Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Like sex? Dare to talk about it? UNCLE TOM!

Darnit, I'm not done being angry. Twisty's new post on sex-positive feminism is so goddamn narrow-minded. There's so much in it about wanting to restrict the actions of women for their own good, to keep them from playing into the Patriarchy. I'll try to quote rather than rephrase here, so as to avoid "strawman" accusations as much as possible.

...“sex positive” feminists focus on is the ability to accept themselves as sexual, which they only attain by presenting a version of themselves that others readily find acceptable and have since way before I was born. Would you feel so empowered by your sexuality if you didn’t have a receptive audience?
First of all, not everything in sex-positivism is readily acceptable to society. I'm pretty sure that my posts about getting cut up in bed or embracing the sexuality of fat people aren't winning me any mainstream-patriarchy popularity contests. And secondly, even when my views do fit with the mainstream, they're still my views. Tell me I'm wrong if you must, but don't tell me "you don't really think that."

I’m “sex positive,” (stupid term) by the way, and I think that this label is completely misused by practically everyone as a way of insinuating that those who disagree with their self-exploitation are somehow anti-sex.
Self-exploitation? I have to admit, I do a lot of that; I make me buy me stuff, I send me to work my shifts for me, and yes, I even make me have sex with my boyfriend. But here she seems to be using "self-exploitation" to mean exhibitionism. If a woman makes a free choice to show her stuff to the world, because she gets off on it or because she wants to be popular or get paid, that is her decision to make. And if you start telling her that she's not allowed to do that because it might make the patriarchy happy (as a side effect of her happiness), you're constraining women's freedom and you end up on the same side as the misogynist puritans.

It’s an expedient justification, a way to rebrand what everybody does when they’re in their twenties, which is to drink too much and screw a lot, as a cool 21st-century-activist political activity.
Don't know who brought drinking into it, but screwing is political, when I do it on my own terms and don't allow anybody to shame me for it. Sexuality is only one battleground of feminism, and it may be a fun one, but it's a battleground nonetheless.

What do I mean by “sexy feminism”? Suicide Girls. Bust magazine. BDSM. The “position” that women should be free to “choose” femininity if that’s what bangs their box. The idea that embracing sexploitation is “empowering.” The notion that women “can do what we want despite patriarchy.”
"Scare" "quotes" "sure" "are" "fun"! I don't know much about SG or Bust, but I sure as hell know BDSM and I didn't get into it because a man told me to, I got into it out of my own twisted desires. And telling me that oh, they must not really be my desires, no woman could actually be a pervert herself so they must be the product of some internalized misogyny, is hideously stupid and condescending. Denying female sexual desire is, once again, putting the radfems and the patriarchs in the very same boat.

And yeah, women can choose femininity, they can show off their sexuality, and they can do pretty much what they please. I'm not telling them they have to, if modesty's your thing then go hog wild, but it's not right to tell other women not to express themselves.

We’re living in a war zone and orgasms are a dime a dozen. The performance of pornulated, dude-appeasing sex moves just isn’t important enough to form the basis of an entire political ideology.
Oh, I'm not going to claim that I'm saving the world here, but that doesn't make it worthless. This attack on sex-positivism is like going to the dog food drive and yelling "don't you care about starving people?!?"--the fact that it's not the most important thing ever doesn't mean that sexuality is insignificant.

And if receiving sexual pleasure the way I want it is dude-appeasing, all I can say is that it's also so damn lady-appeasing that I think it's a fair deal.

I propose third, easy-breezy alternative to the suffocating conformity demanded by this tiresome positive vs. negative binary thought system: sex-neutralism. Get busy, don’t get busy, whatever!
That is, I believe, a very moderate-sounding way of telling women who like sex to shut up. "Oh okay, they can have their lifestyle, but gosh, they don't have to talk about it."

I like sex, I like equality, I think sexuality matters, and I'm not going to shut up.

36 comments:

  1. Ack! Crappity crap. I didn't read or Twisty's blog before checking up the last post. I guess the stuff Twisty's and her commentors are doing is part of the creepy Internet mob dynamic I was trying to talk about. I mean, I respect her intelligence and a lot of the stuff she says, but the whole "let's pick some random blogger and jump on her" is just bullying.

    Also, a thought on BDSM. Play parties are one of the few settings where I've felt I could seek out sex without the men turning into creepy wolves. Sure, whacking people is not a magical cure for sexism and I don't want to suggest kink is without its problems, but the overall culture has always struck me as a lot healthier. (Plus, you know, all those pretty men to whack.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I'd known you were going to do this, I'd have had Stingray pick up more popcorn while we was at the grocery store.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Burke - "let's pick some random blogger and jump on her"

    You mean like I do? Ah well, Twisty's a whole lot bigger than me (blogospherically), she can take it.

    (I can take it too; as long as they're confined to the relevant posts and don't include personal attacks, I don't mind a flood of opposing comments. I think their ideas are wrong, but I don't think it's wrong for them to come to my blog to disagree with me.)

    The BDSM community has lovely feminist aspects and it has nasty misogynist aspects, I can't really call it sinner or saint. Nonetheless I am impressed by the respectful and accepting nature of the best BDSM groups--they create a space where women, including older and bigger women, can be sexual without being mocked or horndogged.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally, as a moderate feminist who enjoys a bit of traditional femininity (hey, I happen to enjoy hair dye and tight shirts occasionally), I really like the fact that these radfem opinions seem to be telling me that not only is my taste both in bed and out not my own, but that my opinions (and, as an extension, my identity) shouldn't exist.

    Trying not to be bitchy towards Twisty, seeing as I've only read a few of her posts in passing, but I wonder if she's aware of the fact that most female practitioners of BDSM (at least the ones I've met) are middle-aged? Personal experience may not line up with all the data here, but the perverts I've met (and gotten along with), for the most part, are not looking for excuses to justify their "slutty 20s".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marika - A lot of sex-positive advocates, kinky or not, are way past "silly slutty kid" age--Carol Queen, Annie Sprinkle, Betty Dodson, Susie Bright--these women are not young girls trying to justify their youthful indiscretions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're spot on.

    Anything can be a tool or a trap, but it's not my god-damn business to be the thought police- and it's no one else's, either.

    Is a lot of porn aimed at a male audience? Yeppers. Doesn't mean some women don't enjoy some porn, and if they do, it certainly doesn't mean they've somehow given in to The Man. As far as sex goes, I'd like to say, I like pizza, too. And I- much as I hate to admit it- am a just past thirty-five white male. Guess that means women can't like pizza? No, it doesn't. Anymore than the fact that I lack two x chromosomes somehow makes me a rapist or a slave owner, or both. Jesus.

    If people are doing what they choose to do, of their own free will, who is attempting to oppress who? Why is it wrong for a religious fundamentalist to tell an unmarried woman that she shouldn't have/enjoy sex, but it's somehow right for a supposed feminist to deliver essentially the same message?

    ReplyDelete
  7. J.R. - Here's a comment on that post that gives you an idea what radfems think of choice (this comment is sarcastic, as indicated by the "right"):

    But feminism is all about giving women choices, right, and not about questioning the choices we make or thinking about how these “personal” choices affect women’s status in general.

    I believe that somewhere in her sarcasm and scare quotes she just said that The Movement is more important than freedom of choice.

    I have no use for any movement that tells me "in order to be liberated from stupid rules, first you gotta follow our rules..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. "-- “sex positive” feminists focus on is the ability to accept themselves as sexual, which they only attain by presenting a version of themselves that others readily find acceptable and have since way before I was born."
    "The performance of pornulated, dude-appeasing sex moves --"
    "By the way, you can’t “do what you want despite patriarchy.”"

    Isn't it a little bit ironic how well it all fits with Figleaf's "no sex class"? Women don't *really* want sex as sex is dirty and women are pure, we've just been brainwashed into thinking we do, or we're trying to get some benefits from the patriarchy...

    Damn. Am *I* now claiming other people's opinions aren't their own?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I did go look (at Twisty's post, not the comments) before I read yours, and got a good laugh at the straw-sexposfeminist.

    I'm middle-aged, and fat. The last time I wore heels and "regular" makeup (I've "gothed up" since then, but even that I haven't done for a few years) was as a bridesmaid at my sister's wedding almost 13 years ago. I've never shaved my legs or my pubes, and haven't shaved my 'pits in, I dunno, 20 or 25 years. That's what this sex-positive feminist looks like.

    Then there's this thing about "calling themselves sex-positive implies the rest of us are sex-negative!" Um, no; that's what someone who thinks in rigid binaries infers from it. Or, to be fair, reflects deep concern about what binary thinkers might infer - IMO, there's a certain amount of legitimate cause for concern there, but there's only so much one can do about others' inferences.

    In my experience, opinion, and usage, sex-pos feminism emphasizes the positive aspects of sex and sexuality as a core issue, and strives to address the negative aspects; in other forms of feminism, sexuality is peripheral or neutral, or the emphasis is on the negative aspects and how to address them. (Hmm, not bad for composing off the top of my head, if I do say so myself.)

    I dunno that being a sex-pos feminist makes me a fun feminist. There are quite a few men who've found me intransigent, non-compliant, and no damn fun at all. Some of them were men I found quite interesting sexually, until circumstances revealed their disregard for my agency - I'm not talking rape here, just attempts at verbal coercion in the face of my, "I'm interested, but now is not the time."

    It appears to be the contention of at least some of the feminists who dismiss the sex-pos stance, that this disregard has a material effect on my agency, even when the attempt at coercion fails. I disagree. (I do agree, though, that crap like that is an attempt to override a woman's agency, and that, whether it succeeds or fails, it's offensive and smacks of mysogyny.)

    I wonder if the reasoning behind that contention bears any relation to the idea - I don't recall if Twisty herself supported this one, or if it was just what the commenter she was quoting said - that one cannot have control of one's sexuality unless one has control over how others respond to one. I can't see how that's attainable at all, but if it's a common POV, that would explain a lot of things.

    And there I go again, making long comments here that I really ought to be posting about in my own blog.

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete
  10. Larus - Yeah, I've been trying not to ascribe other people's opinions to anything other than their own wrong thinking. But I will say that I've heard the "women don't really want sex!" song before, alright.

    Sunflower - No, you see, all sex-positive women are dumb 20-year-old sluts, and if they're not, (actual quote re Betty Dodson et al) "They’re silly young kids who never grew up." ("No true Scotsman...")

    And there are anti-sex people although I hadn't previously thought of radical feminists as those people; I was thinking more of fundamentalist Christians and the people who teach "abstinence-only" sex ed and don't want to give girls Gardasil because they might think sex was okay if they don't have cancer to keep them in line.

    Oh, and the staff of Cosmo, obviously.

    I'd rather be a fun feminist than an absolutely-no-fun-at-all feminist. Anyway it's not like I let every man in town pass me around. I think sex-positivism has actually helped me speak up and avoid sexual coercion--by making good sex okay, it distinguishes bad sex. When you say "all sex is exploitative," you fail to do enough to recognize and prevent sex that's, you know, actually exploitative.

    The more I read, the more I think the fundamental radfem problem is that they seek a perfect world. One in which everyone is exactly equal and not a scrap of exploitative or dominant intent lurks in a single heart or mind. And they're not willing to make any concessions as to how to have an okay life in an okay world. They're so focused on "utopia or bust!" that they can't recognize any goodness or freedom in a non-utopia.

    Oh, and if all else fails, just point out that discussing sexuality is so frivolous when there are children starving in cages somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Silly young kids who never grew up." Well, I have been known to say I never stopped being a teenage rebel, so maybe that one's not so straw. Beats the heck out of basically being told I'm Britney Spears.

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't recall if Twisty herself supported this one, or if it was just what the commenter she was quoting said - that one cannot have control of one's sexuality unless one has control over how others respond to one. I can't see how that's attainable at all, but if it's a common POV, that would explain a lot of things.

    If that's true, given that someone else's reaction to your sexuality is an expression of THEIR OWN sexuality, they're seeking to... control someone else's sexuality.

    Which would make the contention of some men that radical feminists really just want to reverse the oppression absolutely correct, if true.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Labrat - It's absolutely true. I participated a little in the comment thread in that post so now it's gone even wackier (complete with someone officiously ordering me out of their safe space, apparently I was type-raping them or something), and when they say "we just want men to stop seeing us as sexual objects," well... I think it's wrong for men to see women only as sexual objects but what you're talking about there ladies is castration.

    (Or just massive paranoia; seems like a lot of people are posting "I can't leave the house without being constantly catcalled and propositioned and groped" and... damn, if that's true you must be a whole lot cuter than me. I mean, it's happened, but it's not like swarming horny men are a major problem in my life.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let no one say I type-raped their private part of the net. Except Holly, I guess.

    "When you aren’t paying in pro-bono blow jobs, they aren’t going to give you what you want."

    Actually, folks, they're right. This "sexual manipulation," these "pro-bono blowjobs," it's just a trade, we're doing it all to get something out of the guys. Something we very much desire...

    Is it approval? No. Is it popularity? No. Is it emotional fulfillment? Nope.

    It's sexual pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larus - Exactly! The denial of female sexual desire (or the assumption that if women desire anything, it's gentle cunnilingus under candlelight) drives me nuts and it's one of the things the radfems seem to have in common with the misogynists.

    I don't "pay in" blowjobs, I "get off on" blowjobs.

    (Although sometimes they also make me happy emotionally, and so long as they're not my only route to emotional fulfillment I don't think there's anything wrong with that.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why do you keep equating women in submissive roles or being in BDSM as SEX? I find that very disturbing.
    I also find disturbing your saying that if we objectified men as much as we do women than it's all fine and dandy. What about men of color? They have been sexually objectified as "King Kongs" and "rapist" animals with bestial sexualities and large members who attack "lily-white" women. This stereotype has been alive and well since the days of slavery. Sexually objectifying anyone, even men of color, serves the patriarchy.
    Feminism is not just about individual choices, it's about looking at the bigger picture of patriarchy and how sexism is ingrained in all aspects of our lives. It's about looking at how patriarchy, white supremacy, and classism affect EVERYONE. One of the most basic tenets of feminism is that the personal IS political.
    And I just came from Twisty's and I read the whole post and read a lot of her posts and I think you REALLY twisted her words around and/or misinterpreted it. But I am not surprised as radical feminists are often made out to be "nazis" and are not understood/listened to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lara - I guess it's because I'm a BDSM submissive, so it kinda is sex to me. But I'm certainly not saying it should be that way for everyone! Just that it should be respected as an option.

    The reason I think men should be objectified (That's really a bad way to put it. "Presented sexually in the media" would be better.) is that when every group is presented as sexual, there's no sex class or no-sex class. Sexiness becomes a matter of individuals rather than genders.

    Personal choices are more important to me than anything. "The personal is political" seems to imply that when I'm alone with my boyfriend in my own bedroom I have to act according to political goodness rather than my own desires. I don't bloody think so. When I submit to my boyfriend, I'm not saying "women are submissive to men," I'm saying "Holly is submissive to Brandon." The personal is personal.

    I actually tried very hard to not twist her words on this post, that's why I used direct quotes. It's possible that I'm just stupid. I am just a silly young slut after all.


    (Seriously, you don't see the connection between people saying "sexyfeminists are ruining things for the good girls!" and plain old-fashioned slut-shaming?)

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'd like to note -- as I pass through chasing links around the blogworld -- that the original usage of 'the personal is political' was exactly opposite to how it gets used nowadays. I do think the original essay is well worth reading; I've linked it a couple of times from my place, but for ease of stuff, it's here.

    Instead of "your personal must conform to my political", the popular implementation thereof, it was more "Don't blow off my housework disparity, my childcare concerns, my dealing with pressure to conform to beauty standards, and my concerns about having a healthy, stable, and satisfying relationship as not relevant to feminism."

    People who try to get their political into my personal, who figure that -- to be on-topic for this post -- my sexuality should be subordinated to some political vision, they're going to run into my personal being my political, and the fact that I'm not the sort of doormat who's willing to be erased and have my legitimate "personal" concerns squelched so that I can be mowed down to make way for someone else's revolution.

    "Your ideology is not my dom."

    Signed,
    one of the "apolitical" ones

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'll quote from the intro, as I found the line I was looking for right after I hit 'publish', as is the way of things:

    "But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called "personal problems" into the public arena - especially "all those body issues" like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man."

