Dear feminist friends -
To borrow a acronym from the military BLUF - or bottom line up front, here is my question: what does feminism require of me to be a better ally? Specifically, what does radical feminism require of me? No matter what I do, it seems as though I will never be good enough of an ally, or that I always seem to do something wrong, from the perspective of radical feminism.
To be sure, I am a third-wave liberal feminist. Do you know that bumper sticker that says, "I am a radical feminist, not the fun kind?" Well, I am the fun kind of feminist, not the radical kind. I am a political activist; I eat meat; I enjoy sex; I have political ambitions, and I have a career in the military - which I started at the hopes of one day going into politics. Yet, from the radical feminist perspective, even all those things are patriarchal.
Surely, I am in no way bitching. As a male, full of privilege, my life whether radical feminists accept me or not, will still be a good one. I will go on to have a great political career - among others, whether I get the acceptance of radical feminists or not.
But it seems whenever we talk about various sects of feminism, it is to criticize, rather than to try to be better allies or work together. So, that's why I am asking the question of how I can be a better ally.
A few examples: it is claimed that my eating meat is patriarchal - but can I also be a feminist and remain real? Isn't okay to ensure that disadvantaged women, whether of the Western world or in developing nations, get enough to eat, be it meat or vegetables?
It is also claimed that politics in itself is patriarchal - that it is one class ruling over another. Yet, to make the lives of the disadvantaged better, shouldn't we focused on the legislative efforts to make women's lives better? I may not understand everything that women face, but how is my desire to make the political process a more woman-friendly space patriarchal?
As for sex, some feminists have claimed that even casual sex - that kind that comes with no emotional attachment, is one that is demeaning to women, because women are seen and viewed as vehicles to one's pleasure, rather than actual human beings. I, of course, do not share this view, but it does bother me that some view sex as entirely patriarchal, even if two people mutually agree to and enjoy it. One incident that still sticks with me is when I was reprimanded for saying "just because a woman looks tasty does not mean you've got to treat her like a piece of meat." I am told that to say a woman looks tasty, in itself, is sexist.
As for military service, last night, watching a 60 Minutes program about a female soldier receiving the Silver Star for her service, I shared the story with some people, and were told that even my military career, in itself, is patriarchal - that military service is not consistent with feminism. Some feminists would go on to say, and even attack, academia, saying that it is also patriarchal, setting a certain set of standards that women have to follow - and that even women's studies classes, themselves, are not beneficial to women.
So, again, my goal is not to please anyone. This is as much my movement as it is anyone else's. But I am detecting a cultural and philosophical gap between the 2nd-wave, radical movement and my own. A long time ago, as a freshman, I was told by my Intro to Women's Studies professor that feminism is what each woman makes of it. If that were the case, and if feminism isn't about genitals, then am I not allowed to believe my own philosophies and practices, and participate in the "real world," so long as I don't lose sight of my feminism?
To be sure, the world view of radical feminism I just painted is only limited to a handful of feminists I've met. But I do feel, as though, they deserve to be heard, too. What is it that radical feminism wants of me? How can I be a better ally?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What radical feminism requires of me ....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10676
I have the idea that you well know you're not going to see anything new and inspirational here. Would you like some validation that you can still be a good feminist even though you do such bold and challenging things as eating meat and enjoying sex? I'm sure you'll do just fine.
I wonder if this is being archived so that it can later help with your political aspirations.
I think it's pretty important to not listen too hard to radical feminists. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for what they did and what it gave me, but claiming things like sex, politics, and eating meat are unfeminists is just unreasonable.
If you want to be a better ally, just help women. Use whatever power you have in the military to help women, be they female soldiers, or the people around where you are stationed. Same goes for politics.
A lot of the claims you're refuting are pretty out there -- I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that eating meat is patriarchal -- but I agree with you. I've noticed people using "patriarchal" to describe any situation with inequality, and it bothers me. Using the word like that strikes me as sexist. Every single case of inequality ever can't be tied to gender.
People who think one-night stands are sexist are idiots.
The claim about eating meat is often tied to a form of ecofeminism which claims that hierarchy and domination in themselves are intrinsically tied to the patriarchal mindset. So the term "patriarchal" here is expanded to include any social practice or attitude that depends on making binary distinctions and then building hierarchies according to them. But not all ecofeminists go this far.
I still don't think that's a good use of the word "patriarchy." It makes hierarchy and domination exclusively male, which strikes me as incredibly sexist. It's unfair to both men and women because it generalizes us both.
The patriarchal mindset is an example of a hierarchy, but it doesn't follow that every hierarchy is patriarchal.
I don't think they believe that hierarchy and domination are exclusively male, but that these are all motivated by the same drive. They're not trying to blame all of this on men, but claiming that anyone can take on a patriarchal mindset, regardless of their gender. And I get that in the traditional use of the term, patriarchy is a subset of hierarchy. I'm just explaining the theory in play here.
You're doing a good job of explaining it, but I still think the logic is flawed.
If they don't think domination and hierarchy are exclusively male, they should find a different word to describe inequalities that have nothing to do with gender. Using "patriarchy" and "hierarchy" interchangeably is still sexist and not even correct.
The way I understand it, patriarchy equates the ideal of masculinity with dominance, therefore the quintessential male role is to rule. Hence justifying and perpetuating the subordination of those who deviate from that ideal, notably, women.
That's a good way of describing the patriarchy. I just don't think it's okay to use the word "patriarchal" to describe meat-eating or other hierarchies that aren't based on gender. That's saying that only men create hierarchies, which is sexist and not at all true.
In an all-female society, hierarchies would still exist, and it would be completely ridiculous to refer to them as patriarchies. I don't think that the domination of animals by humans has anything to do with gender at all.
I think it's more of a metaphorical use of the word - so there's not necessarily a claim that it's gender-based. But this varies depending on who you read. In my experience there's a lot of variation among "radical" feminists, so you have to be careful not to lump them all together, which makes it kind of hard to teach this section in a Feminist Theory course.
I vaguely recall from sociology that, in hunter-gatherer societies at least, those societies in which women are responsible for the provision of food, where the women had the most power, were also the most equitable, and decision-making was more communal. It's hard to say how a modern female-led, or entirely equitable society would be structured, since the way we live today has developed on patriarchy's terms.
That said, I wouldn't dispute that women are just as capable of participating in and benefiting from hierarchy as men. (provided the hierarchy lets them in).
Sometimes self-described feminists who are anti-capitalism criticize "hierarchical" organization structures and cite the military as an example. I don't regard hierarchies as necessarily evil but rather a necessity for anything but small organizations. Sometimes "patriarchal" is confused with "hierarchical" or used synonymously.
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about what "radical" feminists expect of you. They probably wish your balls would shrivel up and you would just go away. F 'em. Embrace the feminism that seeks equal treatment for women who do not think men have to be put down to achieve it. Feminism, particularly its efforts to prick the balloons of gender expectations, have benefits for men and women.
Not all radical feminists think that men have to be "put down." In fact, many radical feminists have no interest in ball shrivelling. I generally disagree with radical feminists, but that doesn't mean their ideas deserve to be characterized like that.
O rly?
And what, pray tell, does "radical feminism" mean, in your view?
The best advice I can give to any ally is to listen.
As one friend said to me as I was trying to find my footing as an anti-racism ally, she said "If you want to fight for me, no thanks, but if you want to stand beside me and fight in solidarity, I welcome you with open arms".
I have heard that some people feel meat eating is patriarchal, as some feminists do equate animal rights w/ women's rights, (the puppy gate debacle comes to mind) but I am not one of them.
In the military, (as a Vet I will tell you) it starts w/ your example. What kind of jokes do you laugh at? How do you treat the female soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines in your workspace? Do you listen to them? Do you trust them? Do you call out other men on their sexist behavior? Listening and attitude are the two most important things you can do to ensure you are taken seriously as an ally. You have to live it first.
