Re: NOW and Marxism

["Eliyanna (Erin) Kaiser" <erin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:17 PM 8/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> Eliyanna (Erin) Kaiser wrote:
>
> > "The fundmental premise of the group (that
> > children need both parents)is valid"
> >
> > Kiss my lesbian ass it's valid.
>
> It would be much more useful if comrades who were knowledgable about
> feminist issues patiently explain them to those who need edification. When
> Carrol started bellowing about "scabs" the other week, it was exactly what
> was not needed--especially from somebody who was the moderator of a
> Marxism-Feminism list. Nor do we need to say things like kiss my lesbian
> ass. We should view any misguided post by one list member as an
> opportunity to raise everybody's consciousness. We need history. We need
> data. We need theory. Unsubbing or making rude comments is not the answer.
> Okay?

I don't really feel like producing "data" or "theory" or "history"
(although "herstory" in this case would be more to the point) to "prove" to
anyone that lesbian families, gay families, single-parent families, or any
other sort of family is just as capable of providing love and raising
children as the "two-parent nuclear family". I don't think that it's my
responsibility to justify my existence or the existence of the family I
plan to have to anyone. I am very, very tired of doing that on a daily
basis in society and I see absolutely no reason to gently and patiently
pacify the male-egos of so-called Marxists academics while they decide
whether to absorb or reject me, my family, and my community into their
"theories".

And I resent the idea that any (especially heterosexual) man (even you Lou,
who I respect very much) would tell ME, a lesbian woman, that I have been a
very bad girl (more or less) by reacting with anger and defensiveness to
"family-values" rhetoric. I find it paternalistic and further evidence of
the low-level of feminist analysis on this list.

Eliyanna




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.