It is now, in the United States, in intellectual circles, a cliche to state that images of perfect women, or no, not perfect, but images of women which are high-fashion, insidiously mess with the psyches of women outside of photographs, till it can become physically/mentally destructive; in other words, the exterior can invade the interior. With this logic in mind, wldn't it make a lot of sense to wonder whether the desire to have a child/be a mother is wholly natural and may indeed be as much the result of iedology if not more emblamatic? If it was a cliche to connect lesbians and gay dudes and non-heteros to parenthood, then I agree this proposal could make less sense. Could this mother desire in fact be massively twined to media culture/the culture of capitalism? Arguably, the single mosty important subject, aside from men in popular women's fiction, is motherhood/the suggestion that without child, woman isn't fully woman. I totally get that pondering if procreating/birth is ideological, because it is a real bodily occurence which does not require "artificial" aid in the most general sense, may seem very counter-intuitive; and yah, it is.
It's always fascinating how two issues which lend lend themselves to similar logics can get insistently identified as very different. Logic, in that regard, is such an utter pain in the polemicist's ass.
Note: this wondering of mine does not validate terms like Breeder or statements which are overtly mysogynist as opposed to taking a critical stance at heterosexuality. Yes, most women are heterosexual, but I'd argue there's a difference between having that dynamic be the focus of critique (which may entail using women as representatives of heterosexuality) versus criticizing women in an un-modified way is rather not the same.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Paris Review/FS
I think the poem below is rather engaging: I like how
it seems to be very much stemming from Plath; and,
I definitely am glad to see a 14-liner with end-rhyme (the unrhymed sonnet,
for me, is no sonnet at-all with the exception of some of Gwendolyn
Brooks' off-rhymed pieces) and especially that there's enclosed as opposed
to alternating rhyme.
Elms
Frederick Seidel
It sang without a sound: music that
The naive elm trees loved. They were alive.
Oh silky music no elm tree could survive.
The head low slither of a stalking cat,
Black panther darkness pouring to the kill,
Entered every elm—they drank it in.
Drank silence. Then the silence drank. Wet chin,
Hot, whiskered darkness. Every elm was ill.
What else is there to give but joy? Disease.
And trauma. Lightning, or as slow as lava.
Darkness drinking from a pool in Java,
Black panther drinking from a dream. The trees
Around the edge are elms. Below, above.
Man-eater drinking its reflection: love.
it seems to be very much stemming from Plath; and,
I definitely am glad to see a 14-liner with end-rhyme (the unrhymed sonnet,
for me, is no sonnet at-all with the exception of some of Gwendolyn
Brooks' off-rhymed pieces) and especially that there's enclosed as opposed
to alternating rhyme.
Elms
Frederick Seidel
It sang without a sound: music that
The naive elm trees loved. They were alive.
Oh silky music no elm tree could survive.
The head low slither of a stalking cat,
Black panther darkness pouring to the kill,
Entered every elm—they drank it in.
Drank silence. Then the silence drank. Wet chin,
Hot, whiskered darkness. Every elm was ill.
What else is there to give but joy? Disease.
And trauma. Lightning, or as slow as lava.
Darkness drinking from a pool in Java,
Black panther drinking from a dream. The trees
Around the edge are elms. Below, above.
Man-eater drinking its reflection: love.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Assay/Dreck--On Its Way To A "Diamond"?
I am more and more arriving at the notion that heterosexual women and homosexuals are not duh allies, as it is not particularly difficult to find stated: Will and Grace etc. I understand the desire to have connection, and there is connection; but I don’t think being allied and being connected are remotely interchangeable realities. oops, I mean, or think I mean, by no means are the terms intrinsically so.
Leap:
I find the idea that heterosexuality is a continuum to be symptomatic of negating adequately acknowledging how freakishly stable and hegemonic a phenomena it is; instead of de-stabilizing it, I get the sense that this line of discourse covers up how monstrous it is--how stable it is: the hegemonic force it possesses does not seem to be dissipating at a great rate anytime. It may be technically true, but I see no reason to privilege technical truth over the truth of socialization/ideological influence. Why privilege the ostensibly more natural? And if there’s minimal evidence for heterosexuality being unstable/a continuum, then it’s not even clear that there’s evidence for this state being natural. Perhaps stemming from Jackie Wang and her articulations of how capitalist discourse can easily subsume various ostensibly progressive/“radical” positions to the point where what looks libratory may not be, I wonder if the notion of heterosexual fluidity is kin to the American capitalist fantasia of self-determination/being what you want to be--the notion that you are in control, that you can self-define and that, then, that definition is social reality. I like utopias, but I’m not sure I like the idea of utopic projections being deemed realer replacements for daily street-corners, billboards, school-rooms, which do not seem to match-up. Or, rather, I think these utopic trajectories are lovely but something other than the matrix of socially produced power and that, therefore, grafting can become misleading.
Leap:
I would love to see more analysis of the relative powers of the culturally and/or legislatively disenfranchised . It would be insane of me to identify my gayness as the only determinant; as far as gay goes, I am hyper-enfranchised. It might seem stupid to compare two beggars who, in terms of money, are both far below the poverty line; but what if, despite them both missing limbs, one of them is really in other ways duh gorgeous whereas the other one is missing limbs and is totally yucky looking. It’s definitely no guarantee of a measurably better experience, but is there no potential for micro-improvements? Yes, one could argue that the worse-looking beggar could receive more pity, but is that assumption definitively valid? Is there such thing as so nasty-looking you can’t even obtain a good position to beg at? I’d argue that there is definitely the existence of a location hierarchy for begging.
Leap:
I think it is true that this bout of theorizing is behind the times in terms of academic discursive developments; if it seems regressive, I think that’s fair. But that view could also be symptomatic of privilege. And privilege isn’t necessarily bad; the freakiness, for me, is when it’s not consistently, thoroughly acknowledged. Though it may seem disingenuous/hypocritical, I am glad for theoretical zoom-zooms. I don’t think anything I’ve tried to express must be in strictest opposition; instead, I’d like to see statements which are rigorously dialectical. This stance/performance, of course, is very time consuming and doubles the effort involved, and so many may deem my wish too much. I certainly am inadequate in this regard!
Leap:
I am really scared smart heterosexual women will decide I had best get the F out of language-waves. I am scared that I appear to be a sophistic mysogynist. I am also appalled at this fear as I feel--at-least in my own mind (if it is my own)--that this skittering is extremely feminist.
Leap:
To state that one’s subject position has a problem is, in itself, a marker of privilege. My sense of privilege is very likely about as degraded as it gets: I am not at-all sure I believe in natural/inalienable rights; or, rather, I ‘m not sure I believe that state is other than a dream with no-where like mass wordly evidence. I like dreams, but I find climes where brute oppressive force has its ways to be a more engaging place to theorize liberation; I don‘t want that force to be elided/disguised. I do, though, want the mechanics to be identified/analyzed in hyper nuanced ways.
Leap:
I am not content with my “conclusion” regarding these gaps/aporias/elisions/contradictions ; it, to me, feels utterly incomplete---mmm, I probably mean unsatisfactory not incomplete.
Note: I am grateful to Kate Zambreno for allowing me to so actively participate within her blog Frances Farmer Is My Sister (I have opted not to italicize not to mark this production as lower on the totem than a book, but because the blog, so long as it is still actively added to, seems to me to be other than finished and bound) as it is precisely that participation which, I sense, has put me in a position to write the above mess.
Second note: Kate, my computer seems to be grumpy with your blog-comment system and so when I press preview or post or whatever exactly the two icons are the comment-space just goes blank; ok why would I assume just because I don't respond to every stage in our discourse that you wld feel ignored!
I hope all's as well as well can, currently, be for all of any of any-ya'll!
Leap:
I find the idea that heterosexuality is a continuum to be symptomatic of negating adequately acknowledging how freakishly stable and hegemonic a phenomena it is; instead of de-stabilizing it, I get the sense that this line of discourse covers up how monstrous it is--how stable it is: the hegemonic force it possesses does not seem to be dissipating at a great rate anytime. It may be technically true, but I see no reason to privilege technical truth over the truth of socialization/ideological influence. Why privilege the ostensibly more natural? And if there’s minimal evidence for heterosexuality being unstable/a continuum, then it’s not even clear that there’s evidence for this state being natural. Perhaps stemming from Jackie Wang and her articulations of how capitalist discourse can easily subsume various ostensibly progressive/“radical” positions to the point where what looks libratory may not be, I wonder if the notion of heterosexual fluidity is kin to the American capitalist fantasia of self-determination/being what you want to be--the notion that you are in control, that you can self-define and that, then, that definition is social reality. I like utopias, but I’m not sure I like the idea of utopic projections being deemed realer replacements for daily street-corners, billboards, school-rooms, which do not seem to match-up. Or, rather, I think these utopic trajectories are lovely but something other than the matrix of socially produced power and that, therefore, grafting can become misleading.
Leap:
I would love to see more analysis of the relative powers of the culturally and/or legislatively disenfranchised . It would be insane of me to identify my gayness as the only determinant; as far as gay goes, I am hyper-enfranchised. It might seem stupid to compare two beggars who, in terms of money, are both far below the poverty line; but what if, despite them both missing limbs, one of them is really in other ways duh gorgeous whereas the other one is missing limbs and is totally yucky looking. It’s definitely no guarantee of a measurably better experience, but is there no potential for micro-improvements? Yes, one could argue that the worse-looking beggar could receive more pity, but is that assumption definitively valid? Is there such thing as so nasty-looking you can’t even obtain a good position to beg at? I’d argue that there is definitely the existence of a location hierarchy for begging.