First off, Marc I would like to commend you on your efforts to be a better ally and your desire to create a forum for radical feminism to speak.
However, I take issue with the term "radical feminism" (something that I have repeatedly taken issue with on this blog) as an overarching term which encompasses a variety of feminist positions. Radical feminism doesn't ask one thing of you, rather radical feminists inhabit a vast array of subject positions and espouse many different beliefs. It is important to not homogenize different kinds of feminisms, in doing so one runs the risk of erasing other voices.
With that in mind, why is it that you are lumping vegetarian feminists, for example, in with groups with which they may or may not ally. Furthermore, just because you might think that it is unreasonable for someone to assert that eating meat is an inherently patriarchal act (something that I don't necessarily agree with myself) doesn't make that position wrong. Just because you don't like something that "radical feminism" asserts doesn't mean it is not worth thinking about.
Furthermore, I take issue with your statement, "A few examples: it is claimed that my eating meat is patriarchal - but can I also be a feminist and remain real? Isn't okay to ensure that disadvantaged women, whether of the Western world or in developing nations, get enough to eat, be it meat or vegetables?" I am unclear what you mean when you say, "can I also be a feminist and remain real?" I don't think that you meant to assert that vegetarianism is not "real," but I don't know what else to take from that. I am a vegetarian and I am a feminist. In my perfect world no one would want to or have to eat meat; however, I recognize that economic, political, cultural, etc. circumstances do not make this possible. I do not assert that everyone who eats meat is necessarily a misogynist, though I do agree that there is a connection between discourses about meat and women (See Carole Adams, "The Sexual Politics of Meat").
Finally, I identify as a "radical feminist" but I do not subscribe to all of the things that you single out in your post. I am exhausted by the continual demonization of radical feminists. One can be a "fun" third-wave feminist and still be radical. One can be a vegetarian and still be "fun." Perhaps, what is called for is for third-wave feminists to really think about the place (or lack thereof) of radicalism within the movement.
My advice to you would first be to not generalize, secondly to recognize that we all lead contradictory lives and that no one can be expected to be completely ethically consistent. In other words, you need to do what you feel is best in order for you to lead a life that you consider feminist. You are most certainly allowed to practice the feminism of your choice.
I'm sorry if this entry comes off as a little hostile; I don't mean it to be, honestly!
Well said!
I've had an experience that sort of parallels this. As an environmental and anti-WTO activist, I had a number of anarchist friends. The basic differences between anarchists and the more "mainstream" activists is that mainstream activists try to change existing institutions to make them more just, while anarchists believe the institutions themselves are fundamentally flawed and can't be reformed. For this reason anarchists don't respect gov't organizations, the police, corporate bodies, etc. So the different approaches of working from within to try to bring about change (your approach) vs. breaking down the existing, corrupt institutions and starting over again (radical approach) maps on to this disagreement well.
There are certainly times when the things that radical feminists and anarchists say make a lot of sense. After the epic WTO protest in Seattle I was feeling pretty sympathetic to the anarchist view. As Audre Lorde said, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." On the other hand, you have to start somewhere, and working from within the institutions themselves, even though they are admittedly corrupt, can at least give you a toehold and a place to start. So I guess you can frame it as a pragmatic approach - you have to start somewhere.
you kind of make this point in your comment, but not directly - that it takes all kinds of feminists. there is a need for "radical" feminists as well as "liberal" feminists. without radical feminists, we might become too content with existing institutions, but without liberal feminists some things just would not get done.
so to the OP, it's great that you're trying to be a better ally, but the tone of your post is a little condescending at times. it's sort of like like a white guy trying to blame black people for "self segregating," or not being "welcoming enough," or saying how he agrees with obama's speech on race, but not al sharpton's "victimhood." well, just accept each kind of feminism/activism in its own right, and you'll find things to be a lot easier.
why ask what radical feminism requires of you? it's not an exclusive club that you have to join. if you don't agree with radical feminism, then don't be a radical feminist, but i hope you agree that radical feminists have contributed a lot to the movement. just because i can't give up meat, doesn't mean i can't appreciate the difference someone makes by being a determined vegetarian. radical feminists might not be holier than liberal feminists, but neither are liberal feminists holier because they're more inclusive. we need both. i'm surprised that some people are dissing radical feminism here as if liberal feminist is more right. well, both are right, period.
someone else mentioned earlier, be a feminist for yourself, and because you want a better world, not because feminism or radical feminism needs your help. you don't need to impress radical feminists, just fight according to your own beliefs.
Feminism has always been a big mess of often-contradictory ideas. As long as you believe in the equality of women and fight sexism wherever you see it, you don't have a problem. I would probably consider myself a radical feminist in that I'm all about the overthrow of the patriarchy and completely changing the way society operates, but I love (ethical) meat and I love casual sex (although I am a lesbian, so I guess that earns me points, hehe). I also simultaneously pursue the goals of liberal feminism because, practically speaking, we need to. Does all that make me a bad feminist? Hardly.
Radical feminism today doesn't necessarily mean what it used to, either. I've seen many people and communities that claimed to be radical feminists but were actually just ignorant, sexist, anti-intellectual dumbfucks. Like nilbog said, it's a very nebulous term.
I'm a feminist. No hyphens, no special category.
What I suggest is that you be aware of the sexism in your environment and consciously employ those around you to help eliminate it.
When you get a boost from the boys club, be sure to give a boost to a qualified woman. If you know a woman is as or more qualified than you and you received the job because of the boys club mentality, step aside and let others know what you are aware of- the sexism in your work place (whatever workplace you're in).
Help prevent anti choice activists from forcing women to give birth or hurt themselves with illegal abortions.
These are some of the simple things you can do, without getting tangled up in theory.
Yes, it is feminist to be conscious of the environment and the process that brings food to your table. Do the best you can with what you have and what you know.
Hire qualified minorities, share your tools, teach your skills.
Yeah, what i_muse said
Oh and learn from us, rather than trying to make us like you.
One of the issues you seem to have is you have a hard time differentiating stereotypes about feminists from feminist ideas (and to be fair, there are some feminists who do fit any stereotype you can find, hence the reason they persist). This isn't really your fault; many intelligent people who believe some very feminist ideas don't call themselves feminists because the popular idea of a feminist is a screaming harpy who wears nothing but hemp clothing and believes that all men are rapists until proven otherwise and yells at people for drinking milk because it's a tool of the patriarchy and represents the subjugation of females everywhere, and believes that lesbianism is the only way sex can be nonviolent, and so on and so forth.
There are really very few people who believe men can't be feminists, or that feminists can't eat meat, or even that you can't be in the military and be a feminist (incidentally, one of the most feminist men I know is an Air Force vet). To be fair, there's a lot of conflicted opinion about the military and feminism, in large part because it is such a good ol' boys' club, and because the feminist and and anti-war movements have so many common members. Most feminists just believe that women should be respected as people, not that you need to subscribe to an almost religious ideology with lots of complicated ritual. I even thought your comment about "tasty" women was clever (although I'm of the opinion that simply finding a woman attractive isn't being a pig, but treating women differently based on their attractiveness is).
So basically, what you can do to be a good feminist (or feminist ally, if you prefer) is to treat women with the respect they deserve, hold doors for everyone, and be conscious of women's issues without jumping to labels like "radical feminist". Good luck, and I look forward to being able to vote for another feminist political candidate!
First, I'd like to suggest you read this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/feminism-friday-occasionally-conversations-with-my-man-are-instructive/ Whether or not you mean to, asking members of an online feminist community for answers instead of going to a library, reading radical feminist websites, or just checking out Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Radical_feminism one could easily perceive you as engaging in “look at me! Acknowledge my maleness! Feminists, accomodate me! For I am a dude! Oh why oh why is my dudeness not the focus of everything?!?!?!?!”
