NH: Ah, now I think I understand. Yes, I agree. Delany understands like
a feminist, he acts like a feminist, so what's the diff? Is that part (I
know it's only part) of what you're saying? True. I have a male friend
who calls himself a feminist, and based upon his actions in the world, I
see no reason to contradict him, as opposed to the other guy who just
doesn't get it. And I think another part of what you're saying is that
often the labels we have to choose in order to identify with one set of
experiences or another can only address part of what we are, so saying
that one is a feminist doesn't capture all the other things we are, and
may not even fully capture what one means by 'being a feminist.' If I
bring this back to the sf, while it's fun and useful and edifying to be
able to talk about the feminist writers this way, it means I often have
to leave out mention of other writers whose work interests me, because
they may not be overtly feminist or may not be sf.
-nalo
On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Andrea L. Klein wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Andrea L. Klein wrote:
> >
> > > those who do. I just wonder if we are deceiving ourselves in marking off
> > > boundaries that divide and enclose--aren't we all just "walk[ing]
> > > alongside" each other?
> >
> > NH: I agree with you to a certain extent; we are. Come right down to it,
> > we're all human. The 'difference' lies in how one is *treated;* it's an
> > external thing that's imposed upon you. People impose barriers and
> > boundaries differentially on other people. It doesn't stop if one says
> > to the other, "but I'm really the same as you."
>
> <snip>
>
> > "That boundary really isn't there" is not an effective way to
> > battle other people's prejudice, particularly when those people are in a
> > position to use their prejudice to limit your access to the world.
>
> good points. I didn't mean to imply that real boundaries (gender, race,
> expectations, even height and weight, and other appearance expectations)
> don't exist in daily life. Our schemas for organizing endless streams of
> data and experience govern our perceptions: we see generally what we've
> come to expect to see. These schemas translate too often into prejudices
> and very real discrimination.
>
> Rather, what I intended to say was that, in a more abstract sense, I
> wonder how different our experiences of salience, of abnormality, of being
> ignored or condescended to or misjudged or simply pre-judged, really are.
> I wonder if beyond the particular manifestations of these
> experiences--salary discrimination, access discrimination, media
> invisibility or misrepresentation, etc.--most of us experience similar
> feelings and thoughts. I wonder if we stress the
> differences between various "oppressions" too much--to me, feminism is
> broader than that.... especially since I agree with some of the
> particulars of various feminist thoughts, and wholly disagree with others,
> and I feel like a woman sometimes and a human, animal, student, jock,
> atom, other times. This is all to say that if I am not quintessentially a
> woman or a feminist in all ways at all times, why can't Delany be somewhat
> a feminist in some ways and some times?
>
> Hope I've been clearer this time, but I fear not :)
>
> Andrea
>
"Would you trade your funk for what's behind the third door?"
P-Funk, "Funkentelechy"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:05:57 PDT