Radical Feminist Mini-Retreat

I was fortunate to have been able to attend a regional radical feminist mini-retreat the first weekend in November. We did a lot of brainstorming, networking, sharing, and discussing. It was truly awesome to be in person with my sisters, and I am so grateful to have been a part. Sorry for the length of the post– feel free to jump ahead to the sub-topics if you don’t have time for the whole thing.

Topics to Cover
On Friday night we decided what topics we were going to cover. We agreed to talk about what projects we are working on in our own lives, how to navigate the queering of our cities, and how to deal with disagreements within our radical feminist community. We also agreed to watch Water Lilies, Andrea Dworkin’s Anti-Pornography, and the BBC documentary Angry Wimmin.

Film: Water Lilies
We watched a lovely lesbian film called Water Lilies. It depicted the difficulties of falling in love with a friend, as well as the predatory nature of most teen males. That aspect reminded me of my own youth, and made me wish I had known better that most young men are only after sex. It was melancholy, but also lovely, and I was really grateful to have gotten the opportunity to see it.

Discussion: Feminist Projects
The next morning we drank coffee and tea and discussed what our feminist projects are. Several projects were discussed, including the need for a radical feminist blog for teens, ways to get our message across in cities, podcasts, working in domestic violence shelters, getting porn out of libraries through employee rights, etc. It was a really productive discussion, and we were able to brainstorm together good ways of working towards helping women in “real life” as well as on the internet.

Walk
Next we took a lovely walk by the lake. It was so beautiful! It is really nice to be out in nature with sisters. One of us spotted a longhaired cat, and this absurd upturned chair:

Film: Against Pornography and Discussion
After lunch, we watched Against Pornography: The Feminism of Andrea Dworkin. You can find the documentary here. Dworkin explained that she always starts out her talks by describing what actually occurs in pornography, since folks may not be familiar with it. It isn’t just naked women’s bodies these days– it is violent, aggressive, and abusive. She says the message of porn is that no matter what happens to a woman in porn, she will enjoy it. This teaches men that women enjoy abuse, which makes it a very dangerous instruction manual. I really enjoyed this phrasing of the point, “Porn is the war room where strategies of sexual abuse are planned.” Porn ties orgasms to inequality, and it is an institution that socializes men to rape. She ended by reminding us that if you know what needs to be torn down, tear it down.

The film led to a very interesting discussion. We pointed out that many don’t address the problem of porn in our society, because many men don’t want to give up their porn, and many women don’t want to give up their men. So our society fails to address the issue because we are afraid of the changes we might need to make if we did. We also talked about BDSM and the consent ritual. Under patriarchy, women really have two options: consent to be hurt, or be hurt without consent. The thought is, perhaps if we consent to it, it won’t be as bad. We also discussed the phrase “consent is sexy”, which is often found on “feminist” placards and t- shirts. One woman pointed out that the reason rape is wrong is NOT because rape is “unsexy”. The “consent is sexy” campaign targets the wrong objection to rape. Furthermore, since women are told that sexy is a good thing, they are thereby coerced by this message, and encouraged to “consent”.

Film: Angry Wimmin
Next we watched Angry Wimmin which was an awesome documentary on the beginning of radical feminism in Brittan. It was interesting to see the ways in which our movement overlaps with theirs. For example, the movie talked about how radical feminists sometimes try to make sure in conversation to replace certain words with others. For example, to say “oh goddess!” instead of “oh god!” when frustrated or amazed, or to say “herstory” instead of “history”, etc. I have found myself afraid of bringing my patriarchal framings into discussions with other radical feminists by using these words, so I could totally relate. At the same time, I have also found that we shouldn’t be ashamed if we decide not to make simple word replacements like the above and focus our efforts on working to free women. It was also inspiring to see the first Reclaim the Night marches in this film. I saw a poster that said “all men benefit from rape”, and I thought that was right on. Non-rapist males benefit from a terrorized underclass of women who are afraid to go out at night (we all know that doesn’t mean all men rape). Of course, I was inspired by the movie, and I also hope we can avoid some of the pitfalls of what they went through. There was some discussion of racial tensions at the feminist publication Spare Rib. It was a good reminder that we keep in mind class and race issues while working towards women’s liberation.

