From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 09/16/00-10:43:51 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
First, on reflection I have rethought my statement that Newton's
nudes strip women of the essence of their womanhood. I now think that
what he does is strip them of some aspects of their humanity, though
perhaps not of its essence. You may even be right in that what I
dislike about his work is the mockery and the impiety. Certainly on
the whole I find his work dehumanizing.
>
>The "essence of their womanhood"?
>
>What's that? Could we look it up? In Webster's? The DSM4? The US
>Constitution? Kinsey Report? Alt-photo list?
On the other hand, I certainly believe there is an essence of woman
and an essence of man. First, consider the word itself, essence. I
define essence as that which makes a thing *what it is*, that which
makes it unique from all other things. The essential thing that makes
a woman different from a man is her potential to be a mother, and of
course only a man has the potential to be a father. This is not a
value judgement in favor of the normative because men and women can
elect to reject this potential with no diminishment of their
humanity. However, although this potential is rooted in the
biological nature of man and woman it is ultimately a construct the
use of which is also defined and limited by our use of language.
Therefore in my opinion the most essential quality of a woman is her
potential to be a mother, and this at any stage in her life since the
word mother can be either a biological or linguistic construct.
To go a bit further, essence involves being, not action or doing.
Essence is fixed, immutable. All of your efforts to define womanhood
assume a definition based on behavior, doing, or in other words,
existence. Even the adjectives you use (ladylike, matronly, matronal,
womanish, soft) are derived from behavior, as are the roles we all
play. In fact both men and women can do the same things. Men also
have the capacity to be soft, chicken, prissy, sissyish, etc. They
can even be *mothering*. Human beings, both men and women, are
capable of doing and being many things, and certainly even role
reversal. I have no problem with any of that.
>
>
>You imply something so delicate we lose it by play acting, and so fine
>(like virginity?) we are damned without it. I infer that your "womanly"
>woman would be, if not passive, at least not aggressive, and *certainly*
>not sexually threatening; if not actually inhibited, at least not
>"improper." Sexy, even naughty perhaps, but only in a "nice" way. (No
>shameless hussies, please.)
I don't believe you have a reasonable basis on which to make any such
inference from what I previously said.
>
>And what if June Newton does in fact "control" much of the shooting? Would
>that mean Newton himself is "unmanly" -- or? Or make it better --
>woman-defined, or at least, as the popular tautology has it, co-equal,
>fantasy....
>
If June Newton in fact controls much of the shooting that fact would
of course be of importance, of great importance, and for the reasons
you mention above, except for the bit about being "unmanly."
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT