That's very interesting. I have a Lil' Kim album, actually. (I first heard of her because I was living in the inner city of New Orleans when she became really popular and there were posters of her everywhere.) I suppose that is supposed to mean horrible things about me or something. But I like the song he refers to, "Queen Bitch". It makes me feel really... tough and powerful when I listen to it. When I worked in the public square and had to deal with a lot of social bullshit and people trying to push me around, I would listen to that song a few times before going out in order to get into the headspace I needed to get into to survive. Is it a highly socially conscious song? Absolutely not. Is it a song about being very powerful, not in spite of, but because of, being female? I think so. Is it a *nice* song? No. Aggression and power and the flaunting of it are not *nice*. But why should women always be nice? It seems the new side of attacking feminists is requiring them to er-um-ah qualify everything they say to be absolutely sure everyone gets the point they don't HATE MEN. Because it is supposed to be every feminists' job to prove she doesn't HATE MEN, and she must say this every other sentence or she will be accused of HATING MEN. This is a waste of energy and is undercutting what feminism needs to accomplish. Women who do anything that shows them as being powerful are attacked as being man-haters. Women who tell the trtuh about how men still treat women on an oerall societal level are accused of being man-haters. Feminists have been trying so hard to disprove this label they have in many instances backed themselves into an inoffensive meek little corner, which is just where the opponents of feminism want us.
The historical reason for this is that feminism developed branches with prominent seeming hostility towards men, and the pendulum is now swinging (back) towards the view that such hostility is counterproductive.
I wouldn't doubt that you're right that the pendulum is again swinging too far.
How about in recognizing that the hostility is somewhat justified due to the continuing dominance of men in every area of power on earth (religion, government, etc.) and the resulting callous and violent treatment of women by all of these institutions, and that this is wrong, should stop, and then we can all get along? (Mm-hmm, in a dream world, I know) I don't think there can be a happy medium until people admit that the endemic violence towards women should be stopped.
I'm not sure you understood my question, but that's OK.
I certainly agree that violence against women, as well as bias against women, are continuing modes of oppression of women that continue to urgently require redress. We continue to live in a world where the self-determination of women is limited by harsh enforcement of rigid gender roles; I do not agree with such enforcement.
Are there any areas of concern in your view with regard to oppression of men and/or boys?
Also; I would say that hostility is not somewhat, but completely understandable- but that it is not justified at all.
It is simply counterproductive. There is reason for us all to be hostile to all sorts of people, but as understandable as it may be, it is generally counterproductive in the long run.
So, I reject hostility, and I reject bitterness, though I can certainly identify with the reasons for their presence.
Yeah, it is counterproductive. Anyway, as an answer to this and to your earlier comment - I would say the comparitive situation of men and women is that, if it were illness, women are like a patient in a hospital who is bedridden with pneumonia and fighting for their life, and men are like a patient who has a bad flu. I can't help but be aware that men have issues they must fight for themselves, and I am supportive of that, but I'm busy trying to protect myself from being legislated back 50-100 years as some conservatives seem so determined to do. (The Vatican's latest diatribe against women who don't obey their husbands, blah-blah-blah, being a case in point.) And I feel like - if men have problems with the role given to them by the estabishment - well, they make up most of the establishment, and women do not, feminists or no, so I don't see what we can do to change that when we still don't have as much power as them. Other than tell people it is wrong to discriminate against men. (Example - my boyfiend had long hair for a long time but eventually had to cut it so he could advance in his career. I think that is really stupid. I can have long hair - why can't he? It doesn't affect my job performance...) Now, I do know that in western countries things are much better than other places, but - sometimes I get the feeling that is just being held over our heads, do you know what I mean? Because I hear some people bring it up and it almost feels like they are saying, "Be glad you have only a somewhat unequal situation here and quit complaining! Because if you get too uppity we'll bring in the Taliban and show you what real suffering is!" But then again, I admit, I am a paranoid sort of person :o
Actually, just to clarify about Cardinal Ratzinger's statement -- it doesn't actually say anything (overtly) such as, women should be quiet and meek and obedient to their husbands. It does, however, remain completely silent on Biblical passages that say this.
Given the history, that silence is exactly the same as endorsing those views.
My problem with Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the bishops is that it endorses gender roles that are fixed. I have no problem with conservative gender roles; my problem is with their fixation and their aggressive enforcement.
In a sense, I feel that he is taking a "hardline stance" in opposition to the gender-differences-don't-exist folk, a hardline stance that reflects the errors it opposes. Gender differences are real; but they are differences in predilection over a population. Attempts to enforce rigidly at the individual level inevitably lead to problems.
The opposite error would consist of pretending that there are no gender-based trends for role preferences, or of demonizing the traditional masculine-dominant/feminine-submissive role division. There is, after all, nothing wrong with such roles for the millions who can be comfortable within them.
There are differences, but it always seems hard to really define them in the end. So yeah, I would agree the rigid definition is the problem, not the recognition of some difference in and of itself. About now I feel like saying in a whiny voice, "Why can't we all just get along?" (Sorry, I find it hard to remain too serious about anything for too terribly long)
I would say the comparitive situation of men and
women is that, if it were illness, women are like a patient in a
hospital who is bedridden with pneumonia and fighting for their life,
and men are like a patient who has a bad flu.
An interesting analogy. Does it express how things feel to you
emotionally, or how you really think things are for men?
Are you really under the impression that oppression for men is just a
temporary, trivial discomfort?
I can't help but be aware
that men have issues they must fight for themselves, and I am
supportive of that
I actually vigorously disagree. I think that men's problems and women's
problems are both people problems that are not fundamentally gendered.
Men suffer wherever women are oppressed, and vice versa. The idea that
men or women must fight for their own issues without the comment or
particpation of the other gender implies independence of male and
female gender issues, an independence that does not exist. The child
that grows up with a chronically unhappy opposite-sex parent is not
sheltered from suffering by the gender difference.
I'm busy trying to protect myself from being
legislated back 50-100 years as some conservatives seem so determined
to do.
A perfect example of what I mean; the possibilites of the current
American climate are terrifying, and require united action by
like-minded progressive individuals, whatever their race or gender.
if men have problems with the role given to them
by the estabishment
- well, they make up most of the establishment, and women do not,
feminists or no, so I don't see what we can do to change that when we
still don't have as much power as them.
That sounds great in theory, but the fact is that it doesn't work that
way. That makes about as much sense as a black radical going into a
trailer park and ranting against the "heirs to white power" that he
found there. Actually, I think that the comparison is instructive; poor
white people and poor black people too often allow race to divide
them when working together would allow greater gain. Similarly, men and
women who are not a part of the establishment should not allow
themselves to be divided by gender.
Be careful also that you do not allow the reality of continuing
oppression to seduce you into oversimplification. Most American wealth
is directly controlled by women, just as most political power is
wielded directly by men. The most important modality of oppression is
not hateful action by men, but rather social expectation expressed
through men as well as women. Men and women are both simultaneously
oppressor and victim- which, as you said, makes untangling the problem
to find a solution a difficult and confusing process.
Now, I do know that in
western countries things are much better than other places
Better in some ways, not better in others. For example, anorexia is a
disease that primarily (though not exclusively) affects the "Western
countries" to which you refer. Again, don't believe the hype.
"Better in some ways, not better in others. For example, anorexia is a disease that primarily (though not exclusively) affects the "Western countries" to which you refer" Good point. I was kind of referring to not believing the hype there, too, because I hear an awful lot that seems to sum up to "You must be grateful for living in our enlightened western society! Everyone everywhere else is worse off in every way!" And I think it's a load of hooey.
"That sounds great in theory, but the fact is that it doesn't work that way. That makes about as much sense as a black radical going into a trailer park and ranting against the "heirs to white power" that he found there. Actually, I think that the comparison is instructive; poor white people and poor black people too often allow race to divide them when working together would allow greater gain. Similarly, men and women who are not a part of the establishment should not allow themselves to be divided by gender." But even when both groups in either situation have problems, the ones who are on the slightly higher end rarely are concerned with bridging the gap to help the others up, but with maintaining the small advantage they do have with great ferocity. Skinhead youth, for example, are often quite poor. But they aren't interested in joining forces with other poor teens of other races - if they were approached by such people, they would probably beat the crap out of them. They don't see solidarity in their situation of poverty. It is an ongoing paradox... how are pacifists to survive against war hawks? How are those who want equality to deal with those who maintain rigid barriers to it? I don't really know all the answerrs. But I do know that I have to take care of myself first.
even when both groups in either situation have
problems, the ones who
are on the slightly higher end rarely are concerned with bridging the
gap to help the others up, but with maintaining the small advantage
they do have with great ferocity.
Absolutely true. But the one thing that is guaranteed not to help is
for black people to decide that all white people with bald heads need
beating up too.
The division is fallacious. Don't buy into it just because other people
are doing so.
It is an ongoing
paradox... how are pacifists to survive against war hawks? How are
those who want equality to deal with those who maintain rigid barriers
to it?
By not erecting false barriers. By emphasising common goals, common
dreams. By not defining enemies on the basis of gender or race. By
emphasising common goals, common dreams.
By allowing defection from the "enemy camp", when it happens.
I do know that I have
to take care of myself first.
Sure. The problem is that it is so easy to allow short-term,
narrow-focus goals to undercut long-term, wide-focus ones...
Yeah. It is hard for me, I have been hurt a lot in my life, and I feel like all the pressure is also on me to fix everything. I don't have a lot of energy to do much beyond pointing out hat I see going wrong. Maybe since I don't have the solution to everything I should not even bother, but I have a big mouth...
It is hard for me, I have been hurt a lot in my
life, and I feel like
all the pressure is also on me to fix everything.
That sucks. I can see why you'd emphasise taking care of yourself
first, then!
I don't have a lot of
energy to do much beyond pointing out hat I see going wrong. Maybe
since I don't have the solution to everything I should not even bother,
but I have a big mouth...
Naah... I think that we all need to be educated by the perspective of
others. I've certainly gained from exchanging views with you!
Plus, identifying the problem is always a crucial first step!
I haven't read the article, as I don't have a washtimes login.
Speaking in general terms, though; the appropriation of power can be opposed for variety of reasons, appropriate and inappropriate.
Inappropriate reasons include attachment to oppressive structures which feminism seeks to eradicate.
Appropriate reasons include the fact that seeking in a one-sided fashion to exert power over others never brings about healthy relationships, justice, or equity. You would know that even d/s relationships are generally healthy only to the degree that the d's seizing of power is balanced by the s granting it.
The seizing of power by the dispossessed is sometimes markedly superior to their previous oppression. In general, though, such seizing can only be regarded as a lesser of evils, an occasional unfortunate necessity, and not as a virtue in itself.
Lil' Kim is a great example. Her songs are powerful and magnetic, but those who live our their relationships in such a fashion discover that such approaches do not bring contentment.
I found it comforting to learn that women are often puzzled by the same riddles we men face. I for one have been stumped by women who improbably claim Lil' Kim and similar sex-obsessed rappers as icons of female empowerment. While the diminutive entertainer's feminine charms are readily apparent, her connection to feminism is far less obvious. The distance from Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Woman" to Kim's "Queen Bitch" is a long way, baby.
Ayana Byrd examines that space in "Claiming Jezebel," one of the essays included in "The Fire This Time." Byrd scrutinizes the hypersexual images of Lil' Kim, Madonna and other entertainers and notes "how precariously drawn the line is between self-determination and co-conspiring in one's own exploitation."
Who is to determine when I (the universal I) am being exploited?
Women have been bound in this American society by Puritanical and Victorian taboos and mores. Notably, there is the sexual double-standard, still prevalent in this late day and age. There is still the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Women are still stigmatized for claiming their sexual selves.
Inappropriate reasons include attachment to oppressive structures which feminism seeks to eradicate.
Appropriate reasons include the fact that seeking in a one-sided fashion to exert power over others never brings about healthy relationships, justice, or equity.
