I apologize if this gets a little bit rant-y, one of them just popped up in another discussion elsewhere and it got me thinking.
I'm not sure where this stuff comes from, exactly. It's not like there's a Feminist Textbook that's teaching young aspiring feminists these bad things, but it seems like I see feminists continue to fall into these traps when we discuss matters online. And they bug the hell out of me. It's tempting to say that I only hear this stuff from people who are new to the feminist movement, but alas, it is not necessarily the case.
I'll keep it to two, because otherwise I could rant all day.
In a discussion about accessibility/likability of feminists:
"I don't understand people who think that all feminists are a bunch of man-hating killjoys. That's like saying all civil rights activists are Black Panthers."
This one bothers me on a number of levels. First of all, second-class citizens are rarely given their rights by a benevolent ruling class out of the goodness of the brc's heart. Rights are often a result of the people of the second class getting up, getting angry, and demanding their rights in a way that makes the ruling class uncomfortable.
In our hurry to distance ourselves from the Scary Radical Feminists (for... I dunno, I guess so the boys will like us), we trample the very real reality of our situation as well as the very real situation of people of color.
Take, for example, Melissa Batten. She was a developer for Microsoft who had taken out a restraining order against her estranged husband when he began harassing her. He even broke into her office. Yet he was allowed to walk free, and he eventually shot and killed her before shooting himself.
Now, she did exactly what she was supposed to do. She went to the police. She filed a report. Hell, he even made it easy when he committed felony B&E. But the police failed at their duty to protect her and she was a sitting duck. If she had decided to arm herself, and if she was able to shoot him before he shot her, would we call her a ball-busting man-hater for defending herself?
Because the Blank Panthers were more or less the same thing, to be historically honest. When you look at the history of the police brutality in black neighborhoods, there comes a point where people have to stand up to that sort of treatment and that's what the Black Panthers was about. It wasn't about "killing whitey," or going into white neighborhoods to start shit. Hell, the Black Panthers even had white members. It was about self-defense in the face of a broken system that wasn't keeping the community safe (or was actively persecuting the community). Hell, the Black Panthers even had white members.
More often than not, when you talk to a radical feminist, she's not advocating killing all the men, she's advocating women's safety and security in a society that does not value women's safety and security. So I guess that makes radfems a little like the Black Panthers.
But it's not like that's a bad thing.
In a discussion about paroled rapists who are repeat offenders:
"These guys make me so sick! We should just cut their balls off!"
I hear this one far too often. I suspect it's more of a conventional wisdom spout-off than one that actually has roots in feminist culture, but we do take our cultures with us when we traipse off to Vaginastan to get our feminist branding, I'm afraid.
Castration rhetoric, apart from being inflammatory, is completely wrong-headed. The problem with rapists lies not between their legs, but between their ears. Rapists derive pleasure from the sensation of domination and abuse, not from the actual sexual stimulation of intercourse. As such, removing testicles (apart from the fact that men can still sustain erections without their nuts) will not prevent men from raping women.
But more than that, there are plenty of cases where convicted rapists have ;asked the parole board to castrate them as a condition of parole. So what's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, it's a great way to sidestep any culpability or responsibility for your actions. If you can just blame your genitals, and how your sex drive makes you a monster, and if you can just remove your gonads everything will be fine, you're just sidestepping your own accountability in the matter as a human being. If there is to be any hope for rehabilitating rapists, the solution lies in intense counseling and therapies, as well as reviewing post-parole institutions.
I'm all for tougher sentences for violent sex offenders: As far as I'm concerned, a lot of them should not have the option of parole (which won't happen as long as we focus our mandatory minimum sentences on drug offenders, but that's a rant for another time). But this notion that cutting off the testicles of a rapist will somehow make things better doesn't have a place in feminist discussion. Rapists won't stop raping if they have to use a tool to rape instead of their own genitals, and furthermore, the state should not have the ability to exercise power over another person's bodily autonomy.
So what about you? What "feminist" conventional wisdom do you wish would just go away?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Two problematic feminist memes I wish would go away.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15758
I love this post.
- "Real women..." Look, I know where you're coming from, but the point of feminism is to get away from essentialist stuff like this. A real woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, regardless of size, demeanor, genitalia, you name it. When you say something like this, what you're doing is defining a "real woman" as "anyone who is like me," which is both incredibly self-centered and incredibly excluding to people who happen to be unlike you.
- "A real feminist woman is one who's rude/occupies her space/drinks a lot/etc!" Now, I'm not saying that the freedom to do so isn't good. But for many people, that's just not part of their personality. I'm a very soft-spoken person. Statements like this exclude me.
"Of course abstinence-only education is bad! We're all having sex and we all love it!" - Asexual people and other people who are still virgins, on purpose or not, would disagree with you. Sexual activity requires the consent of two people, not just one -- that'd be masturbation.
- "Women are more _____ than men." No. Some women may be more _____ than men, and some women may be less _____ than men. It's especially grating when these statements play into age-old misogynistic memes. No, women aren't innately more moral or virtuous than men -- because the other side of that statement is that men are better in the logical and scientific realm, which that line of thinking ranks higher.
- The spellings "mysogyny" and "mysoginy." No. It's "misogyny." If you're equipped to write a blog comment, you are equipped to look up the spelling. Google will even correct it for you. Seriously. Nothing undermines your point more than stuff like this.
I'm sure there's more, but that's what I have right now.
The "Real Women" thing is probably what annoys me the most too. It's almost always used in a way to go against the stereotypes of how society wants women to behave or look or what have you. But when you change it to say something, for example, like "real women have curves" you're not helping either. Women come in all shapes and sizes. There's nothing more real about one with curves than one without.
However, the whole spelling thing I think is over the top. I'm dyslexic and sometimes even the simplest words confuse and frustrate me. Should I have to look up everything just to post a comment on a blog? And not everyone's first language is English either. As long as the point is clear I don't see the need to harrangue someone about their spelling.
"Of course abstinence-only education is bad! We're all having sex and we all love it!" - Asexual people and other people who are still virgins, on purpose or not, would disagree with you.
Oh god thank you. I swear I feel as if I've turned into the Resident Feministing Asexual (TM), all of whose comments can basically be summed up as "Hey, I'd like to point out that this thing you said is wrong. Why is it wrong? Well, you see, I exist." I worry that I'm starting to annoy people but honestly now, it is not that hard to phrase things in such a way as to take asexual people into account. I do it all the time! I'm not even going to bother to ask for things like actual discussion of how something affects asexual people, all I want is not to be freaking erased!
...[/rant]
Hey, it's OK. I'm the resident Feministing Never-Even-Been-Kissed Virgin, and I'm sure I've brought that up just as often.
"Of course abstinence-only education is bad! We're all having sex and we all love it!"
I'm only speaking for myself, but the problem with abstinence-only education isn't the 'abstinent' part, it's the 'only' part. Feminism is about choice and, preferably, informed choice. If a woman chooses to be celibate, that's fine. No one should feel compelled to engage in or refrain from sex for any reason unconnected to their personal desires. All I want to know is that she is educated honestly about sexuality and birth control options so that she can make the choices that are best for her.
Individual appetites for sex are just that - individual.
Exactly. But I've seen the "We're all having sex! Don't we all just love sex? Sex! Sex! SEX!" argument at least three times on this site and countless times elsewhere.
Yeah, I'm not arguing in favour of abstinence-only education - in fact, there are some negative things about it for asexual people as well. For instance, the assumption that when you get married you will start having sex and enjoy it. But all too often, people argue against it a la "but sex is brilliant and wonderful and EVERYONE wants to have sex! Sexual desire is an intrinsic part of being human!" In fact, this line of argument gets used against much more than abstinence-only education. And, well...
Hi! I exist!
Great post, Mighty Ponygirl!
Here's a few that really get me going:
"Commercial sex is bad and sex workers are victims." I could go on about this one for hours.
"I'm so liberal and progressive tranny tranny tranny lame lame lame." WTF??!! Also related: "Cis is offensive." Seriously???
"I'm a pro-life feminist." No. Oxymoron.
"Second wave feminists vs. third wave feminists blah blah blah." Enough with the tired stereotypes and oversimplifications.
"Hip-hop is so sexist!" Um, how about indie rock? Classic rock? Southern rock? How about pop music in general? How about The Fucking Beatles? I don't even really like hip-hop (except for a few particular artists) and this infuriates me.
"Commercial sex is bad and sex workers are victims."
Obviously it's not constructive (nor accurate) when people state that all sex workers are victims, or that people should be condemned or shamed for participating in sex work.
But I do think that within feminist discourse there should be space for the question of whether or not we really want to live in a society where sexual activity is so commodified that we find it acceptable for it to be bought and sold. In other words, I think the question of whether sex work should exist in an ideal feminist society is a legitimate one.
I'll add to the pro-life feminist thing:
"I believe that abortion should be legal, but I would never have one."
This one makes me crazy in the coconut.
First of all, you don't know that.
It serves absolutely no good purpose to announce to the world that you would never have an abortion.
It does reinforce that abortion is "morally wrong" and that's all the anti-choice groups hear when you say it.
It's also a cheap swipe to make sure that everyone knows you're a good girl, unlike those dirty, abortion-havin' sluts. And that you're not in the least bit petty, and you'll give the sluts their dirty abortions just so long as no one mistakes you for one of those dirty abortion-havin' sluts.
I've had this conversation with a lot of my really close woman-identified friends. They believe in the right to choose, but don't think they'd have an abortion.
Their reasoning tends to be pretty simple, and I think something that's often left behind in the anger towards "pro-lifing" a pro-choice discussion; they would figure it out to take care of the baby. They trust themselves enough to know that they would be able to support a child and would have the support network to do that.
They also don't believe that they'd be able to give away their baby once brought to term. The adoption option wouldn't be viable.
Yeah, unless an unexpected pregnancy would jeopardize their ability to raise their current children safely, or a planned, wanted pregnancy went south and continuing on with it could kill them, and potentially leave their children motherless.
Like I said, you don't know that you would "never have an abortion."
True. You never know if you will ever have one or not. Like anything in life, sometimes things happen off of curveballs thrown.
We're talking in the hypothetical of a typical pregnancy with their own, personal moral compasses. I don't want to speak for all women, or all people who make a personal statement saying they'd never terminate, but just that a lot of people feel that way. It's not necessarily an anit-choice rhetoric lurking in pro-choice clothing.
But again, I fail to see why it's germaine to the conversation. Why is it so important that people know *you would never have one* if you feel that it should still be legal?
You can say "I've never had one" or "I hope I never have to have one" and those things mean entirely different things than "I'll never have one." To say you will never have one means that you feel there is something deeply wrong about the procedure at a fundamental level.
And furthermore, if you start backpedaling with "oh, well, I mean, if there were a medical reason then I might have one but otherwise nuh-uh" that's even worse, because you're engaging in fundamental attribution error.
Women who have abortions don't have abortions because they luuuuvvv killing babies. They do so because they feel that they are not equipped (physically, emotionally, financially, mentally, whatever) to bear and possibly raise a child. Each woman has a certain threshold at which point that turning point of having the abortion is reached: If you simply cannot have a baby, even a healthy baby, you have the abortion right away. If you think you're having a healthy baby, but it turns out you're not, then again, you have to re-evaluate that physical, emotional, financial, and mental capacity to care for that child.
There is no difference between a woman who has an abortion because she feels that she can't care for a child she's just learned has spinal bifida and a woman who feels that she can't care for a child, period. In each case a woman is taking a critical look at her life and attempting to factor a baby in and realizing that it just would not work out to continue the pregnancy. And this notion of exceptionalism I see from women who make sure everyone knows how pure and good they are because they would "never have one" (unless, of course, they did) is really bullshit, through and through, because it makes it sound like they've sat down and made a tough moral choice when more than likely they haven't really thought about it much at all.
There is no difference between a woman who has an abortion because she feels that she can't care for a child she's just learned has spinal bifida and a woman who feels that she can't care for a child, period.
Also, there's something inherently problematic about aborting a fetus that would develop into a child with a disability solely because of the disability. I hesitate to call it ableism on behalf of the woman getting the abortion because as things stand, it *is* often a lot more difficult and requires a lot more resources to care for a disabled child than for a currently-abled child, and it's possible for the disability to tip things over the threshold you mentioned. However, acting as if abortion is omgsowrong and murder and completely inexcusable, unless the child would be disabled in which case it's fine and dandy? Now THAT is some ableism.
In absolute agreement with you. :)
I used to be one of those. The kind of person who would say, "Well, I believe women should be able to choose - but if they asked me for advice on what to do, or if I got pregnant, I would never have one"
This was before I became sexually active. Having been on the other side of a pregnancy scare, and really confronting the issue for myself (in addition to reading all the moving, heartfelt stories and sound intellectual writings that came out after Dr. Tiller's death) have changed my opinion.
I am now quite certain I would have an abortion. And, if any of the women who were likely to come to me in need of advice on this did so, I would likely counsel them to abort. I AM SPEAKING ONLY FOR MY CIRCLE OF CLOSE FRIENDS. These women have their entire lives to be mothers and are not financially equipped to raise a child at this point (remember, in my hypothetical scenario they sought my advice/judgments). However, if any of them did choose to keep the baby (either parenting or adoption) I would support that choice, and do everything in my power to help them.
I really don't get that reasoning. It completely leaves out medical reasons for abortion.
The people with whom I'm talking are fully able and healthy people. They wouldn't, unless something occurs in pregnancy, have a medical reason to have an abortion.
But they, and I, support any woman's reason to terminate because we all support a woman's full bodily autonomy.
its nothing like that. I am prochoice. I support a woman's right to CHOOSE. I think that sometimes keeping a baby, even if it is unplanned, it can be a blessing. I also understand that a woman has the right to having an abortion. Oh and someone can believe that abortion is morally wrong and still be prochoice, its just about not making the decisions for another person. I get to believe that abortion is wrong and still support another woman's right to have one, and I also get to say that I know myself well enough to know that I would not do that, because that is what I personally believe. I also don't think that women who have them are sluts, or that I am any better than them.
You would never have an abortion, then.
Even if it meant that children you already had would have to watch you die because of any number of complications that doctors don't think you could survive carrying it to term.
Even if you found out that the fetus you were carrying had a severe genetic disorder and as it developed into a child, it was developing the neural pathways in order to truly appreciate the level of pain and suffering it was in for just so that it could survive for maybe 15 minutes after you had given birth.
Even if you discovered that your child had serious genetic disorders and that the medical expenses associated with raising that child would bankrupt your family and jeopardize the health, education, and general wellbeing of your existing children.
Just so we're clear. You would never have one.
I sometimes say that because people do ask me that a lot, I'm a vegan Buddhist so they get curious as to why I'm pro-choice if I'm against taking a life, obviously its not murder but personally, if I were to get pregnant now, that I'm older and financially stable, and it was a healthy pregnancy with no complications, yeah I'd keep it. If I were in any other situation I don't know. I am emotionally and spiritually am squeamish with the idea, but objectively I can't find anything wrong with abortion, make sense? I can't help what I feel but I won't say a thing against anyone who does choose abortion.
I think most feminists are more pro-life (in the literal sense) than "pro-life" people are, considering most people who claim to be pro-life don't give a flying fuck about the child once it's out of the uterus.
As George Carlin puts it, "if you're pre-born, you're fine.. If you're pre-school, your fucked!"
The idea that feminism is incompatible with religion. I am a liberal christian and I see many common themes between christian ideals of behavior and feminism. I'm referring to the Golden Rule and the idea of caring for your neighbor and being understanding. Unfortunately Christianity has been hijacked by those who forgo these rules for ones they have made up themselves (such as not drinking - um was it water into wine or wine into grapejuice??)
I don't think it is fair to assume all feminists are atheists or have to be atheists. Feminism can be compatible with religion just as science can be too.
Feminism is incompatible with current religious standards, which were created and are maintained to uphold traditions inherent to the patriarchy.
Ideas like loving your neighbor and sharing are not inherent, hardly even included, in the religious indoctrination process. Moreover, such niceties are just included artificially (thankfully) by religious apologists, who wind up inadvertently supporting militant adherents, usually misogynists, just by sharing a creed of faith.
Religion, in its current iteration, particularly in the Big 3, is harmful to feminism and civil rights in general. And that's that.
Oh, in response to the post, I wish for the evaporation of that oh-so-pervasive idea that men can't be feminists. Cutting through the confusion that I see if I ever (gasp!) get 'found out' by guy friends is arduous.
The reactions to the news that I am a feminist, from men at least, is incredulity. They either become uncomfortable and unsure about humor or whatever and clam-up, else they get derisive, and assume (sometimes aloud) that I am 'pussy-whipped' and have been press-ganged into liberalism by some over-controlling smile-harpy.
2 Cents.
Well a religion is defined by a dogma and a set of beliefs OR a worldview and traditions So in THEORY there could be many religions that blend well with science and feminism. However, most mainstream religions and some not so mainstream religions, all attempts to mix then with science and feminsim have never been good.
They either use EXTREMELY poor science or tend to favor tradition over facts or rights.
Actually, I would say that this is not true of "mainstream" religion at all. Fundamentalist evangelicals are not the mainstream, nor do they represent the vast majority of people in this country. The Christian denominations that are actually considered "mainstream" (and mainstream Judaism as well) are almost universally supportive of progressive science, protecting the environment, and equality, and the few that aren't solidly so are moving in that direction. I feel like the knee-jerk responses to the above comment are EXACTLY what the poster was talking about.
I'm glad someone finally pointed out that anger, and even hate, is a natural reaction to oppression. Thank you.
As for the balls thing, you're right. Cut their heads off instead :)
I love this post!
The one that really irks me is the whole 'feminism is entirely about giving women more choices and/or respecting women's choices' meme. It makes me so frustrated to hear this over and over again! This sort of mentality would only work in a world where all choices are inherently equal, where women couldn't possibly harm others in ways they are not aware of. Given that many of us have gone to schools that teach nothing about oppression, and live in societies that tend to discourage critical thinking, this simply doesn't work. We need to be thinking about how our choices impact women (and people of other genders, and animals) across the world - and we need to work to create an environment where educated, thoughtful choices are encouraged. Just claiming that all choices need to be respected all the time without debate or self-reflection leaves us stuck in the status quo indefinitely, and that makes me very worried.
Sometimes, especially on sites like this where the active commenters DO engage in critical thinking already, I think people say this with the assumption that everyone IS critically thinking already. On a broad level, that's probably a bad assumption to make, and on the whole, I'll bet most people follow tradition blindly because it's, you know, tradition.
But I've definitely seen here where someone will explain the thoughts that they used to reach X conclusion (for example, taking her husband's last name), only to be told that they're still supporting the patriarchy and hurting women. To which they reasonably, in my opinion, reply, "Well, isn't the point of feminism to open up choices for women?"
So I think it's important to encourage critical thinking and understanding of why we choose the things we do while at the same time not flaming people who reach conclusions you (general you) didn't. Sometimes "thoughtful choices" is code for "the choice I would have made."
Yes, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'well this is what I would have chosen so it is the only right choice' idea, but I just hate seeing 'but feminism is all about choices!' as a response.
I've certainly had my share of feminists in real life criticizing my choices, and I did not like it, but there's a huge difference between respectful debate that relies on self-reflective mentalities in all parties and bitching people out for doing things you don't like. The former seems to me to be crucial in promoting social change, and the latter is just rude (and detrimental to everyone, because the rude person is not allowing their own ideas to change). When we fall back on the 'it's all about choice' line, we're discouraging critical thinking (which does not mean the person saying it is not engaging in critical thinking, just that they are furthering the prominent idea that personal actions need no thought by employing such rhetoric).
This is one which gets me every time: Feminism is only about...
If you don't understand why something is feminist, just freaking ask! If you're not seeing an intersectionality, ask! Snapping judgment and saying "that's not feminist at all" is really counter-productive and trollish. No one person or entity has dictatorship over what and what is not a feminist issue or idea.
Use of the word "asexual" as a negative. Admittedly, this goes beyond feminism (it's part and parcel of disability rights discourse, forex) but I am very, very tired of how the only time my sexuality gets mentioned is to describe some stereotype or explain how of course feminists/disabled women/older women/fat women/etc. are *not* this! And no one seems to realise that this might be offensive.
"If you believe men and women should be equal, you're feminist!" Uhhh you don't get to decide other people's identities for them, and being feminist is a matter of identity. Frankly, I imagine most womanists would be rather distinctly unhappy with the above line of argumentation.
The standard of enthusiastic consent. In particular, the fact that no one seems to realise this standard makes it impossible for an asexual person to have consensual sex, which I really find rather patronising and which causes some... interesting problem for asexuals in sexual relationships. I mean, I can see a point in it for rape prevention but you can't apply it as a *general rule*.
(Actually, just run through most of the "standard" feminist attitudes towards sex and sexuality with asexuality in mind and you might see why I'm getting annoyed.)
being feminist is a matter of identity
I'm wicked thising that. hard.
Hey Zailyn,
I posted a blog a few weeks ago about the subject of enthusiastic consent. I wanted to clarify it in a way that wouldn't exclude asexual people. I meant it in the context of teaching young people to want their partner to WANT to do it, not to assume its ok to badger a partner until said partner gives in for wanting the harassment to be over with. So I guess I am defining enthusiastic consent as "choosing to participate in any sexual activity completely of one's own accord and not at the uninvited behest of another."
In your opinion, is that definition more fair/less patronizing? I don't want to other/alienate anyone.
