What makes becoming-woman even more controversial as well as important is that Deleuze and Guattari are very clear that there is no becoming-man. There can be no becoming-man because man is majoritarian and all becomings are becomingminoritarian. In phallocentrism, this is an absolutely true claim and what makes this less problematic is their emphasis that the molar man is much more specific with regard to his race and class (white and wealthy). They are not ignoring the existence of differences between men, which go beyond race and class as well; however, “the majority in the universe assumes as pregiven the right and power of man” (291). The privileging of masculinity is pervasive and that is why they are so adamant that all becomings come through becoming-woman since her position is most directly impacted and effected by the privileging of man. The feminist response to this will be elaborated in the next chapter, but it is not only the feminist theorists that find this to be a problematic claim. Brian Massumi writes in his book A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Deleuze and Guattari’s formulation of the concept ‘becoming-woman’ is indeed sexist. The burden of change is placed on women, since it is their cliché that is singled out. They do not dwell on the possibility of a similarly revolutionary becoming-man that would push the masculine stereotype beyond its threshold of recuperation (following, for example, strategies of the kind employed by some segments of the gay and lesbian S/M communities who theatricalize ‘masculinity’ in order to take it to a deconstructive extreme). It would be impossible for a straight man to become-man in this way, since in doing so he would not be becoming other than he already is but rather staying the same, only more so. (89) As mentioned earlier, Deleuze and Guattari are not denying that Man as the molar category consists of people and groups that are marginalized despite the privilege of “masculinity.” Not all men are created equal under the generic term “man.” Deleuze and Guattari would consider the mockery of masculinity by taking it to its limits and extremes an imitation. It is still affirming the dominance and majoritarian status that man has. Massumi is arguing for the possibility of becoming-man, to push man beyond his limits. He argues his point using the example of homosexual men in S/M communities, and how they can be seen as becoming-man by subverting molar identity in their mockery of masculinity. This mockery, although in a different context could be seen as transgressive, is not a becoming since it revolves around the very molar identity of man and in some ways, it reaffirms the dominance of masculinity. On a different level, Deleuze and Guattari argue that transvestites, dressing up as women by using make up and wigs are imitating as well because it reverts back to molar identities and pregiven notions of what is expected from each sex. Therefore, masculinity does not need to become any more masculine, any more of man. On the contrary, it needs to become-minoritarian, becomemolecular and dismantle the standards and norms that come with the pregiven privileging of man. Furthermore, becoming-man seems in itself problematic according to Massumi’s account. The heterosexual man cannot become-man, since he, more so than the homosexual man, needs to undertake a becoming, and his molar identities of masculinity and heterosexuality give him more privilege. If he cannot undergo a certain becoming because his heterosexuality excludes him, all becomings would be lost to him. Deleuze and Guattari demonstrate that even the minoritarian (woman, child, animal) has a molar identity that necessitates a becoming.
Deleuze and Guattari are very clear that there is no becoming-man There can be no becoming-man because man is majoritarian and all becomings are becomingminoritarian the majority in the universe assumes as pregiven the right and power of man The privileging of masculinity is pervasive it is not only the feminist theorists that find this to be a problematic claim. , Deleuze and Guattari’s formulation of the concept ‘becoming-woman’ is indeed sexist. The burden of change is placed on women, since it is their cliché that is singled out. They do not dwell on the possibility of a similarly revolutionary becoming-man that would push the masculine stereotype beyond its threshold of recuperation It would be impossible for a straight man to become-man in this way, since in doing so he would not be becoming other than he already is but rather staying the same, only more so. Deleuze and Guattari would consider the mockery of masculinity by taking it to its limits and extremes an imitation. It is still affirming the dominance and majoritarian status that man has This reaffirms the dominance of masculinity Deleuze and Guattari argue that transvestites, dressing up as women by using make up and wigs are imitating as well because it reverts back to molar identities and pregiven notions of what is expected from each sex. Therefore, masculinity does not need to become any more masculine, any more of man becoming-man seems in itself problematic The heterosexual man cannot become-man, since he, more so than the homosexual man, needs to undertake a becoming, and his molar identities of masculinity and heterosexuality give him more privilege