Re: shulamith firestone et al.

Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU)
Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:50:15 -0500

Thank ou, Maureen Korp, foor informing me about Shulamith Firestone. I
simply have not read the feminist literature, and so was ignorant of her
ontributions. As for the context, I simply did not append anything about
a person I have never heard of before to my original post. That post that
has Ruby so upset was someone else's. Now, can you explain to me why you
expected sex differences in the "paranormal" ?Ralph Holloway.

On Mon, 20 Feb 1995, maureen korp

> I, too, read the first reference to Shulamith Firestone
> as woman-baiting. However, as I couldn't quite remember
> what particular spin Firestone's theories took vis a vis
> sex-specific differences, I held my peace. Ruby Rohrlich
> didn't (bless her very good instincts). I don't like
> to wade into the fray unless I've my gorgeous data right
> at hand and can win my point because I've done my homework.
> So here am I to say because I cannot recall the Firestone
> take on sex-specific differences, I cannot imagine any other
> interpretation intended but Ruby's.
> Could the context for the Firestone quip be explained please?
> For those of you who are still wondering who's this Firestone..?
> An articulate and influential theorist who--along with Betty
> Friedan, Simone deBeauvoir, Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, and
> a good many others--helped frame key feminist issues, c. 1960-70.
> You can find essays and further discussions in the first issues
> of MS magazine. The initial one with Wonder Woman on the cover
> came out late in 1971 (or early 72?).
> It might be worthwhile for younger members of the list to look
> up those early issues in your library. You'd be surprised I think
> to see how committed we all were to reasoned discussion and the
> fair and accurate presentation of grievance.
> After 25, 30 years however, one gets a little weary, a little frayed
> trying to make oneself heard as a reasonable person. Per usual,
> Ruby's right. The reference to Shulamith Firestone quite undercut
> the information contained in the press relea se.
> Now, here's how I read that press release. I noted that the material
> used for identifying seemingly sex-specific brain differences was
> print text. Would the results have been the same if visual memory
> had been used for data accumulation? ie, check out the ability to
> identify colour or size or distance relationships.
> I ask that because my own research pool of 120 professional artists
> showed NO sex-specific differences in their experience of visions
> and other paranormal experiences. These experiences were factors
> in their becoming artists. In fact, I found very few sex-specific
> differences throughout the study. And that, I tell you, surprised
> me and sure surprised the sociologist consulting on the work. We
> had expected different results.
> Conclusion? Well, I'm planning on a long, long life because I've
> lots more work to do to sort out this finding.
> best wishes,
> Maureen Korp, PhD
> University of Ottawa
> mkorp@uottawa