이 언니, 여러 가지 의미로 대단한 사람이다. 평생을 이런 어조로 쓰고, 읽고, 싸우며 살았다면, 오래 못 산 게 당연하다는 생각마저 들 지경이다 -_- 지독하게 화가 나있는 글이고 어떤 식으로 공격을 받았을지 안 봐도 알 것 같고 그 공격의 정도를 차마 상상하기가 두렵다. 마냥 부당한 공격만은 아니었을 거란 게 더 무섭기도 하고. 그래도 20주년 기념판이라니, 살아 있어서 다행이야, 하는 안도의 한숨부터 쉬고 본다 - 부디 끝까지 살아남았으면 한다. 일단 존경부터 하련다. 평생을 "the quintessential feminine pose"를 거부하며 살았다고 한다. 거친 말, 거친 글을 싫어한다 믿고 살았으나 이 언니가 'make love'는 물론이요 'have sex'조차 거부하고 굳이 'f.u.c.k'이라 쓰는 이유를 어느 정도 알 것 같다. 감정적이고 거칠지만 분명 'have a point'를 하고 있다(고 생각한다). 문득 굳이 ( )를 붙여 한 구절 추가하는 이 모양도 어쩔 수 없는, "the quintessential feminine pose"가 아닌가 하는 생각에... 쿨럭거리고 마는구나 -.-;;;

주로 소설, 회고록, 전기(?) 등등을 소재로 거기에 나타난 'f.u.c.k'에 관한 태도, 심리, 숨겨진 의미 같은 것을 분석하는 방식으로 구성되어 있다. 분석의 대상을 비판하건 옹호하건, 일단 읽어보고 싶게 만든다는 점에 강력한 추천 한 방을 날리고도 싶지만... 또 은근히 두려운 마음이 드는 것도 사실이라... 살짝 복잡하구나.

... The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people - physically occupied inside, internally invaded - be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?
     There are many explanations, of course, that try to be kind. Women are different but equal. Social policy is different from private sexual behavior. The staggering civil inequalities between men and women are simple, clear injustices unrelated to the natural, healthy act of intercourse. There is nothing implicit in intercourse that madates male dominance in society. Each individual must be free to choose - and so we expand tolerance for those women who do not want to be f.u.c.k.ed by men. Sex is between individuals, and social relations are between classes, and so we preserve the privacy of the former while insisting on the equality of the latter. Women flourish as distinct, brilliant individuals of worth in the feminine condition, including in intercourse, and have distinct, valuable qualities. For men and women, f.u.c.k.ing is freedom; and for men and women, man the act. Intercourse is a private act engaged in by individuals and has no implicit social significance. Repression, as opposed to having intercourse, leads to authoritarian social policies, including those of male dominance. Intercourse does not have a metaphysical impact on women, although, of course, particular experiences with individual men might well have a psychological impact. Intercourse is not occupation or invasion or loss of privacy because it is natural. Intercourse does nto violate the integrity of the body because it is natural. Intercourse is fun, not oppression. Intercourse is pleasure, not an expression or confirmation of a state of being that is either ontological or social. Intercourse is because the God who does not exist mede it; he did it right, not wrong; and he does not hate women even if women hate him. Liberals refuse categorically to inquire into even a possibillity that there is a relationship between intercourse per se and the low status of women. Conservatives use what appears to be God's work to justify a social and moral hierarchy in which women are lesser than men. Radicalism on the meanig of intercourse - its political meaning to women, ints impact on our very being itself - is tragedy or suicide. "The revolutionary," writes Octavio Paz paraphrasing Ortega y Gasset, "is always a radical, that is, he[sic] is trying to correct the uses themselves rather than the mere abuses..." With intercourse, the use is already imbued with the excitement, the derangement, of the abuse; and abuse is only recognized as such socially if the intercourse is performed so recklessly or so violently or so stupidly that the man himself has actually signed a confession through the manner in which he has committed the act. What intercourse is for women and what it does to women's identity, privacy, self-respect, self-determination, and integrity are forbidden questions; and yet how can aradical or any woman who wants freedom not ask pricisely these questions? The quality of the sensation or the need for a man or the desire for love: these are not answers to questions of freedom; they are diversions into complicity and ignorance.

- p. 156 ~ 158

에프워드의 마침표들은 내가 찍었다. 저렇게 하면 다른 걸 기대하고 검색으로 들어오는 경우를 좀 줄일 수 있다기에.