Lady Pride


In fact, like every member of an oppressed class, she herself participates in the insulting of others like herself, hoping thereby to make it obvious that she as an individual is above their behavior. (The Dialectic of sex, Shulamith Firestone)

The amount of righteousness women show just to pump themselves a little higher over the other bitches is disgusting. What we all do to distance ourselves as much as possible from this shameful position called woman. We all try to keep our mouths clean and pretend that we don’t suck dick. Lets not fool ourselves, we all suck dick one way or the other. We suck it directly, or some of us suck it ‘indirectly’, through careers, the little miserable victories of the western capitalist gals.

The fact is that we all suck it, yet some of us pretend to not by distancing ourselves from this ‘shameful’ labor, we also distance ourselves from the other shameful laborers. As we step over the women who remind us of our immanent structures, we elevate ourselves in class. The most despicable is when we take pride in this distancing, as if we have managed to not be part of the exchange, as if the structures of the ‘workplace’ are not the same exact structures of the family of the white man. The division of the women’s lot happens when we start to take pride in our oppression, proud mothers and wives are identical here to the proud career girls. Through (y)our little victories you elevate (y)ourself from the women below, from the ones who choose to, or have no other choice but to suck the dick directly, to except exchange with no illusions, gravity with no grace, without promotions or academic achievements, radical (art) cred or little romantic getaways, sweet talk or roses. (Y)our ‘privilege’ and thus (y)our blindness (whichever we choose to call it) is that you suck dick on the premise, in His art galleries, business, political meetings, journals and lecture halls, etc. Not only do you (also, as the rest of us) suck it on the daily basis, but you also take pride in it, Lady Pride.

You define your work as superior labor by condemning all the rest for (y)our weakness or ‘heartlessness’; for not choosing  to make (y)ourselves independent of the ‘abusive’ man, or for calculatingly relying on them for the exchange. What you miss, as you are blinded by your little managerial, artistic, romantic and academic victories is that you are just as dependent on the same abusive men, the only difference is that you have us to transfer your anxieties and to help you forget. You have us, who with no illusions, and/or no choices, simply work. We serve you both, we suck him and empathize with you, while you simply take pride, your Lady Pride.  As we do your emotional labor you disregard our bottomless hate, desperation and desires, sometimes calling it selfish, unnecessarily dramatic, as if we were your pet bunny gone mean. But the problem is that as you dismiss our desperations, you at the same time demand of us to be there and pity you when things go wrong, when the career is a drag and the man is not nice. You want us to listen and feel sad for you, just so that you get your strength back, refreshed by our compassion you get right back to your lady pride and move on, leaving us behind. You use our emotions for your knowledge, just so you stomp all over us and reach for the bigger man.

And we listen and we empathize, we feel sad every time, because we know that you too are part of the same structure that we are so disillusioned with. And we listen… because we also know that you suck the same men’s dick whether you know it or not. And we wait for you to wake up, knowing that there is no way to handle our frustration because there is no way to handle it, short of revolution.

Supernatural Rape ii


After His departure Angela began to screech and cry out in a loud voice; shamelessly she kept shouting,

Love unknown, why do you leave me?

And she could not say anything else. She kept shouting without shame:

Love unknown, why, why, why?!

Yet these words were covered with her screams and were not expressed ineligibly. And He left her with a certainty that He was truly God. And she cried out wanting to die. And her pain was great because she remained alive. Then all her joints were dislocated.

After returning home, Angela felt a peaceful sweetness so intense she did not know how to put it into words and there was also in her a desire to die. To continue living for her was a great sorrow because of that peaceful, quiet, delightful, inexpressible sweetness. She wanted to go to that sweetness which she was feeling, so that she would never lose it, that is why she wanted to die and leave this world. 

Lord, have pity on me; don’t allow me to stay in this world any longer.