Discussion: Queer Culture and Radical Feminism
After this documentary we discussed the ways that queer culture works against women’s liberation, and what to do about it. One woman pointed out that queer culture is often saturated by pornography. Some famous trans folk speak about and “star” in pornography, and many are highly resistant to radical feminist critiques of prostitution and pornography. This is the first clue that queer ideology may not be liberatory for women. Another clue is the lesbian erasure that occurs in queer communities. Many women have begun to identify as “queer” or “trans” rather than lesbian. Also, queer culture ignores the boundaries between men and women, and aggressively insists that women who would like to maintain their own private spaces are transphobic. Clearly, if women are not allowed to organize without MAAB (male assigned at birth) folk present, that is a problem for our liberation. We also discussed how to begin bringing the radical feminist message to folks within the queer-ified cities and towns we live in.

Discussion: Conflict within Radical Feminist Communities
Finally, we discussed what to do about conflicts within the radical feminist community. We all agreed that women must step in when we see others being abused– even if this makes us worried of being personally ostracized ourselves. We agreed that resolving conflict involves standing up for each other, meeting women where they are at, and supporting women who have been attacked, We agreed that when we disagree with a woman, it is best to either discuss the issue with her via private message, or in the comment section of her blog. It is not sisterly to, as a first strike, publicly denounce a woman on facebook or on your own blog. Clarification can sometimes dissolve conflict. We also recognized that sometimes resolution is not possible, and that in those cases it is best to disengage with one another, rather than dredging up old issues on a frequent basis. We are human, and we all make mistakes– sometimes huge mistakes. Sometimes there is abuse. But we are also a community with common goals.

Conclusion
I am fired up about finding more radical feminists in my community, and engaging in political action. I am so excited to be a part of this movement at this moment in time– despite how difficult it can be. We are attacked by MRAs (men’s rights activists), queer culture, the right wing, and the pornographers. We are often hated and many times deliberately misunderstood. But we are empathetic to the struggles of women’s lives, and we can provide a truthful analysis of life under patriarchy. We are here, we are organizing, and we are not going away.

Farmer’s Market

I went to the farmer’s market this weekend, and had two feminism-related experiences.

First, there was an old dude wearing a “Feminist chicks dig me” shirt.

Dudes think they are soo hi-larious.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Watch us all laugh.
.
.
.
.
.
.

*crickets*

My initial thought was that this shirt must be a dig against feminists, and that those wearing it actually do hate feminist women and want to shame them.

But then I saw that Jessica Valenti gave Stephen Colbert one of these shirts on his show. I honestly do not know what to make of that. See? Feminists actually do like dudes! Look, I gave you this shirt that demeans me– that proves we have a “sense of humor”!
*sigh*

Many of us know dudes who call themselves feminists. The internet is full of them! One of them just joined my book club! (YUCK)

But most of the men who self-identify as feminists do so on the belief that so identifying will bring with it sexual perks. Make her think you give a ‘ish about her rights, and she’ll be sure to let you bone her!

Real pro-feminist men don’t spend their lives bloviating on about how much of a feminist they are. They teach other men, instead of trying to lead women. But these men are rare.

Anyway. My next feminism-related experience came when I saw what I’m calling a princess-off in the middle of the grounds. Yep. There were two adult women dressed up as Disney princesses for the kids. One was Cinderella, and the other was Princess Merida from Brave.

Obviously, one of the princesses is much more feminist-approved.

As you all know, Cinderella teaches young girls that women cannot trust each other, and that the only way to advance in life is to marry your way out of misery by being petite and “beautiful”.

Now, I haven’t seen Brave and therefore can’t fully evaluate its feminist cred, but I have read the wiki on it. Though it seems somewhat problematic in depicting Princess Merida’s relationship with her mother, it does revolve around a young woman’s self-determined choice not to be married against her will. Also, she is an active character that makes things happen, rather than a passive one that receives the action like Cinderella.

What was encouraging about the princess off was that the Brave princess was much more popular with the young girls. They were circled around her, and asked her if they could play with her adult-sized bow-and-arrow. They lined up to shoot the kids bow-and-arrow set that was set up for them. There were young boys there too. Cinderella looked bored and embarrassed in her hoop dress and shiny gloves. Actually, I felt bad for her.

The two princesses at the farmer’s market could not have been more different, and the young girls decidedly chose the more active, self-determining, and adventurous option. I found this quite encouraging.

For more feminist analysis of Disney princesses, check out Allecto’s post here. Andrea Dworkin also talks about Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty in Woman Hating. As she says, the moral of fairy tales tells us that, “happiness for a woman is to be passive, victimized, destroyed, or asleep.”

So despite the frustration created by dude’s shirt, I was thrilled to see girls embracing a powerful– if imperfect– female role model. On top of all that, I bough some delicious chomp from local venders. Overall, it was a lovely Sunday.

Femininity and Essentialism

USian vice presidential candidate and full time misogynist Paul Ryan recently spoke at a GOP event called the Value Voters Summit.

The Family Research Council displayed a pamphlet at the event entitled “Modesty Matters”. It stated, among other things:

“All women, whether married of single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”

Woman-hating is no surprise coming from Republicans, but this was quite a blatant statement being displayed at a conference where the VP candidate was speaking. This article from RH Reality Check analyzes the code words in the above statement:

Modesty: Hiding yourself and avoiding clothes you find appealing, trying your best to be invisible. Responsiveness: Giving men attention and smiles they demand, no matter how miserable it makes you to do so. Gentleness: Giving up the urge to fight for yourself, instead just giving in and submitting. Women exist, in their eyes, to serve and to be invisible when they can’t be of direct use to men. Reproductive rights and sexual autonomy threaten that view of women, because these things suggest that instead of a servant class, women are people just like men, instead of creatures put on earth to serve men.

Clearly, modeling femininity as prescribed above is about controlling women’s behavior. As Lierre Keith has stated, in most cases the practice of femininity is “a set of behaviors that are in essence ritualized submission.” Nowhere is this made more clear than in this latest Republican offering.

Some postmodernists and genderists have downplayed the harms of femininity. As Julia Serano has said, “The only thing that all feminine traits have in common is that they are typically associated with women in our culture.” Statements like these miss the mark entirely, pretending that the performance of femininity has no historically oppressive context, and ignoring the fact that these traits are associated with women because they have been and are currently used to suppress them.

Most feminine traits are useful to men because they discourage women’s agency, and ascribe value to her only insofar as she pleases them.

Radical feminists know that male supremacists such as the Family Research Council have an agenda of dominating women. But outside of feminism, many people are not familiar with the oppressive nature of the feminine gender role. In fact, it is a common misconception that women are, by nature, more gentle, nurturing, responsive, etc. As many of you know, this position is called essentialism.

In actual fact, it is impossible to determine what characteristics women would exhibit outside of patriarchal socialization, since there is no way to observe that reality. Essentialism takes no account of gender socialization which begins at birth and teaches girls to be quiet princesses, while “boys will be boys” and are encouraged to be aggressive and dominant.

Interestingly, if gentleness, nurturance, and responsiveness were so natural for girls and women, why would socialization require such brutally pervasive influences to make sure girls turn out that way?

Radical feminists wish to free women from this type of feminine socialization. We acknowledge that patriarchy is an oppressive system that molds behavior, and that we cannot gain information about “natural” behavioral tendencies by observing current trends under patriarchy.

Radfem Reboot Day Three: Reclaiming Women’s Space and Sexuality

Here is my third entry in the series. Part one is here, and two is here.

Sunday’s presentations didn’t begin until 2 pm, so I had a chance to spend some more time regrouping and hanging out in Portland. It is such a fun city! I had been told that it was a rainy place, but so far it was nothing but clear skies and cool weather. I had some delicious Thai food for lunch, and enjoyed a leisurely approach to the venue.

Cathy Brennan’s discussion was entitled Organizing for Lesbian Reality : Legal and Political Responses to Conflicts Between Lesbian and Transgender Communities. Her talk is reprinted in full here so I won’t summarize it, but I did want to emphasize several important points she brought up.

She mentioned the International Bill of Gender Rights which states, among other things:

“no individual shall be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.”

In other words, the authors of this bill have an agenda to eliminate sex-segregated space. That is, female/women only space would no longer be allowed, if they have their way. Although I was aware that this was a goal of trans activists, hearing it lain out in a declaration from the early 90s was another thing. Amazingly, trans activists have been very successful in breaking down woman only space since the declaration was written. Even this summer, as many of you know, Conway Hall in London bowed to pressure and booted the RadFem 2012 conference because it was supposed to be a specifically woman-only event.

Another worrying point that Cathy brought up was the definition of gender identity legislation that has been enacted in many states. Many legal definitions of “gender identity” are similar to this definition used in Washington, DC:

“Gender identity” means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.

