Certainly from the standpoint of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the hope is that desires for the “primitive” or fantasies about the Other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribes and maintains the status quo. Whether or not desire for contact with the Other, for connection rooted in the longing for pleasure, can act as a critical intervention challenging and subverting racist domination, inviting and enabling critical resistance, is an unrealized political possibility. (Bell Hooks 367).
Sweet weeping Jesus on the Cross, what a complete load of horse shit! Instead of beginning your sentence with “Certainly” you, in all basic common decency should have began with “Most certainly not…” you nasty ass-bitch. That’s it, I said it, is that what you wanted to hear?
Bell, my love, I do agree with you on one thing though, the “capitalist patriarchy” although I would feel better if you changed that to “elite capitalist.” Since, I’m sure, as you very well must know there’s only one true color and that’s “Benjamin Green.” Get it?
Oh, and another thing sweet heart, the “desires for the ‘primitive’ or fantasies about the Other” kind of bothers me too. Okay, I admit to buying some pretty good weed from a ‘primitive’ once when I was sixteen, but that was then, this is now. Let me see, oh yes, this morning I had a root canal done by an “Other” and last week I met with and paid a very sizeable retainer to, one of attorneys, who, happens to be so black in complexion, that I suppose, when he is lying upon on set of white bed linen he could be easily mistaken for a hole in the sheets.
Baby Doll, you very much remind me of the young lady I came across this morning at a local convenience store, when I stopped for a morning coffee. Her name was “Lady Paradise” a name not discerned by her name tag; but, rather from the tattoo she had stitched across her throat, “Lady Paradise,” and, she didn’t like me. It was quite obvious and it was also quite obvious she didn’t like me for one reason and one reason only—my complexion. Let’s just say that her attitude would most certainly replace any “hot sauce” I needed on my breakfast burrito.
But you know what; I didn’t let it bother me. The way I look at it, I’m doing my thing, and, she is doing hers. I most certainly don’t know what’s going on in her life, and, she wouldn’t have a clue about mine, which brings me back around to you.
Bell, my dear, I think you need to take up a different line of work, instead of writing that is. Yes, I’ve given this a great deal of thought and I think what befits you most exceedingly would be for you to become a night deposit receptacle in a sperm bank. Peace.
Monday, November 19, 2007
GM, Foucault
“Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance”. (Foucault 101)
I love this quote. It’s true, it’s funny, and it’s very sad. And, it’s “on-point” now more than ever. However, it (surveillance) involves much more than being watched. It also involves our thought processes, what we say, what we think. We are now under constant surveillance by the “Thought Police” as well.
The “Thought Police” are everywhere, from the poet, Maya Angelou, who spoke at Rollins most past recent colloquy, chastising writers for using certain, “unacceptable” language, in her view, language which is now deemed inappropriate, to being afraid of entering onto certain websites for fear of wondering who is watching. The “Thought Police” are now part of our everyday culture. Political correctness has gone awry.
The last time I was in London, I had the opportunity to be in Piccadilly Circus at 11:00pm on St. Patty’s Day. It was a beautiful Saturday evening. Since then, I’ve read somewhere that London is one of the worlds most surveiled cities, that when out in the public while in London, chances are that you are being watched. It’s a fact of life there. This brings me to another Foucault quote that I like and think very appropriate here.
We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism. (Foucault 101)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me, while in Piccadilly Circus (Soho) that night, I’ve never seen such a rowdy pack of chalky, drunk Brits in my life, me included. It was an “all-new” low. I’m so ashamed—just kidding—maybe. But I’m telling you right now, if those Brits were filming me that night, I’m sure they had to use an extra-wide lens. Cheers.
I love this quote. It’s true, it’s funny, and it’s very sad. And, it’s “on-point” now more than ever. However, it (surveillance) involves much more than being watched. It also involves our thought processes, what we say, what we think. We are now under constant surveillance by the “Thought Police” as well.
The “Thought Police” are everywhere, from the poet, Maya Angelou, who spoke at Rollins most past recent colloquy, chastising writers for using certain, “unacceptable” language, in her view, language which is now deemed inappropriate, to being afraid of entering onto certain websites for fear of wondering who is watching. The “Thought Police” are now part of our everyday culture. Political correctness has gone awry.
The last time I was in London, I had the opportunity to be in Piccadilly Circus at 11:00pm on St. Patty’s Day. It was a beautiful Saturday evening. Since then, I’ve read somewhere that London is one of the worlds most surveiled cities, that when out in the public while in London, chances are that you are being watched. It’s a fact of life there. This brings me to another Foucault quote that I like and think very appropriate here.
We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism. (Foucault 101)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me, while in Piccadilly Circus (Soho) that night, I’ve never seen such a rowdy pack of chalky, drunk Brits in my life, me included. It was an “all-new” low. I’m so ashamed—just kidding—maybe. But I’m telling you right now, if those Brits were filming me that night, I’m sure they had to use an extra-wide lens. Cheers.
GM, Derrida
Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences. (Derrida 127)
I find the above Derrida quote to be the essence of defining post modernism. Everything is connected but there is a particular or subtle (albeit) chaos-ness in everything, there is no final definition, there are no absolutes, except for death; maybe.
It’s particularly interesting to see how this relates to some of the other theorists we have read. From Saussure’s “In language, one can see neither divide sound from thought, nor thought from sound…” (6) and “In language there are only differences” (10). One might argue that Derrida is in contract to Saussure; however, bottom line they are saying the same thing—differences.
Derrida’s quote also connects to Habermas’ “as a result, (Hegemony) the distance grows between the culture of the experts and that of the larger public” (103). Surely, Derrida’s “deconstruction” methods the binary oppositions of everything can’t be a “good-thing” for the “average Joe” public.
I also see reflections of Lyotard in Derrida’s quote. Derrida is saying that, at least to me, we have differences and we will always have differences, to be left unanswered, which leaves chaos. Then, I find Lyotard’s “We have the Idea of the world…But we do not have the capacity to show an example of it” (43) quite apropos here along with his “It is our business not to supply reality, but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented” (46).
Yes, Derrida is saying the same, but only in a different way, as several of our theorists have. Like Dorfman’s “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion” (128), Derrida is telling us the there is no center, only circular, unending movement.
I find the above Derrida quote to be the essence of defining post modernism. Everything is connected but there is a particular or subtle (albeit) chaos-ness in everything, there is no final definition, there are no absolutes, except for death; maybe.
It’s particularly interesting to see how this relates to some of the other theorists we have read. From Saussure’s “In language, one can see neither divide sound from thought, nor thought from sound…” (6) and “In language there are only differences” (10). One might argue that Derrida is in contract to Saussure; however, bottom line they are saying the same thing—differences.
Derrida’s quote also connects to Habermas’ “as a result, (Hegemony) the distance grows between the culture of the experts and that of the larger public” (103). Surely, Derrida’s “deconstruction” methods the binary oppositions of everything can’t be a “good-thing” for the “average Joe” public.
I also see reflections of Lyotard in Derrida’s quote. Derrida is saying that, at least to me, we have differences and we will always have differences, to be left unanswered, which leaves chaos. Then, I find Lyotard’s “We have the Idea of the world…But we do not have the capacity to show an example of it” (43) quite apropos here along with his “It is our business not to supply reality, but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented” (46).
Yes, Derrida is saying the same, but only in a different way, as several of our theorists have. Like Dorfman’s “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion” (128), Derrida is telling us the there is no center, only circular, unending movement.
Eddie, 11/13
There are a few assumptions made by Cixous that we should leave alone for the discussion here. The first is that men and women are clearly divided groups, with each group held together by a sexual unity. Then, these two groups have traits which are different and opposite to one another–they do not compliment each other in function. Also, one group (the men) has the means to maintain a dominance over the other due to the above differences. All of the points are enough to fuel debates of exhausting lengths, but they are not the concern of concern this moment, so let them be for now.
When the women of the class were given the sole right to speak, what was supposed to happen? According to Cixous, the female participants of the class should have been keen on discussing applications of the theory and what it fails to satisfy. They should have been less interested in dissecting the theories to further rationalize them.
Men, according to her, are deconstructive. They seek to disassemble the machinery of reality, study its components, and then map their relations with one another. Through that exercise, men hope to find the “be” of our world – its building blocks. On the other hand, Women are constructive. They are unbound by the obsession with what is already there; they would rather explore what is not – the” other.” So the concern with women is not with why things are, but rather, what they are not.
One could associate the idea of aggressive domination with the deconstructive males, but here lies the dangerous assumption in question here: men, in their deconstructive ways, seek no inventive end. If men and women are binary opposites - and if women are the innovators, explorers and revolutionists - then it must first be assumed true that men do not already seek such goals. If not, then men may have a common end to share with women, and there may be the option of coexistence, cooperation and mutual support - which would make Cixous' romantic passion seem rather silly. So, Cixous is saying that men work to untangle and describe the real world, and that is the drive in and of itself. Naturally, things are never that simple.
Think of our education. Our study is exactly the process of learning what other great minds have taken apart and seen before us. Yet (hopefully) none of us will say that our goal is to simple know all this stuff and then call it a job well done. Deconstructing reality is never just about finding the building blocks. The basic units - like the theory of atoms, time or inertia - do nothing on their own which are relevant to our interests. Our aim as scholars is, then, to be able to take those "building" blocks and "build" things. There will always be things that we still need, and more things we already have to improve on. Masculine destruction has its ultimate interest in construction.
Besides, what good is Cixousian feminine imagination and innovation if we are without the muscle to ever attain them? Unhinged from the fear and limits of reality and science, we can hope and dream anything we like, but can we ever expect to see them realized with any sort of certainty? I, for one, do not find it comforting to have innovation at the price of not knowing why new ideas work better. They work when they do, and fail because it just happens. There would not be a thread of security to be had in that world.
So, what should we do? We should avoid dedicating our minds to rationalizing differences and maintaining binary opposites. If there is a war waged by feminists against a phallocentric culture, then could it not also be called a vaginocentric coup d'état? If we are to harbor such passionate hate towards any one extreme, then we only end up pushing for the other alternative form of unbalance. The "we do and they don't" mindset is more dominating than even the manliest of men will ever be.
When the women of the class were given the sole right to speak, what was supposed to happen? According to Cixous, the female participants of the class should have been keen on discussing applications of the theory and what it fails to satisfy. They should have been less interested in dissecting the theories to further rationalize them.
Men, according to her, are deconstructive. They seek to disassemble the machinery of reality, study its components, and then map their relations with one another. Through that exercise, men hope to find the “be” of our world – its building blocks. On the other hand, Women are constructive. They are unbound by the obsession with what is already there; they would rather explore what is not – the” other.” So the concern with women is not with why things are, but rather, what they are not.
One could associate the idea of aggressive domination with the deconstructive males, but here lies the dangerous assumption in question here: men, in their deconstructive ways, seek no inventive end. If men and women are binary opposites - and if women are the innovators, explorers and revolutionists - then it must first be assumed true that men do not already seek such goals. If not, then men may have a common end to share with women, and there may be the option of coexistence, cooperation and mutual support - which would make Cixous' romantic passion seem rather silly. So, Cixous is saying that men work to untangle and describe the real world, and that is the drive in and of itself. Naturally, things are never that simple.
Think of our education. Our study is exactly the process of learning what other great minds have taken apart and seen before us. Yet (hopefully) none of us will say that our goal is to simple know all this stuff and then call it a job well done. Deconstructing reality is never just about finding the building blocks. The basic units - like the theory of atoms, time or inertia - do nothing on their own which are relevant to our interests. Our aim as scholars is, then, to be able to take those "building" blocks and "build" things. There will always be things that we still need, and more things we already have to improve on. Masculine destruction has its ultimate interest in construction.
Besides, what good is Cixousian feminine imagination and innovation if we are without the muscle to ever attain them? Unhinged from the fear and limits of reality and science, we can hope and dream anything we like, but can we ever expect to see them realized with any sort of certainty? I, for one, do not find it comforting to have innovation at the price of not knowing why new ideas work better. They work when they do, and fail because it just happens. There would not be a thread of security to be had in that world.
