-- let me tell you about the Big Beat and Texas radio. Feminity is
destroying the male species. Godfather Burroughs taught us that. So I sez
cool it with the Ladies!! I love their sweet snatches too! but boyoh boy do
They dominate this Planet!! Minority my eye!! they are the Power that Be!!!!
Fu--k that sh--te
>
>
> > Masculinity seems to make a claim on women's bodies in two ways
>concerning
> > abortion. [I have snipped bits just to save band width and a sprawling
>post.]
>
> > -who is this universal Man of masculinity to which you refer?, agreed
>that
> > some constructions of masculinity, and of a powerful citational kind,
>have
> > and continue to do this.
>
>This question could be read as rhetorical ironic. I shy from doing this.
>There is no universal Man, only real affects and outcomes. (From the
>rhizome
>plateau: there is no idealogy. A partial reading can lead to elision. Add
>to
>this: there are real affects and outcomes.) What are these real material
>affects and outcomes? This is the question which can also move things into
>a
>minor mode. (good and thanks. . . I know what to do and will leave this
>response here)
>
> > What I want to question is the masculinist assumption that pregnancy can
> > only involve the sharing of bodily fluids where the woman becomes
>pregnant
> > and the man does not become pregnant, so can deny any right to intervene
>or
> > on the flip demands outlawing abortion.
> >
> > i think i was trying to point to this, that where two bodies share the
> > experience, not necessarily a man and a woman, becoming-pregnant is
> > material and actual for the body that is not hormonally pregnant and
> > getting fat!
>
>Not only trying but quite successfully pointing. I merely followed yr
>pointer
>on this. (That is why the slogan: get your laws off our bodies could be
>accepted by both men and women. It was also a gay rights slogan to make
>things more interesting and complex.)
>
> > -of course some might want to point to the production of a
> > work of art as a male counterpoint to pregnancy while devaluing actual
> > pregnancy- been done before as it happens!
>
>I know this only too well. Why are there so many homosexual male artists?
>(That is not a rhetorical question. I am being blatantly sarcastic.
>Sorry...
>that path makes me boil with anger.) Just on the point you are making
>though,
>an Australian writer I admire, Drusella Modjeska wrote a book called
>_Stravinsky's Lunch_ which also deals with this question, if the
>connections
>are made. Stravinsky demanded absolute silence while lunch was served and
>eaten at the table from his wife and children so as not to disturb his
>latest
>work in progress because his art was considered more important then these
>mere mortals. Drusella subjects this idea to a biting feminist critique
>which
>becomes a whole book on the subject of masculinity and art, to risk a crude
>summary. I love this book.
>
> > i think that you mean rhizome here and a rhizome can be made within a
> > becoming-pregnant as a specific kind of rhizome.why use
>becoming-pregnant
> > as archewriting here?
>
>You are right, I do mean rhizome. This makes a really good connection with
>stuff I have being trying to wrap me head around and use on cybernesis,
>chaos
>and a-life, especially some of the feminists arguments. I used becoming
>pregnant without the hyphen at first as a colloquial expression and not the
>technical term. You do raise an interesting question, though, with
>becoming-pregnant where becoming does not tolerate a before or after. (This
>suggests going back to reading LoS for me, also.) Don't know about the
>archewriting thing, sounds too Derrida for my taste (joking, except to say
>deconstruction is homophobia.) Don't know if I should or even can follow
>this
>line, but the suggestion is interesting even if to see what may happen. The
>blocks and so on. I am trying to question the received wisdom that
>pregnancy
>is a (public) heterosexual thing.
>
> > the assumption about needing a man and woman together to become
> > pregnant D&G describe as filial imagination and also gets called
> > heterosexual activity.
>
> > i do not assume this-nor recommend that this should be the case-i'm a
> > single parent -one of those terrorists in the symbolic cited by
> > Kristeva-
>
>This is why I put the paranoid warning in square brackets, because I
>clearly
>understood you do not assume this.
>
> > but i also think it quite stupid to reduce the n sexes which make
> > up the loves between 'men' and 'women' to the heterosexual filial matrix
>
>You agree with the sort of argument I am trying to put together. My
>interest in this comes also out of the sort of horror responses (gothic
>themes which made me think of Mary Shelley) I saw around about lesbian
>couples getting access to IVF treatment and our Prime Minister's response
>making it impossible for lesbian couples to undergo IVF. It left me
>wondering
>what sort of sheer horror would be produced if gay male couples wanted IVF
>treatment? (The mind boggles.)
>
> > All it takes is a couple of strands of RNA, I understand, not even
> > DNA is needed, so a man can get pregnant to a virus, even. (Of course,
>it
> > is already well known that women can become pregnant without the need
>for a
> > man.)
>
> > actually this last option frightens me the most-i may be wrong
>biologically
> > but doesn't parthogenic cloning from the maternal take the desire for
> > redoubling of the self-same to its most fascist apotheosis?
>
>Haaaa! Yes, you are quite spot on. I have been staring at it but not
>getting
>it. I really don't know how to thank you for this tip! (The RNA stuff comes
>from recent stem cell research, and other areas of genetic research, which
>questions the assumption that DNA is the building block of life. A virus is
>a few strands of RNA, if I can say this without buying into the idealist
>confusion that a viral plague is caused by this RNA. Early genetic research
>and the resulting discoveries was not made by state science but by what
>could
>be called nomadic science. I know a molecular biologist, or something like
>that, recently working on stomach cancer research, who admires and likes to
>follow this tradtion. She is top value and a revolutionary marxist, as
>distinct from an academic marxist.)
>
>So many thanks and sorry if this response is vague and not well explicated.
>I
>am now too excited by the new connections to do it well.
>
> Chris Jones
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp