Re: [-empyre-] following

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

Personally I can't understand that women take stool from theory written by
men at the moment these women pretend to manifest their radical social
otherness.

If you quote feminism so please quote women. I have quote Sontag because at
my view as well Beauvoir better than Roudinesco or Badinter (for the French)
they counted as feminists from the political side.

If feminism is a communitarism it does not interest me because I largely
prefer teh company of the men;-) But if feminism is

Once more marxism counts in post modern feminism, because being founded by
Simone de Beauvoir's concepts from an application of the theory of master
and slave to the sex more the theory marxist of relationship of production
turning women into statement of exploited class (as second sex) what showed
the means of liberation in the side of struggle of class... At the moment
the heterosexuality is the dialectic object to be solved by the equal rights
and practices there does not create communities but clubs.

But at the moment it becomes a pure question of discriminate (naturalist)
sex as social otherness, it means exclusion of the males, instead of rebuild
the relationship between women and men. At this point instead having the
objective of re conquest their respective rights it creates communities of
the same sex as social organisation having its proper claim of class as
communities whatever the other problem stays unsolved, and so on.

what is the new objective is not more heterosexuality to have the best
respects and rights but homosexuality to have the same respect and rights
than hetero.

At the moment the sexual communitarism develops itself whatever the unsolved
relationship between hetero women and hetero men their inside relationship
as late women made them unconsidered at their proper eyes as interesting
women by feminist activism what leave them without protection facing men who
from their part have win an increasing representation of virility by missing
narcissism from these struggles and turn into violence at home.

At this moment the best hetero woman at home is free slave more free
prostitute.

It is the very reason why after having seen the progress of feminist rights
not only collective but more private we see now a recession of the practices
of respect and equality and increasing violence against hetero women at
home: because they are without self-protection (narcissism) depending their
absence of feeling of be a part of common of the homo community. So they are
alone and victim.

It is because Susan Sontag, both famous intellectual and famous feminist
whatever she was homosexual wanted never request her homosexuality as
feminist woman in struggle.

>From which the way of leave the servitude -more the sex servitude -for women
is coming from an application of the theory of class. From the same
rationalism of production a revendication of free professional prostitution
has come.

In politics of emancipation we have learnt that nobody can have a struggle
for you at your place because it would be unuseful to your proper progress.

I do not understand where you can imagine that men would have given the idea
of emancipation to the woman but being very misogynist yourself:) The
theorician of feminism are great and proper women but from the beginning of
post modernity coming from marxism view of the system of production.

This inauguration by Beauvoir had following application: Fanon to the social
relationship in the colonialist society, Jean Genet on the racial
segregation in the occidental society and so on (on this way you meet the
Black Panther Party).

At Baudrillard as hetero the question of women it is something other which
refers to the individuation from Simondon as well in sciences as well in
arts as well the techical objects, and so on, since Le système des objets
(he had work on Simondon through Roland Barthes' "systeme de la mode" who
was member of his jury of thesis and whose conferences he had followded at
the Practical School of High studies)... In Physics, Singularity appears
when the space is submitted to a constrain (? Je veux dire contrainte) (René
Thom) and so on... Such as seduction from a part of his concept, may be...

On 12/03/07 3:28, "Danny Butt" <db@dannybutt.net> probably wrote:

> To maybe approach the question differently now that "Baudrillard in
> relation to his peers" has come up:
> 
> The three "names" Ken mentions, as well as slipping easily into
> "unquestioned academic practices", have also been useful for self-
> consciously feminist work (though Deleuze less so, empirically).
> Something makes me think this is more than mere coincidence, and that
> there might be more than militancy or academicism that differentiates
> Baudrillard's work from the others - after all, feminism has a
> history of both militancy and exclusion from the academy.
> 
> Aliette, this enquiry has no relation to your question about Sontag's
> sexuality. I'm asking the question of the texts and the methodology,
> rather than the person behind them.
> 
> On 11/03/2007, at 3:17 PM, McKenzie Wark wrote:
> 
>> There was a politics to one's choice of theorist in the 80s in the
>> Anglophone world, and perhaps still. What i admired about Lyotard and
>> Baudrillard is that they were ex militants. This is not true of
>> Foucault, Derrida or Deleuze. Its no accident that the attempt to keep
>> a traditional scholarly practice at arms length collapses in the cases
>> of Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze, who all now slip easily into
>> unquestioned academic practices.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://www.dannybutt.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>