How's it hangin' Riot Grrrl...
I earnestly believe I am turning into some kind of uber-feminist, which is cool because then I can use the words "dyke" and "cunt" in everyday conversation and it'll be acceptable because there will be the tacit understanding that I'm being ironic. Here's my rationale: I just finished reading a memoir written by a super-lezzie poet Michelle Tea called "Valencia" (given to me by Kel-Z) with enough lesbian sex and drama to give Pat Robertson a heart-attacl. And not only did I write my latest philosophy essay from a feminist perspective, when my Prof (the one who likes Husker-Du) disagreed with my analysis, I sent him this e-mail:
Professor Szymkowiak,
This e-mail isn't about the grading of the essay because, to be quite frank, I could care less. It is about your assessment of my analysis of Hume's theory regarding chastity. While I do realize that nominally Hume didn't view chastity as a solely female virtue, I do believe that he thought that in practice the blame landed almost completely on women's shoulders. I believe that saying the infidelities of women have a greater impact on the social fabric of society is incorrect, even from a 18th century perspective. While physiological uncertainty of paternity doesn't provide the type of vindictive physical prove as a pregnant woman, someone had to provide the sperm for the egg. No woman can enter into a unchaste relationship without a male counterpart who is equally as guilty, and vice-versa. And while society might be able to judge the "secret indulgences" of woman and not of men, it doesn't mean that men were not committing the acts that were to the detriment of society. So, from the viewpoint of utility (that magic word), it is immaterial whether the man's indulgences are discovered or not because the consequences resulting from them still occur regardless.
Oh, and as an aside, I think it is a mistake to claim that feminism was "getting started" in the 1750's in Britain. If memory serves me, it will be another 40 years until the first feminist text, Mary Wolstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" is even published. I could very well be wrong though.
Sincerely,
Drew Gibson
I think I can actually feel myself growing a vagina...on my elbow!
Professor Szymkowiak,
This e-mail isn't about the grading of the essay because, to be quite frank, I could care less. It is about your assessment of my analysis of Hume's theory regarding chastity. While I do realize that nominally Hume didn't view chastity as a solely female virtue, I do believe that he thought that in practice the blame landed almost completely on women's shoulders. I believe that saying the infidelities of women have a greater impact on the social fabric of society is incorrect, even from a 18th century perspective. While physiological uncertainty of paternity doesn't provide the type of vindictive physical prove as a pregnant woman, someone had to provide the sperm for the egg. No woman can enter into a unchaste relationship without a male counterpart who is equally as guilty, and vice-versa. And while society might be able to judge the "secret indulgences" of woman and not of men, it doesn't mean that men were not committing the acts that were to the detriment of society. So, from the viewpoint of utility (that magic word), it is immaterial whether the man's indulgences are discovered or not because the consequences resulting from them still occur regardless.
Oh, and as an aside, I think it is a mistake to claim that feminism was "getting started" in the 1750's in Britain. If memory serves me, it will be another 40 years until the first feminist text, Mary Wolstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" is even published. I could very well be wrong though.
Sincerely,
Drew Gibson
I think I can actually feel myself growing a vagina...on my elbow!