From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: john wesley hardin
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcso.7710410
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In rec.arts.poems, n2412@cray.com (Joe Green) writes:

Thanks for the summary of the reading list Joe.  I am interested
enough in these ideas that I will probably read some of these
with my valuable reading time.

Having made it clear that I do not have the proper reading background
to address this, I still want to make some comments and add some
thoughts and questions to this debate.

>Are you, John Wesley, denying that the speechlessness I have
>described is real?  Does the fact that for centuries women
>have had next to nothing to say about their situation as chattel
>suggest that speechlessness is a fantasy?  Or is there some
>esoteric way in which they have been heard and heeded?

One problem that I have with the discourse is the assertion
that marginalized groups do not have a language to address their
oppression.  It seems to me that what they do not 
have is an audience.  Taking the
case of women, specifically, it has probably always been possible
to put together the words to say, "I may be a woman, you bastard,
but that does not mean you can treat me like a goddamned cow."
In other words, it seems that the language, as a syntax and
a collection of words has always been there.

So what is it that has not been there, because I would say that
you are absolutely right that women have been oppressed BY 
language.  Of course the assertion that this is the fault of
capitalism, or even western society is obviously incorrect since
it has happened in MOST cultures. iIn FACT, it is only the modern
success of capitalism and democracy that has begun to empower 
women to FIX this problem.

I think that what you are suggesting is that the male dominated
culture of metaphor and myth and cliche has made it so that
the audience women might use to improve their situation has
not been conditioned to pay any attention to the women who had
the courage to risk themselves and speak up.  So it is not so
much that they did not have the language, they were not empowered
to use the language that was there, and audiences were actively
encouraged, through the common male-myths to ignore the inputs
of women.  The same argument can be made for other groups.

But Joe, I would appreciate it if you could point me at the
text that PROVES the major fault here is the fault of capitalist thought.
To me that seems axiomatically absurd since the problem has been
around LONG before capitalism.  And again, the societies making
the biggest gains in these areas are capitalist democracies. (Let
me state forcefully here that I realize FULL WELL that marginalized
groups have a LONG way to go even in capitalized democracies.)

I have a feeling our wires are crossing here, because I am
CERTAINLY not denying that capitalism engages in the kind of
oppression that you suggest.  A few hours watching commercials
can give one the creeps about how language is used against people
to increase their anxiety so that they will buy stuff.

Well, I am going to read the stuff you suggested, but I must
admit that on the front end of all this, it seems that your
assertion that lack of language has oppressed people is at
best not accurately stated and that the belief that capitalism
is somehow WORSE than other systems seems quite suspect,
although it is not at all hard to imagine that present forms
of capitalism are not at all close to perfect systems.
But I am more than willing to grant that I just misunderstood
the things you said.  I am a little slow-witted.

Anyway, thanks again for the ideas.  I think that it is 
well worth time spent considering how it is that we got
caught in this meat grinder and how to get out, and you
do as good a job of anyone I know at making me care to 
even think about it.

I guess it is your gift to me.

doug