I said I wasn't going to attempt to define an "official feminist position" on any issue, and I am not.
But I am going to tell you what I think of Cathy Young, IWF, iFeminism, and former Bangles lead singer Christina Hoff Sommers: I think they're more convincing as misogynist apologists than as feminists.
So sue me. I can't help it if everything I read by 'em reminds me of Boxer:
After his hoof had healed up, Boxer worked harder than ever. Indeed, all the animals worked like slaves that year. Apart from the regular work of the farm, and the rebuilding of the windmill, there was the schoolhouse for the young pigs, which was started in March. Sometimes the long hours on insufficient food were hard to bear, but Boxer never faltered. In nothing that he said or did was there any sign that his strength was not what it had been. It was only his appearance that was a little altered; his hide was less shiny than it had used to be, and his great haunches seemed to have shrunken. The others said, "Boxer will pick up when the spring grass comes on"; but the spring came and Boxer grew no fatter. Sometimes on the slope leading to the top of the quarry, when he braced his muscles against the weight of some vast boulder, it seemed that nothing kept him on his feet except the will to continue. At such times his lips were seen to form the words, "I will work harder"; he had no voice left.
. . . except there is this one key difference: Boxer's motto was "I will work harder," not "all of you must work harder."
I trust no woman who tells me I must expect less but do more. I trust no woman who tells me I have too much, it's unfair, give it back. I trust no woman who bases her ostensible feminism on the premise of, "What about men?" I trust no woman who says "I'm a feminist" but does nothing but attack it. (For that matter, I trust no one whose actions seldom match his or her words. It's a useful general principle in my life.) I cede no authority over my decisions, my health, my sanity, my lifestyle, or my inherent rights to any woman who presumes to tell me how much is enough for me.
To go back to the patient rights and responsibilities post for a moment:
I owe Ms. Lauren, formerly of feministe (which, don't get me started on how pissed off I am that the site is down; I had intended to raid the daylights out of it this week), for that idea. Something I enjoy doing when I sense something I read is "off" or wrong or flawed somehow is looking for the hole, finding the faulty premise, whatever you want to call it.
Last week I read something that set off the alarms: There's an error here, there's a mistake, something about this is not right--but I couldn't put my finger on what it was.
Blogging is a humbling business; you learn really quickly to tell when you're in over your head. I passed the link onto Lauren and asked for her thoughts. Lauren did not disappoint. She went right to the flaw. She pointed out that the problem was that the author argued not for women to have greater autonomy, but rather for them to assume--and here I have to quote--"the entire onus for societal responsibility." She went on to note that this was "very Victorian." Indeed:
As a conservative feminist, I think the only way the plight of women will ever improve is exactly the way it has improved in my lifetime. We must represent ourselves out in the world, in the workplace firmly, with grace, competently, in such a manner that eventually it becomes the accepted wisdom that we can do the job. We must argue, not compel, for a more principled look at pornography. One that takes into account the effect on our daughters. And on our sons.
Whatever else the Victorian era was, it was neither kind nor just to women, and I think the argument could be made, convincingly, that it was also little more "moral" than our current era, and thus arguments with a Victorian flavor do not persuade me much.
But oh, no matter how many titles are filmed each year that feature increased degradation, objectification, and humiliation of women, we must never raise our sweet little voices to compel anyone. Heaven forfend we compel. We will get more flies with honey than with vinegar (although why exactly we want the flies to begin with I've never been sure), despite the fact that women have been "arguing" for men to see them as fully-realized human beings instead of sex toys for centuries, we--oh now look, let us not get discouraged and downtrodden. Let us not be victims! Let us just work harder doing the exact same gentle, ladylike things that have been so stunningly effective for NEVER. Look, you know it's bad when even the Pope uses stronger language than this.
Do the same thing repeatedly, keep expecting a different result--I think that's the definition of something. Oh, here it is.
Lauren had one other point that helps sum up why I'm not interested in at least the current crop of Republican/Independent/Libertarian feminists. Noting this description of conservative feminism:
There are plenty of conservative feminists, but we don't organize, we don't march, we don't wear our feminism on our sleeves.
Lauren responded,
It's too bad. We need them. Primarily to talk about what they DO believe in and what they're doing to DO about it and then DO it instead of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand between the good, moral girls and the screaming harpies.
You know, I've been wondering a little myself. Because I have a question:
Did "the Left" HIJACK feminism from right-of-center women? Or were right-of-center women not minding the store in the first place?
If most feminist women identify as liberals, do you think it's just possible that this is because liberals are more accepting of, and less threatened by, feminist ideas and behavior?
If so-called radical feminists are not doing enough to draw attention to violence against women in the Middle East--and from now on I want to be given a cookie each time I read that one--then by the same token, what are you doing to draw attention to violence against woman at home? Why is any American citizen recounting this horror:
After everyone in my neighborhood found out my identity, my family and I thought it was best for me to transfer to a new high school and start off fresh where no one knew who I was. I was in such fear of the new kids in my new school finding out who I was. I registered at my new high school under a different name. These men had not only taken my life, but now they had taken my identity and who I was. The first few weeks of my junior year went as planned. No one knew about my past, but that quickly changed when people hired by these men came to my school and stood in the parking lot screaming out my real name as I was walking with my friends. I was stopped by a man who served me papers right in front of my new friends. Then he proceeded to tell them who I was. I wanted to curl up and die. So much for no one knowing.
. . . in 2006?
Why am I reading so many comments by conservative women exclaiming how shocked they are to learn about labiaplasty . . . about hymen replacement . . . about G-spot surgery? Pardon me, but where have you broads been? If you routinely slither under a rock or out to a coffee klatsch or into a protected forum when you discuss events related to your sex, in order to protect men from having to hear about such boring and offensive material as, bleah, "women's issues," you can hardly be surprised when the only people left to talk about them are those who DON'T consider it their responsibility to shelter and protect grown human beings from matters relevant to half the population.
You know something?
Maybe it's not feminism that needs to get its ass off my couch. Maybe it's iFeminism.
Posted by Ilyka at March 20, 2006 04:35 PM in blog against the strawfeministI'm sorry, I'm a slow and stupid conservative critic of certain trends in feminism who is not exactly sure what conservative women 1) didn't do for this rape victim (and by implication, rape victims everywhere, apparently), and 2) what has given you the idea that conservative women are not doing anything to prevent rape, condemn pornography, and so on? I guess I imagined all those conservative women I've read (like, on iFeminist and sites like that) condemning porn and the whole rest of the sexualized culture that is degrading to women and men.
In other words, I'm not sure what your beef is and what you want conservative women to do. As for the rape victim's letter you linked to, I don't can't see (probably because I am blinded by my worship of Ronald Reagan or something) why this case should be some sort of condemnation of conservative women's viewpoints and tactics. For one thing, I not only don't understand why those men were not given harsher sentences, I don't understand why they aren't all dead at the hands of the girl's father. My father would have killed them with his bare hands. Moreover, why were they allowed to harass this woman for years afterwards? And while I'm just being a conservative witch who refuses to fall into a bath of outraged tears because she's got icewater in her veins and sold her soul to Nixon in '72 (when she was eleven! they start 'em young in Rightville), what the hell were her parents thinking letting their underage daughter go to a party where young men would be present? Young men of an age where they were at the height of their horniness, in a culture which -- thanks in large part to the modern cultural movements of previous decades that whether you and the Feministe gang like it included many feminist ideas -- had come to see things like alcohol consumption and unrestrained, or barely restrained, sexual activity among teenagers as a "normal" part of their experience.
Hey man, us virgins, wives, and sexually chaste spinsters didn't do it. For every Andrea Dworkin (who famously said of Clinton the adulterer's adventures "I think Hillary should shoot him and President Gore should pardon her") publishing broadsides against porno there were ten pseuds burning bras on tv, glomming onto Gloria Steinem and her goofy New-Ageish feminism-lite, and complaining that not letting girls "explore their sexuality just like men have always been able to" is oppression of women and that the only way to eliminate the madonna/whore complex in men was for all women to become bargain-basement prostitutes. No, I know that they didn't say that in so many words, but once the restraining effect of the value of women's chastity on men's behavior was removed (because chastity was no longer seen as valuable, and female virginity was seen as nothing more than an embarrassing obstacle to be rid of as soon as possible instead of the marker of value it used to be -- because it was all so unfair, women having to control themselves like that; as if women were just as driven by overpowering urges as men!) men didn't feel they had any reason to restrain themselves, and they don't much today, as the actions of the men in this rape case bear out.
Look. These are the bad facts: one of the main ideals of feminism is the need to destroy the idea that woman is a weak and feeble creature that must be protected by big, strong, men, because this puts women in the less-dignified position of being the weaker, lesser person. But these are atavistic desires, and all the yearning for pride and dignity on earth don't do anything to change the fact that most women are weaker than most men, and do in fact need to be protected to a certain extent from men by other men. If you tell men enough times that you don't need them to protect you anymore thank you very much, it will eventually filter through, and you may just find yourself SOL. Because human nature is such that, when someone finds their help refused again and again, his reaction more likely than not is not unqualified admiration at your strength and independence, but instead resentment and a "well, screw you and everyone like you, lady" attitude. And the next time he sees a woman in trouble, he may think "she can take care of herself." And if he sees a women he has known all his life who "trusts" him, he may see only an object, who means nothing to him as a person because it has become established in the culture that the relationship of women to men is like that of fishes to bicycles.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 20, 2006 06:41 PMI think, Andrea, that Ilyka was pointing out that the majority of conservative anti-feminists are so busy pointing out the canard that liberal feminists aren't working for women's rights in the Middle East that they're ignoring the fact that women still have an uphill battle right here at home.
In contrast to the LA case, the Chicago gang-rape that was videotaped ended in an aquittal--because, you see, a woman who is stupid enough to drink and pass out around three drunken teenagers deserves to get raped--excuse me, have consensual sex with them, even after she's passed out and they start writing epithets on her body.
I have seen plenty of conservative anti-feminists go on about how rape statistics are falsely inflated, how women cry rape just to get a better divorce settlement/child custody/welfare/you name it.
While I do not deny that those things happen, conservatives make the argument that they are the usual, often with zero statistics to back them up. But this argument then flies across the conservasphere.
Richard Bennett and Kim DuToit are particularly fond of passing along these pseudo-statistics, and Glenn often links to posts that do the same.
To blame feminism for rape, however, is really reaching. Rape has been around as long as men and women have been around. Men rape women in wartime. They rape women in peacetime. They rape women at parties. They rape women on dates. They rape strangers on the street. They rape their own relatives.
They don't seem to need the excuse of feminism to go on a rape spree. Saddam Hussein, you may recall, had rape rooms in the decidedly non-feminist country of Iraq. Thousands of Pakistani rape victims are going to be tried for adultery. Unless things have changed greatly in the last few hours, I'm thinking Pakistan is not known for its feminist ideals.
I should like to point out that I don't believe ALL men rape. But I do believe all men are capable of it. I don't know what turns the switch on, and I thank God I never had to experience it myself.
However. I'm thinking it's not feminism that causes it, in spite of what conservatives would like to think about the loss of American feminine chastity.
Did "the Left" HIJACK feminism from right-of-center women?
No, they willfully EXCLUDE right-of-center women from their coven because we're ALL WRONG about abortion, politics, everything. Lauren's an exception to that, and reading any mainstream feminist literature on the internet or in their publications it's pointedly obvious that right-of-center women are not wanted. How can we possibly be "feminist" if we don't support abortion, after all?
Lauren says "It's too bad. We need them. Primarily to talk about what they DO believe in and what they're doing to DO about it and then DO it instead of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand between the good, moral girls and the screaming harpies."
That's good to know, but honestly, we are talking about it, and we're living it as well. We go to work (or God forbid! stay home with the kids!), want to get paid the same, join the armed forces, expect to be treated fairly, and will fight for it. We raise our daughters to believe they can do anything they want, and we teach them self-respect. But if feminism has that abortion/left-wing politics litmus test, then I'll call myself something else. And left-wing (LW) feminists MOCK us because we don't want our daughters looking trashy--remember the Modesty site? It's not my cup of tea, but why bash women for NOT wanting their daughters to flaunt their bodies above their brains or personalities? Is that an LW litmus test too? We have to let our daughters dress however they want, regardless of how society treats them--just on principle??? Sure, it would be nice if women weren't treated differently because of how they dress, but that's just reality, and it always has been that way, no matter where you look. Human nature. And I don't think there's anything "healthy" about encouraging pre-teen/teenage sexuality, either--and that's what the clothes thing is all about. It would be more ideologically consistent for someone who enters beauty pageants to bash the Modesty people, because beauty pageant contestants think it's ok to value appearance over the brain. Apparently the Modesty people don't. Now, I think having a website about it is a little humorous, but I think that way about most crap on the internets.
Why "most feminists identify themselves as liberals?" Look at what organizations like NOW support that really don't seem to have anything to do with feminism. They show up at antiwar rallies, anti-globalization rallies, and other shit I wouldn't be caught dead associating myself with. They fought Alito and Roberts because of abortion, of course. Well, those two are my kind of judges, and I'm not going to change my mind just so I can be "accepted" by a bunch of people who disagree with everything I believe in.
Re: "womens issues"--I can't stand the term. Not because it's "boring and offensive," but I fail to see why they are "women only" issues, and I also consider issues like the military, the economy, etc. etc. etc. to be "womens issues" just as much as...men's issues? I mean what IS that? Obviously we women aren't the only ones who care about abortion, education, breast cancer research, pornography (the Pope still isn't a woman, for example), etc. Calling them "womens' issues" creates a reason for some men to just plain not give a shit, and segregating the issues, at least to me, is demeaning to us and to the issues themselves. I don't think anyone would argue that male politicians place special importance on "womens issues;" in fact, they're usually left to female politicians. Oh, that's her area.
So I guess I'm not sure what we're expected to actually DO differently from what we already do. Give up our beliefs in everything else to be accepted by a movement that works and marches for things we think suck (like abortion)? Defending men who cheat on their wives, and then defending the wife who once said "I'm not some kinda 'stand by your man' woman"? Work for gun control, when women like me want concealed carry permits so we can defend ourselves against attackers? Fight school choice for our kids? Become antiwar activists? No effing way, on all counts. None of that stuff has anything to do with feminism, but it's damn sure part of the (left-wing) mainstream feminist doctrine.
And like Andrea, I just don't see how the rape case you linked to is an indictment of right-of-center women. There are surely as many on the right as the left who are rape victims and as many who would be equally sickened by what happened to the girl. But what's the first thing that left-wingers think? It must be a CONSERVATIVE that let that happen to her. Like there's no such thing as a liberal misogynist. Man = rape sympathizer (or rapist) = right winger = all right of center = EVIL. And of course, "burn her at the stake" has its own implications (he must be religious!!!). See, I'd join that discussion on the same side (for the girl), but why bother? I'm just like her attackers and persecuters, after all, because I'm not just like the LW feminists on everything else.
Posted by: Beth at March 20, 2006 08:04 PMLet it be noted, in light of Meryl's comment, that I wasn't talking about men. God knows they do most of the women-bashing, feminist or not (at least on the Stupid Blogosphere™).
Posted by: Beth at March 20, 2006 08:11 PMI don't have too much to add, because Andrea and Beth pretty much covered what I wanted to say.
I don't consider myself a feminist. Am I? You tell me...
I believe in equality for women and I think women should be treated with dignity and respect. The very idea of treating women like property or playthings or pieces of meat makes me very angry. (That's how that poor girl that was gang raped was treated. I hope she gets her pound of flesh from her tormentors because they certainly deserve to suffer.)
I think pornography and abortion are evil. I am a Christian...not a very good one, but I am a believer. My opposition to pornography and abortion are not tied to my faith but are merely reinforced by it. I was against those things even before I re-embraced Christianity in my mid-twenties.
However, my pro-life, anti-porn, "godbag" ways would already exclude me from the feminist club. I support modesty as something that protects the dignity of women. Many feminists scoff at modesty as "repressive". They also act like chastity is something shameful -- again with the "repression" stuff. It never seems to occur to them that maybe it's "repressive" for a woman to be pressured to "put out" just like the guys instead of waiting for the right man. I rarely, if ever, see them demanding more chastity from men.
Lauren says, regarding people like me, "we need them", but forgive me if I'm skeptical about that. I get the distinct impression that Lauren and her fellow feminist bloggers don't want my kind around. So I consider them enemy territory and I stay away.
Sorry, I have to take issue with the porn thing.
"Many feminists scoff at modesty as "repressive"."
Do they? Really? What feminists are you hanging out with, because the ones I know aren't exactly advocating dancing nude under the harvest moon. They don't advocate stripping to the waist while frying up a side of bacon, nor are they strolling around their homes in their knickers once they get home from banging their head on the glass ceiling.
"I rarely, if ever, see them demanding more chastity from men."
But isn't a crtuch of the argument formed here by Ilyka about rape-as in, "rape is bad please don't do it and what are we doing to stop it"-kind of thing. Ergo, no rape, no putting out. *Poof*.
I am struggling to see what pornography has to do with it. Porn is something that is spread across both sexes. Is it the subjugation of women? If she had a gun to her head, yes. If she's doing it for the cash then I see it as an activity that is marked by market economy. Men do porn too, and I don't see anyone whining that they are repressed or are playthings. That's the whole point of porn-it's to make the viewer feel that the subject is there for their pleasure. Maybe the women sitting for the porn shots aren't exactly the badge-wearing NOW type (and where would they wear their badges?) but different strokes for different folks.
Porn has no purpose in my life other than providing material for my partner to finger out some knuckle children at our IVF clinic, but I have no real problem with it. Subjugation of women? Not really. Idolifaction of people as sexual objects? Yes. But then monkeys watch other monkeys and whack off, you don't see a Christian Coalition up in arms about that.
Posted by: Helen at March 21, 2006 12:20 AMHelen,
I'm pressed for time so I'll make this quick...
If you want to see some examples for yourself of feminists being dismissive of modesty, read this post on my blog.
As for this:
But isn't a crtuch of the argument formed here by Ilyka about rape-as in, "rape is bad please don't do it and what are we doing to stop it"-kind of thing. Ergo, no rape, no putting out. *Poof*.
Huh? I don't understand your point here. I'm not talking about rape, which is a different issue. I'm talking about raising standards for the behavior for men rather than lowering it for women. I'm talking about criticizing men for being promiscuous just as much as criticizing women. The feminist response is often to say that promiscuity is okay for women, too.
Pornography degrades women and sex, regardless whether the people involved in making it or the people viewing it happen to think so at the time. It has an effect on the way women and sexuality is thought of. It causes those things to be thought of as objects and commodities.
What monkeys do is completely irrelevant -- I'm concerned with human beings.
I'm not going to get into a big debate here with people who defend porn. I have more productive things to do, like ram my head against a brick wall...
See, now I'm not defending porn. I just think that it's way off topic-be a feminist, sure, but don't reach for straws on things that having to do with the blog post at hand. There was only one link to porn. You don't like porn? Go write up a post about it. Totally cool, enjoy a porn-free existence, it really makes no difference to me or anyone else (except if you have horny pro-mastubatoty houseguests. They, apparently, are shit out of luck.)
You don't prove anything by your comments about the degradation of women, you just keep flogging the deceased equine-"porn degrades women! Porn degrades women! WRACK! Polly want a cracker!"
I just get sick of the old argument that porn degrades women. Porn degrades SEX. Porn isn't about the objectification of WOMEN, it's about the objectification of SEX, of taking sex to the base level and including a staple through the naughty bits as you turn the shellacked pages.
Sex. Women. Two different things. Sure, in porn, the romance? Not so much. You just keep talking about how it makes women sexual objects, I don't see you decrying the men in those photos who are enjoying the action shots. You seem to have an issue with the women in the shots, when really-isn't the truth that porn degrades men, too? Or are you not thinking of their aspect?
PS-promiscuity? A totally different topic. If you want to ride the moral high horse and make sure that everyone is civil and modest and enjoying a good, heavenly and church-benighted sexual hoe-down that's your business. This post really wasn't about promiscuity, and I entreat Ilyka to write up a blog post about it before we get carried away in the comments as I just know that's a can of worms.
Posted by: Helen at March 21, 2006 10:33 AMI think I pointed out in my comment that porn degrades sex. And it degrades women and men. I emphasized women because, you know, this is a thread about feminism and women and stuff. Silly me.
If you want to ride the moral high horse and make sure that everyone is civil and modest and enjoying a good, heavenly and church-benighted sexual hoe-down that's your business.
Is the snide mockery really necessary?
This post really wasn't about promiscuity...
But is is about women and feminism and stuff, and promiscuity is one of those topics that comes up when discussing these things. Again, silly me. Oh, and I wasn't the first person on this thread to bring up that subject, so I won't be lectured by you about what to discuss here, okay. That's Ilyka's job, since it's her blog.
I'm sorry, I'm a slow and stupid conservative critic of certain trends in feminism
Andrea, please, for the love of Mike, don't waste my time with setups like this when you know damn well that (1) I consider you neither slow nor stupid and (2) I so often enjoy your criticism of certain trends in feminism.
I'm not sure what your beef is and what you want conservative women to do
They could start by not succumbing to the depressing trend (in fairness, practiced mainly by conservative men) of playing that game I like to call "I'm the Real Victim Here."
It is perfectly possible anymore to read pieces by conservatives that first slam feminism for wallowing in victimhood, then complain that this deprives conservatives of their more-rightful claims to . . . victimhood, which we supposedly hate, are sick of hearing about, and shouldn't exist. So! Do we hate feminists because they whine, or do we hate them because their whining drowns out our whining? I would rather discuss what they're "whining" ABOUT than get into this whole you-victimized-me, no-you-victimized-me, well-but-you-victimized-me-first sort of thing.
As for the rape victim's letter you linked to, I don't can't see (probably because I am blinded by my worship of Ronald Reagan or something) why this case should be some sort of condemnation of conservative women's viewpoints and tactics.
I don't suggest that it is. I am merely tired of bossy assholes "proving" that feminist bloggers are "hypocrites" because they don't blog enough about the Middle East, when to do so is just as stupid as "proving" that conservative women are "self-loathing" for not blogging enough about problems facing women domestically. What I had hoped to show with that contrast is that "You don't blog enough about what I want to read; therefore, everything you say is suspect," is one hell of a stupid timewaster of a game. There are enough freakin' blogs out there, heaven knows, to cover everyone's pet topics, whether those topics are Middle Eastern issues or rape victims. Or both.
What Meryl said in her first paragraph here, in other words.
thanks in large part to the modern cultural movements of previous decades that whether you and the Feministe gang like it included many feminist ideas
Most of those "feminist ideas" had to do with the sexuality and sexual expression of grown women, not girls. And, really, you never went to a party at which teenaged boys were present when you were 16? Your parents were stricter than mine, then.
I'm also appalled that the first thing out of most conservatives' mouths whenever any case of this sort is mentioned is, "She shouldn't have been there/wearing that/doing this," instead of "Those men were completely subhuman." Because if going to a party means assuming the risk that you will be slipped a mickey, flung over a pool table, and penetrated every which way you can be with pool cues, lit cigarettes, and Snapple bottles, then no young woman should ever attend another party in her life--and that's neither fair nor practical.
I know that they didn't say that in so many words, but once the restraining effect of the value of women's chastity on men's behavior was removed (because chastity was no longer seen as valuable, and female virginity was seen as nothing more than an embarrassing obstacle to be rid of as soon as possible instead of the marker of value it used to be -- because it was all so unfair, women having to control themselves like that; as if women were just as driven by overpowering urges as men!) men didn't feel they had any reason to restrain themselves, and they don't much today, as the actions of the men in this rape case bear out.
Hmm. I'm actually with you right up to the end there, where I diverge on two points. One, "as if women were just as driven by overpowering urges as men"--I think they certainly can be, and I think what happened once society's restraints were chucked off them, that is, in the years following the sexual revolution, only proves that they usually are. Because otherwise, once those restraints were chucked off, nothing would have changed. Women, being "naturally" less sexual than men, would have remained so.
The last part, about how men no longer felt they had to restrain themselves? That's called the "she asked for it" argument. Not only is it demeaning to women--sorry, ladies, but I'm afraid you've all got to be extra-vigilant against rape because that dumb bitch Erica Jong wrote Fear of Flying back in the day--it is EXTREMELY demeaning to men. Because what you're effectively saying is that men are all half-civilized pigs who can't be expected to behave any better unless WE first behave better, and that's far more man-hating and belittling than anything "the Feministe gang" ever said.
Men raised to value and respect women, not on the basis of how completely women restrain their sexual urges, but on the basis of simply being fellow human beings, inherently worthy of value and respect--"all God's children," if you will--do not rape. Period. The problem is not women who have been too free and easy with their privates; the problem is men who see women as no more than their privates. And one thing I will say for any human being, male or female: When we define something, even each other, as less than human, we tend not to treat that creature so well. This works great when that creature is a serial killer or a terrorist or some other evil entity that has forfeited the right to be treated humanely, but it works like shit when we do it to young women for merely using poor, or even just normally-fallibly-human, judgment. Have you internalized the notion that women who are raped are women who get what they deserve so thoroughly that you don't see that?
But these are atavistic desires, and all the yearning for pride and dignity on earth don't do anything to change the fact that most women are weaker than most men, and do in fact need to be protected to a certain extent from men by other men.
Thank you. You've just written "Why I Support the Second Amendment" for me so I don't have to.
If you tell men enough times that you don't need them to protect you anymore thank you very much, it will eventually filter through, and you may just find yourself SOL.
Which suits me fine, to tell you the truth. I trust myself more than any other human being on the planet and I think, when they are being honest with themselves, that most people feel similarly. Or maybe not, but then, I'm a control freak; if a well-meaning man tried to protect me from something, it's just as likely I'd wind up screaming at him to quit doing it wrong. So it's just as well someone like myself doesn't seek out their protection.
Posted by: ilyka at March 21, 2006 01:30 PMAs for the Susan vs. Helen thing that's cropped up: I think, or at least I hope, you both just got off on the wrong foot. I also think it's advisable to recall that I am not a huge fan of religion-bashing. That said, while I agree that promiscuity does indeed come up whenever we get into the whole sex/feminism thing, I'd nevertheless like to avoid it as the main topic, because I've seen it lead too often into the theme of "women must do better," and this week isn't about blaming women, it's about blaming strawfeminists.
Still, I have to say this
I'm talking about raising standards for the behavior for men rather than lowering it for women. I'm talking about criticizing men for being promiscuous just as much as criticizing women. The feminist response is often to say that promiscuity is okay for women, too.
. . . was very well said, although I'd quibble with "the feminist response" only because, from what I've read, "the feminist response" varies. Which goes right back to me not wanting to define official feminist positions on things! Neato.
Posted by: ilyka at March 21, 2006 02:05 PMYou know what? Fuck this. Fight against human nature if you wish. Complain about the complainers, who are at least not like the mushbrains at NOW. Use emotional arguments instead of reasoned ones and complain that calls for reason instead of emotion are directives to "scale back" criticism of sexism. Whatever.
And no, to answer your question in the post below, I did not go to parties with teenage boys when I was sixteen. I did not go to rock concerts, I did not drink alcohol, I dithey are doing nothing but d not date, I did not dress in sexy little clothes. I did not do any of those things, not because my parents were strict -- far from it, they were liberal, fun-loving people who liked to give parties and worried that I didn't have enough of a social life -- but because I wanted nothing to do with the already sex-drenched culture of the seventies. Now it looks like an almost innocent era compared to what we have today.
Blame conservative antifeminists (or what you label antifeminists -- if you ask me they are just as feminist, if not more, as the NOW cows mooing about what an awful president Bush is and why can't they have their Clinton back) for girls getting raped at parties all you like. Complain that it's not fair that the girl get any criticism at all for her dumb decision to trust her male "friends," that it's not fair that she should have to suffer for a "bad decision," that it's not fair that women have to watch what they wear and what they do and say around men. So it's not fair. Welcome to life, which will never, ever, ever be fair, and to the reality that the modern liberal feminist movement has let women down because it's too busy organizing things like marches in New Orleans in the cause of whiny Katrina "survivors" and making sure that no unwanted females are brought into the world.
But it's all three or four conservative womens' faults. I gotcha.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 21, 2006 06:08 PMUse emotional arguments instead of reasoned ones
CITE. I'm not kidding. This is the number-one thing I get hurled at me from the right and frankly, after I've spent several hours researching and linking in support of what I write here, it's not only insulting for me to read this, but provably WRONG. As in factually, rationally incorrect, like stating that 2 + 2 = 5.
Furthermore, your comment has nothing to do with the subject matter of this post and everything to do with my response to you in a prior thread. Take it up there. No, wait, I'll move it myself. Then people can decide in context who's getting "emotional" around here. [UPDATE: Fixed! Go me.]
Blame conservative antifeminists (or what you label antifeminists -- if you ask me they are just as feminist, if not more, as the NOW cows mooing about what an awful president Bush is and why can't they have their Clinton back) for girls getting raped at parties all you like.
And this, I'll actually be a pal and just edit this right out if you so request, out of the goodness of my heart--because I'd sure hate for something this retarded to stand under your name, when anyone who can read can see that I nowhere blamed conservative women of ANY variety FOR RAPE.
But no, I'm making emotional arguments. Rich stuff, Andrea. Rich stuff.
Posted by: ilyka at March 21, 2006 06:14 PMIlyka,
...although I'd quibble with "the feminist response" only because, from what I've read, "the feminist response" varies.
Which is why I qualified my statement by saying, "The feminist response is often..." I realize this isn't true for all feminists. But, to me anyway, it seems to be the view of an awful lot of feminists.
As for me vs. Helen...well, her attitude just rubbed me the wrong way, and I wasn't in the best of moods. I apologize for the ruckus.
Which is why I qualified my statement by saying, "The feminist response is often...
You're right; I'm wrong. I overlooked the qualifier. My bad.
Posted by: ilyka at March 21, 2006 08:44 PM*throws a chair*
Posted by: Helen at March 21, 2006 11:55 PMOh and I too apologize if I was snarky. Susan's attitude also rubbed me the wrong way. I blame hormones.
Posted by: Helen at March 21, 2006 11:57 PMBlame conservative antifeminists (or what you label antifeminists -- if you ask me they are just as feminist, if not more, as the NOW cows mooing about what an awful president Bush is and why can't they have their Clinton back) for girls getting raped at parties all you like. Complain that it's not fair that the girl get any criticism at all for her dumb decision to trust her male "friends," that it's not fair that she should have to suffer for a "bad decision," that it's not fair that women have to watch what they wear and what they do and say around men. So it's not fair. Welcome to life, which will never, ever, ever be fair, and to the reality that the modern liberal feminist movement has let women down because it's too busy organizing things like marches in New Orleans in the cause of whiny Katrina "survivors" and making sure that no unwanted females are brought into the world.But it's all three or four conservative womens' faults. I gotcha.
You have just moved the goalposts, Andrea. In your first post, you said this:
because chastity was no longer seen as valuable, and female virginity was seen as nothing more than an embarrassing obstacle to be rid of as soon as possible instead of the marker of value it used to be ... men didn't feel they had any reason to restrain themselves, and they don't much today, as the actions of the men in this rape case bear out.
To which I replied that rape is endemic in all cultures, as far as I know--the ones where a woman is covered in a head-to-toe burka, and in Sweden, that most liberal of nations. Rapists take on every form, every color, every nationality--and there's a little scandal in the UN peacekeeping force that's been going on for years where the peacekeepers are raping the natives they're supposed to be protecting. I'm not getting how that's NOW's fault, though. Perhaps I'm missing the part where they have anything to do with it.
Your continuing to bring up the "she-asked-for-it" argument regarding the rape of American women is looking sillier and sillier. However, you're building a good Strawfeminist. Because that isn't what Ilyka was talking about, and it isn't what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at March 22, 2006 07:52 AMBut I am going to tell you what I think of Cathy Young, IWF, iFeminism, and former Bangles lead singer Christina Hoff Sommers: I think they're more convincing as misogynist apologists than as feminists.
I see that this is "blog against the strawfeminist week," but certainly not "blog against the strawargument week."
Negative snark out of the way, here's where I find this judgment sort of repellent, and feel free to try and set me straight:
To varying degrees, men and women are different organisms, both physically and behaviorally (physicality and behavior are largely the same thing on a chemical level, but for purposes of classification, we'll distinguish the two).
While there is a great deal of overlap between behavioral characteristics and tendencies evident in both men and women, and a greater range of behavioral variation within each gender than there is between genders, over moderate to large populations, on average, these differences in behavior - partially influenced by culture and partially (and very relevantly) influenced by biology - play out to create differences between the sexes, in both the practical structure and aesthetic of society.
Writing about these truths - at the least compelling the feminist movement to acknowledge them, rather than placing ALL of the chips on influencable cultural factors, in a brand of scientific ludditism similar in levels of aggressive denial to creationism - does not "apologize for misogyny."
Rather, it realistically accounts for misogyny's roots, as well as reclassifies rather typical behaviors and tendencies wishfully relegated to mysoginistic cultural constructs to the more accurate category of partially inherent behavior. And this is a large part of Christina Hoff Sommers' argument, at least.
This is my problem with many of the brands of feminism that I've been exposed to - from here, from feministe, etc. (And please don't label this generalization a "strawfeminist," as I qualify with "most" and have all the science data in the world to back up any and all arguments on behavioral biology's impact on gender differences): there is often a hostility towards acknowledging differences between men and women that have biological roots and play out in statistically significant (though not individually deterministic) ways over large populations.
Essentially, there is an overemphasis on believing that all/the vast majority of these structural paradigms are simply a matter of cultural will.
And while of course many social/economic differences are deeply influencable by culture, this argument is taken too far, and rejects hints of biological determinism as "apology for misogyny;" an excuse for men to run wild. Your average interpretation of any bit of science at pandagon is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
This tendency frustrates me in much the same way that an argument with a young earth creationist frustrates me, as it's often rooted in quite confident feeling, working an analysis of the science backwards from a predetermined political premise, rather than employing cold logic and contextual review of supporting data (which I admit is vast and complex to contextually appreciate).
So there's my critique. Makes me want to pull my hair out.
As for my constructive input on how acknowledging these behavioral differences over large populations does not stall feminism as "Shut Up, Sit Down, and Scale Back," it goes something like this:
As an cherry-picked economic example, when you acknowledge gender differences that play out in disparate distribution of labor among different professions, where "pink jobs" are paid less, a rational feminist goal (IMO) is to urge society to re-evaluate the value of those "pink" professions and activity that contribute to an economy in real terms.
I've seen arguments that go something like this over at feministe before, and I applaud the strategy, but when they are juxtaposed with posts that seem to deny the structural differences in employment distribution are a result of different biological tendencies by gender, it seems contradictory, almost like having cake and eating it to.
More on how statistics and behavioral differnces are misinterprted and underplayed in service of gender identity politics here:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002259.php
Posted by: Bill from INDC at March 22, 2006 10:32 AMI think feminism has the same problem as racial justice advocates: they've stopped being for equality, and instead are advocating for women. So instead of being broad-based groups with a noble mission of equality, they're leftist shills for identity politics.
The problem is, the minute you stop basing groups on equality and instead start basing them on "we're advocating for the rights of women/blacks/gays/[insert identity group here]" with the implicit, inescapable corollary that you're advocating the rights of the members your identity group at the expense of non-members, you immediately forfeit any moral high ground and become just another self-interested sect, no different than those outside the sect, who have just as much right to promote their rights at your expense.
You can see the nasty, inevitable result of this in the formation of "men's groups" and, more ominously perhaps, the beginnings of white advocacy groups. If we have a National Organization of Women, why not one for men? If there's an NAACP, why not a NAAWP? If women have a right to abortion, why not men?
No good can come of all this.
TallDave:
The problem is, the minute you stop basing groups on equality and instead start basing them on "we're advocating for the rights of women/blacks/gays/[insert identity group here]" with the implicit, inescapable corollary that you're advocating the rights of the members your identity group at the expense of non-members, you immediately forfeit any moral high ground and become just another self-interested sect, no different than those outside the sect, who have just as much right to promote their rights at your expense.
I fail to see how advocating for greater equality leads to the argument that we're trying to take too big a share of the equality pie. This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's plenty of agency and autonomy to go around.
Posted by: Lauren at March 22, 2006 04:34 PMThis is my problem with many of the brands of feminism that I've been exposed to - from here, from feministe, etc. (And please don't label this generalization a "strawfeminist," as I qualify with "most" and have all the science data in the world to back up any and all arguments on behavioral biology's impact on gender differences): there is often a hostility towards acknowledging differences between men and women that have biological roots and play out in statistically significant (though not individually deterministic) ways over large populations.
Sorry, you don't get a get-out-of-straw-free card by using generalities and vague references. Cite some cites, Bill, and we can discuss which schools of feminism are trying to negate the biological differences between men and women, and which are simply using them as "apologies for misogyny."
Andrea, where have you read on iFeminists about opposition to porn? I am an avid reader of iFeminist creator Wendy McElroy, and I know she is very pro-porn. She wrote an entire book about it.
Also, I want to point out to everyone that libertarian and conservative ideologies are two completely different things. There are a lot of confused conservatives out there calling themselves "libertarian" but please don't hold actual libertarian/individualist thinkers responsible for that. If you don't know what I mean, just let Friedrich Hayek explain. http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm (If you don't know who Hayek is, please do not attempt to claim to be familiar with libertarian theory. Here I mean "you" in the general sense; I'm not talking to anyone in particular.)
I also think that the IWF and Hoff Summers are much more misogynist than McElroy or Young. In fact, I consider Young to be a feminist. She quite often disagrees with the old hags at the Dependent Women's Forum.
Posted by: Redneck Feminist at March 22, 2006 09:34 PMI'm not sure where the idea that being anti-porn means immediate exclusion from feminism comes from. There are feminists who are pro-porn, yes. But there are also a whole boatload of feminists who are anti-porn. See, basically, any radical feminist. Den of the Biting Beaver or Twisty for starters.
Posted by: Lesley at March 23, 2006 09:08 AMI've been given a lot of crap by other feminists for not being "just like them." In those particular instances, it was because I brushed my hair, shaved my legs, and wear designer clothes because they fit better over my size 9 butt than do clothes from consignment shops and stores LIKE walmart, but never walmart, because only evil shops there. Oh, and because at the time, in a city that gets 300 inches of snow a year, I drove a gas guzzling SUV (I no longer live there, and I lost the SUV).
The fact is that I often feel very judged by other feminists, and I can't say I blame them completely.
After all, people tend to be so rude about feminism, aren't they? And well, I got the idea that these ladies were covering their asses and only letting people they truly trusted and believed everything they believed into their little club of friends who went out for drinks on thursdays and marched for peace on Sundays.
But, I don't think that having failed to make friends with them in my old institution makes ME less of a feminist. I think there are a lot of problems subdividing feminism and I think that a lot of people are needlessly afraid of each other. We need to get over that. We keep on talking about how bipartisanism is really bad for our country and yet women are becomming divided over those same bipartisan lines.
Worse yet, I sometimes feel as if I'm not extremely liberal then I might as well not be liberal at all--and guess what? I'm not extremely liberal. I believe in working hard for what I have and not relying on my future husband for cash. I'm independent and I believe in my right to vote and my right to a freaking abortion if I want or need one (I'm REALLY infertile so quite honestly if I did get pregnant it might come down to me needing one).
And yet I don't think the extremes work, I don't think they work as good rhetoric, and I don't think they help people. I don't think I need to look like somebody's ideal feminist to be one. I don't think that I need to bring politics into my classroom (they're already there, and helping students develop their opinions is more important than informing them of my own) and I quite honestly like owning stuff (I was once told that between liking posessions and wanting a husband that I was NOT a feminist and my ideas were to be discredited, but really... wtf? That sounds more church-y than feminist-y to me).
Posted by: Annie at March 23, 2006 04:19 PMBy the way, Bill, I read your post. Well, no, actually, I read the first line and skimmed the rest.
I'm missing the part where it addresses anything that Ilyka wrote about in these posts.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at March 23, 2006 05:55 PMHi Ilyka,
I am new to your site (followed link by Pandagon) and am just settling in to read this series, am really enjoying my stay here and am settling in for a long night reading. One thing though, I'm an old-timer who was in the music business (radio) during the heyday of the wonderful and important Bangles and nearly fainted when I saw the paragraph on Christina Hoff Summers. Susanna Hoffs is the name of the Bangles member. Now I don't know if she changed her name or it's something else, but I hope you check that, I'd do the research myself but am glued to your site right now. Thanks, and thank you for examining this whole straw feminist thing!
Posted by: flawedplan at March 24, 2006 10:02 PM
Actually I did check, I am too preoccupied to concentrate, and they are indeed very different women, Susanna Hoffs remains the great beauty who covered a song by the heroic Alex Chilton, and Christina Hoff Sommers is still the charmless, clunky monkey wrench we love to hate.
Cheers!
Posted by: flawedplan at March 24, 2006 10:20 PMOh geez--yeah, I know she's not Susanna Hoffs; it's a little joke I had going with somebody (Meryl, was that you?) that I never tire of trotting out anymore. Sorry about that!
Besides, it kind of fits. Because seeing her books in the Women's Studies section does give me an Eternal Pain and makes me want to Walk Like a Bitchslapper.
Posted by: ilyka at March 24, 2006 10:20 PM