16 posts tagged “feminism”
So it turns out that grad school isn't easy because it requires a depth of interest in and engagement with the material of study which I have previously reserved only for the topic of third (fourth?) wave feminism (race, class, gender, ethnicity, ability, age, sexuality, all in the contexts of power, privilege and difference). Right now, I'm enamored of the historical approach and the emphasis on cultural context and shifting it away from the actual Buddhist content...but I would not, frankly, give a flying fuck through a rolling donut for the content of sutras. Bleh.
Of course, I'm predisposed to the academic perspective. I'd rather read about the sutras than read the sutras. It's kind of like I'd prefer a litcrit view of The Canterbury Tales than actually read the translated Middle English. Part of it is the pain of slogging through archaic language, part of it is the distance between myself and the time/culture out of which the sutras came. For me, it's that the modern individual (i.e. me) needs a different model of the enlightened being for all of these reasons as well. Because of all of this, I'll probably end up being a rather good student of the sutras.
I wonder if the sutras ever have a character like the Wife of Bath.
On the upside, I am increasingly fond of my two professors, and one has unequivocally identified himself as a feminist. One teaches context and method with an eye toward the content, the other teaches content with an eye on context and method. The way their two classes intersect is rather a stroke of genius.
- Before I analyze the behavior of feminine women, perhaps I should analyze the fact that my rejection of feminine beauty practices confirms feelings about my gender identity which I experienced long before I encountered feminism at university. And before I say that feminine practices are disempowering, I should acknowledge the power which my own performance brings me and the fact that I love that power.
- Before I berate feminine heterosexual women for using their gender performance to attract men, I should look at how my own gender performance is linked to desire and sexuality.
- Before I accuse heterosexual women of being constrained by gender norms, I should look at the way my own gender performance engages with feminist and lesbian gender norms and ideals.
- Before I assume that taking part in feminine beauty practices oppresses other women, I should stop and think about how my (supposedly) feminist attitudes oppress other women.
These 4 reminders aren't of my authoring--I found them in another blog on October 22, 2006. I liked 'em so much that I wrote them down in the pocket journal I carry with me everywhere, and titled them as this blogpost.
That source blog (desperatekingdoms.blogspot.com) has apparently disappeared since then. I'm glad I wrote it down.
Guess I'm not the only one that sees through this farce of "sexual revolution" and so called "liberation" and knows to call it anything but freeing and liberating for women, nor does it allow women to emerge with political, economic, social or cultural equality with men. In fact, it does the opposite and is harmful to feminism by suggesting that feminism is centered around the sexual liberation of women rather than the eradication of institutionalized sexism and hierarchies based on sex.
Although the main center and focus of Radical feminism is to go to the root oppression of women and to question gender roles and distinguish between biologically-determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior of men and women, Radical feminism also emphasizes sexual and reproductive exploitation of women. It is in this sexual and reproductive exploitation of women that we find much of the root cause of male domination and men gaining from women's subordination. And we know this condition to be one that cuts across class and race as well as cultures and national boundaries.
...
[T]he Radical feminist critique of sex postiveness has nothing to do with sex or individuals' attitudes about sex. It's about hierarchies and the power differentials between those that have power and those that have been disenfranchised of that power by patriarchal construction based on sex and ideas on sexuality and how those ideas naturalize, legitimize, and perpetuate institutionalized sexism and violence against women. Many of which can be applied to racism as well.
Sex-Positive? A new buzz word to start off the millenium? Hardly. It's nothing more than the same old, same old. Patriarchally constructed gender roles and sexual exploitation of women wrapped up in cleverly disguised new packaging (which isn't even new), in order to maintain the status quo of male dominance which is designed to further enhance their sexual freedoms and obfuscate their violence towards women.
-- from the essay On Sex Positiveness at Feminista!
Included in said article is Catherine MacKinnon's "five cardinal dimensions of a liberal defensive edifice", which I will summarize here for future reference (because we all could use a cribsheet for critiqing the mechanisms of liberal power):
- Individualism: Members who have no choice to live life as members of groups are taken as unique individuals.
- Naturalism: Social characteristics are reduced to "natural" characteristics.
- Voluntarism: Preclusion of choice becomes free will.
- Idealism: Material reality is turned into "ideas about" reality.
- Moralism: Concrete positions of power and powerlessness are transformed into relative value judgments, as to which reasonable people can form different but equally valid preferences.
In other words, what's happening with this particular woman is about
this specific individual, and has nothing to do with the life
circumstances of being a woman, living-as-female, and being subject to
pervasive sexist oppression.
