Print

Print


Dear Diana,
 
You must be getting the Penguin Modern Poets, vol. 10.  A lot of her things there are from Mop Mop Georgette.  If you like it, you might be able to get New and Selected Poems (1993).  She's also a philosopher, so she knows her theory:  her Am I That Name? is a sort of feminist classic I would say.  The line is from Desdemona when Othello calls her a whore.
Cheers,
Nancy

>>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 01/16/10 6:24 PM >>>
BTW I could not get a copy of Mop Mop Georgette - the NY library has
it but won't lend it. I did however order a book of 3 poets of which
Denise Riley is one. Many thanks!

Diana

Sent from my iPod

On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I agree, and I know there is debate; I just took a position in it--
> hence "was." Hekman's is one position I found helpful, if still not
> fully satisfying. But I don't know if any can satisfy. The book I
> have found by far the most insightful is Minnich's--but not so much
> for any new theory as for articulating the implications of many
> theories in a brilliant way.
>
> One of the great values of studying feminism is that one cannot stay
> in a single discipline but must read across all one can.
> Nancy
>
> >>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 01/16/10 4:32 PM >>>
> Dear Nancy,
>
> Due to the attacks every theory is prey to, it would be difficult to
> accept any as The Truth.
>
> Debate on Butler's ideas as well as the French feminists' is public
> and plentiful.
>
> Diana
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I think social construction is/was an extremely useful and partly
> > valid theory that, like other theories, somehow became total
> > TRUTH. I love Wallace Stevens's line, "There are many truths, but
> > they are not part of a Truth." (from memory) Sex has also been
> > called a social construction, and to some extent it is, and to some
> > extent it is not. Gender is more troubling because we have not and
> > never have had an independent variable. We have no way of knowing
> > in any absolute sense how "sexually defined" males and "sexually
> > defined" females would act in all societies if there were not gender
> > assumptions, stupid or not. What we clearly do know is that
> > traditional gender absolutes lined up with sexual absolutes are
> > simply a fantasy. Think of any active female and/or passive
> > male. . .any logical female and/or illogical male. . . any calmly
> > effective female and /or hysterical male. . . any great woman writer
> > and/or silly male scribbler, and traditional gender belief is so
> > obviously both untrue and absurd that one cannot see how it was and
> > is sustained except for what Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich calls
> > "psychotic conceptualizations."
> > Nancy
> >
> > >>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 01/16/10 3:31 PM >>>
> > Dear Nancy et al,
> >
> > Judith Butler's book Gender Trouble presents specific instances of
> > sexual indeterminacy. It also examines gender as a social construct.
> >
> > Diana
> >
> > Sent from my iPod
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > There are many genders, but there are not just two sexes either.
> > > Sex, if biological, depends on genetic differentiation, and not
> > > everyone has one X and one X or Y. Some humans have other
> > > combinations of the X and Y, and these can also come with
> variation
> > > in anatomy and hormonal reaction. Moreover, as we know from the
> > > Olympics, one may have male genetics and female anatomy, hormones,
> > > and life experience--since all embryos are originally female and
> > > males only are produced if the Y releases hormones to alter
> > > development. Hence genetic testing, though why a Y is the final
> > > determinant, who knows?
> > >
> > > So, as far as I know, most people do line up as either male or
> > > female but some do not. One more false dichotomy.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nancy
> > >
> > > >>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> 01/16/10 1:11 PM >>>
> > > Diana Manister wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Ken,
> > > >
> > > > Either/or, like all binaries, depend on totalizing each element.
> > > Male/
> > > > Female, for instance. Derrida among others points out that
> > > > essentializing distorts.
> > >
> > > Essentializing sex distorts. See Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and
> > Gender
> > > from the Greeks to Freud_. It makes more sense to see _one_ sex,
> > many
> > > genders. But this cannot be generalized int "essentializing
> > distorts."
> > > Essentializing species is necessary to understand evolution. See
> > > Stephen
> > > Jay Gould, _The Structure of Evolutoinary Theory_. I would agree
> > > that no
> > > society, including any particular capitalist society, is a
> totality.
> > > But
> > > capitalism, unlike all other social systems, is a complex of
> > > _tendencies_ which,if realized, would constitute a totality. Hence
> > (as
> > > in Hegel's The truth is the whole) capitalism can be understood
> > > historically, as history, and thus dialectically. Hence it has an
> > > essence, though one never realized in any specific capitalist
> > regime.
> > > See Moishe Postone, _Time, Labor and Social Domination_.
> > >
> > > Male and female are more alike than not.
> > > > Derrida replaced duality with differance, which means more than
> > the
> > > > Anglo word difference.
> > >
> > > Cite a specific text for this. I myself, never got a grip on
> what he
> > > meant by this, but I do know that popular use of it is often half-
> > > baked.
> > > A dead possu and a live rhino are pretty different, no playing
> with
> > > letters needed.
> > > >
> > > > Post-Kantian philosophies are not dualistic. Except for Sartre
> who
> > > > didn't get it.
> > >
> > > I give up. Where in the hell do you get all this canned fluff.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> > > >
> > > > It seems clearer to use differance rather than a binary to
> express
> > > the
> > > > multiple choices you describe.
> > > >
> > > > Diana
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPod
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Ken Armstrong
> > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nancy Gish wrote:
> > > > >> Neither works if you try to follow it to any logical
> > conclusion.
> > > > >> But then, as I said, I discuss this in the article on
> > > > >> "Subjectivities," which focuses on how Anglo-American and
> > French
> > > > >> theories are set down on a template like Scottish poetry
> where
> > > they
> > > > >> just do not explain anything--one of them being these notions
> > of
> > > > >> discourse as either totally originated by the lyric voice or
> > > > >> totally constructed by language. I never feel constrained by
> > > > >> "either/or"; it is pretty much always a false dichotomy.
> > > > >>
> > > > > I had a friend who insisted that the meaning of either/or (in
> > > > > Kierkegaard no less) was "take your pick" or "six of one,
> half a
> > > > > dozen of the other"! False choices are false choices, between
> > > which
> > > > > one is not constrained to choose. But without arriving,
> somewhat
> > > > > regularly, at true either/or's, what progress does thought
> make?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken A
> > > > >