Often in my work (I do prevention education for a large midwestern domestic violence and sexual assault organization), I get asked if "it" has ever happened to me. Of course, there is the standard answer: the numbers tell us we all know someone who has been sexually or physically assaulted. The standard answer redirects the question to community responsibility rather than on my survivorship or victimhood, which is the right path for prevention work. It also removes my vulnerability as an educator and reaffirms my status as an "expert" on violence against women-rather than just an expert on my own experience.
But the real and honest answer is yes. But it isn't yes because I had a girlfriend who was scary, emotionally abusive and controlling in my early twenties. And it isn't yes because I was sexually assaulted when I was 16 and again when I was 21. Those things are true, and they did shape me as a person, as an activist and as a feminist/womanist. But they aren't the reason the answer is yes.
So if those aren't the reasons why the answer is yes, then what is? Frankly, I am a woman. I have lived my entire life in opposition to the patriarchy. Certainly, as an adult this has been more an act of consciousness than as a child. To be raised as a girl, and grow into a woman, is always in opposition to the patriarchy. I am not special in this regard.
I don't claim to be intellectual, or have intricate thought patterns to be brought forth with eloquent and erudite language. When I try, I have been accused of being reductionist. Which I think just meant that I speak in plain language and perhaps don't have as sophisticated an understanding of identity politics as the person who called me that. And truthfully, most people are simple in that they get generalizations first and then the specifics, and it's incredibly frustrating to be put down for using words that people actually understand, particularly from people who only speak in words that are understood by a very small subset of the population. Of course I get that reductionism can distort the complexity of things or phenomena, but I also get that sometimes the simplest explanation has a hell of a lot of value.
Anyway, back to living in opposition. I know that when I spilled coffee in the kitchen when I was 8 or 9, and my dad-who had just barked the order, "COFFEE" at me-told me I would make a terrible waitress, and my response was "I don't plan on being a waitress", that I was living in opposition to the patriarchy. No, I don't and didn't think there is anything wrong with being a waitress-my mom did it for years, and for a long time, it was one of the only careers available to women. But I did realize, even then, that I wasn't going to be what men wanted me to be (no woman ever really is, you know?). My dad was a man that expected his children and wife to be servile. And that's what my dad meant by waitress: not server but servicer.
I also know that when I affirmed for myself that I wanted to partner with women, I was taking a risk and AGAIN living in opposition to the patriarchy. How dare I not be sexually available to men! How dare I not become a man's wife!
I am also fat, and fat-loving. This, again, is not something a man wants me to be. I take up space. I don't apologize for my size. The diet and fashion industries, largely run by men, want women to disappear (size double zero???). I refuse. I actively resist the push for me to get smaller and be quieter.
I am also masculine, and a woman. I am not transgendered, I use female pronouns and I use my girly first name. This, I think, is the biggest of the unspoken affront to the patriarchy. This is, also, the only aspect of my identity that regularly makes me afraid. I am afraid to use public restrooms-which I have to confront as my daughter is potty-learning right now. I am not afraid to be there, I am afraid of what might happen to me when someone realizes what I am. Just this week, I followed two women into the "ladies" room, and one of them did a double take at me, then went and looked outside at the pictogram on the door. As she did that, I said, "I am a woman and I am in the right bathroom." She of course got all kinds of embarrassed and apologetic, from which I turned away. I try to tell myself her embarrassment is not my responsibility, but my fear is about what she does with her feelings. Does she go tell her male partner about me and he takes it upon himself to correct what is wrong with me? Sometimes, I think I am being paranoid. But then another transperson is killed, and I get reminded that maybe I am not paranoid. Like I said, I am not transgendered, but my gender is certainly transgressive. And rigid gender ideas are the props of the patriarchy. If we start to push the boundaries of gender, we push at the foundation of patriarchal power. I do that, everyday, with my man panties and my men's deodorant (as if deodorant or underwear have a gender).
But ultimately, what I do that is in opposition to the patriarchy is live, and breathe and be. Men don't like women (there I go with that reductionist shit again). In fact, men beat, rape and control women. In some places, women's presence outside of the home is considered obscene. In other places, the qualities that women are encouraged to have (empathy, for example) are looked at with disdain and even contempt (Michael Steele, I am looking at you!).
I know that my very existence, even if I worked at the zoo, is in opposition to the patriarchy. I might not have to defend using gendered language, but I would still be afraid of what might happen when I use the bathroom. I would still not be a man's servicer. I'd still get pegged as a humorless, strident man-hater. I'd still get called a bitch, a dyke, a whore and a cunt. I would still fear for my sexual safety. And even so, I would still get up every day, put on my man panties and go out into the world. That audacity is how I live my life in opposition to the patriarchy, just like every woman does.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Living in Opposition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13845
Thank you for your post.
The part that most struck a chord with me is the language issue. I know all the terms that the academics, experts, & activists use and I am comfortable using them in those circles. But when I need to explain to my cousin in Houston why it was not Rihanna's fault that her boyfriend beat her or why my cousin with two sons shouldn't assume that they will grow up strait and that his open homophobia won't affect them negatively someday, I must speak simply. That is not to say that they are dumb or uneducated, but that (as a mix raced person) I have to communicate in a way that is comfortable for them, in a way that doesn't seem condescending or "white talk". I'm from Dallas and that makes me suspect enough; they think that I don't understand the hood or that things are just different in Houston. I take responsibility for having conversations with my friends and family that shows them that feminist/womanist issues like homophobia and domestic assault affect people everywhere. It isn't reductionist, it's knowing your audience and not assuming that everyone has thought about these issues to the extent that you yourself have.
a most gracious thank you, to all of you. this was a tough piece to write, honestly. I am glad that I didn't see more than one of the troll responses, but the "la la land" reference is puzzling. I mean, really?
Anyway, I do identify as a radical feminist, and I will check out all of your suggestions if I haven't already.
Thanks so much for reading and supporting me!
I feel just as you do and have always, even before my feminist awakening, felt that the world order was supremely fucked up and I always did what I could to throw all kinds of fuck-yous to the patriarchy.
However, I would say that you're a radical feminist, that you get to the root of the issue, that you don't get bogged down in the branches and leaves of the patriarchy tree, but go straight for the roots.
If you haven't already, check out I Blame The Patriarchy by Twisty Faster (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/), she rocks, and it was from following and learning from her blog archives that I realized I am not just a feminist, but that I'm a radical feminist.
Keep up the opposition!
This comment has been deleted.
What a ridiculously unnecessary and hateful comment.
I love it when trolls come to an unabashedly FEMINIST and ANTI-PATRIARCHY blog and say that WE'RE the ones who are "crazies" and out of touch.
Pot calling the kettle black, much?
Uhh. I'm going to ignore the commenter above me and just say, Thank you for your post! I do identify myself as a radical feminist and I too think about my everyday opposition to patriarchy. Just being in the world, refusing to shape myself around patriarchal notions of femininity and womanhood. Not really giving a shit about what dude bros think of me. Recognizing that I present a huge threat to one of the pillars of our society, and feeling prideful and fierce about that, wearing it with a smirk. Being queer, dressing masculine-ly with flairs of subversive femininity. Etc. Go us! It can be hard sometimes, but mostly it feels good, to live this way in the world.
Have you read any Mary Daly? Her concept of the Positively Revolting Hag has been really important to me. She describes the term as "a stunning, beauteous Crone; one who inspires positive revulsion from phallic institutions and morality, inciting Others to Acts of Pure Lust". I think of a positively revolting hag as someone who is ugly in the eyes of the patriarchy, and who inspires others also to become ugly in the eyes of patriarchy. Thinking of myself as a hag gets me through some rough spots when I really feel the strain of being seen as a threat/ugly/etc by those around me. Instead of getting upset about it, I revel in it.
I really appreciate your post, it's great to hear from other radical feminists on here.
I completely disagree with the comment above. What makes her post suggest that she is "living in a lala land"? I am proud to say that I am a feminist and proud to stand next to anyone else who has the balls and will to stand for the things that myself and others do. I don't care what a person looks like - whether you paint your nails, choose to shave or not shave your vagina, or if your hair is short enough to be called "butch." Grow some real skin and have respect for people-no matter what they look like.
thank you for the great post.
total side note: I like that you said "potty learning" instead of "potty training"!
I just wanted to say how beautifully written this was. Everything you wrote could have been said in such plain, ugly prose, but that was gorgeous. I know that sounds superficial, but I thought it might make you smile that someone thought so. You rock so fucking hard, in so many ways.
Like I wrote in my first comment, the bigger problem for you is that you have your views cheered and reinforced. You'll never move forward from your truly backward thinking if you don't leave these people behind.
This comment has been deleted.
Sorry about that, folks. Karol has been banned.
That was beautiful. Thank you.
Whoever said your attempt at eloquency was reductionist was very, very wrong. Thank you for sharing your story.
this is fucking beautiful and so are you. thank you for brilliantly articulating all of this and sharing your important experience with us. as a feminine-appearing queer woman, i don't have to worry about unpleasant bathroom experiences because of my gender performance, but i do surprise/disappoint/survive comments from straight men all the time-- which when they expect one heteronormative thing from me and get something completely opposite, feels pretty damn subversive.
the patriarchy is crumbling because of all of our combined daily existences. :)
I am so glad to hear from all of you! It just keeps getting better...you are all an amazing bunch of folks!
Fabulous post. I don't have time for a more thoughtful comment right now, but I really appreciate the things you've said. I'm in the early stages of self-acceptance now with some transgressive parts of me. I'm an average weight, but I have a lot of body hair (from PCOS) and I don't want to shave. It seems like a minor thing, I'm sure, but dealing with hair and what others (men and women who learned from then) expect me to do with it has really colored my experience of femininity from a young age. It made me feel worthless and unwanted (and it's not even *that* noticeable - a sprinkling on my neck, unshaved hairy legs and underarms - but you know how being a preteen girl can be). I'm also getting better about being the kind of dyke *I* want to be. I've been through so many stages of presenting as a particular type of woman, first for the benefit of men and then for the benefit of what I thought lesbians wanted, how I thought we were supposed to present. I don't really understand my gender. It confuses me. But I'm learning how to wear what I want to wear, how to choose clothing and hairstyles for what I enjoy and what is comfortable, and what I feel sexy in, as opposed to the box into which I think I should fit. I'm bored with my "boy clothes," and I'm learning that the box is self imposed, and I'm perfectly allowed to step out of it (or back in) at will. Anyway, that's just my two cents and thank you again.
Just for the record: plenty of men like women. That's not to say they have to have any particular place in your life. But yeah, there are plenty of good ones out there.
(Which is, by the way, why most of the bad ones have no excuse and should be held accountable!)
Plenty of men like or even love women. This has little to no bearing on whether they are active members of a culture which oppresses women or not. My father loves me, but still neglects to teach me the life skills he taught my brother and reminds me how being "mannish" and unattractive will make it difficult for me. My ex-fiance loved me, but he still kept me captive, emotionally abused and raped me.
This. The two people who abused me honestly thought they loved me. SO did the ones who treated me like a sex object. Unless the men in question are actively and 100% determined to break out of society's misogyny, then they are just as much to blame for the way patriarchy is so entrenched.
Not that I disagree with your comment, but I think the thing that bothered me the most about that part of the original post was the grouping of all men together. Yes, some men who love and like women are very entrenched in patriarchy and participate in the oppression of those that they love. Not all do.
To say "men don't like women" and "men beat and rape women" is not only hurtful to those men involved in the feminist movement, but a very dangerous way of stereotyping as well. I mean, if men don't like women, and men beat and rape women, then why even bother trying to educate men in the ways of feminist thinking at all? I understand where the OP came from with that statement, but I find the language problematic. I'm sure it was a conscious choice and one that I've seen from many feminist authors (including male feminists) as well, I just don't think that its the best way to get men to think about their place in a patriarichal system. Otherwise, it was a beautifully written, insightful piece.
Twisty over at "I Blame The Patriarchy" has a post category called "Men Hate You". She often gets email about it, and in her FAQ she writes:
The ‘men’ in ‘Men Hate You’ is shorthand, both for ‘our male-dominant culture’ and for the slightly trickier notion that (a) all men exercise — and benefit from — male privilege whether they want to or not, and (b) that the exercise of male privilege is misogyny. The Twistolution understands that there exist men who don’t actively choose this, but the involuntary nature of their participation in women’s oppression doesn’t make women any less oppressed by them. Sure, it isn’t fair, but if it bums you out, how do you think it makes us feel? Oh, wait, I forgot; you don’t care how women feel. Do you?
