Oh yes, please tell us more about this “Teh Sex” you speak of, oh wise asexuals!
Published by R. Mildred June 17th, 2006 in Blogitics, Cock!, Rape, Sex, Shame on you for being a womanDo you know what Twisty? Bite Me.
I dunno, maybe it’s just something odd about me, but lesbians and what appears to be asexual victims of patriarchal abuse telling me how to have hetereosexual sex just chaffs my wedge somewhat, you know?
I know I know, I was as shocked as anyone else to find out that lesbians find fellatio and penises disgusting, and while some idiot who never got over am incident of abusive sex they experienced once and has decided that, due to the wonderful combination of being frightfully dull and being too shit scared to risk being hurt again, that all sex with guys is Teh Icky and anyone who has sex with guys is trying to cozy up to the patriarchy etc…etc… *yawn*, those of us with two brain cells to rub together and an ability to actually connect in a sexually intimate way with other human beings of a male persuasion tend to be able to find ways to invite men into our beds without turning it into a threesome with the patriarchy.
But god forbid we should throw away the rape culture’s bullshit power games and heirarchies! Oh no we have to recreate them to suite our goals, so that the self appointed “high ranking” feminists (dipshit lesbians and their false conciousness prone bi/het acolytes) can dump on those “below” them for not raping men hard enough or something (because if the guy involved is enjoy it, then obviously it’s patriarchal), no doubt with “ex-straight” camps to help free us from the “false conciousness” that is making us abuse ourselves, because of teh “retching” and teh “gagging”, (Because Porn is Real, it’s like a documentary and shit) and OMGWTFBBQ!!!!11!!ELEVEN!! What about the pleasuring of men, how patriarchal is THAT!?
Of course I hope no one is surprised that, wonders of wonders, this sort of stupid ass outlook works to further stop heterosexual women from having sex, “oh you can’t do it like that!” “Oh no, that’s patriarchal!” Explain to me again why both this bullshit anti-sex “feminism” of yours and The Patriarchy you talk about despising so much, both involve me, a woman, becoming abstinent? Why is everyone afraid of the horrors I may commit with my vagina or mouth if just left alone to challenge the patriarchy one cock at a time?
Being Anti-Sex is being Pro-Patriarchy you fools! Patriarchy wants to control our sexuality and make us beileve that all sex is about dominance, and you’ve bought it you nincompoops! I hate the rape culture because of crap like this, where pleasure is subject interminably to who’s in control and who’s ontop of whom.
We all know that in a patriarchy, (and by ‘patriarchy’ I mean a social order in which all women are subject, by universal agreement, to all men), on accounta the power differential, all relationships with men are inherently inequitable.
Now I forget the precise term for this sort of logical fallacy (Quick, turn on the Beyerstein signal, we need a philosopher, stat!), when someone posits that because A is equal to B, and C is equal to B, all C must therefore be equal to A, but it’s bullshit, all relationships with men are inherently inequitable, yes, unless you choose to make it otherwise by stepping outside the constraints of patriarchal scripts and behavior. The patriarchy is like a vampire, it can only come into your bed if you first invite it in. But what do I know about heterosexuality huh?
And yes yes, I know that the heteronormative society does shove heterosexual sex down homosexuals’ throats (pun no intended), but not to the point where you know what you’re talking about vis a vis blowjobs unless you’ve actually taken a shit load of time out to study heterosexual sexual activities down to their minutest detail.
Which start to make you look a teensy bit like those homobigots who obsess about homosexuals to the point of dressing up in leather and going to special bars for men who like other men dressed up in leather. If a lesbian knew what they hell were talking about on this subject, then they’re probably not really lesbians.
So what you have here is a lesbian who has gotten all her information about fellatio from the patriarchy itself, including her asshole boyfriend of once-upon-a-time and who therefore has a strangely conspicuous lack of comprehension regarding how subversive fellatio can be to both social heteronormitivity and the patriarchy itself if one puts some thought into the act and does it correctly.
And when I say “subversive”, I speak not of teeth, or being able to make most of the muscles (it’s erectile tissue, like nipples, not a muscle) in a guy go completely limp with just your tongue, no.
Look to the Heavens, Oh Yeh Of Little Faith, for anything that should, always, requires you sticking a digit or thumb up the guys butthole and stimulating his prostate for it be maximally pleasurable for the guy, is not supportive of the patriarchy. Unless Twisty knows of another prothesis-less act in which women penetrate men rather than are penetrated by men. No? Well please, kindly, STFU.
The middle finger is the fellatio finger, never forget that, and we sex-positive, feminist, heterosexuals display it to show that we know it’s proper use: To challenge all oppressive sex obsessed social systems that stand between us and liberation.
(ETA: clarified a shit load of stuff, and fix a few typos)
Umm, lol? I share your sentiment, if not your hyperbole.
You’re really exaggerating and Twisty does it much better.
I’ve been reading Twisty about six months now and think about half of us are heterosexual. Several are straight guys. Interesting ones too!
But if you’re determined that what she’s doing is telling you what to do…if we could spend a couple thousand years telling gays how to have sex and slaughtering them when they didn’t pay attention, the least we could do is allow some pay back listening. Doncha think?
Hey, I’ve never told homosexuals how to have sex. Wouldn’t presume to.
But you can pry blowjobs from my slightly smelly cold dead fingers!
(I do still love Twisty and IBTP, and I don’t think anyone is going to stop reading IBTP because of this scuffle, or possibly kerfuffle.)
No, Pony, I don’t think. What is this, a junior-high grudge match? Why not invite some of A.Q. Khan’s customers to finish the job, while we’re at? You know, payback for Crusades and support of Zionism?
Drivel is drivel is drivel.
Um yeah. There are heterosexuals and bisexuals who also agree with Twisty.
Twisty has, ostensibly, had heterosexual sex. she wrote about an ex boyfriend in a post about Oprah. May 9, 2006 IIRC. Something about how he was having an abusive rage, throwing books against her apt window while Oprah was on the telly explaining to women that they should leave the abusive fucker. Angels came down from the heavens and dinged T on the crown and she saw the light.
I suppose you could say that, being a lesbian still means you don’t get it and never could.
But, I don’t think this has to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with radfem theory: hets and lesbians alike agree with twisty on her argument. MacKinnon, for instance, is clearly straight. But she’ll still tell you that all sex, including lesbian sex, takes place under conditions of patriarchy and thus it is tainted. Yes, even lesbian sex, particularly if you engage in anything that seems to be reproducing het sex: butch/femme, etc.
I learned that the fun way, as a young bisexual in small college town where I was a townie. Townie lesbians had no problem with butch/femme. but the college lesbians? they just thought we were cracked and it was all about androgyny, no penetration, no sex toys, and NO butch/femme. and to be bisexual. well, i was confused and needed to see the error of my ways.
i had honestly thought we’d made progress when, in the 90s, i went back to college and everyone seemed to agree that it was a big mistake. alas, it hasn’t gone away and it remains all of a piece: all sex takes place under patriarchal conditions, even lesbian sex.
Hi!
But c’mon. All sex does not take place under patriarchal condtions and that is NOT what Twisty was saying. But it sure as hell takes a lot of work to pare it down to its essence.
Read Puffin. She nails it. Shows you how to separate it. Extrapolates on Twisty’s riff. I do love some of these young rad fems. So smart so smart. Just leave an old warrior like me in the dust.
