Re: Class on gender...

Michelle B. Golden (mgolden@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU)
Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:43:37 -0400


I must have missed the original post, but this topic is of great
to me. I'm unclear about why Killoran's inclusion of her/his motivation
is so problematic for Marius. Is there some sort of "I'm feeling
oppressed as a man" sentiment lurking under Marius' post or am I
misunderstanding the situation entirely?

It is absolutely appropriate for scholars to investigate the connection
between sexuality and aggression. Gender is quite relevant to this
inquiry within US dominant culture. The bumper sticker's service as
catalyst is useful in that it sparked Killoran's interest in this topic.

No matter what the context here (I'm sure I'm missing a lot given that I
didn't see the original exchange), it seems from this post that there's a
lot going unsaid here--underlying assumptions about feminist-oriented (if
I may use the word) inquiry, perhaps? Whatever it is, get it out in the
open. Calling something "polemic" isn't particularly useful in and of
itself. And what type of projection is Marius referring to? Projection of
a particular perspective on gender? Are we to believe that Maruis is free
of any perspective on this issue that may be projected into this critique?

A million apologies if I've totally misread the situation. But I saw this
post and wanted to add my $.02.

M Golden (

On Fri, 14 Oct 1994, Marius Johnston wrote:

> A few points in reply to Killoran's post 13 Oct '94
> 1. The next time you post, you might take a few things under
> consideration. The most important of which is to think about what you
> have written and it's meaning, to others, prior to posting. You said at the
> *start* of your post:
> \After seeing a bumper sticker last summer in Nebraska that said: "If I
> \don't get laid soon someone is going to get hurt" I decided it was time to
> \put together a course/and do research on how sexuality and aggression
> \are constructed.
> \I'm putting together a class that I have titled (although I don't like it):
> \*Narratives of Gender and Sexuality and Aggression* for juniors and
> \seniors.
> These statements provide us with your motivation and focus. This is the
> context for the rest of your post.
> I wonder why you did not just list your course title, the reading list, and
> ask for feedback on the list?
> 2. You have not responded to any of my points. Instead you merely attempt
> to categorize and complain about my post.
> 3. The bumper sticker is rather like a Rorschach image in it's ambiguity.
> It made no statement about who was "going to get hurt". You assumed
> that it was to be a women. Your book list confirms it by
> readings such as Sanday's Fraternity Gang Rape,
> *Virgin or Vamp* (written by a journalism prof. but a good analysis of the
> lang. of the media on rape) , *Nightwork: Sexuality, Pleasure and Corporate
> Masculinity in a Tokyo Hostess Club*" and etc. I suppose Gloria Steinem
> defined the paradigm: "Patriarchy *requires* violence or the subliminal
> threat of violence in order to maintain itself.... The most dangerous
> situation for a women in not an unknown man in the street, or even the
> enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own
> home." This is a polemic.
> Unfortunately I do not remember the name of the C&W song that quote was
> derived from but that, and other barroom brawl songs, are a C&W staple and
> culturally interesting.
> The history of Anthropology can be seen, in part, as learning to see or
> study other groups in such a way as to avoid the above error (projection).
> It is a tough job and takes a lot of wisdom. You are traveling in an
> opposite direction.
> Marius Johnston