RE: [Marxism] Re: Academic whoring

["cleon42@xxxxxxxxx" <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Okay, I apologize. Now unless somebody has something particularly
> compelling or new to add, let's move on.

Well, I think there's a legitimate question here. A series of them,
actually.

First, does seemingly innocuous language (such as the use of "whore")
have a sexist component? I think that's a perfectly legitimate
question.

Second, to what extent does language reflect our attitudes? Is it
reflective or definitive? That is, does use of sexist language reflect
sexist attitudes, or does its use actually *make* the user a sexist?
For that matter, if a term rooted in sexist origins has become more
widely used that its sexist meaning is lost beyond said origins, is it
still sexist to use it?

Third, to what extent should some words be "inappropriate?" It's ok to
use words like "fuck," apparently, but "whore" is offensive?

The list goes on.

Discussing these questions is a Good Thing. We *do* have a problem with
male dominance on the Left, especially on this list where you can count
the number of active women on one hand. Suggestions, questions, and
discussion about how to encourage women to participate *should* be a
priority for us.

Where I start to have problems is when comrades decide that
"discussion" means "listen to what I say and do not question." David's
response to Ian, presumptions aside, was completely inappropriate. The
essence of it was, "You're not allowed to question. Simply be quiet and
accept your admonition."

I'm sorry, that's NOT the way to drive discussion forward. We *should*
be questioning. We *should* be examining the issue from all sides. When
a woman says "I feel that language is sexist," yes, we should stop and
pay attention, but it doesn't *end* there. For example, I think Ian had
a very legitimate point; if "whore" is a sexist term, does that not
indicate a certain heterosexism? After all, we're only thinking of
"whoring" in terms of men using women, and not other men. In the end, I
personally think Louise was absolutely correct, but I do *not* think
that means we should be dismissive or antagonistic towards other
viewpoints on the matter.

These are not only interesting questions, they are at the very heart of
what that "dialectics" stuff we're always going on about really
consists of.

I think Louise was absolutely correct to bring this to our
attention--too often, we just glaze by these things without thinking
about them. I hope she sticks around and continues to raise such
issues. Likewise, I think it was perfectly appropriate for Ian to
question her and to try and look at the issue from a different angle.

Adam


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism