Friday, October 30, 2009
An End to the Feminist Sex-Wars: the Pornography Edition
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A crazy right-wing wacko crystallizes why abortion rights MUST be part of the feminist agenda
Can we all basically agree that feminism, however you may define it, must include the freedom to choose our sexual and romantic partners freely, the freedom structure ourrelationships according to how they work for us, and the freedom to decide whether or not we want to have children? Because, to me, the freedom to make those choices is so intimately tied with the meaning of feminism that calling a world where women's sexual/romantic partners are chosen without their consent, or where women are forced to have children they don't want, "feminist" is a mockery of the concept of women's liberation. I just can't see how you can be in a relationship arrangement you don't want and can't get out of, or subjected to a relationship dynamic you feel is oppressive, or forced to carry and bear children you actively object to having, and be "free."
Feminist pro-lifers will probably point out that those things are not a package deal; that adoption is sufficient to give women choice over whether or not they want to have children; that there is a humane, feminist agenda which protects both women and ensures almost all fetuses.
That's something I can respectfully disagree about in theory, but in practice those sorts of gray shades seem to evaporate before me. Practically speaking, the anti-choice movement pushes a strong norm of the traditional, nuclear family. They push conservative sexual norms, and a large faction pairs that with suspicion of condoms and other forms of birth control. It is really, really hard to figure out how to get along with people who want to force-fit everyone into such a small mold.
This is well-documented in Christina Page's How The Pro-Choice Movement Saved America. It's visible in every public political debate over abortion, reinforced by TV ads, news coverage, crisis pregnacy centers, conservative school districts...everywhere. But I had an "ah-ha" moment when I saw it written as in the plain, nasty language only a commenting web-troll is willing to use. FYI, this is what I see when I look at the pro-life movement in the United States.
The context was of a discussion of some jackass's remarks about how people should get married between 22 and 27, and how cohabitation is teh evilest thing ever. Some troll jumped in to suggest promoting the view that cohabitation is immoral in the interests of ultimately getting the government to break up cohabitating couples for the sake of teh children.
The "for the sake of the children" argument is itself problematic, because it carries the risk of marginalizing the worthiness and humanity of the mother (whose interests must be subordinated to her children, we are constantly reminded, or she is not a good mother). It also makes the ass-backwards assumption that the endpoint of all relationships is children, which is oppressive because it makes the choice to be a child-free, independent individual suddenly seem hostile to basic social life (even though, in reality, not all people make good parents, not all people want to be parents, and people who do not want to be parents often do not make as good of parents).
A Troll on Feministing will be our example. He says (emphasis mine):
"While I am more or less opposed to no-fault divorce, I don’t see it as being the big issue. If two people absolutely cannot get along, they should be able to break up. While I don’t think it should be a fast and easy process, it should not be made difficult by making the parents fight against each other. My problem is really more with remarriage after divorce; did you read the paper I linked to about the Cinderella effect? Besides, premarital cohabitation does not make couples less likely to divorce. I don’t think that the end of any romantic relationship is necessarily children. I would like to think that the end of any sexual relationship is. Things work out better when this is the case; the out-of-wedlock birth rate is extremely low, far more children are born in-wedlock and get to grow up with both parents, fewer children are put up for adoption, etc."
See how two people in a marriage automatically become parents in his mind? This erases couples for whom marriage is not about procreation (whether by choice or economic necessity or due to to heterosexist legal codes), and also, by elevating procreation to an imperative, contribute to dissapproval of family structures that don't abide by this rigid definition.
And that's a lot of people. Think about it. Every divorced parent, every remarried parent doubly so, every couple who chooses not to have children, every unmarried couple with children, every single parent. And implicitly, every gay parent (because the nuclear family requires a father and mother) and potentially any lower class or non-white parent (because the nuclear family is supposed to be middle class and located in suburbia - everyone knows those inner city minority kids have broken homes!).
Inevitably, people will arrange their lives in ways that don't fit this nuclear family model, and we can see that it's currently a whole fuckton of people. So what could they possibly propose to do about this grave problem of families that look different than the traditional American norm? You can see the clear logic of patriarchy: Control reproduction. How? By controlling sex (because birth control just lets people do what they want). But this seems impossible. How could you possibly enforce something done behind closed doors like sex? Well, if it's to be enforced, the population has to police itself. But how do you make people police sex? Well, everyone's got to be really fucking afraid of what's going on in everyone else's bedrooms, for one thing, which means amping up the scare tactics about STDs is a good place to start (bonus points if you can scare people out of using condoms, to ramp up STD rates and hopefully stop sex!). Except, it's hard to be really concerned about your neighbor's sex life unless it affects yours. So maybe we should start talking about the women in your life. And even better than just having you police women's sexuality, we should get women to police their own sexuality...
The dominoes start to fall. Calling women whores doesn't stop anyone, and it's becomming less effective since this obnoxious feminism thing. So, declare feminism dead. So, support rape apologist culture to teach women to fear all but their one special protector man. So, take away condoms and ostracize people with STIs. And then, make every instance of sex a possible instance of procreation, literally realize the agenda of sex-for-procreation-only by taking away all forms birth control. Condoms are already gone, so take hormonal birth control, take the morning after pill, take away abortion. Because what else could underpin this empire? What punishment could possibly be more extreme in the disincentive it places on women having sex than risking forced pregnancy for every sex act?
And then the picture starts to look really clear. 'Cuz it's all part of the same big picture. All those things are perpetual causes and symptoms of patriarchy, and of the controlling narrative of the American nuclear family. Abortion's not just a fragment of it. It's one of the biggest, baddest tools for controlling sexuality and the family, specifically demolishing women's freedom, and also marginalizing anyone else who doesn't fit the mold. But equally importantly, it is part of a system of oppression that reinforces existing societal power dynamics, at the expense of women. It makes the reduction of women to biological vessels possible, or rather it literally manifests the already-existing sexist narrative.
So what's a possible solution? I think things might get better if feminists shape the discourse on both sides. Pro-life feminists could push hard for contraception and comprehensive sex ed, lots of exceptions (for rape, for the mother's mental and physical health, for the mother's life) - and find ways to make these exceptions workable and accessible for those who need it, economic support to women financially unable to care for children (or heck, all women - if you're going to make us have them, why should we have to pay for them?), universal access to pre-natal and post-natal care for the mother and child, along with the whole rest of the feminist agenda. Because it will take a lot - a LOT - of work to rehabiliate the anti-choice narrative into a compassionate, wholesome, women-respecting movement, or even to make it just a bit better.
I'm willing to compromise with pro-life feminists, but the feminism had better be there in the pro-life part too, because if it doesn't I'm not budging. In order to create a feminist society, feminist pro-lifers have to get a hold on the pro-life movement's discourse and agenda, or us crazy leftys have to win on this issue. Because it's not just one issue - the debate over abortion reflects every facet of the feminist conflict with the patriarchy in a light to glaring for me, at least, to ignore.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Cross-Post: The Filthiest Book Report You’ll Ever Read, or My Artifact Selection: Grant Morrison's The Filth
-------------
Grant Morrison’s The Filth is a graphic novel that comes with a warning label. Covering nearly the entire back cover and the first two pages inside, The Filth’s warning is almost clinical in its rigorous coverage of the many reasons you might be better off if you opt to return this book to the shelf. Although the book’s warning is more mocking than genuine, it is still a text any sensible censor would strike from a reading list intended for polite society. With its grungy artwork, repulsive characters, and sadistic plotlines, at first glance The Filth might seem to be a low-culture artifact with no redeeming qualities. However, a more thorough reading turns up questions deserving of further inquiry.
For instance, why is it that the most cherished fantasy the protagonist can dream up for himself is the life of a lonely old man named Greg Feely, who spends his days feeding his beloved cat and masturbating to hardcore pornography? And even if this rehabilitation of the despised archetype of the neighborhood sex offender is for good reason, why is it so important as to merit the novel’s opening panels? From this inauspicious beginning, The Filth continues to wade further into the muck. Rather than complementing Greg Feely with more noble characters, it highlights people like Anders Klimakks, the pornstar famous for shooting black sperm, and Tex Porneau, the wealthy hardcore director who engineers giant sperm monsters for his latest flick. A sex scene is never more than a chapter away, and neither is graphically illustrated violence.
Yet, although The Filth glorifies its own power to provoke disgust in the unsuspecting reader, it is also fascinating. Each sub-plot is carefully constructed to reveal an insight about human nature or the society we have built. The unattractive Greg Feely somehow moves from pathetic to likeable as he grapples with his identity as an agent of the sketchy organization known as the Hand, whose mission is to preserve the Status Q. Even the novel itself is a subject in its far-reaching critique, with an entire storyline premised on drawing attention to the eerie realness of absorbing comic book worlds by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall.
For me, The Filth is interesting because of the complex ideas woven into the words and images that make up the graphic novel. Although the “filthy” subject matter may be titillating, the elusive hypotheticals posed by each of the book’s chapters are far more worthy of study. The first time I flipped through The Filth, I was both appalled and fascinated, unable to look away until I had devoured the entire graphic novel. Subsequent re-readings have not yet failed to uncover new material to ponder, and the opportunity to investigate the text for a class allows me to delve further into these questions.
Although The Filth is not widely recognized by anyone besides comic book aficionados, it is still relevant. Its medium, the graphic novel, is a cornerstone of mass communication. It was published in late 2002, and its commentary actively engages and responds to contemporary society and mainstream culture, if only to subvert them. The author, Grant Morrison, has worked with both DC and Marvel, writing issues of classic series like Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman. For these reasons, The Filth qualifies as pop culture.
Covering issues as blurry as the nature of reality, the role of authority, and the sanity of our collective desires and anxieties, The Filth presents a surreal study of the way we have designed our world. By choosing this book as my artifact, I hope to shed light on a text I find extraordinarily challenging and appealing. From the first few lines of its warning label to the last panel of the last page, The Filth is a puzzle waiting to be unraveled.
Cross-Post:: Pop Culture Favorites
This first one is just a warm-up analyzing elements of pop culture I like and interact with often. These favorites were picked off the top of my head in class, so they're not necessarily my all-time favorites, just stuff I like.
-----------
Favorite Movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
What attracts me to this movie is that there is so much detail and so many strange situations to analyze. The more one watches it, the more there is to see. It made the list because it's a movie I've watched several times recently, so it was fresher in my mind than Fight Club, which is the other movie I was considering. It influences me because I think the representation of gonzo journalism is interesting, which probably makes me more inclined to like other movies about crazy countercultural figures.
Favorite Music: Fiona Apple
I'm attracted to Fiona Apple's music because her voice is beautiful and her lyrics are expressive. I can feel the rhythmic pulse of her music, and I love the way her clear, deep voice cuts through the rest of the music and stays with me. It influences me because it influences my other musical tastes - almost anyone who makes music which is similar to who is likely to be someone like. Lily Allen and Tori Amos are good examples of this, because they are talented female singer-songwriters who remind me of Fiona Apple in some ways.
Favorite TV Show: Law and Order
I like Law and Order because it's a serial crime drama that I can have on in the background while I'm doing other things, but also because it poses some interesting questions about society. The original Law and Order creates many scenarios where what was originally a criminal trial becomes a political show trial, or where police action falls in a gray area constitutionally. I like pondering these situations, because it gives me an opportunity to test out what I think.
Favorite Ad: Freecreditreport.com sing-alongs
I love this commercial! It's so catchy. The lyrics are extremely clever, the music is simple but stays in my head all day. There's also something about a sad bicyclist singing about how a credit report could have gotten him a car, or a depressed waiter dressed like a pirate mourning his dead-end economic situation, that catches my attention when it comes on TV. This commerical influences me because it's effective, and I spend the rest of the day with "F to the R to the E to the E to the C to the E-D-I-T. Re- to the -port to the dot to the com, baby" stuck in my head.
Favorite Comic: Dilbert
I used to read this in the Sunday paper every day. I like how it mocks corporate culture, and demonstrates the sheer meaninglessness of many requirements of work. Although I don't have an office job like Dilbert, I do go to school. While college is much better than high school, sometimes activities and classes still seem like they won't be relevant to daily life, and sometimes dealing with administrative people is annoying and time-consuming. Dilbert is a fun outlet for these feelings, pointing out the absurdity of official bureaucracies and mindless assignments.
The List Overall:
I'm not struck by any major commonalities between the things I chose, but there are some slight trends. I chose to interact with all of these pieces of media because the resonate with some experience I've had, or because they are unique enough to fascinate me. Sometimes I read or watch things simply because they are readily available, which is definitely the case with Dilbert, Law and Order, the Freecreditreport.com commericals, and even Fear and Loathing (because we own the DVD, so it is cheaper and easier than renting a movie).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Just when I was beginning to stray from radical feminism...
At....times...an HOH [Head of Household] will decide to spank his woman "just because." A "just because" spanking is more accurately known as a submission spanking. A submission spanking can be administered to the woman at any time. But she is not given a submission spanking because she has misbehaved. Therefore it is not a punishment spanking. A submission spanking is also not part of the woman's regular Maintenance Discipline spanking. Nor is it a scheduled maintenance spanking that the woman receives on a regular basis. A submission spanking can be given at any time, not only when the woman is scheduled for her maintenance or reminder spanking. Therefore a submission spanking is not maintenance. Nor is a submission spanking the same thing as a Preemptive Discipline. It is not given in advance of a scenario where the woman has previously demonstrated her tendency to misbehavior. It can be given at any time but it is not connected to a specific future situation for the woman.
Why therefore should a woman ever be given a submission spanking? It might seem at best, unfair and at worst, random and cruel. Yet many women receive submission spankings and many women benefit greatly from them. A submission spanking is administered to a woman whenever her HOH wants to remind her of her submission. There is no specific reason for the spanking. It is not given for misbehavior nor for maintenance nor for preemptive reasons.Hear that? It's not random or cruel, it's just done for no reason and to remind her of her submission! It's even for her own benefit. Why, you ask? I'm sure if we read on they will give us a perfectly reasonable explanation, right?
Often an HOH will administer a submission spanking to his woman based on his masculine instincts. He will instinctively sense that his woman needs a firm reminder of her submission to his authority, or a firm reminder of the need to be obedient, respectful and honest in her behavior. Rather than waiting until the next scheduled Maintenance Discipline spanking, he instead decides to give her a sound submission spanking. The most important aspect of a submission spanking is that it teaches the woman submission...a submission spanking will help to improve her submission...Submission lies at the heart of the Loving Domestic Discipline lifestyle because submission is the key to a woman's femininity.Oh. He really did just say that, didn't he? He said that men administer submission based on their "masculine instincts" and that submission is "key to a woman's femininity." I guess he really does think that men and women are static, monolithic categories with pre-defined traits. That's pretty bad, but when you consider the implications of assuming that sex roles are based on some kind of fact, it becomes clear that this guy is implying that having a penis makes you "masculine," which means "dominant," while having a vagina makes you "feminine," which means "submissive." That would mean that penises are inheretly instruments of domination and that vaginas are passive receivers of male domination, making all heterosexual sex an act of men dominating women (and you thought Dworkin was crazy for suggesting as much).
Any woman who values her own femininity will understand the role that submission plays for a woman. Submission is the central fact of femininity because a woman's experience of sex is based on simple submission. During sexual intercourse, the woman is passive, not active. She is submissive, not dominant. She parts her thighs to enable her man to penetrate her sexually. Without her submission, there is no sexual intercourse, there is no pleasure and there is no love.So...if you get penetrated, you're feminine, which equates to being passive (not active) and submissive (not dominant). Being active and dominant is for men, not women, and that simple fact is rooted in biological truth and is the foundation for any kind of pleasure. Because both men and women get lots of pleasure when the woman just lays there with her legs open while the man does his stuff, obviously. It's not like having an active, engaged sex partner results in creative or mutually satisfying sex, or anything...
All heterosexual sex depends on the woman's submission to the man. A woman cannot penetrate a man. Penetration is an active process. Being penetrated is a passive one. Being penetrated is inherently submissive. When the woman submits sexually to her man, she is affirming her own femininity and fulfilling her role as a woman. Unless she obtains a sex change operation, there is no other genuine role for a woman except submission. The only valid role for a woman who is true to her own femininity is a submissive one. Denying her submission means denying her femininity. Even more importantly, it means denying her womanhood.
Let us return to the topic of submission spankings. The purpose of a submission spanking is to remind the woman of her submission. It is a technique that validates her womanhood by reminding her of her submissive nature. An HOH can give his woman a submission spanking whenever he feels that it would be beneficial for her to be reminded of her submission. So although a submission spanking might seem like a random, "just because" kind of punishment, it is actually quite targeted and purposeful. It is not an exercise in random cruelty because it is administered with a specific goal in mind. The primary goal is to improve the woman's submission. For a woman, this is a matter of deep importance. Anything that helps her submission also helps her as a woman.
An important part of female submission is feminine obedience. Obedience forms a natural and central part of a woman's relationship to her HOH. It is a traditional woman's marriage vow to promise to obey her husband. Women obey their husbands because they accept that there can be only one leader in a marriage and in a family. It is like a plane - even though there is a pilot and his copilot, only one of them can fly the plane at once. If they both struggle to force the plane in different directions, the plane will eventually crash. Therefore the pilot is given greater authority, which means that his decisions will always override those of the copilot. When an HOH feels that his woman is having problems with her obedience, he may decide to administer a submission spanking. This spanking will help his woman to return to a more obedient mode of behavior, so that unnecessary friction is reduced and so that progress is enhanced. Obedience benefits the woman greatly. It also benefits the relationship and, by logical extension, the entire family.
Naturally, if the woman is guilty of blatant disobedience, she deserves a fully fledged punishment spanking so that she can be punished for her offense.
But not all disobedience is severe enough to require a punishment spanking. Some women exhibit minor disobedience, or the early signs of nascent disobedience. It is for her own good that her HOH will decide to give her a submission spanking. This spanking will remind her not only of her submission but also of her obedience. It will remind her that obedience is required from her at all times, not just when she feels like it.
It is also valid for an HOH to administer a submission spanking to his woman even when she has not displayed any signs of disobedience. She does not need to exhibit any disobedient behavior, even the most subtle, for her HOH to justly and rightfully administer a submission spanking. He has the right to remind his woman of her obedience. If she is already behaving in an obedient manner, a submission spanking will help to reinforce her obedience. It is not a punishment for behaving well. It is a reinforcement of her obedience.
Another important reason why a submission spanking can be useful is because it reminds the woman of her HOH's authority. It reminds her that she is subject to his authority at all times and in all places. It is the HOH's authority that gives him the right to discipline his woman as he sees fit, for her own good. It is the HOH's authority that facilitates his leadership. It is the HOH's authority that protects and cares for his woman and his family.
If, at any time, a woman shows signs of forgetting that she is subject to her HOH's authority, she may benefit greatly from a submission spanking. This will teach her that she is subject to his authority because she is a woman and because she owes him her submission.
Note that a woman does not have to even be aware of the fact that she is forgetting her HOH's authority. Sometimes it can be an unconscious act on her part that betrays her lax attitude to her HOH's authority. This does not excuse her and should not prevent her receiving a submission spanking for her own good. The loving HOH will always administer a submission spanking whenever he feels that it is in his woman's best interests to receive one. As the leader, he is responsible for his woman's behavior and for his family's wellbeing. He can administer a submission spanking to reinforce his woman's awareness that she is subject to his authority. This is a positive affirmation that he is in charge and will act for the best interests of everyone.
Why is a submission spanking not cruel? Some people might believe that a woman should only receive punishment spankings for her misbehavior. They believe that no other types of spankings are acceptable. Other people accept the need for Maintenance Discipline on a regular basis to help build the woman's submission, obedience, respect, honesty and femininity. Many people understand that Disobedience Discipline spankings are necessary to ensure a safe and effective disciplinary process. Even though she may not like it, a woman will generally realize that disobedience during discipline cannot be tolerated and must be punished. Some people think that a Preemptive Discipline is like punishing the woman before she has committed the offense, which therefore means they will not practice Preemptive Discipline spankings. Others understand that the woman truly benefits by having her misbehavior prevented before it can happen, which is the goal of Preemptive Discipline.
But not everyone understands the need for submission spankings. Since they can be applied at any time, by unilateral decision of the HOH, submission spankings may seem unreasonable to some people.
And they would be cruel, if one thing were not true: that a woman always benefits from a submission spanking. She always makes positive gains in her submission, her obedience and her respect for her HOH's authority. She is given a direct and profound experience of her own femininity every time she is disciplined by her HOH. This is not a negative outcome. It is a highly positive one.
Sometimes a woman will be given a submission spanking but will subsequently misbehave. Often she will attribute this misbehavior to a sense of rebellion or injustice at being subjected to a submission spanking even though she had not committed any feminine misbehavior.
Is this an indication that the submission spanking has failed in its goal? Does it suggest that, instead of building her submission, the submission spanking has instead stimulated her rebellion? No, not at all. The feminine misbehavior that might follow a submission spanking is the result of a deeper issue she may have around submission. The submission spanking has revealed a deeper problem that needs to be addressed via a punishment spanking or a Maintenance Discipline.
Feminine misbehavior following discipline should never be viewed as a failure of the disciplinary technique or of the HOH's approach. It is simply a sign that the woman needs further discipline to help bring her to a more submissive frame of mind, to return her heart to its natural, loving and submissive state.
How should a submission spanking be administered to a woman? This varies from HOH to HOH. It also varies from situation to situation, so there is no particular technique that is cast in stone. There is no single technique from which you should never deviate. There are many different ways of administering a submission spanking. The choice of which technique to use will depend on the HOH's assessment of his woman's needs at a particular point in time. As always, the ultimate decision is his alone. He knows his woman best and he knows what is best for her. That is why he has the right to discipline her for her own good at any time...As a general rule, of course, a longer spanking is always better for a woman than a shorter one. A longer spanking has a lasting effect on her. It is more likely to bring her to tears. It is more likely to teach her the lesson in submission that she needs to learn or of which she needs to be reminded. It will leave her with a sore bottom that reminds her of how important it is for her to always submit to her HOH.Therefore, many HOH's prefer to administer a long submission spanking to their woman. They want to leave her with an effective, lasting reminder of her submission. They want to be sure that the woman learns her lesson.
At other times, however, an HOH may prefer to administer a shorter submission spanking. A short submission spanking is good for a brief reminder discipline that does not take too long. The HOH may not have much time available. Giving his woman a short submission spanking will make use of whatever time he does have, so that she can benefit in her submission.
In some cases, the HOH will be effective enough in the way he disciplines his woman that he will be able to bring her to tears, even with a submission spanking of short duration. This is obviously a highly positive outcome for her as a woman. The more obedient and submissive the woman is, the more likely she will be brought to tears by a relatively short submission spanking. So it is a combination of the HOH's disciplinary skill and the woman's submission that determines her ability to be brought to tears, as a general principle.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Radical feminism vs. Sex-positive feminism
Friday, January 16, 2009
I'm SO EXCITED for the Obama administration!
Here are some highlights in the administrative nominees:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I wasn't originally that excited about Clinton, but she does have a pretty solid human rights record (particularly in terms of women's rights and gay rights), and she's promising that issues like human trafficking are going to get the attention they deserve. Does this mean we might get a more humane US foreign policy? YAY!
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis - Supports labor unions, green collar jobs, workers' rights and more, and has a personal background that indicates that this support is sincere. She also has a history of supporting right to work and fair trade.
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle - healthcare
Head of the Office of Legal Counsel Dawn Johnson - After Bush's abuse of the OLC through John Yoo, this is a position that needs to be filled by a progressive legal scholar. And Dawn Johnson is exactly that! In fact, she's "widely known as a fierce advocate for human rights and accountability, a defender of constitutional limits on executive power, a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's opinions on torture, and also a strong pro-choice advocate." THREE CHEERS FOR THIS NEARLY PERFECT NOMINEE!
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack - Vilsack's not perfect, but he is for cutting subsidies and GM labelling.
Middle East Envoy Daniel Kurtzer - An experienced diplomat and former ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, Kurtzer also has a quality rare in American officials - he has a balanced view of the Middle East peace process, looking at both Israeli and Palestinian concerns. Though the crazed American right may paint him as an evil Israel-hater, I find his history of neutrality is pretty compelling. I mean, listen to the guy. He sounds pretty smart to me.
And, even more thrilling, Obama is working on finding ways to overturn some of the worst Bush policies. Some things Obama's got in the pipeline right now:
Overall? THRILLING!