And I asked God to let me pour out all my blood for His love just as He had
done for me. And I was determined because of His love to want all the parts of
my body to suffer a death more vile than His. And I kept thinking and wanting
to find someone to kill me, provided I could be rightfully killed for faith in Him
or love of Him; I would ask my killer that since Christ was crucified on a tree,
he should crucify me in a ditch or in some vile place and in a most vile way.
And because I was not worthy to die as saints die, I would ask my killer to
make sure I died a long and vile death. And I was not able to think of a death
as vile as I desired; in fact, it was very painful that I, completely unworthy to
die as the saints die, could not find a vile death for myself.

(selections from Angela of Foligno Memorial)

Supernatural Rape


Then God said to Angela:

I have come to give you consolation, which you have never tasted before; I will come with you, inside you, all the way to the Church of Saint Francis; no one else will notice. I want to speak with you continuously on this journey, and you will not be able to do anything but listen, because I have bound you to me, and I will not leave you until you come into the Church of Saint Francis for the second time; then I will withdraw this consolation, but I will never leave you, if you love me.

And He began saying:

My daughter, my sweet daughter, my delight. Love me, because you are loved very much by me - much more than you could love me.

And He kept saying:

My daughter and my sweet bride, I love you more that any woman in the valley of Spoleto. Now that I have settled and come to rest in you, just settle yourself in me and be at peace in me.


And then Angela began to have doubts about these words:

If you were truly Holy Spirit, you would not say such things to me - it’s not appropriate, for I am fragile and could become vain and boastful. 

And He responded:

Just consider whether you could become vain and boastful. as a result of all that I’ve said. Try to escape from my words, if you can. 

And Angela tried to become vain and boastful, in order to test whether He was the Holy Spirit, and whether what He said was true. She began to look at the vineyards around her in an effort to escape His words, but wherever she looked, He kept saying to her:

That is one of my creatures.

And she kept looking for the way out, but she could not find. And she felt an ineffable divine sweetness in the totality of his world. And she found no reason to resist.  

And she could not evaluate the intensity of the joy and sweetness from God that she was feeling, especially when he said:

I am the Holy Spirit, and I am entering inside you.

(selections from Angela of Foligno Memorial)

-Essentialist! -What? wait, Subtractive or Generative? (ii)


I suffocate in the two, but I fear more the two that is masked as many. The cries for help now becoming an impossible act. Solidarity and love fade as cynicism overtakes.  

This is the deadlock of the structural dialectic, what Hegel would call the bad infinity, in which any being immanently collects its (contingent) determinations. (The) Nothing is possible as it could never have been (otherwise). Being spins in its eternal return and all who wish to resist this repetition are to be subsumed by its structural circularity. The Hegelian thesis on infinity finds its support in a law: since a point of being contains in itself its negation, it generates out of itself the surpassing of itself, its being-other. Being-other is a duty of being. This is a classical form of dialectics, in which other is already included in the becoming of the One. This form of teleological becoming, in its form prevents the structural collapse, the “crisis” always being already included in the Whole of the economy.

If structuralism allows the dichotomous/classical logic, post-structuralism deconstructs the structural dialectic, denouncing the two, diffusing it into many. But is this not an easy way out of the structure that so completely frames our periphery? By diffusing the master/slave dialectic into gradients of representation, don’t we risk forever losing the actuality of revolt?

Same is the failure of psycho-analysis and the discursive cure, such that it fixes the present of the subject into a recursive mechanism whereby the subject’s sole remit to the Other is through its own (Symbolic) decentering. The ‘revolt’ becomes a personal/individual experience, with no socio-structural destruction needed for class transfiguration; destruction becoming nothing but the experience of Symbolic erasure, an individual journey, a “private” affair.

In fact, class as such is nonexistent for post-structuralist logic. Due to its denunciation of the structural-class/gender/race dialectic, structural oppression becomes replaced by a mere gradation of injustices, a spectrum of irreconcilable pains and oppressions, each worse than the other. Thus any form of resistance is diffused in the relativity of bodies and their languages; to the extent that the subject becomes the result of the local language alone, limited to her infinitely personal and particular pain. With the dissipation of the dialectic, the master and the oppressed become structurally unlocatable, it becomes impossible and illegal to make class parallels, and every form of structural analysis becomes labeled as a new form of ‘oppression’. In this way a discursive torsioning becomes the only form of resistance, which is limited to ‘curing’ the ‘oppressed’ (now not anymore oppressed but simply different) subject out of her despair. Removing structural analysis leaves the subject in pain merely with the representational tools to articulate her (very personal) ex-istence from herself, in her pain, her own, very special, particular and individual form  of despair. Shaming replaces revolution, since, -how can one organize against the structure?- when we are all so shameful, guilty and at the same time oppressed in such a different ways. Yet we’re all so alone.  

But the dismissal of structure does not make the structure go away, and this molecular form of critique disables the subject from actually ever displacing the space of her placement. This form of nonstructural, gradient form of identitarian assemblages  leave the subject with only one choice, which is to dwell in her assumed outplace, while all along simply medicating herself at the very heart of the structure. Perhaps one day she will learn to enjoy that too!  To dwell under the  nice thick blanket of despair and resentment.


Time does not shift, and the materiality of the structure, even if negated in language, imprisons our daily reality and further shapes our matter. There is no more space for the subject in this discourse, her voice made illegal, yet her body, now tongueless, lays mute in his doorway. In Changing Difference Catherine Malabou writes, “That “woman” now empty of her essence only serves to emphasize the fact that she does not define herself and cannot define herself except through the violence done to her. Violence alone confers her being. The violence of the deconstruction of this being, on the one hand, and, on the other, the domestic and social violence constantly exerted on this very absence of being. Woman is nothing any more, except this violence through which she “being nothing” continues to exist. She is nothing, but an anthropological amputation, formed by that which negates her.” [1]

Essence is not a fashionable concept these days and is regarded with suspicion, but so is affirmation of any kind. What poststructuralism in fact got rid of, without regard, is the event, since to affirm essence is to affirm the impossibility of being, opening a possibility for the structural event, for the appearance of the Other from behind the other. Thus in an effort to get rid of the structural dialectic, postructuralism accidentally got rid of the absolute Other. But what did this materially result in? If the classic (generative) structural dialectic admits the existence of the other, but rejects the absolute Other implicit in any concept, postructuralism utterly outlaws this implication, thus getting rid of the other completely. The subaltern becoming not only speechless, but a completely illegal and obsolete concept. Woman, for instance, remains othered and exploited due to her ontologized difference, but now disarmed of structural critique, she is prohibited from confronting this violence at its proper place. At any effort of resistance she will be further silenced and blamed with oppressing the innumerable field of differences. Is this not a contradiction of our time that we must concern ourselves with? How is it possible that the structural other (woman, or any other that is not the dominant producer of the symbolic) is still persecuted for their marking (structural particularity), while this particularity should grant them no right to revolt against?

What could be the particularity of the Other, the specificity of no-return? Essence is created by the marking of the ‘zero’, but for it to become it must persist in its ‘given’ particularity, that is, live as the something which is marked as the impossible within the structure, the unnatural, the inhuman, the abstract, the negative excess over the situation. The supernatural[2] act is to induce the proliferation of this inhumanity, the void, appearance of the space of the absolute Other.

We must allow the possibility that every name marked by a structural ‘zero’ (or ranked as lesser matter: woman, black, weak, savage) exceeds its structural marking in the negative sense, and so this negative excess makes it possible to overturn the place of its othering. But did we really need an ontologist to tell us that? “Let us envisage”, writes Catherine Malabou, “the possibility that, in the name woman, there is an empty but resistant essence, an essence that is resistant precisely because it is emptied, a stamp of impossibility.”[3]

The abyss of being is nothing new to the absolute Other of the structure. The essence of Other is defined by the life with inner contradiction(s) of matter and such of mind, a corporeal madness. Unlike essence of generative ontology, the essence in a subtractive ontology has no resolution, no return to the ground, no teleological projection. In a way what I argue is that generative ontology is structured on the basis of the return and subtractive moves with the understanding of there being no ground to return to, its logic is the madness of being. In its fascination and fear of this ‘madness’ of being, man as state positions himself beyond and above this abyss, in an effort to frame and prevent the unpredictability from surpassing his limits. In this movement, always away from himself, he circulates within the phallic periphery, in and out (sovereign) within the structure defined by himself, he always comes home.

In this sense, love and revulsion are same to the phallus, rape being the inherent ground for this form of desire. Phallic satisfaction depends on the successful deterritorialization of the other from their body, or the displacement of the other from the place/space. In fact this act is what defines the body/land of the other, it being no ones prior to that. Thus the question, ‘why did you rape me?’ undermines the tautology of the phallic sexual experience.  As Frank Wilderson writes in Gramsci’s Black Marx, The most ridiculous question a black person can ask a cop is, ‘why did you shoot me?’ How does one account for the gratuitous? The cop is at a disadvantage: ‘I shot you because you are black; you are black because I shot you.’ Here is the tautology at the heart of the colonial experience. A parallel can be made here with the ‘encounter’ of the Oedipus and the Sphinx at the crossroad. It is not by chance that Oedipus meets the Sphinx at the crossroad[4],that much we know, as it being a mere ‘chance’ would undermine the core of patriarchal structure. As we know, the mere presence of the Sphinx is the materialization of the contradiction of patriarchal order; her famous riddle to Oedipus is inscribed in her mere existence, ie. presence. Thus, the ‘Who are you?’ asked by the Sphinx is a rhetorical question, the answering of which would imply the recognition of her existence. Yet, Oedipus ignores the questioner, he slays her, and so he becomes a man, if not the man. Same as in Gramsci’s Black Marx, the tautology of this relationship is implicit in this form of ‘encounter’. But can we even call this an encounter? Since who does Oedipus meet at the crossroads after all, but himself?

Oedipal logic relies on the following justifications -woman asks to be raped, the black body asks to be disciplined, and the sphinx asks to be slain, simply because she was at his crossroad, preventing his return.

We argue that the ‘return’ ontology is at the heart of the classical patriarchal and colonial experience, while the dismissal of a dialectical approach (structural analysis of oppression) adds a postmodern twist to the classic form of power, resulting in a defanging of the oppressed all the while dismissing the systemic violence on which the core logic of power is built. At the same time, the current fashionable revulsion against essentialism is nothing but an extension of the same old misogyny and racism by which the violence of structural othering has produced the body of the other as an unrepresentable lack. Disgusted by its construct, by its marking of the other, patriarchy (same as white supremacy), at historical times of structural excess denounces the ‘monster’ of its construct, in turn creating the absolute Other of his world, the living dead. That is why the essence of a subtractive ontology has nothing to do with the essence of a generative ontology, the two being completely disjunct. That is why it is important to assert that patriarchy is essentialist in a generative-ontological sense; the fusion of biology and destiny is forged by patriarchy (the social, each other). Yet to be essentialist in a subtractive-ontological sense, means to simply acknowledge the structural formation of corporeality and historical consequences of this marking. Subtractive ontology has no space for a handful of tired clichés of (generative) essentialism: that there is any part of ‘woman’ that will continue after the revolution, that there is a substance of ‘womanhood’ that could ever be isolated from patriarchal ideals or incidental patterns in a constructed population, that there is any correlation between appearance/biology and destiny that is metaphysical i.e. not historically constructed. So next time I hear the cry essentialist! thrown our way, I will stop and ask- What? Wait, what is your ontology?

[1] Catherine Malabou, Changing Difference

[2] Here I was originally going to use Absolute instead of Supernatural (in reference to Hegel’s Absolute), but I find that the Absolute has gendered connotations of the Man subject. In the sense that being is placed on the side of the teleological becoming of its potentiality. The becoming in this sense sounds too internal to the structure for it to ever collapse into itself that its not. I understand that this becoming in a way entails the collapse, yet I mostly find it contradictory (and knowing that this contradiction is part of the impossibility of this claim) to accept the predetermination of the collapsed being placed within the subject in the goal of self completeness. The Absolute obtaining its self-realization- Absolute knowledge places the event within the logic of becoming. Yet event cannot be self induced within the walls of structure, transforming the it/the self not back into its previous self but into the new space of the Other, into the new type of becoming of the other. Supernatural is the name of this becoming which is becoming of the self against its previous self/space of placement. Being in the sense of the Supernatural is half determined, it being part time/history part space, ie. partly chance/force partly reason/structure.

[3] Catherine Malabou, Changing Difference

[4]  Theory of the Subject, Alain Badiou

Introduction (i)


Phallus fears division. Vulnerability is contradictory to its wholesome being. Every division is a reminder of its own nonexistence and it shrieks and growls in fury at every indication that it too is not whole. It grows bigger and more erect; it straightens asymmetry and calls it morals; it spreads morals and names it culture;  it builds bridges and inscribes sciences; it claims knowledge and it invents a tie; it finds a solution and purpose; it creates the concept of child; it constructs more wholes for wholeness and it becomes a member of them; it counts and multiplies; no tradition is traditional enough for the phallus; it invents a condition and prescribes it an antidote; it completes, commands, and determines; it prioritizes wholes by their density, vitality, and stability and calls it a society; it builds schools and invents an altar; it educates and trains weaker wholes to respect the stronger wholes; it invents an individual and it grants it privacy; it designs a home and finds a place for an animal in it; it names an animal; it partitions repetition and calls it time; it extends repetition and calls it history; it steals more wholes to make bigger, better wholes and calls it a nation; it forgets the impossibility of itself; it celebrates and rejoices; it grows bigger and bigger; it spackles, gags, and plugs and calls it sexual experience; it falls into deeper forgetfulness; it grows stiff and huge; it covers the sun; if it sees an unstuffed hole it aims to fill it; it stuffs the hole and forces it to smile; it makes it wear a festive white dress; it marries a hole and calls it a Woman.

A deviation spreads. The gaze shifts towards antiquity. The traces of neighborhoods deepen. Maps of the void. Road twists and turns. From door to door, scraping in ancestral basements. Inherited relics. Dusty picture frames. White gowns of lace. Smell of blood and iron. Mary had a child. Ruins collapse ruins. Imprinted in marble, hole once captured. Memories to last, to outlast; meant to fade the shadow, but deepened the hole. What is this story once told. They spoke of {   } beauty that would glow and save the day. The voice that poured from {   } rose lips twinkled like a clear spring. The space as light and fair as an unfurnished chamber. It was named fragile, incomplete, incomprehensible. Transparent walls, too thin, too many holes. They spackled and fixed, built a house. Trapped between the bricks. Heavy bronze gates shut. Columns and sculptures to remind of what was not yet. They dug a cellar deep and dark and said what was in it, they said what to dream.

Deviation widens. Looking deeper. Artifacts traced, blindness grows. Brushing off the earth. Lines sharpen, silhouettes identified, names recovered. Clay pots and jugs, painted with meaning. They speak of other “correct” names once used. But {   } name is not here. It must have faded. Crickets and citrus trees rage with the sound of lack. Listen.

Deviation expands, envelopes the whole. There is no more gaze but the eternity of the wholeness once preserved. Relics stacked on relics cover the flat earth. The (anti) human as the historian of atrocity. But there is a deeper shadow. Longing for/from the lack. The cat has faded, but the smile still hangs heavy over the horizon. Nothing is certain. Again.

Calloused predicate to naming. A set that claims to belong to itself, claims to be correct, perfectly straight and total. But being can never form a totality. The set of One can only but function under the brutal enforcement of its impossibility. This enforcement, masked under various seductions, is what constructs the elaborate monument that is the phallus. In this archaic/phallic ontology, woman can only be but excluded. Patriarchy is a claim to the whole of being, while there isnone.




Hole is the errant subset included in all sets, to the count that claims the whole. This subset is the immanent and impredicative/indiscernible errant mark. In the phallic count she is not what constitutes the known and the named, not what is legible to the phallic, but all that is an exception to it, everything that the succession of phallic order misses and is in turn the force that is constitutive of the metonymy of the phallus.

There are two women: the woman of phallic marking and the woman that contradicts the phallic marking. They are one and the same insofar as One that is is the one of two. There is the woman of One: marked, framed, othered, and inverted into its enforced essence. Woman of two: divided, split, resistant, and perverse. These two compose the one-in-the-same paradoxicality of the name woman, revealing the impossibility of the wholeness of the name, thus making transparent the violence of phallic operations. The Woman we will speak of is a subject that has come to realize its interior unity with the hole. Her subject is defined by shedding the determination applied onto her by the phallus, she projects herself into the destructive battle against the patriarchal operation. Othered by the phallic symbolic order she acts as a force, subtracting from and recomposing the logic of the world that carved her body, trapped her mind and named her Other. Shedetermines herself from herself, against the internal form of her former cage. She is only a woman insofar as she is an obstacle to the phallus, simultaneously, she is not a woman: she is the hole.

We will speak of the historical Woman/hole (the force) and the structural Woman/whole (the name). The new nameforbids the new name, and presupposes it. We insist that the isolated analysis of either history or structure sews the ground for essentialism or structural determinism, both of which lock the subjective suture of the hole to the vacuum of the phallic ideology. There is no essential woman, no woman that is named correctly or incorrectly. Hole is not a sulky subject mourning the misplaced essence. Hole is a perverse force that acts against the imposed essence that is the foreclosure in the phallic name. Looking at the relationship of the structural and historical will help us to leave aside the empirical approximations applied on biological determinants of the name Woman, and construct a political subject that is as much defined by its act and force as its structural marking and name.

To choose the study of force paired with the name is not to claim the priority of the structural dialectic over the historical dialectic, or to somehow claim that we can ever rid the subject of its structural inscription, rather it is an effort to shift the bracket of the feminist/communist subject to the brink of a collision of history and the subtractive suture of its void.

To prioritize the structural dialectic would be to fully deploy our arguments through the phallic symbolic. Structural dialectic only reads the side of the whole. This side claims: a hole as disappearance, whose effect is the whole/place from which it has disappeared. Thus force/hole is only registered as a lack from this side of the dialectic. Nothing has taken place, but the place/whole. “To think sexual difference starting from the male universal is to think it as already thought, that is, to think it through the categories of a thought that is supported by the non-thinking of difference itself.”1 Within the patriarchal universal, woman is placed in the position of eternal lack. Her marking pre-defines her position within this world. If she resists from this predetermined place of marking she can only acquire rights within the same world that marked her to begin with. Thus she will still remain the woman marked as lacking, but perhaps with a cosmetic resurfacing of her former cage.

To prioritize the historical dialectic away from the structural would be to assume the position of an outside in relation to the structural dialectic, which assumes the possibility of total purification from the structural placement of the name. Structure here is assumed as pure oppression. Hence no name can ever be affirmed from this side, since the name in itself is seen only as a foreclosed wholeness. By assuming the outplace to a structure, it directly antagonizes with the oppressive structures and in turn only affirms them. Valorizing the force over and in separation from the structure implies that every name is a totalitarian threat to a force. Since her participation in the construction of the name is only seen as her submission to the phallic order, any struggle seems a priori lost from this position. Lack is eternally privileged and thus woman can only but continue leaking.

We aren’t satisfied with isolation of either of these positions, since each of them only offers nothing but another submission to the phallic definition. We do not want to inhabit a comfier cage within which we must bring forth more phalluses. We insist on the total shattering of this order; this is why we must aim to utter the impossible. The pitch that we evoke must split the matter from its atomist stupor. We must start from the beginning while at the same time looking backwards to the historical movement of power.  But we do not want to prioritize the historical dialectic over and in separation from the structural; that is a dead end in itself. We understand the difficulty and impossibility of this project, but as we feel the totality of our situation, we must remind ourselves of the composite of bricks that constructs this psychic and material foreclosure. There is nothing domination thrives more on than the consensus of the compliant. To see the name as always already doomed would be to submit to the current dominant conception of the name. Not all names are the same. Some name the Void. Thus we must utter the impossible and throw the dice. We must tread in the impossible, between structure and history where we carve the new. But to do so there must first be a We.

What is this foggy concept woman which binds us as it partitions us? Can we unite under the name that alienates us in its inherent logic? A symptomatic reading of the phallic operation reveals that Woman/lack is that which the phallus puts outside itself as unsayable. Thus can we simply unite under the mark of this phallic definition? Doing so poses a danger of reproducing the structure of the same mark even if we insist on affirming its historical positivity. On the other hand it is dangerous to denounce the mark which is assigned to us by an unexpected othering, as to do so would be dismissive of the material carvings and the historical trace of phallic oppression. We must unite under the identity of Hole, the contradiction to the wholeness, the perversion of the phallic totality. The project of Hole must focus on developing a feminism which will abandon and destroy the phallic measuring stick. For this project we must take apart dominant ontologies as these are the precursors to phallic universals. We must take over the means of production by asking ourselves: what counts as being? Is difference a property and can it have an effect on triggering a material existence? How do properties of difference effect being in itself? What is an object? What constitutes the identity of an object? If form is a necessary quality of an actualized existence to the phallic logic, will matter fall into an eternal, potential becoming, thus always inscribed as lack? What constitutes matter and form? If we agree that ontology is an ideological space like any other form of thought, then we must agree that it too is sexed and is constructed of layers of meaning, ontology upon ontology. Phallus has constructed a world based on a biased measure of being. We must take this world and split it in two.

Hole is not simply the victim and receiver of this name (with all its assumed biological and cultural particulars), but is what constitutes the paradoxical forcing of the very thing that is illegal to the phallic order: limit, interruption, castration. We must force the perversion. What constitutes a political subject is our alliance under the name of Hole. It is the naming of the impossible. There is no sexual relationship between polarized genders as there is no class relation between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. This is the impossibility that hole must name. Hole names a destruction of that which did not exist. Does that mean that Hole does not exist as well? On the contrary, all that exists is the marking of the Hole, the revolution that is the collective marking of the of the impossible, the scission of force and structure. If lack is marked as eternally nonexistent, Hole marks the impossibility of the lack. Nothing has taken place except the Hole. Hole is an impossible event, like all true events. What constitutes the Hole? It is a historical process of perversion of the logic that marks it. Hole exists everywhere where the political outplace is marked, as a proof of this contradiction. It exists by re-carving itself. What about the phallus? Does phallus exist as a subject? Phallus is a name for a historical being that has not been a subject for a long time. Phallus only makes a place for itself, the name of which is patriarchy. That is why we are not satisfied by mere subtraction from this place, since this place is already constructed by our absence from it. We must impose our perversion to the concept of a place as such, and be the violent appearance of the empty signifier in this phallic kingdom, the piercing gaze of the sphinx. Through this spectrum of greys we must force a new color. There is nowhere to flee. Lack qua Hole must become a destruction.

Patriarchy is a grey tomb painted with blue sky and fluffy clouds. We gazed at this sky for decades, rejoicing in its presence over our heads. But we found a crack in the paint, it grew into an aperture and now the whole dome has fallen.

We are perverse.

1. Adriana Cavarero et al., Diotima: Il pensiero della differenza sesualle (Milan: La Tartaruga, 1987), quoted from Sexual Difference, The Milan’s Bookstore collective.