Sabotage
My notes for this post looked really quite respectable. Nested bullet points and margin notes, little stars pointing out the bits I felt might be a bit weak... good stuff over all. This was meant to be an even-handed look at "radical" feminism and how it seems to be not merely at odds, but openly hostile, to other forms of feminism and even rational criticism. Turning my attention to the previously mentioned stars, I began researching some of the issues I hoped to explore in greater detail. Minute by minute spent perusing self-identified radical feminist blogs I felt my mindset shifting, my attitudes changing, until one overwhelming thought filled my mind.
Fuck you.
It's not just that these women don't speak for me, and they most certainly do not, it's the way they demonize anyone that disagrees, regardless of how reasonable that disagreement might be. It's the unbearable notion that they alone are capable of analyzing the thoughts and intentions that originated in the minds of others. It's the insistence that women are victims, whether they consider themselves victims or not and its the frequent villainization of heterosexual relations and sexual compromise.
To be clear, I consider myself a "sex positive" feminist - a title that automatically earns me the derision of radical feminists. My position that heterosexual sex is not automatically lacking in consent due to the patriarchal nature of society firmly places me in many of their cross-hairs. It's quite possible, in fact, that most of my sexual attitudes and beliefs run aground of radical feminist doctrine. While I've mentioned in the past how deflating it is for me to be sexualized in an academic context, I do not condemn my being sexualized in any context and I find it intensely insulting to be told that such attitudes brand me a "rape apologist" or that they're simply a result of my stubborn refusal to admit that I'm simply spouting what the patriarchy feeds me in order to stay in their good graces.
This post was intended to be an intellectual comparison between radical and sex-positive or moderate forms of feminism. Sitting down to write it, however, I realized there's simply no point. I've long held issue with the term "radical" feminism because it seemed intentionally dismissive and degrading. Today I've realized I have a new issue with the term. While "radical" may be descriptive of many of their ideas, "fundamentlist" is far more descriptive of many of their attitudes. I find little use in debating fundamentalists of any stripe. Having lost my original focus for this post I find myself struggling to pin down it's purpose... and I come only to this:
Fundamentalist feminists do not speak for all women. They deserve a spot at the table, as do all women, but they are not the ruling authority. I will continue to determine, as do all women, what behavior is and is not acceptable to me. I will continue to seek out and support those women who, like Greta Christina, so eloquently mirror many of my opinions. I will learn, somehow, to laugh at the transparent demonization of women by those who claim to be fighting for their equality. Fundamentalist thought is not free thought, regardless of it's flavor or who is serving it up.
I wish I had a grandiose statement with which to end this post, but I don't. I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted to remind everyone that the loudest voices often belong to the minority and that the crowd isn't as hostile as it seems.
Recent Posts
Archives
Follow me on:
July 19th, 2011 - 13:58
A worse thought… by claiming that all heterosexual sex lacks consent, not only are they claiming the planet’s population are rapespawn… They are claiming that women are not sentient beings capable of self-determination and therefore able to grant consent. Coma patients, animals, the underaged, inanimate objects, and the mentally challenged are incapable of consent.
And here I thought women’s rights was about getting away from the mindset of the previous century, considering women to be second-class citizens. Oy.
July 20th, 2011 - 09:51
Their reasoning is actually a bit different. Essentially, the concept is that in a patriarchal society women only have as much power of choice as men allow them, making a woman’s consent illusionary (because the need for consent could, theoretically, be revoked).
While this is philosophically true, the theory has no practical purpose in the framework of social reality. All choices are subject to restrictions, and those restrictions are generally taken into account when discussing the practicality of social theory. (eg – If my boss gives me an assignment, I choose whether or not to consent to his request. He can, of course, take away the need for my consent by firing me, threatening to dock my pay, etc… but it is still my choice on a practical, though not necessarily philosophical, level.)
July 21st, 2011 - 01:13
It also dismisses the power that women have as individuals, and as part of society. I am, generally, quite timid around a number of small females in my life, because I know they are quite willing and able to cause crippling and lethal injury to me, and if they claimed I was acting as an aggressor, society would back them up and bury me. I’m not flirtatious, lascivious, nor anything short of respectful by nature. Yet, I fear a woman choosing me as an enemy, because I would be unable to defend myself, not because it is likely.
Also, among my circle of friends, if a girl had a problem with an abusive ex, or a rapist, it’s a given that, upon request, we’d subdue the fellow, give the victim a weapon, and after she’s satisfied, bury what’s left. And provide an alibi for those involved. It hasn’t come up yet, thankfully.
I don’t believe in equality, because I haven’t seen it exist. I do see a lot of competing strengths, and intricate alliances intended for mutual protection. True, it’s not a simple world, but no one can act without consequence. Further, how one responds to an issue of consent is far more varied than mere binary response. A boss’s assignment can be fulfilled in a number of fashions, varying in content, timliness, and even how it is submitted. For example, by way of copies being sent to HR and one’s lawyer. Response varies by level of injustice. One can only be truly powerless if one is bereft of allies and chooses not to retaliate against being victimized.
Economic realities… may obfuscate all but the most banal of evils, yet they cannot remove the basic crux of choice in how one lives. I imagine, as the current economic situation progresses, we shall have the option of joining a roving gang, taking over a local park, and farming for subsistence amidst legal and illegal protest. But that’s likely a far harder, harsher, and leaner path of survival than filing the correct TPS cover sheet.