So, what should we do? We should avoid dedicating our minds to rationalizing differences and maintaining binary opposites. If there is a war waged by feminists against a phallocentric culture, then could it not also be called a vaginocentric coup d'état? If we are to harbor such passionate hate towards any one extreme, then we only end up pushing for the other alternative form of unbalance. The "we do and they don't" mindset is more dominating than even the manliest of men will ever be.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Francesca, 11/13
To call someone a radical feminist has rather negative implications. This term conjures up images of butch lesbians seeking to castrate the male race as they burn every bra in sight. However, the very definition of the word radical proposes a different perspective. Radical is defined as of or relating to the root of something, affecting its fundamental nature. As we ascribe meaning in accordance to our comprehension of words, we demonstrate that language is subjective. Meaning is derived from a person’s unique experience with a particular word. By utilizing speech, we provide a context for people to recall instances associated with a given word, and thus validate its definition by means of confirming their preconceptions. Therefore, if someone’s preconception of a feminist is the image I have described above, then the mention of the word will call this description to mind. The subjectivity of one’s definitions are influenced by others experiences with the word. These preceding experiences provide a paradigm for the formation of one’s mentality. So, if society consistently presents feminists in an unflattering and biased light by depicting only sensationalized accounts of those who comprise the insane end of the spectrum, it is these images that will serve as the paradigm for many experiences with the word. Furthermore, it is this means of deriving meaning for a word that posits a problem. Feminist is merely a word. The negative implications the word has come to entail is a product of language’s subjectivity. At the root of this problem, is the word itself. Feminism is an inherently radical concept as it maintains the need for society to reevaluate the injustices of fundamental ideals. Yet, as Helene Ciouxs would agree with me, perhaps it the means by which we create these ideals that must be reconsidered, language.
Eric, Post-class, Feminism
I found it quite interesting that some women in the class did not like FEMINIST writings because they found them to be ‘angry.’ I began to wonder if they had some phobia of being called out as a feminist (a fate more terrible perhaps than being called a liberal) if they said they enjoyed it. Perhaps there is something of a stigma associated with feminism in modern culture; let’s take a look.
Here are some choice definitions of feminism from the classy website urbandictionary.com.
A real bitch .Wanting to steal power from men, wanting to subject men and degrade men. A suppressor of men with freedom . An enemy of traditional men. A destroyer of male ambition, a perverter of truth and a manipulating lier[sic] . Send them to antartica[sic] and the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
A group of smart lesbian thieves who have realized there is money to be made from goverment grants and through tax benifits by falsely distorting statistics and screaming downright lies in the street.Thier HQ can usually be found in any womans abuse shelter.[editor's note: OH NO THE TERRIBLE EVIL OF THE WOMEN'S ABUSE SHELTER]The screaming ones in the streets are just irritating,but beware the horn rimmed glasses,Birkenstock wearing ones who haunt the courts and halls of power,they are the ones who figure out how to bleed mens wallets dry.
(emphasis mine)
It would seem here that some people have the idea that all feminists are either grotesque monsters or people like Valerie Solanas who wrote these little gems:
“Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.”
“The male chromosome is incomplete. All men are walking abortions.”
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.”
Really though, most feminists are not like this. And women who believe this and avoid anything that might be construed as feminism because they don’t want to be thought of as man hating lesbians are helping to perpetuate not only an unequal society but the very myth of all feminists being hairy mannish lesbians with a taste for the flesh of men. (Unless, of course, they are being hairy mannish lesbians, in which case in wholeheartedly thank them for not making the rest of feminists look bad)
Here are some choice definitions of feminism from the classy website urbandictionary.com.
A real bitch .Wanting to steal power from men, wanting to subject men and degrade men. A suppressor of men with freedom . An enemy of traditional men. A destroyer of male ambition, a perverter of truth and a manipulating lier[sic] . Send them to antartica[sic] and the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
A group of smart lesbian thieves who have realized there is money to be made from goverment grants and through tax benifits by falsely distorting statistics and screaming downright lies in the street.Thier HQ can usually be found in any womans abuse shelter.[editor's note: OH NO THE TERRIBLE EVIL OF THE WOMEN'S ABUSE SHELTER]The screaming ones in the streets are just irritating,but beware the horn rimmed glasses,Birkenstock wearing ones who haunt the courts and halls of power,they are the ones who figure out how to bleed mens wallets dry.
(emphasis mine)
It would seem here that some people have the idea that all feminists are either grotesque monsters or people like Valerie Solanas who wrote these little gems:
“Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.”
“The male chromosome is incomplete. All men are walking abortions.”
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.”
Really though, most feminists are not like this. And women who believe this and avoid anything that might be construed as feminism because they don’t want to be thought of as man hating lesbians are helping to perpetuate not only an unequal society but the very myth of all feminists being hairy mannish lesbians with a taste for the flesh of men. (Unless, of course, they are being hairy mannish lesbians, in which case in wholeheartedly thank them for not making the rest of feminists look bad)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Sally, Post class 11/13
The theorist, Cixous, surprised me. Her feminist writings were a little "out there" for my tastes with her discussion of the masculine and feminine roles in society. However, I listened and participated in the exercise whereby only us 3 women could speak and the rest of you guys - 6 including Dr. Casey - were limited in expression -you could not speak and had to write your thoughts on paper. Then you had to wait to see if we would share what you had to say with the others since the option to ignore the mens' comments had been allowed and was part of the exercise. The discussion that followed after the men could speak again was quite interesting and revealing. It was during that discussion that a quote by Cixous caught my attention. Cixous, a French feminist theorist, describes men in fairly stereotypical terms: the traditional man values "virility, authority, power, money or pleasure." (161) She goes on to say "that is what society is made for -- how it is made; and men can hardly get out of it." (161) The key words for me are "can hardly." I have male friends who are sensitive, nurturing, and fair. They do not live for power, authority, or money. So, are they men who have transcended the stereotypical labels of the "male" or are they naturally, by nurture and/or nature, more balanced in their sense of self? I liked it that cixous left open the possibility that not all men are the same stereotypical "insensitive, power hungry males" most feminists describe. Cixous went on to gain credibility with me. She described women very accurately. Certainly, there are exceptions to every generalization, but for the most part women have a giving nature. Cixous describes a woman in this way: "She too, with open hands, gives herself --pleasure, happiness...But she doesn't try to 'recover her expenses.' I found this statement to be personally empowering for the following reason: I am in the process of a divorce after a 30 year marriage. I have no regrets and willingly loved and served my family over those years. However, it was at a great sacrifice to my career(I gave up a lucrative career and "volunteered" in a family business for 24 years, was a stay-at-home mom (successfully homeschooling our kids who have gone on to do good things with their lives in college and beyond.)
So,here I am at 50 basically starting over in life....Because of that, the men friends/relatives in my life see dollars and cents and self-sacrifice on my part; they kindly, but strongly, advise me to "recover expenses." I agree in part and know that I should protect myself for the future, but I also desire to be fair, to bow out gracefully and see us each go on with our lives. The key word is "future." My motivation is not based on what I have done in the past - I do not seek to "recover expenses." On bad days, my soon to be "ex" sees only his financial contribution to our household over our past 30 years together and rightfully wants to protect his interests; on good days, he seeks to be fair in settling our assets and wants to see me "taken care of." Back to Cixous....she described men as "always proving something" whereas women are "able not to return to themselves...she is not the being-of-the-end (the goal), but she is how-far-being-reaches." (161) I never thought I'd agree with a feminist, but I do tend to agree with Cixous on these points. She has a credibility that resonates with my heart and life experience at this juncture in my life. What is the goal in life? A year ago I thought it was to coast into the 'golden' years of life with my spouse...Cixous says women are not as goal oriented as men....she says women do not "flee the extemes." (161) She says women are not "beings-of-the-end" and I take that to mean, we're here for the journey. A journey through a life that abounds with surprises, accomplishments, and challenges.
So,here I am at 50 basically starting over in life....Because of that, the men friends/relatives in my life see dollars and cents and self-sacrifice on my part; they kindly, but strongly, advise me to "recover expenses." I agree in part and know that I should protect myself for the future, but I also desire to be fair, to bow out gracefully and see us each go on with our lives. The key word is "future." My motivation is not based on what I have done in the past - I do not seek to "recover expenses." On bad days, my soon to be "ex" sees only his financial contribution to our household over our past 30 years together and rightfully wants to protect his interests; on good days, he seeks to be fair in settling our assets and wants to see me "taken care of." Back to Cixous....she described men as "always proving something" whereas women are "able not to return to themselves...she is not the being-of-the-end (the goal), but she is how-far-being-reaches." (161) I never thought I'd agree with a feminist, but I do tend to agree with Cixous on these points. She has a credibility that resonates with my heart and life experience at this juncture in my life. What is the goal in life? A year ago I thought it was to coast into the 'golden' years of life with my spouse...Cixous says women are not as goal oriented as men....she says women do not "flee the extemes." (161) She says women are not "beings-of-the-end" and I take that to mean, we're here for the journey. A journey through a life that abounds with surprises, accomplishments, and challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)