She, the individual woman has the physical characteristics
of what is considered to be a "naturally sexy" body. Never mind that our protagonist individual woman has to maintain a strict diet that keeps her under a healthy weight. Never mind that
what is defined as "sexy" is commodity obtained through means such as
anorexia, breast implants, hair coloring, collagen injections, and
extensively airbrushed/digitally manipulated photography. Never mind that she lives in a small town with limited job opportunities. Never mind that she herself has only a high school education and two children. Never mind that she's not getting child support, or health care, or a living wage. Working as a stripper is her best option, right? So she chooses that, freely. It's her choice to dance on that stage, scantily clad, drinking watered down drinks bought for her by truckers who grope her and say lewd things. She chose that, right? And if/when she's raped, it's because she chose that kind of lifestyle and had it coming to her. None of the material issues of food, clothing, shelter, health care, education and day (or night) care for her children matter--she chose to get into that line of work and so the consequences are hers to take responsibility for. A reasonable person would recognize that. Right?
I feel a little disingenuous using the stripper story as a model for exploration of the liberal defensive edifice, but it was the first thing that came to mind, possibly because I've had a few classmates here at Naropa who supported themselves through school (and in some cases with children too) by doing "exotic dancing" in the greater metropolitan area.
In any case, I've seen this whole sort of argument come out in blog after blog about any of a variety of proscribed choices that women make in their lives. I'm keeping an eye out for it in myself too.
Women have often felt insane when cleaving to the truth of our experience. Our future depends on the sanity of each of us, and we have a profound stake, beyond the personal, in the project of describing our reality as candidly and fully as we can to each other ... When a woman tells the truth she is creating the possibility for more truth around her.
--Adrienne Rich
One old criticism of feminism is that it makes women selfish. One feminist criticism of patriarchal culture is that it demands that women be selfless, endlessly self-sacrificing. Authentic feminism does not seek to sever women from their emotional ties to others, nor does feminism (despite the fantasies of some of its critics) want women to be so radically independent that they live outside of meaningful, mutual relationships. Feminism is not anti-family. Feminism is, however, opposed to a culture of compulsory sacrifice and endless self-denial.
And we start extricating young women from that hateful culture by teaching them to say what was probably their first word. The feminist journey often begins with a soft, firm “no.”
-- Hugo Schwyzer from Some quick thoughts on "no"
found via Ilyka's feminism friday post on Saying "no" to Passivity
In the bold sentence above, and this particular post's title is a start on "Feminism IS" -- I've been seeing a lot of succinct statements such as that which are worth capturing as such.
I just learned via the 34th Carnival of the Feminists that this week has been officially declared Celebration of Female Desire Week.
I am so down with that.
And therefore I will blog on the very topic. Soon. Or just engage in as much of OMG teh SECS as I can.
Or both.
3/28 update: definitely the latter. oh, definitely. oh my.
Finally, a Feminism 101 blog -- a place to direct inquiries when you don't want to (again) explain it to someone. Huzzah!
My piece for the 2007 Blogging Against Sexism Day
(caveat: this is my reading of the conversation/situation, which is therefore written with a dose of snark, to be taken salted as you please. mea culpas to my classmate for how I am likely to misrepresent him here.)
In my Contemplative Psych II: Compassionate Outreach class, a white male classmate of mine pointed out that it's very difficult for men to hear about the effects of oppression without feeling guilty and defensive about it. He said then tend to shut down at any abrasiveness, and defend their turf. As a way to work with this, he suggested a more conciliatory, gentle route of invitation (rather than confrontation) for women, people of color and queers to approach white men in order to ask for said white men to help the marginalized others attain their rights. He said it helped him in particular for the other to say something that recognized his contributions to such efforts, as well as broadly acknowledged the many possible roles of white men in this greater cause. In regard to me in particular, he said it would reassure him that my statements did not come from man-hating motivations.
What. Fucking. Ever.
I'd been speaking of my experience of feeling unsafe on CU campus when walking past groups of rowdy white men ages 18-24. Even in broad daylight, in an area where there were many others. Likewise, in downtown Boulder, or really anywhere, anywhere, that I should encounter a group of young white men, but particularly when they are rowdy and speaking loudly of drunken exploits. I brace myself to receive sexist or homophobic comment, harassment, and possibly violence. Even when the chances of incident are statistically insignificant, I brace myself for the worst. My body has not yet unlearned the habit. It's a habit to protect and defend myself.
Fortunately, our brilliant instructor pointed out that what my male classmate described is not an all-things-being-equal situation--there is a power imbalance, and it is the task of the person who holds the upper hand to acknowledge the imbalance and redress it. It is not for the marginalized other to coddle and hand-hold the oppressor through his realization and hopefully subsequent liberation and (we can dream) commitment to working against all forms of oppression, using the power the system grants him for the sake of others..
My thought, which I voiced: "yeah, I can ask you to acknowledge my rights, or I can say fuck you, you cannot keep me from my rights."
I also pointed out that there are multiple forms of resistance, all of them are applicable, although some may be more effective than others. I will not patiently wait for you to give me my rights, I will fight for my rights and I will snatch all from the grasp which attempts to withhold the fullness of my human life from me.
That said, here is my conciliatory gesture, for the guys, boys, men, and other fellows who have greater privilege than me, due to their gender.
I know that men can do this work. I know that white men in America can come to see and recognize sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, etc. I've met so, so many men over the years whose whole lives, or just a portion, are devoted to this work. They are teachers, they are students, they are priests and monks, they are computer programmers and systems engineers. They are coffee, beer and booze slingers. They are greasemonkeys and lawyers and accountants. They are my father, my brothers, my cousins, my friends, as well as men with whom I am barely acquainted or have only heard or read of. There are men out there working to educate against and end oppression. I trust that. I trust them.
But I don't yet trust you.
Your sincere intentions to do good are not enough.
When I'm walking down a residential block in Boulder, and cross from one side of the street to the other as two black men come walking the other way, does it matter a whit that my intent was to follow the route I'd already planned, which included crossing the street at just that coincidental moment? Does it matter that I'm trying to work with and end my own racism? Does it matter that I'm more scared of white men than black men? Does it matter that I have black friends? No. What matters is that those two men saw me cross the street, and in all likelihood experienced something like "yet another white woman is avoiding me out of fear of the color of my skin." What matters is that because of the color of my skin, my actions, regardless of my intent, are more visible in this world and may have and often do have subtle and overt negative impact upon others who do not share this whiter shade of pale.
Here's a scenario for the college-aged white man: you're at a party with a bunch of your friends and a whole lot of other people. One or more of your friends is making suggestive and possibly lewd remarks and advances at a college-aged woman. She rebuffs his approach. Once turned down, he hurls an epithet at her retreating back, "Fucking dyke!" What do you do to be an ally to women?
You don't go apologize to the girl on your friend's behalf. That's likely to be read by her as loaded with hidden intent on your part to look like "the good guy." No, what you do is upbraid your friend, vocally and audibly in the earshot of many others. Call him out on his bad behavior, call him an asshole, and indicate that he will never, ever, in a million years, possibly woo any women by being such an insensitive fucking prick, and he might as well stumble back to his dorm to play World of Warcraft, which is all he's good for. (Or, fill in your style of reproach on the scale from reprimand to scathing bitch-out here, as appropriate.)
Basically, your responsibility as a white man who's trying to be a help in this world is to: call out your friends, acquaintances, and even strangers on their sexist bullshit. Don't tolerate it under any circumstance. As a man, you have the socially-supported power to stand up, speak out, be listened to and heard. Just do it, dude. Add to that upbraiding effort a calling-out on racist bullshit, homophobic bullshit, and all other forms of othering bullshit, and you've got a start. Just a start.
A lot of young men I've encountered at Naropa are unable to grasp that they have power. Some complain that women have more power because women are free to be emotionally expressive. That's not power, that's freedom to emote. Emoting, as you might note, is generally frowned upon in American society. I'm capable of crying, yes, but it's still seen as: a weakness, a woman's thing, women are so emotional, women are so irrational, emotional responses aren't as valid as rational responses, etc. I'm free to do something that is neatly contained by the discourses of sexism in this culture. Whatever my tears may mean to me personally or to the kind soul who holds me and receives them, those tears are stamped with a socially-imposed meaning.
To say that tears are a gift is a transgressive reinscription. Men and women both can do this--it not particular to gender, although the tears of men are usually more striking due to their relative rarity. I may cry without shame, and with that I express power, but it is a power I enact, rather than a power granted to me by society. I've seen men cry from a bottomless sorrow. Denied their right to fully experience and express emotion, most men keep so much pain bottled up. Imagine if, for just a moment, you could lay that burden down and actually cry for each pain you've had to swallow. Each time your gentleness has been forcibly toughened, by taunting or beating or other method.
The power granted by society is a tool: use it wisely. The powers and freedoms society denies you are yours to claim. Such power is vast and endless, beyond the scope of society's containment. It is the power to create change. Take up the challenge of being a man outside of how you are defined by other men, or by women, or by anyone.