I am personally opposed to receiving a blowjob without the promise of being able to perform cunniingus.
I’m disappointed that this whole discussion isn’t being framed around oral sex, in general. Or maybe I just think that because I haven’t followed all the links.
Bitch, I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon because there’s a large scale tendency of people to “overcorrect”. Basically, there’s no doubt that the dominant discourse in America about sex is that it’s about domination of women. But to my mind, it’s actually a lot easier to “opt out” than try to dramatically rebel, which creates some very unpleasant side effects, as noted.
“suite our goals”
I’m glad you left this typo in, Kyso. But you may want to change it to the first word to its dandy homonym.
I’m proud to be a porn liberal.
I thought there was a ruckus, but then R. Mildred BROUGHT the *#*@& Ruckus.
First of all a nitpick
‘A is equal to B, and C is equal to B, all C must therefore be equal to A’
is called the transitive property of equaliy, and it is a law of methematics not a logcial falacy.
-The following property: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. One of the equivalence properties of equality.
perhaps you meant ‘implies’ not ‘equals’.
The thing is this
1 power differential support the patriarchy
2 all blowjobs have inheret power differentials
3 therefor all bjs support the patriarchy
is what you are arguing against. to do this you need only say that 2 is a false premise. Many many many blowjobs have inherent power differentials cuase guys are being asses and women dont really want to do them, but not ALL. So while many bj’s support the patriarchy, not all of them do. I think the value in Twisty’s post is just ‘before you give a bj, make sure 2 isn’t true’ sometimes 2 is isn’t true but onsecond glance it really is.
I’m disappointed that this whole discussion isn’t being framed around oral sex, in general.
Cuntlicking isn’t acknowledged by the patriarchy, so it doesn’t make you a patriarchy cheerleader. If anything, it makes you a hero, like doing the dishes.
Great rant!
It’s impossible to separate anything sexual, intercourse or oral or anal or whatever, from at the very least a vaguely-patriarchal framing, simply because in almost all of nature sex is male-dominated. We are more complicated beings, obviously. But sexual activity between humans takes place in patriarchal ways because the sex itself is a reversal of the process of courting, in which the female has complete control. Since her ability to procreate is limited by the number of eggs she produces, whereas males have an almost endless supply of seed, she must choose a mate. She dominates the dating. Therefore men dominate the sex. And the mental domination stems from a literal, physical domination (insofar as how the male mounts the female, human or otherwise). I am all for sexual equality but biologically speaking, it is fundamentally impossible.
That was a little graphic at times. Sorry.
Ooh, an evo-psych lesson! How fun.
The graphicness was fine.
The trivially disprovable assertions and ludicrous logical errors were troublesome.
But more graphicness! We like teh graphicness.
Bra.
VA!
Fuck doing the dishes! That shit’s demeaning!
[This coming from the guy who's about to vacuum all the carpeted surface after cleaning the toilets.]
BTW, this whole thing makes a lot more sense after reading Carpener’s breakdown. Give ‘em hell, Mildred.
‘She dominates the dating. Therefore men dominate the sex.’
She dominates the dating=false premise. when will this bullshit cheap sperm expensive eggs die?
Therefore men dominate the sex.’= unsupported logic leap that don’t make no sense.
(insofar as how the male mounts the female, human or otherwise)= completely subjective interprestation unarrented by objective critique, also not all sex is doggie style or man on missionary but even if it ws see previous line.
My God, I am all for sex and eliminating all the bullshit from it but with people spouting patriarchy affirming statements like
‘I am all for sexual equality but biologically speaking, it is fundamentally impossible.’ is it any wonder that Twisty and the like ask uu to think twice about who we give head to?
Amanda
I would agree. Howeve there are probably blow jobs out there they are not “opting out”, though there are many that are.
Well said, R. Mildred.
So fine
Heart from womenspace on Twisty’s riff:
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/06/15/feminist-hierarchies/
What Pony said on Twisty’s about baggage, that makes sense to me. I grew up molested, and when I first recognized those experiences had left their effect on my adult sexuality I was troubled and ashamed. Growing up raped is a perverse sexual development, but it happens and you’re left with it. I know Twisty isn’t about therapeutic support, I went to Lydia Lunch for that, in the 80s she was open about her childhood rapes and totally unapologetic about taking pleasure in her own subjugation as an adult woman. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and anyone who thinks it is makes for interesting reading. I agree, Twisty’s baggage is fascinating, but I don’t have to carry it.
Where I always get hung up is this: If everything is the Patriarchy, why bother fighting it? I mean, not having sex is the Patriarchy, having it is the Patriarchy, I Blame the Patriarchy is the Patriarchy, even matriarchies are the Patriarchy.
If we can’t even concieve of a world outside the Patriarchy, why even bother trying to fight it?
I really don’t understand how you can argue with biology. I’m not saying I’m a scientist myself, but there are simple facts about nature that you can’t ignore. Asking “when will this bullshit cheap sperm expensive eggs die?” is obselete because it will never end. At least, not until male-female sexual roles reverse, as in, males get periods and women don’t (although I’m sure many of you would be all for that
). Christopher makes a good point: considering solving the problem of “Patriarchy” only reaffirms its existence. The issue is that we are trying to tackle a simple problem from extremely complicated circumstances. Look at the most primitive tribes–males hunt, women cook. Now, supplant that to an urban culture and it obviously becomes incredibly intricate. But you can’t just suddenly do away with a complex social structure when it’s so deeply rooted in biological history.
Amanda,
rebelling takes work and no one’s giving much thought to that. instead, we’re advocating gazing at our navels and running around, as one woman said in comments, asking ourselves about patriarchy next time we’re waxing the carrot.
um. ok. but, as i said in a blog post recently, i’d no more bother with that than i’d bother to wax poetic about the lows to which i’ll go to suck my clients’ dicks.
because the lows to which I will go to suck client dick are not the problem.
why#2: it’s not be/c i have to accept the world around me, reluctantly, to say, “i have to make a living, so whateever” and likewise “i have to have a man, so whatever.”
instead, for me, the goal is to organize and attack the problem. i accept that radfems have their view as to what the problem is: pronography, rape, prostitution. Good. attack it. Go out and volunteer for these causes. Go out and build alternative isntitution and practices. go out and do something and for pity’s sake, stop attacking other women and do something constructive.
Why stop attacking other women? It’s not because debate is some that hurts my fee fees. Anyone’s who read my blog knows that isn’t the case.
it’s becasue there si legit disagreements about the problem. And this post, from Twisty, in fact her entire blog, is a rant against the reality of the existence of alternative explanations of women’s conditions.
the problem, for me, isn’t sex. i don’t agree with the rad feme theory that the root of women’s oppression is in the control of our sex. and, if it ever was, as i pointed out the other day in a post on judith butler, there is factual evidence of the existence of systems of oppression that start out for one set of reasons and are maintained for others.
but, because any other arguments are snidely written off as just another species of male identified patriarchy fucking, i can’t even get the decency of respect for my argument. it is written off from the get go with the assumption that rad feminist theory is not only the True Thoery, but that’s it’s endlessly abused as the outcast theory.
horseshit.
I’m currently reading Racially Speaking, the 1996 Big Read Tome that sets about, not to attack the patriarchy, but to endlessly attack every other feminist theory out there. And not just attack theory, but attack other women. It sets out to deny its racist and repeatedly engages in racism. It sets out to deny its biologically esesentialist, when their critics are arguing that they are culturally essentialist.
It really is hilarity on ice, when they demonstrate they don’t have fireing synapses when reading their critiques. But, it’s not hilarity on ice when, repeatedly, legimitate differences are written off and descirbed as women who are male identified, reallly men, etc.
It is, plain and simply, an endless attack on other women, endless misrepresentations of their criticisms. just as twisty’s second post was the claim that a bunc h of women had said that fellatio undermined patriachy therefore we can all go home.
no one ever said that.
thus, it is an ATTACK. it is misrepresnetation.
It is not just a joke. It is not just hyperbole. It is not because we are sensitive. it is not that we are protesting too much.
We disagree. For legit reason. We disagree and not because we are social dopes, tricked by patriarchy while all the Enlightened One are not.
It’s not just Twisty attacking other women. It’s Robin Morgan defining every other feminism as a form of male identification. it is Catherine MacKinnon telling black feminist that their critiques are attributable to their over determination by the patriarchy. it is Catherine MAckinnon telling lesbians that fighting for the gay rights movement before they fight for feminism is male identifitication.
When, over and over, rad fems attack other women, you have to start seeing it as part of their theory and explanation and not just an aberration or a mistake or a joke or hyperbole.
Uh, yeah. I can’t see straight under normal conditions ( i need glasses and no money). the book is _Radically Speaking_ which was the 1996 answer to radfems’ critics.
I try to avoid confrontation with you, Mildred, but that was a complete and total misreading of Twisty’s post. Nowhere did she tell anyone how to have sex. She merely opined. Like this:
I can’t stand reading >90% of everything you post, Mildred.
Did I tell you to stop posting? No. I merely expressed my opinion on your posts. There’s a difference. Learn it.
Well, there’s that, Dykonoclast, and there’s Twisty asking het women to take a public stance on sucking dick and setting it up in a way that will a) give antis free license to give the pros hell and b) asks that the pros respond to be humiliated and shamed. Perhaps it was a joke, perhaps it was meant to lighten up her seriously bad news, but Puffin, Pony, etc., took it to a new level: not patriarchy-blaming, but sister-blaming.
Nowhere did she tell anyone how to have sex.
No, but she did tell hetero women how to feel about their sex lives. Big surprise that people got defensive.
I guess my problem with all emcopassing philosophical generalizations, such as the ones Twisty, and Puffin made are that they are inherently dehumanizing. I mean I realize that politics are personal, if one completely seperates intent, such as through usage of a “false concienciousness” then one iherently discouts the value of the individual. Please note, that this is not to say that false conciousness does not exist but rather to caution that using it to analyze behavior on anything other than a case by case basis is fraught with error.
Not for one second did Twisty believe she wasn’t throwing a bomb, but clearly there were discussions to be had and opinions to be discussed.
As someone said, all sex is patriarchical, but so is essentially all culture on this planet. This being set aside, there is also some sort of reality of sex and clearly anything can be fetishized, and part of such fetishization are the biological and psychological (I would lean toward capital B and little p) underpinnings of sexual desire. On top of that, I would add the difficulty of the other versus the self. Guys with guy junk clearly could more easily imagine wanting someone to do something to it, meaning you have it yourself, you know what makes it tick, and it is already somewhat fetishized for you, because you probably get yourself off quite a bit on the side, regardless of sexual partner’s proclivities. I’m not saying you think about putting your mouth on it, but it is already an easily understandable sexual object. Yes, it happens to represent concentrated Patriarchy, but it also happens to simply exist as a penis. I really thought Twisty was being tongue in cheek, not about her actual thoughts on funky bratwursts, but on the statement itself- meaning if I declare your musical taste to be preposterous, which I most certainly do- kidding!- its kind of a joke in and of itself, i mean what could be more subjective?
There ARE issues, MASSIVE issues wrapped in the whole blowjob thingy, and it is clearly a platform for discussion, but a lot of people are making arguments based on personal experience, and what could be more subjective than that, given the low n=1 of most people’s lives on this earth. I think the discussion seemed kind of like penis therapy. And since the penis represents the Patriarchy (seriously) that is not a bad discussion, its just that how are you supposed to say to a bunch of people that their experiences aren’t enough to come to a conclusion about the topic a priori. And what I mean by that is that no conclusions can possible be reached in that forum as to the gross/non-grossness, patriarchy/non-patriarchy of a hummer.
Since I’m already in moderation, I’ll add that holy cow, I didn’t see the next post. Twisty, Twisty! I guess I just can’t answer that. If the dong cannot be removed from patriarchy EVER, nor can sex with a dude, then her point and I guess Mackinnon’s are legit, but if so, is it worth even arguing about it?
hah. how i missed the part in there about the fellatio finger, i don’t know. but thanks R Mildred for those of us who fuck men who take it up the ass good ‘n’ proper.
You know…asexual is a totally valid identity/place to be, too. And abuse happens: we all process it as best we can.
In general, I just think it’s best to own your shit.
“I find giving head icky and disgusting and degrading”:
fine.
“Let us discuss the ways in which the female-to-male blowjob might be seen as symbolic of patriarchal oppression”:
doable.
“Giving head is icky and disgusting and degrading, *categorically,* and *no woman* REALLY likes it, not REALLY (I’m Every Woman)–oh, you do? Congratulations, you are a tool of the Patriarchy! ™ which means whatever I say it means, except it’s not really me saying it, it’s some unnamed Authority”:
oh, piss off.
and, while I don’t know where Twisty’s coming from wrt her own erotic etiology, I do know that some radical feminists (Sheila Jeffreys, for one, whom I seem to recall Twisty has once called her ideological twin or something of that sort) are proponents of what’s been called “political lesbianism,” to wit:
“We do think,” …”that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1517977,00.html
Which, you know, as someone who struggled with internalized shit over her own very queer but organic sexual desires, as do many of us, I found beyond ridiculous, and frankly infuriating. Who the hell are you, lady, to require compulsory *anything* of anyone else? And since when do you get to redefine lesbianism as *not* having anything to do with sex with other women? Oh, yeah: the notion that lesbians are simply women who don’t like men/sex with men, *because men are the only thing that matters,* *and women don’t have sexual desires of their very own.* Nope! No patriarchy there!
personally, I am political in part *because* I’m a lesbian and have thus become aware of institutionalized oppression from that angle. Not the other damn way around. I would never tell anyone else what they should or shouldn’t do in bed; and I’ll be damned if I’ll accept anyone ever telling me what *I* should or shouldn’t do in bed, should or shouldn’t *desire*, ever again. I’ve had QUITE enough of that, thanks. and no, I don’t care *what* your ideological rationale for your control freakery is: my body belongs to me, my desires belong to me; you’ve got your own. Deal with them.
>I try to avoid confrontation with you, Mildred, but that was a complete and total misreading of Twisty’s post. Nowhere did she tell anyone how to have sex. She merely opined. Like this:
I can’t stand reading >90% of everything you post, Mildred.>
Well, no, in fact, that’s not correct. What she said was, among other things, (as she’s done before, in other contexts)
*no woman likes…*
Big difference. One’s an opinion. The other’s a universalizing statement.
I can’t stand reading >90% of everything you post, Mildred.
