LS,
Lee wrote:
>I hadn't thought about the sexist thing. I suppose as a computer nerd I
>need someone to hit me over the head with the point before I see it.
I recall Mary Whittler had problems with that passage, I also recall David
Thomas and Anthony McWatt relating tales of women they had given LILA to
who had found it distasteful. I can't recall precisely what the reasons
were but my guess would be that they are a. the objectification of Lila as
a sexual object, and/or b. the implication that Lila's body is disgusting
because of her age.
You could say, well that's what happened and her breasts did feel that,
Phaedrus was just telling it like it was. But there's a certain revulsion
in the way he says it. Lila is, 40+ years old (?), of course her body is
not as firm as a 20-year-old, but does that make her ugly, does that make
her disgusting? Lila is no longer reproductively useful, so she has "gone
off". The implication of that is that women are only "useful" for
reproduction. But actually there is nothing wrong with Lila's body, she's
going through the normal process of aging that's all. It's completely
unfair to express disgust at her.
Plus, it's only Lila that is stipped and humiliated. We hear that Phaedrus
has a big nose and poor posture, but we don't see Lila squirming at his
shrivelled up old penis, though one would imagine she certainly would. Why
are her sexual organs brought out for ridicule and his aren't? Of course
people who don't read feminist literature would miss that point because
we're all so used to seeing women treated as objects and men as subjects,
it seems perfectly logical. Obviously it's not entirely Pirsig's fault, but
this book has been published in a society which obsessively abuses women by
evaluating them purely on the basis of their looks. Sure you can say that
the book just isn't about that and Pirsig never intended to be offensive,
but his work does not exist in a vacuum -- it's a book about a woman
published in a society that degrades women, and there on page two, his
leading character, a character based on himself, does exactly that.
So as far as I know that's the explanation. Yes, I'm reading into it, and
slanting it to fit a point of view, but you wanted the accusations of
sexism in chap 1 explained and seeing as the people who made the
accusations are not here (or not participating) I guess I have to be the
one to do it.
It's most refreshing that you ask what the argument is before dismissing
it. There may be hope for you.
I shall have to save my opinions on the matter for another day.
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT