Esther’s Space- journey through my life

February 28, 2007

Engaging in discourse with Rubin’s text

Filed under: THEORY 330 — estherspace @ 8:19 am


Gayle Rubin

+ phone.jpg +stick_figure_small.jpg

 Hi Gayle, it’s Esther.  I’m well thanks, and yourself….Oh, that sounds painful, I’m sorry to hear of it…Yes, actually, I just finished your article, it was a bit lengthy, don’t you think?….Well, maybe, but maybe  you should have turned it into a few different articles instead of a novella, or maybe you should have taken out a couple tribal references, they really were ‘ad nauseum’ (1669)…Yes, I know that they’re fascinating, but they seem to gum up the writing a bit…mmm yes, maybe (sigh).  Oh, yes, it was very clever, I laughed several times….yes, you are very talented………….I’m curious to know why you chose to start with Marx…I know that you need to start somewhere and generally cannot go wrong with Marxism, but here you may have…No, really, of course you will be able to prove, ” a failure of classical Marxism to fully express or conceptualize sex oppression,” (1665), Marx was wholly unconcerned with such and therefore his theory is unprepared to counter your arguments…Well, if that’s true, then I can prove to you the failure of traditional yeast bread recipes in the fight to make excellent pork chops………The idea of the kinships systems was very interesting as well, especially the idea of marriage as gift-giving versus debt-solution…yes, it was a very clever idea (sigh)…it actually reminded me that my birthday is coming up soon, and if you are interesting in replicating these tribal political and social systems (1671), feel free to buy me a house and I won’t even feel bad that I only got you wool socks for your birthday…No!  I don’t want to know how you’ve used them……….Also, I think you might have brought a bit of baggage to this article with you…yes, it is that obvious…Are you kidding, how about when you wrote, “the incest taboo presupposes a prior, less articulate taboo on homosexuality.  A prohibition against some heterosexual unions assumes a taboo against non-heterosexual unions.  Gender is not only an identification with one sex; it also entails that sexual desire be directed toward the other sex” (1675)….I don’t know, those statements just seem like an awful lot of leaping and bounding to arrive at such conclusions, and I kind of think that sexual desire being directed at the opposite sex is somehow relation to the reproduction of the society…Yes, I know you don’t like those words and would prefer to not define or use them………..Whatever, anyway, as a whole it was interesting to see how the discourse moves beyond the theory in this article….Yeah, I think Marx, Freud and Levi-Strauss would all want to gang rape you for this…ewwww, I’m leaving!  Yeah, disgusting…see you in class.



1 Comment »

  1. Ha ha ha that picture is so funny… But all jokes aside I definitly agree with how she personfies the patriarchal societies depiction of women as gifts. In essence it seemed that in every relation that society puts women in that either our skills, personality, or image are being bartered as a commodity. I was talking to a friend the other day about why are “beautiful” girls personified as bitches or seem extremly bitchy. And my mail friend responded that they felt as though the world owed them something for being exceptionally beautiful. This attitude fits right in to this barter society. For their beauty they are supposed to be getting recognition. Absolutely Crazy!

    Comment by hanaa — April 26, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: