Send empyre mailing list submissions to
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
You can reach the person managing the list at
empyre-admin@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (Damien Everett)
2. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (=?iso-8859-1?q?Cristiano=20Bianchi?=)
3. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (Eryk Salvaggio)
4. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (magesm@mindspring.com)
5. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (Eryk Salvaggio)
6. Re: [empyre] producers and consumers (Charlotte Craw)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:57:30 +1100
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
From: Damien Everett <damien.everett@rmit.edu.au>
To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Hmmm, Cristiano... perhaps people like you ar
e one of the main reasons
for the need for CyberFeminism? Perhaps if you actually listened to and
understood what was being said you would realise that:
women on the internet feel oppressed by rude and intolerent men such
as yourself... that they want a space to express themselves and
ideologies without being dismissed as stupid / irrelevant / a waste of
time.
Can you appreciate that women are trying to address (heal) the gender
issues that still exists in our culture... the internet is a great way
to continue this quest on a global scale... why do you feel the need to
seek to discredit / discount this? Does your male ego feel threatened
by this? If you were ever oppressed by the issues woman have faced I'm
sure you would feel differently...
| Cunt comes from 'priestess', symbol of power that of
course the male society transformed in a sybol of hate
for exactly that reason, restricting its meaning to
the body
part. This is history.
Art has a tendency of seeking to shock, sometimes by taking words /
ideas and turning them upside down / recontextualising them. Words
don't mean the same thing to different people. Cunt is not a symbol of
hate, for some it is an object of worship, for others a symbol of crude
desire, and for others it might be the womb / matrix of all existence
and experience... it depends where you are coming from. Perhaps you are
still caught up in 19th century repressive morality? Art is easy to
misinterpret if you don't have an open mind.
best wishes,
your friendly prick / cock / dick...
d
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:22:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Cristiano=20Bianchi?= <cristianobianchi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Damien, you've just done what I never did. Being
oppressive. In the lack of arguments, you have to go
for a personal attack.
You think I'm rude and oppressive towards women. That
can only mean that you probably didn't read the entire
thread of my messages. If you did so, you would have
not lightly judged and perhaps understood where I was
coming from and perhaps realised I was trying to
defend women, not to oppress them. In my messages I
only had the greatest and most appreciative words for
women and feminism, and yet I expressed a strong
opinion about the Cyber flavour of it, which to me has
no substance. Or, if it has, it's in the wrong
historical drawer (i.e. it's the association with
feminism, which is w
rong here). You want to make art?
That's fine, but do not mess around with suffregette
and the like.
I would look a little at history if I was you.
Oppressive male culture (rightful aim of feminist
battles) have tried and often successfully achieved to
silent women and put them in subordinate positions.
Did I do that? Did anyone on this medium ever do that?
That would call for stronger examples. So far in this
discussion only so called male oriented discussions
(like linux related groups) have been quoted as
examples of a male dominated cyber culture.
Of course I would have manifested the same opinions
towards male ideas, irrespective of gender, should I
disagree with those opinions and feel strong about it.
Isn't this the purpose of a 'discussion' group?
[women] that they want a space to express
themselves and
ideologies without being dismissed as stupid /
irrelevant / a waste of
time.
Damien, that space does not exist. Every time you
express an opinion, you're subject to other people own
opinion. Why should the Internet be any different
from, say, going to Madison Square or Hyde Park: when
you stand in The Speakers Corner, you of course run
the risk that someone will throw tomato at you? What
you want seems to be the contrary of the democratic
process, where everyone can express opinions, but no
one has the right to say it's apeship. And mind you,
no one here has ever said that Julienne Pierce is
stupid or oppressed or a waste of time (as you did, in
different terms, towards me). The object of the
discussion are opinions, ideas, self-called art. Which
is whet I disagree with. You want me to shup up? Fine,
I will from now on, but who is the oppressor? And I'm
not a womam ;-)
Can you appreciate that women are trying to address
(heal) the gender
issues that still exists in our culture... the
internet is a great way
to continue this quest on a global scale...
Demian, really, read my messages. If you do, and
understand them, you'll find you're saying exactly the
same as I do. The quest is big, but has very little to
do with being oppressed in cyberspace.
I won't go onto discussing things like 19th century
mindsets and similar, because it seems that unless you
try to spend time on reading and undestaning, as I
did, you're likely to be the oppressor, here, who
judges by the surface of the things, without really
knowing what you're talking about. Nothing personal,
but I don't have time for this.
Very best regards,
Cristiano
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:23:24 -05
00
From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
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.
