10 12 2000
Jana Korb:
re: aktuganova and aristarkhova (partly Translation from Russian)
Dear women,
excuse me, but sometimes it is easier for me to write in english, i
wish to write spontaneous and quickly -
and this would be quite hard for me in russian.
If one of you doesn't at all understand my answer, please have a look on
our website, where a russian translation will be soon.
(the specialist for the russian language is Andrea and not me). And as
this email is beginning with an answer to Irina Aktuganova, and as you
suggested that we better answer in English, i hope that everybody agrees.
(i would love to have a chip in my brain, with which it would be possible
to speak any language fluently... i am waiting and hoping for
biotechnology...)
(russian translation ends here)
dear Irina Aktu.,
I had to laugh a lot about your letter. I like your humor.
So why is "cyberfeminism" (or kiberfeminizm) an idiotic word? i would like
to hear your opinion about that. but when i think about it, there could be
a lot of power in the fact for kiberfeminism being an idiotic word. idiots
and clowns are beyond stupid regulations, beyond written and unwritten
laws, in german we say "narrenfreiheit" (fool's freedom, or in american
"carnival license", in russian "svoboda shuta", true?). that's cool,
kiberfeminists as fools...
but now to your statements about (russian) feminism and women. maybe we got
kind of lost into a direction, i didn't want the discussion lead to. i,
speaking for myself, do not like this idea that feminism is all supposed to
be about suffering. i don't like this victim's attitude ("poor women have
to suffer so much and men are so mean...").
but! what i think is very important, is to reflect one's own positions of
dominance and suppression. and regarding gender this would be "feminism"
for me.
for example:
i have a computer, i'm okay. but the woman down the street doesn't have
one. doesn't even have the time to think about one. why? because she is
stuck with her children. or because she is black. or illegalized. or
disabled. ...
as long as i don't realize the differences between women (yes, and men, of
course there are poor men as well, nobody is trying to hide that fact...),
and don't realize how these differences are INSTITUTIONALIZED, there is no
need to talk about how stupid women are, subordinating themselves under
men.
(and Irina, i know this situation, its not different here in germany: as a
women's representative in the university administration i began to hate
these women (e.g. in job application situations), who were making
themselves so small and stupid, hiding their great abilities behind some
strange modesty, while men were such boasters that I couldn't stand it... -
of course most women didn't get the jobs. but even knowing all this and
telling myself that i never would be like that, i still made the same
mistakes)
the way you talk about the problems of women, it seems that solving them
always just would be one's private problem: for example, going to a
psychiatrist, learning rhethorics,... - and everything will be great. this
won't work. it still would be about surviving of the fittest. maybe there
wouldn't be any gender differences at the top elite any more. but no doubt
there would be for the rest. gender (and all other kinds of) differences
being means for domination are not personal problems (although a
selfconscious personal attitude is an important thing...).
For example, Irina Aristarkhova is focusing on these dynamics of
dominance, when she
writes about ethnic differences among women in russia. these focuses on
dominance are very important when regarding feminisms.
(translation from russian start here again)
""It is cyber-, because already in the 80s some of us, who were tending to self-reflection, were feeling themselves as ³multytask cyborgs² (i.O. english). As multytasking and self-teaching bio-robots, who were perceiving life very discreetly, and who at every point of their existence were absolutely rationally realizing a new ³identity² (i.O. english).""
yes, I like this. This isn't about the difference between cyberfeminism and feminism any more, but about another... here i would like to know, where imagination is beginning and where reality? and what is good in this case, and against what we need to fight?
""At the moment cyberspace is just a medium. Although a influential one. And there is a lot of various information about women. In my opinion, this is not very interesting, although sometimes it is useful. In principle all these womens resources are not feminist at all, but social. And regarding all this, they dont have at all any relation to the subject of our conversation.""
and what are they relating to?
dear Irina Arista.,
i just after the letter by Irina Aktu. read your answer. i very much agree
with what you answer to her! Somehow my answer seems redundant after
yours...
(and in english it sounds strange in this our context... i am sorry, now i
will try to write in russian)
you are asking where the other women are.
we don't know. we were asking about 10 women, also with the request to
give our letter to others.
you 4 have answered and agreed, no one has disagreed.
i don't know, whether we have been insisting too little on answers,
whether we have not been paying enough attention, or whether we have been
too naive and modest... our mistake...
and we were thinking that it would be too complicated us being too many,
more than 10.
on the other hand we wanted to have "close" conversations, and not too
anonymous.
now i think that even 20 women would have been okay, because many have
other priorities and not much time...
well okay, it's very interesting as it is anyway!
(but where are you, Valentina? are you receiving our letters?)
.....
to yours and Larisa's letters some more tomorrow...
with heartily and fool's greetings!
until tomorrow,
Jana
next message
previous message
back to discussion list
home