Whew! I just spent the last several hours writing this response to my good friend Molly's insightful (and apparently controversial) piece entitled The misguided, embarrassing war against feminism rages on.
Mine is a lengthy response, but please read it, along with Molly's post and the comments she's received. If you care about feminism (one way or another) please join in the discussion/debate! You can leave comments here, on The Ladies of Science page, or on the original post at True/Slant.
What do you think of the reaction she has invoked? The apparent need for males studies?
Anne, I thought I would post this here, as I wasn't sure you would go back to the thread.
ReplyDeleteYou took an aside way off the rails, but there is much merit in what you say. My roundabout point is that the cancer is in the mindset of mostly American and French academic feminists of the 70s and 80s, not the blood and guts feminists like the suffragettes and the political feminists who fought for something rather than masturbated about something, and contrived petty and unsubstantiated theories and confusion from personal anger. I think I made that clear in my last paragraph. Some of my great heroes are people like Mary Macarthur, for instance.
I didn't realize that I claimed to speak for the whole of Africa, but let me say that my point holds as far as "feminism" as a intellectual movement of actionable merit.
Let's talk about where the great movements in women's rights around the world actually came from, and what political movements drove them, not academic movements. People like General Macarthur in Japan who gave women the right to vote, and believed and spoke eloquently of the rights of women. It did not come from a "feminist" movement external or internal to Japan. It was just the right thing to do, and was enacted by the most unlikely of personage. Now a feminist might argue that he was a misogynistic patriarch who believed in male domination of social structures, but it's plain rubbish, and the same clichés repeated ad nauseum.
I also didn't realize that I was saying that I was against women's rights in Africa. Au contraire. You've proven my point in that they were not arguing about whether or not their lesbian girlfriend should or should be allowed be able to insert a finger in their vaginas, as was the fashion with some academic feminists in the 80s. They were trying to make a difference in their community, and survive, and participate in their political structure.
American feminists that I despise seem to forget the people that you were close with, that is my whole point. They'd rather argue over labial lips than AIDS, reproductive rights, or childhood mortality. (Because as everyone knows having a child implies being raped.)
Believe me, I studied enough post-structuralist feminist theory to see this as clear as a slap in the face. And the only time I ever heard about Africa in my feminist theory classes was to point out the horrors of genital mutilation to only prove the facts that men are evil. That is my point in a nutshell. We are I am sure on the same page, but the problem is the hijacking of correct principles and obvious answers by literally crazy people.
I mean, are you denying a whole wing of feminism theory is based on the idea that any penetration of a female wanted or not is rape and manipulation? I don't use that to necessarily paint with a broad brush, but that was my point to begin with, that the word has been used by people who advocate for that contemptible insanity.
I would hoep that you would agree with me there.
Wow, sunoxen. I appreciate all your feedback, and I don't know if I can respond to all of it adequately, but I will try.
ReplyDeleteTo open, I'll say what I've said to others, which is that feminist theory (to which I believe you're referring to when mentioning "labial lips" and "masturbation") is a highly debated, analyzed and criticized topic among intellectual circles, especially on college campuses. The fact that it has been written and believed by one person does not make it canon; feminism, after all, is not a religion and there is no bible. We are all discovering what it means to each of us each day.
That said, I think it's important to recognize that penetration, heterosexual sex as rape, homosexual sex, and (yes) masturbation are all intrinsically tied to AIDS, reproductive rights, and childhood mortality. After all, how can we prevent these latter issues when women are not at home in/in control of their own bodies? Some statements by these "American" and "French" feminists may seem shocking (I know they do to me), but sometimes something shocking must be said to start a dialogue like this one.
I know you didn't intend to speak for all of Africa, that's just a particular pet peeve of mine (referring to a giant continent as though it were a homogenous community), so lucky you for triggering that one.
I will also say that there are still tribes in Cameroon (and in other surrounding countries) in which intimate female interactions in ceremonies (i.e. - choosing an 'assistant,' being rubbed down with oils and pleasured) are common practice. And guess what? We discussed all of this at the University of Yaoundé! In a Women's Studies class run by a Cameroonian professor! In these ceremonies, sharing intimacies such as these with other women is empowering, pleasurable, and part of a rite of passage kept alive through traditional practice.
Another such practice entails women comparing the size of their clitorises (and these particular women have impressively large genitalia) to decide who will be the dominant female!
I'm not sure that my argument winds neatly to a conclusion, but I hope I've addressed some of your points. If, as you say, "a whole wing of feminism theory is based on the idea that any penetration of a female is rape and manipulation," then it is just that: a wing. It is not unrelated (as I mentioned) to other feminist issues, but it addressed and addresses the concerns of particular women (generally quite intellectual) in a particular time and place.
Listen, I love men, especially the one I live with and with whom I enjoy consensual, pleasurable, and equitable sex. If it helps when you're reading feminist theory, try replacing "men" with "patriarchy." I believe most contemporary feminist scholars (if we can bring ourselves out of the 70s and 80s--another point being that those women were writing in opposition to specific issues of their time) would agree that it is a system of disparities that opposes the feminist movement, not men themselves.