tsk tsk pt.3

[3DEM11 at QUCDN.QueensU.CA]

Good grief, Paul, here we go again...Assume "this" to mean not
misogyny (because, as I've said before, it's too harsh a term
for anyone here.)  Assume "this" to mean the issue surrounding
words and the fact that "boredom" was insulting to those
who responded to what I think is a serious issue.
I am not good on my feet so I'm going to quote some men whose words matter to
me:
1. Sacvan Bercovitch: "to understand a metaphor we must first know its back-
ground (i.e. female anatomy) and implications.  But equally, to know the back-
ground and implications, is to understand the power of the metaphor."
2. Jean-Joseph Goux: "the difference between the sexes is the symbolic
of the symbolic."
3. davemarc: "some gynecologists are lecherous males."
4. Jacques Derrida: "No justice--let us not say no law and once again we are
not speaking of laws [or misogyny--adds Dana]--seems possible or thinkable
without some principle of _responsibility_..."  "_Infinite responsibility_,
therefore, no rest allowed for any form of good conscience."

You are responsible for the words and images you choose and to the
people who receive them.  It's a matter of inheriting a long history
erected upon the symbolic scission between the sexes...that we can
overcome through dialectic union and through an understanding that, as Goux



says, "there is a sexed meaning even to nonsexual oppositions."
It's not "boring," DAMMIT.
Or have we not  read Gravity's Rainbow?...maybe just for
the nifty sex scenes, afterall--not for the endless reverberating messages
involving all of the above?
Dana