From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/16/00-10:39:57 AM Z
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Sandy King wrote:
>
> Judy, we must be on different wavelengths because I have no idea why
> you are asking me these questions. Spontaneity or lack thereof is not
> an issue for me. My point is simply that these are 1) poses that
> strip woman of the essence of their womanhood, and 2) emanate in part
> from the mind of June Newton (if we are to believe the stories that
> she in fact controls much of the actual shooting done by her
> husband). Maybe I am in error on the last point??
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?
Actually, I tried the Thesaurus. There are entries for "womanhood" under
"female sex," and "femininity": The nouns go from feminineity,
ladylikeness and little-girlishness to matronage, matronhood and the
eternal feminine. Adjectives are feminine, female, she_, gynic, gynecic,
gynecoid, _ gynous, muliebral, distaff, womanly, womanish, womanlike,
petticoat, ladylike, gentlewomanlike, gentlewomanly, matronly, matronal,
matronlike, girlish, little-girlish, kittenish and maidenly. Also
effeminate, womanish, old-womanish, unmanly, muliebrous, soft, chicken,
prissy, sissified, sissy, sissyish, none of which seem quite right. The
only other "womanhood" entry is "maturity," which seems not the point
either.
Who does define "womanhood"? Phyllis Schlaffley? Sigmund Freud? Gloria
Steinem? Britney Spears? Ellen de Generis? Russ Limbaugh? Marlene
Dietrich? The Lily Maid of Astolot? La Belle Dame Sans Merci? Margaret
Thatcher? Madonna? Cotton Mather? Toulouse Lautrec? The Marquis de Sade?
Madame DeFarge? Vincent Van Gogh? Princess Di? Monica Lewinsky? Dr. Ruth?
Betty Crocker? This may not be easy.
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.)
But now that we're past the age of double standard, what about
*manliness,* which a fella could also lose by role playing or taboo
traits?
And the roles themselves -- are they permanent or renewable? Biological,
or acquired? Genetic or mutant? Species-wide or culturally determined?
Inherent or socially imposed? Explicit or coded? Easily read, like hair
color, or ambiguous, like affectional preference? Helpful or harmful to
the self involved? Or are both simply a bundle of cliche's -- like the
usual "nude photograph" ?
My hunch is that what grates about Newton is his genius for role reversal
-- and hyperbole. Also irreverence for the pieties. He does a *sendup* of
the (overly) familiar T&A, as, for instance, his babe baring her boobs at
breakfast in P-F #3, p. 10. Compare to the similarly posed Mortensen. The
M we're supposed to take at face value: a vapidly demure babe who just
happens to have her shirt wide open, arms akimbo -- typical of M's pious
pandering. The N, frankly sardonic, flaunts the pose, and lights a
cigarette. I suspect what bothers folks is the mockery, the impiety, the
de-validating of "normal" "healthy" everyday voyeurism,where the woman is
object. Or if there's a hint of come-hither, it still flatters the man.
They can't deal with knowingness, in-your-face frankness, even challenge,
of the woman.
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....
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT