist heritage in feminist thought but to expand Marxist Feminist theory in ways that both incorporate and transcend the contributions of postmodern theorizing. The justification for using Materialist Feminism rather than Marxist Feminism is the alleged insufficiency of Marxist Theory for adequately explaining the oppression of women. Lurking behind the repeated statements about the the shortcomings of Marxism there is an economistic and undialectical understanding of Marx and Marxist theory. That Marx may not have addressed issues that 20th century feminists consider important is not a sufficient condition to invalidate Marx's methodology as well as the potential of his theory of capitalism to help us understand the conditions that oppress women. But regardless of those pronouncements, it is fascinating, in retrospect, to read the theory produced by self- defined Materialist Feminists and realize that they are actually using and developing Marxist theory in ways that belie statements about its inherent shortcomings. And it is important to know how Kuhn and Wolpe, authors of FEMINISM AND MATERIALISM (1978) define the term materialism; they adopted Engels' definition of the term: "According to the materialist conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of immediate life. This, again, is of a twofold character: on the one side, the production of the means of existence, of food, clothing and shelter and the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species" (Engels, [1883] 1972, p.71)(Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978: 7). Kuhn, Wolpe and the contributors to their book in various ways expanded the scope of historical materialism to produce new knowledges about the oppression of women under capitalism. But materialist feminism, a term which may have been useful in the past might have lost its effectivity today. How useful is it to broaden the meaning of Materialist Feminism today to encompass Marxist Feminism if, at the same time, the term is claimed by cultural materialists whose views are profoundly anti-marxist? How will the new generations learn about the theoretical and political importance of historical materialism for women if historical materialist analysis is subsumed under the Materialist Feminist label? Doesn't this situation contribute to the marginalization of scholars who continue to self-identify as Marxist Feminists? I understand Marxist Feminism as the body of theory produced by feminists who, adopting the logic of analysis of historical materialism, expand the scope of the theory while critically incorporating useful insights and knowledges from non-marxist theorizing, just as Marx grappled with the discoveries of the classical economists and their shortcomings. Why should this theoretical enterprise present itself under a different name, especially one likely to elicit some degree of confusion among the younger generations of feminists? Furthermore, the political cost of doing, essentially, Marxist theorizing under the banner of Materialist Feminism is likely to be exceedingly high. Why? Because, by overstressing the "materialist" aspect in historical materialism it can contribute justify the dominant stereotypes about Marxism: its materialism, meaning its alleged anti-agency, anti-human, deterministic, reductionist limitations. The answers to these questions are political and will come from feminists practices and dialogue and from the effects of the intensification of capitalist rule upon both first and third world peoples. In the meantime, it is important to know that Marxist and some works within Materialist Feminism share fundamental theoretical assumptions and political goals. References Rosemary Hennessy, MATERIALIST FEMINISM AND THE POLITICS OF DISCOURSE. Routledge, 1993. Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham, eds., MATERIALIST FEMINISM. A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women's Lives. Routledge, 1997. Annette Kuhn and AnnMarie Wolpe, eds., FEMINISM AND MATERIALISM. Women and Modes of Production. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Donna Landry and Gerald Maclean, MATERIALIST FEMINISMS. Blackwell, 1993. Karl Marx, SELECTED WRITINGS (L. H. Simon, ed.). Hackett Publishing Co., 1995. Toril Moi and Janice Radway, "Editors' Note." The South Atlantic Quarterly (Fall, 1994): 749. Lise Vogel, WOMAN QUESTIONS. Essays for a Materialist Feminism. Routledge, 1995. Jennifer Wicke, "Celebrety Material: Materialist Feminism and the Culture of Celebrety." The South Atlantic Quarterly (Fall, 1994): 751-78. Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From ickjf@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Tue Jul 14 14:10:42 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:13:23 -0700 From: Kathleen Ferraro Subject: Re: Woops - sorry To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Thank you, Nancy! I was wondering if I was turning into a self-righteous grouch for having a similar response to yours to Kate Millett's story. To Margaret, we did a search of the Chronicle last year for 95-98 on jobs advertised for people with Women's Studies degrees and found 140 just in academia. I think you're just as likely to be successful in your field as students in other social science and humanities programs. In our Women's Studies program at Arizona State we've hired three new faculty in the last year and a half, and made an offer to one other woman who declined for personal reasons. Kate Millett did not apply, nor for any of the several jobs at the other Arizona universities that were open. I respect her work, teach it, am grateful for it and am sad that she's struggling. I do agree with Nancy, however, that there are certain costs involved in remaining completely outside the system (no tenure, no benefits, no pension fund), just as there are costs for remaining within academia. I don't think Angela Davis is any less radical than Millett, and she's a tenured full prof. at UCSC, has overcome many obstacles to her position (including being fired), so I don't believe that being a committed radical dooms one to poverty and desolation. Please don't evaluate your stake in feminist activism and scholarship solely in terms of Millett's situation. Best wishes to you all, Kathleen brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu wrote: > Margaret Reeves wrote: > > >Perhaps I could tell the list instead that as a graduate student, > Kate > >Millet's story as told in this posting certainly made me stop and > think > >about what I am doing. > > I remember when Kate was in her heydey and I was working full-time at > mind-deadening jobs and raising two kids by myself -- not exactly the > artist's life. Not that I would take all that away from her, but we > should > remember that not everyone had it. > > Today, I know women (including my daughter-in-law) who are pursuing > degrees > in women's studies not for fame and/or fortune, but because such > credentials > will help them get jobs in social service agencies, especially family > planning, women's services, etc., not to mention all those jobs for > which > you need some kind of degree -- any kind of degree. > > Like any other degree beyond the high school diploma, the women's > studies > degree will give you more alternatives than you had without it. Like > any > other degree, it will open some doors and close others. Ultimately, > you > yourself will be the person who determines what this degree will do > for you. > > So stop worrying and enjoy your studies! > > (Sorry if this sounds patronizing and soppy -- it's not meant that > way!) > > Nancy From Meyerson@worldnet.att.net Tue Jul 14 16:08:55 1998 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:10:20 +0000 Subject: Millet and radicals From: "Gregory Meyerson" To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Ms. Ferraro: It is true that radicals are not doomed to poverty and desolation; nevertheless your response makes me a little queasy--it fails to recognize how abysmal the job market is in general--un and underemployment, lack of health benefits for many, incredibly low salaries as well-- and how it is likely worse for radicals. Not to mention the processes rendering the humanities more and more irrelevant except at flagship universities (see David Noble's recent work). In addition, using a hi-profile radical as an example is disingenuous. Better to look at the radicals without the big names--problem is they are rendered invisible so it's difficult to "look" at them. Finally, regarding Millet, you make it seem that if she were as gutsy as Davis, she too could succeed. Is this the new you can succeed if you really try feminism? gm (also turning into self righteous grouch) ---------- From: Kathleen Ferraro To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM Subject: Re: Woops - sorry Date: Tue, Jul 14, 1998, 8:13 PM Thank you, Nancy! I was wondering if I was turning into a self-righteous grouch for having a similar response to yours to Kate Millett's story. To Margaret, we did a search of the Chronicle last year for 95-98 on jobs advertised for people with Women's Studies degrees and found 140 just in academia. I think you're just as likely to be successful in your field as students in other social science and humanities programs. In our Women's Studies program at Arizona State we've hired three new faculty in the last year and a half, and made an offer to one other woman who declined for personal reasons. Kate Millett did not apply, nor for any of the several jobs at the other Arizona universities that were open. I respect her work, teach it, am grateful for it and am sad that she's struggling. I do agree with Nancy, however, that there are certain costs involved in remaining completely outside the system (no tenure, no benefits, no pension fund), just as there are costs for remaining within academia. I don't think Angela Davis is any less radical than Millett, and she's a tenured full prof. at UCSC, has overcome many obstacles to her position (including being fired), so I don't believe that being a committed radical dooms one to poverty and desolation. Please don't evaluate your stake in feminist activism and scholarship solely in terms of Millett's situation. Best wishes to you all, Kathleen brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu wrote: > Margaret Reeves wrote: > > >Perhaps I could tell the list instead that as a graduate student, > Kate > >Millet's story as told in this posting certainly made me stop and > think > >about what I am doing. > > I remember when Kate was in her heydey and I was working full-time at > mind-deadening jobs and raising two kids by myself -- not exactly the > artist's life. Not that I would take all that away from her, but we > should > remember that not everyone had it. > > Today, I know women (including my daughter-in-law) who are pursuing > degrees > in women's studies not for fame and/or fortune, but because such > credentials > will help them get jobs in social service agencies, especially family > planning, women's services, etc., not to mention all those jobs for > which > you need some kind of degree -- any kind of degree. > > Like any other degree beyond the high school diploma, the