Wolfychan ([info]wolfychan) wrote,

My part in the Cuntspeak Carnival!

[info]demonista, who hates porn and BDSM because she is a Femynist Wimmin, and fights the Good Fight by deleting all opposing viewpoints off her journal without response or explanation, has just posted an open invitation to participate in a "Cuntspeak Carnival."


Callout for the Cuntspeak Carnival!
This carnival takes it name from Jane Caputi's honourific theory of cuntspeak, in Not for Sale and here.


Oh wow, that article. I can't even parse the first couple sentences of that article but I really want to read it aloud while drunk, I think it would be hilarious.

This has also been started in part because of the past Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution. However, this carnival will also discuss positive sexuality.

Positive sexuality, you know, the kind I have! God I'm so lucky that my personal sexuality is the morally right kind, what were the odds?

I would like this carnival to be about things such as:

-analysing the word "cunt", eg can it be reclaimed? does it offer a strong feminist analysis, eg in inventing new words, naming new ways of Be-ing, speaking, etc?


The word can be reclaimed to describe a body part. It's actually pretty useful there, because we're pretty short of body-part words that don't evoke either clinical detachment or uncontrollable giggles. But as a description of a woman's whole way of "Be-ing," it's fucking ridiculous. I have a cunt; so what? So does half the world, and anyway I was just born with it. It's not like I won it in a contest or something.

-developing a sexuality that is gynocentric, clitorocentric, biophilic, egalitarian and/or politically Lesbian

Nothing about "gynocentric, clitorocentric... politically Lesbian" matches particularly well with "egalitarian." The solution to a phallocentric culture is not a gynocentric one; that's just the less popular side of the same bigotry. And I don't even know what to make of "biophilic"--doesn't that translate to "pro-life?" I guess she just means, you know, liking life and people who are alive. Which is very nice, but not all that revolutionary, is it?

-can one be a political Lesbian and be sexually involved with a man/men?

No. Duh.

Have the cake or eat the cake, lady.

-what is sex? to society? to you?

Sex is when the penis goes in the vagina. Or the butt. It's sort of sex when other things happen to the penis or vagina also, but the specifics are controversial.

-building bridges between fab-women and trans women (politically, socially, etc)? what is transphobia? transmisogyny? how does one reconcile being trans with being a radical feminist--is it hard, or do they go hand in hand?

I think you should just get it in your head that trans women are women and should be treated as such in the feminist community, end of freakin' discussion. The more you treat it like some big complex issue, the more you reveal that you're on the same "but they're really men so by Gawd they better not wear no damn sissy dress!" boat as the good ol' boys.

-women of colour and radical feminism

Yeah, you should probably let them in too.

-white women, middle-class women, and so on writings on economic privilege, straight privilege, whites as raced, etc.

OH GOD I HATE MY WHITE SKIN IT MAKES ME A TERRIBLE PERSON AND FUCK ME FOR HAVING MONEY AND LIKING DUDES SERIOUSLY I AM LIKE HITLER

(I don't even have money, actually, but because I'm white and educated somehow I still get called out for not understanding the privilege I have over the poor people I oppress. I'm part of the oppression on $10 an hour! That's very economical.)

-disability and sexuality

Disabled people fuck too, yep. However, able-bodied people are under no moral obligation to be attracted to them.

-intersections between oppressions, within and "outside of" sex(uality)

Let's add together all the people who could possibly not like me for every feature (inherent, adopted, and pretended) of my identity, then bemoan what an enormous victim I am!

-honourific representations (eg poems, drawings, sculptures, possibly movies) of female sexuality (both already existing and created by you) of female sexuality, vulvas, lesbianism, etc.

The weird thing is this person is militantly anti-porn. But apparently movies of "female sexuality, vulvas, lesbianism" are lovely and empowering. Go fig.

-what is "cuntspeak" to you? what does a cuntspeak sexuality look like? smell, taste, feel like? does the cunt think?

I just want to see a guy get away with describing his worldview as "cockspeak." That would be excellent.

Also, "does the cunt think?" sounds like something Buffalo Bill would yell down into his pit.

-what tries to kill off cuntspeak? destroy our connection with the cunt?

I'd say you're, uh, pretty firmly connected there.

-can men be cuntspeakers? can a heterosexual woman? a trans woman?

What the fuck does this fucking word even fucking mean, seriously.

-theory to action: acting on one's views, putting cuntspeak philosophies into practice, eg in organisations, communities, relationships, activism, etc

I'm gonna show up at the town hall meeting, and in between all the discussion of zoning variances and construction noise and why don't they put in a sidewalk on my street, I'm gonna say "we need to consider cuntspeak here!"

The above are just suggestions, and by no means an exhaustive list.
What do people think? Is this something you'd be interested in? Would participate in?
Any other ideas?

At this point, I'm gauging interest, and haven't decided on deadlines or anything :)


I guess this post wasn't that funny as they go, I'm just annoyed at this person for posting inflammatory things and deleting all opposing viewpoints, posting that a (female) pro-porn blogger was stupid while refusing to engage her in any actual discussion. And she talked bad about an organization that I'm a member of, then deleted my (quite polite) response without a reply.

What a cunt.



EDIT: PROOF OF CRAZY
If you look at it with a focus on women, even, it is, e.g. the way female pigs, cows, chickens etc are treated that only happen to females of the species (e.g. battery hens, forced impregnation and birth and having their young taken away), "happy meat" and its parallel to happy sexual exploitation of women, the idea that "use" of another for one's benefit is fine as long as it's "humane," "kind," "welfarist," etc.

In a truly egalitarian society, roosters would lay eggs!

But ah well, she's only 20, so odds are pretty good she'll look back on all this with embarrassment in a few years.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 27 comments

[info]heef

October 4 2008, 21:00:00 UTC 3 years ago

I think the word cunt is no good. "Snizz" should be more prominent in the vernacular.

[info]heef

October 4 2008, 21:02:04 UTC 3 years ago

Addendum: "snizzcentric" should also be added to the language... or maybe I'm just thinking too much in cockspeak.

[info]thea_na

October 5 2008, 19:25:21 UTC 3 years ago

I can't read this kind of stuff. Everytime I try, I get halfway through a single sentence I'm already going "I have absolutely no idea what this person is saying." Do they understand each other? I get the feeling this girl is inventing some of these words as she goes along. And it seems the inability to produce a logically coherent sentence or use words in their proper context is ubiquitious in this kind of crazy feminist nonsense.

[info]wolfychan

October 5 2008, 19:39:48 UTC 3 years ago

THINK OF THE LADY CHICKENS

[info]thea_na

October 5 2008, 20:26:03 UTC 3 years ago

Speaking of snizzes, my friends and I were at the beach and it was mandated that for the day vaginas must be referred to as "clams" and penises "clamdiggers" and worked into conversation as much as possible.
I am amusing myself thinking of how she would surely have an explanation for how those words are oppressive and our coming up with the joke is actually a product of the patriarchy, somehow.
I glad I have friends who love committing public acts of silliness as much as I do, and would look at someone suggesting that we must consider the implications of them like the lunatic that they are.

[info]thea_na

October 5 2008, 20:16:58 UTC 3 years ago

(Hope it was clear that by "stuff" I meant, of course, radical feminist writing, not your amusing, cogent replies.)

[info]aebhel

October 5 2008, 22:02:47 UTC 3 years ago

I want to know if cuntspeakers speak for cunts or to them. Either would be equally hilarious, I think.

(reposted because I fail at HTML)

[info]wolfychan

October 5 2008, 22:09:18 UTC 3 years ago

It seems like she's taken the fairly common feminist practice of calling a vagina a cunt, the common asshole practice of calling a woman a cunt, and somehow merged them into some mutant lexicon in her head in which it is progressive and enlightened to call an entire woman a cunt.

[info]aebhel

October 5 2008, 23:20:27 UTC 3 years ago

It amazes me the way some brands of radical feminism are nearly indistinguishable from straight-up sexism.

[info]demonista

October 5 2008, 23:27:03 UTC 3 years ago

ummm...no. Women aren't cunts; we have them. They can be sources of knowledge. NOWHERE did I call women cunts...I did say "cuntspeakers" as in "speaking with/for/acknowledging the cunt". If you can't see the diff, may I suggest basic language lessions.

And I don't know why I'm bothering. I know there ain't a snowball's chance in hell of us seeing eye to eye.

[info]wolfychan

October 5 2008, 23:31:47 UTC 3 years ago

My source of knowledge is my brain. My cunt is fun, sure, but to call it a source of knowledge and base my identity around it and use it to symbolize my way of seeing the world... seems awful darn close to just calling me a cunt.

And I don't know why I'm bothering. I know there ain't a snowball's chance in hell of us seeing eye to eye.

Probably true, I'm afraid. I 'spect you'll mellow out in a few years though.

[info]demonista

October 6 2008, 02:00:47 UTC 3 years ago

'Fraid not. Sorry to disappoint ya.

[info]wolfychan

October 6 2008, 04:28:20 UTC 3 years ago

Okay, here's my problem now that I've had time to think it through: if the cunt really is a special source of knowledge, that would mean that women and men really are different in a fundamental psychological way. Well, wouldn't that mean that treating them differently would be justified in some cases? That, women gaining knowledge via cunt and men not, they might really be suited for different roles in society?

I don't think I want to follow the logic down that path.

[info]demonista

October 6 2008, 04:32:00 UTC 3 years ago

If anything, it gives women say over what they do. men and women both can achieve knowledge through the cunt (as in vulva) and its male counterpart, the penis (as opposed to the mythology surrounding the phallus). the body IS a source of knowledge.

[info]wolfychan

October 6 2008, 04:44:08 UTC 3 years ago

Well, yeah, but then we're really doing Bodyspeak, and to reduce it to just the cunt again seems like an unnecessary reduction of women to the feature sexists already reduce them to.

Anonymous

October 6 2008, 09:25:21 UTC 3 years ago

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... every other nutjob said it before they grew out of the "hey look I have a radical idea INURFACE" phase.

Nobody ever thinks it's a phase while they're going through it.

[info]aebhel

October 5 2008, 23:44:01 UTC 3 years ago

My cunt is the source of

(a) sexual pleasure and

(b) babies (maybe someday)

Beyond that, it isn't any more meaningful a body part than my hand. Less, actually. Gender identity in this culture is largely a social construct and I think that if you're identifying a specific body part with 'female-ness', so to speak, you're coming awfully close to the kind of arguments used by antifeminists to divide and distract. And no, it doesn't magically become okay because a self-identified feminist is the one saying it--everyone is responsible for examining their unspoken assumptions about femininity and masculinity, because everyone is living within the society that produces them. That includes you.

[info]demonista

October 6 2008, 02:00:26 UTC 3 years ago

Did you read either of the works of Caputi's I mentioned? If not, I don't think you're qualified to critique it.

[info]aebhel

October 6 2008, 03:46:41 UTC 3 years ago

First of all, I am not critiquing Caputi's works. I am critiquing this statement:

Women aren't cunts; we have them. They can be sources of knowledge. NOWHERE did I call women cunts...I did say "cuntspeakers" as in "speaking with/for/acknowledging the cunt". If you can't see the diff, may I suggest basic language lessions.

(BTW, may I suggest that you check your spelling more thoroughly if you're going to be condescending?)

I find the notion of the vagina as a literal source of knowledge, well, frankly ridiculous except in the most practical of terms (ie, that people with cunts know more about how how they work than people without them), and poorly realized as a theoretical construct. If cheap symbolism is how you want to relate to the world, that's fine, but don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is just too ignorant to get it.

Second...okay, I'll play. I don't own a copy of Not For Sale and I'm not going to run out and buy one at 11:00 at night, but I did read the article. It seems to me that Caputi lacks the expertise to actually trace the etymology of the word 'cunt' and so she cherry-picks the explanation that best suits her purposes. Which is fine, I guess, but it does sort of imply that her discussion of etymology is meaningless and that she only included it to give more weight to her philosophical ramblings. The fact that many words in our language have Greek or Latin roots means precisely nothing in this context.

Other thoughts about the article:

1. The bait and switch tactics are incredibly annoying, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

2. The seat of the Oracle at Delphi was located in the temple of Apollo.

3. Puta is the Spanish word for 'whore'. It's a little...odd to use it to refer to a dichotomy within the Aztec culture.

The essay is a poorly organized ramble that lacks focus and intellectual rigor.

(PS: Wolfy, sorry about the soapbox-speechmaking. Feel free to delete this monster if you want to)

[info]wolfychan

October 6 2008, 04:32:27 UTC 3 years ago

Oh no, Aebhel, I don't delete people's comments just because I don't like them. That would just stifle the conversation and make my journal useless as a forum for real discussion of the issues I claim to care about!

[info]aebhel

October 6 2008, 04:46:01 UTC 3 years ago

*grin*

[info]wolfychan

October 6 2008, 04:48:49 UTC 3 years ago

And heyyy, "cunt" is a Germanic word.

OED: "ME cunte, count(e), corresponding to ON kunta (Norw., Sw. dial kunta, Da. dial. kunte), OFris., MLG, MDu kunte—Gmc. *kunton wk. fem.; ulterior relations uncertain.]"

In other words, it's always meant exactly what it means today. Hasn't always been obscene or insulting, it used to be a simply matter-of-fact term, but it never meant anything to do with supreme ultimate power or whateverthehell.

[info]aebhel

October 6 2008, 04:58:17 UTC 3 years ago

Oh, that's beautiful.

[info]wolfychan

3 years ago

[info]heef

3 years ago

Anonymous

October 9 2008, 22:47:13 UTC 3 years ago

Jane Caputi is nuts - she's a disciple of Mary Daly - also nuts.
Feminist theory produces quasi-schizophrenics on both sides - witness Camille Paglia.
Seriously - Jane Caputi's longer works read like thought disorder - bizarre, poetic, ramblings that make no sense no matter how you slice it.

Anyone who takes her work seriously is, in my experience, de facto "nuts".

Anonymous

February 3 2009, 23:59:18 UTC 3 years ago

you made many funnies, and now i think i kind of love you .. and stuff. And it's your fault, i do not forgive.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…