![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceBut I'm riffing off of something ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kyooverse said on the Post From Hell...
I consider myself a traditional feminist in many ways-- primarily in that I believe traditional gender roles are harmful to women (and to men, too.)
But one of the things traditional feminism missed is the notion that women are not All Good.
Absolutely women, as a sex, are still second class citizens in most of the world's cultures. Some worse than others, and some subcultures worse than others, too.
But where traditional feminism went wrong is in assuming that men are the ones solely responsible for this, and that men are therefore The Enemy, and the ones to be blamed, to be feared, to be held accountable. In training women to be aware of male power and to find ways to avoid being harmed by it, women were led into this false sense of safety and security with each other.
Case in point, the oft-discussed Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (and other women-only spaces like that.) The women there believe that they will be safe so long as an adult penis does not cross the boundaries of that space. And yet that's definitely not the case. While they may be safe from being raped by a man, or otherwise subject to male-specific violent or oppressive acts, they are still not safe. Women are not inherently non-violent. They are generally not as physically violent as men, but to assume that women are all nurturing, totally loving creatures who would never harm each other is a dangerous myth.
Who is it that enforces the practice of FGM? Women. Who is it that pressures girls into eating disorders? Women. Who is it that tells women they may as well not exist if they don't have male approval? Women. Who is it that ostracizes girls who are not gender-compliant? Women.
It may be true that the reason women do this is because of the outside pressure from the larger, male-dominant culture (particularly consumer culture) but that doesn't absolve women as a whole from culpability for the role they play in continuing the cycle, and it certainly doesn't absolve individual women from responsibility to not engage in activity which is damaging to other women, assuming they're in a safe enough position to do so. If you don't have a gun to your head, and won't lose your job or your house if you cease oppressing other women, you have no excuse. The women who do FGM have an excuse for what they do. Some arrogant teenage fuckwit nagging the school fat girl does not. Some mother clucking about how her daughter should really grow her hair out and wear something prettier does not. Women who merrily feed the corporate beauty and fashion machine, regardless of the deaths those industries are responsible for do not.
Women constitute a majority of the US population. Women now hold a great deal of power positions in business, politics, science and the arts. If women were indeed only pawns of the patriarchy who know not what they do, then feminism should have cured that, and we would all be free now. The strength in numbers and actual power we carry now, while still not ideal, is enough to set us free if women were in fact fighting for our rights as a group.
But obviously, that's not happening. Certainly, some women are too afraid of the consequences of bucking the system to suddenly stop feeding the sexism machine. But others know better, and are either too lazy, or have a twisted idea that they're benefitting from the subjugation of women as a group to bother. The fact that so many women with power insist on using that power to continue the abuse of other women is appalling. And those women absolutely should be held responsible for what they do.
One of the reasons Blank's original post pissed me off is the notion that femme space is somehow some special, magical place where one is fully loved and accepted and intimate with everyone there, because you're all mututally bonding over shoes. That's a pretty myth, but it's just that. The message of femme space is not "all are welcome here" but "you're welcome here if you are Femme or if you are Butch and support Femme." Sisterhood is not open to all with a cunt. It is open only to those women (and men) who will play along and do their part to reinforce harmful gender stratification.
No, we women are not safe with each other. Women-only spaces are not magical, mystical safe houses where no one will ever be harmed. Women in power has not ended sexism, and in fact in some ways is reinforcing it, because the only women who have thusfar been allowed to come to power are the ones who play the game. The concept that one will recieve unconditional love, safety and support merely by associating solely with someone whose genitals or gender identity you share is simply not actual fact.
Women can be just as nasty as men, and in some ways nastier because they're more subtle about the damage they do. And I'm supposed to just grin and say how great it is to be a chick, and how great other chicks are?
Hardly. No one is my "sister" just because she and I both have cunts.
kyooverse said on the Post From Hell...I consider myself a traditional feminist in many ways-- primarily in that I believe traditional gender roles are harmful to women (and to men, too.)
But one of the things traditional feminism missed is the notion that women are not All Good.
Absolutely women, as a sex, are still second class citizens in most of the world's cultures. Some worse than others, and some subcultures worse than others, too.
But where traditional feminism went wrong is in assuming that men are the ones solely responsible for this, and that men are therefore The Enemy, and the ones to be blamed, to be feared, to be held accountable. In training women to be aware of male power and to find ways to avoid being harmed by it, women were led into this false sense of safety and security with each other.
Case in point, the oft-discussed Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (and other women-only spaces like that.) The women there believe that they will be safe so long as an adult penis does not cross the boundaries of that space. And yet that's definitely not the case. While they may be safe from being raped by a man, or otherwise subject to male-specific violent or oppressive acts, they are still not safe. Women are not inherently non-violent. They are generally not as physically violent as men, but to assume that women are all nurturing, totally loving creatures who would never harm each other is a dangerous myth.
Who is it that enforces the practice of FGM? Women. Who is it that pressures girls into eating disorders? Women. Who is it that tells women they may as well not exist if they don't have male approval? Women. Who is it that ostracizes girls who are not gender-compliant? Women.
It may be true that the reason women do this is because of the outside pressure from the larger, male-dominant culture (particularly consumer culture) but that doesn't absolve women as a whole from culpability for the role they play in continuing the cycle, and it certainly doesn't absolve individual women from responsibility to not engage in activity which is damaging to other women, assuming they're in a safe enough position to do so. If you don't have a gun to your head, and won't lose your job or your house if you cease oppressing other women, you have no excuse. The women who do FGM have an excuse for what they do. Some arrogant teenage fuckwit nagging the school fat girl does not. Some mother clucking about how her daughter should really grow her hair out and wear something prettier does not. Women who merrily feed the corporate beauty and fashion machine, regardless of the deaths those industries are responsible for do not.
Women constitute a majority of the US population. Women now hold a great deal of power positions in business, politics, science and the arts. If women were indeed only pawns of the patriarchy who know not what they do, then feminism should have cured that, and we would all be free now. The strength in numbers and actual power we carry now, while still not ideal, is enough to set us free if women were in fact fighting for our rights as a group.
But obviously, that's not happening. Certainly, some women are too afraid of the consequences of bucking the system to suddenly stop feeding the sexism machine. But others know better, and are either too lazy, or have a twisted idea that they're benefitting from the subjugation of women as a group to bother. The fact that so many women with power insist on using that power to continue the abuse of other women is appalling. And those women absolutely should be held responsible for what they do.
One of the reasons Blank's original post pissed me off is the notion that femme space is somehow some special, magical place where one is fully loved and accepted and intimate with everyone there, because you're all mututally bonding over shoes. That's a pretty myth, but it's just that. The message of femme space is not "all are welcome here" but "you're welcome here if you are Femme or if you are Butch and support Femme." Sisterhood is not open to all with a cunt. It is open only to those women (and men) who will play along and do their part to reinforce harmful gender stratification.
No, we women are not safe with each other. Women-only spaces are not magical, mystical safe houses where no one will ever be harmed. Women in power has not ended sexism, and in fact in some ways is reinforcing it, because the only women who have thusfar been allowed to come to power are the ones who play the game. The concept that one will recieve unconditional love, safety and support merely by associating solely with someone whose genitals or gender identity you share is simply not actual fact.
Women can be just as nasty as men, and in some ways nastier because they're more subtle about the damage they do. And I'm supposed to just grin and say how great it is to be a chick, and how great other chicks are?
Hardly. No one is my "sister" just because she and I both have cunts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Okay, read the link. Basically a regurg of Fem Mystique, Beauty Myth and every other 90s book on the topic, although kudos that a man bothers to write it. Rudimentary. Pleasant, but redundant don't you think? It's the basis of any freshman woman's course. As an undergrad, I was a soc major by default bc I leaned that way - 2 classes from a marketing major. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. I would like to think that such a paper doesn't state anything surprising to ANY woman. I could be wrong on that, but I don't even want to go there.
Hon, I am not arguing the fact that advertising in general is utter crap. Nor would I argue that such tactics certainly don't help redefine feminine stereotypes. Both are pretty well proven. What I take offense with is your dramatic stance that it "kills." That simply isn't true. We could argue botched laser facials until the end of time, the fact is that advertising is EQUALLY detrimental to BOTH sexes. Viagra anyone? Can't sleep, take a pill. Stuff your face with supersized fries, etc. etc. etc. Any push to sell a product that saturates mainstream press is inherently uncaring to ANYONE that it is aimed at. Period.
As for eating disorders, you are completely and totally off base with the assumption that clinical eating disorders have anything to do with the bony chick on the cover of Cosmo. They don't. Perpetuating that myth is harmful. Anorexia and Bulemia are disorders that form in those seeking CONTROL. They are highly correlated with family dysfunction and barely if ever tied in at all to actual "dieting." Overbearing, judgmental, unavailable and emotionally estranged parents raise daughters with eating disorders.
So what's left? Supplement poisoning? I'm not even going to go there, such a low incidence and wtf?? Try people of BOTH genders who end up addicted to Xanax bc they've been told they need it by their family doctors after seeing an ad.
It's interesting that so many of your arguments have historically been gauged around feminine form (i.e. make-up, fashion, body shape, hair or the lack of). It's so very superficial. It also has an edge of misogyny that I am hoping you don't intend it to. You speak of women as if they are nothing more than sheep formed of putty. No free will or choice. If a woman who is otherwise liberal chooses to shave her legs - maybe it's because she LIKES them to be smooth?? Some women have long dragon claw finger nails, personally I find them gross - but if sisters wish to have airbrushed palm trees on their fingers, I'll simply think that it is their CHOICE. Do these issues come up in third world tv deprived nations? Sure they do. It isn't just Western culture.
Are women influenced by those airbrushed pics? Sure. But you need to add perspective to it. Most of us can say "gee I wish I had that perfectly airbrushed ass" and move on. Most. Those who can't are going to stumble because of something else. Ego strength or lack of. That isn't societal, it's personal. Every teen wishes to be exactly like their friends. Most of us grow out of it. Again, most. Most women realize that they don't have to buy into all of that shit to "belong" as they have, by adulthood, gained the acceptance of those around them.
As for being judged by society's inherently faulty expectations? Sure, it happens. In both directions. Conventionally pretty women often get their foot in the door first, but have to try twice as hard to prove they aren't bimbos. Less conventionally attractive women have to battle that door open, but often find it easier once they get in. Stereotypes only work for strangers. Regardless of shape, colour, gender, once they get through the door, most people are judged on their own merits. To do otherwise is to dehumanize. Period.
Are women objectified? Sure. But if you walk away from your everpresent arguments, which are based on texts and articles that are almost 10 years old, you will find that there are so many more important concerns out there. Ones worth focusing on. Issues more important than whether middle and upper middle class women bother to laser peel or buy tits.
no subject
I really resent being told that I am misogynist because I refuse to honor those (constructed) cultural trappings of femininity which have historically been used to confine women to subservient roles. Am I also a misandrist because I equally hate the cultural trappings of masculinity which require men to be violent and aggressive?
And heavens to betsy-- I'm using 10 year old documents! I suppose we ought to throw out the Constitution, Aristotle and Skinner while we're at it, since nothing anyone said in the past could ever have relevance to modern life. ;)
As for choice, I'll just say that I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Socialist. I believe that individual choice does not exist in a vacuum, and that we all have the responsibility to make choices which do not have negative impact for other people. It's obviously not easy to do that-- modern life is complex, and there's only so much one can do-- but if some women refusing to participate in image fascism helps others, then it's worth it. You choose your battles. This is the one I've chosen, and I don't think it's any less valid than any other.
Incidentally: if eating disorders are solely about control issues, why do they only exist in cultures where media images of underweight women are the norm? I assure you, when I was bulimic at 15, it had nothing to do with control, and everything to do with the fact that every message I got every day told me I wasn't even fit to live because I was 50 lbs overweight. If I were rebelling against my parents, surely I would've done something that my mother WASN'T encouraging, no?
But then, I suppose this perspective isn't something that someone who has spent her entire life being conventionally attractive in liberal urban areas would understand.