Re: [-empyre-] pro][in][duce + con.dition

["sa][y][line" <netwurker@pop.hotkey.net.au>]

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.


eryk,

....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 
above.......

   ::
][mez][



. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
.i.dream.the.n e X ][t][ us.

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