Noting that there are divisions between them, I think it's fair to say that overall, radical feminists don't require anything from you, they want men to stop requiring things from them. They want men to stop dominating them. This isn't directed just at individuals. For radical feminists, our social order is built on inequality, which is sustained by constructions of gender difference. The solution is to reorder society. Anything that perpetuates the current order is oppressive. When you accept, act out, and pass on gender norms, when you sustain institutions constructed by and for male privilege, when you support the status quo, you are helping to continue the domination of women by men.
Radical feminism can certainly be criticized, especially for being essentializing. The concept of patriarchy can get messy and circular and sound like a conspiracy theory. But it's still useful and thought-provoking.
Military organizations are patriarchal, not just hierarchical. Even though many are now inclusive of women, they were created by men, of men, according to masculine norms. Militaries are still seen as the embodiment of masculinity, continuing the association of maleness with violence, and associating the strength, honour, and worth of a country with the machismo of its men. Military leaders often use highly sexualized language when describing military operations, the masculine invader with it's phallic bombs and guns, penetrating enemy territory; the foreign defender feminized, passive, raped. More literally, sexual violence against women is often used as a tool of war. So you see how it can be argued that the military, in how it constructs and values masculine and feminine perpetuates the idea that to be male is to dominate, to be female is to submit.
Politics is patriarchal, again, because political systems were constructed by men, for men, according to masculine norms. It is competitive, if not outright combative. Ideas about what it means to be a woman, traditionally, did not correspond to what it meant to be a politician. A woman who is aggressive enough to succeed in politics is still considered deviant, her femininity is derided, as though her worth is dependent on how she measures up to some feminine ideal. And the fact is that most governments, and many organizations with political power or voice, are still predominantly male. Consider the fact that “women's issues” are off in their own little category, as though women were a special interest group. You may think that one can use political power to improve the situation of women and disadvantaged minorities, but you are still working within the system. Radical feminists would likely say that the idea of male politicians improving females' lives is itself patronizing, infantalizing, and disempowering – they don't want to be carried, they want to be unbound. They would say that political institutions are one of the ropes binding them. Keep in mind that from this perspective, the solution is not to improve what we have, but to construct something new, starting from equality.
As for casual sex... first of all, I think radical feminists would probably question the degree to which any heterosexual intercourse is truly consensual, due to the power imbalance between men and women – men being physically stronger, the likelihood of women being economically dependent on men, the way sexually active men are perceived versus sexually active women, etc. The knowledge of her lack of power plays into a woman's decision to acquiesce to a man's demand/request for sex, regardless of what she wants sexually, and regardless of whether or not the man is actively exploiting his power for his own sexual gratification.
Secondly, the power issues mean that two individuals can have vastly different perceptions of the same sexual encounter. Men are supposed to seek sexual gratification. Sex = fun. Casual sex is portrayed as affirming one's masculinity, his worth as a man. It is coded as a masculine behaviour. Aside from the fact that casual sex might not be as consensual as the man believes, or the fact that casual sex can be understood as an entitlement regardless of a woman's consent (just read some acquittals from sexual assault charges for proof), there's also the fact that women face consequences of sexual activity that men do not – stigmatization, pregnancy – raising the question of whether sex can ever be casual for a woman.
With regards to the “tasty” comment – the problem might have to do with the implication that women are still something to be consumed. Also, I would quibble with the wording in that it says that the woman is being treated “like a piece of meat” because she is attractive, when I would rather emphasize that she is treated that way simply because she is a woman. There's a difference. But as an off-the-cuff comment that uses the play on words to get the point across, it's not bad.
I don't quite get the meat thing. I guess there's the idea that the domination of nature by domesticating animals is another example of equating manhood with domination. Or, you know, the stereotype, men love their meat and their barbecues, vegetarians aren't real men, real like meat/blood/the hunt, again, associating maleness with violence and the domination of nature.
My point in this lengthy post is first to defend radical feminism from being dismissed out of hand – I am not a radical feminist myself, and totally agree with critiques of that line of thought. But I am rather fond of the mode of analysis, how it highlights the pervasiveness of gendered notions and focuses on the operation of power as determinative, rather than biology, socialization, culture, things that are not written in stone but change according to who is in control and to what end. Also, radical feminism pushes a lot of people out of their comfort zone, it challenges things we thought were good, or neutral, and I think that it's important to go there not unfrequently.