Definitions such as this one “suggest or codify into law that there are ways of expressing one’s self (or behaviors or appearances) “consistent or congruent with biological sex”” [quote from here]. Radical feminists know that this is a problem, since we want to abolish gender. As Lierre Keith said earlier, gender is a hierarchy and harms females. These types of legislation suggest that if women do not identify, appear, or express themselves in a way that is in line with their assigned sex at birth, they are trans. Obviously, radical feminists seek to destroy gender constraints, and hope for a world in which there is no such gendered behavior typically associated with our assigned sexes at birth. These types of legislation suggest that there are gender presentations that are appropriate for female persons, and others appropriate for males. This presents a risk to females, as such definitions codify the notion of stereotypes based on sex into law.

Cathy Brennan’s presentation was dynamic, and gave me a lot to think about. It was also lovely to meet her.

Finally, we saw an awesome presentation from Maggie entitled How Patriarchy has Hijacked Women’s Sexuality on Every Level, and What We Can Do to Fight Back. Maggie spoke about the male-centric vision of sexuality that we are sold through PIV sex, sadomasochism, and the use of dildos in lesbian encounters.

This male-centric sex uses media to spread its propaganda– media such as “women’s magazines” like Cosmo, Seventeen, and even lesbian publications such as autostraddle.com and Diva magazine in the UK. Even though these magazines are for both lesbian and heterosexual women, both frame women’s sexuality in terms of “f*cking”—which is a very male-centric view.

Another example of male-centric sexuality in lesbian media is through the television shows The ‘L’ Word and Lip Service in the UK. In these shows, beauty- and gender-compliant women are shown using dildos and engaging in BDSM—both practices which mirror dominance/submission paradigms of male-centric sex.

As Maggie eloquently put it, our entire societal order is based on the hierarchy of dominance and submission. There is nothing egalitarian about our society. In this context, sadomasochistic sexual practices make sense. If all we know is dominance and submission, how can we organically envision a mutually respectful egalitarian sexuality? For this reason, BDSM practices can never be separated from male domination—even when practiced in an all women environment. As Maggie said,

“We’re programmed to get off on our own oppression, and orgasms don’t make it right.”

But, some (non-radical feminists, of course) might object at this point by saying, “what about women who consent to these practices? If they consent, how can we criticize?” Maggie reminds us to not pay attention so much to the act of consent, as to the practice that is being consented to. If we are consenting to torture, perhaps the horrifying nature of the act is what is important, rather than whether or not consent has been offered. As Susan Hawthorne commented at this point in the presentation, those who ask for consent are typically the ones who have power— and those who give consent are the ones who do not. I found that statement to be quite true, as well as revelatory.

So what is the solution to this male-centric sexuality?

We must decolonize our bodies and psyches from sadomasochistic culture. We must do this without shaming women who are currently engaged in these sexual practices. Instead, we must work towards a positive view of egalitarian, female-based sexuality.

I was really inspired by Maggie’s presentation to continue the process of de-colonizing my own mind and body from our sado-society’s anti-female practices. Not only that, but Maggie was such an awesome person to meet!

I left the weekend with feelings of inspiration, fellowship, and genuine love for the women I had been spending time with. I realized that I want to do more towards the goals of liberating women, and I found myself developing the strategic and visionary tools necessary to start that process. I also wanted to find more radical feminists in my own area to organize with—or if not to find them, then to help radicalize feminists I already know!

I was so, so very privileged to have participated in the Radfem Reboot in Portland, OR. I want to thank the organizers, the members of Sisters Underground, the presenters, and finally the women who were able to prioritize this moment and were able to make it. Truly—this is only the beginning of something wonderful.

On Pornsick Bastards

TW

Nearly all men watch pornography.

That is, of the men you encounter in your daily life, nearly every one of them consumes images of women being f’ked in a violent and degrading manner.

The other day I was spending time with a good friend who has recently begun dating a new man. This man, she says, frequently asks to ejaculate on her face and body, and will not stop harassing her for anal sex. When they do “make love”, he is a jackhammer. He treats her body as if it were a masturbation receptacle. She doesn’t like the things he asks for in bed, but she wasn’t all that upset about his requests. Probably because for her, and many straight women, his requests are the norm.

What is a pornsick bastard? They come in many varieties- from the man who posts the Hooters calendar on his bathroom door, to the man who cannot achieve release without recalling degrading images of women.

Pornsick bastards are everywhere.

Many studies concerned with the effect of pornography discuss the negative impact it has on male sexual satisfaction. The concern is that the “normal” cycle of PIV [penis in vagina sex] with an intimate partner is being interrupted by the male fascination with porn, since he can’t “successfully” f’k women in person as well as he once did.

