“The great majority of us are required to live a life of constant, systematic duplicity. Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike and rejoice at what brings you nothing but misfortune. Our nervous system isn’t just a fiction, it’s a part of our physical body and our soul exists in space and is inside us, like the teeth in our mouth. It can’t be forever violated with impunity.”—Boris Pasternak
"Empiricism, because it takes its evidence from the existing order of things, is inherently prone to accepting as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures. Empiricism […] will always confirm the status quo. [Marx] would have particularly disliked the modern tendency to argue from ‘facts’, as if those facts were neutral chunks of reality, free of the watermarks of history and interpretation and ideological bias and of the circumstances of their own production."
"The crude word, fight with him in this way over what’s crude, as though first of all I liked to raise the stakes, and the expression ‘raise the stakes’ belongs only to my mother, as though I were attached to him so as to look for a fight over what talking crude means, as though I were trying relentlessly, to the point of bloodshed, to remind him, for he knows it, cur confitemur Deo scienti,* of what is demanded of us by what’s crude, doing so thus in my tongue, the other one, the one that has always been running after me, turning in circles around me, a circumference licking me with a flame and that I try in turn to circumvent, having never loved anything but the impossible, the crudeness I don’t believe in, and the crude word lets flow into him through the channel of the ear, another vein, faith, profession of faith or confession, belief, credulity, as though I were attached to him just to look for a quarrel by opposing a naive, credulous piece of writing which by some immediate transfusion calls on the reader’s belief as much as my own, from this dream in me, since always, of another language, an entirely crude language, of a half-fluid name too, there, like blood…”
*“‘why we confess to God, when he knows (everything about us).’ This title is given to chapter 1 of book 9 of Saint Augustine’s Confessions…”
*”God” should probably be emended to “goddess” but…
Wyatt Gnarleene’s work explores the rich legacy of growing up queer on the internet in a Southern town of less than 3000 people. From the hyperspectacular techne of the web, to the multiplicity of the burgeoning metropolis, to the seclusion of the private, lonely bedroom, nothing is alien to him— but at the same time, home is nowhere to be found. Wyatt’s work arises from her sculptural (and obsessively curated) placement in the spectrum between spatial isolation and the discerning gaze of the masses. Excavating his own cross-section of queerness, anarchism, and criminality, Wyatt has emerged with an insatiable thirst for challenge and experimentation. Her current work approaches freedom through a series of investigations revolving around shame, politics, sexuality, and the criminal imperative, seeking to engage the social body in what might be termed “postmodern baroque.” There is no future for Wyatt, only a constant reel of the present. —Zillion Couture
*WE WANTED TO POST AN IMAGE BUT OUR MACHINES DIDN’T LIKE EACH OTHER
*THEIR SHOW OPENS LATER THIS MONTH!
*REMEMBER THAT TIME I WENT ON A QUEER SPEAKING TOUR?! SOMETIMES I FORGET I AM GOOD AT DOING A THING WITH WORDS. NOW I JUST PRACTICE ALL THE TIME
”[…]And I have learned here that theoretical capital plays by the same rules as all of the other kinds. In her book A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, Gayatri Spivak explains something called the “foreclosure of the native informant”, which is basically the process by which the experiences of oppressed people become unbelievable, impossible, worthless and invisible to the people and systems that oppress them. I understand Spivak’s argument to be that the production of knowledge and the production of wealth operate on the same terms, such that the eternal debt of the formerly colonized world (now known as the ‘global south’) and the belief that women working in garment factories in the Jamaican “free (trade) zones” (who are basically working for free..as in not getting paid even subsistence wages) cannot speak for themselves are linked. We are back to credit and credibility.
When I first read this book in a graduate seminar, a classmate of mine unwittingly proved Spivak’s point. Despite the fact that we were all taking a seminar named after Spivak and one other theorist, despite the fact that this reader had signed up to read almost everything that Spivak has written (a task I discourage anyone from taking up lightly), this particular student refused to grant Spivak enough credibility to take her argument seriously. Spivak, this student explained, had borrowed the term foreclosure from the French pyschoanalyst Jacques Lacan and was not using it the way that Lacan had outlined. This improper use of the term meant that Spivak’s argument was worthless.”
I don't really understand what you have against men's groups. If men don't confront their own complicity within patriarchy, patriarchy will survive much longer. Perhaps the fishbowl model tokenized your trans* identity, perhaps the house cleaning was a little ridiculous.... but your vitriol is ridiculous. If women, trans* folk, POC or whatever other marginalized identity had a group to come together and talk about privilege you wouldn't hate on it.
1- BAHAHAHA YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMPARING STRAIGHT CIS-MEN TO ANY MARGINALIZED GROUP
2- WHAT YOU DON’T REALIZE IS THAT “RAGING PATRIARCHS ANONYMOUS” IS A TOTALLY SINCERE SUGGESTION MADE IN GOOD FAITH
3- WHILLIKERS! THEORY OF GAY CISMALE SELF-IMPORT. WHILLICKERS. IMA READ. WHILLIKERS! LOL
THE ARCHIVE IS NEVER COMPLETE BUT SOMETIMES IT IS A LITTLE TOO COMPLETE
marc4marc: This is upsetting to me. It is upsetting to me because of this part:
d) oh, and there should be ritual gay sex too. maybe you have to get fucked by your sponsor or something.
As if homosexual acts are somehow inherently corrosive to patriarchy. Or—and this is the more dangerous read—as if they are inherently humiliating to masculinity. As if this isn’t essentially a “fun way” to use rape.
I expect better than this. My life is no more a toy to be deployed than yours.
me (@marc4marc): The theory is that while we can’t determine whether or not homosexual acts are [potentially] corrosive to patriarchy, there is something important about being penetrated. Consigning this experience to “the feminine” (i.e. women and gay men who engage in such) diminishes us all. Obviously any ritual (sexual or otherwise) being conducted in the name of the almighty goddess of boundaries and transgression is done with full & utter consensuality. Positionality matters: it’s my life too and sometimes you need to be flippant
marc4marc: You know it’s funny. I was talking to Emily the other day and I said something about how my relationship to femininity seemed intricately bound up with my experience of being penetrated.
“Yikes,” she said.
My favorite thing about talking to Emily is that we’re capable of a degree of honesty and openness while not relinquishing our right to be critical of each other.
“Yikes,” she said. And I thought about it. I had brought it up because it seemed of some concern for me. It seemed like these things were linked in my head when they didn’t necessarily deserve to be linked. And I think in yours too. Your attempt at being “flippant” aside I’ll focus on the theoretical problem I see in this argument. It hinges on an idea that being “penetrated” can be “liberated.” But as Colin said the other day, “I’m disappointed whenever someone says the word ‘pegged’ and they’re not talking about pegging.”
Here’s the thing about “liberation” it always implies that you have some position from which you can “liberate.” This goes for concepts as well as people. If heterosexual men are to, en masse, come to enjoy, appreciate, or take power in being penetrated it’s something they’ll likely have to do for themselves. They’ll have to, in your words, understand their bodies as ideological constructs and then free themselves from those constructs. Tying feminist advancement to males being penetrated is no better than my tying my relationship of the feminine to penetration.
“Yikes,” she said.
At the end of the day your argument reminds of me Sartre where, in Being and Nothinginess, he becomes shrill about the in-betweenness of viscous things. He panics about honey and about how when something clings to you it fundamentally confuses the boundaries of what is yours and what is part of the substance that now coats your outline so perfectly. That is, after all, penetration isn’t it? Boundary confusion—perhaps very little else at the end of the day. The structures around it have recruited their own powers and methods but the act itself is so little. But the body, if you let it, will swallow you whole. So you must be mindful of the first site of your liberation: you from yourself.
“Yikes,” I said.
me: WAIT I DON’T THINK YOU’RE ACTUALLY MAKING AN ARGUMENT