From: "Karen Magness-Eubank" <kareneri-AT-blueriver.net>
Subject: Re: love and difference
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 01:35:19 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Steve, Eric and All,

Again, just a brief message. 

As regards Essentialist Feminism, I do not regard it as always having negative connotations.  What I question is the extent to which the claims of Essentialists are true. I want to how much, if at all, biology and anatomy determine the characteristics of a person--create man-ness or woman-ness.  There is much to be untangled under this umbrella heading.

Another concern I have is that the notions of sex and gender, as I present them, be understood.  I have discovered that it is often difficult for people to de-link the two notions as completely as I do.  Sex, refers to biology and nothing more.  Most (though not all) people are born one of two sexes--male or female.  Gender is only accidentally related to biology or anatomy.  Biological males can be women and biological females can be men, depending on the culturally determined traits the person adopts.  For the most part, individuals slide back and forth across the gender line, males are often women, and females are often men, for shorter or longer periods of time. When "he" throws like a girl, he is a girl.  When "she" thinks like a man, she is a man.  This is only evaluative in the sense that culture privileges one set of traits over another. 

As regards the woman as the ultimate objet petit a, I must first ask if you are taking this from Lacan or from readers of Lacan?  My area is aesthetics and I have found that almost all of the work I have read is not based on Lacan, but on mis-readings of Lacan.  Laura Mulvey, whose work I find interesting and inspiring, seems to be the source of much of this confusion.  Unfortunately, it seems to have formed the foundation for much work done in feminist aesthetics and criticism in all of the arts.  The major flaw is that she never truly understood the separation between gender and sex. 

Karen    
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:26 PM
  Subject: Re: love and difference


  Karen

  It will last long enough to maintain the Irigaray argument. Something incidentally I've been thinking about raising on this list for some time... so I'm interested in seeing the difference between your reading and my own.

  regards
  steve

  Karen Magness-Eubank wrote:

Steve,

Alas, this topic comes up a week-and-a-half too early for a proper reply,
but I could not let the opportunity pass.

As regards the culture/nature distinction you describe in your first
paragraph, my understanding is different.  Sex (male/female), I take to be a
biological or anatomical designation, based on primary sex-traits.  Gender
(man/women), on the other hand, I take to be a cultural distinction, which
depends on the traits one is assigned and/or accrues in one's environment.
This distinction is the reason, in part, that we can make sense of
statements "He throws like a girl" and "She thinks like a man."

As regards Irigary, she is not an essentialist as many claim, but a
materialist.  If this thread stays strong, I may, in the future, be able to
argue this properly.  Right now, this is merely an encouragement to look
more deeply at Irigary and her work.

Irigary also presents an interesting view on what may or may not be
considered silence in your model.  In her essay on "Two Lips," she is
putting forth the notion that a woman's body speaks before a woman's words
are heard--a woman is always heard "as a woman," and her words are always a
"woman's words," and are never, therefore, heard without bias.

Sorry this is so incomplete and leaves so much to be desired.

Karen


 
All

Following on from the research on silence and after some discussion with
a number of colleagues relating to 'love and difference' the following
issue was raised which might be of interest:

Related initially to Judith Butler and a text called 'Bodies that
Matter' - " According to female theorists (meaning N.American feminists
I presume) who set a specific tone for gender discourse, "...both sex
and gender are determined entirely by culture, devoid of natural nature
and thus alterable, transitory, and capable of being subverted..."
Whereas Irigarary as a representative of the 'nature/essentialist
approach' occupies a position which is constructed on an acceptance of
and perhaps even necessary biological difference.
   


 

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:26 PM

Subject: Re: love and difference

Karen

It will last long enough to maintain the Irigaray argument. Something incidentally I've been thinking about raising on this list for some time... so I'm interested in seeing the difference between your reading and my own.

regards
steve

Karen Magness-Eubank wrote:

Steve,

Alas, this topic comes up a week-and-a-half too early for a proper reply,
but I could not let the opportunity pass.

As regards the culture/nature distinction you describe in your first
paragraph, my understanding is different.  Sex (male/female), I take to be a
biological or anatomical designation, based on primary sex-traits.  Gender
(man/women), on the other hand, I take to be a cultural distinction, which
depends on the traits one is assigned and/or accrues in one's environment.
This distinction is the reason, in part, that we can make sense of
statements "He throws like a girl" and "She thinks like a man."

As regards Irigary, she is not an essentialist as many claim, but a
materialist.  If this thread stays strong, I may, in the future, be able to
argue this properly.  Right now, this is merely an encouragement to look
more deeply at Irigary and her work.

Irigary also presents an interesting view on what may or may not be
considered silence in your model.  In her essay on "Two Lips," she is
putting forth the notion that a woman's body speaks before a woman's words
are heard--a woman is always heard "as a woman," and her words are always a
"woman's words," and are never, therefore, heard without bias.

Sorry this is so incomplete and leaves so much to be desired.

Karen


  

All

Following on from the research on silence and after some discussion with
a number of colleagues relating to 'love and difference' the following
issue was raised which might be of interest:

Related initially to Judith Butler and a text called 'Bodies that
Matter' - " According to female theorists (meaning N.American feminists
I presume) who set a specific tone for gender discourse, "...both sex
and gender are determined entirely by culture, devoid of natural nature
and thus alterable, transitory, and capable of being subverted..."
Whereas Irigarary as a representative of the 'nature/essentialist
approach' occupies a position which is constructed on an acceptance of
and perhaps even necessary biological difference.