RE: [-empyre-] misogyny [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>]

blakkbyrd,
It is more realistic and useful to remove the taint of whore from women than to 
remove sex altogether - because, after all, deriding women for being so base as 
to splash words across their breasts or bottoms, or for being so blind as to 
LIKE being slutty, is actually REINFORCING the stereotypes that women can only 
be whores or virgins.  Because it makes being a whore bad, and being a virgin 
preferable. Except now we call being a virgin being "educated" and "empowered."

I like the idea of reclaiming "derogatory" terms a lot more than the (naive and 
impossible) idea of removing all traces of sex from the world, because, in an 
attempt to be mildly pragmatic, the latter isn't going to happen for logistical 
reasons.  (Nor should it, in my opinion: there's nothing wrong with seeing 
people in a sexual light as 
people are sexual beings - presumably none of us would be here if that weren't 
the case. I state this only as something of a clarifying-tangent, if 
one can have such a thing, not a point I am terribly keen to debate.)

The goal, then, is not to undo human nature, nor is it to reinforce negative 
stereotypes.  It is to make negative stereotypes positive ones.  Men aren't 
frowned on for being virile, so why should women be?  For that reason, it is 
much more productive to make people seen as equals, insofar as they can make the 
same life decisions (slutty, aggressive, powerful, family-oriented, meek, etc) 
and be regarded in the same general light for those choices.  No double 
standards - saying that a woman is 
allowed to sow her wild oats and 10 minutes with a man can be purchased just as 
easily as with a woman is going to gain more ground than saying we shouldn't 
view women as hottt.
-Alexis.  (Frigid.  Dyke.  Bitch.)


On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Meziane, Tracey - Benson, Tracey wrote:

::Thanks for the article blakkbyrd,
::
::There is no doubt that women (and children) have suffered due to how media shifts them from subject to object. I also agree with Patrick that 'one be human and postmodern at the same time.'  
::
::>From what I understand of de geuzen's practice this process of reclaiming these derogatory names is a mean to empower the subject, to build resistance to the implications of that word.
::
::We live in times when words have lost their meaning, or the meaning has been shifted, particularly in the political sphere - freedom, terrorism and justice are just a few that come to mind.
::
::The interventionist strategy of renaming is also been used in resisting racism. For example, the term 'wog' has been used as an insult to people from Mediterranean backgrounds for generations in Australia. This word has been reclaimed by people within that community, by comedians and when sometimes when speaking to each other in a playful way. 
::
::Context is shifted once the word use to denigrate is taken by the people being named and used by them to describe themselves and each other in an empowered way.
::
::Of course, the use of the word to insult does not lessen its power either. Reclaiming the word is a means to negate that power.
::
::-----Original Message-----
::From: empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [mailto:empyre-bounces@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of blakkbyrd
::Sent: Sunday, 22 October 2006 6:54 PM
::To: empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
::Subject: [-empyre-] misogyny
::
::>
::>
::>
::> Why Aren't We Shocked?
::>
::> By Bob Herbert
::> Published: October 16, 2006 (NYT)
::> "Who needs a brain when you have these?"-- message on an Abercrombie & 
::> Fitch T-shirt for young women
::>
::> In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania 
::> and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of 
::> their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately 
::> attacked only the girls.