Andrea Long Chu
Autore di Females: A Concern
Opere di Andrea Long Chu
Opere correlate
The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2019 (The Best American Series ®) (2019) — Collaboratore — 40 copie
Etichette
Informazioni generali
- Data di nascita
- 1992
- Sesso
- female
- Nazionalità
- USA
- Nazione (per mappa)
- USA
- Luogo di nascita
- Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
- Luogo di residenza
- Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Asheville, North Carolina, USA - Istruzione
- Duke University (BA)
- Organizzazioni
- New York
- Premi e riconoscimenti
- Pulitzer Prize (Criticism, 2023)
Utenti
Recensioni
Premi e riconoscimenti
Potrebbero anche piacerti
Autori correlati
Statistiche
- Opere
- 3
- Opere correlate
- 2
- Utenti
- 191
- Popolarità
- #114,255
- Voto
- 3.0
- Recensioni
- 6
- ISBN
- 6
- Lingue
- 1
I find it challenging to keep her meaning. She plays a language game, redefining “female” to be a totality, which describes the human experience of having your desires set for you, by a lover, by society, by anything other than “the self” (which she does not define). She claims we are all female in this way. Ok. As she says, we are all female and we all hate it. Then she describes the political as being the domain of things that act to perpetrate desires on others. (Whose desires?) In this way, the political is “anti-female.” Ok. I can follow. But then she invokes the term “male,” I think in the way its normatively called upon as apart from her rhetorical frame. But she doesn’t define it. So I’m not sure what she means. I’m also not convinced of the necessity of making what was previously a category demarkation into a unity; it sort of dissolves the meaning. Rhetorically, obviously she’s trying to invoke the connotations of the word female to bear upon her new definition, but if you eschew that rhetoric (because she never says it’s necessary or that that’s what she’s up to) it doesn’t make much sense. Also, isn’t it obvious that if we have self-generated desires, then to achieve those desires we’d need to engage in the political, especially if we find others who share in those desires, as a means to achieving them? Maybe her point is that that sense of political unity _as means_ is anti-female (in her terms). It’s strange, but interesting. It feels like wading knee-deep through a swap of language play, part metaphor, part denotation, part philosophy, part manifesto. Then she’ll say some shit to the effect of “the SCUM manifesto turned me into a lesbian” and I just sigh. But it’s enjoyable to read. Like stretching… (altro)