Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joshua LaBare <joshbear-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: apocalyptic object


On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, B Madonna Durkheim wrote:

> 
> 	If you want to think Baudrillard a sexist, then you completely 
> misunderstand his discourse.  JB demonstrates the manner in which the 
> feminine inherently resists the phallocracy because it does not use a 
> political strategy.  I find it ridiculous to suggest that Baud. is sexist 
> simply because he suggests a different strategy (isn't it obvious that 
> the old one continues to fail?).
> 
> 
> Sloane
> 

	It is possible, even probable, that I misunderstand B.'s 
discourse; thanks for pointing that out.  However, I don't know that it's 
possible to understand or misunderstand _totally_, nor do I "want" to 
think that B. is sexist.  I do believe -- and it seems that Mark Nunes 
might be with me on this one -- that the philosophical current, if you 
will, that B. is a part of (and he is a part of it!) _is_ sexist.  What 
strategy exactly is it that he is suggesting, in your opinion?  You  
suggest that it is similar to the strategy of women: making a third 
space, outside of the political arena, is the only way to go (cf  
Foucault's repressive hypothesis).  Why do you feel that B.'s discourse  
does that?  Why do you feel that _he_ does, if that's an appropriate  
question?  B. invites this criticism by specifically using gendered 
language (not that he could avoid using gendered language, esp. in 
french) to explicate this dichotomy between object and subject.  I'd _like_ 
to believe that the discussion of the object/subject dichotomy and the 
seduction involved _isn't_ sexist: but I don't believe that at this 
point.  If you have any more convincing and/or comprehensible arguments, 
I'd like to hear them.

thanks, joshua