Radical feminists object for another reason. We see that these men are participating in and propping up the system that says the purpose of women is her existence as a f’k object, rather than a person. They feel entitled to do whatever they wish to women’s bodies, instead of treating us as humans. They have no empathy for the suffering they cause.

This is our world right now.

As Rebecca Mott has pointed out, pornography and prostitution are two sides of the same coin. Porn watchers are johns- as much as they wish to deny this reality, and make excuses for their exploitative behavior.

On a personal note, I’ve found that most folks in my everyday life do no want to address the issue of pornsick bastards. Perhaps the problem is too big, and so it feels better to just ignore it. Maybe it’s because those around me object to the idea that they are, in fact, pornsick bastards.

And what then? When you realize that some of those you care about- your sons, your partner, or your friends- are pornsick bastards?

It is lonely to be awake to the truths of male supremacy in action.

Trans Identities are Sacrosanct, but Lesbian Identities are Transphobic

A recent article on Feministing caught my attention.

http://feministing.com/2012/06/28/enough-with-i-date-women-and-trans-men/

In it, women are told that they must re-evaluate their lesbian identity if they are attracted to both women and trans men, or else they are being “transphobic”. As Jos Truitt (the author) says:

My trans brothers deserve better than sex in a frame that undermines their identities [that is, sex with lesbians who sleep with trans men]. This doesn’t mean queer cis women and gender non-conforming female assigned folks can’t f*ck trans men, but then they owe it to these guys to reframe their sexuality in a way that’s not undermining – to recognize that they sleep with men, and to question why they’re OK with sleeping with trans men and not cis men.

In other words, if you sleep with trans men, you can’t legitimately call yourself a lesbian any more. YOU must change your identity, and Jos (who does not identify as a lesbian) has the right to request that you make this change. Additionally, you must ask yourself why you refuse to consider dating “cis men”. This statement places the onus on lesbians to determine why they have decided not to date “cis men”– rather than allowing them to decide for themselves who they should be attracted to.

Note that gay and straight men are not being called to task for not properly identifying themselves so as to avoid “transphobia”. It’s women– once again– who are the target of this ostensibly “feminist” critique.

Lesbians are under attack. At a recent dyke march, Cathy Brennan was cornered by tens of trans/queer activists, and screamed at. You can see video here, as well as one trans critique of the violent rhetoric currently swirling from the queer/trans community. Brennan has stated that she has never felt so unsafe as she did at the NYC Dyke March 2012.

But Cathy Brennan is not the only target. Lesbians are under fire. First it was the cotton ceiling debacle, and now this article at feministing.

Female reality is also under fire, and we are not even permitted to organize and discuss it.

It is unclear to me why “feminists” focus so much attention on policing women and lesbians, when the entire purpose of feminism has always been the liberation of women.

As an ally and a woman, I will stand with my sisters against oppression– no matter the source.

On The “Cotton Ceiling”, Rape Culture, and Feministe

Planned Parenthood Toronto is planning a conference called Pleasures and Possibilities for the end of this month.

One of the events featured at this conference is called Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women.

What is the cotton ceiling?

The term cotton ceiling is a reference to the “glass ceiling” that second wave feminist identified in the workforce, wherein women could only advance so high in the workforce but could not break through into positions of power and authority. The cotton represents underwear, signifying sex.

The theory of the cotton ceiling is useful in identifying the dynamic trans women are experiencing, and is meant to open up conversation around desirability’s intersections with transmisogyny and transphobia.

Some feminists have found this conference to be blatantly rapey, since women should have the right to refuse sex with anyone, for any reason, and no one should hold a conference attempting to overcome these barriers to sex. Furthermore, it is offensive to compare overcoming barriers to sex with women to the historic example of women overcoming the barriers to equal treatment in the workplace.

As this petition says,

Planned Parenthood Toronto is helping to sponsor a March 31 conference in Toronto that includes a workshop inviting participants to discuss and strategize ways they might be able to “overcome” women’s objections to these participants’ sexual advances. We believe that no means no, that a woman’s right to say “no” to sex at any time is sacrosanct and that no explanations should ever be requested because none is ever necessary. The name of the workshop proposed is “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women.

I encourage those of you who agree with this statement to sign the petition here.

Because I believe that feminists support a woman’s right to say no for any reason, I linked this petition to feministe.us. I was under the impression that the petition would be well received. The ensuing conversation verbal stoning occurred here.

Instead of engaging with the petition as it was written, against rape culture and for a woman’s right to choose her own sexual partner(s) for whatever reason(s) she chooses, I was lambasted with unkind names such as “bigot”, “transphobe”, “self-righteous idiot”, and told to “fuck off” for criticizing the conference. I was even called names by the moderator.

As I’ve pointed out before, name calling and ad hominem attacks are not effective argumentation strategies. Using them shows that one’s argument is weak, and that an attempt is being made to change the subject from the content of one’s interlocutor’s position, to her character, associations, and prior work– which are not the topics at hand.

In fact, the commenters stone throwers went through my blog and quoted it in attempts to further denounce my character. Interestingly, however, they did not notice that they themselves were participating in the argumentation strategy that I criticized in my first blog post. They quote me as saying:

Second wavers recognize that there are intersecting oppressive forces, but don’t want to lose sight of the oppression of women. They may see 3rd wave feminists use intersectionality as a strategy for turning female energy away from female causes. These radfem thinkers are particularly concerned about transgender and transexual folk who are seen by the radfems as having hijacked feminism and our efforts toward women’s liberation and moved them into a more male centered direction. Trans women are also seen as male invaders to female spaces by these rad fems, and the fun fems think this view is transphobic.

An interesting critique of this privilege checking procedure is that any individual making a logical argument can be proven wrong by having not properly checked her privilege. So, by making trans critical arguments that do not align with the 3rd wave party line, an individual will be shut down as transphobic, and her arguments will not be listened to. This silencing tactic is particularly worrying to me as a person interested in the *truth*– rather than what is least offensive.

Clearly, I was shut down and silenced, just as I said I would be (even though I wasn’t even being trans critical in the post!). These folks are not interested in critical thinking; they only wish to hear their own ideas repeated to them.

I’m disappointed at what I take to be feministe’s support of this conference that encourages rape culture.

It’s clear to me that many commenters at feministe do not see that the name calling and dog-piling they engage in against those they disagree with is used to silent any dissent from their narrative.

Bullying is not a feminist tactic, but it is often used as a silencing tool by those who have weak arguments.

Jolene: One Man Away From Poverty

-Dolly Parton-

Dolly Parton’s 1974 release Jolene has been covered, copied, and sung many times since. The song is a passionate plea from one woman begging another to leave her man alone. It is a story that highlights the perils of living in a patriarchal, male-dominated world.

Jolene
Jolene
Jolene
Jolene
I’m begging of you
Please don’t take my man

Many women are economically dependent on their male partners. These women may have children, and may have a difficult time supporting these children without their husband’s financial help. As former chair of the Women and Poverty Task for the National Organization for Women, Beverley McDonald says most women are still one man away from poverty. If your man leaves, you and your children will be poor. Though Parton does not have any children of her own, she understands the threat of poverty. After all, she was the fourth of twelve children growing up, and described herself as “dirt poor”.

In order to avoid poverty, many women must engage in the taxing and thankless task of keeping their man.

What does keeping a man entail?

For one, it means surrendering to the fact that one’s man is free to decide to leave at any time, that he is not committed to the relationship unless it continues on his terms, that he will never permanently decide to stay, and that you and the kids will forever be financially dependent on him.

Keeping a man means catering to him by being his f’k toy, cooking his favorite meals, cleaning his house, and satisfying him in whatever way he asks—regardless of your desires or needs.

Despite all your efforts to keep a man, you may find him desirous of straying anyway, particularly if a p-compliant woman comes along and pays some attention to him, as Jolene in the song does:

Your beauty is beyond compare
With flaming locks of auburn hair
With ivory skin and eyes of emerald green
Your smile is like a breath of spring
Your voice is soft like summer rain
And I cannot compete with you, Jolene

Jolene’s beauty and submissiveness (as evidenced by her soft voice) are the only qualities she is using to lure the subject’s man away. Hence, those qualities appear to be the ones most necessary for the subject to keep her man.

Since the subject’s man is desirous of straying, keeping him will require a change in strategy. It does not mean asking him to grow up and stop throwing his life away. In fact, keeping him does not involve holding him responsible for his desire to stray. Instead, the best strategy is to convince the woman he desires to leave him alone. She, and not he, is the only person who will be able to prevent him from leaving the subject and the kids financially destitute. As the song says:

My happiness depends on you
and whatever you decide to do, Jolene

This is what life will offer a woman who depends on a man. This is the story that the song Jolene tells– the horrors of total dependency on a man.

