Radical Feminists Of Gor
Holly from The Pervocracy writes:
I have to stop reading radical feminist writing. … I go nuts when I read stuff like this:
“In a patriarchy, the cornerstone of which is a paradigm of male dominance and female submission, women do not enjoy the same degree of personal sovereignty that men do. This oppressed condition obtains a priori to all other conditions, and nullifies any presumption of fully human status on the part of women. A woman, therefore, cannot freely “consent,â€? because her will is obviated by her status as a subhuman.”
I don’t know what kind of women-in-chains Gor crazyworld this author is coming from, but I’m pretty damn sure that no means no, yes means yes, and throwing up your hands and screaming “we’re so oppressed we can’t even make decisions!” is not actually advancing the cause of female strength and independence.
In fact, it’s an example of something I’ve seen a few times in radfem thought–going so far that they actually come full circle. You see statements like “women aren’t able to give consent” and “women just want love, but men exploit it for sex,” and you might as well be on the Abstinence Warriors forum–it’s the same stereotyping of both men and women and unreasonable fear of sex.
Amen, sister!
I’ve always been surprised to hear so-called “feminist” arguments that are founded in claims of female incapacity or inability to consent, or to discover and to know their own best interest.
(I say “so called”, and use scare quotes, because I’m on record: when feminists stop standing up for the choices women make, I stop recognizing them as feminists.)
Holly may wonder what sort of “women-in-chains Gor crazyworld” these arguments are coming from, but I’m more concerned with the people-in-chains world these arguments are aimed at creating. I’ve said it before in a post defending the, uh, “fully human status” of porn performers, and I’m sure I’ll say it again: once you stop respecting people’s choices, you’ve embraced the ideology of enslavement:
Built right into the postulate that people can’t know what’s good for themselves is the idea that somebody else knows better, and should therefore have the right to control the poor people who can’t tell their own good. A nasty and foul rhetorical trick to justify political power over others, and I reject it categorically.
Similar Sex Blogging:
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2219
I remember reading this post a when it was published by the author, and I recall wanting to write a long and annoying reply, but decided not to. Anyway, I was particularly bothered by the phrase, “[the] oppressed condition obtains a priori to all other conditions. . .” First, epistomologically, knowledge does not acquire a relative a prioric status — it is or is not a priori or a posterioric. The author is suggesting that patriarchal structures are inherently a prioric, but offers no case or evidence for this radical notion. A quick review of the history of sexual dynamics and culture would shows that relations of power, dominance, and meaning between men and women is in constant flux; thus, they can not be said to be innately known, even throughout one’s lifetime.
Secondly, the language the author utilizes belies their ignorance of the subject matter. It is an attempt to spruce up, using polysyllabic pseudo-philosophical terms, an simple argument — which is: “the structures of patriarchy are ingrained within all our perceptions of our world and thus restrict choices we make”. An argument which which cannot be sustained by facts or logic. For such an argument boarders on both stagnation of the human experience and predestination.
Sorry for the rant — this kind of stuff just annoy me.
It would appear to me that for every man out there these days still trying to control a woman, there is a woman trying to control a man.
That quote about oppressed women sounds like it came from the mid-sixties! When WAS that written? The lovers in my life all have equal status in my world (If not the benefit of the doubt). If there are women out there still feeling that their men are oppressing them, they need to get a whole new set of acquaintances.
1992 was known as “The Year of the Woman”, and I haven’t noticed any drop in status since then. In 1993 Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said: “Calling 1992 the Year of the Woman makes it sound like the Year of the Caribou or the Year of the Asparagus. We’re not a fad, a fancy, or a year.”
Women have quite a few privileges in this society that males are not afforded. Do you think males could expose their sex organs in public like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton without being arrested?
Immediately after the ’92 era of the woman began, Lorena Bobbit decided that as a woman, she thought it was O.K. to sever the penis of her husband for reasons of infidelity and physical and emotional abuse (Even though after her arrest, she commented to police that “He [her husband John] always have [sic] [an] orgasm and he doesn’t wait for me to have [an] orgasm.”). Many women (and a number of men) agreed with her position (including those on her jury), and Lorena is a free woman today. Her legal excuse? She was following an “irresistible impulse”… What reasons, I ask, could a man use, to excuse plunging a knife into a woman’s sex, and thereby mutilating her, and yet remain free?
The “women-in-chains Gor crazyworld”, unfortunately, still exists in a few places on this planet. In these places women aren’t allowed to vote, go out of the house uncovered, drive a car, et cetera.
Bacchus, perhaps you mis-understood my argument. I do not deny patriarchal structures exist, nor do I deny that Twisty often has some very valid and interesting insights into those structures; however, her application of feminist theory to epistemology lacks any significant evidence to to support her claim that patriarchal structures are a priori. This is not simply an argument over semantics or terminology; rather, it is a disagreement over the very foundations of how we acquire of knowledge of power structures and if those structures may be ameliorated.
One of the problems with contemporary radical feminist theory is its reliance on post-structural cultural and literary theory from the 80’s-90’s. Unfortunately, a great deal of haphazard work was published in these areas, in which terms like a priori, signifier and others became stripped of the deeper and complex concepts they represent. By simply parroting complex terminology this post attempts to reach far beyond the ideas it supports. Certainly, Twisty is not the first to make the argument that patriarchy is endemically ingrained our culture or our being — Dworkin has made similar arguments with far better evidence — however, in both cases the evidence is belayed by the fluidic relationships between patriarchy, culture, economics, and other structures.
By arguing that women are incapable of free will — or completely valid decision making — due to an a priori knowledge of the overriding patriarchal structure seems completely contrary to the changes we have witnessed in our culture in the past 40 years. It is an over-reaching argument dressed up in academic jargon: it is simply a bad argument. It has nothing to do with any disagreement over whether or not there exists oppression against women, or whether or not the imbalance of power creates significant hardships on women.
Sigh, I’m not sure you guys are helping.
Steve, the original quote comes from Twisty at I Blame The Patriarchy. There’s a universe of valid ways to attack her worldview and her arguments, but sadly “offers no case or evidence” is not among them. Maybe not in that quote, but there’s a wealth of “case” (arguments, indictments, items offered in evidence even if we are not all persuaded) on her blog. Hell, you might fairly say her blog is all case.
Similarly, it’s not “ignorance of the subject matter” that Twisty “suffers from”. Quite the contrary. When it comes to matters of radical feminism, she could run rings around either one of us on subject matter. She lives and breathes this stuff. She knows the jargon so well that none of the words she uses mean the same thing coming out of her mouth that they mean in our ears — and in the world she travels in, that’s considered proof of our ignorance. We’re allowed, I maintain, to hold the line and argue with her propositions using the regular meaning of her words, but it’s just wrong to claim that her meanings are the result of ignorance. The jargoneers are trying to change the language, but not because of ignorance.
And Whiplash? I value your regular contributions in the ErosBlog comments, but a couple of the things you said make it sound like you’re trying to parody the circa-1970s sterotypical male chauvinist pig. (Please note, I’m not calling you a bad name here, I’m trying to characterize the way your arguments felt in my ears. A very subtle distinction for advanced students only, heh.)
I don’t actually disagree that there are some double standards in our society that favor women — the way public indecency statutes are enforced being one of them — but it’s not really proof of equality. Two wrongs don’t make a right, m-kay? And there’s no mathematics for tallying up inequalities, so saying “I see some favoring us and some favoring them, I’m sure it all comes out in the wash” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
And a man saying “I haven’t noticed any drop in status”? Puh-lease; men “not noticing” the grievances of women will not come as a surprise to feminists of any flavor.
So, guys, when I said you weren’t helping, I meant it. My fight with Twisty and her ilk is because of that “nasty and foul rhetorical trick to justify political power over others” business, not because I think we live in a world of perfect gender equality. They seem to want to define away the human capacity for individual consent and self-determination, by disrespecting people’s own accounts of their will and by devaluing their statements of consent. That horrifies me in a fundamental way, reeks of totalitarianism and Orwellian misery. I am, to repeat myself, against it.
But that’s not the same thing as thinking we live in a world where men and women are treated equally. And it’s not the same as thinking that feminism, the kind that actually values and respects women and their choices, doesn’t have some legitimate grievances with the way things are done.
Steve, I did misunderstand your first comment. To be precise, I misapprehended which “radical notion” you were saying Twisty offered no case or evidence for. Thanks for the clarification.
Bacchus, regarding that final quote, “built right into the postulate….categorically” just wanted to say, I’ve tried to build my life on non-coercion and that quote is exquisite. May I borrow it indefinitely? =)
Phoenix, you certainly may!
Bacchus, thank you so much for your comment above. I agree with much of what Twisty says as well as much of what you say, and based on your original post, I was feeling like you were asking readers to choose between the two of you. You clarified beautifully that you aren’t asking us to do that.
That’s O.K. Bacchus, I only winced a little bit. We’re all adults here and we’re all here to learn and grow. I count on your moderating skills for keeping me in check…
Sometimes I tend to think (write) out loud… And for the sake of brevity, I may have made some leaps in logic that left huge chasms… Sometimes I tend to expect others to read my mind.
And as well, not being above (or below…) arguing from either side of the fence on occasion, I may have also been guilty of pouring a bit of gasoline on the fire. (I hate to see the embers of a potentially hot thread die before producing a good flame.)
Something about that original quote hit me as a bit whiny, and I felt like it was an attempt to re-fight a battle that may already be won. Sometimes I hear women subtly asking or demanding that men GIVE them equality, and I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (“…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…”) that they have now it. My Britney-Lindsay-Paris line was meant to show that women have a power now that they didn’t have in the ’50’s… Maybe like the bra-burning of the ’60’s, going without panties flies in the face of the patriarchy. Perhaps their statement is, “I am a woman, don’t you dare try to tell me what I can and can’t do!” My message to women is more along the lines of “Carpe diem!” but defined or rather translated more as “Seize the times!”… What I was trying to say is listen to the feminists who realize the power women have ( and USE it yourself!), not to the whiny ones who are waiting for someone allegedly more powerful to GIVE them the equality that is rightfully theirs. That is de facto admitting to inferiority. Focusing on what a woman “cannot” do (as Twisty did, true or not…), is a step BACKWARDS. Seize the power! If its true (as Twisty said) that a woman’s will is obviated by her status in a patriarchal society, then can we trust ANYTHING that Twisty (as a woman herself) might say? Just sayin’…
I didn’t mean in any way to imply that there weren’t still among us those who work to oppress women (or anyone else they can oppress for that matter…), and I’m not saying there are no “finer points” to the quest for equality that don’t still need to be hammered out. I am of the opinion that if any segment of society is oppressed, then NONE of us are truly free. No matter what their sex or race, the less powerful have little recourse against the more powerful in America under the current atmosphere in this country, even in the court system. Too many politicians and judges can be bought, whether its directly or indirectly.
Its not just men who are to blame by the way. Women like Ann Coulter stay up late at night just thinking up new ways to maintain the oppressive status quo. For instance, she said, “I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”, and, “… Women shouldn’t be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.”, and finally, “…Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
That sounds to me like a WOMAN who’d like to enslave us…
Am I still missing something here, or perhaps being somewhat misunderstood…
Here’s the thing that always puzzles me about this sort of argument:
How is it that the proponent of this argument has managed to escape the chains and brainwashing of patriarchy, enough to know for herself what any of us — myself, her, anybody — do and do not consent to?
How is it that I am unable to consent to… well, apparently anything, by this argument — but this this wonderfully knowing person has managed to escape this brainwashing enough to know what I do and do not want, better than I do myself?
I mean, is she arguing that any sex at all is non-consensual because it’s done in the framework of the patriarchy? And if so… well, what about the pressure on women to *not* be sexual? How is it that participating in sex (either any given sex act, or sex in general) can’t be consensual, but refusing to participate in sex *can* be? How is it that my experience and understanding of sex is the wrong one, completely controlled by the patriarchy… but hers is not?
I think we would all be better off if we understood that power — and therefore, the power to consent — is not an either/or phenomenon. It’s not like any of us are either all-powerful or all all-powerless. Power comes in shades of gray… and so, therefore, does the ability to consent.
Greta, I think that’s a very good point. And especially with your “shades of gray” point. I’m not out on a limb here trying to claim that women who consent to sex (I could say, people who consent to anything) are always doing so from a bubble of perfect freedom while choosing from a broad list of equally-great alternatives, after having their “true will” scrubbed clean of patriarchal or other pernicious influences by a mental dry cleaner operated by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman under the supervision of Adam Smith.
No. My point is that each of us is in the best position to know our own will and choose our own bliss or poison. A lot of those choices are bad ones, made from bad places, under bad influences. But they are still better than the choices someone else offers to make for us, or the choices somebody else smugly assures us we would make if we could only join them on their plane of enlightenment. And, to paraphrase you, “how did they get up there?”
Greta, I agree completely. Thank you for being so coherent :)
Dr Whiplash, er, are you for real? You say that you like being inflammatory, so perhaps not. But just for the record:
No, of course not all women are enlightened feminists working towards liberation for all. So what? I don’t accept that it’s okay and we deserve to stew in it, because some of our own gender are helping perpetrate inequality. You don’t seem to expect that kind of activism and homogeny from men – why not I wonder?
‘I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (â€?…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…â€?) that they have now it. […] I’m not saying there are no “finer pointsâ€? to the quest for equality that don’t still need to be hammered out.
If you think all that’s left to discuss about attitudes to and treatment of women in our culture are ‘finer points’, then I’m not really sure what I can say, except that I find that patronising and insulting. We should sit down and shut up and realise that actually the battle’s already won, so stop making a fuss already, it’s unseemly? please. To echo Bacchus, you really aren’t helping.
I think there is a distinction to be made, Whiplash, between the “self-evident” equality that you believe has been achieved and the equality women are still struggling for.
Women have not achieved a self-evident equality, because it’s not something that needs to be achieved. That form of equality comes from being born. We are people, therefor we are created equal. Women have never had to achieve the equality they were created with.
The equality feminism has fought for, and that women still struggle to earn today, is equal value, acceptance, and status in this society. We’d like society to recognize that we are people who were born equal. What all of us intent of a lack of oppression (not just feminists, but egalitarians of all stripes) want is simple: people should be treated as equals in worth and potential. A woman like me should be considered equally capable of being a great leader, a financial whiz, a sexual being, and a complete person as any man. Being female, male, transsexual, from any culture or religion, speaking any language, or having any color should not limit someone’s humanity in the eyes of others, nor should society perpetuate the idea that it does. The equality we are striving for is not GIVEN to an oppressed group, it is ACCEPTED as truth by the society as a whole.
We all still have work to do.
Note to S:
I don’t think I said anywhere that the current state of women was “okay”… In fact, I tried to state plainly that women are STILL being oppressed AND that the fight against oppression needs to continue.
I also can’t figure out where I gave the idea that women need to “stew” in (their situation?). If you can show me where I said these things, I’ll be happy to clarify my expression, because its certainly NOT what I meant to convey. Though I may make an occasional politically incorrect joke, I am a frequent proponent of women’s liberation, rights, and equality on this very blog site.
And I might add, I also tried to state (“…if any segment of society is oppressed, then NONE of us are truly free.”)that DO I expect “activism” from men as well.
I marvel at the sheer genius and wisdom of our highly articulate founding fathers who didn’t say “We believe men should be treated equally, and wish you would!” They instead stated that “All men (and I happen to believe they meant that to include women, as in “mankind”…) ARE created equal”, as though it were a natural fact. If you want to argue that women are NOT in fact created equal to men, and are somehow “sub-human”, I’ll be glad to listen to your argument, but I doubt that you’ll be able to convince me.
No where did I mean to say that women should as you say “sit down” or “shut up” or “stop making a fuss” nor did I mean to convey that this behavior would be “unseemly”. Quite the contrary I believe it is the duty of all men and women to alter or abolish any system of despotism. So to answer my own question, yes… apparently I AM being misunderstood.
One thing that I DID mean to convey, is that men are not the sole source of oppression, and women are not the sole recipient of oppression.
I’m saying quit seeing yourselves as inferior, and “seize the power” that now (more than ever before) is “self-evidently” yours.
Note to Kali:
As I tried to state above, I didn’t mean to imply that women’s equality had been accomplished through any “achievement” but rather that it should be seen as a natural FACT. That natural law entitles you to equal station. Just as our American forefathers avowed in the Declaration of Independence, this is “unalienable” right. In other words, it is a fundamental right which could not possibly be taken away. The fact that women are created equal to men, cannot be changed or repudiated. When I said that they have it (equality) now, I meant by that that they have it already (…endowed by their Creator…), they had it in the past, they have it in the present, and will have it in the future.
No where did I mean to state that the struggle for equal treatment from each other was over. My argument is against Twisty’s statement saying that women are not fully human.
Bacchus, “S”, and Kali, I think we are all on the same side here… No?
Dr Whiplash – as in our previous debate, I do believe that you mean well, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say we are all on the same side I’m afraid.
‘I also can’t figure out where I gave the idea that women need to “stewâ€? in (their situation?). If you can show me where I said these things, I’ll be happy to clarify my expression’
I got the ‘sit down and shut up’ vibe from this bit: ‘Sometimes I hear women subtly asking or demanding that men GIVE them equality, and I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (â€?…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…â€?) that they have now it.‘
In your next comment you clarified that you meant that by equality you mean intrinsic equality as a human being. But good grief, no one in this forum would dare to doubt that, and I think it’s ridiculous to expect a pat on the back for that assertion. Absolutely no one here is arguing about whether women are actually intrinsically as worthy as men. When we say ‘equality’, we mean the kind of things Kali was mentioned, like equal respect and pay. And if you think we currently have that, you’re very much mistaken. So saying that we should just realise we ‘now have it’ is going to get people’s hackles up.
‘If you want to argue that women are NOT in fact created equal to men, and are somehow “sub-humanâ€?, I’ll be glad to listen to your argument, but I doubt that you’ll be able to convince me.’
Okay, that actually made me laugh out loud. Is that genuinely what you read my words as saying? See above about what it is that we mean by ‘equality’, which is the way women are treated, not whether they are genuinely ‘equal to men’ as you put it. That is simply not in doubt in forums like this, kind though it is of you to defend it. (I hope it is readily apparent that this explanation applies to your reply to Kali too).
‘I’m saying quit seeing yourselves as inferior, and “seize the powerâ€? that now (more than ever before) is “self-evidentlyâ€? yours.’
That’s okay, I don’t see myself as inferior :)
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘seizing the power that is self evidently yours’? I genuinely don’t understand that sentence.
And does it matter what gender the oppression is coming from? It’s also not news that women can be intolerant and unfeminist, but that doesn’t somehow invalidate the need for tolerance and feminism. So going ‘hey, but you women do it too!’ often looks like trying to shift the blame back to the wimmin’s court. Not that I think you’re responsible for The Patriarchy or anything like that, just explaining why it’s often an unwise point to bring to a debate.
Twisty’s comment was that because women are oppressed, they are not “fully human” and are “sub-human” (her words). I disagreed, and stated that I felt that this was an issue that had been settled already, except perhaps by the hopeless Neanderthals among us (and in your last comment, you seem to agree with me on that point now).
I felt it was time to move forward from that point, not at all that women should “sit down and shut up”, but that you (meaning those who make statements like or think like Twisty) are spinning your wheels unnecessarily (“casting your pearls before swine”), and would do better to proceed as if the question of women being human, was now decided.
Wallowing in the muck with the unsophisticated remnants (i.e., men who see women as sub-human), I see as unproductive activity, or at least a waste of energy, that could be more efficiently directed towards what I call the “finer points” (such as working for equal pay…). Wrestling with the human vs. sub-human question, I see as a “grosser point”.
‘Is that genuinely what you read my words as saying?’ Yes, when you defend Twisty’s comment against my “attack”, I see you as agreeing with her, and not me. Twisty’s comment was indeed, in my opinion, putting the equality of women in doubt, and I would argue that to agree with her, you WOULD have to see yourself as “inferior”. SHE said you are sub-human.
And finally, the reason it matters what gender the oppression is coming from, is that Twisty blamed it on patriarchy, thereby condemning a whole gender, not just a political party bent on controlling others and maintaining the status quo. Attacking males only, and not all oppressors is… well… frankly… sexist.
Hi Bacchus,
I’ve been quietly reading your blog for several months. This last exchange was one of the best and most interesting I’ve come across in my limited reading of blogs-all while bracketed with buttocks, breasts, and frolicsome beauties in the throes of orgasm. The best of both worlds.
Your observation of the “foul rhetorical trick to justify political power over others” really cuts to the nub of the matter. I had an experience somewhat similar to this in College when everyone who was White was told, by an individual who invited himself onto the campus, that they were inherently racist because they were White. During the meetings that followed between “white students” and minorities, all overseen by this man, white students were not allowed to speak or deny their racism because the mere fact of doing so affirmed their racism and their role of oppressor. At one of the most astonishing moments during this bonfire of political correctness, a sizable portion of the “white” student body, in a gym, bowed down before this man, literally, and, repeating after him, confessed and affirmed their own racism. I have never seen political power wielded so quickly, so effectively, over so many in so short a time.