One thing I learned in my Sex, Gender and Power class is that power is inherent in all relationships, especially sexual relationships. It is how that power is negotiated that is key (something that you touched on). It is unfair for men to have all of the overt power, while women are implored to be passive. As a feminist, I do believe it is important for women to break these taboos as much as is it is their desire and as much as it is comfortable. If a woman wants to remain a virgin until she's married, then have six kids and stay at home, I don't have a problem with that. As long as that is her conscious choice and not something that is a societal expectation (which to me is a form of coercion).
I read in my Deviance and Social Control class of men who felt that once a woman had broken the social contract, what we term as the norm--once she had decided to wear something revealing, then she's "asking for it", it being rape or physical abuse. This is not the summary of social scientists; these were actual statements taken from fellows who were in prison for various offenses. This is the fruit of the Madonna/whore dichotomy. When women aren't allowed to manage their own sexuality, men (not all men) feel it is their duty to police the sexual boundaries.
I'm learning that power is something all of us have, and we individually assume that power or give it away. It doesn't help that in American society women are not used to power, and it is not necessarily encouraged that women learn how to wield power. It is threatening; it threatens the known social fabric. But a change in gender roles doesn't necessarily mean that things may fray; such a change may actually strengthen that fabric. But people fear change, especially those already in power, because a gain in power in the dispossessed necessarily means a reduction in power in those who already possess it.
Who is to determine when I (the universal I) am
being exploited?
I've argued both sides of this question. For me, the final answer is
that although outsiders may possess advantageous objectivity,
the opinion of the individual in question is the only true veto.
As long as that is her conscious choice and
not something that is a societal expectation (which to me is a form of
coercion).
I basically agree, with the quibble that not all expectation is
coercion. It all depends on whether or not those expectations are
enforced. Much confusion arises from our tendency not to recognise
subtle enforcement of expectations.
men who felt that once a woman had broken the
social contract, what we
term as the norm--once she had decided to wear something revealing,
then she's "asking for it", it being rape or physical abuse. This is
not the summary of social scientists; these were actual statements
taken from fellows who were in prison for various offenses. This is the
fruit of the Madonna/whore dichotomy. When women aren't allowed to
manage their own sexuality, men (not all men) feel it is their duty to
police the sexual boundaries.
I used to share your view until I worked with violent prisoners, and
discovered that that attitude was not limited to female sexuality. Many
such men also felt that I was "asking" to have my watch taken by having
it visible, and that I was "asking" to have my money stolen by walking
with more-than-an-average amount.
I no longer feel that the attitudes you describe are a reflection of
the Madonna-whore dichotomy. I rather feel that they stem from the (not
unrelated) view that a woman's sexuality is fundamentally the property
of the men around her, combined with the antisocial tendency to
rationalise the taking of whatever is longed-for, by violent means if
necessary; the tendency to feel that attracting their notice
constitutes justification of their response. We cannot dismiss the
patriarchial dismissal of the full humanity of women, such that
violence against them "counts less" than violence against men; but
again, we must note that the men who engage in such dehumanisation are
often willing to similarly dehumanise those of different race/class,
and not merely gender.
So I think that the issue boils down to pathological socialisation of
the men you describe, a pathology that transcends the gender issues of
our current focus, though it certainly impinges directly upon them. But
I suppose that since those so pathologically socialised are usually
men, that it boils down once again to a gender issue, though one with
men as focus instead of women. These things always loop back one upon
the other, as far as I'm concerned- for as we examine the men
concerned, we find that the roots of their pathology often lie in their
(often puritanical) early-childhood environment, and in the
relationship that their parents enjoyed, or likely did not enjoy.
Please note that when I speak of the difficulties with power, that I am
speaking specifically of power seized and wielded directly over others.
There are many other kinds of power, such as the power of confidence,
or that of independent thought, or that of clear moral sensibility,
that are not tainted in the same fashion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 01:09 pm (UTC)I have a Lil' Kim album, actually. (I first heard of her because I was living in the inner city of New Orleans when she became really popular and there were posters of her everywhere.) I suppose that is supposed to mean horrible things about me or something. But I like the song he refers to, "Queen Bitch". It makes me feel really... tough and powerful when I listen to it. When I worked in the public square and had to deal with a lot of social bullshit and people trying to push me around, I would listen to that song a few times before going out in order to get into the headspace I needed to get into to survive. Is it a highly socially conscious song? Absolutely not. Is it a song about being very powerful, not in spite of, but because of, being female? I think so. Is it a *nice* song? No. Aggression and power and the flaunting of it are not *nice*. But why should women always be nice?
It seems the new side of attacking feminists is requiring them to er-um-ah qualify everything they say to be absolutely sure everyone gets the point they don't HATE MEN. Because it is supposed to be every feminists' job to prove she doesn't HATE MEN, and she must say this every other sentence or she will be accused of HATING MEN. This is a waste of energy and is undercutting what feminism needs to accomplish. Women who do anything that shows them as being powerful are attacked as being man-haters. Women who tell the trtuh about how men still treat women on an oerall societal level are accused of being man-haters. Feminists have been trying so hard to disprove this label they have in many instances backed themselves into an inoffensive meek little corner, which is just where the opponents of feminism want us.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 02:53 pm (UTC)I wouldn't doubt that you're right that the pendulum is again swinging too far.
Where does the happy medium lie in your view?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 03:51 pm (UTC)I don't think there can be a happy medium until people admit that the endemic violence towards women should be stopped.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:14 pm (UTC)I certainly agree that violence against women, as well as bias against women, are continuing modes of oppression of women that continue to urgently require redress. We continue to live in a world where the self-determination of women is limited by harsh enforcement of rigid gender roles; I do not agree with such enforcement.
Are there any areas of concern in your view with regard to oppression of men and/or boys?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:24 pm (UTC)It is simply counterproductive. There is reason for us all to be hostile to all sorts of people, but as understandable as it may be, it is generally counterproductive in the long run.
So, I reject hostility, and I reject bitterness, though I can certainly identify with the reasons for their presence.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:34 pm (UTC)Anyway, as an answer to this and to your earlier comment - I would say the comparitive situation of men and women is that, if it were illness, women are like a patient in a hospital who is bedridden with pneumonia and fighting for their life, and men are like a patient who has a bad flu. I can't help but be aware that men have issues they must fight for themselves, and I am supportive of that, but I'm busy trying to protect myself from being legislated back 50-100 years as some conservatives seem so determined to do. (The Vatican's latest diatribe against women who don't obey their husbands, blah-blah-blah, being a case in point.) And I feel like - if men have problems with the role given to them by the estabishment - well, they make up most of the establishment, and women do not, feminists or no, so I don't see what we can do to change that when we still don't have as much power as them. Other than tell people it is wrong to discriminate against men. (Example - my boyfiend had long hair for a long time but eventually had to cut it so he could advance in his career. I think that is really stupid. I can have long hair - why can't he? It doesn't affect my job performance...)
Now, I do know that in western countries things are much better than other places, but - sometimes I get the feeling that is just being held over our heads, do you know what I mean? Because I hear some people bring it up and it almost feels like they are saying, "Be glad you have only a somewhat unequal situation here and quit complaining! Because if you get too uppity we'll bring in the Taliban and show you what real suffering is!" But then again, I admit, I am a paranoid sort of person :o
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:55 pm (UTC)Given the history, that silence is exactly the same as endorsing those views.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:56 pm (UTC)Oh, ok, that's what you just said!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:09 pm (UTC)In a sense, I feel that he is taking a "hardline stance" in opposition to the gender-differences-don't-exist folk, a hardline stance that reflects the errors it opposes. Gender differences are real; but they are differences in predilection over a population. Attempts to enforce rigidly at the individual level inevitably lead to problems.
The opposite error would consist of pretending that there are no gender-based trends for role preferences, or of demonizing the traditional masculine-dominant/feminine-submissive role division. There is, after all, nothing wrong with such roles for the millions who can be comfortable within them.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:13 pm (UTC)About now I feel like saying in a whiny voice, "Why can't we all just get along?" (Sorry, I find it hard to remain too serious about anything for too terribly long)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:23 pm (UTC)That's how I feel!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 04:59 pm (UTC)An interesting analogy. Does it express how things feel to you emotionally, or how you really think things are for men?
Are you really under the impression that oppression for men is just a temporary, trivial discomfort?
I actually vigorously disagree. I think that men's problems and women's problems are both people problems that are not fundamentally gendered. Men suffer wherever women are oppressed, and vice versa. The idea that men or women must fight for their own issues without the comment or particpation of the other gender implies independence of male and female gender issues, an independence that does not exist. The child that grows up with a chronically unhappy opposite-sex parent is not sheltered from suffering by the gender difference.
A perfect example of what I mean; the possibilites of the current American climate are terrifying, and require united action by like-minded progressive individuals, whatever their race or gender.
That sounds great in theory, but the fact is that it doesn't work that way. That makes about as much sense as a black radical going into a trailer park and ranting against the "heirs to white power" that he found there. Actually, I think that the comparison is instructive; poor white people and poor black people too often allow race to divide them when working together would allow greater gain. Similarly, men and women who are not a part of the establishment should not allow themselves to be divided by gender.
Be careful also that you do not allow the reality of continuing oppression to seduce you into oversimplification. Most American wealth is directly controlled by women, just as most political power is wielded directly by men. The most important modality of oppression is not hateful action by men, but rather social expectation expressed through men as well as women. Men and women are both simultaneously oppressor and victim- which, as you said, makes untangling the problem to find a solution a difficult and confusing process.
Better in some ways, not better in others. For example, anorexia is a disease that primarily (though not exclusively) affects the "Western countries" to which you refer. Again, don't believe the hype.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:10 pm (UTC)Good point. I was kind of referring to not believing the hype there, too, because I hear an awful lot that seems to sum up to "You must be grateful for living in our enlightened western society! Everyone everywhere else is worse off in every way!" And I think it's a load of hooey.
"That sounds great in theory, but the fact is that it doesn't work that way. That makes about as much sense as a black radical going into a trailer park and ranting against the "heirs to white power" that he found there. Actually, I think that the comparison is instructive; poor white people and poor black people too often allow race to divide them when working together would allow greater gain. Similarly, men and women who are not a part of the establishment should not allow themselves to be divided by gender."
But even when both groups in either situation have problems, the ones who are on the slightly higher end rarely are concerned with bridging the gap to help the others up, but with maintaining the small advantage they do have with great ferocity. Skinhead youth, for example, are often quite poor. But they aren't interested in joining forces with other poor teens of other races - if they were approached by such people, they would probably beat the crap out of them. They don't see solidarity in their situation of poverty.
It is an ongoing paradox... how are pacifists to survive against war hawks? How are those who want equality to deal with those who maintain rigid barriers to it? I don't really know all the answerrs. But I do know that I have to take care of myself first.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:24 pm (UTC)Absolutely true. But the one thing that is guaranteed not to help is for black people to decide that all white people with bald heads need beating up too.
The division is fallacious. Don't buy into it just because other people are doing so.
By not erecting false barriers. By emphasising common goals, common dreams. By not defining enemies on the basis of gender or race. By emphasising common goals, common dreams.
By allowing defection from the "enemy camp", when it happens.
Sure. The problem is that it is so easy to allow short-term, narrow-focus goals to undercut long-term, wide-focus ones...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 05:38 pm (UTC)That sucks. I can see why you'd emphasise taking care of yourself first, then!
Naah... I think that we all need to be educated by the perspective of others. I've certainly gained from exchanging views with you!
Plus, identifying the problem is always a crucial first step!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 02:50 pm (UTC)Speaking in general terms, though; the appropriation of power can be opposed for variety of reasons, appropriate and inappropriate.
Inappropriate reasons include attachment to oppressive structures which feminism seeks to eradicate.
Appropriate reasons include the fact that seeking in a one-sided fashion to exert power over others never brings about healthy relationships, justice, or equity. You would know that even d/s relationships are generally healthy only to the degree that the d's seizing of power is balanced by the s granting it.
The seizing of power by the dispossessed is sometimes markedly superior to their previous oppression. In general, though, such seizing can only be regarded as a lesser of evils, an occasional unfortunate necessity, and not as a virtue in itself.
Lil' Kim is a great example. Her songs are powerful and magnetic, but those who live our their relationships in such a fashion discover that such approaches do not bring contentment.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 06:11 pm (UTC)Who is to determine when I (the universal I) am being exploited?
Women have been bound in this American society by Puritanical and Victorian taboos and mores. Notably, there is the sexual double-standard, still prevalent in this late day and age. There is still the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Women are still stigmatized for claiming their sexual selves.
Inappropriate reasons include attachment to oppressive structures which feminism seeks to eradicate.
Appropriate reasons include the fact that seeking in a one-sided fashion to exert power over others never brings about healthy relationships, justice, or equity.
One thing I learned in my Sex, Gender and Power class is that power is inherent in all relationships, especially sexual relationships. It is how that power is negotiated that is key (something that you touched on). It is unfair for men to have all of the overt power, while women are implored to be passive. As a feminist, I do believe it is important for women to break these taboos as much as is it is their desire and as much as it is comfortable. If a woman wants to remain a virgin until she's married, then have six kids and stay at home, I don't have a problem with that. As long as that is her conscious choice and not something that is a societal expectation (which to me is a form of coercion).
I read in my Deviance and Social Control class of men who felt that once a woman had broken the social contract, what we term as the norm--once she had decided to wear something revealing, then she's "asking for it", it being rape or physical abuse. This is not the summary of social scientists; these were actual statements taken from fellows who were in prison for various offenses. This is the fruit of the Madonna/whore dichotomy. When women aren't allowed to manage their own sexuality, men (not all men) feel it is their duty to police the sexual boundaries.
I'm learning that power is something all of us have, and we individually assume that power or give it away. It doesn't help that in American society women are not used to power, and it is not necessarily encouraged that women learn how to wield power. It is threatening; it threatens the known social fabric. But a change in gender roles doesn't necessarily mean that things may fray; such a change may actually strengthen that fabric. But people fear change, especially those already in power, because a gain in power in the dispossessed necessarily means a reduction in power in those who already possess it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-02 07:40 pm (UTC)I basically agree, with the quibble that not all expectation is coercion. It all depends on whether or not those expectations are enforced. Much confusion arises from our tendency not to recognise subtle enforcement of expectations.
I used to share your view until I worked with violent prisoners, and discovered that that attitude was not limited to female sexuality. Many such men also felt that I was "asking" to have my watch taken by having it visible, and that I was "asking" to have my money stolen by walking with more-than-an-average amount.
I no longer feel that the attitudes you describe are a reflection of the Madonna-whore dichotomy. I rather feel that they stem from the (not unrelated) view that a woman's sexuality is fundamentally the property of the men around her, combined with the antisocial tendency to rationalise the taking of whatever is longed-for, by violent means if necessary; the tendency to feel that attracting their notice constitutes justification of their response. We cannot dismiss the patriarchial dismissal of the full humanity of women, such that violence against them "counts less" than violence against men; but again, we must note that the men who engage in such dehumanisation are often willing to similarly dehumanise those of different race/class, and not merely gender.
So I think that the issue boils down to pathological socialisation of the men you describe, a pathology that transcends the gender issues of our current focus, though it certainly impinges directly upon them. But I suppose that since those so pathologically socialised are usually men, that it boils down once again to a gender issue, though one with men as focus instead of women. These things always loop back one upon the other, as far as I'm concerned- for as we examine the men concerned, we find that the roots of their pathology often lie in their (often puritanical) early-childhood environment, and in the relationship that their parents enjoyed, or likely did not enjoy.
Please note that when I speak of the difficulties with power, that I am speaking specifically of power seized and wielded directly over others. There are many other kinds of power, such as the power of confidence, or that of independent thought, or that of clear moral sensibility, that are not tainted in the same fashion.