Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The neologism, bodyselves, is invoked here to overcome the grammatical and linguistic inscription of difference, distance and distinction inherent in talking about subjectivity in terms of minds and bodies as different aspects of the self. A similar strategy is invoked by feminist performance artist and art theorist, Joanna Frueh in her essay ‘Vaginal Aesthetics’ (Frueh ) via the neologism ‘soul-and-mind-inseparable-from-body’ See also Frueh’s ‘Vaginal Aesthetics’ for a provocative consideration and critique of the narrative and aesthetic associations between vaginas and divinity in both western and eastern contexts. See, in particular, the archive of an extensive discussion of these and other issues that took place on the WMST-L list Serve between January and March 2001. The WMST-L list is an international list for teachers, librarians and administrators involved with Women’s Studies, although most contributions are from North America (http://www.listserv.umd.edu/archives/wmst-l.html). Since writing this essay, it has been brought to my attention that Eve Ensler re- wrote this monologue in response to significant anxieties about its apparently unproblematic representation of a sexual relationship between a teenager and an adult. In the first performed versions the young girl was actually 13 and not 16, which means that in most US states the incident would fall under the provisions concerning statutory rape. Indeed, on closer viewing of the documentary it is actually apparent that the age of the girl has been overdubbed. Perhaps this explains some of the otherwise slightly obscure meaning of the expression ‘politically incorrect’ salvation in the closing comments made by the narrator. There is much to be said about this issue but the limits of space prevent this from being the most appropriate context. I would, however, like to respond to oft made suggestions in such examples that were the sex of the adult male and not female, feminists would necessarily find it problematic. Notwithstanding the essentializing of feminism implicit in such claims, they also fail to recognize that men and women are not interchangeable subjects in a world governed by formal equality principles. Regardless of the actual issues that arise in the context of a sexual encounter between an adult woman and a teenage girl, and they are many and serious, they are none the less, not the ‘same’ as those arising in the context of adult males and teenage females. At the very least consideration of such an issue would benefit from a substantive equality analysis that can comprehend systems of power and their relationship to sexual difference and sexual assault in specific political, historical and social contexts. In terms of the reading I offer here, it is limited by the context in which I heard this monologue. In that context the girl was 16 and the woman 24. See discussion on http://www.listserv.umd.edu/ archives/wmst-l.html, Jeanne Ludlow, Monday 12 February 2001. Both the terms extasis and instance or, more accurately in-stant, are invoked by Irigaray in her essay ‘Sexual Difference’ from An Ethics of Sexual Difference (Irigaray : 14), which draws significantly on Descartes’ Passions of the Soul. Wonder is Descartes’ passion without opposite, and it is the window through which Irigaray speculates that the other who is different sexually is encountered with wonder in the instant. Western history, she feels, has failed to appreciate the divinity of this difference. While I am using Irigaray’s concepts in a slightly different context, the underlying distinction between extasis and instance is consistent with her claims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".