With that definition, I'd say it works. After all, asexual people have the same problems with consent and being pressured into things as sexual people, as well as additional issues with peer pressure and not realising asexuality is a valid option which often ends in unpleasant sexual experiences, and *that* kind of standard of enthusiastic consent works to help that as well.
I've just mostly seen "enthusiastic consent" defined as the person consenting in a very enthusiastic way, because of course you can only ever freely consent to have sex when you really, really want to and are really enthusiastic about it. It's /still/ a reasonable criterion when it comes to avoiding rape, but there are exceptions!
I perceive a distinction (this is probably only my own interpretation) between "enthusiastic" consent(my heart and mind are for this) and "aroused" consent (my heart and mind and body are for this)? I think, for instance, that the times when a non-asexual partner has sex with her partner, not because she's necessarily aroused, but out of affection, could as easily fall under such a definition.
Just a thought.
That's interesting, I'd never gotten the impression that the word "asexual" was supposed to have any connotations to it. It's certainly not a lifestyle I identify with, but then, I don't use the word "homosexual" as a slur, and I don't identify as gay.
I can see that the normalization of sexual behavior, ie, "well, everyone is doing it to abstinence-only education is a waste of time" could be galling to asexuals.
Perhaps a better way of putting it is:
"Everyone deserves to know their full range of options regarding their sexuality and how to engage in that behavior in a safe manner, because all people are going to need to know this stuff at some point."
oh, and I just want to clarify. By saying I have never experienced the use of asexual as a slur, it's not to dismiss the experiences of people who have had their sexuality used against them, it's more that I'm going to keep an eye peeled going forward to stop this bullshit in its tracks if I ever do see it.
Regarding the use of "asexual" in contexts like "people think of disabled people as asexual", I actually wrote a whole post about that on my blog a few weeks ago. What it boils down to is this: first, that the meaning attached to "asexual" here has, IMO, next to nothing to do with asexuality the sexual orientation... I mean, I swear that I have seen people use the "disabled people are 'asexual'!" meme to silence asexual people. In that usage, the term is loaded with negative connotations about passivity and silence when it comes to sexual topics that are certainly not part of asexuality as I know it, and I don't see why we should get the blame for it.
And let's not forget that the way things are phrased, it is never "disabled people are stereotyped as asexual and although there are some disabled people who identify as asexual it's not any more than in the normal population", it's "disabled people are stereotyped as asexual and this is wrong and awful and it must be made clear that disabled people are sexual beings like everyone else!" And, you know, as an asexual disabled person option number 2 up there does not fill me with warm fuzzy feelings.
"Everyone deserves to know their full range of options regarding their sexuality and how to engage in that behavior in a safe manner, because all people are going to need to know this stuff at some point."
This? Would be brilliant to see actually put into practice. Because the thing is - sure, I agree that abstinence-only education is an awful idea. It actually has negative effects for asexual people as well, in that I think it's likely to instil the belief that having no desire for sexual activity is not unusual and that sexual attraction will magically surface upon getting married, which can lead to bad situations. However, the way comprehensive sex ed is usually done is, frankly, not much better for us. I went through comprehensive sex ed and it left me absolutely convinced that I must want to have sex somewhere, really deep down - which in turn landed me in a pretty bad situation which I could've avoided if anyone had ever presented asexuality as an option! It was always "everyone feels this! Everyone has these desires!" which isn't very comforting when you're not part of "everyone".
Well, I think that having the incorrect sexuality assigned to you "because X" is going to be insulting to anyone... so this idea that disabled people are asexual is going to be insulting, just like, say, declaring that all Greek men are homosexuals.
But I get what you're saying. :)
The thing is - leaving aside the issue of inaccuracy for now - sure you can find it insulting, but if you find it insulting *because of the orientation* instead of because you've just been stereotyped, that's a problem. If you react to it in such a way that denies the possibility of /any/ people belonging to your group being of that orientation, that's a problem. There are things I'd like to talk about when it comes to the intersection of asexuality and disability and what it means for me, but I can't help feeling that most of the disability movement would rather deny that intersection exists.
What both of these quotes boil down to is naive logic and simple answers for complex problems. One could certainly find them infuriating if one so chose, but I see them as evidence of the fact that, as many have pointed out, education goes beyond memorizing facts, dates, or pat sayings like these. Once we teach critical thinking, then we'll really be getting somewhere.
Then the question becomes, are people capable of thinking critically, or do they have to have a certain amount of education to begin with to understand?
"There is no such thing as a pro-life feminist."
Being pro-life means believing in removing women's bodily autonomy. There's just no way to reconcile that. As long as you want to outlaw abortions, that is anti-feminist. And if you don't want to outlaw abortions, then you're not pro-life.
Precisely. Words mean things.
Being pro-life is an anti-feminist *position*, yes, I will grant you that. And I in no way think that being pro-life (well, pro-birth) should become the standard opinion of the feminist movement, whatever that means.
But to pick out THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE as the ONE thing that disqualifies an otherwise feminist is not right. Other, equally problematic positions within the feminist movement do not make us say, "Well, she's not a feminist." Being transphobic/anti-transgender, another stance that deprives women (and men) of control over their own body, does not seem to deny a person the right of being labelled a feminist. Instead, it makes us apologize for "feminists like them."
I'm trying to find a situation where a homophobic feminist had a line of people standing behind her to apologize for her behavior.
Transphobia is a bit more of a bugaboo, but that's because the concept of transsexuality (and the concept of sexual identity as gender identity) can be deeply problematic to feminist theory. However, this is a matter of education more than anything, and reframing feminist arguments regarding gender as destiny in such a fashion that a feminist who doesn't understand transexuality can begin to understand.
"Pro-life feminists" know full well that being Pro Life means that you want abortion to be outlawed, and that would have very specific repercussions for women's status as equal citizens under the law. This isn't about shedding silent tears for the poor babies torn from their mother's wombs, this is about controlling women's bodily autonomy. That's what pro-life means. There is no pro-life organization out there that is not lobbying for abortion to be outlawed. If you really feel a deep attachment to the potential of life, and would prefer that the potential not be disrupted (which would make you "pro choice" even if your personal preference would be that abortion didn't exist, that's a huge stretch from condemning women into carrying unwanted and potentially dangerous pregnancies to term (which would make you "pro life").
Being pro-life means believing in removing women's bodily autonomy. There's just no way to reconcile that. As long as you want to outlaw abortions, that is anti-feminist. And if you don't want to outlaw abortions, then you're not pro-life.
Actually, "pro-life" can mean one of two things. There's the moral question of whether abortion is morally / religiously / ethically permissible (in certain circumstances, in all circumstances, in any circumstances). Then there's the policy question of whether abortion should be legal and in what circumstances.
I think feminists can be pro-life from a personal standpoint -- if you truly believe that life begins at conception and that all abortion is therefore morally equivalent to murder, you just refuse to have an abortion yourself and you can still call yourself a feminist. But if you are pro-life from a policy standpoint, and want to restrict what other women can legally do with their bodies, that's when conflicts with bodily autonomy as a principle of feminism begin.
I've never been able to reconcile that.
I mean, seriously, if I really believed that abortion was murder, and that having an abortion was morally equivalent to murdering a 2 year old, then how would I be able to justify the "It should still be legal" position, unless you felt that murder should be legal?
Yeah, it's a tricky position. But there are people who believe that, even though it's morally equivalent to murder, it should not be the legal equivalent of murder, because to them the principle that women should have control over what goes on inside their bodies trumps the principle that no human being should ever kill another. I'm guessing there aren't very many of these people, but it's not necessarily an irrational position.
I understand what you're saying, I just can't get past the cognitive dissonance of how some child murder is acceptable legally speaking and some is not. Obviously, I don't think abortion is child murder, but if I did, I would be on the barricades to make it illegal.
Of course it's cognitive dissonance. Because everyone says - including most people in this thread - that if you believe there should be policy against abortion, you are not a feminist. Period. And if someone, deep down, knows she's a feminist, what the hell is she supposed to believe?
In other words, it's like signing up for Position A and discovering that you must also hold Position W. More specifically: signing up for feminism and discovering you must also believe life cannot begin at conception.
I don't know when life begins. I'll never know that; I'm completely agnostic on that front. But I still believe abortion should be legal, as much as I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, because I'd like to keep my feminist card today.
And the "You don't know you'll never do X" argument doesn't really hold. Nobody knows the future. I don't *know* that I'll never rob a bank. But I can certainly feel uncomfortable about the idea.
If you FEEL that abortion is like murder and yet you still don't think it should be illegal, that's your own therapy session to get through.
But you can't call yourself pro-life and still be a feminist, because pro-life means a very specific thing and it has legal ramifications that are at their core, anti-feminist.
I don't (and never said that I) call myself pro-life. It's a politicized term. Instead, I just don't call myself anything and generally shut up about the entire issue for fear of someone telling me I'm wrong.
I don't, however, like how you're trivializing my position. This isn't just some "feeling" that's a "therapy issue" I need to somehow "get through." This is my current stance after years and years of moral and spiritual questioning, often agonizing questioning. I don't take things like this lightly.
Don't wear the shoe if it doesn't fit. If you don't call yourself pro-life (and I wasn't suggesting you did, in fact, my reading of the situation was that you don't, you were speaking for other people), then I'm not talking about you.
Yes, I think that believing that abortion is murder and yet not wanting to make it illegal is cognitive dissonance on a level that may deserve therapy.
I wasn't speaking for people who called themselves pro-life. I was speaking for people who don't necessarily know when life begins.
I myself have not come to one side or the other on this question (can a feminist be "pro-life") but it did occur to me that the cognitive dissonance thing is not unheard of. There are lots of vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral reasons, however, they do not feel it is appropriate to make that decision for others. They probably do not need therapy because of it.
Well, I think there's a critical distinction that is lacking in your otherwise excellent analogy.
There are plenty of animal right's groups out there (ASPCA, Humane Society, etc), that are not lobbying for a legal prohibition against animal slaughter. To call oneself a vegetarian or an animal rights activist does not immediate associate a person with groups that are
actively trying to outlaw slaughterhouses or other institutions that result in dead animals.
Obviously, there are animal rights groups that want to outlaw meat consumption, but your average vegetarian does not believe that animals are the moral equivalent of humans, even if they do have respect for animal life. Animal rights activists who do feel that way often gravitate towards groups like PeTA and ELF, because their stated purpose is that animals are the moral equivalent of human beings, and that it should be illegal to take an animal life.
As I keep pointing out, there is not a SINGLE pro-life organization out there that is not working tooth and nail to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion rights. If you had some groups that simply worked to reduce the number of abortions through education and real rubber-meets-the-road assistance for single parents and better adoption laws, then declaring that you are "pro-life" could theoretically be a feminist statement because you weren't aligning yourself with groups that are actively seeking to remove women's rights.
Ok, I'm thinking aloud here. Is there perhaps a distinction between people who join activist groups and those who don't? Most vegetarians probably don't join groups (I didn't) even if there is a moral component to their beliefs. It seems that you can have a belief that you think is very important for your personal well-being- not eating meat, being Muslim, never going to Texas, whatever- but it seems presumptuous to you to codify into law these things for others. So someone could feel very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, to the point where they can't imagine it for themselves (unexpected medical events notwithstanding), to the point where the terminology "pro-life" seems accurate to define themselves, but they would NEVER vote to make it illegal. They more accurately should call themselves pro-life-choice, since their personal beliefs are one side and their actions are the other. So I think some people can honestly reconcile the two for themselves. Maybe? Again, thinking aloud here.
HOWEVER! I truly believe that groups like Feminists for Life are a fraud, because they are actively working to diminish the rights of other women. That just doesn't count for me.
"HOWEVER! I truly believe that groups like Feminists for Life are a fraud, because they are actively working to diminish the rights of other women."
Could you name some specific examples, please? Most of their work, AFAIK, is focused on things like expanding resources for pregnant and parenting students so that women don't feel they have to have abortions in order to continue their education.
In other words, it's like signing up for Position A and discovering that you must also hold Position W. More specifically: signing up for feminism and discovering you must also believe life cannot begin at conception.
I get angry when I read this.
Who has to believe that "life cannot begin at conception"? Nobody.
To me, it seems pretty damn clear that in any species, human or otherwise, a blastocyst, zygote, or fetus is alive. But so is an amoeba or a fetal mouse... or adult mouse, for godsakes, tortured by humans its whole life for a new beneficial drug, also for humans...
We all define for ourselves what morality is-- some folks just happen pick a religious tradition to help them along. But the holier-than-thou, human cells are sacred crap drives me nuts...
I've seen an argument about believing abortion should be legal while still thinking life starts at conception that I find quite convincing, namely the bodily integrity one. So for instance, if there is a person lying in hospital who is going to die if he doesn't get a kidney transplant and you are the only one close enough who's compatible, no one can force you to donate your kidney. Similarly, no one should be able to force you to use your body to keep a fetus alive, even *if* you consider it a full-blown person.
...the thing is that in that case, I still wouldn't call abortion *child murder*, just as not donating your kidney wouldn't be murder.
I find that analogy, while compelling, to be limited. Because the fundamental difference is that in the situation where a person does not donate a kidney, they are killing the other person passively, by not taking an action, whereas if someone is seeking an abortion, they are actively trying to remove the fetus from their body, and that's such a huge difference when you talk about this stuff.
I think that the bodily integrity issue becomes very tricky to argue when you're trying to explain to people about the kidney logic, because they could then turn it on you with the argument of "well, if your child is hungry, and you don't want to make them a meal or whip out your tit or whatever, you could claim that 'bodily integrity' trumps their need to eat, and you could kill your child that way." But most people would consider that a form of murder, as well.
So the kidney scenario makes me a little uncomfortable, because most people are not going to see it as the same sort of action, and it also opens up a rather easy exploit.
Hm. I think you can argue it is an irrational position - but that doesn't make it bad or wrong. I would argue it's a position based on emotion - the emotional realization that what's right for you - even something you feel is absolutely right - is not something you feel emotionally comfortable forcing on others who don't agree.
Of course you can also argue that you believe killing is wrong, period - but that forcing others to abide by your personal morality is a greater wrong. One could call that a rational argument, I suppose. But most of our moral positions are based at least as much on emotion as reason.
I really have to disagree with you there. It's like people who, when you tell them that marriage in the US is a legal contract, come back with, "But I don't feel that way, to me marriage is, morally and ethically, a spiritual union with God." Feelings mean nothing in light of what it is. And the "pro-life" movement is a political movement that wants to outlaw abortions. It just is what it is. Your own personal feelings on the matter, whether you think abortions are dirty and evil and that you would never have one yourself, are a moot point when it comes to affixing a political label to yourself if you don't want to remove access to abortions for everyone else. If you think abortions are dirty murder but think it's just fine if everyone else has the chance to choose for themselves - guess what? Actual pro-life organizations aren't going to want you being a member.
But I am making a distinction between people who might self-identify as "pro-life" and people who identify with the "pro-life movement" (which you correctly point out is concerned with policy). I would guess that there are a lot of people out there who would identify as "pro-life" but not want to join the pro-life organizations you mention, for exactly the reason you state -- they're not interested in interfering with other women's choices about their bodies.
So in this case, I'd say identifying with the policy-oriented pro-life movement is anti-feminist, but you can hold pro-life personal opinions and still be a feminist.
People who believe that women should not have the right to abortion are just as "feminist" as people who believe that women should not have the right to vote. I don't care what kind of reasons they give. People who are against womens voting rights probably think they have pretty good reasons, too. They're still against womens rights.
Regarding the first meme the OP does not like...
In most instances people don't like being stereotyped, whether the stereotype is true or not.
If you find yourself mired in a stereotype, don't step on the faces of others to pull yourself out.
Radfems are not "manhaters" and the Black Panthers didn't want to kill whitey. By waving your hands and tripping all over yourself to make sure that people know you're not like those people, you're contributing to a culture that marginalizes the people who are willing to get out and do the legwork to guarantee the safety of their community by painting them as a bunch of fringe extremists.
Except some of them are fringe extremists and some of them do hate men.
Lets actually look at the views of some of the radical feminists. To pick a well known one, Dworkin believed that heterosexual intercourse was worse than the holocaust. Would that qualify for man-hating, or extremism? Do you think that actually constitutes the opinion of the majority of feminists, or the opinion of a fringe?
TD -- because when she wrote that, heterosexual sex was more often than not a result of serious power structure imbalances where men were legally allowed to rape their wives, wives' sexual pleasure was considered unimportant (or even "unnatural" and a woman who took pleasure in her sexuality was considered mentally ill), and unless the perpetrator was a black man and the victim was a white woman, rape was more often than not unprosecuted and the woman was put on trial right alongside her attacker.
When Radfems point out what a truly horrific system this is, that's not manhating, even if it makes men uncomfortable.
Except she wrote Intercourse in 1987 and included none of the qualifiers you mentioned. Further many of the things you cite had already been addressed with legislation by that point... But just to be clear your argument is that in 1987 all heterosexual sex was the result of severe power imbalances, women were never able to enjoy it, and it was worse than the holocaust. Not only that, but that when she wrote that she represented at the very least a sizable portion of feminist viewpoints.
And I don't see how making the link of men as worse than Nazis doesn't count as man bashing. What would actually qualify in your eye as man bashing?
You're fundamentally misreading the point of Intercourse. This was a discourse on the nature of heterosexuality in general from the standpoint of pornography. In which she posited that because pornography relied upon the subordination of women to men, and because pornography influences the larger sexual culture, that the nature of heterosexual intercourse may be "immune to reform." Also, marital rape laws were not across-the-board in the US until after 1993 (and even then, they were often not prosecuted as a felony rape -- I remember distinctly an advice columnist in the early 90's poo-pooing the idea of "mate rape" as silly).
Don't put words into my mouth. I have no patience for man bashing, but I also have no patience for ignoring the very real threat that women face at the hands of men so that we can soothe a few bruised male egos.
You must be looking at a different chapter. Read Chapter 7, it isn't about pornography, it is about all heterosexual intercourse. Not that the nature of heterosexual intercourse may be "immune to reform." but the very act of penetration is an act so evil it makes genocide pale in comparison. What Dworkin argued is that no matter how much the woman consented, no matter how willingly a woman agreed, it would still be evil.
Now many feminists don't want to be attributed to those sentiments, but you don't believe they should be able to separate themselves from feminists like Dworkin because it might make them feel marginalized.
From the Wikipedia article:
Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting (sometimes even falsely quoting) the book as supposedly claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical machinations of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. However, critics such as Cathy Young point out that numerous statements in the book, such as "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"[55] are difficult to misinterpret.
Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[57] stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality"[58] and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."[58]
Perhaps you could point to where in Intercourse she makes those distinctions, because I'm not seeing it anywhere in there.
I just did. I let the author speak for herself. If you don't want to believe her, that's fine. But I'm not going to go piss on her grave because you're misinterpreting what she was trying to say about power dynamics in heterosexual intercourse as they are informed by pornography.
Except if you look at the chapter I cited it wasn't about pornography it was about sex. Whats more I am letting the author speak for herself, she was doing just that when she compared heterosexual sex to the holocaust. Citing the authors work is an entirely legitimate means of letting them speak for themselves. All your quote shows is that she wanted to spin things for the better after her book got bad reviews, because what she later claimed she was talking about, and what she actually wrote are completely at odds.
Well, now, if we're really going to analyze what she wrote in Chapter 7 of Intercourse, I can't find anywhere that she said intercourse was worse than the holocaust. She said:
There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence."There is no analog for what I am describing" is not the same as "what I am describing is worse." Just as long as we're being precise.
Dworkin retreated from her position in Intercourse with the above statement.
Perhaps when she grew older her views changed. What her thoughts were wile writing writing Intercourse should be based on what she wrote.
Machiavelli is constantly reduced to the ends justify the means. While he never actually wrote as such, that sentiment is certainly all over his Discourses on Livy and The Prince. Heck, its even in his is play. I don't even what to know what he advocates for in his book on war.
The point of all that?
Saying Intercourse advocates that all penetrative sex is rape is a valid reduction. Its implied, and the logical conclusion from the statements that Dworkin made in her book.
Hell, Dworkin even wrote that only one man (some authors name I don't care to look up) was the only man to truly abhor rape.
Hit that with some analysis about man hating.
Here is the problem with what you are saying:
Dworkin herself has corrected the record on this matter.
You are ignoring one thing that she's said, and focussing on another thing she said earlier.
One cannot argue with you because you are not listening to clarification because you're so hell-bent on this one segment of the discourse that reinforces your belief that Dworkin was a man-hater, and you choose to ignore anything that doesn't support that belief.
I'm fascinated that you feel that I'm somehow supporting manhating when my OP contained an entire screed against baseless, pointless revenge fantasies against men.
But hey, it's not like that matters to you. When a woman says something that doesn't jibe with your personal axe to grind, it's all just so much pointless prattle.
Why can't we disagree about Dworkin without me being a horrible sexist that thinks you are 'prattling?'
This is a conversation about Dworkin, radfem and misandry. Lets no derail it by going back and forth with personal attacks.
You believe that Dworkin 'corrected the record.' I believe that close to a decade later Dworkin either publicly retreated from her statements or her views overtime changed and the Dworkin of 1987 was not the Dworkin of 1995.
In regards to focusing on one segment of Dworkin... the only reason I read Intercourse was because I thought the quotes I had read were being taken out of context, and I wanted to judge her work as a whole.
And when I judged her work as a whole it contained even more misandry than I thought it could be from the selected quotes.
"Internalized misogyny"
It's infantilization of women, by women.
Please elaborate, because I know a lot of women who have internalized misogyny, and it's really not difficult to find examples of it.
Saying "internalised misogyny" takes away their responsibility for their actions. Which is infantilising ("Women are pure as the undriven snow! They could never do anything bad!") and counterproductive ("Women with bad behaviours are under no ethical imperative to fix their behaviour")
Um, that's not really what it means.
When you say that a woman has internalized misogyny, it means that she has been raised in a misogynist culture and has internalized that culture in such a way that she engages in misogynistic behavior even if it is something that could be used against her, as well. The reason for this is because a lot of women know, either consciously or unconsciously, that aligning yourself with the power structure, even if you are a member of the second class, will get you better treatment than aligning yourself with the people trying to demand their rights.
For example, When Ann Althouse went after Jessica Valenti for the horrible crime of having breasts in front of Bill Clinton, I would call that internalized misogyny. After all, as a woman, Althouse has breasts, and it very easily could have been her in that picture getting sniped at by some other blogger. It doesn't mean that she's not responsible for what she's written. It means that the space that she went to in order to write what she wrote was a misogynistic space, it was unexamined, and it was internalized.
One example I always think of is women using PMS as an excuse for their behavior, like, "Oh, I was PMSing when I got angry, don't worry about what I said." Because dismissing women's feelings as PMS is something that men do to silence us, and I know an astounding number of women who have totally bought into the idea that PMS makes them unreasonable and that no one should take them seriously during their period. I always ask my friends, "Are you sure about that? Because the thing that made you angry sounds like something to be very legitimately upset about. I think you deserve to have your feelings taken more seriously than that." And they just look at me like I have two heads because they've internalized the crazy-irrational-PMSing-woman idea.
It's exactly what you're doing here. Your whole first paragraph exists only to say "not what they're 'really' like, not what they're 'really' responsible for. Even though the second paragraph contains a throwaway "I'm not saying she's not responsible", everything else drives at how she's not responsible, how it's not in her interest or what she wants to think/say/do, that she went to a place that caused it, it wasn't here, that it's a parasite that lives inside her and manipulates here but use imagery where it's not her, not who she is, not what she does.
No! I'm not saying she's not responsible, I'm articulating where that behavior came from.
Let's say, for example, you were sexually abused as a child, and you went out and you in turn sexually abused children. Knowing that you were sexually abused as a child helps to explain why you have turned around and perpetuated the cycle of abuse, but it does not excuse it. Those are two completely different things, completely different concepts. You can have sympathy that someone was abused as a child, while still being appalled that they abused a child.
There is absolutely no bearing on the idea that we can have unconscious, internalized motivations for doing something and that's why "it's ok because we weren't really in control." You're putting up a straw argument that the right wing likes to use when they feel like liberals aren't "tough on crime" and all of that nonsense. Motivations are what drive actions, not what justify them.
People are not automatons to their unconscious, but nor are we all champions of 100% self-aware free will. If someone is acting on the misogynistic culture that they were raised in without examination or understanding of where those feelings are coming from, that's internalized misogyny.
I understand the distinction you're explaining. I do not think you're making this distinction when you're talking about "internalised misogyny", and I suspect the phrase itself necessarily excuses the behaviour. If that's not what you mean to say, then the problem is how you're saying it. I haven't advocated any position at all, only suggested that your explanation is flawed. That you then attack the position as I explain it suggests to me that you're not saying what you mean.
No, it does not.
When you identify the source of a problem, it is the first step toward treating the problem.
I didn't see a bunch of people waving off what Althouse did because "oh, she's just suffering internalized misogyny." They rightly took her to task for what she did because she had internalized misogyny.
Failure to understand this is a failure to understand the basic principles of psychology. It's pop-psych drivel to believe that simply identifying the problem cures the problem. Identification is the first step towards the cure. There's a lot more work involved than just declaring "oh, hey, I've got internalized misogyny! I guess I can run around calling women cunts and whores because that's what internalized misogyny means to me!"
I'm cool with the "cut rapist's balls off" thing. For starters anyway.
YAWN, commence with the peace and love lectures.
So you feel that the state should be allowed to make bodily integrity decisions for individuals?
Maybe he/she means on a vigilante basis.
Why can't we disagree about Dworkin without me being a horrible sexist that thinks you are 'prattling?'
Because you're bullying. You're trying to pin me down to loudly denounce Dworkin for works that I feel you're misinterpreting. I've stated over and over again that I do not feel that she was "man hating" for pointing out that heterosexual sex has deep-rooted problems as a result of man's contempt for women as it is dictated by pornography, and yet you keep hammering about how much she hates men and how she's a violent extremist (and, reading back to your earlier remarks), how the fundamental principal that all radical feminism is by association a bunch of hairy, man-hating lesbians means that it should be open season to marginalize and dismiss their very real concerns.
Except those very real concerns are so hyperbolic, that they only seem written to rally a die hard few into a frenzy of manhating. I still do not see how the connotations that men are inherently rapists, or that men are inherently worse than nazis does not constitute man bashing. Does the SCUM Manifesto even constitute misandry for you?
Thus while she may have backpedaled from he statements eight years later, it still stands that in 1987 she published a tract which infantilized all heterosexual women and demonized all heterosexual men. She did this even when not specifically talking about pornography as you allege, actually read chapter seven, pornography is hardly mentioned (if at all), what is mentioned is that the very act of penetration is inherently oppressive. Not because of pornography but because of the nature of penetration.
So yeah, when any penetration is portrayed as an inherent violation rights of women. This portrays feminists as people who do not believe straight (or even many lesbian women) are capable of making their own decisions. Mainstream feminists often do not simply separate themselves from this particular brand of radicalism because they do not like the public backlash, they distance themselves from these sentiments because they outright oppose the idea that women can't consent.
They do not believe radical feminists writ large have a reasonable point on this or many other issues. Despite this fundamental disagreement you expect them to treat the ideas they disagree with as equally valid. You expect them to continue to do so even when you denigrate their intelligence, and claim they are incapable of making their own choices. So why should they return your treatment with kindness?
You are making claims about Chapter 7 of Intercourse, that I do not think accurately reflect the text. I'm not a radfem, nor a particular Dworkin fan. But I have read the chapter you're talking about and I think you're being very loose. (And if you're looking for a boogeyfeminist to accuse of being opposed to all sex, you're better off with Jeffreys.) If you're going to make claims about Chapter 7 of Intercourse, let's see some text.
"So yeah, when any penetration is portrayed as an inherent violation rights of women. This portrays feminists as people who do not believe straight (or even many lesbian women) are capable of making their own decisions. "
To pick a nit; so you conclude, here, that a person who is a victim of an assault or crime is therefore incapable of making his or her own decisions? A victim of an assault is always stupid and incompetent?
We are engaged in a conversation... a debate if you will. I am arguing my point just as you are arguing yours.
None of that means either one of us is a bully... nor should we resort to name calling.
Through our conversation we have noticed that we have different interpretations of Dworkin and her views towards men... those interpretations are at odds... and they are allowed to be.
Your also putting words into my mouth. I responded to the first meme in the OP I don't understand people who think that all feminists are a bunch of man-hating killjoys. That's like saying all civil rights activists are Black Panthers. with In most instances people don't like being stereotyped, whether the stereotype is true or not.
