Libby:
<snip>
when i spoke of testosterone i was reflecting on the language used and not
the actions. [LH]
<snip>
But actions and words are a continuum. War being diplomacy by other means
and all that.
Unless you take Chomsky's view that there is an epistemic difference between
(a) calling for the death of Salman Rushdie (fine by Chomsky: 'I don’t think
they ought to be stopped from making that speech') and (b) asking someone to
shoot him (demurral, at this point, from the Great Cartesian).
Two examples from the latest batch of posts. The _emphases_ are mine.
A. *October 6, 1973*, written by a female poet and posted by Maria Fletcher
[...]
And Palestine is _raped_ by our cowardly fears
[...]
And the blood of Martyrs
Tonight _perfumes_ my heart
[...]
When the present celebrates the _death of dignity_
Note how land occupation, the _possession_ of (female) virginity and the
incitement to death (by a woman) coalesce. That's the sort of thing I mean
when I suggest that gender essentialism is a diversion from looking at how
our actions are shaped by our cultural histories and our bigotries.
B. A passing comment by Alison C
'...all these ideologies of death ... the _hard-eyed_ political/military
_"reality"_ which scorns humane commonality as _weak_, feminine, decadent,
and, worst of all, _impotent_....'
Here a suggestion about how the male gaze of power ('hard-eyed') creates
what it sees ("'reality'") is conflated with physical, gender-essential
imagery: *hardness* versus *weakness* and detumescence ('impotent'). There's
more than a hint that (some) 'men' regard *femininity* as a negative (of
masculinity) but no suggestion at all that there might be in 'reality'
'killer grans' or even those who encourage violence in others.
CW
|