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

[Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>]

Damien Everett wrote:

> As shakespeare says "what is in a name?".  Is it possible to address 
> people by the totality of their being? if so what do you want me to 
> call you? Identity is contextual, we are only able to reveal one facet 
> of our "self" at a time. The problem you refer to is when people are 
> only able to view the cunt in one dimension: crude objectification of 
> genitalia as a means of self gratification, and are unable to consider 
> any other symbolic aspects it can represent. 


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. Charlotte pointed out the success of 
the word "queer" but I would also point to the word "fag," and the same 
with "nigger." "Queer" is succesful because it is not in and of itself 
degrading- the origin of the word is just "odd, unusual" and therefore 
it's suited for an embrace by a community that is quite content with its 
differences.


> "cunt worship" dates back to the dawn of time, synonomous with the 
> mother goddess and the matrix of all existence and experience(as in 
> Tantra, Yin of Taoism, the Prima Materia of alchemy, Anima Mundi as 
> soul of the world), so perhaps you are the one missing the point in 
> this matter. 


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? Certainly if we wish to embrace a 
new set of "positive stereotypes" for women we could do so; as we have, 
there's nothing wrong with being "nurturing" or what have you, but in 
the meantime it is the stereotype that serves as an injustice, 
regardless of what it is. You cannot break out of cultural conditioning 
simply by rearranging the names on the stereotypes we assign people. 
"Jews are good with money" is a fantastic example of a positive 
stereotype that becomes a type of prison.


> This kind of understanding allow us to go beyond the limited 
> constraints of the (male?)ego, worship is a form of surrender into 
> loving union with the universe which is a noble aspiration for some. 
> For others it is as frightening as death. At any rate it is simply my 
> own opinion on this matter... I don't expect everyone to understand it. 


It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of irrelevance. The 
idea of worship of anyone based on gender is a disasterous prototype for 
liberation. This idea of balance via reset is at the heart of the 
farming crisis in Zimbabwe right now. White farmers took land 70 years 
ago, now all white farmers must give the land over, regardless of 
whether the new owners know how to farm. It's leading to a famine in 
Zimbabwe; but at the same time, they are "righting" a wrong. It is as 
simple as: "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right." We cannot worship 
stereotypes; particularly if it means human sacrifice.

> 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. 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.


-e.