Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers

[Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>]

magesm@mindspring.com wrote:

> > I would question the value of 'complete androgyny' except as a dialectical
> > tool, whether it is on the net or elsewhere.  First, there is a bit of a
> > lexical problem, as andro=male; typically referring to a woman who looks
> > like/becomes a man.  

I'm not sure I meant it that way. I am referring to androgyny as a state 
of neutrality- with zero expectations of behavior from social 
programming. I think a truly liberated person would have a psychological 
androgyny in that they would be gender neutral. The idea of 
"celebrating" femininity would also, in terms of equality, mean 
"celebrating" masculinity. This is nonsense; but so is a condemnation of 
the two. A union is more of what I had by "androgyny." We already 
celebrate masculinity, and it is unhealthy for men. I don't see why a 
celebration of femininity would ultimately be good for women. A "healthy 
respect for both" is always a nice catch all phrase in this regard; 
unfortunately it is meaningless. What ultimately solves the issue of 
power imbalances is the constant perception of an actual human being, 
rather than gender stereotypes, race, economic or social position. This 
is a personal responsibility and cannot be resolved by "acknowledging 
women as goddesses" nor by giving encouragement to stereotypically 
oppressive male behavior.


> > Feminism is difficult to discuss in any forum, because of
> > the male hegemony embedded in the language itself.  To paraphrase bell hooks,
> > this kind of language keeps men at the center of the discussion.  

It may also be why, as you point out, men tend to be the ones discussing 
it. The same thing happened at a lecture on ecofeminism I went to a 
while back at Harvard University, with a friend of mine who was female, 
and it was me and a male Grad Student who "dominated" [I wince!] the 
conversation, until I realized what was happening and shut up. 
Ultimately my friend, as we were leaving, pointed out that the male 
presence was intimidating to females in the room when it came to 
discussing oppression from males. Which is a problem- clearly men in the 
room on a feminism lecture are not the "problem" but it is still 
difficult to address "typical male behavior" when men are standing right 
there who aren't expressing it. The concept of gender, in feminism, is 
flawed. All oppression is linked, what is most important is "humanism," 
and the acknowledgement of human presence rather than stereotypes and 
cultural programming.


> > Further, it seems to me that (in general) feminism is problematic in exactly
> > this fashion; frequently the goal seems to be to attain androgyny--in a sense,
> > for women to become more male. I frequently wonder if this is the best path.
> > Could feminism somehow bypass these Western masculine power structures
> > entirely?  

That's how I am using the term androgynous. I'm not sure what other term 
we could use for an entity that bypasses "masculine power structures," 
since power is almost genetically ingrained into our brains at this 
point as a male territory; the idea would be to come up with a 
"feminine" form of power or to shift how we define "power."

> > Is there an opportunity to operate outside the White Male
> > Capitalist Patriarchy?

This patriarchy is eating itself. We're all powerless before the money 
driven market system anyway; if it can boost profits by making men 
insecure enough to buy make up and excersize equipment it will; it's 
already trying.

-e.