Secondly, I think it's clear that the idea behind radical feminism is not that men are all assholes whose balls should shrivel up (except to the extent that the word “balls” is used to signify manliness as being pro-active, powerful and admirable, while by implication, those without “balls” - ie women – are passive, weak, and detestable). It's the idea that the world as it is operates to privilege men. Of course attacks on the system can easily be perceived as attacks on those who are privileged, and frankly it seems that radical feminist can easily forget the distinction between the two. But shaming individuals is not the goal of radical feminism. It is to challenge the meaning, implications, and effects of gender, so that it can no longer be used to divide people into those who dominate and those who are dominated. I would hope, Marc, that the radical feminists you met were not trying to challenge you as a person, but to challenge your assumptions about gender and society.
Yeah, rereading this I realize I rather sound like I'm speaking for radical feminists. It's a writing style thing that I'm kinda cringing at. I'm by no means an expert on radical feminism. I'm not familiar with the full diversity of views within radical feminism. The post was just what I understood radical feminism to be from my limited exposure to its literature. So, yeah. When I write stuff I like to sound like I know everything. But I don't.
I thought it was very well-written, and I have read quite a bit of the literature. :D
Yay! :D
I don't think any of the things you stated were patriarchal. I certainly don't know a single feminist who would assert that enjoying sex was a radical feminist no-no. I mean, what is more universal, equal opportunity, and transcendent than sex? Animals have sex, and that certainly has nothing to do with men or patriarchy.
However, you almost treat radical feminism as a patriarchy. Feminism isn't about control, or standards, or service, it's about freedom and equality for everyone.
But, if you want some advice, I'll share with you what I demand of myself, as a feminist:
-Reading, engaging in conversation, thinking, and generally expanding my mind, especially with feminist ideas.
-Being absolutely true to myself above any "patriarchy" or gender.
-Being conscious of my own ignorance and prejudice, and patiently and lovingly correcting myself
-holding all humans to the same standards of morality and decency
-Having the patience to right the wrongs I see
whew, long post
I don't think any of the things you stated were patriarchal. I certainly don't know a single feminist who would assert that enjoying sex was a radical feminist no-no. I mean, what is more universal, equal opportunity, and transcendent than sex? Animals have sex, and that certainly has nothing to do with men or patriarchy.
Sex in the animal world has nothing to do with patriarchy? Animals have social organization too. Ever heard of alpha males?
And sex isn't "equal opportunity". Men have a lot more sexual freedom than women do. It's acceptable for men to be promiscuous and to be sexually assertive, not so much for women. Besides social stigma, there's also the need for effective birth control. Also, it has taken a long time to get over the idea that men are entitled to have sex with any woman who doesn't "belong" to somebody else.
I think the point is not to say that women can't enjoy sex, but that sex means different things for women as it does for men. That casual sex is something that men can engage in, but can't really be as casual for a woman. Sex means different things because of differences in power, and consequences. So a man can have sex purely for fun, but a woman can't. I forget the context, but in one of my classes my prof related a story about how a lawyer referred to rape as "assault with a friendly weapon". The idea that sex can be casual is a masculine one. Sex cannot be mutually casual. So it amounts to the dude using the girl for sex.
This is what I believe the analysis to be. I think it's useful, but I also think that women can and should be sexually assertive, enjoy sex, that we should celebrate female sexuality, etc.
I could be wrong, but I think that patriarchy is truly a human institution, since fatherhood means a completely different thing in human society than with animals. In many species, fatherhood means only that they contributed half of the offspring's chromosome with their sperm, and no species really goes to the length that many humans do to actively participate in fatherhood. However, in human society, fatherhood often means domination of their offspring and sexual partner, and the possession of a family. Certainly there are species in which males have a certain amount of tribal leaderships, but those are not the only species that have sex.
