Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:21:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Becoming-woman
From: mindstorm-AT-usa.pipeline.com (crispin sartwell)


On May 20, 1996 09:54:27, '"Judith L. Poxon" <jlpoxon-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>'
wrote: 
 
 
>I agree that it's simplistic to say that d&g's "becoming-woman" is  
>sexist, but I don't for that reason want to dismiss the feminist critique 

>of that notion that's contained in the oversimplification. The problem is 

>less apparent in the way that Crispin has reformulated d&g's notion here, 

>precisely because he leaves out the gendering-female of the minoritarian  
>path--and for me at least, that's where the problem lies. I understand  
>why there's no "becoming-man" but I don't know why the alternative has to 

>be "becoming-woman". 
 
one interesting way in which the concept is either non-sexist or very
sexist, depending on your feminism, is that there is an "essence" of man,
or that man *is* essence (you could say the same thing about "white"), but
that there's no essence of woman (i guess that would, if right, connect
deleuxe and derrida (?).)  but that's exactly why the possibility of
becoming exists in the "minority": essences are exactly what are
"atemporal" or outside of becoming.  on that account, it would not only be
impossible to *become* a man, but to *be* one, since, for god's sake, there
are no essences. 
 
crispin 
-- 
.................................................................... 
don't be afraid. 
 
shirley caesar 

     ------------------