Even in referencing men as pricks can't have the same effects because
the culture is not one that actively participates in the reduction of
men to body parts [and in a sense some men crave it- but reducing
everyone in that way is not liberation, either.] It strikes me as a
profoundly absurd practice for a woman to refer to herself as a "cunt"
as a source of pride. Even removing the negative connotations of
reducing oneself to a sexual organ, consider the absurdity of referring
to yourself as an earlobe- how does this address who you are, what ideas
you have, what your soul is made of? Even positive stereotypes are
stereotypes, which serve to reduce a person to a role, which is the
precise opposite proces
s of liberation. The idea of turning "cunt" into
a "positive" term is kind of valueless. If African Americans has turned
the word "nigger" into a compliment it wouldn't change race relations,
and, in fact, would only serve to further enforce its negative
connotations into the role playing of any African American individual
who chose to identify themselves with that term.
What strikes me about the value of the net is the possibility of
becoming completely androgynous. I think net.androgyny would be the key
liberating factor- look at entities like NN, who, in her initial
incarnation, was completely genderless, and may, still, be a man or
woman. Or both. Or neither :) Any attempts at dismissing its ideas based
on gender backfire. If you want to argue you have to dismiss the ideas,
and in order to do that credibly you have to understand them and
actually argue.
-e.
Damien Everett wrote:
Hmmm, Cristiano... perhaps people like you are one of the main reasons
for the need for CyberFeminism? Perhaps if you actually listened to
and understood what was being said you would realise that:
women on the internet feel oppressed by rude and intolerent men
such as yourself... that they want a space to express themselves and
ideologies without being dismissed as stupid / irrelevant / a waste of
time.
Can you appreciate that women are trying to address (heal) the gender
issues that still exists in our culture... the internet is a great way
to continue this quest on a global scale... why do you feel the need
to seek to discredit / discount this? Does your male ego feel
threatened by this? If you were ever oppressed by the issues woman
have faced I'm sure you would feel differently...
| Cunt comes from 'priestess', symbol of power that of
course the male society transformed in a sybol of ha
te
for exactly that reason, restricting its meaning to
the body part. This is history.
Art has a tendency of seeking to shock, sometimes by taking words /
ideas and turning them upside down / recontextualising them. Words
don't mean the same thing to different people. Cunt is not a symbol of
hate, for some it is an object of worship, for others a symbol of
crude desire, and for others it might be the womb / matrix of all
existence and experience... it depends where you are coming from.
Perhaps you are still caught up in 19th century repressive morality?
Art is easy to misinterpret if you don't have an open mind.
best wishes,
your friendly prick / cock / dick...
d
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http
://www.subtle.net/empyre
--__--__--
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:02:20 -0500
From: <magesm@mindspring.com>
To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:23:24 -0500 Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
What strikes me about the value of the net is
the possibility of
becoming completely androgynous. I think
net.androgyny would be the key
liberating factor- look at entities like NN,
who, in her initial
incarnation, was completely genderless, and
may, still, be a man or
woman.
I would question the value of ‘complete androgyny’ except as a dialectical
tool, whether it is on the net or elsewhere. First, there is a bit of a
lexical problem, as andro=male; typically referring to a woman who looks
like/becomes a man. Feminism is difficult to discuss in any forum, because of
the male hegemony embedded in the language itself. To paraphrase bell hooks,
this kind of language keeps men at the center of the discussion.
Further, it seems to me that (in general) feminism is problematic in exactly
this fashion; frequently the goal seems to be to attain androgyny—in a sense,
for women to become more male. I frequently wonder if this is the best path.
Could feminism somehow bypass these Western masculine power structures
entirely? Is there an opportunity to operate outside the White Male
Capitalist Patriarchy? It would seem that the net, with its (albeit waning)
egalitarian architecture, would be THE forum for this type of movement.
It is also interesting that this discussion has been male-dominated.
Michael
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:04:07 -0500
From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
magesm@mindspring.com wrote:
I would question the value of 'complete androgyny' except as a dialectical
tool, whether it is on the net or elsewhere. First, there is a bit of a
lexical problem, as andro=male; typically referring to a woman who looks
like/becomes a man.
I'm not sure I meant it that way. I am referring to androgyny as a state
of neutrality- with zero expectations of behavior from social
programming. I think a truly liberated person would have a psychological
androgyny in that they would be gender neutral. The idea of
"celebrating" femininity would also, in terms of equality, mean
"celebrating" masculinity. This is nonsense; but so is a condemnation of
the two. A union is more of what I had by "androgyny." We already
celebrate masculinity, and it is unhealthy for men. I don't see why a
celebration of femininity would ultimately be good for women. A "healthy
respect for both" is always a nice catch all phrase in this regard;
unfortunately it is meaningless. What ultimately solves the issue of
power imbalances is the constant perception of an actual human being,
rather than gender stereotypes, race, economic or social position. This
is a p
ersonal responsibility and cannot be resolved by "acknowledging
women as goddesses" nor by giving encouragement to stereotypically
oppressive male behavior.
Feminism is difficult to discuss in any forum, because of
the male hegemony embedded in the language itself. To paraphrase bell hooks,
this kind of language keeps men at the center of the discussion.
It may also be why, as you point out, men tend to be the ones discussing
it. The same thing happened at a lecture on ecofeminism I went to a
while back at Harvard University, with a friend of mine who was female,
and it was me and a male Grad Student who "dominated" [I wince!] the
conversation, until I realized what was happening and shut up.
Ultimately my friend, as we were leaving, pointed out that the male
presence was intimidating to females in the room when it came to
discussing oppression from males. Which is a problem- clearly men in the
room on a feminism lecture are not the "problem" but it is still
difficult to address "typical male behavior" when men are standing right
there who aren't expressing it. The concept of gender, in feminism, is
flawed. All oppression is linked, what is most important is "humanism,"
and the acknowledgement of human presence rather than stereotypes a
nd
cultural programming.
Further, it seems to me that (in general) feminism is problematic in exactly
this fashion; frequently the goal seems to be to attain androgyny--in a sense,
for women to become more male. I frequently wonder if this is the best path.
Could feminism somehow bypass these Western masculine power structures
entirely?
That's how I am using the term androgynous. I'm not sure what other term
we could use for an entity that bypasses "masculine power structures,"
since power is almost genetically ingrained into our brains at this
point as a male territory; the idea would be to come up with a
"feminine" form of power or to shift how we define "power."
Is there an opportunity to operate outside the White Male
Capitalist Patriarchy?
This patriarchy is eating itself. We're all powerless before the money
driven market system anyway; if it can boost profits by making men
insecure enough to buy make up and excersize equipment it will; it's
already trying.
-e.
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:43 +1300
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers
From: Charlotte Craw <ccraw@unitec.ac.nz>
Reply-To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
hi all
On Thursday, December 19, 2002, at 09:23 PM, Eryk Salvaggio 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.
<snip>
It strikes me as a profoundly absurd practice for a woman to refer to
herself >as a "cunt" as a source of pride. Even removing the negative
connotations of >reducing oneself to a sexual organ, consider the
absurdity of referring to >yourself as an earlobe- how does this
address who you are, what ideas you >have, what your soul is made of?
Even positive stereotypes are stereotypes, >which serve to reduce a
person to a role, which is the precise opposite >process of
liberation. The idea of turning "cunt" into a "positive" term is kind
of valueless. If African Americans has turned the word "nigger" into
a >compliment it wouldn't change race relations, and, in fact, would
only serve >to further enforce its negative connotations into the role
playing of any >African American individual who chose to identify
themselves with that term.
I think there's a strong argument for women refering to
themselves/their body parts as 'cunt'. Using "cunt" is a way to
recognise the historical oppression of women that this word is a part
of, and to use its negative power in a positive way. It's not at all
like referring to yourself as an earlobe because there isn't a history
of people referring to other people negatively as earlobes. If there
was, it would make sense for the 'earlobes' to reclaim this word as a
positive term.
The word 'queer' is a good example of 'hate speech' being reclaimed as
a source of pride: a few decades ago, that was a negative term. Now
there is an academic
field named after it. The example of 'nigga' is
more problematic, but at least some African Americans choose to use
it. These positive uses don't wipe away the negative uses: it's not a
simple matter of saying 'actually, i really like being a
cunt/nigger/etc'. The reclaimation is a way of recognising that this
is one way in which society/language defines you, and that you can
either accept this as a negative disempowering thing, or turn it round
and use it as a source of power.
Language isn't a fixed thing. Meanings and associations can be changed
by enough people using a negative term in a positive way. A woman
using 'cunt' isn't just referring to herself as a body part--she's
also affirming the cunt as a source of power (sexual, creative, etc).
You can see this in the Cyberfeminist Manifesto--VNS Matrix weren't
just saying 'we are cunts', they were saying also that the cunt was a
source of creative power. So they weren't just a
ccepting the negative
connotations--they were using the word in a different way as well. And
they were doing this, as has been pointed out, in a particular time
and place, where such an assertion made sense.
Judith Butler has written a great book, Excitable Speech, on this
topic. i can't remember whether it discusses 'cunt' but it does talk
about 'nigger' and other such words of hate speech that have been
reclaimed in this way.
Yes, this might not be the way to achieve full liberation--if such a
thing is possible. But it's an important step along the way. We're not
going to be cunts forever, just for the time that it is necessary to
change people's thinking.
best
Charlotte
-----------<<<<>>>>-----------
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/lottec/
charlottec@paradise.net.nz
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
empyre mailing list
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
End of empyre Digest