Whose bodices are getting ripped?

[Diana York Blaine]

Having patiently read through days of discussion on whether language is
inherently prejudiced or not, I admit shock at being asked not to discuss
the feminist position relevant to the larger question. And from a woman...
The issue is very simple, really, in spite of Irigiray's verbiage.
"Woman" is by definition "not-man."  "Man," however, is never defined as
"not-Woman."  By definition "women" then become marked by their lack of
"male-ness."  And "male" becomes the universal subject position, central,
normative, the ground, not lacking anything important.  So women are on
the margin, linguistically and therefore conceptually.  Because woman's
primary difference from the universal male subject is presumably her
sex, woman then becomes in essence  "sex." In most media representations
she is wife/mother/daughter/whore/girl-next door-/old maid, always
defined by her position relative to the man, and not simply a "person" who
has a sexual side, among others, like many male characters are portrayed.
So even if Pynchon wants to create a woman character completely divorced
from any sexist aspect whatsoever, our fundamental (Western) construction
of what "woman" signifies makes this an impossibility. Thanks to those of
you who asked.  And ok ok I'll rent Fargo!
Diana