From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 09/17/00-08:39:54 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>
>It seems to me you're trying to have it all ways -- to say the most
>essential quality of a woman is "potential" to be a mother," but that that
>could be at any stage (which it can't), while a man can also be
>"mothering." (So can a hamster.) But you not only don't say that is
>*man's* essential quality, you forbear mentioning any "essential" quality
>of "manhood."
You perhaps misunderstood what I wrote. The obvious is that only
woman can be a mother and only a man a father. Mothering and
fathering are verbs which anyone can *do*. I believe it should have
been clear from my previous message that I also believe that the
essentialism of man (you know, the male of the human species) is his
potential to be a father!!
>To say that such essentialism for women and not for men is
>sexist is to state the obvious (tho essentialism is itself at best a frail
>reed).
I have no idea what you are saying here, though it appears you are
saying that I am sexist for stating the obvious. Surely you can't
mean that?
>
>It does however perhaps explain objections to Newton's women. The amazon
>on the book cover I saw in the Soho window was fully human in her own
>right, in command of herself -- a goddess, not an incubator.
And what I said earlier was that I found Newton's photography
dehumanizing. There, now you have made my point --- Gods and
goddesses are not human!!
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT