Sunday, August 26, 2007

nature is a small town snoring this morning.

i'm to go be a persian elder in the presidio today and won't be home til evening.

mood terrible here. i went to a spectacular reading last night but was assailed afterward by evidence of the patriarchal privilege, in the form of my many young men friends' [and the male-identified women who top the rest of us alongside them] hyper-articulate discourse. it's enough to put you to bed to nature.

i'd like some watermelon juice, if you get around to it.


kathryn l. pringle said...

who are "male-identified women?"

i'm not sure who is doing the identifying here and the language is making me uncomfortable.

suzanne said...

yes, this post is a little sloppy but discomfort's beneficial. i am not, however, indicating as you're indicating.

kathryn l. pringle said...

need more clarity than that, i'm afraid.

not sure about all the indicating.

am sure that "male-identified women" is problematic at best and also even has some worsts depending on who you are referring to.

i googled the term and found this:

male-identified women (a good old term from womens Lliberation days that has fallen out of favor in our post-gender world, although its practical applicability has not been materially affected by post-gender theory: perhaps one can change it to power-identified and then see how things shake down in terms of gender and gender analysis). A more complex analysis of the issue of women and power (which women get power, how they do it, and who gives them power) is necessary to reveal the perverse superficiality of that canard.

from this site:

but, any which way, i guess it is about power. a shame that power is gendered as "male." i think.

but still... completely baffled by the ressurection of the term in yr post and by what [or who.] you are referencing.

suzanne said...

yes, as i said, it's sloppy and I appreciate you clarifying your own discomfort with my language and correcting me. "power-identified" of course would be the more appropriate term. I could edit the post to reflect thus but that would rob all of us of my error and your correction.

this post is a fiction, in that the experience is real but there weren't any actual agents, or there are only composite agents, generating it, and it comes out of a conversation i'd just been having with a friend about totalizing discourses and our own role in perpetrating their [debilitating] effects on our own sense of self.

suzanne said...

i should amend above to say, 'on our own sense of speech'