    ReplyDelete
  20. dw3t-hthr - Ah. That puts the quote in context. It's a way to keep politics from saying "get your personal issues out of this," but it's not a two-way street; persons are still free to say "get your politics out of this."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Holly – I just wanted to say I admire your chutzpah for standing up to Twisty and her distortions. Ultimately, trying to change the rigid views of Twisty and her commentariat is basically about as productive as pissing into the wind, but I admire the effort.

    BTW, have you seen this upcoming blog carnival?:

    http://feministsexcarnival.blogspot.com/

    It sounds like something that you might be interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Iamcuriousblue - I didn't know about that (or even what "blog carnival" means), but I want to be part of it now! Thanks for the link!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "And there are anti-sex people although I hadn't previously thought of radical feminists as those people"

    You've probably never come across Sheila Jeffreys, then.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A blog carnival, as far as I can tell, is sort of a repeated link festival: the host has a subject of focus, people send in links to posts that are relevant to the carnival, and the host picks out the best of them to publish. Next week/month/timeperiod, the hosting moves to the next blogger down the line, and so on.

    The thing I find really mindblowing about the origin-period of "the personal is political" is the way the people who were using that were fighting for things like abortion to get accepted as political concerns; me, being younger, I grew up with abortion's place as a political football being taken for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dw3t-Hthr said:

    "The thing I find really mindblowing about the origin-period of "the personal is political" is the way the people who were using that were fighting for things like abortion to get accepted as political concerns; me, being younger, I grew up with abortion's place as a political football being taken for granted."

    It goes back to the 1960s, when a lot of the "old left" Marxist types refused to see feminist issues as political, and instead confined them to the "personal" or, "bourgeois individualism". Ironically, this rhetoric has gone pretty much full circle in radical feminism.

    This statement by AngryYoungFemme struck me as one worthy of the most brain-dead Marxist:

    "Radical feminism is about getting to the root of misogyny and nipping it at the bud. Not taking on a branch or a leaf of the misogyny tree and trying to take the whole thing down that way. Once women are equal and respected and considered HUMAN like men are, THEN we can talk about everybody getting naked without patriarchal connotations."

    Ah yes, come THE REVOLUTION we can finally let loose. But until then....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Labrat - The control-of-others thing is one of the aspects of all this that I'm musing about on my LJ; I just haven't got to that bit yet.

    Dw3t-hthr - Heya! This is probably a blog you'll want to read from time to time. As soon as Holly mentioned that slogan/aphorism, I thought, "Gotta post the link!"; I'm tickled (but not even remotely surprised) that you beat me to it.

    Curiousblue - Thanks for the heads-up about the Carnival! That's one I'm definitely interested in following and possibly in taking part in. I've also bookmarked your blog (I make a point of building connections with feminist men; also, we seem to have other political common ground) and the PPA one, so you'll likely see me around from time to time.

    Holly - I'm so glad you opened this can of worms, and had the guts or thick skin or whatever it is to keep it open. I'm learning stuff that I think is important to know - f'ex, I didn't realize the Marxist strain was still this active within feminism - and I love the way that new connections are being built and existing ones reinforced by it.

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete
  27. Curiousblue: Wups, just re-checked dates on posts - it appears that the only point in bookmarking your blog is to read archives.

    S.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sunflower - Another slogan that's come to mind lately is "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

    And if you enjoy reading kerfluffles there's yet more here. Shame I can't post there, but I suppose there's nothing I could say that would be productive anyway.

    Still, it's bizarre as all hell to see people to saying "No one that crazy could be for real, I call troll," because I stated that sex is personal rather than political. I mean, uh... wow. You'd think I'd said the Earth was flat.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So while I deeply wish that the personal was 100% personal in sex and politics and pretty much any other aspect of life (for instance I really wish it wasn't relevant to anyone whether I believe in any kind of god or not), I know I don't live or act in a vacuum and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise. Of course I'll still do things I enjoy, but I'll do my damnedest to know the social and political and historical contexts and suchforth in which I'm acting and blahdilalalah. All of which is just to say: I really wish you'd chosen a different phrasing for the title of this post, what with all the nasty history and identity politics all wrapped up in the phrase "Uncle Tom."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sunflowerp -

    I don't post on my own blog much anymore, as I've most of my blogging activity is now on Blog of Pro-Porn Activism. However, I too will be participating in the Carnival (in fact, I'll probably write the post tonight) and that will be on the IACB blog.

    Re: Marxist strain in feminism – I don't think many radfems would describe themselves as "Marxist", in fact, radical feminism arose in the late '60s/early '70s as a reaction against the male-dominated/traditional sex role-oriented Marxist milieu. Of course, radical feminism quickly evolved in its own right into something that rivaled most Marxist-Leninist sects in its sheer authoritarianism and dogmatism. (Basically, it paralleled the devolution of much of the "New Left" into something as dogmatic and authoritarian as the "Old Left".)

    And actually, if you look at early sex-positive feminism, among its founders there were actually many socialist feminists and a few founding radical feminists (notably Ellen Willis, who coined the term "pro-sex feminism"). Somebody like "Sean" over at the "I love men" thread is, I believe, actually rather unrepresentative of socialist feminists on the issue of sex work.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous - I guess the thing is, whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant, to good people. And do you really want to live your life catering to bad people? Except for the things where I physically can't do as I please (i.e., post naked pictures under my real name and then get a job), I feel like living as if the patriarchy doesn't control me is a very effective way to say "fuck you" to the patriarchy. Being modest because you're afraid patriarchs will look down on you, or conversely because you think they'll like your sexuality a little too much, both seem like capitulation to me.

    And when a member of an oppressed group (yeek, I feel uncomfortable calling myself that, but you know what I mean, a woman) is accused of appeasing the oppressors, I think "Uncle Tom" is a fair expression to use.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't like coming off this way on someone's own blog, but I am getting very frustrated with this.
    First of all Holly, you are dripping with white privilege to totally ignore my point about the objectification of black men. Your white privilege is apparent because you can't even see the connection between sexism and racism: you believe in this abstract world where there's a "marketplace of ideas" and everyone "equally chooses" what position they want to be in. Bullshit. You might want to look up the definition of the term "systematic." Patriarchy is systematic, not some little fad that goes in and out of style. Second of all, wake up and realize that it's the patriarchy making you think you have to flash your tits to be empowered, and that the only way to, or the main way, to define sexuality, is under patriarchal terms. You first say that sex is by definition BDSM and giving oral sex, then you turn around and say you are not defining it as such. You state things as universal then claim they are "only" personal.
    What about black people who performed blackface in those vaudeville shows then? Did that "empower" them or serve the cause for black rights just because they CHOSE to be in those vaudeville shows? Because they're "individuals"? C'mon.

    Holly said:
    "(Seriously, you don't see the connection between people saying "sexyfeminists are ruining things for the good girls!" and plain old-fashioned slut-shaming?)"

    Who the hell ever called you a "slut"? Who ever said radical feminists were prudes or "good girls"?? YOU! Only you, Holly (and the Patriarchy, perhaps). In fact, men like you a whole hell of a lot better for actually thinking you get empowerment points every time you suck dick. Because as long as it serves them in the end and doesn't hurt their male privilege they like it. Men HATE radical feminists precisely because we do not base all of our worth on what they want and perceive. Twisty and feminists like her are not shaming YOU Holly, they are criticizing a whole damned power structure that makes women think they have to be meat envelopes to feel worthy, and that makes men think that women exist for their "sexual needs."
    Seriously, I am barely 23 years old and I am already just amazed at how much you deny the CULTURE we live in. All radical feminists are asking is that we all, including you, reflect on the ways in which we capitulate to the patriarchy in our everyday lives, yes, even in the bedroom. How does that amount to "trying to control women's sexuality"? How? Prove it, if you are going to argue it.
    In fact it appears to me that you passive-aggressively imply that women who simply do not want to have traditional sex with men, or sex with men period, are "prudes" or "self-restricting." WTF? Calling a woman a "prude" is the flipside of calling a woman a "slut." And the only one who has even implicated using those terms or concepts to describe other feminists or women is YOU. So stop trying to shove words in other people's mouths.
    I think you have a very hard time dealing with how all-encompassing patriarchy is, even in your own personal life (it does in everyone's) and I sort of can't blame you. It's depressing as hell. But you know what? I'd rather be honest with myself than lie to myself.
    Oh, also look up the word "context."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lara - I think we're massively misunderstanding each other's positions. I'm going to use direct quotes instead of paraphrases because I know I have a tendency to hyperbole and sarcasm when I try to rephrase other people's arguments.

    First of all Holly, you are dripping with white privilege to totally ignore my point about the objectification of black men.
    You know, I wouldn't mind the objectification of black men if white men were objectified more. Trying to eliminate objectification is impossible--it's too damned close to trying to eliminate sexual arousal, because there will always be people I see who turn me on but I don't have the chance to get to know as persons. So better to objectify everyone equally, and make objectification something that happens to individuals rather than classes.

    Oh, and please don't try to make me feel morally inferior for being white; certainly there's anything superior about it but I didn't automatically become an oppressor just by being born.

    you believe in this abstract world where there's a "marketplace of ideas" and everyone "equally chooses" what position they want to be in.

    I don't know how scare quotes refute the idea that open discussion tends to lead to better ideas than some moral authority pre-picking the good ones. And of course I don't believe everyone can choose to be in any position, that's absurd--but I think they should be able to make the most of the choices they do have.

    Patriarchy is systematic, not some little fad that goes in and out of style.
    It is. But I won't hide my tits because the patriarchy might think I'm a dirty slut, and I won't hide my tits because I'm afraid the patriarchy might like it a little too much. Sometimes seeming to ignore the patriarchy can actually be a very good way to say "fuck the patriarchy."

    Second of all, wake up and realize that it's the patriarchy making you think you have to flash your tits to be empowered, and that the only way to, or the main way, to define sexuality, is under patriarchal terms.

    No. You, not living in my head, cannot tell me why I think my own thoughts. You are just not that psychic. I flash my tits because I like it, and if you respect me at all you have to take my word on that.

    You state things as universal then claim they are "only" personal.
    Like what? I'm gonna need quotes here if you want me to clarify my position.

    What about black people who performed blackface in those vaudeville shows then? Did that "empower" them or serve the cause for black rights just because they CHOSE to be in those vaudeville shows? Because they're "individuals"? C'mon.

    So you would have told black people what to do? Because you knew what was best for them? (Also, black people didn't perform in blackface...)

    Twisty and feminists like her are not shaming YOU Holly, they are criticizing a whole damned power structure that makes women think they have to be meat envelopes to feel worthy, and that makes men think that women exist for their "sexual needs."

    See, when you call me a "meat envelope", I feel a little shamed right there. Also when you tell me that my actions stem don't stem from my own decisions even when I say they do--there's that psychic thing again.


    And there's more to say but I have to go to work. Seeya in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The funny thing is, according to the radfems we all suffer from false consciousness because of what the "patriarchy makes us think". Yet, strangely enough, radical feminism somehow magically stands outside of this all-encompassing system, has figured out The Truth, and as such, is in a position to tell everybody else to examine their shit, until they too arrive at this same Truth.

    I'd love to know what radical feminism's story of special revelation is. Did Andrea Dworkin hear a voice from a burning bush one day back in the 70s?

    Meanwhile, back in the mundane world, there's some rather uncomfortable resemblance between the rhetoric of radical feminism and that of rather old-school patriarchs. But no, I'm sure its only superficial. Radical feminist consciousness is, after all, completely above and beyond having any cultural influence of the patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. More and more it seems like radical feminism is the radical notion that radical feminists are people.

    Other women, well... not their fault or anything, but they just aren't fully conscious of their world, the poor dears.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Holly: I love that Eleanor Roosevelt quote! (And Ann Landers' variation on it: no one can take advantage of you without your consent.)
    ---

    Curiousblue: Yeah, I figured Sean was atypical - there was at least one, and maybe a couple, of others who were arguing from an apparently-somewhat-similar POV, but who didn't use much obvious "Old Left" terminology and may well not have been aware of it as a source of some of their ideas.

    I used "Marxist" more as a way to distinguish the "we can fix other things after the revolution" theme from non-revolution-centred leftishness which still has a strong association with the feminist movement (heck, I'm an example of it myself, in a way), than to refer to conscious Marxism.

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete