Whose bodices are getting ripped?

[davemarc]

At 03:44 PM 11/26/96 -0600, Diana wrote:
>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. 

How about "a near-impossibility" or something else less
fatalistic/deterministic?

>Thanks to those of
>you who asked.  And ok ok I'll rent Fargo!

Oh, it's a good 'un, that movie, doncha know?

davemarc