Re: [-empyre-] following

Nicholas Ruiz III <editor@intertheory.org> · Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:57:57 -0700 (PDT)

I doubt that women alone can claim feminism as their
own exclusionary project.  Under what pretense? The
chance possession of XX chromosomes, rather than XY? 
Such a feminism, could only ever be a
'femdamentalism,' no?

NRIII

--- Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org> wrote:

> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 

Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III
Editor, Kritikos
http://intertheory.org