Leap:
I think it is true that this bout of theorizing is behind the times in terms of academic discursive developments; if it seems regressive, I think that’s fair. But that view could also be symptomatic of privilege. And privilege isn’t necessarily bad; the freakiness, for me, is when it’s not consistently, thoroughly acknowledged. Though it may seem disingenuous/hypocritical, I am glad for theoretical zoom-zooms. I don’t think anything I’ve tried to express must be in strictest opposition; instead, I’d like to see statements which are rigorously dialectical. This stance/performance, of course, is very time consuming and doubles the effort involved, and so many may deem my wish too much. I certainly am inadequate in this regard!
Leap:
I am really scared smart heterosexual women will decide I had best get the F out of language-waves. I am scared that I appear to be a sophistic mysogynist. I am also appalled at this fear as I feel--at-least in my own mind (if it is my own)--that this skittering is extremely feminist.
Leap:
To state that one’s subject position has a problem is, in itself, a marker of privilege. My sense of privilege is very likely about as degraded as it gets: I am not at-all sure I believe in natural/inalienable rights; or, rather, I ‘m not sure I believe that state is other than a dream with no-where like mass wordly evidence. I like dreams, but I find climes where brute oppressive force has its ways to be a more engaging place to theorize liberation; I don‘t want that force to be elided/disguised. I do, though, want the mechanics to be identified/analyzed in hyper nuanced ways.
Leap:
I am not content with my “conclusion” regarding these gaps/aporias/elisions/contradictions ; it, to me, feels utterly incomplete---mmm, I probably mean unsatisfactory not incomplete.
Note: I am grateful to Kate Zambreno for allowing me to so actively participate within her blog Frances Farmer Is My Sister (I have opted not to italicize not to mark this production as lower on the totem than a book, but because the blog, so long as it is still actively added to, seems to me to be other than finished and bound) as it is precisely that participation which, I sense, has put me in a position to write the above mess.
Second note: Kate, my computer seems to be grumpy with your blog-comment system and so when I press preview or post or whatever exactly the two icons are the comment-space just goes blank; ok why would I assume just because I don't respond to every stage in our discourse that you wld feel ignored!
I hope all's as well as well can, currently, be for all of any of any-ya'll!
Friday, September 23, 2011
I just realized the duh smmary of my most intense current intellectual interest: thinking about and trying to document heterosexual female privilege. There has of course been lots of attention paid to male hetero privilege, and I think it is high time to look at the other side of that record. I don't imagine I am proposing a brand new focus, btw; but I do believe more o' this cld be helpful and, at best, in ways which will be painful/difficult, empower hetero women. Gross the way in order to try and make more discurrsive space for lesbians I feel compelled to make sure I do hetero marketing; oh well, such is working within hegemony. And actually I believe constraints are often great at making for more creativity/more comprehensive analysis.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Scattered Bits
A poem I just wrote less than a minute ago, and which took less than 7 minutes to "compose":
A kind of brail, a
Kind one, malady
Its uncanny manifestation,
Elation, sorest
Estivation, tip and
Stipulation
At the center of
A volume whose
Spine is
Thirteen inches wide,
A constant
Compress, wavering
Compass
Keeps sparks on course.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Every now and then I read a line of thought stating humans can become animal, or the dynamics of humans on their way to the animal: J Skinner and Delueze come to mind. I don't really get this---ok, yah, I do, but it seems a tad wonky: humans are animals! True, humans have a grossly asymetrical relation to other organisms, but we certainly are in the animal matrix! There may be a need to, rhetorically, become one, because many---most---may not agree with me that pigs and bonobos and parakeets are kin, but I'd "argue" that this becoming animal rhetoric is really just a way of tuning in to elided reality rather than actually altering it in the truthytruthtruthiest sense. Then again, I guess if one believes that they are permanently estranged from aardvarks and stoplight parrot-fish, then the becoming animal trope cld be just the logic needed.
Note: I am not even sure fish count as animals were I talking to a biologist; the above is me doing some sketchy musing, not world-class, utterly accurate articulation.
A kind of brail, a
Kind one, malady
Its uncanny manifestation,
Elation, sorest
Estivation, tip and
Stipulation
At the center of
A volume whose
Spine is
Thirteen inches wide,
A constant
Compress, wavering
Compass
Keeps sparks on course.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Every now and then I read a line of thought stating humans can become animal, or the dynamics of humans on their way to the animal: J Skinner and Delueze come to mind. I don't really get this---ok, yah, I do, but it seems a tad wonky: humans are animals! True, humans have a grossly asymetrical relation to other organisms, but we certainly are in the animal matrix! There may be a need to, rhetorically, become one, because many---most---may not agree with me that pigs and bonobos and parakeets are kin, but I'd "argue" that this becoming animal rhetoric is really just a way of tuning in to elided reality rather than actually altering it in the truthytruthtruthiest sense. Then again, I guess if one believes that they are permanently estranged from aardvarks and stoplight parrot-fish, then the becoming animal trope cld be just the logic needed.
Note: I am not even sure fish count as animals were I talking to a biologist; the above is me doing some sketchy musing, not world-class, utterly accurate articulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)