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 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 above.......


. . .... .....
.i.dream.the.n e X ][t][ us.

.... . .??? .......

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