Mostly though, I don't think our writing should always be informed by an obligation or desire to "get men to think about their place in a patriarchal system". Not everyone gives the comfort, welcoming, and recruitment of men to feminism a high enough priority value to adjust their language accordingly, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I think by the ways these comments are written, that the quote should be "Women hate men, for something they may OR MAY NOT have control over".
I personally find it very disheartening that misogyny is allowed to breed misandry among a group of women they seek equality.
The point of "Men hate women", in the general sense that all men benefit from the suffering of women may not be completely false in its reasoning, but it also validates "Women hate men", for the same reason. That all women hate men because through some facet of our lives we will someday benefit from their suffering.
And while some of you may find nothing wrong with women hating men, in its own sick way, it serves to justify men hating women for men who have no desire to promote patriarchy. And believe it or not, I would assume this the majority.
Great post. Congratulations on the work you do to help the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and the audacity with which you live your own life.
I respectfully disagree with one point of your larger analysis. You seem to say that every woman is "automatically" in opposition to the patriarchy, and that (perhaps?) most men don't like the very fact that women exist.
I don't think this is true. The whole POINT of patriarchy is to create structures by which men can exploit women. Men very much like having women around--the exploitation of women produces men's privleges! Otherwise men would have to clean, do the dishes, have sex with themselves, and soothe each other's negative emotions.
Furthermore, most women go along with patriarchy most of the time. If women were organized in opposition to patriarchy then patriarchy would cease to exist. But patriarchy is a dominant structure in society and most people (men and women) end up believing in it.
It's very true that radical feminism, lesbianism, and gender role transgression are in opposition to patriarchy. But plenty of other women go along with patriarchy, if only because they are aware of no other option.
Am I saying that all men are terrible rapists and batterers? No. Really, I am not. But just like I benefit from my white skin without knowingly doing anything actively racist, men benefit from the rape and battery of women whether they are actually rapists or batterers. Ok, so I didn’t say anything new just then. Susan Brownmiller said it first, and she has also been dismissed as reductionist.
But, if we look at misogyny as a continuum, where the far end is the extremes of rape and battery, I bet we would be hard pressed to find a man who hadn’t participated at some point on that continuum of the hatred of women. No, he didn’t rape anybody, but he likes to look at “barely legal” porn. No, he hasn’t beaten his girlfriend, but he doesn’t speak up when his buddies tell blond jokes. No, he doesn’t force anyone to watch him masturbate, but he can’t look at a woman’s face when he talks to her. No, he doesn’t demand to be served by his wife, he is even a volunteer at a rape crisis center-where he dominates every conversation and talks more than he listens.
Of course there are pro-feminist men, some that I know and love. But the ones that I can respect the most, men like Byron Hurt and Jackson Katz, say: yes, we benefit from men’s violence against women-even though we actively work against it. They aren’t defensive and begging women to consider them to be part of the feminist movement. They are sitting down with men and talking about gender, misogyny and hate.
Great point! I think some people get thrown off by this type of analysis because they misunderstand that it is a STRUCTURAL analysis and it doesn't mean that you, personally, "hate" ALL men or something. By analogy, one could offer a structural critique of the military and still have friends who are soldiers, or offer a structural critique of the institution of marriage and still have friends who are married.
But rape and battery DO reinforce male privlege, which all men possess from birth WHETHER THEY WANT IT OR NOT (and the large majority of men DO want their privleges). Every time a woman does something she doesn't want to because a man wants her to do it, it is largely from fear, and largely because men, as a group, have been waging a terrorist campaign of violence on women within their own homes from thousands of years. That's what male violence against women really is: terrorism. It's the violent mechanism that upholds male privlege, just like the secret police upheld the Communist government in the Soviet Union. Did all Soviet Communists commit atrocities as members of the secret police? No. But if you were in the Communist government, even if you were just a railroad engineer or something, you could thank the secret police for your position.
Hey this is an intelligent and honest post. Don't worry about not having all those fancy words. When you say "it's incredibly frustrating to be put down for using words that people actually understand, particularly from people who only speak in words that are understood by a very small subset of the population" I totally understand what you mean. I often feel like I'm using too simply language and that my point will not be impressive enough for people to take in. I'm not sure this is patriarchy though necessarily, rather intellectual snobbery. But heh, maybe I'm too institutionalised to see it!
You're right that just being a women means that we are immediately in opposition to the patriarchy and it's sometimes very difficult to see when we've been sucked into it all without realising.