|
[07 Jan 2007|06:56pm] |
2006 has been a year of growth for me in many ways. Up until this point my personal and political belief system has been a bizarre and confusing mix of different and contradictory political ideologies including, but probably not limited to, postmodern feminism, socialist feminism and radical feminism. After a year of intensive reading and thought, I have decided that radical feminism offers me the best framework with which to analyse my own experience of oppression and the world’s current and historical dehumanization of all peoples (the majority of whom are female).
I have come to believe in the importance of self and political integrity and am just beginning to realize the enormity of retaining such integrity in the midst of immense but not insurmountable patriarchal pressure. As self integrity is absolutely necessary for the development of a new non-patriarchal way of living and Be-ing, I must assert my integrity as a woman and as a female-bodied human.
I no longer believe that asserting an identity based on the shared experience of oppression and resistance of women to male violence and abuse constitutes essentialism. I can no longer believe in a form of resistance which denies a material basis for the oppression of women. ‘Gender’, whatever the fuck that means, is not the issue, patriarchy is. Asserting that my rights as a human being were compromised by the fact of being born female-bodied is not essentialism. Believing that men abuse women in ways specific to their reproductive capacity is not biological determinism. Believing in truth and attempting to draw together the similarities between women’s lives under a global system of patriarchy is not false universality at the expense of specificity. Under a solely deconstructionist framework, action and resistance become impossible; specificity becomes the end and the means.
I suppose this means that rather than a subjective or narrative position, radical feminist truth is an interactive cultural process. A refusal to believe in the ‘truth’ of men that women are not human; a refusal to believe in the ‘truth’ of men that there is no truth; and a necessary and ever-present desire to participate in the process of social construction. Feminism cannot solely be a deconstruction of patriarchy, it must be a social, historical, political and personal reconstruction of ourSelves.
I have come to label this process radical feminist integrationism. A process in which we re-member our patriarchally dis-membered Selves. Gyn/affection is central to this process; building networks between women who have been alienated from themselves and other women by the patriarchal schizophrenias of sexism, racism and class. Seeing through these divisive lies of Otherness, feminists can come to understand that positing an Other can only be accomplished by an unacceptable reduction of ourSelves. For me personally, lesbianism is an extension of my gyn/affectionate politics and it is critical for the integrity of mySelf.
Developing a politics of female integrity is a perilous journey; one made increasingly dangerous by the ever-increasing incorporation of post-modern notions of gender and sexuality into the main-stream (male-stream). I feel that it is impossible for me to undertake this journey while still attached to, and attracted by, the male-stream. My position has been incorrectly labeled as lesbian separatism, in feminist truth it is radical feminist integrationism.
Simplistically defined, lesbian separatism implies a radical separation from the abusive Other based on the (patriarchal) genital division of society. However, there is a more complex and radical way of defining lesbian separatism. Mary Daly defines it as a separation not from the genital Other but from the phallic state. This definition can only be understood by realising that patriarchy is ultimately responsible for the categorical disunity of society. It becomes necessary to disassociate from the order which creates the disorder. And Robin Morgan’s theory of radical feminism as the central unifier is helpful in understanding this. Feminism denies all essentialised divisions while patriarchy is invested in the strengthening and maintenance of these divisions. I like this theory of lesbian separatism. However, lesbian separatism implies a choice of exile whereas in my view it is a necessary disassociation. Necessary for the discovery of self and the survival of self integrity. If disassociation is necessary it is not a choice. Our separation must be referential to phallic separatism and rejectionism.
Radical feminism informs my construction of self and of society. Of the personal and of the political. It is the phallic state which labels this struggle for self integrity lesbian separatism. In reality, it is radical feminist intergrationism.
|
|
| The Post-modern Quiz |
[07 Jan 2007|08:13pm] |
Q: How many po-mos does it take to change a lightbulb?
a) None, because the lightbulb, which both typifies the weary technological inventiveness of a dead modernism and also serves as the iconic representation of modern thought ("idea") is utterly meaningless in a post-modern world;
b) None, they wouldn't bother because it's essentialist and ahistorical to think that you can't see in the dark;
c) None, the enlightenment is dead!
Q: Essentialism is wrong because
a) It's wrong
b) the truth is, it's not true;
c) it's a moral evil;
d) post-modernists say so;
e) there aren't any reasons;
f) it's not wrong if you call it ontology.
Q: Why do Po-mos see Radical Feminism as bad and wrong?
a) Because Radical Feminism is biological determinism;
b) Because Radical Feminism is foundationalism;
c) Because Radical Feminism is essentialism;
d) Because Radical Feminism not only sees the problems but offers solutions.
Q: If the original meaning of torture is to separate the mind from the body, then is reading Po-mo material torture?
a) Yes;
b) Kia Ora (Maori)
c) Oui;
d) Ja;
e)'Ae (Hawai'ian)
f) Yeah!
Q: "Gender" means
a) anything;
b) everything;
c) nothing;
d) not sex;
e) women;
f) men too;
g) something superficial so you can change it at will;
h) all of the above.
Q: Why do po-mos love looking in mirrors and glassy surfaces?
a) They are essentially narcissistic;
b) The mirror does not reflect the soul;
c) They are vain;
d) They are prone to zits.
Q: If Po-mos extol the virtues of multivocality, how come they don't want to hear what Radical Feminists have to say?
a) They are deaf, textually speaking;
b) They are in denial;
c) They are frightened;
d) They wouldn't know the truth if they saw it.
Q: If Foucalt is right and power is everywhere then why do we all have to pay electricity bills?
Q: What is so threatening about political activism for po-mos?
a) It might require moving their butts off the chair and into the stret;
b) It has mass appeal;
c) It threatens their superiority and elitism;
d) They'd rather be shopping.
Q: Why to Po-mos love repetition and sacrifice so much?
a) They secretly worship the bible;
b) They offer up all women as a sacrifice to their egos;
c) They like word games;
d) Repetition helps reinforce nonsense.
Q: If the prick is a god and god doesn't exist, then does Po-mo philosophy exist?
a) Ask Derrida;
b) Ask Foucault;
c) Ask De Sade. Yes, he's dead;
d) No.
Q: When booking an airline ticket, which of a person's multiple subject positions travels first class?
Q: Why do Po-mos write so many books?
a) to self-abnegate;
b) to prove that truth is unimportant;
c) to practice their spelling.
Q: If the author is dead then who gets the royalty cheque?
a) The tax man;
b) ducks
c) cheques are texts, stupid.
Q: Where do you find a Po-mo feminist?
a) In the nearest menstral hut;
b) the fourth floor of the National History museum;
c) Grand Central;
d) Grand Canyon.
Q: Why do Po-mos enjoy blatant consumptionism?
a) When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping;
b) The more Toyotas purchased, the better their BMWs stand out;
c) It shows power over;
d) It shows superiority.
Q: If there are only texts, what does it mean when FBI reports a 120% increase in violent crimes against women between i993 and 1994?
Q: Why does Derrida call women the "name for that untruth of truth"?
a) He has a problem knowing what truth is;
b) He hates his mother;
c) He hates his sister;
d) He hates himself;
e) He needs therapy.
Q: If there is no such thing as truth, why can you go to jail for perjury?
a) Because judges have not read Foucault;
b)Because jail is just a text;
c) Because you deserve it.
Q: What is "phallic drift"?
a) A powerful subterranean force capable of shifting continents;
b) a wandering dick;
c) a pen (which) is in motion;
d) the powerful tendency for public discussion to drift, inexorably, back to the male point of view.
And now for your essay topics
Write a fragment on one of the following topics in about 50,000,000 words. Do npot attempt to make sense of anything whatsoever and avoid all substantiating examples. Students are advised that there will be a penalty imposed on sections which (a) attempt to achieve clarity, or (b) are not fragmentary.
1)The Sexed Sky, or the problematics of post-descendancy de-realisation in the ethereal text.
2) The theory of engendered sustenance, ie: all the women are fruit, all the men are vegetables, and tomatoes are still puzzled.
3) Regimes of difference: the significance of cucumber, chicken, chocolate or chips in the lives of global women.
***Stolen with much laughter from Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed.***
Whoever said that feminists don't have a sense of humour???
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
_allecto_'s journal