Re: Summary/M. Golden

Michelle B. Golden (mgolden@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU)
Mon, 24 Oct 1994 15:16:27 -0400

I promised myself, no more general posts, but just one more....

Public thanks to Jim for clarifying the matter.

A comment: for all of you who are thinking, "oh how ironic!", there is a
big difference in my mind between being attacked on the basis of gender
out of left (or right) field, and the question of whether or not women
experience oppression on the basis of gender (which--in the context of
race and gender activism, is a question that has a long history). So, if
Sherwin Hicks doesn't think women can be oppressed, I disagree (just as I
disagree with those of my white feminist friends who think that men of
color can't be oppressed because they're men), but it doesn't offend me

Apologies to anyone who is in need of some juicy irony.


On Mon, 24 Oct 1994, Jim Barnes // PD-AC-L wrote:

> Michelle Golden asked if the statement in my recent summary was directed to
> her. That is, "White women cannot understand oppression" (or words to that
> effect)
> No, Ms. Golden that was not directed at you. It was a summary of a statement
> that Sherwin Hicks made. He had received a private post which he sent to the
> list as an example of how "weak" his respondents were. The original post
> said something to the effect that "as a woman I see oppression all around me"
> Hicks response was that the writer could not possibly understand oppression
> essentially because she was white.
> My summary was not attempt to attack anyone (in particular anyway). It was
> written in disgust. Rushton drops 16 tons of spam on this list and some of
> you went after those beef lips and byproducts like a pack of wolves. I've
> enjoyed this list because it consistently contains interesting and often
> thought-provoking discussions. I was appalled to see how quickly it
> degenerated into name-calling.
> BTW, Ms. Golden, I really _do_ hope you had a good weekend.
> And now if you'll excuse me, I'll lurk once more.
> Jim Barnes