Marxist Feminism (fwd)

Spoon spoon at
Sun Nov 13 08:10:22 MST 1994

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 10:36:33 +0800
Subject: Re: Marxist Feminism (fwd)

>From Phil O'Hara             Doug Henwood asks whether the feminist
network has "become more lively" of late - he used to be involved but
got out. I think it has. Recently they had a debate about Marxist Feminism
and socialism. Personally, I think more males need to s**scribe to it
because they can add an important aspect of dialectical interaction
and controversy about gender issues. At the moment, and with a few
exceptions, and despite the encouragement of Diana Strassman, it is
a bit like the Marxist network was (in "reverse): conversations among
the homo-gender-ous.        ... Andrew Hagen asked for details of
s**scribing to femecon, and someone put a brief blerb on about how
to; I was going to place a detailed one on the net but havn't found it
yet.     cheers.   Phil

Econ Curtin Uni GPO Box U1987 Perth 6001 Australia

From: "Rhonda McSwain" <RM1 at>
Organization:  University of Ballarat
Date:          Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:11:28 GMT+1000
Subject:       Re: Your response to Star-crossing at high level
Priority: normal

This is not to do with this posting - I have been trying to
unsubscribe to fiction-of-philosophy for awhile now and just can't
get it to work - I am an information librarian and only subscribed
so I could see if, firstly, it worked, and secondly if it seemed
like the sort of thing that our lit. department people would be
interested in, can you help me with why my trying to unsubscribe is
not working? Thanks in advance, Rhonda Cotsell- > Date sent:      Sat,
12 Nov 1994 03:14:54
- 0500 (EST) > From:           Alan Sondheim <sondheim at>
> To:             Lebbeus Woods <medo at>
> Copies to:      FOP <fiction-of-philosophy at>
> Subject:        Re: Your response to Star-crossing at high level
> Send reply to:  fiction-of-philosophy at

> Just a few notes, re. below. There is a huge difference between de
> Beauvoir and Sartre; Being and Nothingness itself hardly acknowledges the
> female in any way. There is a fair amount of critique in the literature
> to this point. Responsibility is conceived of as a leap into faith, which
> still reminds me of the will-to-power. The novels stress in fact a
> deflated individualism, not community; community may have been a goal (it
> was in the Critique), but it is not only not spelled out in Being, it is
> absent. This is one of the reasons, I believe Sartre himself turned
> against existentialism, as the Critique indicates. The other point, about
> nurturing - I think that responsibility is neither female nor male, but
> in the existential Sartre, nurturing, child-bearing, etc. simply doesn't
> play a role.
> Alan
> On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Lebbeus Woods wrote:
> >
> > Responding to msg by sondheim at (Alan Sondheim) on Fri,
> > 11 Nov  1:34 PM
> >
> > >Existentialism was also constructed on a phallic model,
> > >the male casting himself/itself as a for-itself into a
> > >cosmic high of tooled responsibility.
> >
> > ALAN,
> > Interesting that you should see Existentialism as 'male.' Have
> > you forgotten Simone de Beauvoir, the person who gave Sartre
> > got his best moral precepts? If anything, I would say that
> > 'responsibility,' in the Existentialist sense, is somewhat more
> > female than male. I'm not only referring to child-bearing and
> > family-building, but also to the ideas of a 'settled' life, the
> > building of community, the establishment and maintenance of
> > towns, cities.
> >
> > Also, I cannot accept your 'for-himself/itself.' To the
> > contrary, in Sartre's 'Love and Existentialism,' he lays out
> > the Existentialist version of Kant's categorical imperative.
> > Sartre affirms that each of our actions must be considered as
> > having universal reprecussions. We are, in effect, responsible
> > for the world. Hardly 'for-himself/itself.' Rather more like
> > 'for-ourselves.'
> >
> > Lebbeus
> >
> >


More information about the Marxism mailing list