Did I tell you to stop posting? No. I merely expressed my opinion on your posts. There’s a difference. Learn it.
Actually I cannot help wondering why you don’t like 90% of the stuff I post, it is inherently judgemental, the same goes for twisty and puffin’s posts, which amonuted to A) Giving blowjobs makes you a bad feminist and B) (this is the one that really fucks me off) I have never put as much thought into blow jobs or heterosexual intercourse as lesbians and people who have had really bad sexual expierence.
I love asexuals, homosexuals and I’ve been there for abuse victims, but seriously, do not tell me how to fuck, because you don’t know what you’re talking about for me.
The whole thing was so utterly manly in tone, pompous, arrogant and, the thing a feminist should never do to another feminist, they talked down to us heterosexual feminists like we were stupid and never actually think about how the patriarchy affects our lives.
And put on top of that the fact that every woman is currently having a wide variety of patriarchal elders decide whether or not any particular sexual activity is illegal (outlawing sodomy outlaws blwojobs remember, due to the fact that sodomy is a totally bullshit term from a misreading of the bible) and hovering over her ever sexual decision, if they don’t just fully legalize rape along with forcing women to be pregnant.
When I go to twisty’s, I expect the Patriarchy to be blamed, not supported.
>The whole thing was so utterly manly in tone, pompous, arrogant and, the thing a feminist should never do to another feminist, they talked down to us
THANK YOU
>And put on top of that the fact that every woman is currently having a wide variety of patriarchal elders decide whether or not any particular sexual activity is illegal (outlawing sodomy outlaws blwojobs remember, due to the fact that sodomy is a totally bullshit term from a misreading of the bible) and hovering over her ever sexual decision
oh, hello.
…um, did I miss something wrt the sodomy business, btw? i was under the impression that SCOTUS had overturned the last of ‘em, all of what was it now? three years ago? two? four?
of course, there are still laws against owning too many sex toys (or any) in some states; and god forbid you should consider using your bodymind *in that way* as a career; and hello yeah wrt reproduction…
tell me something. Why is “my body, my choice” only sacrosanct when it comes to reproductive rights?
>I grew up molested, and when I first recognized those experiences had left their effect on my adult sexuality I was troubled and ashamed. Growing up raped is a perverse sexual development, but it happens and you’re left with it. I know Twisty isn’t about therapeutic support, I went to Lydia Lunch for that, in the 80s she was open about her childhood rapes and totally unapologetic about taking pleasure in her own subjugation as an adult woman. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and anyone who thinks it is makes for interesting reading. I agree, Twisty’s baggage is fascinating, but I don’t have to carry it.
nice post, thank you, flawed plan.
yeah, and I get why a lot of abuse survivors would gravitate toward this sort of feminism, i really think I do. and why what’s apparently commonly understood as “sex-positive” would be offputting, especially now, in this weird time where on the one hand a certain small subset of Americans have gotten to the point where we can pretty much take being able to pop into our local woman-friendly toy store and get a Rabbit Pearl and a nice bottle of massage oil to go (download porn, hook up with a stranger without being censured, what have you); and on the other hand, the uber-patriarchal government appears to be bent on taking us back to the Gilded Age, if not the actual Victorians or original Calvinists–clamping down on reproductive rights, attempts to alter the Constitution so that god forbid same-gender couples won’t have the same rights as mixed-gender couples, the godawful “abstinence only” shite they’re cramming down the throats (ahem) of as many schoolchildren as they can get away with–yeah. Strange days indeed. And: rape, and violence, and abuse. They keep on happening. And happening and happening and happening; and where is the outrage of yesteryear? Who will be our champion?
I mean, I enjoy Tristan Taormino, for example, and I do consider her work real contributions to “sex positive” culture, and thus, to feminism. but I can understand why maybe if your experience of sexuality is all bound up with horrific abuse and misery and you’re still trying to process it all and hell maybe can’t even stand being *touched* right now…probably “The Ultimate Guide To Anal Sex For Women” isn’t exactly going to be what you need to hear about.
So I get it, as a way to address abuse. I get placing womens’ abuse at the hands of men–domestic, rape, familial, what have you–in a sociopolitical context, no doubt.
But I don’t think patriarchy-blaming the Twisty way (or the Dworkin way, or the Jeffries way, or the MacKinnon way, or…) is really all that helpful beyond a certain point, on the macro level; and it leaves a hell of a lot of people out. I mean, if “it’s all the fault of the patriarchy” helps put horrible experiences in a meaningful context and speeds toward the healing process, well…you know, I don’t want to get in the way of that. Annoying as I find it when this sort of blaming turns into (yes) attacks on me and mine for I guess not getting with the program, the One True Way.
But personally…besides everything else. How the hell much more criticism does any one woman *need,* really? about her body, her clothing, her *self.* How much more shaming and blaming and guilt?
Wouldn’t it be *maybe* more radical to consider just…acceptance, of yourself and of your sisters? and eventually, maybe, even your brothers?
Just putting it out there.
Re: Why attack other women.
That’s an interesting point, Bitch, but since you seem quite hip to all the various strains of feminist thought, I think the reason would be staring you in the face. Radicals believe fundamentally that people do not relinquish power voluntarily. It must be torn from them. Therefore attacking men is a waste of time, because they aren’t going to ever say, “Hey, you’re right. Let’s be equal.” So the only workable strategy is to work on fellow oppressees and get them, at least, not to be complicit in their oppression. When you have a worker rebellion, do you beg the bosses to see reason? Hell no, you have a strike and make the fuckers cave in.
Radicals believe women are the sex class. If you believe that, nothing short of a strike will get us better treatment.
I personally don’t see women as the sex class. I think women aren’t so much a “class” in the patriarchal model as a form of currency. Women have multiple functions in this system—womb-bearers, vagina-keepers, free childcare and household work, trophies to be displayed in front of other men, and objects that are traded to keep social networks amongst men functioning. (Anyone who is about to whine that women aren’t traded by men, I recommend that you go watch the movie Almost Famous, which has a pretty famous scene of blatant woman-selling in it. Also, pimping. Giving your daughter away at her wedding. You get the idea.) Striking isn’t an applicable analogy because the labor women do isn’t strictly for men, especially in the sex area. Women don’t fuck just to get favor with men. They have sex drives of their own. It screws up the “sex class” model.
That said, I don’t believe in breaking into camps on basis of fundamental disagreements like this. I think radfems have a lot to teach us not despite their weirdly patriarchal view of sex-as-labor, but because of it. It’s important to remember that in the dominant patriarchal discourse, women’s sex drives are ignored and denied, because the patriarchy has an interest in framing women’s sexuality as a task performed for men.
I think blow jobs are fun. I can strenously believe that all day and all night and it seems to have zero effect on the fact that in our culture as it exists, they are portrayed as a service done to men by women, period. My believing they are fun is putting me outside the dominant discourse and Twisty’s post made me realize that. I don’t agree with her, but her point made me rethink a lot of assumptions I had that I think might be wrong.
Amanda: Thanks, you clarified a lot for me. I enjoy your blog and comments. But interpret radfem theory some more for me: why is attacking men a waste of time? Wouldn’t that be the main action to tear power from them? And obviously, by attacking men, I mean their structures of power (in shorthand).
I continue to believe that attacking other women is a turn aside from attacking male power structures because it’s safer to attack other women, and incredibly dangerous to attack men. Why isn’t violence, largely specific to men and the Patriarchy, the main target of radfem analysis and attack?
Attacking women in pr0n and pr0sste2tion and blow job apologinistas seems well, rageful, infantile and boundryless (which I am, all the time). I’m reminded over and over again of Elaine Pagel’s book on the invention of Satan–I paraphrase: Satan is the sister who doesn’t agree with you.
yrs, B. Dagger Lee
Well, no, in fact, that’s not correct. What she said was,
*no woman likes…*
Well no, in fact, that is not correct. What she actually said was
I posit . . . . that no woman . . . . has ever actually enjoyed
How is that telling anyone what to do or how to feel?
And because this is all about me, that shit about political lesbians is absolutely terrifying. I don’t even want to know what Sheila Jeffreys would have to say about me [I identify as a dyke, but I'm just in it for the pussy. My more rewarding emotional relationships have historically been with men. It's a damned shame I find the male form so unappealing.]
As for Mildred’s complaint, if you don’t want to be talked down to, don’t read Twisty’s blog!
>I continue to believe that attacking other women is a turn aside from attacking male power structures because it’s safer to attack other women, and incredibly dangerous to attack men.
jeez, yeah. I’m shocked that the notion that “attacking men is a waste of time” might be someone’s actual position; that, that would never have occurred to me.
I think radfems have a lot to teach us not despite their weirdly patriarchal view of sex-as-labor, but because of it. It’s important to remember that in the dominant patriarchal discourse, women’s sex drives are ignored and denied, because the patriarchy has an interest in framing women’s sexuality as a task performed for men.>
Yeah, that makes sense. From a uh dialectic point of view, I suppose.
The thing about attacking (or, okay, harshly critiquing) potential allies as a way to bring them around to your way of thinking, though: seriously, does this ever work? Really?
> I posit . . . . that no woman . . . . has ever actually enjoyed>>
How is that telling anyone what to do or how to feel?>
The key part of that is not the “I posit” but the universalizing “no woman has ever actually enjoyed.” Which, as a statement–and Twisty has certainly made statements of this nature without the “I posit” beforehand–pretty much gives yourself the authorial voice; the speaker is now not just *a* woman, with whose experiences many women might be able to relate, but EVERY woman.
(”I’m every wo-man…it’s all in…meeeeeee”)
I suppose in and of itself one could read this one as “Is this speculation of mine true? Discuss”–which, fine. And it looks like that *is* how people were reading it.
the thing of it was, was, when women came back with “yes as a mater of fact I *do* enjoy it,” *that’s* when Twisty came back with (I think from the post she scribbled?)
>Some of you seized the opportunity to acquaint the group with your erotic autobiographies (don’t quit your day jobs!)>
…which, besides the sheer nastiness, suggests to me a certain disconnect.
“I posit that no woman has never actually enjoyed thus and so.”
“Well, I’m a woman, and I do enjoy thusandso.”
How do you respond to that? is my question.
“Oh, okay, I guess I was wrong; *some* women do enjoy thusandso. I still don’t. And I hear a lot of the rest of you don’t, too. Ew. Right? EW.”
But, no.
So, no; she did not *tell* women to feel or not feel anything, in so many words. And even if she had done…well, what’s she going to do? reach through the computer screen with a hypnotic device and FORCE people to feel thusway? Obviously not.
What she did do, essentially, is solicit womens’ feelings (perhaps with the hope/expectation that *everyone* would feel the same way she did? I can only speculate); and then, when the existence of feelings that did not match her own became apparent, she snapped back at the ones who didn’t feel the way she did, (and thus who contradicted her posit) in a rather nasty and humiliating way. And all through it, never stopped trying to control (yes) the terms in which the whole thing must needs be framed: butbutbut it IS Patriarchal. it IS. it IS.
well, says whom? and how do you prove it? How can you prove something like giving a blowjob is inherently degrading (in the Patriarchy, whatever; since we don’t have any alternate model, it may as well be saying “on Earth”) for a woman? Well, you can’t, except through personal experience.
But if everyone’s personal experience doesn’t fit the theory, then your choices are:
1) Revise the theory, even a little bit
2) Discount the people whose experiences don’t fit.
And Twisty, *I submit,* chose the latter option, and that’s why people are blowing up. Not just because it was nasty, or because “hey, she’s talking about *me!*”, which certainly factored. Because it was playing dirty pool, and people who’ve been engaging Twisty in good faith felt cheated.
I’m a scab, in thrall with the patriarchy.
“So the only workable strategy is to work on fellow oppressees and get them, at least, not to be complicit in their oppression.”
No wonder they’re frustrated. I wonder what part of “go straight to hell, girls” they don’t understand.
And Twisty, *I submit,* chose the latter option, and that’s why people are blowing up. Not just because it was nasty, or because “hey, she’s talking about *me!*”, which certainly factored. Because it was playing dirty pool, and people who’ve been engaging Twisty in good faith felt cheated.
Yep.
Hey, that’s cool. I’m a fraud, not a feminist, don’t care about Class Woman, and only am interested in making Teh Mens happy.
(no, that wasn’t Twisty or anything; some other little sparrowfart of a self-ID’d radical feminist)
Two things that are driving me nuts in this discussion:
1. I do not believe that radical feminists are radical. Radical means going to the root of the problem. If gender is not the root of all our social problems, then treating gender as the root of all our social problems is not a radical approach. The alliances with Christian conservatives in the 80s, the arguments for “political lesbianism,” the hostility towards transgendered people, and the sectarianism are not aberrations, but direct consequences of a political theory that rejects progressive approaches to the problem of sexism.
2. “Patriarchy” is the key word in the radical feminist lexicon. It refers to “patriarchy theory,” the idea that men as a class oppress women as a class, and all other forms of oppression are secondary. I’ve been seeing the word “patriarchy” used with increasing frequency on feminist blogs, to mean simply “sexism” or “women’s oppression,” by people who are not radical feminists, or occasionally “the elevation of ‘male’ values over ‘female’ values” — the last of which at least makes some sense. But in general, the usage of “patriarchy” by people who strongly object to “patriarchy theory” and who are not radical feminists is quite confusing.
Amanda: Thanks, you clarified a lot for me. I enjoy your blog and comments. But interpret radfem theory some more for me: why is attacking men a waste of time? Wouldn’t that be the main action to tear power from them? And obviously, by attacking men, I mean their structures of power (in shorthand).
This is my take on it, which again, I don’t agree with radicals. Attacking men=demanding that they are the ones to change. That won’t work. They’ll say, “Fuck that I like the way things are.” Only women have the incentive to change the power structure in this viewpoint.
I disagree with this, for what it’s worth. I think men can be enticed to join up the cause both because it’s the right thing to do and because it’s in their own self-interest.
As for Mildred’s complaint, if you don’t want to be talked down to, don’t read Twisty’s blog!
It’s a great blog, and twisty is a great writer, and eveyrone should read twisty now and again because it’s worth it, and because twisty’s Gray Area post is one of those firmly written posts that makes you want ot vomit copiously at the sickness of humanity.
‘I’m not saying I’m a scientist myself, but there are simple facts about nature that you can’t ignore.’
No seriously this is pop biology not real biology. Early experiments reaching this conclusion,ones about fruitflies, had systematic errors. A single sperm is easy to make, but it takes several rounds of entire good quality ejaculate to equal one egg ion terms of ensuring max probability of impregnation. Therefore one can’t say if sperm is cheap or eggs expensive, both require a complicated anergy imvestment with is differen for all animals. Reproductive stratgeies like male choice and female feamle competition and ployandry were not even THOUGHT of before, but now that people think they can exist they find them quite a bit. Old biology was unfortunatley intimately bound up in Victorian social ideals like eugenics and traditional sex roles. This was not disinterested science. it was systematicaly stacked. What you read in Time about biology is the same level of drivel as ‘the opt out revolution’ is an to actual economic occourence.
I’m rather fond of “Biological Exuberance,” myself.
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
>
…Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don’t form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike.
Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere — all right, they steal them — and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.
…Bagemihl formulates the charmingly named theory of biological exuberance, of which homosexuality is one manifestation. He wants to unlink biological analysis from the idea that reproduction — and hence, heterosexuality — is all. Biology must accept the apparent purposelessness of sexualities, he argues. Sexual pleasure is “inherently valuable” and “requires no further ‘justification.’”
In support of this view, Bagemihl cites celibate animals, animals that exhibit shocking indifference to reproduction and species where sex is rare and difficult. He all but proves reproductive sex doesn’t happen.
But of course reproduction does take place and must take place for natural selection to occur. (If creatures lived forever, they wouldn’t need to reproduce, nor would they evolve.) The riddle is how a process driven by reproduction produces nonreproductive creatures, but it’s not a very hard riddle, and indeed abundance, flexibility and exuberance are part of it.
Evolution is history. The forces of evolution operating in the past may have produced a creature that is fast, fierce or able to do calculus, but those forces don’t direct a creature once it is born. Penguins who mated with other penguins of the opposite sex are the ones who left descendants, and every penguin is descended from penguins who committed at least one heterosexual act, but that doesn’t mean this penguin, here and now, will commit only heterosexual acts. The capacity for pleasure that encouraged its ancestors to reproduce is available wherever the penguin chooses to direct it.
Successful life forms are characterized by diversity, so changing environments don’t wipe them out. That diversity often extends to sexuality. Thus bisexuality and homosexuality are characteristics not of twisted nature, but of generous nature.”
Foolish Owl wrote:
I figger: in the context of the leftist politics of the day, they appropriated the word and said, “it’s ours, fuck y’all.”
And, if you are fair to them, they have an argument as to why they are radical.
1. the root of women’s oppression as a class by men who operate as a class is that men dominate and control women through their sex: sexual and reproductive sex.
2. The lynchpin of that control is prostitution, pornography, and rape.
3. Getting to the root is getting at those three things. Once you undo those, you will undo the Gordian Knot that is all other forms of oppression.
Here, the base is pornstitution/rape and the superstructure is race, class, and things like women’s systematic occupational segregation. In fact, from that base we can explain things like greed, humliation, caste, bigotry, sadism, deception, manipulation, etc.
I can see that radical feminists like Echols and others have astake in the name. They have an argument as to why it no longer means what they believed it meant. They feel their early formulations were materialist and the current ones are not.
But others? Like me? A socialist feminist? I dunno. I don’t think I want to run around insisting they need to change their name. Plus, it just feels like calling them hypocrites. I don’t think that’s an approach we should take. [1]
Oh, this rather did tie my bloomers once.
i can see it being picked up b/c it’s easier to type perhaps?
it’s possible, but very unlikely that they are socialist feminists like Heidi Hartman that tried to theorize capitalism patriarchy as two sep. systems that couldn’t be reduced to the other. But Hartman and others were unable to demonstrate how patriarchy operated in the fashion that capitalism does: e.g.,, Marxism accounts for the demise of capitalism as the result of events internal to the logic of capitalism itself.
No one was able to find a similar logic to patriarchy without reverting to claims of biological determination for men. So, they largely abandoned such theorizing and went in two directions, leaving behind the concept of patriarchy.
That’s because Gayle Rubin came up with an alternative, the sex/gender system and thus people started speaking of various systems of oppression, among which were racial, class, gender, ability oppression.
Again, if you read Radically Speaking they cannot stand the use of the word gender. They argue that feminists who do so are only doing it because they don’t want to make men unhappy.
Yes, Gayle Rubin the lesbian is a male ID’d patriarchy fucker. Alrighty.
IOW, we don’t have a theoretical disagreement, we are male ID’d patriarchy fuckers.
And, of course, this is a dishonest charge that poisons the wells of discourse and makes it impossible to have a discussion.
The radfem approach to political practice is that it much start _first_ with changing women’s consciousness. It becomes imperative, on this view, to smack down every instance of what looks like resistance to recognizing the operations of patriarchy in every manifestation of our lives.
Political practice begins with an internal inventory of your own personal life to find where patriarchy lives.
You are familiar with Marxist theory, yes? Well, whereas class consciousness emerges from two process: the internal contradiction of captalism itself and then on the basis of political practice, in radfem theory, women’s consciousness as a class begins with this important task: rooting out the man that lives in your head.
You see? It’s only natural that radfems believe that part of blaming the patriarchy is blaming one’s self and anyone who appears to be a useless idiot or tool of patriarchy.
—-
[1] I just finished a crack at Alice Echols works, Daring to Be Bad She’s an early radfem and she thinks the movement went wrong with Morgan, Dworkin, Mackinnon, and others. She traces the split to Joreen and Solanis (I have an autobiographical account from Joreen up at my blog. It’s quite fascinating.)
Echols thinks they should be called cultural feminists be/c of the degree to which they emphasized that women’s shared oppression forms a special women’s culture which they believed should be valorized over male culture.
Amanda, you wrote:
The reason is that it’s important to start from the consciousness _of_ women. Honest. This is the crucial aspect of radfem theory. It’s not that men won’t listen, but that, at the time, consciousness raising was crucial because women didn’t even know how to name the problem. When they couldn’t have orgasms, their doctors told them to take a pill or learn to live with or find the source in their childhood.
When they got together in CR groups, they started jabbering to realize: Oh my! We have orgasms by stimulating our clitoris and this vaginal orgasm is a myth. Those meetings sent one woman off to write a paper on it.
The CR group was designed to say, “What so called personal problems are you having and how can we understand them as _political_ because, say, of the way men have controlled knowledge abt women’s bodies.
As this grew, radfems came to see how radically transformative such enlightenment was for women. It changed their lives and made them very passionate about the cause. They sought to continue that by a focus by insisting that, to change the world, women must begin by examining their own lives and understanding how patriarchy shaped every single manifestation of it.
Each woman’s consciousness thus needed to be transformed. Political practice starts there, in rooting around looking for the Man in Your Head and evicting him.
The partner to that was to revalue women’s identity. Where men defined us as, say, passive we would learn to revalue that as peaceful.
By establishing a huge, broad based unity of women across the glbe we would create a strong culture of women who recognize themselves as a class of women oppressed by men as a class.
Important here was building alt. intstitutions for women: alt healthcare, rape crisis centers, women run businesses, community centers, arts centers, etc.
then, was to come direct confrontation with patriarchal domination wherever it was encountered.
And that’s where the strike part comes in and why conformity is important: whereas a marxist argues that it is through political practice itself that a worker comes to understand the nature of her oppression, it is through self analysis in consciousness raising group that a woman comes to see the nature of her oppression.
In order to get everyone to strike in the context of a theory deeply suspicious of anything like an organized union (and for good reason at the time, the leftist men were fuckers), then you need to get women to tow the line. How? Here, speeches, art, poetry, rhetoric, essays, etc because utterly central. IOW, agit prop, propaganda, etc. are the crucial tools through which to take those raised consciousnesses and lead them to the Great Refusal in the Sky. (I do not use agit prop, propaganda pejoratively. They’re important tools.) [1]
The only answer has been separatism. Either full bore separatism or a modified version of creating women’s spaces where men are not allowed. Few people advocate that these days. They believed it failed.
In the absence of political agitation, organizing, creating alternative institutions all this seems to be is a lot of navel gazing which turns into beating any one up who steps out of line.
And I’m arguing that this isn’t a mistake: it’s an inevitable result of an unreconstructed framework.
Which is fine. It’s just that they need to remember that there are alternatives to their view and, by dismissing everyone who disagrees as falsely conscious, they are simply disrespecting anyone who has an alternative view as tools of the patriarchy.
that isn’t encouraging discussion. it isn’t encouraging critical respect between us.
not surprisingly, when Twisty’s audience isn’t on board for the whole program, they’ve been castigated as Male IDd rather than actually listened to.
[1] Carol Hanisch, in her new intro to the essay,’The Personal is Political,’ describes the split as emanating from debates over how to protest the Miss American Pageant. One group want to humiliate the contestants themselves. Hanisch and others argued that they needed to humiliate the profiteers and promoters who established it in the first place.
bravo belldame. wide variation and adaptability is the key to avoiding extinction. sexual selection doesn’t need to be completely tossed aside but it doesn’t need to be predicated on old assed nonsense either.
This topic is on like 10 other posts now. Did the BDSM crap spread around like this? Next lets do cunnilingus, I need something o cancel that horrible Snitchens blowjob post.
Thanks for that, Bitch. And yeah, it all makes sense. And the CR thing I think is a linchpin issue—a lot of women are full well aware of how and why they get a raw deal but the truth is that they stick with the system because it’s personally more beneficial than fighting. I’ve had a lot of women tell me they’re settling for marriages to men who they know will happily and stupidly oppress them because it’s better than the alternative, whatever that might be. Educating people isn’t changing their behavior.
And of course, you know I’m resistant in every way to the idea that men can’t or shouldn’t be included, which is weird since I then end up arguing with male allies who I want to just call “feminist” and they prefer the term “pro-feminist”.
twisty is a great writer, and eveyrone[sic] should read twisty now and again because it’s worth it
Well, duh [which is why I've been reading Twisty every day for, like, over a year]. What I’m getting at, though, is that Twisty’s posts are not often pleasant. She exposes patriarchy where we had suspected none before. You don’t go to Twisty’s blog to giggle and feel good about yourself. You go there to find out how fucked up and wrong every aspect of life is, your own included. And if you’re prepared to closely examine the fucked up aspects of your own life, you shouldn’t ever go to blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com
I feel like a hopeless wreck of a person from reading Twisty as obsessively as I do, but at least I know why I’m a hopeless wreck of a person. And I’m okay with that.
* I’m missing a negation there. If you’re not prepared to . . . .
Slutever, you get the point.
I hope.
B|lab, that was pretty amazing. Thank you. I pretty much agree with all of that. I am a Marxist, by the way.
With regard to radical feminists not being radical: yes, of course, they regard themselves as radical, so it’s not their choice of name for themselves that I object to. What really concerned me is that people who are not radical feminists, particularly Amanda and Arwen in this discussion, accept that radical feminism is radical, and describe some of the shortcomings of radical feminism as a result of their radicalism. I think those shortcomings are a result of a flawed theory that leads to flawed practice, including sectarianism: the tendency to condemn others for not simply accepting your politics immediately.
Somewhere in this discussion, I said that Twisty’s redeeming quality is her inconsistency: she isn’t a consistent radical feminist. In particular, she usually pulls back from sectarianism, and allows that her friends and allies may have valid reasons for their beliefs and practices, so she leaves some room to live and let live. I think part of the reason for this long discussion is that in this case, she remained consistent to radical feminist ideas, so there wasn’t the usual way out to avoid a confrontation with those ideas.
My sense is that the word “patriarchy” had become increasingly used on the circuit of feminist blogs I frequent over the last year or so, particularly in the last two or three months. Maybe it is because it’s easier to type, but I think the main reason is that Twisty’s blog has become increasing popular and influential.
Oops: grammatical error that may lead to confusion.
“and describe some of the shortcomings of radical feminism as a result of their radicalism”
Should be “ITS radicalism” rather than “THEIR radicalism.”
Amanda
heh. I had a similarly strong reaction to Chris Clarke’s insistance that he wasn’t a feminist. I can sorta understand, seeing as how my entrace into feminism was not at all normal. I didn’t identify with a word of until I read black feminist thought. That made sense. But I can hardly call myself a black feminist. And, I also agree with piny about just willy nilly saying, “i’m an ally” as if I’m the one who gets to say, “I’m an ally because I say so.” Uh. Yeah. So, I can sorta see the ‘hedge’ there as useful. Maybe. sorta. I haven’t figured it out because some days, I read Hugo and I just want to say “Woah. Modify the word feminism with “Hugo” mmkay?” LOL
I thought your posts at Alas a couple of years ago were just a remarkably and beautifully written explanation of your view on this topic.
I think my favorite person on rad fem theory is Alison Jagger. While she’s a socialist, her argument is that rad fem pretty much was the ground from which all other variants of feminist thought emerged — save for Liberal feminism, but even they’ve drawn on the important groundwork.
So, looking at commonalities would be instructive. That’s why Twisty’s so right in so much of what she says and says it with such style and wit. It’s why she resonates with so many feminists.
You can agree with a boatload, particularly on the descriptive analysis of what’s going on. But, for me, since I’m not one to think that it’s one system, Patriarchy, then that slight change in how I _explain_ the problem is going to shape how I think about how to address the problem: political practice.
I read you at Pandagon, so I picked up on the fact that you were either a Marxist or a heavy user of Marx. And thanks for tolerating the rant, an outgrowth of my immersion in this book I think.
This is an interesting point about inconsistency. I hadn’t grokked to that at all. And my rant was kind of focused more on published writings of radfems since I feel I’m safe ground: I can back up what I say with quotes.
Plus, Twisty’s an essayist, an agitator, and a charismatic leader. She doesn’t do theory per se, she applies it in the way she analyzes events and shows others how to do so.
Do you think that maybe it’s that radfems compromise on much but can’t compromise on the pornsitution/rape (and thus sexuality) angle since, that’s the lynchpin?
And yah, I suppose people are using the word without necessarily agreeing with or knowing the specifics of the theory and what P really means. I think that’s part of why I’ve been hashing this out elsewhere — because I happen to find analyzing the whys of this sectarianism fascinating.
But, do you suppose it matters if people use the word?
I ask because I had felt like that early on: confused. WTF? 10 years ago, I didn’t know a soul who used the word. It had been so widely critiqued as a failed theory even on its own terms, no one would use it. It implies that, just as twisty said, that patriarchy was established long ago, hijacking and warping human sexuality. I mean: that’s classic stuff to talk about it in terms of something that was established and thus, we can look to a world before patriarchy. If we know one existed before, then we have an inkling that it might exist again.
There’s a reason for that, I think. With Marxism, not very many people look to the past, to primitive communism, hoping that we can retrieve from that world a guide to how to build the new one. There is a theory of social change in its thought and it analyzed how those changes happened in the past.
But with radfem, the reason is because the system is _so_ structuralist there’s no escape. You need the evidence of a time prior to patriarchy to both show that it’s malleable but also show that it’s utterly entrenched since “time immemorial.”
There is no theory about how the system changes — progresses — through its own internal logic. (Hartman set out to find that, but it never went anywhere). Mostly, what I read is that if there are contradictions, they are, for example, the simultaneity of ‘raunch culture’ alongside a Victorian repressed sexuality. Which is interpreted as a sign of Patriarchy wrapping us clutches around us ever more tightly. No escape. No fissures or cracks we can grab and widen to open up spaces for radical change.
I was thinking about what you said about alliances with conservatives. Funny thing is, I ws just reading an interview with Dworkin where she says, basically, Women have always known that the enemy is rightwing. The real problem is leftwing men. And this will be of interest given that this interview was in 1990:
I’d been reading along, laughing, thinking she’d presciently described what some of us have found with the Democratic party.
Was slightly annoyed by the bit about left/liberal men, but know there’s a kernel of truth.
But I stopped dead in my tracks to realize: liberal men suck sewage, but she’s asking us to dialogue with conservatives? HUH? Sure, there’s confrontation… But dialogue. HUH?
The rest is interesting in light of this conversation.
Foolish Owl — Forgot. I’d really love to see how you see it as flawed theory. Particularly as you see its relation to sectarianism. Weirdly enough, I have been hashing out this book in my head on this topic, though more broadly to look at identitarian social movements.
Sectarianism makes my head hurt. And watching it play itself irritates me, but not enough to make me want to rubberneck the ten car pile up that ineveitably results.
>Did the BDSM crap spread around like this? >
Not so much. that’s been going on for years and years now, though (I mean in the world, not in blogland, obviously)
>Next lets do cunnilingus, I need something o cancel that horrible Snitchens blowjob post.
I want to talk about fisting. Specifically, whether it is a tool of capitalism or in fact a form of subversive class rebellion. I mean,
“UP YOURS!”
yes, yes; but, who is providing the labor, the lube?
I’m not sure I had things quite straight, but yes, I’ll get back to you on that.
“Watersports. Responsible environmentalism? How much water do you actually need to drink in order to do a scene? Can piss-play be considered a form of recycling, or is it just silly?”
>rooting out the man that lives in your head.
“Don’t think about pink elephants. And whatever you do, *don’t blow them.*”
belledame
LOL
I just saw this post from a ‘mean feminist’ and had to laugh. It’s classic. According to her, everyone was writing about how it’s feminist to wax the carrot.
http://meanfeminism.blogspot.com/2006/06/you-all-can-blow-me-or-not.html
somedays, I think talking about sex just makes people’s brains shutdown.
foolish owl
cool. when you get time, i’d really love another take on it since I hadn’t really thought about internal failures of the theory itself.
McBoing
You have characterized my posts as sister blaming. That is certainly not my intent, nor do I think a correct reading of my posts.
I would appreciate an explanation.
{with respect to the host: if you will allow}
gargh. MF is saying the same damn thing all the other defenders of Twisty’s take is saying:
to wit, that the people who are “defending” blowjobs (yeah, most people do defend what they like to do in bed and/or what they like to do with their loved ones when they feel under attack; it’s just how life works) are saying that blowjobs (BDSM, makeup, whathtefuckever) is *inherently* feminist.
Please. Finally. Name *one* person who has said, in so many words, that (given act) is *inherently* feminist, of itself. One specific person. One specific quote.
Because I am starting to think there is some projection going on here.
Because, instead, what I keep seeing is something like this:
Radfem: Blahblah is icky and degrading and *bad for women*, and coincidentally I don’t happen to like it.
Notradfem: Well, I don’t find it to be so.
Radfem: Look, do whatever you want to do, okay; just don’t try to tell me blahblah is “feminist.” That’s all.
And, like, excuse me? Who’s telling whom what, here?
Well, I can only speak for myself. For the record:
*in my opinion*–
There is nothing *inherently* feminist about giving a blowjob, BDSM, putting on lipstick, wearing high heels, or anything of that nature.
There is *also* nothing inherently *not* feminist about giving a hummer, BDSM, putting on lipstick, wearing high heels, or anything of that nature.
Sorry. I’m going to make that one a catgorical. There just isn’t. Because
1) context fucking matters
2) it’s none of your goddam business what any other woman does or doesn’t do with her body, and yes, THAT sentiment IS feminist.
You know the whole “my body belongs to me?” Great. Study it well. It doesn’t, in fact, mean “my body, my choice; but *your* body and choices are subject to endless criticism and picking and headtripping from us, your supposed sisters.”
Got it? Good.
Now consider the phrase, “Fuck off.”
I had no idea there was any kind of blowjob “controversy” going on in the feminist movement. I really must get out more.
Bitch/Lab’s view of false consciousness conflicts with many other theorists, such as:
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1999/mayo_body.asp
Belledame, I think the labor in fisting is shared. The top does the positioning and the lubing and the twisting and sweating, but the bottom does the concentrating and the relaxing, and it’s really a collaborative project; a shared performance. So in that sense, I suppose it builds a non-alienated connection to the product of labor that a Marxist would have to smile on. I’m no Marx maven, though.
I expect that watersports do not alter the net water usage, and certainly do not do so enough to be significant. Plus, the reconsumption does not involve repackaging.
***squick alert***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Same thing for scat.
Ondreatwopointoh Jun 20th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Bitch/Lab’s view of false consciousness conflicts with many other theorists, such as:
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1999/mayo_body.asp
—-
it’s not my view. i was talking about the radfem view. i imagine a search on radical feminism at the blog linked would provide a good bib to verify.
i’m not a radfem. i’m a socialist (commie pinko fag)
Ondreatwopointoh Jun 20th, 2006 at 3:46 am
i read the link where it mentions Wendy Brown. She did a really interesting analysis of the same sort I’ve been doing the last coupla weeks re: MacKinnon. Basically, she says that MacKinnon’s work is a symptomatic reading of pornography and the persuavive rhetoric is one that mimes the rhythms of porn.
Drucilla Cornell says that “MacKinnon fucks her readers.”
Politie academic ways of saying: “She’s obssesed with porn and provide a pornographic alternative for her followers who sublimate their desire for porn with desire for radfem theory.” Kinda rude when you think abt it!
@ belledame
you wrote:
But you know, WRT 2, there’s no agreement on that — the notion that it is none of anyone’s godamned business. Radfems see this as a false consciousness. They’re not impressed by this because the same argument might come from a man who, say, rapes his daughter and, b/c the daughter is afraid and confused, she says she likes it.
Or just a rejection of a patriarchal notion of freedom — on the radfem view.
so, the argument doesn’t generally wash with them at all. It might appeal to the larger public b/c it’s a dominant value, but with radfems such sentiments ignore the social structure of power relations that undergird these sentiments.
that is why freedom of speech arguments about porn don’t mean a thing. nor do claims that, with a free market of ideas, we can create egalitarian porn. they’re retort is: nuh huh. not under these conditions