You wrote of me
(and, reading back to your earlier remarks), how the fundamental principal that all radical feminism is by association a bunch of hairy, man-hating lesbians means that it should be open season to marginalize and dismiss their very real concernsSo you took me saying that people don't like to be stereotyped to mean that I stereotype all feminist as hairy, man-hating lesbians
Lets take some time to explore the stereotype of anger and man-hating...
Dominique wrote:
I'm glad someone finally pointed out that anger, and even hate, is a natural reaction to oppression. Thank you.
Given the context of the conversation, I think it is justified to say that Dominique has some hate towards men... and its right here in the same conversation where others are declaring that a 'fringe' element. And based on the voting it was not an unpopular sentiment.
So, when I mention someone is hateful I am making a positive statement, a statement about reality. If there is a normative statement, a statement of what should be, I will make that myself. You don't have to do that for me.
I have not engaged in a conversation here about the legitimacy of such anger/hatred, to justify or reject, minimize or overstate, belittle or acclaim. Nor am I attempting any sort of problem solving.
In any regard, your attempts to take this conversation to the personal is kinda silencing.
Just to make an observation - in the conventional male usage of the term castration, it means removal of the penis not the testicles.
Irregardless of what the dictionary says, that's what most men mean when we say castrate.
Think about it - if a man loses his testicles, but still has a penis, it just means his hormonal balance will be out of whack, he might have to take some prescription testosterone and he can't father children.
But if a man loses his penis - he can't pee standing up anymore - now he has to squat and urinate like a woman, he cannot have oral, anal or vaginal penetrative sex - he can only be on the receiving end of oral or anal sex, he cannot get a handjob and he cannot masturbate.
In other words, a man without a penis is no longer a man, in any meaningful sense.
Which is why men mortally fear having our penises cut off.
But losing a testicle, but still having a penis - while a minor inconvenience, is far more bearable than having the penis removed.
Gregory, I have never heard the word "castration" used to refer to the removal of the penis. I've been a cis - het - male my whole life, and I've never heard that. That's not what the dictionary says, that's not what horse people talk about when they talk about a gelding, that's not what guys with castration fetishes talk about. The dictionary and everyone I've ever remotely discussed castration with agree that it is removal of the testicles (which most folks erroneously believe completely eliminates erection and orgasm; my understanding is that it doesn't, especially with supplemental hormones). IME, the term for removal of the penis and testicles is emasculation.
If your experience of common usage is different then we've spoken to people with very different usages.
"a man without a penis is no longer a man, in any meaningful sense."
i know a lot of men without penises. they are trans. and they are MEN. in a very meaningful sense, thankyouverymuch.
One meme I wish would be examined more closely is the idea that sex and sexuality are more important to one's identity than most things, and they are inherent/should not be transgressed or you are somehow being untrue to yourself.
To me, as Thomas C Foster wrote in "How To Read Literature Like a Professor," sex is inserting tab A into slot B (or rubbing tab A against object B, which could be someone else's tab A). Orgasm is reflex in response to stimuli - albeit more enjoyable (to me) than getting my knee whacked with a rubber hammer.
I have no doubt that, due in part to genetics and in part how we were raised, we have certain initial and strong inclinations to certain genders and sexes, and that mental and physical differences account for the different ways sexual people enjoy sex the most.
I do, however, dislike the idea that I should be happily subjugated to my sexual desires. For example, in middle school I discovered an attraction girls (I am a cis woman). At the same time, I was a fervent follower of a pretty conservative/edging Calvinist Christian youth group headed by a good friend and my older brother. I believed that attraction was wrong, and so sought to overcome it. I did.
Now, having marched almost in tune with Calvin and come out the other side as a feminist/pluralist/vegan person I am rediscovering my bisexuality (and discovering new things about my sexuality). I do not feel that I was damaged by years of not indulging my bisexual feelings, but I am now ready to renegotiate my sexuality.
What I'm saying in entirely too many words is that if there if you hold some moral/ethical/philosophical/religious belief dear and yet have a conflicting sexual desire, you should not be pitied or shamed if BY YOUR OWN WILL work to rid yourself of that desire.
I see a lot of parallels between cultural attitudes toward food and towards sex (that are relevant to this discussion).
For example, I enjoyed steak, beef, chicken, eggs, and milk A LOT - but when I educated myself about environmental issues, health, and animal rights I chose to forego those things and develop a love beans, nuts, and vegetables (which I hated as a kid), in addition the plant foods I already loved (grain, fruit, etc).
However, I am NOT NOT NOT saying that anything outside of cis heterosexual, married, missionary intercourse should be disciplined away (or that people who wish to follow their inclinations should be shamed into "normal" behaviour) - because I believe that there is NOTHING WRONG with bisexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality, or asexuality.
I am simply positing that mind > matter and championing the idea that ALL sexuality is a choice. Abstinence is a choice, having sex is a choice. Homo/bisexuality is a choice, heterosexuality is a choice. Kink is a choice, vanilla is a choice. All these choices are valid (enthusiastic consent of adults, of course), but we should not feel that we *have* to act a certain way because it is "natural" (to us).
Abstinence isn't necessarily a choice. I certainly didn't choose it. It was chosen for me at birth.
Um... I really can't agree with this. In large part because I spent several years desperately searching for some sign of sexual feelings within myself and trying to force platonic feelings to become sexual with no success. I do /not/ think my asexuality is in any way a choice - I think it's inborn but although you can probably argue something about childhood and the like, fact of the matter is that /now/ there is absolutely nothing I can do to "turn myself" sexual. I have tried. *Many* asexual people have tried. Many of us have experience a variety of trauma due to that "tried". Many of us have been forced, by negative experience after negative experience, to accept that it's not going to happen. As a result, I hope you can see why I will react badly to anyone telling me that I choose to be asexual.
...unless by "choice" you mean that I could choose to have sex - ignoring the fact that it's an activity I have absolutely no interest in and where the thought of it is repulsive, I could choose to have sex, so clearly the entirety of my sexuality is invalid!
I'm wondering whether to point out that you repressing part of your sexual desire in favour of another part is probably somewhat different from a homosexual person repressing /all/ of their desire, or a homosexual or asexual person trying to force desire to appear that simply isn't there. It seems as if it might marginalise and belittle the experience of bisexuals which I really don't want to do, but at the same time it might make clear why your food analogy simply does not work for many people.
@katemoore - I'm sorry, I just realised that my statement was pretty ableist. Please forgive me.
@Zailyn - Just for the record, I did identify as asexual throughout high school (due to being involved in an abstinence only circle, though, I never had to suffer as you have) - as I think about this more I may just be operating through the lens of my rather fluid sexuality.
Also, I wasn't trying to say "well, you can choose to be sexual so you obviously have to be because sex is teh awezome!" But, yes, you could choose to have sex - I believe someone farther up the thread discussed the difference between enthusiastic consent and aroused enthusiastic consent (mind and heart vs mind/heart/body all on board).
I'm also not arguing that you should have sex, or try to make yourself, or that homosexuals should try to make themselves straight (or that heterosexuals should make themselves homosexual)- just that if they want to, I believe that our minds can bring pretty far in that goal.
I'm truly sorry if I offended you, and your criticism is really helpful :)