1/e
2/e
(No part of this re/inter/view discussion may be published elsewhere without written permission from victor j. vitanza and the individual posters.) --Full Copyright notice is at the end of each file.
|
1/e |
The PreText List will hold a Re/In/View with Deirdre N. McCloskey, beginning June, 1998. The subject of conversation will be Deirdre's The Rhetoric of Economics (U of Wisconsin P, 1998). | 2/e |
Dear Obasan Deirdre (not to be confused with obaasan, which would make you Granny Deirdre), Thanks for your response. While the boys are asking all the Important Questions, I'll just continue with a little more small talk (or the personal is rhetorical--did that ever make it onto a Giorgias Society mug, Victor?). I apologize in advance if you've answered these questions ad nauseum in another forum, but since I only get the "Wall Street Journal" with any regularity here, I'm woefully (read: usually joyfully) out of it. ______In what ways (other than physically, I assume), has your "voice" changed since you switched camps (just to be punny)? You say you're still exploring your voice, but each of us could say that (or at least I would hope one would want to), from a constantly evolving perspective, so what specific aspects of your voice are you presently trying on for size? ______You mentioned changing social classes by way of example, but I'm curious in what ways you feel your social "status" (which I shall leave up to your womanly instincts to decipher, since I can't tell you exactly what I mean until you answer and I say, No, that's not what I meant, but such is the stuff conversations are made of) has changed, economically as well as culturally (as Paul Fussell would define class distinctions)? And here I add my kind of anecdote: When I was the Lesbian Task Force Coordinator of a NOW chapter, I received several calls from straight men becoming women who planned to continue their sexual preference as lesbians (I'm not assuming this is your case, though your scarves and pins certainly make you my favorite "other" kind of grrrl [OK, so I'm fishing!]). And what I found fascinating about our exchanges was that while they wanted to celebrate their having finally found "their people" (which I wanted to celebrate as well), I invariably found myself in the precarious position of having to remind them that a) since they'd just gone from numero uno to numero lasto on the great social ladder, not that many people ("Ellen" fans, aside) were going to be celebrating with them, and worse yet b) lesbians, in all their infinite judgmentalness, were not exactly going to welcome them with open arms (perhaps you've experienced, or have at least heard of, the classic no drinking, no smoking, no scents, and definitely no former men phenonmenon). All of which brings us back, though simplistically, to if those within an academic discipline or sexual preference cannot speak to each other persuasively, how are we to speak to others twice and thrice removed? Saying it's all rhetoric is fine and dandy, but it seems to me there will always be those more interested in multi-lingualism than others. _______So more specifically, since you've looked at life from both sides now (or many sides, to avoid those dreaded dichotomies), as quant-jock and rhetorician, man and woman, among no doubt various shades in between, how have your turns around the rhetorical triangle changed (i.e., do you find people assuming you're speaking more out of pathos now that you're a woman? or do you find yourself privileging ethos over logos when you're examining a particular metaphorical meaning--such as when you say that while you come down on Posner's side, you "have realized at last that a jurisprudence without a notion of rights is lunacy"--now that you're more rhetorically inclined [4])? And here another anecdote (as long as I'm going on too long): I became good friends with a male to female transsexual at a queer self-help weekend once and she started inviting me to all her support group parties (I think you had to wait a year before you could get snipped in Texas at the time), and what I was always struck by was the clash of rhetorical stereotypes (since I had just started grad school with Victor, et al and had rhetoric is everything on the brain). On the one hand, there was all this anxiety about "passing" and being accepted and perceived as the women that they were (all the while way outdressing me in my jeans and t-shirt and I kidded them, Why is it none of y'all want to be a tomboy? What, am I not woman enough for you?!). And yet as soon as any sort of opinionated conversation began, there was all this Bella Abzug-ian confidence (since surely there has to be at least one female role model out there), not unlike your "(And in sober truth--can I confide in you as a friend?--I am right.)" voice (188), and I'd kid them (not unlike you have to remind Victor sometimes), Yo, who died and made you god? But the most interesting twist was, the first time I jumped into the pool (they were also mostly of a higher economic class than I was) in just my dykely dyke trunks, they were all like, Oh, it's true; you have the authentic breasts, Dear, so what do you think? And I was like, Good goddess, I'm so confused (especially since they're such a bother when I jog)! But it says something that these days when I think of a strong woman's or feminist's voice, I don't think of Cixous or Kristeva or Tompkins or Kolodny (though I intend to pay homage to her in a "dancing through the rice fields" essay someday) as much as I think of your typical "bitchy queen" (either transvestite or transsexual), partly because it's more performative (and entertaining), but partly because it's implicitly and acculturatedly more confident, which isn't necessarily more persuasive, but at least voices a perspective that might otherwise remain silent. _______So I'm curious if your campy tone at times, whether consciously or unconsciously, might be a similar rhetorical strategy? _______Also, I'm still "fuzzy" on what you mean by the free market part of being a free market feminist. Given your response, I take it you want to free the market from regulation and government intervention, so are you saying you're a however the boys can screw the world, the girls can screw it just as well feminist? While there may be regulations that have been detrimental to women, can there not also be regulations that would be beneficial to women, such as regulating all products made in sweatshops, whether imported from Vietnam or East LA? Granted, I'm an economic simpleton, but it seems to me that no, that would not be a free market; yes, prices would go up, which would no, not help poor (mostly women) K-Mart shoppers; but at least, yes, would pay those (mostly women) sweatshop workers a fairer wage for their squalid working conditions (such as paying them what [mostly male] road construction workers make). In other words, I'm not sure what's free about a market in which jobs are still economically value-laden in terms of sex, not to mention how jobs are economically ranked to begin with. Yes, American unemployment is down; too bad it's mostly because of shit jobs (of which academics is rapidly becoming one!). I realize you don't have the time to give me a mini-seminar in all the mistaken assumptions I'm making, so perhaps you could recommend some economic writers for the general reader who might explain to my feeble mind why capitalism inherently creates inequalities, which coming from my "more if you can, less if you can't" feminism background, I do not find particularly feminist. In Japanese, "natsukashii" means nostalgic, but also a longing for that which has never been (meaning, they assume nostalgia is always partly mythic). And living in Japan--with nationalized health insurance, sliding scale government day care for my daughter (of which I pay the highest rate), 30% of the population not paying income tax (which also increases my tax "burden"), an inefficient system of 20 clerks for every one customer (which makes for FABulous service), and neighborhoods like mine where a stock broker lives next to a traffic wand waver next to a mechanic next to a university professor--I often feel natsukashii for an America that has yet to be. Love, Dana P.S. And how could you, an economist of all people, claim "we all know bears do not talk"? They sure talk a lot about stocks!
Dear Dana, You write: >______In what ways (other than physically, I assume), No, not physically at all, cartoon jokes about castration to the contrary. I didn't get any shorter, either! Once you have a large, male vocal apparatus, that's what you have. I had an operation that helped some. At least now I get called "ma'am" on the phone, most of the time!
has your "voice" I react, partly by intent and partly from Lord knows what (hormones? the Real Deirdre allowed to stand up?), as a woman would. For example, I don't feel I always have to have something to say about EVERY issue in the Executive Committee. You know what I mean, about some men.
> So far not much, as you might well expect in an established senior person. I gravitate to the Women's Conversation in social situations (it's SO much more interesting than the trading of data and aggressions among the guys!), which leaves me out of Their power talk. Fine with me. I have an unfair advantage: 53 years of maleness, with its privileges and irrational self-confidence.
I
>received several calls from straight men becoming women who planned to This "planning" is slightly crazy, and manly, since who you are attracted to is . . . who you are attracted to. It can change. Mine did.
(I'm not assuming this is your As far as I can see--remember, I'm 55--I like guys for that, but it's entirely unexplored. Know any very tall, straight, good-looking, 60-ish guy with so much self-confidence that he doesn't worry about his woman's career and even that she'd once been a man? If so, reply by return mail! (male?) I think I would find it too reminiscent of being a straight man to make love to the people I vastly prefer as friends!
And what I found fascinating lesbians, in all their infinite
Yeah, I have, and it's the dumbest thing. Any lesbian with such views who
hasn't read and reflected on Pat Califia's recent book on the subject. Sex
Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism, is acting like a guy: aggress
first, think later. It's not as if the 3 in 10,000 men who want to do this
are going to pose any threat to womyn. It's just idiotic. Califia (a
born-woman lesbian journalist) puts it this way, about Janice Raymond's
little piece of fascism, The Transsexual Empire: "When it first came out, I read it cover to cover. There were all the things that had been inside my head. But on paper, in black and white, they looked so ugly. No matter how I tried to rationalize it, I couldn't make myself believe that the presence of a transsexual woman ruined a women's event or spoiled a lesbian organization. . . . I didn't want to ally myself with people who were obsessed with hate. I knew what it was like to be hated . . . . It felt wrong to me, as a working-class queer who understood oppression on a survival level, on a street level, to yank the rug from under someone else's feet."If you'd forward this to a lesbian list on which someone takes the Raymond-Greer line, I'd appreciate it. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, and at the least should reflect that their opinions are identical to those of the religious right.
>do you find people assuming you're speaking more Natch. Do you know Peggy Seeger's song, "I'm Gonna Be an Engineer"? The boss says,
You've got one fault: You're a woman,
>or do you find yourself privileging ethos over logos when you're examining It's not Posner's ethos that's wrong--he's got piles and piles of that, and dazzles even people who hate his conclusions. It's his logos, which is Jeremy Bentham's. Look at his page on rape. That alone will keep him off the Supreme Court.
>(I think you had to wait a year before you could get snipped in It's not law; it's doctorly custom, and a royal pain in neck.
On the one hand, there Born women don't get this, because they've never had problems passing as women. They think the TS are engaging in some sort of parody of women, in the style of drag queens, or supporting 1950s stereotypes. Some are (as are some born women); most are just trying to get treated as who they are, against a male jaw line or a male height.
And yet as soon as any sort of It comes with being a boy and man. They are told over and over again that they are Tops. And being aggressive instead of connective in language is part of it. I wish I didn't have it. but on the other hand if I use it properly for liberation I guess I'll not pretend to a lack of confidence, right? Thus the late lamented Bella, or in my own field, Barbara Bergmann.
and I'd kid them (not unlike you have It's a danger in male upbringing. The Baptist Church made me God, Christ, actually, to women's Church.
> Buwhen I think of a strong Yeah, altho transsexuals are not transvestites or drag queens, i.e. people comfortable in their male gender who use drag for amusement.
>_______So I'm curious if your campy tone at times, whether consciously or I feel it as letting people know that I am NOT going to be ashamed of what I am--namely, a woman, Bella Abzug if you wish (I DO love hats!). It says, "You can't put me back in any closet, dear: stop contemplating it." It's an in-their-face move, and is I think felt as that by male readers. They complain about Aunt Deirdre. (So does my Mom, but from an ingrained homophobia of the 1940s and 1950s; she who had many gay and lesbian friends, unusually.)
>_______Also, I'm still "fuzzy" on what you mean by the free market part of Words missing? The market helps women, often.
While there may be regulations that have been Nope. Which women? The ones who work in the so-called sweatshops will tell you that they are glad to have the job, and that having it adjusts to some degree the balance of power in their households, against father or brother or husband or son. Of course they'd like higher pay. Everyone would. But that doesn't mean they're made better off by regulations that mean there are no jobs instead of badly paying ones. See? I'm a Chicago Girl.
>simpleton, but it seems to me that no, that would not be a free market; No: it helps K-mart shopper bigtime. Those are the ones who get to buy Chinese goods cheap, cheap.
but at least, yes, would pay those (mostly women) If you do this many of the women will find no other job, or one that pays even less: childminding; washing.
> In other words, I'm not sure what's free about a market in which You're right that there's still massive and outrageous job segregation by gender. The market helps erode it, but I'm willing to picket and boycott to get it moving faster. But "free" in my vocabulary means "absent physical constraint or it's threat." It doesn't mean the same thing as "rich."
Yes, American unemployment is No, it's not. Income per head is rising, real wages sharply in the past few years.
I realize you don't have the time to give me a Capitalism does not inherently create inequalities. Have a look at Paul Heyne, The Economic Way of Thinking, a nice 1st-year textbook.
>In Japanese, "natsukashii" means nostalgic, but also a longing for Japan achieves this by having an income a third less than America's. You can tell me about Japanese standards of housing, for example. Or "service" in stores purchased at the price of $20 melons, yes? Love, Deirdre
|
(Copyright. 1998. PRE/TEXT. Victor J. Vitanza and the posters to Pretext Re/In/View. All rights reserved. Anyone should feel free, however, to link to this page for educational purposes, but do not publish otherwise in part or whole without prior written consent from copyright holders. You may also establish a link to this or any REINVW discussion.)
To Part 1, McCloskey Reinvw.
To Part 2, McCloskey Reinvw.
To Part 4, McCloskey Reinvw, forthcoming.
To REINVW Archives
To PRETEXT-List HP