Gilles Deleuze, “Mediators” (via allisonburtch)
Is it possible to identify a monolithic as well as a monologic masculinist economy that traverses the array of cultural and historical contexts in which sexual difference takes place? Is the failure to acknowledge the specific cultural operations of gender oppression itself a kind of epistemological imperialism, one which is not ameliorated by the simple elaboration of cultural differences as “examples” of the selfsame phallogocentrism? The effort to include “Other” cultures as variegated amplifications of a global phallogocentrism constitutes an appropriative act that risks a repetition of the self-aggrandizing gesture of phallogocentrism, colonizing under the sign of the same those differences that might otherwise call that totalizing concept into question.
Feminist critique ought to explore the totalizing claims of a masculinist signifying economy, but also remain self-critical with respect to the totalizing gestures of feminism."
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (Routledge, 1990) 13.
This looks like a fucking Bel Ami intro. God save the Queen.
totaltrash asked: sis, you are NOTHING!!!!! CP is OUR'S and we will not let him go without a sweaty, lustful fight while he watches and touches himself!!!!!!!!
who says i want to get sweaty with the likes of you?
so butch, that shirt isn’t the only topman in the picture
This twisted ideology is also behind the current federal government shutdown in the US. An opinion poll at the end of June 2012 showed that a majority of Americans, while opposing Obamacare, strongly support most of its provisions. Here we encounter Tea Party ideology at its purest: the majority wants to have its ideological cake and eat the real baking. They want the real benefits of healthcare reform, while rejecting its ideological form, which they perceive as a threat to the “freedom of choice”. They reject the concept of fruit, but they want apples, plums and strawberries.
Some of us remember the infamous communist tirades against bourgeois “formal” freedom. Ridiculous as these arguments were, there is some truth in the distinction between “formal” and “actual” freedom. A manager in a company in crisis has the “freedom” to fire workers, but not the freedom to change the situation that imposes on him this choice. We see it in the US healthcare debate, too: Obamacare would deliver many people from the dubious “freedom” to worry about who will cover their illness.
Freedom of choice is something that only functions if a complex network of legal, educational, ethical, economic and other conditions exists – the constraints that form the invisible underpinning to the exercise of our freedom. This is why, as an antidote to the populist rightwing ideology of choice, countries such as Norway should be held up as a model: although all main agents respect a basic social agreement and large social projects are enacted in solidarity, the economy is thriving (and not only because of the oil reserves), flatly contradicting the common wisdom that such a society should be stagnating.
Not many people know – and even fewer appreciate the irony of the fact – that Frank Sinatra’s iconic song My Way – which is supposed to epitomise the American individualist attitude – is in fact a version of the French song Comme d’Habitude, which means “as usual, as is customary”. It is all too easy to see this as yet another example of the opposition between sterile French manners and American inventiveness. But what if this is a phoney opposition? What if, in order to be able to do it my way, I have to rely on things going on comme d’habitude? A lot of things have to be regulated if we are to enjoy our non-regulated freedom."
Slavoj Zizek, Who is responsible for the US shutdown?
Jacques Derrida, “Of Grammatology” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) 142.
Peggy Kamuf, “Deconstruction and Love”, in, Book of Addresses, 36.
Let’s not get carried away here.
Muriel Spark, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie