From: Matt Teichman (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 10:32:42 PST
James Kreul wrote:
>It seems like we agree that sexism did/does/will continue to be an issue
>(to state the obvious). It seems we disagree on how to account for
>how/why/to what degree that is the case. I'm content to leave it at that.
If this is your only conclusion, then there is a real lack of communication
here. I believe it could be remedied by devoting more attention to what
posts actually say, and less energy to imposing upon them prescriptive
fictions about how some list members usually react to posts by other list
members. I should have realized this sooner, as the bulk of your and
Shelley's posts have been preaching to the choir.
Allow me to make a second attempt at delineating our point of
disagreement. To begin where you left off, we agree that sexism is an
issue, but we disagree (possibly, but here's where I'm not sure and would
like your feedback) about what constitutes an appropriate response to
it. To me scapegoating is absolutely unacceptable, especially when it
makes use of the same false pictures and categories that fueled the sexist
regime in the first place--this is nothing less than "fighting" sexism with
more sexism. Much like the distinction Fred C. mentioned several weeks ago
between writing "You're a moron" and "That was a moronic comment," I think
there is an important difference between applying the predicate "sexist" to
an act/remark and applying it to a person/category of person. Applying it
to someone else files the blame away neatly and keeps you immune; using it
to describe an act acknowledges that everyone, including yourself, is
capable of falling into the trap--that what is important is recognizing its
nature and doing one's best to sidestep it.
Considering then that if any claim regarding sexism in the EC collection is
to be made, it should be one about the act of grouping together a certain
body of films and not one about the identities of the committee's five
members, what would constitute "evidence" for such claim is really (as I
suggested) something like "textual support," the act or series of acts
being the text in question. Not the kinds of things you were sarcastically
suggesting, like looking for a sign on Kubelka's head saying "I'm
sexist!" This particular confusion is due to an
essentialist/existentialist ambiguity on my part, and for that I apologize:
when I wrote "without knowing anything additional about them," that was
intended as an abbreviation for "without knowing more about the previous
actions on the part of the EC committee members that led to its formation,"
not for "without knowing more about the identities/properties of the
committee members."
So before withdrawing from the discussion, I would really like to know
where you stand on the issue of scapegoating.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.