>>He argues that Levi Strauss naturalized male domination
>>or the patriarchal family in the form of the exchange of women since
Levi
>>Strauss thought that this was the necessary consequence of the
endogamy
>>to which the incest taboo gives rise. But there is no reason why men
have
>>to exchange women. It could be visa versa or the exchanges could
simply
>>not be gender specific.
Yep. "Exchange" . . . I think of Zizek's reading of Don Giovanni in
_for they know not what they do_. "Mil et tres." Not only gender, but
"beauty," although there is a codification along aesthetic lines in
Zizek's reading.
>
>Rakesh, baby, long time no post.
>I love the way you think, boobala.
>
>
>>This leaves open the explanation for male domination
>>if it is not the result of the incest taboo. I understand that Pierre
>>Bourdieu's upcoming book is on the anthropology of male domination; I
hope
>>he engages Godelier.
I look forward to that.
>For years I've been mulling about a reaction to the up front,
vulnerability
>of the penis. Viola, Penocentrisity. And the whole sky-god thing! Where
>could that have come from, heh?
>
>Would'cha be so callous
>If you didn't have a phallus
>Pointing towards the sky?
>Would'cha be so gloomy
>If your honky-tonk was wombie
>And ya didn't have to die?
>Would'cha be so bossy,
>Would'cha have to rage,
>Would'cha have to spit--
>If your jewels were wrapped up yummy,
>Way down in your tummy,
>And was topped off with a clit?
If only! (Lines 4 and 5 are my favorite).
-Alec
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com