Re: [-empyre-] c*nt obsession
----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Everett" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] c*nt obsession
C*nt is fine.like f*k is fine in good good weather, matter of language,
metaphor and the real being a process rather than an end point...it is a
curious thing to me that so many of these fine minds are caught up in the
'transcendence' of virtuality, it is not a new idea simply a different
medium. How far away is Iraq, in a global community where does any sense of
responsibility lie, how can it be exercised in a meaningful way,c*unt can
figure as can anyway of being that expands or transcends its cultural
limits, and does the intellectual elite feel justified by its contribution,
or does the only empowerment have a metaphysical dimension, valid but
sidelined. A few thoughts before Christmas.
> >> erik:
> >> >It strikes me as a
> >> profoundly absurd practice for a woman to refer to herself as a "cunt"
> >> as a source of pride.
> >> Yes, because you think all women should subscribe to your definition
> >> of and belief structures surrounding what a "cunt" is?
> > I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for a society raised with a
> > culture of control by way of reduction of women exclusively to sexual
> > beings and mothers; both of which center around the vagina.
> What society is that? One without sisters, friends, grandmas,
> daughters, co-workers, teachers, healers... sounds terrible to me!
> > The assertion by a woman that they are a "cunt" is not reclaiming
> > anything, even if it is based on obscure and innacurate
> > interpretations of early paganism. It's merely affirming what men are
> > already raised to believe: That a woman is a sexual organ; and that
> > the only means for that woman to obtain power is by way of that sexual
> > organ; and that men must "respect" [or, "worship"] that sexual organ
> > because it is the only route a woman can take to empowerment.
> > I think very few people are capable of considering the "symbolic" and
> > "positive" aspects of a term that is a form of psychologically
> > degrading violence against women. Again, I am simply pointing out why
> > the word "cunt" is offensive to begin with.
> "cunt" is not offensive to begin with:
> >The word you find so offensive is derived from the name of the
> >Great Goddess Cunti, or Kunda, in her persona as the yoni or
> > womb of the universe. According to researcher and linguist
> >Barbara G. Walker, other cognates are "cunabula," a cradle or
> >earliest abode; "Cunina," a Roman goddess who protected
> >children in the cradle; "cunctipotent," all-powerful (i.e., having
> >"cunt-magic"); as well as the words cunning and ken: knowledge,
> >learning, insight, remembrance and wisdom. Cunt is "not slang,
> > dialect or any marginal form, but a true language word, and of
> >the oldest stock."
> >"Kin" originally meant not only matrilineal blood relations, but
> >also a cleft or crevice, the Goddess's genital opening. A
> >Saharan tribe called Kuntahs traced their descent from this holy
> >place. In ancient writings, the word for "cunt" was synonymous
> >with "woman," though not in the insulting modern sense, the
> >way one of the words for "man" in Hebrew derives from its
> >word for "penis." The vulgarity is purely a modern construction;
> >it was merely descriptive to those in the
> >ancient world.
> >Latin Cunnus, Middle English Cunte, Old Norse Kunta, Old Frisian
> Kunte, Basque Kuna. That many words from cradle (cunabula) to
> cunctipotent (all powerful, omnipotent) to cunning (to know) derive
> from cunt? [Michael Dames, THE SILBURY TREASURE: THE GREAT GODDESS
> REDISCOVERED, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1976.]
> > This is all extremely useless. I don't see why "worship" of one type
> > of sex organ over another is going to liberate anyone. Am I suddenly
> > to feel inferior for not having a vagina?
> The point I and others have repeatedly been making is that "cunt" is
> NOT just about the sex organ, its just that many are unable to
> appreciate this due to their cultural programming. You seem to believe
> cyberfeminists exclusively define themselves as c*nts as a sexual
> metaphor and that it is the only aspect of their self representation
> they intend...
> Language is dynamic and adaptive, and art is often subversive in nature
> and seeks to shock and break down such incorrect preconceived ideas.
> to reiterate the words of Julianne Pierce:
> >One of the strategies to do this was to use language and to reclaim
> language which is negative or derogatory towards women. The word 'cunt'
> can be offensive...and has obviously been offensive to some on this
> list!! But for us it was about using this word in a positive way, to
> say that we are cunts and proud of it....in other versions of the
> manifesto we replace the word 'cunt' with 'kunst', we make art with our
> 'kunst'. We were also interested in the relationship of the body to the
> computer...that the Matrix is another word for the womb and that the
> cunt or clitoris is a direct line to the Matrix.
> now can we get past the cunt obsession thing yet?
> empyre forum
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and