Victor is szenvedett. Összetalálkoztunk a nagy kajáldában, nem is tudom, minek mentünk oda, ahol ezerféle a választék és persze mindenből annyit, amennyit akarsz. Vagyis, azért mentünk, mert ugye elhatároztuk, hogy gyümölcsnapozunk, és ott az is van valamennyi. A rizsa még belefér? Egész jól bírtam és még gymben is voltam, holnap is folytatjuk. A kis hülye meg, miután bedobott két szelet grill csirkemellet, kijelentette, hogy lelkifurdalása van. Nekem is majdnem lett a rizsa meg a szelet sajt miatt. Ki akartam bírni.

Bíbortól kaptam egy csomó édi ajándékot. Képeslapokat, amiket ő csinált, a saját kis vicces mondásainkkal. Csak azért, hogy megköszönje, gondolok rá. Hát hogyne. A legjobb barátom itt. És olyan érzékeny.

Ma megint felidegesítettem magam azon az olvasmányon, ami tisztára lealacsonyítja a női nemet. Utánanéztem, elég hírhedt ez a Paglia, egy vérforraló szenzációhajhász, hozzá nem értő liba. És ráadásul leszbikus. Úgy értem, annak ellenére, hogy nő és leszbikus, hogy írhat ilyeneket? A Blackboardra ezt írtam (minden órára fel kell tennünk a reakcióinkat. Elképesztő egyébként ez a technika. Virtuális osztályterem a javából.) Izé, akinek sok, most kapcsoljon ki.

What engaged me the most from the readings was Paglia's essay – I need to add that it outraged me although I found some of its statements true. I agree with the claims that sexuality is an intersection of nature and culture, I think this is one of the ideas that modern social science, especially Foucault, has been most interested in. Paglia's statement that the West seeks to name everything because "to name is to know; to know is to control" is very true – this is what I alluded to in last week's post too. However, the misogynistic tone of the essay, the overall degrading of women is utterly disagreeable. Let's begin with Paglia's statement that women have been historically and culturally identified with nature and thus are inferior. Paglia makes the generalization that everything that is fruitful in society was made by men, which I would highly question; "all the genres of philosophy, science, high art, athletics, and politics were invented by men". Where have women been? We could as well ask, why women then? Paglia downgrades women to one single natural function, namely, to childbearing, which is also revolting – moreover, the claim that all kinds of "foul" bodily activities can be saved by comedy except for menstruation and childbirth is unacceptable. Did Paglia consider the possibility that childbearing might not have been punned on in comedies because it is too sacred? In general, I had the feeling that she basically rambled on about ideas she made up without any academic background whatsoever. Her idea about male erection and ejaculation paralleling cultural conceptualization is as ridiculous as her claim that "male urination really is a kind of accomplishment" – well, congratulation. Does she probably want to gain attention only? I've read that she has been trying to sell her manuscript of the Sexual Personae to seven different publishers before she eventually managed to have it published. I'd like to ask Paglia where her statements such as "women, like female dogs, are earthbound squatters" lead. Does she mean that biological differences automatically bind females to an animal-like status in society? On the other hand, she is rather ambiguous in saying "the female body is the prototype of all sacred spaces from cave shrine to temple and church"; by this she makes her words sound completely dubious and without the least academic merit. To sum it up, her claims that the menstruating and childbearing woman is a pagan and primitive, and that there is a bioligical basis to the double standard (what about promiscuity in women being a "leakage in identity"?!) make me furious. Most probably this was her one and only intention; to outrage the reader with some pseudo-academic smack.

szinamondta 2/11/2004 06:56:00 AM

0 comments

. . .