I correct myself in that animal sex is not completely divorced from masculinity, but those ideas are quite separate in a number of species.
What I meant by equal opportunity is that men and women are equally sexually capable, can enjoy sex equally, and, as individuals, make any decision about their sex lives. Even though society puts certain pressures on men and women regarding sex, it doesn't mean that they can't transcend that as people. I think it's legitimate to differentiate between society's pressures and the actual possibilities of men and women. Realization of those possibilities keeps society moving forward.
Can sex really not be casual for a woman? Even with birth control? Birth control certainly lowers the "consequences" for women. If women can't just have sex for pleasure, what are they having it for? Love? Procreation? What are women that are having casual sex having it for?
People have the most complex social organization. The point was more that sex and power are related in the animal world as well. There's still patterns of domination and subordination that, while not as complex as patriarchy, have to do with social and environmental factors. Just because something occurs in nature, doesn't mean that it's not also socially constructed, or that it's unproblematic. Ducks rape each other. Does that mean rape has nothing to do with patriarchy? It's not the fact of sex that's patriarchal, but the meaning assigned to it.
What I meant by equal opportunity is that men and women are equally sexually capable, can enjoy sex equally, and, as individuals, make any decision about their sex lives. Even though society puts certain pressures on men and women regarding sex, it doesn't mean that they can't transcend that as people. I think it's legitimate to differentiate between society's pressures and the actual possibilities of men and women. Realization of those possibilities keeps society moving forward.
I agree. I think that's exactly the attitude towards sex we should be aiming for. I think the counter argument would be that societal conditions would have to change dramatically before that's possible, that women have to be equal on other grounds before heterosexual intercourse can be so unproblematic. And I think the focus might be on what sex means for women as a group, rather than for individuals who may not fall into the general pattern. I don't know. I never really agreed with this, so I can't remember the argument that well. I think sex can very much be a tool of patriarchy, but that woman should not cede the sexual battlefield; they should take ownership of their sexuality. So yeah, I agree with you.
I think women can have casual sex, given the availability of birth control. I think the counter argument is that casual sex has generally been a male privilege, and is understood to be a way that men assert their masculinity, in the process dehumanizing the woman involved whether she consented or not. The idea that women should participate more in consensual casual sex just accommodates male privilege, and contributes to the myth that women are always sexually available. We should be trying to validate the woman's experience of sex instead of encouraging her to adopt male norms for understanding sex. Personally, I think that if a woman can have casual sex that's a positive experience, that's awesome. The more relaxed and open we are about sexuality, the better.
Women can enjoy sex, I don't think that's been disputed. The argument is that women do not have the same experience as men. That sex is highly subjective, and that power relations influence and are reproduced by that experience. I think this is most relevant when talking about sexual assault, when guys think the woman was consenting, that it was all in fun, that he didn't do much harm, whatever, while the woman asserts that she's been assaulted. The male view has been, and often still is, given preference. The idea that sex is always fun, so women must enjoy being raped. That she didn't fight back, so she must have consented. The idea that if there was no overt physical threat, she was not being forced. Etc. The argument that women participate in sex for reasons other than sexual pleasure is important to combating rape myths. (of course, then there's the problem of perpetuating the idea of woman-as-victim who doesn't actively engage with her sexuality. It's complex)
The problem with patriarchy is that it doesn't account for individuals break the storyline. I would hope that the women who are having casual sex do it for fun.
That said, there are lots of different reasons why people have sex. And, yay, fun/pleasure is at the top of the list.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/why%20humans%20have%20sex%202007.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20070801/why-people-have-sex-237-reasons
I'm calling bullshit on that. Women and men can both have casual sex.
I've had a lot of casual sex. I've had one-night stands and fuckbuddies. Don't tell me I can't have casual sex, and don't tell me I was being used. We were having sex in order to have fun and please each other. If I was being used, I was also using. There wasn't a huge difference in power, and there weren't any consequences, social or otherwise.
Telling me I can't have casual sex just because I'm a woman is sexist and patronizing.
This theory is bul