Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers

I did mention in a previous post that the problem with the word "cunt" and with women identifying themselves with it is that it plays directly into the segmentation of the body and the idea of a woman as an extension of her sexual organs. Anyone who sees "cunt" as an "object of worship" is trying too hard or simply missing the point, that to see people as full and complete human beings, we cannot refer to people as isolated, specific body parts [which happens constantly in the media- a woman is a face, a set of breasts, a washboard stomach, a set of legs, etc etc etc- neverminding that she could be a senator, a songwriter, an actress, an artist, a poet, which is what men can be.] 19th century morality has little to nothing do with it.

Even in referencing men as pricks can't have the same effects because the culture is not one that actively participates in the reduction of men to body parts [and in a sense some men crave it- but reducing everyone in that way is not liberation, either.] It strikes me as a profoundly absurd practice for a woman to refer to herself as a "cunt" as a source of pride. Even removing the negative connotations of reducing oneself to a sexual organ, consider the absurdity of referring to yourself as an earlobe- how does this address who you are, what ideas you have, what your soul is made of? Even positive stereotypes are stereotypes, which serve to reduce a person to a role, which is the precise opposite process of liberation. The idea of turning "cunt" into a "positive" term is kind of valueless. If African Americans has turned the word "nigger" into a compliment it wouldn't change race relations, and, in fact, would only serve to further enforce its negative connotations into the role playing of any African American individual who chose to identify themselves with that term.

What strikes me about the value of the net is the possibility of becoming completely androgynous. I think net.androgyny would be the key liberating factor- look at entities like NN, who, in her initial incarnation, was completely genderless, and may, still, be a man or woman. Or both. Or neither :) Any attempts at dismissing its ideas based on gender backfire. If you want to argue you have to dismiss the ideas, and in order to do that credibly you have to understand them and actually argue.


Damien Everett wrote:

Hmmm, Cristiano... perhaps people like you are one of the main reasons for the need for CyberFeminism? Perhaps if you actually listened to and understood what was being said you would realise that:
women on the internet feel oppressed by rude and intolerent men such as yourself... that they want a space to express themselves and ideologies without being dismissed as stupid / irrelevant / a waste of time.

Can you appreciate that women are trying to address (heal) the gender issues that still exists in our culture... the internet is a great way to continue this quest on a global scale... why do you feel the need to seek to discredit / discount this? Does your male ego feel threatened by this? If you were ever oppressed by the issues woman have faced I'm sure you would feel differently...

| Cunt comes from 'priestess', symbol of power that of
course the male society transformed in a sybol of hate
for exactly that reason, restricting its meaning to
the body part. This is history.

Art has a tendency of seeking to shock, sometimes by taking words / ideas and turning them upside down / recontextualising them. Words don't mean the same thing to different people. Cunt is not a symbol of hate, for some it is an object of worship, for others a symbol of crude desire, and for others it might be the womb / matrix of all existence and experience... it depends where you are coming from. Perhaps you are still caught up in 19th century repressive morality? Art is easy to misinterpret if you don't have an open mind.

best wishes,
your friendly prick / cock / dick...

empyre forum

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.