Thursday, 24 July 2008

A lot of words like "feminist", "sex positive" and such

Somewhere on the Radfem part of the blogoglobe, there appeared a comment to the effect that, "the defining characteristic of feminism is that it's not fun and it costs dearly in social acceptance." Belledame links to some places that link to it, and frankly that's as close as I want to get to the original source, but hey, it's an excuse for me to (re)iterate my own personal assessment of what the defining characteristic of feminism might be:

The defining characteristic of feminism is that one listens to women and takes their words seriously.


How about that for a crazy, out-there view of what feminism is about? And, hey, it works for men, too! Wacky, huh? As I explained in "how not to be an ass in feminist spaces", feminism starts with women's life-experiences, and also finishes up there - all the rest is just what those experiences tell us, and what we can do about them. Which means that, it all starts with listening to women and taking them seriously. When you do that, I find, it becomes a lot harder to objectify, abuse or stomp on someone. Heck, there's a reason why all those hostage-situation dramas have the hostages trying to form a bond with their captors!

So, that's what I think the defining characteristic of feminism is.

Strangely, I think a lot of self-identified feminists don't do this, especially when it comes to matters of sex and identity. Where a woman's lived experience is at odds with their theory, she becomes fair game for all manner of abuse and othering, because to those feminists, the Theory is All.

Then there's the controversy over what "sex-positive" means. Here's my take:

The defining characteristic of "sex-positivity" is accepting people's expression of their own sexuality and sex identity.


Of course, there's a couple of expressions that cannot be accepted: paedophilia and rape being the most obvious of these. But it's worth pointing out that these are about power much more than they are about sex - in each case, what is happening is an assault and not sex.

Now, it's worth noting that "sex-negative" as the complementary opposite of "sex-positive" does not, therefore, mean "doesn't enjoy sex". It means, "believes that someone else should not be allowed to enjoy sex". For example, if someone says a masochist should not be allowed to enjoy sex in her way (e.g. because it "reflects the Patriarchy").

So, a "sex-positive feminist" is someone who specifically listens to women's experiences of their own sexuality, and takes that expression seriously and accepts it (NB "sex-positive", it should be observed, only qualifies feminism in one area, feminism is broader than being just a theory of sexuality!). A sex-positive activist wishes for the world to be more sex-positive, and does something to achieve this wish. I'll leave the reader to put together "sex-positive feminist activist" for themselves...

The last word I want to talk about here is "radical". The Chambers English Dictionary gives the political definition of "radical" as, "favouring, involving or necessitating thorough-going but constitutional social and political reform". I'm not sure that I agree with the "constitutional" aspect, given that some radical groups used to be interested in violent change! Given that "radical" also carries connotations of "fundamental" and "from the root", it might be better to recast this definition as "a belief in the need for social and political reform that goes right to the roots of society".

This, to me, describes very accurately my attitude to feminism, and in particular, to sex-positivity. I don't know what the term "radical feminist" really means nowadays as a "technical term", but in plain English, as far as I can see, I am a "radical sex-positive feminist".

*

Okay, two more words to consider: I've just developed a long string of labels for myself, none of which implies anything further. When people complain about being "labelled", I think very often, what they are really bothered about is "pigeonholes", which is what happens when labels are grouped together as though possessing one label automatically implies possessing another (e.g. "blonde" and "dumb").

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

"Ceci n'est pas un cookie"

(Image used under Creative Commons licence, the artist is scubadive67 on Flickr)

I've just discovered that my "7 ways for men to avoid being an ass" post has been linked as recommended reading from "Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog"!

It's made me come over all feeling fuzzy and warm and accepted all of a sudden!

And, to me, that's really what a lot of cookie-seekers are chasing - but, of course, the more you chase it the further away it gets. Little old me, on the other hand, just carries on and look what it gets me...

So, as the title says, "Ceci n'est pas un cookie".

*
*
*

Doesn't stop me bragging about it, though! :-P

(Hmm, I just had a thought - another way of phrasing "bring your own okay" is, "if you want cookies, bake your own")

Men in Sex Work

This is just a link to Ren Ev's fabulous exposition after her experiences at a conference for sex workers, about the shit that male sex workers face.

While there, look in the side bar for the list of her other posts about the conference, because it's all good writing, and it's all important stuff for non-sex workers who are trying to understand more about what it actually is.

Sunday, 20 July 2008

Thoughts on "The Shore of Women" by Pamela Sargent

(Okay, so I did manage to get the words together and find the will to put them on the screen!)

This isn't exactly a book review, and will involve spoilers for the story, so if you don't want to know the score, look away now!

The cover blurb describes the novel as, a "classic work of feminist science fiction" and the introduction written by Catharine Asaro concludes, "In the end it offers a message of hope".

I think it is a novel that is about feminism and the Patriarchy, and that's what I'm going to address in my thoughts on it. I think that it is not a "message of hope", because, as I'll explain, there are no solutions offered, only questions asked.

The novel (set in a post-nuclear holocaust world) features a number of different oppressive social structures relating to gender, and each one I think offers us an insight into the way that the Patriarchy works. I think they also can offer some insights into feminism.

The main social structure is the one that governs the Earth in this novel. It is in name, a matriarchy (the ruling class are called the "Mothers of the City", so "matriarchy" is appropriate - as the society is described, it is both a figurative and a literal term). The structure is completely gender-segregated, and it has been arranged that men live in small hunter-gatherer "bands" in competition with nature and with one another, while women live in vast citadels (called "enclaves" by the men), and preserve knowledge of science and arts. A matriarchal religion based around a figure called "The Lady" is used by the women to direct the behaviour of the men, which presents the concept that there is only "The Lady", and all human female forms are "aspects" of Her. A technology of long-distance, mind-to-mind communication via a device worn on the head, allows the "Mothers of the City" to send images and experiences of themselves, or of recorded figures, directly to the minds of men who worship at the "shrines" in which the men's ends of the communication devices are housed. In this way, by "appearances of aspects of The Lady", men can be directed in their lives, or summoned to "the enclave" in order for the fittest and strongest men to have their sperm harvested. At other times, the recorded images are used to give reward to men who have done well or been obedient: the recorded figures bring the man to orgasm while he lies wearing the communication device.

Apart from this reward, men use boys or each other for sexual release, and it is explicit that boys are raped by older men (on the understanding that if the boy grows up to be big and strong, he will be able to take his revenge eventually).

The explanation given by the women is that men are naturally violent, so they are simply in their element doing this and nothing more can be expected of them. However, early on in the novel we discover that when men try to band together in larger groups, develop agriculture and abandon the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to develop peaceful bonds and larger settlements, the "Mothers of the City" take violent action to exterminate the men who do so - the primitive and warlike state is not "natural", but enforced. This is because the women fear that if men should redevelop technology (even just from scratch), then the "naturally violent" men will regain control of the world and disaster will follow, just as it did before (causing the holocaust).

Reproduction, obviously, is by artificial insemination; and only Mothers of the City give birth to boys, which is their duty to ensure that a healthy supply of genetic variety is possible for future generations. Boys are cared for inside the cities until they are able to walk and strong enough to fend for themselves in the male society (this is apparently around about the age of 4 years old). The mind technology is used to erase memories of the inside of the city, and when a man is called to have his sperm harvested, the young boy is sent out with him, appearing to the man as though he has appeared miraculously.

The final part of this social structure are referred to by the Mothers as being "those whom we serve", and comprise the majority of women in the cities. These women are deemed unable or unwilling to make the decisions about how the society should be run, and are treated as being irrational creatures whose only bliss is in ignorance, and it is the "duty" of the Mothers of the City to make decisions that preserve that state.

The central crisis of the story is when the Mothers expel one of their own from the city, believing that a woman with no tools will have no chance of surviving in the wilderness - her crime was murder, but rather than execute criminals, the society (which cannot countenance killing another woman, ever) cowers from this and prefers to let nature do the job instead. Unexpectedly, however, she survives and encounters one of the hunter-gatherer groups.

Thus begins the second social structure in the story. Birana (the survivor of expulsion) is naturally taken to be a living, breathing, "aspect of the Lady", and therefore, a goddess (with all the knowledge that goes with that). Therefore, she is worshipped by the men. However, this leads to trouble because in order to conceal the fact of her survival, she has to prevent them using the "shrines", which in turn means they aren't getting their Goddess porn, and before long, the men start to think maybe she's going to put out for them instead as a reward for their efforts, and in particular, jealousy erupts when it seems that one man is getting more attention than the rest.

Birana (and that more favoured man, who isn't really important yet in discussing the modes of oppression demonstrated) decides to flee to territory that has been left unexplored by women or men for many years. Her desperate hope is that other expelled women have made it to those lands and there have a different form of society.

On the way, they hear of another "holy appearance" at a more settled tribe, and therefore decide to investigate, leading to the third oppressive social structure, which it turns out formed in much the same way as the second (that is, an expelled woman arrived and decided to exploit her status as a goddess, only to find that when the "shines" were denied the men, they expected her to put out instead). In this case, the expelled woman (Nallei) does put out, and keeps doing so for over a decade in order to maintain her safety. Birana, initially, doesn't have to do so. However, in this structure we begin to see clearly how being perceived as a goddess (and specifically, having women perceived as the deliverers of sexual pleasure), is harmful. There is the converse structure shown as well. Nallei is able to choose those who are "worthy" (just as those who are "worthy" are selected to go to the enclave) besides the chief (who is automatically deemed by himself and the tribe as worthy). Desperation to please "The Lady" is a key element of the men's behaviour, but the expectation is that those who please Her most will get sexual pleasure in return. Nallei, however, is not "free" in any sense - her safety depends on performing the role of "goddess". When Nallei falls ill and dies, Birana (who by this stage has actually fallen in love with her male companion on her journey) is told openly that she will be expected to take over Nallei's duties as the sex object of the tribe.

In the story thus far, we have both the positive and the negative elements of pornography, in that if porn is the only, or main, source of sexual education (or indeed, contact with women!), then men will view women primarily for the sexual pleasure they can give. On the other hand, the finding that when men have porn to watch they are less likely to attack real women (which has been statistically observed in the real world) is also implied, because in the novel the main reason for wanting the physical "aspects" to perform is only because access to the fantasy "aspects" has been denied.

The other aspect of the patriarchy that is very successfully mirrored here by all the forms of society thus far presented in the novel (including the Matriarchy) is that artificial sex-scarcity is use to control men's behaviour but also produces the fixation on sex as something that is "earned" rather than something consensual between two parties. This is a key factor in the "sex-class/no-sex class" identity of women, and the way in which the Patriarchy controls women's roles. Sex-scarcity is heightened to a maximum in the Matriarchal society, because women are brought up only having lesbian relationships and to view the male body as disgusting; also, as explained, sex is used explicitly as a reward for good work, in the normal society. Thus, it is expected.

Similarly, the familiar-from-real-life trope is played out in these structures that it is natural for men to want sex, but it is unnatural (even disgusting) for women to want it. Anyone who even expresses an interest in "history" (which sometimes talks about how men and women used to "do it" before the holocaust) is seen as a pervert in the cities. That "no woman would WILLINGLY do those things". As it turns out, Birana eventually does willingly do those things, finds she likes it (with the one man to whom she feels close, anyway), and then does it rather enthusiastically! (This, obviously, I am presenting as a criticism of certain suggestions by the anti-porn campaigners).

Birana and her beau flee from the intended gang-rape of Birana and travel still further into the unknown, where they finally pass from the territory controlled by the Mothers. Here, they do find a group with a different way of living, but this one has reverted to the extreme of Patriarchal sex-possession. In this culture, gendered roles of who does the hunting and who does the home-keeping are rigidly enforced; women do not speak unless directly addressed; men have the right to fuck whomever they choose, and need only indicate their desire and the woman must accept it (or else suffer beatings). When Birana's companion finds himself going along with this, even despite his firm intention at the start of their stay in the group always to respect her wishes and her opinions, they realise that they have to leave.

That's the sum of all the social structures presented. Needless to say, I don't think it makes for a "message of hope" as Catharine Asaro promised it would! The only social structure that had a truly feminist sense was in fact that between Birana and her partner - a society of two. Because he realised in travelling with her that she was neither a goddess nor an object, but a person, he negotiated his relationship with her and she with him; when she eventually offers to have sex with him to help him relieve his pent-up sexual desires, there is no pressure from him for her to do so; and he seeks to make it as pleasurable as he can for her (the "mind-porn" of the "shrines" apparently taught him enough) and he communicates with her so that she can guide him in making it easier/better for her. But their relationship is the only one like it in the whole novel. It isn't all plain sailing either - they fight, he sometimes (even before the "Patriarchy" society) uses his greater strength to threaten her, and she uses shame or withdrawal to emotionally hurt him in return; just like a real relationship, it is imperfect, which is pleasing about the way it's written.

Is it a "feminist science fiction" work? I think it is, but possibly not in the way that the cover designer might have meant it. The matriarchal society has not replaced the Patriarchy but turned it to its own ends, and certainly has not brought about the end of the oppression of women: "those whom we serve" are still oppressed by the Mothers (whom I see as very closely analogous to certain elements of the feminist movement today), and the Mothers also have to police one another rigidly, as well. The society functions always on a basis of fear, and "freedom" from men is only accomplished at the cost of being afraid of what might happen if their control over men were to be released somehow. However, it is definitely feminist in that it provides in the various social structures presented, a clear dissection and analysis of how the Patriarchy uses sexuality and sex roles to ensure that everyone is kept oppressed, from the "pedestal" status of women to the "worthiness equation" for men.

Some other thoughts:

1/. I was a little bit disconcerted that the way that Birana's sex scenes were described, it was almost as if Pamela Sargent was saying that het sex is in some way a better experience than lesbian or gay sex, instead of being different (and a matter of choice).

2/. An answer was suggested early on: a Mother of the City is reluctant to send her son out into the male world, having grown attached to him, and he hasn't shown any sign of violent tendencies (well, he does at one point, but only when he is feeling physically threatened by some of the Mothers-to-be). It is noticed that he has a lot of mental skills, but there is no need for them in the world to which he would be sent. Maybe that young boy could have functioned perfectly well in the city.

3/. There's no attempt to address transsexuality or how that might fit into the society. I think it's pretty clear that a man who felt himself to be in the wrong body, would have no frame of reference at all in the male society, and would likely not last very long in the harsh culture that stemmed from the conditions. At the very least, he would be used as a whore by all the other men in his band.

Friday, 18 July 2008

The power of a funny idea?

(found via The Apostate)

This has to be the coolest political fundraising idea I've ever seen:

Running for Office: It's Like A Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner

It's so cool, I'd donate, but I'm not a US citizen so I'm not allowed to! But I think everyone who is should do so, for certainsure.

I just love the "maybe I should rethink my approach" sequence...

High Eight, Us?

Something's wrong with me.

I don't know what exactly the problem is, but it feels almost like a poison working on me, which is a new sensation and therefore probably not something to do with my depression (although the effect is sort-of similar).

I have seen in the last few days a number of things I would like to blog about (list below) but somehow whenever I sit myself down at the keyboard to do so, I struggle to find the words I need. It's not that I CAN'T find them, it's more as though I feel as though I don't WANT to, or at least, I don't want to put them on the screen (down on paper, whatever) at all. And I don't like this feeling. It is frustrating, for one thing, because I like having my say on whatever's going on or just burbling about life, love and the laundry list. So far, I've only really managed one thing (the "feminist man" post) and that's it.

Plus, I just hate feeling like there's a bit of me that isn't working properly, and my writing stuff bit of me is quite an important bit (to my mind, anyway).

Hopefully, I'll snap out of it soon, but most of these things will have flowed by and be not worth bothering with any more by then. No doubt there will be other things (may be better things) to write about by then, though. But here's the list of what you guys will be missing out on:

  • Women bishops, and the Pope's wading in on the Anglican Church "schism"
  • A review, or discussion, of The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent, which I recently finished reading (it's a gripping yarn, I'll say that much, I didn't want to put it down at all!) UPDATE: I did actually manage to write this one!
  • A comment or two about the "Return of the Favre" saga at Green Bay (short version - while I'd love to see #4 play in the green & gold again, I still side with the Packers organisation on this one)
  • A response to some of the "anti-porn talking points" posts I've seen linked to recently
  • Some thoughts about my feminism, sadism and enjoyment of extreme porn
  • A quick look at some of the questions raised by "Britain's Missing Top Model" and some of the immediate responses I saw in feminist blogs (I'd been waiting to see how the show pans out before making my own thoughts known)

If you're really, really curious about what I think about any of the above, then feel free to say so in comments and I'll do my best to give some kind of answer - the more specific your questions, the easier it will be for me to fight off this strange torpor and give an intelligible response!

Sunday, 13 July 2008

Can men be feminists? my tuppenceworth...

This subject has raised its head again in the aftermath of the Kyle Payne story. I was aware of it being around, but the hinted at nature of the thing meant that I wasn't fully comfortable reading about it on my parents' computer, so I hang my head and admit that I ducked it.

Obviously, I feel men can be feminists, since I have self-identified as feminist for a while now and not felt anything wrong with doing so. I have known it to be said by certain feminist men that, "It’s women’s call whether I am a feminist or not". This is often linked to a statement along the lines of, "tagging oneself with the “feminist” label seems like transparent male cookie-seeking". (Both of these are slightly paraphrased from the most recent sighting of this line of reasoning, which is by a guest-blogger over at Feministe.)

Oddly enough, I feel as though that line of reasoning is itself a form of cookie-seeking, because it puts the onus on women to make you feel good about yourself, by awarding you the label of "feminist".

There is clearly a balancing act here, because as I pointed out in an earlier post, it is possible to appear to "demand to be accepted as a 'male ally' rather than simply being suitable for that role and allowing women to come to us," if men ostentatiously declare themselves to be feminists. There is some truth to the "cookie-seeking" perception in those instances where men assume that taking on the label will automatically win them "privileges" from "the ladeez".

However, this is one of the most important things I think a feminist man can learn, and that is to "bring your own O.K." To put it another way, declaring oneself to be a femnist should be a discrete act of identification, and should neither depend on others' assessment of you, not should others' acceptance be presumed to be affected by it.

Just because a man calls himself a feminist, however, that doesn't make him one: any more than my calling myself the King of England makes it so. There are plenty of people, for example, who call themselves Christians and yet seem to ignore entirely the message and purpose of Christ's ministry - I adjudge them to be not Christian, therefore. Similarly, there are folks whose beliefs and actions appear to me to be in direct conflict with the interests of women's equality, but instead seem fuelled by misogyny and patriarchal values; even if they call themselves "feminists", it doesn't make it so.

So the label itself is meaningless: just like calling a lemon a tomato, doesn't change the lemon's characteristics - or, as Shakespeare put it, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". That means there is a difference between calling oneself a feminist, and being a feminist.

In writing my advice for feminist men, I created the following definitions of feminism:

There's a jumble of different elements involved: it has some social sciences, some politics, some philosophy, some activism, but the common theme is it's about women. In all of those fields that feminism combines, feminism is women's action in, and reclamation of those fields, and how they relate to women's lives. Women thinkers in all those fields have contributed to the wealth of feminist theory that we have today.

...this is where feminism starts and ends (after going on a nice long loop): women's experiences.


I think the key words here are "women's experiences", "women's ... reclamation of those fields", and "activism". I think a man is feminist if he strives to be aware of the experiences of women around him, and crucially, how they differ from his own experiences; if he then seeks to challenge those differences rather than accepting them as "natural", then he is feminist. It starts with the social and political: in the epitome of "think global, act local", encapsulated b y the phrase, "the personal is political", you bring "okayness" to those around you, and to yourself, regarding women as people and as having valid experiences. A feminist man can be recognised by the way in which he interacts with women both on a personal level and in his advocacy.

I believe a key skill for a feminist (male or female) is to accept as valid the stories of women whose experience is different from one's own. (NB: "valid" does not imply "universally valid")

One other question that I see raised time and again, is the suggestion that for a man to be accepted as a feminist, "the bar is set higher" (or some such). Figleaf explains exactly why that is in itself an anti-feminist statement in his analysis of the dialogue some men go through in approaching feminism. Another way to see how this concept is in fact a "FAIL" is to ask oneself why there is a bar at all, and especially, who counts as the judges? Then apply those questions specifically to women approaching feminism. The thing is, a woman approaching feminism is presumed to have a common experience of the ways in which women are held down in society, so there is just less to learn overall, whereas a man is attempting to grasp something that is not directly accessible to him. I think this is valid: for example, I do not see my own privilege directly, but have to infer it from the effects it has on those around me. It is not so much that men have to clear a higher bar to "prove themselves" "worthy" of "feminism", but rather (to use an analogy from Figleaf's piece) that men take that little bit longer to get up to speed.