Re: [-empyre-] pro][in][duce + con.dition
At 03:23 AM 19/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
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.
....this POV n.trigues in terms of its orientation...... i use the word
cunt as a reclamation tool [read: sub-subversion n.tent] as well as a
blatant/raw body signifier in a visc][f][eral sense, not as offering a
ratification of body segmentation but more displaying an acknowledgment of
women as being able 2 own/display the hidden, the secret][ed][ otherness
that heightens the strictural approach 2
woman-as-myth[ological]-thru-biological-difference & not definably located
in a tangible sense ....in relation 2 the idea that my actions add
2/reinforce trends of western media-perpetuated dismembered vision, then i
do c this as a potential possibility.....i also perceive this usage as an
indicator of a set of political discourses not acknowledged by yr tract
. . .... .....
.i.dream.the.n e X ][t][ us.
.... . .??? .......
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and