Mean
Notes on the Testicular and Penile Theories of Talent
Celebrating Norman Mailer
I have a terrible confession to make—I have nothing to say about any of the talented women who write today. Out of what is no doubt a fault in me, I do not seem able to read them. Indeed I doubt if there will be a really exciting woman writer until the first whore becomes a call girl and tells her tale. At the risk of making a dozen devoted enemies for life, I can only say that the sniffs I get from the ink of the women are always fey, old-hat, Quaintsy Goysy, tiny, too dykily psychotic, crippled, creepish, fashionable, frigid, outer-Baroque, maquille in mannequin’s whimsy, or else bright and stillborn. Since I’ve never been able to read Virginia Woolf, and am sometimes willing to believe that it can conceivably be my fault, this verdict may be taken fairly as the twisted tongue of a soured taste, at least by those readers who do not share with me the ground of departure–that a good novelist can do without everything but the remnant of his balls.
–Norman Mailer
Most directors make films with their eyes; I make films with my testicles.
–Alejandro Jodorowsky
With them that day were various members of [Salvador] Dalì’s Divine Court: Gala, his muse, coiffed and rouged like a ventriloquist’s dummy; Prince Dado Ruspoli, famed as having the largest penis in Europe; Princess Nanita Kalaschnikoff, with her celebrated Louis XIV profile; the collector Sir Edward James; painter Léonor Fini and the unimaginably gorgeous Amanda Lear who, like Léonor, could not paint, as Kirk Douglas learned from his host, because genius is only found in the balls.
‘Paint is about time, space and balls. And Amanda doesn’t have any,’ said Dalì, bringing his palms together as if in them he held two bricks.
‘Genius,’ she [Léonor Fini] screamed. ‘Is in the slit.’
(From here)
The winners of the Norman Mailer Nonfiction Writing Awards were just announced. A lucky college student will be now be $10,000 richer. Since the awards are intended to honor the legacy of Norman Mailer, now seems like an appropriate time to defame his name by remembering what a sexist asshole he was. Thinking about Norman Mailer’s legacy, I am reminded of the way in which he advanced what I call the Testicular Theory of Talent (TTT).
I remember when I was in high school, my friend read me a quote from Dali’s Diary of a Genius about how genius was only contained in the balls, which was a claim Dali used as a way of discouraging a woman—who was likely Amanda Lear—from being a painter. Later, I discovered that there is a whole discourse and articulated thread of ideas attributing talent and genius to the balls or the fluid that comes from the balls. Surprisingly, this discourse actually has a sprawling history. Galen, a medical researcher of Greek Antiquity—thought that seminal fluid contain the “vital spirit.” Teddy Roosevelt was paranoid about masturbating too much because he thought that loss of seminal fluid would trigger a loss of “nerve force”—the force that gives us “courage, ambition, personality, character, mental powers and energy” (Paul Von Boeckmann, 1921). Norman Mailer said that, “that a good novelist can do without everything but the remnant of his balls.” (Although, regarding another aspect of Mailer’s comment, I admit that maybe I am somewhat “dykily psychotic.”) Jodorowsky’s cinematic talent apparently sprung from his balls. Balls balls balls. Bad news for me, I guess. Good thing I’m not very invested in the concept of “genius” anyway.
We are probably all also familiar with TTT’s sister theory, the Penile Theory of Talent. The pen of the writer is often associated with the penis. Male anatomy becomes a metaphor for talent. This concept was discussed in landmark tome of feminist literary criticism—Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s Mad Woman in the Attic—which begins with the question, “is the pen a metaphorical penis?” Philosopher Norman O. Brown wrote, “The penis is the head of the body. Every organization has a head; headless bodies cannot act.” The direct association of bodily configuration with creative capacity is a recurring motif among some male authors. I know—the Testicular Theory of Talent and Penile Theory of Talent seem totally absurd to us now, but I think there are still remnants of this attitude undergirding how we think of genius and talent. The concept of “genius” is still largely gendered male. Someone posted an interesting Guardian article on here about the gendering of “genius” in relation to the critical response to Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom. Even though people are more reluctant to summon dicks and balls as a way to maintain that exceptional “talent” is exclusively masculine, the residual association of talent and masculinity still remains.
While it may seem like we live in a post-TTT, post-PTT society, these metaphors are still deeply engrained. An article on Gilbert and Helene Cixous says, “metaphors shape how we are able to think about the process of writing, and about creativity in general. By linking writing with having a penis, these authors insist that writing, being creative, is a biological act, one rooted in the body–and specifically in the male body. …[T]his equation is not an isolated incident, something that just a few jerks thought, but rather is one of the dominant metaphors of creativity in Western culture, for both male and female writers.”
Let’s take a second to unpack what’s going on when people say that genius and talent is tied to genitals designated male. Essentially, what is taking place is the projection of meaning onto bodily surfaces as a way to validate the arbitrary association of characteristics with bodies that are divided binaristically. Bodies do not signify or generate meaning on their own: they rely on us to constantly reify and continue circulating certain meanings. In a yet-to-be-published (do you want to be the one?) essay I recently completed called “The Phallic Titty Manifesto,” I wrote the following about the way we imagine bodies:
Consider the logic behind “feminine” and “masculine” morphologies. When we think of “female anatomy,” it is largely defined by absence, which is represented by the vagina. The cunt is considered a hole, not a thing in itself but the absence of the thing. “Male” anatomy is defined by the ability to penetrate or ejaculate. The thing goes into the hole, the seminal fluid is absorbed by the empty vagina. Not only is this binaristic divide problematic because it renders women “passive” and men “active,” it’s also a totally mythic fabrication. Men have holes. They’re called anuses, mouths, nostrils. Women can penetrate with their tongues, fingers, fists, tits. Breasts can be round, but so can testicles. Dicks can be long, but so can tits. People falling outside masculine/feminine gender categories also likely possess some combination of concave and convex body parts. The way we imagine bodies seems incredibly distorted by an imaginary picture we project onto the surface of bodies.
Returning to the example of Amanda Lear and Salvador Dali again, it is important to note that Amanda Lear is transgendered (although it remains in question since she doesn’t openly discuss this), which both confounds and illuminates the absurdity of the logic behind TTT and PTT. Dali said that Amanda couldn’t paint because she doesn’t have balls. Does that mean she lost her ability to paint after transitioning? Could she have been a good painter if she didn’t transition? Can I be a genius too if I get some testicles attached between my legs? A lot of significance is placed on the possession of a certain anatmoy in deterniming one’s capabilities. For many, it may not be completely apparent how bodies come to mean something in relation to genius, creativity, and talent. But when these characteristics are implicitly tied to masculinity, in a roundabout way we arrive at the same point of departure as these backward ideas because notions of masculinity and femininity are still intimately tied to bodies.
Since I consider the concept of “genius” to often be a mythic construction, I am curious as to where you, the reader, thinks good writing comes from. I don’t feel like I was born with a natural penchant for constructing sentences, although I have been drawn to the medium for quite some time. What produces good writing? Is it libidinal–the byproduct of an excess of sexual energy? Does good writing emerge through disciplined practice? Do you think some people are just born with an innate aptitude for language? Does the writing not even matter as much as the people you know or the way you promote yourself?
Tags: balls, Norman Mailer, norman mailer writing awards, penis, testicular theory of talent
Bring it! I love your posts so far, Jackie.
Even though you’ve given us a really astute critique on the “logic of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ morphologies,” what if for now we stick with these categories of male bodies as “something” and female bodies as “nothing” or “absence of something” and think about their connection to fiction’s obsession with ideas of emptiness and nothingness. These ideas of emptiness and nothingness have been used as meditations on theology, metaphysics, and asthetics (Beckett making more and more out of less and less). Here is the preface to Borges’ 1954 edition of “A Universal History of Iniquity”: “The learned doctors of the Great Vehicle teach us hat the essential characteristic of the universe is its emptiness.They are certainly correct with respect to the tiny part of the universe that is this book. Gallows and pirates fill its pages, and that word iniquity strikes aw in its title, but under all the storm and lightning, there is nothing.”
If Mailers books (creating something) are the products of semen and big veiny purple balls, then what about Beckett’s or Borges’ books (creating nothing)?
Anyway, this might not make sense, but if it does, hopefully someone can articulate it better than I have. I liked your post a lot, though I don’t think any of the questions in your last paragraph can be answered — it all depends on the person, the circumstance, though there is no substitute for work and practice.
Cynthia Ozick asked Mailer about that quote at one point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obaL0gRKw7k
wow, this is the most satisfying thing to watch ever. i think cynthia got to live out my fantasy as well.
i have some thoughts on this… i will post a reply tomorrow because it’s sleepy time for me.
thanks, nick. that’s really encouraging to hear! glad i can bring something to the blog
Seems like Cynthia ‘laid the fucking smack down’ pretty hard on his stupid, stupid face.
totally agree that the penis/pen and active/passive, something/nothing idea of our bodies are long due a complete overhaul.
trying to be successful as a classical musician with a late start, I think a lot about the genius issue.
there are people for whom the hard work and discipline necessary for creative genius pays off more quickly than others. that’s talent. it doesn’t really predict success and it definitely doesn’t predict longevity. accepting who you are (or recognizing where you start from creatively, or however you want to phrase that step into your own identity) means accepting your level of talent and the time and dedication it will take to achieve your goals.
some people show a spark at a young age.
Cynthia wrapped a shawl around his balls and squeezed ’em off.
totally agree that the penis/pen and active/passive, something/nothing idea of our bodies are long due a complete overhaul.
trying to be successful as a classical musician with a late start, I think a lot about the genius issue.
there are people for whom the hard work and discipline necessary for creative genius pays off more quickly than others. that’s talent. it doesn’t really predict success and it definitely doesn’t predict longevity. accepting who you are (or recognizing where you start from creatively, or however you want to phrase that step into your own identity) means accepting your level of talent and the time and dedication it will take to achieve your goals.
some people show a spark at a young age.
pretty great that he admits to an entire audience that the line in question was a stupid sentence to have written.
this was a really great post, jackie. you’re knocking shit out of the park.
i would have to agree with Belt on this, “there are people for whom the hard work and discipline necessary for creative genius pays off more quickly than others. that’s talent.”
i’ve always hated the mindset that talent doesn’t exist, that it’s all just a matter of hard work. i think it’s pretty obvious to see that some people are predisposed to a certain ability–whether physically, mentally, or emotionally.
in relation to writing (and a lot/most/maybe all of art, really), i’ve always seen the real talent as the ability to see the world in fresh ways–the idea that how is one supposed to write the world freshly if he/she doesn’t first see the world freshly. after that, it’s just a matter of putting words on paper until you get it right.
genitalia doesn’t really matter given that model.
this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
and, of course, this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AzmhorISf4
Jackie: I’m so glad you’re here! You rock, as does this post. I’ve been thinking on this a lot lately, as my poetry has veered into the realm of bodies, bodies colliding, the explosion of body-on-body. I think what these men are getting at, in their nearsighted and decidedly narrow way, is that genius comes from the merging of mind and body. That somehow getting in touch with your sexuality makes you more powerful, which I agree with–but how can you leave an entire sex out of the sexuality discussion? Fear? Insecurity that your penis isn’t good enough? I was looking at a chapter from Hal Foster’s Prosthetic Gods the other day in which he talks about the male gaze in Surrealist photos. I’m thinking specifically of Brassai’s “Untitled” of the woman, back facing audience, shaped to look phallic. Foster writes, “The great trick of some surrealist photographs that evoke this traumatic sighting [the male fear of castration] is that they reshape the very body said to signal the threat of castration into a fetishistic form that might defend against this same threat.” All very Freudian, which isn’t so en vogue outside of art history, but there’s something to acknowledging that fear, maybe?
Also, I remember reading a bio of Joseph Cornell a long time ago, who is troublesome in his own right for his fetishization films of little girls, and there’s a part in which Dali got snitty at one of Cornell’s shows–seemingly because of jealously. Seems like Dali was a super insecure guy who couldn’t stand the idea that anyone else might possess a little talent.
Instead of something/nothing or presence/absence, I think of masculine/feminine as outward/inward. There’s plenty o’ junk in/on us women (in fact morphogenically, there’s all the same stuff in both sexes, genetics (X/Y) controls the differential expression) but it is inward, inner, hidden, mysterious.
from wiki p :
Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group and is found in mammals, reptiles, birds, and other vertebrates. In mammals, testosterone is primarily secreted in the testes of males and the ovaries of females, although small amounts are also secreted by the adrenal glands. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid.
In men, testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as the testis and prostate as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass and hair growth. In addition, testosterone is essential for health and well-being as well as the prevention of osteoporosis.
On average, an adult human male body produces about ten times more testosterone than an adult human female body, but females are, from a behavioral perspective (rather than from an anatomical or biological perspective), more sensitive to the hormone.
While estrogens are present in both men and women, they are usually present at significantly higher levels in women of reproductive age. They promote the development of female secondary sexual characteristics, such as breasts, and are also involved in the thickening of the endometrium and other aspects of regulating the menstrual cycle. In males, estrogen regulates certain functions of the reproductive system important to the maturation of sperm and may be necessary for a healthy libido.
off the top of my head: virginia woolf, gertrude stein, zora neale hurston, vanessa place, lynn tillman, renata adler, sylvia plath, maya angelou, grace paley, anais nin, margaret atwood; i could probably go on but what’s the point.
i don’t think women approach (or broach) the subject, ‘what does it mean to be human’ the same way men do. for one thing, they aren’t nearly as arrogant or pompous about it. but that doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking about it when they write literature. come on. even ‘chick lit’ (the little of it that i’ve read) approaches that subject, albeit through the frame, usually, of motherhood – not that that is at all an unimportant frame through which to view being human, it’s just not one that anyone can relate to, but then neither is gambling, fighting, cussing, screwing prostitutes, and making other poor decisions but learning to live with yourself because you are a ‘man,’ right?
because women were busy working in the house you don’t think they had time to ‘ponder the grand scheme of things’? i think they pondered aplenty. keeping a diary is sort of a longstanding tradition for women – so much so that it’s a stereotype. it’s just sort of rare that those diaries get published. very few women thought they could be published and so why would they try to approach writing or thinking in that way.
i defer to caroline re: philosophy.
So good…
i think the electricity significance is leaning more towards communication & media than simply more jobs. i don’t have facts, just like you don’t, but what was the ratio of women/jobs during the industrial revolution compared to whatever bullshit era you are citing? i am guessing they are going to be similar.
economics is what enslaves people. it is not something beneficial. it is part of the system.
that last part about the prof was funny considering you do the same sort of shit but your version is for the benefit of college pussy instead of tenure.
i can relate.
hahaha
no alexis, we see your name.
you really make an astounding number of assumptions, noah. do you even know what the word ‘patriarchal’ means? all of the western institutions like the corporations that generally control the distribution of information are patriarchal, the structure of academia you’re talking about is patriarchal. it’s hard for most of us to even imagine what a matriarchal structure would look like because they almost don’t exist, except in theory or in indigenous cultures that, according to you, ‘have never produced great writers or artists.’
I keep showing up as “anonymous,” in my replies. It’s alexis orgera, not anonymous.
Dude, that is a classic reference to one of my favorite short stories. I can’t believe no one else has commented on your brilliant comment. Well played, sir.
We owe the deconstructionists big time. Cixous is huge. I can’t think of anyone since then as radically important, and it’s been a while now…
an ugly-ass genius has a much better chance to spread his seed than an ugly-ass idiot. being really, really good at something induces sexual interest in others (generally speaking anyway).
that’s a much simpler explanation for this dicks & balls & genius phenomenon. you don’t have to like it, but to ignore that reality is beyond silly.
You’ve seen Idiocracy, right? It’s not just a movie, it’s a thesis.
I think what Mailer is talking about is that women do not often go into the subject, “What does it mean to be human” on a huge grand scale like many white male writers have. The only female writers I can think of that have done this are Simone De Beauvoir, Jean Rhys, and Kathy Acker. If anyone has any suggestions, please do suggest.
There are also not many female philosophers.
I think this is because women until the advent of modern appliances (1950s) have been stuck working in the house. Before modern appliances housework was very time consuming. Imagine washing clothes by hand, cooking with wood, cooking not with premade food, but actually having to pluck the feathers off the chicken, cut the beans, scrap off the corn, all while watching four to six children. Women had a lot of work today back in the day and we must never forget that. And also not until the 1950s there were not enough jobs offered by economies for women to work.
Women were stuck in a very sad but important position. It was sad because they couldn’t learn about intellectual ideas and get important jobs. But it was still important because they were doing the work that kept the house going.
Women, not till lately in human history and only in developed countries have not had the time to ponder the grand scheme of things.
It doesn’t have anything to do with estrogen or DNA, it is just sociology and economics.
It also about a culture endorsing freedom of thought.
Take for example blue collar people in America: blue collar people don’t really support freedom of thought. You are raised to go to work and buy stuff. Life offers nothing else.
But in the black community, even with the poor they seem to encourage writing and making music that expresses something about their life.
I went to a black poetry reading in Youngstown once and there was like 40 people there, everyone was really nice, everyone was really happy and responsive. And everyone there was below the 50,000 dollar a year belt probably. Maybe a few outliers.
I’ve gone to white poetry readings and barely anyone was there. Everyone just came and read and left. No one really spoke to each other. No one really cared. and I don’t think there was any poor white people there whatsover.
So art is a male-driven economy where women are just mindless automatons who are mysteriously attracted to “smart” men by inexorable evolutionary forces beyond their will? I’m glad that at least male geniuses are allowed to have free will in your ideal society even if it’s denied the rest of us! What about female genius? Not scientifically supportable? Evolution really works!
There are not many female philosophers because philosophy is an extremely patriarchal discipline, not because the women are stuck in the kitchen (are you fucking kidding me?). That is to say, the problem is inherent to philosophy… and, likewise, the problem of why there are no “great” female “writers” is inherent to the discourse surrounding the concept of “great” and the discipline of writing. That’s just wonderful that you can define the concept of greatness based on a vague philosophical conundrum like “what it means to be human,” because for a female writer, the question of why HUMAN is defined as MALE is much more pressing. But, in the meantime, keep chipping away at that question—but while whatever you com up with might be “great”, by your self-defined standards (congratulations!), I don’t think that any answer that you come up with on your own to that question is meaningful at all. Because unless you can eradicate the sexism present within your own discourse, instead of diverting attention pathetically away from it, you are working from a false premise—that you have the perspective to address what “human” means on a universal scale.
Yes, PLUS, holes don’t just receive. We also engulf.
Seriously.
I know I’m not saying anything new here, but the very concept of an undifferentiated human subject “on a grand scale” is really only possible from the standpoint of the systematically privileged.
this almost reads like a comedy act considering your name.
i think you are confusing something though. the above quotations are manifestations of male ego. women have ego too. feminism would be a great example.
it is rare to find a “genius” with no ego, because wisdom rarely goes in hand with intelligence. a genius is born out of loneliness and solitude. traditionally, in culture, women have not been secluded, just by their nature they are desired by men. they also hold a higher priority than men since they are the infrastructure of the majority. 21st century life is changing the dynamics of culture. now people can stay in a room and never deal with reality.
it is hard to have awesome genius thoughts when you aren’t alone in your head. i used to be super lonely and in my head a lot. i was miserable. i would rather hear a random compliment from a lovely girl than stay in my head thinking genius thoughts.
the word genius holds a negative connotation in my opinion. the ego of the majority tells us otherwise, to value their version of intellect. but what do you expect? we are talking about a society that teaches to listen but not sing, to eat but not farm, to worship but not live.
everything you have been taught is a direct attack against your individuality. women have it worse than men to some degree, but the oppression is the same. there is no gender bias.
the only god to praise is your own.
i sort of want to punch you in the face for the part about bodies but i am trying to be laid back about it.
there is nothing empty about a jelly roll. you silly.
no, i haven’t seen it, just heard folks talk about it.
I think if a man writes anything with the word “woman” and the word “kitchen” anywhere near each other, a random woman somewhere, will just see those two words and think they are being sexist. And they will not think about what was said surrounded those words.
I stand behind what I said: I gave an economic and sociological reason for why women did not have the freedom, in terms of time and endorsement by others to sit around and ponder on human life.
Unless you can prove that my economic and sociological theory is incorrect with economic and sociological facts I would respect your reply.
But I think that your reply stems from a lack of knowledge about what I wrote and perhaps a confusion about how women used to live previous toThe New Deal when people starting getting electricity in their homes and modern appliances.
The freedom of women to live out their dreams and work at jobs depends greatly on electricty, modern appliances and enough jobs for men to work and for jobs to be left over for women to work.
But my view also works in countries like say Gambia or Cambodia. Poor countries where there is little education and much work done to survive, they little freedom for thought and little freedom to sit in chairs and ponder the human life just like women did before the 1950s in America. These countries have never produced great writers or artists. They have produced culturally relative great artists and writers perhaps. But nothing like China or Europe has. Your theory of “patriarchal discipline” does not apply to those countries.
I’m going to be polite as possible. Your view of “patriachal discipline” probably comes from a professor that was trying to get published to get tener or get a raise and they thought of something really cute sounding they thought would get published. Probably the professor was an English professor, and doesn’t care about learning about sociology and how economic structures influence the lives of the humans living within them.
you are confusing community with something else. race has nothing to do with poetry readings being full or not.
i think you should revise freedom of thought to freedom of majority thought.
i also think you need to stop being coy and admit mailer was an asshole. it is okay. it doesn’t discredit him.
he is human.
The subtitle is 3001. The opening sequence of the movie lays out the premise that the uneducated seem to have no problems procreating, early and often. Yet, the hyper-educated tend to wait until their thirties to have their one child. And that this won’t bode well for us as a species with respect to evolution.
It plays on Comedy Central from time to time. The production is pretty impressive. The story is that Fox quashed it, and there are some Fox News jokes in there, so maybe.
Mike Judge at his best. It’s pretty hilarious. Definitely worth a view. A user-review at Netflix describes it as “Very funny, stupid, raunchy and weird.” That pretty much describes it.
did i say anything about female genius? no. perhaps i should have been more clear. the post takes issue with (some) men who equate their genius with their balls. i don’t agree that only men can be geniuses, but it’s not hard to see why some men would do that. that’s all i was commenting upon.
but seriously, are you sexually interested in someone who doesn’t take advantage of their talent(s)? i don’t think males, females, trans, whateverses are any different in this regard. we all have egos and sex drives.
and did you just bring “free will” into this? what does that have to do with anything?
off the top of my head: virginia woolf, gertrude stein, zora neale hurston, vanessa place, lynn tillman, renata adler, sylvia plath, maya angelou, grace paley, anais nin, margaret atwood; i could probably go on but what’s the point.
i don’t think women approach (or broach) the subject, ‘what does it mean to be human’ the same way men do. for one thing, they aren’t nearly as arrogant or pompous about it. but that doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking about it when they write literature. come on. even ‘chick lit’ (the little of it that i’ve read) approaches that subject, albeit through the frame, usually, of motherhood – not that that is at all an unimportant frame through which to view being human, it’s just not one that anyone can relate to, but then neither is gambling, fighting, cussing, screwing prostitutes, and making other poor decisions but learning to live with yourself because you are a ‘man,’ right?
because women were busy working in the house you don’t think they had time to ‘ponder the grand scheme of things’? i think they pondered aplenty. keeping a diary is sort of a longstanding tradition for women – so much so that it’s a stereotype. it’s just sort of rare that those diaries get published. very few women thought they could be published and so why would they try to approach writing or thinking in that way.
i defer to caroline re: philosophy.
So good…
i think the electricity significance is leaning more towards communication & media than simply more jobs. i don’t have facts, just like you don’t, but what was the ratio of women/jobs during the industrial revolution compared to whatever bullshit era you are citing? i am guessing they are going to be similar.
economics is what enslaves people. it is not something beneficial. it is part of the system.
that last part about the prof was funny considering you do the same sort of shit but your version is for the benefit of college pussy instead of tenure.
i can relate.
hahaha
no alexis, we see your name.
you really make an astounding number of assumptions, noah. do you even know what the word ‘patriarchal’ means? all of the western institutions like the corporations that generally control the distribution of information are patriarchal, the structure of academia you’re talking about is patriarchal. it’s hard for most of us to even imagine what a matriarchal structure would look like because they almost don’t exist, except in theory or in indigenous cultures that, according to you, ‘have never produced great writers or artists.’
Clarice Lispector.
Jereme
“i think the electricity significance is leaning more towards communication & media than simply more jobs.”
I want you to go into the kitchen and stare at the stove and the water faucet. Just go in there. Then I want you to go and look at a washer and dryer. Just stare at them. Just look at them for one minute. And then I want you to imagine what life would be like without those things. Then I want you to go and get a book or a really old person or maybe somebody from a third world country and ask them how much time it consumes to live life without running water, a plug in gas stove and no washer and dryer. Just do it.
“economics is what enslaves people. it is not something beneficial.”
You now need to imagine human life without jobs. I want you to do this.
The thing that has made women’s life better in America is the fact they have their own money now.
Nobody’s life is better without money. You don’t need to be a millionaire. But you need money.
Without money you have no power.
love the crash zoom on susan sontag at the end
http://derailingfordummies.com/
“I want you to go into the kitchen and stare at the stove and the water faucet. Just go in there. Then I want you to go and look at a washer and dryer. Just stare at them. Just look at them for one minute. And then I want you to imagine what life would be like without those things. Then I want you to go and get a book or a really old person or maybe somebody from a third world country and ask them how much time it consumes to live life without running water, a plug in gas stove and no washer and dryer. Just do it. ”
i think you are forgetting your audience now… i have lived without such luxuries before. i adapted. shit, at this moment, i don’t have a fridge, a stove, a phone or a bank account.
“You now need to imagine human life without jobs. I want you to do this.
The thing that has made women’s life better in America is the fact they have their own money now. ”
human life without “jobs” sounds glorious. i do not need to imagine shit. if people were self-sufficient there would be no need for “jobs”. jobs are nothing more than the thing which moves the system.
what better life are you talking about? i think you mean “coddled life” maybe ?
this idea there is a “better” life to be had is nonsense. the only importance is pussy and the sky. we are all going to die. different paths lead to the same destination. your preferred path is not inherently better, but it is easier.
“Nobody’s life is better without money. You don’t need to be a millionaire. But you need money.
Without money you have no power. ”
this is only true if one relies on the system of the majority. stop being weak. stop fearing death.
a dragon has no need for the economics of the village.
What the fuck are you talking about? If women don’t write books about ‘what it means to be human’, what do they write? I’m looking at my stacks right now: Hempel? Ozick? Antonya Nelson? Micheline Aharonian Marcom? Lispector? Stein? Unferth? Negarestani? Krilanovich? Davis? Boully? July? Hurston? Nin? Even shit I’ll never read like Stephanie Meyer- does she transcribe manuals for building androids? Let me be clear here: None of these are cookbooks. (not that cookbooks aren’t an aspect of being human)
hey alexis!
how is new college without me? hard to imagine!
if you are interested in this idea of bodies colliding, you might be interested in the Third Body by helene cixous (you might have read it already). i think i might have read that hal foster in a hassold class called images of women–we did a whole unit on surrealist photography and read a lot of foster in the class. it goes along with the idea of woman as a stand in for the phallus (as differentiated from having the phallus), which is articulated in judith butler’s essay on the lesbian phallus. overcompensating for one’s insecurities out castration fear very well could be part of the reason there is a fetishization or over-emphasis placed on the significance of male genitalia.
haha apparently dali knocked the projector over at a cornell show and accused him of stealing the ideas from his head.
i agree with you about writing with your body/channeling sexuality when writing…like you said, that’s great as long as it isn’t used to support an exclusionary discourse.
take care…that’s exciting that yr teaching a class! i think i am going to visit in october
What produces good writing? Talent, commitment, playfulness, flexibility, a love for the artform, luck.
How is genius a mythic construction? In what way do you define it? If ‘genius’ means “someone who is exceptionally creative,” I don’t understand how you could reject it as mythic. Is it the idea of the “born genius” you’re rejecting? Or. . . ?
oh good.
Jackie: New College is decidedly less Jackie-esque without you :) Your name pops up a lot! You know, I haven’t read Cixous since college. I’ll have to pick up Third Body, which I may or may not have read. You probably did read the Foster…I’ve only read the one chapter, but I like him.
Stealing ideas from his head, ah yes. I wish I had that superpower!
Stop by the WRC if you’re in town, per favore.
Good topic. The dominant subconscious of the Thing going into the Hole is too very real and powerful to be rationalized away. Rather, exceptions will always be alternatives to the dominant mode. I don’t believe in Genius, but I do think artistic forcefulness most often comes from a very honest and powerful connection with sexuality, subconscious or otherwise. This can be an alternative sexuality and rare to crack the dominant form of Thing in Hole.
“there is no gender bias. … i … want to punch you in the face.” — “jereme”
“I know of no way to stop anyone who thinks I am a sexist, except by putting her to sleep.” —Alec Niedenthal
In what way is patriarchy inherent to philosophy?
Noah, you need to distinguish between working-class women and upper-class women. They did not and do not still fulfill the same roles.
i sort of want to punch you in the face for the part about bodies but i am trying to be laid back about it.
why?
also, i am saying that the qualities attributed to genitalia (talent, absence/presence, emptiness/wholeness) are absurd and arbitrarily assigned. so i’m not even saying that a “jelly roll” is empty… i’m dissecting the logic behind those designations
i took a feminist philosophy class.
if you’re interested in this question of why there are few women philosophers, i would check out this article:
http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerCICP.pdf
posted on another thread but will post again here…. haslanger is a prominent feminist philosopher
http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerCICP.pdf
yeah, i think lazy people who are what might call “fast learners” probably don’t produce work of the quality of a really dedicated person…although there are all kinds of factors that determine someone’s ability to work within a field… encouragement/discouragement, access to knowledge/tools, who you know, whether or not your work is intelligible within established discourses, etc.
Thank you for that, it was very interesting. However, it didn’t answer the question of how “patriarchy is inherent to philosophy,” which is what Caroline Brenn indicated upthread. Indeed, the article you linked to seemed to indicate that patriarchy was not inherent to philosophy, otherwise it would not have had that list of recommendations at the end.
I must point out, though, that I have a certain interest (and therefore stake) in philosophy that leads me to be a bit biased in that I don’t want to think that philosophy is something that is inherently patriarchal, which would make it a bad thing.
“coo coo coo…” — “caroline bren”
why? oh i dunno jackie. i am an emotional dude i suppose.
i don’t like people telling me what a body is or isn’t even when it is done in a circuitous way.
i guess my main issue is: so what?
only a massive egoist or a complete loon would believe a yam bag is the source of genius. let me guess, the person making such a declaration just happens to have balls?
why spend time paying out passive satisfaction. there is no logic behind the absurd. that’s why it is the absurd.
gender is the same as politics: you are either in power or want to achieve power; both sides fear equality because it leads to powerlessness.
do you consider yourself a feminist jackie?
another important thing to remember about Norman Mailer is that his books are mostly unreadable.
Because the study of philosophy is most often supported by venerable institutions. The most prominent of these institutions, say Oxford and Cambridge, didn’t even admit women until the 20th century–and then only admitted them to women’s colleges until 1920 and 1947, respectively. Many of Cambridge’s colleges remained male-only until the 70s and 80s. And even after they were granted full membership, women weren’t allowed in many of the common rooms and pubs where discussion took place. In the 50s and 60s, if female students married, their study grants were taken away, while a man’s grant was increased when he married. Long after the overarchingly patriarchal structure was seemingly removed, assortments of smaller rules and regulations were left in place, all of which aimed to make it difficult for women to study and continue studying. That’s what makes Iris Murdoch such an interesting philosopher of her era.
Remember, too, that many of the great female philosophers of history did their work within the confines of the Church, which allowed them freedom from, er, washing machines. Teresa of Avila, Hildegarde of Bingen, Catherine of Siena were all formidable philosophical thinkers. Simone Weil, too, should be considered a member of that tradition. So, in a way, should Flannery O’Connor.
As for women who write about what it “means to be human,” might I recommend George Eliot, A.S. Byatt, the aforementioned Iris Murdoch, Willa Cather, Simone de Beauvoir, Doris Lessing, Flannery O’Connor, Gertrude Stein, Marilynne Robinson, Clarice Lispector, Penelope Fitzgerald, Christina Stead, Isak Dinesen, Muriel Spark, and Pat Barker just for a few.
But none of that makes philosophy inherently patriarchal.
No one is saying that sitting down and considering philosophical questions in like, your living room is a patriarchal act, unless the questions. They’re saying that philosophy as a subject is full of both patriarchal ideas and
No one is saying that philosophy must always and forever be patriarchal because the patriarchy inheres in it–I doubt Catherine meant it in that sense. Philosophy is considered a patriarchal discipline because women were actively excluded from it for so long, and because philosophy as an investigation of humanity failed for a long time to consider women as half of that humanity.
Strike the first paragraph, obvs–the perils of cut-and-paste. How rude to give you a glimpse into my sausage factory like that.
oh snap, thanks so much for posting that. She sounds like Woody Allen plus estrogen. I love Ozick, did part of my senior thesis on her, but she is quite controversial: she has disavowed being a “woman writer,” and Elaine Showalter critiqued Ozick pretty harshly in her new book.
Wah. Men and their evil penises of death. Wah. Grow up. If we stop talking about things in these terms, and stop viewing ourselves as if we’re viewed merely as “holes”, this will all go away.
If she didn’t mean that patriarchy inheres in philosophy, then why did she say, “There are not many female philosophers because philosophy is an extremely patriarchal discipline, not because the women are stuck in the kitchen (are you fucking kidding me?). That is to say, the problem is inherent to philosophy…”?
[…] that women can’t write anything, (I’m not sure who that would be but I think Normal Mailer gets points for effort. Austen’s selection for the question was based on her talent, her prominent standing as an […]
[…] bodies testicular cancer check – long version, This "embarrassing bodies testicular […]