women's > studies > degree will give you more alternatives than you had without it. Like > any > other degree, it will open some doors and close others. Ultimately, > you > yourself will be the person who determines what this degree will do > for you. > > So stop worrying and enjoy your studies! > > (Sorry if this sounds patronizing and soppy -- it's not meant that > way!) > > Nancy From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Wed Jul 15 00:39:34 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:48:08 -0700 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I Martha defines socialist feminism as: "...critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that >avoidance of Marxism's alleged reductionisms resulted in dual >systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between >capitalism and patriarchy." To my mind, the need for an understanding of how class and gender oppression are related is today even greater than there was in the 70's. Since then, much research has been done on the ancient gathering and hunting societies, which Marx regarded as not fully human since they did not have classes, private property, a fully developed division of labor, and abstract thought. Engels (I believe) wrote that upon the accumulation of an agricultural surplus, there developed private property and from there, the patriarchal family and "civilization." (I know I am truncating all this brutally. Sorry.) Today, based on the mass of anthropological research that has emerged in the past 20 years, some of us believe that the story is much more complicated: that male domination and class society developed simultaneously -- that there were series of successive stages in which gender and class dominance were intertwined -- that they supported and complemented each other in mutual co-evolution, i.e., segregated work patterns and childrearing practices eventually led to institutionalized male dominance, while informal leadership groups and castes eventually led to classes. (Also wildly truncated.) Further, many anthropologists believe that animals, not agricultural surplus, were the first form of private property, which would suggest in our schemata here that the first patriarchal societies were pastoral, not agricultural, a speculation which also is supported by a great deal of anthropological data. Also, it is believed by many anthropologists that (at least) some of the gathering and hunting peoples for a while (at least) enjoyed a very rich and abundant diet by working only two or three days a week -- they didn't accumulate a "surplus" at all because they didn't need it. (This view is reinforced by the accounts of environmental conditions on the North American contintent at the time of European contact.) And yet, without such surplus, indigenous peoples were able to develop art, literature and history (mythology and ritual), language, and science, i.e., aspects of culture not including sex and class domination. One glaring fact (if you will) from all this challenges a basic tenet of Marxism: that the history of all society is the history of "class struggle." If we accept that at least some of the first societies of homo sapien were egalitarian, which it seems even Engels does (i.e., his "primitive communism"), then the history of all society is not the history of class struggle. For some societies, i.e., those which started out as egalitarian in property relations as well as in gender relations, history includes the time which existed (1) prior to class struggle and (2) during the period of transition from egalitarianism to class and gender dominance. So, I would be unwilling to accept Martha's suggestion that we subsume materialist-feminism within Marxist-feminism on the grounds that no substantial difference exists between the two. I think the category of materialist-feminism, or feminist-materialism (my preference), serves nicely to embrace those theories which attempt to analyze women in terms of the actual conditions of their lives, i.e., from a materialist perspective, but which do not necessarily accept every point of the materialist perspective of Marx. Regards, Nancy From mreeves@chass.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 15 07:16:44 1998 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:13:47 -0400 From: Margaret Reeves To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Woops - sorry Kathleen Ferraro wrote: > > Thank you, Nancy! I was wondering if I was turning into a > self-righteous grouch for having a similar response to yours to Kate > Millett's story. Like Professor Brumback, I too have raised children (3) and worked while doing my undergraduate and graduate degrees, so I certainly wasn't looking at Kate Millett's experience as one that is similar to mine at all. Millett's disappointment about her inability to get a job in academia made me think seriously about how one goes about doing just that ie getting a permanent, tenured position rather than applying for part-time teaching positions. When I was getting my undergraduate degree, there were lots of part-timers and contract workers teaching at my university. Many people settled for contract work as a way of life when they were unable to get tenure-track positions. Millett's story suggests to me that this is not an alternative that is satisfying in the long run, and that if Ph.D. candidates should be unable to get a permanent position in academia, I should consider my options carefully rather than settling for part-time work as a way of life. Gregory Meyerson's response asks us to think about the abysmal job market, but that is precisely what I have been thinking about. ( I notice too that this response shifts the discussion from the question of the artist and academia to that of the radical and academia -- not the same thing at all.) I have never forgotten that the reason I went to university is precisely because of those mind-numbing jobs that I promised myself I would never go back to. I think we need to remember that despite the gloomy statistics of the job market, we are still in the position of making choices. I have chosen to work towards a job in academia, but I have also had the option all along of turning away from this goal. My working class roots always remind me that being here (ie studying in graduate school) is a privilege. I think sometimes that other graduate students forget that most people in the world are not given this opportunity. I am especially heartened by the statistics for Women's Studies jobs. The program at my university (Toronto) a collaborative doctoral program (meaning that we are all registered in regular discipline programs at the same time), but I am sure the Program Co-ordinator will be interested in hearing these stats. I think what is chilling about Millett's story is that she seems to have all of the qualifications that we are told to work towards: a Ph.D., teaching experience, and publications (8 published books, according to the article). I don't know enough about her life to know why she waited so long before applying for full-time work. Perhaps this is a choice that she made a long time ago, but if so, it was still a choice. This is, I think, what Nancy Brumback is getting at in pointing to the pleasures and pitfalls associated with living an artist's life. Thanks, by the way, to all for your words of encouragement. Regards, Margaret Reeves University of Toronto To Margaret, we did a search of the Chronicle last > year for 95-98 on jobs advertised for people with Women's Studies > degrees and found 140 just in academia. I think you're just as likely > to be successful in your field as students in other social science and > humanities programs. In our Women's Studies program at Arizona State > we've hired three new faculty in the last year and a half, and made an > offer to one other woman who declined for personal reasons. Kate > Millett did not apply, nor for any of the several jobs at the other > Arizona universities that were open. I respect her work, teach it, am > grateful for it and am sad that she's struggling. I do agree with > Nancy, however, that there are certain costs involved in remaining > completely outside the system (no tenure, no benefits, no pension fund), > just as there are costs for remaining within academia. I don't think > Angela Davis is any less radical than Millett, and she's a tenured full > prof. at UCSC, has overcome many obstacles to her position (including > being fired), so I don't believe that being a committed radical dooms > one to poverty and desolation. Please don't evaluate your stake in > feminist activism and scholarship solely in terms of Millett's > situation. Best wishes to you all, Kathleen > > brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu wrote: > > > Margaret Reeves wrote: > > > > >Perhaps I could tell the list instead that as a graduate student, > > Kate > > >Millet's story as told in this posting certainly made me stop and > > think > > >about what I am doing. > > > > I remember when Kate was in her heydey and I was working full-time at > > mind-deadening jobs and raising two kids by myself -- not exactly the > > artist's life. Not that I would take all that away from her, but we > > should > > remember that not everyone had it. > > > > Today, I know women (including my daughter-in-law) who are pursuing > > degrees > > in women's studies not for fame and/or fortune, but because such > > credentials > > will help them get jobs in social service agencies, especially family > > planning, women's services, etc., not to mention all those jobs for > > which > > you need some kind of degree -- any kind of degree. > > > > Like any other degree beyond the high school diploma, the women's > > studies > > degree will give you more alternatives than you had without it. Like > > any > > other degree, it will open some doors and close others. Ultimately, > > you > > yourself will be the person who determines what this degree will do > > for you. > > > > So stop worrying and enjoy your studies! > > > > (Sorry if this sounds patronizing and soppy -- it's not meant that > > way!) > > > > Nancy From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 15 11:50:24 1998 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:50:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu wrote: > Martha defines socialist feminism as: > > "...critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that > >avoidance of Marxism's alleged reductionisms resulted in dual > >systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between > >capitalism and patriarchy." > > To my mind, the need for an understanding of how class and gender oppression > are related is today even greater than there was in the 70's. Since then, > much research has been done on the ancient gathering and hunting societies, ......snip........ My statement does not imply that there is no need to understand the relationship between class and gender oppression. I pointed out that efforts to theorize the origins of the oppresson of women independently from modes of production to avoid "economic determinism" and "class reductionism" yield theories of patriarchy that seek the origins outside history, in men's hormones, drive to power, intentions to control women's reproduction, greater physical strength, in women's reproductive role, in mothering, in the exchange of women, whatever. The search for the first origins of anything, be it women's oppression or capitalism, leads unavoidably to ahistorical accounts which legitimize the present in societal requirements or inindividuals characteristics (e.g., propensity to barter). I have a great deal of respect for anthropologists - however, I do not think that stories about hunting and gathering and other early societies are useful to understand the historically specific origins and conditions of possibility of the oppression of women today. > One glaring fact (if you will) from all this challenges a basic tenet of > Marxism: that the history of all society is the history of "class struggle." > If we accept that at least some of the first societies of homo sapien were > egalitarian, which it seems even Engels does (i.e., his "primitive > communism"), then the history of all society is not the history of class I fail to understand why the existence of preclass societies invalidates the theoretical significance of class struggles to understand the dynamics of social change. > So, I would be unwilling to accept Martha's suggestion that we subsume > materialist-feminism within Marxist-feminism on the grounds that no > substantial difference exists between the two. I think the category of > materialist-feminism, or feminist-materialism (my preference), serves nicely > to embrace those theories which attempt to analyze women in terms of the > actual conditions of their lives, i.e., from a materialist perspective, but > which do not necessarily accept every point of the materialist perspective > of Marx. I did not suggest that mat/fem be subsumed under marx/fem. I pointed out how materialist feminism includes marxist and non-marxist analyses of the oppression of women and, consequently, was not a very useful umbrella label. My suggestion was that marxist feminists continue to work as such, without having to buy into the label to gain legitimacy in the present terrain of the ideological and political struggles in academia. Of course you and anyone who wants to can call themselves materialist feminists - but it is important to keep in mind that the use of the concept materialism is not always a euphemism for historical materialism. It is possible to be a materialist who is non-marxist or anti-marxist and this is why the term "materialist feminism" is, in my view, problematic. If anyone has references where I could learn what a materialist perspective on the oppression of women is in itself, without heavy borrowing from historical materialism so that it is,in the end, a form of marxist feminism that "does not dare say its name" :) I would appreciate your posting it to the list. in solidarity, Martha **************** Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Wed Jul 15 15:45:27 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:54:16 -0700 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I Martha and Nancy: >> Martha defines socialist feminism as: >> >> "...critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that >> >avoidance of Marxism's alleged reductionisms resulted in dual >> >systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between >> >capitalism and patriarchy." >> >> To my mind, the need for an understanding of how class and gender oppression >> are related is today even greater than there was in the 70's. Since then, >> much research has been done on the ancient gathering and hunting societies, > >.....snip........ > >My statement does not imply that there is no need to understand the >relationship between class and gender oppression. I pointed out that >efforts to theorize the origins of the oppresson of women independently >from modes of production to avoid "economic determinism" and "class >reductionism" yield theories of patriarchy that seek the origins outside >history, in men's hormones, drive to power, intentions to control women's >reproduction, greater physical strength, in women's reproductive role, in >mothering, in the exchange of women, whatever. Okay. Then I guess I don't know what you mean by "ahistorical," or "outside history." Because I would see a difference, at least re: historical materialism, between theories of patriarchy which are built on "intentions," and those which are built on biological, physiological, and ecological factors. I agree with Marx (my understanding) that various "layers" make up society: that the social is based on the economic, and the psychological/ideological is based on the social. I would simply extend the "layers" downward to include physiological, biological, and ecological factors. The search for the first >origins of anything, be it women's oppression or capitalism, leads >unavoidably to ahistorical accounts which legitimize the present in >societal requirements or inindividuals characteristics (e.g., propensity >to barter). Again, I don't understand your use of "ahistorical." A theory which sees patriarchy and class as intertwined in development, and cognizant of life conditions which are biological, physiological, and ecological, must not, to my mind, always "legitimize the present," although it may help to explain at least some aspects of the present. All such life conditions contribute in the creation of the economical and social relations, I think, which in turn change through time, but must always refer back to biology, physiology, and ecology. This is what Marx meant when he said (my understanding) that humans are part of nature. For example, we know that people always have to eat. The way they go about getting their food will change, but the need for food itself will not. For another example, scientists say that on the average, men are stronger than women. Okay, give them that. However, the way that this greater strength affects men's roles and prestige in a society will change from society to society, depending on whether the society is under pressure from war or not, whether food is easy to get or hard to get, etc. As I understand "ahistorical," it is exactly avoidance of "first origins" which leads to that. For example, re: economic classes, if we don't consider their origins, then we might consider that they have always existed -- that they are inevitable in homo sapiens culture. >> One glaring fact (if you will) from all this challenges a basic tenet of >> Marxism: that the history of all society is the history of "class struggle." >> If we accept that at least some of the first societies of homo sapien were >> egalitarian, which it seems even Engels does (i.e., his "primitive >> communism"), then the history of all society is not the history of class > >I fail to understand why the existence of preclass societies invalidates >the theoretical significance of class struggles to understand the dynamics >of social change. I didn't say that; I said that "the history of all society is not the history of class struggle." > >> So, I would be unwilling to accept Martha's suggestion that we subsume >> materialist-feminism within Marxist-feminism on the grounds that no >> substantial difference exists between the two. I think the category of >> materialist-feminism, or feminist-materialism (my preference), serves nicely >> to embrace those theories which attempt to analyze women in terms of the >> actual conditions of their lives, i.e., from a materialist perspective, but >> which do not necessarily accept every point of the materialist perspective >> of Marx. Of course >you and anyone who wants to can call themselves materialist feminists - >but it is important to keep in mind that the use of the concept >materialism is not always a euphemism for historical materialism. You're right. My error. It is >possible to be a materialist who is non-marxist or anti-marxist and this >is why the term "materialist feminism" is, in my view, problematic. > Okay. Then let me refer instead to historical materialist feminism, and feminist historical materialism. Regards, Nancy From pvh@leftside.wcape.school.za Tue Jul 21 09:17:24 1998 for MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:45:08 +0200 (SAT) From: Peter van Heusden Reply-To: Peter van Heusden To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu wrote: > > Okay. Then I guess I don't know what you mean by "ahistorical," or "outside > history." Because I would see a difference, at least re: historical > materialism, between theories of patriarchy which are built on "intentions," > and those which are built on biological, physiological, and ecological > factors. I agree with Marx (my understanding) that various "layers" make up > society: that the social is based on the economic, and the > psychological/ideological is based on the social. I would simply extend the > "layers" downward to include physiological, biological, and ecological factors. I have a problem with this view of Marx - I don't know if the problem is with my knowledge of Marx (which is certainly far from complete) - or whether my concerns have valid grounds. However - 1) Did Marx see society as made up out of 'layers'? The concept of 'layers' sounds similar to the oft-quoted concept of 'base' and 'superstructure', where the 'economy' is the base and everything else is the superstructure. I'm not certain how useful this model is. See below. 2) I don't think that it is correct to say that Marx started with the 'economic'. The 'economic' reminds me of the economy - a place of profits and losses, factories and jobs. It would appear to me that Marx's starting point for 'society' is more accurately described as 'material necessity', or 'life'. Unfortunately I didn't save the messages, but either Chris Burford or Charles Brown recently posted a quote from Marx (in the context of a discussion on consciousness) on the Marxism and Sciences list, where Marx clearly explained that his concern with production arises from his concern with consciousness (ala. 2nd thesis on Feuerbach). The 'economy' is merely an abstraction, part of society built on the material base of 'human reality'. It seems to me that it is precisely because of this conception of Marx that Lisa Vogel finds that an attack on economic determinism goes hand in hand with the development of a 'unitary theory' of Marxist Feminism. So, what's the point of all of the above? It seems to me that much 'Socialist Feminism' (and other related schools, such as Marxist Feminism) has (to again borrow an argument from Vogel) taken as its starting point the limitations of Marx, and by doing so done some very useful work in freeing Marx from the barnacles of economic determinism. As a result of this, I think that there is a space for the 'physiological, biological, and ecological factors' *within* the framework set up by Marx's thought. (With regards to the ecological, the work of the journal 'Capitalism, Nature, Socialism' comes to mind - I've read some of their stuff (from the WWW site - the university I work at doesn't subscribe), and it seems quite exciting as an exercise in broadening Marxism) Hoping this didn't seem to confused, Peter P.S. I'm finding Antonio Gramsci quite interesting as an example of a more 'general' Marxism, which moves beyond economic determinist tunnel vision (I'm reading Gramsci's Prison Notebooks at the moment). What I find interesting is Alistair Davidson's comments in his political biography of Gramsci that the theses on Feuerbach were an important source of inspiration for Gramsci's thought. I wonder if anyone else on this list has studied Gramsci and has any thoughts on his methodology? P.P.S. I haven't responded to the rest of Nancy's post, but from where I sit, it looks like there is possibly more common ground between Nancy and Martha's positions than this short exchange of posts suggests. -- Peter van Heusden | Computers Networks Reds Greens Justice Peace Beer Africa pvh@leftside.wcape.school.za | Support the SAMWU 50 litres campaign! From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jul 22 11:58:28 1998 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:58:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I In-Reply-To: On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Peter van Heusden wrote: > 1) Did Marx see society as made up out of 'layers'? The concept of > 'layers' sounds similar to the oft-quoted concept of 'base' and > 'superstructure', where the 'economy' is the base and everything else is > the superstructure. I'm not certain how useful this model is. See below. He did see society and reality as stratified, and in several different ways. But the base-superstructure model is only the most abstract heuristic in Marx's general theory. This model does not start with the "economic" in the way you have defined it, as you have correctly noted; it is more general than this. The model is a comprehensive social-material "productionist" scheme concerned with the material interchanges between social forms and the physical world, and how these determine and condition layers of social formation, and how in turn layers of social formation determine and condition the material interchanges and thus modify the social and physical worlds. The model is useful as a sensitizing scheme for the production of concrete analyses and special theories. > P.S. I'm finding Antonio Gramsci quite interesting as an example of a more > 'general' Marxism, which moves beyond economic determinist tunnel vision > (I'm reading Gramsci's Prison Notebooks at the moment). I agree. What is useful in Gramsci is that he presents a politically elaborated historical materialism. Andy From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Wed Jul 22 12:10:17 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:20:57 -0700 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: MarxFem/MatFem I Peter wrote: As a result of >this, I think that there is a space for the 'physiological, biological, >and ecological factors' *within* the framework set up by Marx's thought. That is exactly what I was saying, to argue against Martha's statement that "efforts to theorize the origins of the oppresson of women independently from modes of production to avoid "economic determinism" and "class reductionism" yield theories of patriarchy that seek the origins outside history, in men's hormones, drive to power, intentions to control women's reproduction, greater physical strength, in women's reproductive role, in mothering, in the exchange of women, whatever." I think that "base and superstructure" analyses of social change are very useful in conceptualizing the different aspects of social change, and how they are all connected. For instance, there is Marx's brilliant statement that "the ruling ideas of society are the ideas of the ruling class." This statement can truly enlighten our understanding of history. I think that the problem with 20th century Marxists has been (at least in my experience) that they expect that the impetus for change travels from the "base" to the "superstructure" only. In this model, society is seen as linear and mechanical, not holistic and organic, with many aspects all of which are interconnected and influencing each other. It is, in part, against this mechanical model of society that criticisms of "economic determinism" have been launched: e.g., the claim that once the class relations have been transformed by revolution, the transformation of the sexual relations will follow. Regards, Nancy From lennox@german.umass.edu Thu Jul 23 12:41:01 1998 23 Jul 1998 14:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:40:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Sara Lennox Subject: Women's Studies job opening Sept. 98 (NOW!) To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu, M-Fem@csf.colorado.edu, WIG-L@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU Here is a job at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst that just became available. Please pass this along to anyone you know that might be qualified and interested.--Sara Lennox >Women's Studies is looking for someone for a one year replacement >position for THIS academic year. The person should be at least ABD and >needs to have expertise in Women of Color and be able to teach the >introductory course for Women's Studies majors, Critical Perspectives in >Women's STudies. The rank is lecturer, and the salary is not set yet. All of those details are in the job description which is being written now. I am emailing you to ask you to spread the word to anyone who is qualified and might be intersted in this job. They would be expected to teach 2 courses a semester and do some advising and committee work. For further >information they can email or call the WOST office at (413) 545-1922. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. >