BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Feminism 101

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1516171819(20)2122232425... 34

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:07 / 07.07.06
I think it's called "trolling", Kay-Cee. Thorn says something BOLD and SHOCKING here, people get upset, he goes back to The Moon Online and they have a good laugh about how easily riled and humourless Barbelith is, etc. etc. Bored now.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 07.07.06
Not only an iconoclast, but I think an iconoclast who has rather got the wrong end of the stick. Dominic Aury was the given name of Pauline Reage, writer of "L'Histoire d'O". She was many things, but a pioneer of écriture feminine not so much.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:17 / 07.07.06
Surely TMO isn't that boring, Flyboy. You're being very unfair. Was it not Kovacs who taught us that the people on it were highly successful and intelligent workers in the media? How could that possibly be other than a laugh riot?
 
 
Thorn Davis
14:18 / 07.07.06
"Ooh, you're a dangerous iconoclast, aren't you Thorn!"

Come off it - that actually famously really was what a large chunk of France assumed the unknown author *must be like*.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:19 / 07.07.06
"Ha ha, that Haus fellow thought I was being SERIOUS when I said Dominic Aury was a feminist writer - how easily I have wound up the class swot again!"
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:21 / 07.07.06
Back off, Flyboy! This dude has a FRESH STYLE and I want to hear what he has to say?

Ooh Thorn, you're so edgy and bold. Can I touch the hem of your garment, Thorn? Can I can I can I? You said "Bitch" on the internet, Thorn! On the actual internet, not even on a friends-locked Livejournal, where ANYONE can read it! Will you come to my party, Thorn? Well done for shattering our rigid reality tunnels with your stinging wit, Thorn. After all, there are so few places online now where one may call someone a bitch, especially a female someone, what with the Feminazis running everything these days.

Are you Jack Frost, Thorn? Have you come to us with noble TRUTHS that others dare not speak? Are you a court jester? Are you a pookha? Are you Anansi? Are you Coyote, Thorn?

COYOTE!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:22 / 07.07.06
Hey, I have plenty of time for plenty of people on TMO. I wouldn't judge them all on the basis of either Kovacs or Thorn. And maybe I'm doing Thorn a disservice - maybe Thorn means no harm and it's just a case of crossed wires. But it reads like a wind-up to me.
 
 
Thorn Davis
14:31 / 07.07.06
"Ooh Thorn, you're so edgy and bold. Can I touch the hem of your garment, Thorn? Can I can I can I? "

That's a bit bit over-eager, mate I was only - oh wait -ha! You were saying the opposite of what you thought. I get it now I stop to think about it... but on the other hand did you think I said that to try and be 'edgy' and 'piss off the feminazis'?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:35 / 07.07.06
So you normally refer to women as bitches, it's a nice normal thing that you just happen to do, almost affectionate? Are you one of those rappers, Thorn? Are you a Gangsta?
 
 
Thorn Davis
14:55 / 07.07.06
No, it was just an (obvious?) joke about the Story of O.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:56 / 07.07.06
Oh, so it was a JOKE!!1! That's okay then.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:41 / 07.07.06
So, let me make sure I follow this. You see somebody asking about someone who started to use O as a first-person pronoun.

You thought "Ah-hah! Dominique Aury.. didn't actually do that. However, she is associated with the letter O. So I will make a funny joke about that. I will add a funny joke about how big ladies' wooowas get after they have children. To round off this three-tier cake of humour, I will call Dominique Aury a bitch, because _that would make nanny very cross indeed!_"

Well, that seems to make perfect sense. I think you might have been better off leaving it at the first stage, when it was not terribly funny but almost clever, but that's just me. Welcome to Barbelith.
 
 
Thorn Davis
16:38 / 07.07.06
"So, let me make sure I follow this. You see somebody asking about someone who started to use O as a first-person pronoun.

You thought "Ah-hah! Dominique Aury.. didn't actually do that. However, she is associated with the letter O. So I will make a funny joke about that. I will add a funny joke about how big ladies' wooowas get after they have children. To round off this three-tier cake of humour, I will call Dominique Aury a bitch, because _that would make nanny very cross indeed!_""

Eh, your chronology is off - the joke about 'ladies woo-wahs' came first; it wasn't an addition. And come on - Dominque Aury was surely representing the woman as an O for the same literal reason as Daphne Marlett (the culprit according to the answer on the other thread), that is to say, because it resembles a - how did you put it? - lady's woo-wah. In Story of O it represents the ultimate reduction of a woman, rather than the co-opting of a less phallic pro-noun. Give me a break. It's not just "happens to be associated with the letter O", it works for the same reason as 'O' as a pronoun despite being ideologically opposed. As for the 'bitch' comment - no it wasn't an attempt to 'upset nanny even more' - it's just that O really is their bitch in the story.

I dunno; I wasn't trying to troll or wind people up - it's obvious, surely that a post putting forward a book burnt by feminists as a feminist book is a joke? It's not like I was trying to dupe you - as flyboy suggests; it just struck me funny that the O was used to represent the same thing to completely opposite effect.
 
 
Princess
16:46 / 07.07.06
I've never read the book, now I really want too. Yay google, thankyou literary people in Barbelith.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:50 / 07.07.06
I always thought of the O as symbologically a zero rather than a woowa, but that coould just be me. But fair enough. Inept rather than malicious.
 
 
Thorn Davis
16:59 / 07.07.06
"I always thought of the O as symbologically a zero rather than a woowa, but that could just be me."

No, I think you're just saying that because otherwise you wouldn't be able to call me inept. She's not reduced to nothing: she's a plaything. She's not a zero but she is just a 'woo-wah'. Suggesting that the 'O' is representative of her as an orifice that isn't some crazy idea just I came with. I heard somewhere that a feminist deconstructionist had chosen 'O' as a pronoun better suited to women than the phallocentric 'I', although I can't remember her name just at present.
 
 
Thorn Davis
17:02 / 07.07.06

So. Full circle. Just like a lady's... O fuck it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:08 / 07.07.06
No, I could call you inept anyway, because the ineptitude is in your choice of venue for humour about how big woowas get after childbirth and calling women bitches - the Feminism 101 thread - not your textual analysis of The Story of O, where your interpretation is perfectly reasonable. So, pretty much clear to land there.
 
 
Ticker
17:13 / 07.07.06
Princess Swashbuckling, there are probably a great number of books worthier of your time. Seriously.
 
 
Princess
11:28 / 08.07.06
DOes everyone agree with xk? I have a pretty full reading schedule anyway so if it is wank I'd prefer to skip it. But there is something about the author, she wrote this (apparently) deeply horrifying book as a novel of seduction.

From the Observer:
the author described herself writing at night, 'lying on her side with her feet tucked up under her, a soft black pencil in her right hand... the girl was writing the way you speak in the dark when you've held back the words of love too long and they flow out at last. For the first time in her life, she was writing without hesitation, without stopping, rewriting or discarding; she was writing the way one breathes, or dreams... she was still writing when the street cleaners came by at the first touch of dawn.'

Dominique Aury, lying on her side in bed with her pencil and her school exercise books, did not intend the work to be published. She wrote it as a dare, a challenge and an enterprise de seduction for her lover, Jean Paulhan


Exciting non? But if it really is tosh then do say. Thanks for the advice xk.
 
 
Olulabelle
12:00 / 08.07.06
Princess Swashbuckling, I think it entirely depends on your reasons for reading it. If you are reading it as an example of a novel of seduction that's a completely different thing than reading it as an example of iconic feminist literature.
 
 
Princess
13:06 / 08.07.06
Point taken, thanks.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:11 / 08.07.06
If I were you read it now just to get it out of your system. Personally I've never seen what all the fuss was about, either as literature or pornography, but that's just me.
 
 
Ticker
13:42 / 08.07.06
The fuss was based primarily on two points. The first was the date of publication 1954 and the social level of mainstream sexual repression at the time. All about context.

From the Wiki:
in February 1955, it won the French literature prize Prix des Deux Magots, although this did not prevent the French authorities bringing obscenity charges against the publisher. The charges were rejected by the courts, but a publicity ban was imposed for a number of years.

The second is that the story presents an adult woman who wants to experience an extreme state of masochistic surrender. Again about timeline context.

Publisher Comments:
The classic erotic novel, THE STORY OF O relates the love of a beautiful Parisian fashion photographer for Rene. As part of that intense love, she demands debasement and severe sexual and pychological tests. It is a unique work not to be missed.


These days most of us have created brain space for this sort of lifestyle. But in 1954 the BDSM scene was fairly far off the radar and truly underground. (Though one could argue it was beginning to bubble up through the cracks)

If you have any awareness of current BDSM practices this book won't tell you anything new and in some ways is a bit grating. For a historian wanting to see what flipped the switches in 1954 in France it is great.
 
 
Ticker
13:50 / 08.07.06
Ok and a bit more relevant to the thread here is a great reason why even those of us who embrace BDSM often want to beat people with a copy of the 'Story of..'.

From Amazon's reader review section of the book:


13 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Still The Classic Study of the Female Submissive Mind, February 7, 2006
Reviewer: Brian
Despite it's years, this is the defining classic maledom book written by a woman, who in so doing reveals the thoughts and underlying emotional landscape of the sexual submissive female mind and her need to serve. It is a great insight in the mind of women in general, allowing you to see from their first person persective, the many fantasies that so many woman are ambivlent with entertaining in the post-feminist age. On the one hand, a woman wishes to be respected and be seen equal and be seen as strong and independent, yet on the other hand many if not all want a man to take strong hold of the reigns. This is a wonderful story of one woman's giving in to that urge and not looking back as she enters a realm that many woman fantasize and desire of going to but few dare to do.



I suspect he normally reads the Gor books and this was, you know, a fancy French version minus the sci-fi.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:05 / 08.07.06
Yeah, I have noticed that the text excercises an enormous amount of fascination for a certain kind of male wannadom--the kind of guy who will continually mourn his misfortune in being unable to find the 'real submissive' who'll make his life complete, the one who won't mind him taking her round Sainsbury's on a lead and wearing a bikini or ask for silly things like safewords, and who never seems to understand why one sub after another ups and leaves him.
 
 
Ticker
16:17 / 08.07.06
For me it is the 'all women are secretly submissive' bit that makes me want to go rinse my brain.

Often the people who say this sort of thing wouldn't get it if I responded with: "Yeah and all Hispanics are afraid of dogs."
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:44 / 08.07.06
Ahh, you've just been brainwashed by SOCIETY. Deep down you want to be spanked vigorously with a copy of Savages of Gor whilst cooking dinner in a thong.
 
 
grant
16:50 / 08.07.06
Udo Kier's dashing in the movie, though.
 
 
Char Aina
17:10 / 08.07.06
man, that's your answer to everything.
 
 
Ticker
17:21 / 08.07.06
Ahh, you've just been brainwashed by SOCIETY. Deep down you want to be spanked vigorously with a copy of Savages of Gor whilst cooking dinner in a thong.

Cooking in a thong just seems like asking for trouble, like burns on the boobs from flying bits of splattered veggie shrapnel. Not attractive.

But I suppose you may have discovered the only reasonably useful purpose for a copy of Savages of Gor.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:16 / 08.07.06
What have you people done to my beautiful thread?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
21:03 / 08.07.06
Thorn;

It's not up to me to legislate for this or anything, I'm at death's door in any case, but, presumably, you've read at least some of this thread. And will be therefore aware of how some of your ideas re: bitches etc are likely to go over, in context. They don't seem particularly helpful.

Before you head irreversibly down the road you seem likely to pursue with this stuff, it's probably worth remembering that a) it's only going to end one way, that b) you don't really mean it, you're just had a couple of lagers, and that c) there are, you know 'human beings' on the receiving end of this kind of screed of nothingness who may be upset by it.

I'd really urge you to desist.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
21:47 / 08.07.06
It's an awful thing, thorn, to feel as if somebody's gone to the toilet in your mind.
 
 
Lugue
03:10 / 13.07.06
Background: I've asked Anna de Logardiere about where to adress this issue, as I didn't find an appropriate thread for doing so when searching the board. Two options became obvious; either to start up a new thread as a venue for people interested in approaching this sort of issue generally, or to use this space in particular, as the issue is related to mysogyny, and the thread has expanded to the point where it doesn't seem quite as derailing if it is brought up here - I went for the second, since how I've interpreted the situation relates in good part to my reading of this thread and how it's made me reconsider the way I approach language (and specifically humour) of mysogynist content, and because I am generally speaking somewhat nervous about starting new threads when they might be approaching issues that could be more suited/enrichining to already existing discussions.

Lets get to the point then: "You were to ugly to rape, so I beat you up".

This is displayed as a contact of mine's personal message on MSN, and is a lyric by, lets just say "controversial" band Anal Cunt.

When I saw this, I felt, well, disgusted and bizarrely offended myself (male), even. It trivialized rape, physical abuse and implicitly, the complete objectification of a female - taking in consideration AC's general attitude, this can be easily read as objectification of females, period. And yet, this person bandies it as, I suppose, a way of provocation. I honestly doubt even he (characterized by a general tradition of condescension, disrespect and arrogance) would be going for it for the "wit" of the thing (absent).

Of course, I doubt anyone who has experienced it would be on this person's list. So, since people directly related to the phenomena are out of the picture, it seems like it doesn't matter, in a way. Only I feel it does, in that "Well I know it's mysogynist, but I'm not taking it seriously in this istance" just veers much, much too close to "I don't care about rape/physical abuse/objectification of females", in a way. I think that there's a slight issue at play of distancing oneself from various serious issues and yet being willing to take them on for the sake of provocation, of controversy, or pure comedic effect that really solidies one's relationship with such concepts as purely disrespectful, to the extent that the intent becomes irrelevant - the underlying denial to acknowledge something as serious, regardless of effect on others but in and of itself, which puts one's consideration of it in very dangerous territory, is actually deplorable enough.

But at the same time... my concern with language and comedy as means of trivialization of matters that really shouldn't be so, or which should at least when handled comically be done with great care, is, in a way, a new phenomenon. It comes from a greater understanding, in recent times, of the potential for loaded words and concepts for perpetuating harmful views, regardless of the intent of the one responsible for their expression. This is a process greatly fuelled by me coming to terms with how priviledged I am in many ways, and how that relates to how I view certain aspects of life and society and expressions relating to them.

Meaning: this is somewhat shaky grounds, for me. I turned to a friend (a female, at that), and her reaction was, essentially, "Well geez, soon you'll lose your sense of humour". And I end up wondering to what an extent I'm not just having a knee-jerk reaction to something which I should consider inoffensive - to what extent intent should, indeed, be playing a role in this.

Mind you, I don't think it's inoffensive: hell, it offends me, of all people. I've pinpointed, in this post, why, I believe But taking in consideration that, as I said, the way I interpret this sort of thing is somewhat shaky as of yet, and I'm trying to juggle a number of issues at a time, I turn to Barbelith - which incited my questioning of how I view such things in the first place - for opinion.

And especially female posters. Some of them, in part in this thread, have contributed a great deal to said questioning of my perspective.

Essentially, with this, I'm putting the issue out there with people whose views on such things are firmer and clearer than mine, as a way of providing myself with some food for thought that might aid me in consolidating my point of the view as to the matter on further reflection - one way or the other, I suppose.

So, in essence: What do you think and feel when confronted with this sentence?

I reread and think this might be really stupid and bizarre, but I don't know, acknowledging other opinions might clear it up. Yes, I realize very much of this is me letting loose and playing with my ideas to see how they're working.

(I am aware that a) this is largely anecdotal and b) in good part, beyond the issue of mysogyny itself, but since mysogyny is at its core, even if randomly, I do hope this is the appropriate place for posting this for consideration. If people object to this post, as being off-topic, I'll be glad to take it to another thread they find more appropriate or indeed invest in the other option, of creating a new one.)
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1516171819(20)2122232425... 34

 
  
Add Your Reply