Because keeping her man is the only way for the subject of this song to avoid poverty and survive, she must bargain for her sustenance with another woman. Women often have to compete for men, as Jolene and the subject of this song do. When women’s energy is focused on obtaining men, and competing against one another for the crumbs that men drop, women are unable to relate to one another with true gyn/affection. This is a tragic loss for womankind.

Dolly Parton explains writing this song in this interview:

Parton says she got the story for her song from another redhead in her life at the time, a bank teller who was giving Dolly’s new husband a little more interest than he had coming.

Ms. PARTON: She got this terrible crush on my husband. And he just loved going to the bank because she paid him so much attention. It was kind of like a running joke between us when I was saying, hell, you’re spending a lot of time at the bank. I don’t believe we’ve got that kind of money. So it’s really an innocent song all around, but sounds like a dreadful one.”

Interestingly, Dolly Parton downplays the threat of the other woman in her own life. She turns it into a joke with her husband that he is being pursued by the bank teller. She places none of the agency of the flirtation on him, and she does not expect him to shun the bank teller’s advances. As she says, “it’s an innocent song all around”.

This song has been covered many times. For example, Jack White of the White Stripes covers the song here.

I experience his cover of this song as completely ignorant of its meaning. If Jack White’s man leaves, he will not be financially destitute. There is no sex-based hierarchy in the song as he sings it. His version is meaningless.

However, I do quite enjoy this version by Ellie Goulding

Gyn/affection and Dual Vision

A few weeks ago a female acquaintance Sandra (not her real name) blurted out, “I just don’t get along with women very well.” She proceeded to tell me how she always hated the cheerleaders in high school who allegedly pretended to be dumb to get attention, and how women are difficult to work with because they are competitive and catty.

This friend is obviously unaware of a feminist analysis that provides context for these women-hating sentiments. As you all know, when we hold misogynistic viewpoints of other women, we often hold ourselves up as the exceptional woman, who is not like “all those other terrible women out there”. As Ariel Levy says,

It can be fun to feel exceptional – to be the loophole woman, to have a whole power thing, to be an honorary man. But,” she warns, “if you are the exception that proves the rule, and the rule is that women are inferior, you haven’t made any progress.

My conversation with Sandra came at an interesting time, since I was reading A Passion for Friends* by Janice Raymond. The book was recommended by blogger Radfem Crafts, and she did a lovely series (starting here) analyzing it.

Raymond discusses the reasons why some females hold anti-woman sentiments, (p 151)

A chorus of male voices throughout the centuries has echoed Jonathan Swift’s words, “I never knew a tolerable woman to be fond of her own sex.”.. So women disidentify with other women in order to make themselves “tolerable” to men.

In other words, perhaps women hate women because male culture hates women.

To return to Sandra’s original examples. She remembers women in high school as playing dumb and actively conforming to beauty mandates, but she does not analyze the fact that patriarchal culture tells us that women are dumb and are only worthy as beautiful objects. Or to turn to another example, she believes women are difficult to work with because they are competitive and catty, but she does not see that our culture defines aggressive behavior in women as b*tchy, and does not note such behavior in men. In other words, she sees women through the male lens of hatred and disdain.

But Raymond does not believe that we can attribute all women-hating-women behavior and words to cultural brainwashing. As she says,

It would be easy to ignore these voices by saying that women internalize men’s attitudes about them and about their relationships with other women. The problem is that, although this may account in one way for the cause of women’s antifeminist behavior, it does not assuage the awful reality of women-hating-women conduct when it happens in our own and in other women’s lives.

To return to the above examples, Sandra may have hated the young women at her high school because she was jealous of the attention they received from men (due to the fact that they conformed to the f’kability mandate, and performed femininity in male-approved way). Since male-derived power is one of the only ways women can receive power, Sandra may have resented these women for receiving crumbs of attention she would have preferred to parlay into power herself. Or, perhaps the women at Sandra’s work really were catty and competitive with other women because they believed that women are easier targets then men, and that if only so many women were going to be able to succeed, they’d like to be one of them. In other words, perhaps the patriarchal culture that hates women creates women-hating words and behaviors in women.

Sandra was not open to my feminist analysis of her feelings, and she can hardly be blamed. After all, it is easier to see oneself as exceptional than to confront the realities of male power.

The above examples are just a few of the many obstacles to women-centered reality. However, Raymond believes that these obstacles must be overcome if women are going to become Gyn/affective. As she says (p 7-8),

Gyn/affection can be defined as woman-to-woman attraction, influence, and movement.. In many ways, Gyn/affection is a synonym for female friendship.. Gyn/affection connotes the passion that women feel for women, that is, the expression of profound attraction for the original vital Self and the movement towards other vital women.. The basic meaning of Gyn/affection is that women affect, move, stir, and arouse each other to full power.

Raymond believes that a Gyn/affective life is an important step towards women’s liberation, and I agree with her (p 241). When women step beyond the lies told about themselves and each other, we can begin to see ourselves and each other as we really are, and also create a vision of life beyond the current state of atrocity (p 23).

But,

How do women live in the world as men have defined it while creating the world as women imagine it to be? p 205

Raymond suggests that we use dual vision to keep one eye on the horrific and unacceptable material realities of women’s lives (she calls this nearsightedness), while at the same time recognizing “the possibilities of being for each other” now and in the future (farsightedness) (p 207).

As Raymond says,

Dual vision poses a tension but not a contradiction. Realism about the conditions of man-made existence must be illuminated by a vision of feminist imagination that acts. And the feminist visionary task must root itself in the real world or else, as Pat Hynes has remarked, like an electrical charge that has no ground, its unguided energy will disperse in all directions. Virgina Woolf phrased it this way, “Energy has been liberated, but into what form is it to flow?” (p 207-208)

By grounding our vision in our material world, as well as in our Gyn/affection for each other, we can begin to move forward towards wherever our vision takes us. This movement towards women’s freedom, despite the real realities of our material circumstances, has already begun.

Image from here.
*You can find an excerpt from A Passion for Friends here.

An Open Letter Regarding A Radical Profeminist and Other Would-Be Helpers”

This is an open letter about men who claim to be feminist and to the women who believe them. This letter is directed at women who — without any analysis or criteria — believe men who claim to be feminist. This letter is not directed at anybody else, so please ensure that you are indeed a member of the intended audience before replying. This letter has been written with the cooperation of 28 radical feminists, all of whom should be familiar to those who frequent radical feminist spaces. We are rather serious today, about a rather serious harm being committed with impunity.

First, you need to know why we have a valid reason for being concerned about the behavior of self-identified feminist men within feminist spaces, and our answer is simple: We have identified the subtle mechanisms utilized by pro-feminist men to “divide and conquer”, to erase the commonality from all women within feminist spaces and whose cumulative effect results in a gross marginalization of the radical feminist position. Nor are we are the only women to notice a problem. Megan Milanese brilliantly describes most of the tactics here — yet that list does not go far enough to analyze the extent of the problem.

So why should an erasure of the commonality inherent to all women matter to anyone besides radical feminists? Lucky Nickel makes the relevant connection for us:

Self-naming and self-identified labels mean nothing. There must be substance to the label they identify with and substance to who they claim to be. Otherwise folks can insist on calling a mouse a giraffe or claim rape is really love.

What I do think important to note is that liberals, lesbian separatists and radical feminists are all flying the radfem flag these days. The problem being, they are 3 separate and distinct political groups and ideologies, 2 of whom are inappropriately waving the radfem flag. It can get a bit tricky tho with lesbian separatists as radical feminists can also be lesbian separatists. But not all lesbians are radfems and not all radfems are lesbian separatists, or even lesbian for that matter. But in Julian Real’s case, that would be irrelevant. The dude is not a lesbian or radical feminist.

What the dude is, is liberal. And what he is attempting to do is appropriate the radical feminist label in order to inject liberal ideology. Equality politics are liberal politics, not radical feminist politics. Radical feminists seek liberation from men and their system, not equality. Liberals focus on differences between women. Radical feminists focus on the commonality of women. Needless to say, these 2 different ideologies conflict and clash. Which delights men like Julian Real to no end. Cuz if he keeps liberal women pitted against radical feminist women, it keeps women from unifying, which in turn keeps the heat off of pricks like him and men in general. Slick, no?

In talking to each other privately, we have decided to collectively communicate the following message regarding Julian Real, Hugo Schwyzer, and other men like them who claim to be feminist allies. These men do not speak for women as well as we can speak for ourselves and we ask that you give radical feminist bloggers the respect of reading our words, joining the discussion in comments on our blogs, and contributing to our own community rather than giving energy to men like Julian & Hugo who seek to divide us on points which all feminists have in common. Men exhibiting these behaviors have inserted themselves into discussions among women when their participation was insidiously harmful in nature, and we ask that you not support that behavior nor make excuses for it.