subtexts in radical feminism
There was a time, not long ago, when rousing anthems on feminism engaged me and enraged me about the patriarchal society we live in. Now I’ve delved a little deeper into radical feminism, I’m attuned to the subtext and feel dismay at the illogical messages rooted in alienation and inequality.
Let’s take extracts from a quote recently lauded by The Arbourist (full quote here).
1. Sexualised violence
We cannot both celebrate sexualised violence and have freedom from sexualised violence.
I agree. But for many radical feminists in these circles, any penetrative heterosexual sex is sexual violence, often equated with rape. Not joking.
Why is this bad for women? Because common garden heterosexual sexual intercourse is not evil. Moreover, most women are not sexually assaulted in their lifetime and most men are not sexual abusers. Yes, the numbers are disturbingly high and society needs to change, but preaching a theory that presents the world in such a foul light fills everyone with fear. And for the far too many women who have been victims of sexual violence, can it really help them to frame basic heterosexual sex as rape? I shouldn’t think so.
2. Selling sex
We cannot normalise male entitlement by saying “men need access to sex and therefore we, as a society, must maintain a class of women who are available to satisfy men’s desires” and also expect to build a society wherein men don’t feel entitled to sexual access to women.
I agree. This brand think that selling sex is inherently harmful and I agree it certainly is at this point in time. But I can’t agree with their attitude that it is blanket immoral: I know we can never be sure how human society will evolve.
Why is this bad for women? Keeping prostitution illegal stops people selling sex having any control and ensures it continues to be stigmatised as a way of earning money. Given where society is, given how universal selling sex is in human societies, my reasonable starting point for improving conditions for women earning money in this way by making it legal, not by keeping it underground. Remove stigma and see where those selling sex themselves choose to take it. Prostitution isn’t something we can wish away or stamp out by force: the best we can do is provide a framework that maximises women’s choices within it, and their choices for leaving.
3. Attractiveness
We cannot say “women are more than pretty things to look at” but also tell young women that desirability will empower them.
I agree. Women are bombarded with messages that their value lies in their appearance. But these radical feminists believe there is no such thing as gender difference and that everyone is naturally gender neutral.
Why is this bad for women? If you enjoy being feminine and attractive within the current framework, you are immediately branded. Although I like personally like the vision of a gender neutral society, I don’t see how it sits logically with the differences I observe in every single human, and the clear broad groups people choose in terms of expression. Both women and men enjoy looking attractive to other people, and as creatures who respect art and nature, most of us enjoy looking at attractive people. Society is never going to strip such a basic and natural human instinct away for some false sense of equality. Both women and men can be pretty things to look at, and more.
4. Femininity
We cannot confront rape culture while normalising the very ideas that found it: male entitlement, sexualised violence, and gender roles that are rooted in domination and subordination (i.e. masculinity and femininity).
I agree with some of this. I can’t see that the term ‘rape culture’ helps as a broad brush across the world, because I’m quite sure the vast majority of men in most countries don’t support or commit sexual violence of any kind. Where sexual violence is a problem, certainly male entitlement is a problem, and the sex industry doesn’t help this.
Why is this harmful to women? Note the final section about gender roles, and the harmless passing reference to masculinity and femininity. This version of radical feminism uses these seemingly benign references as a hammer to hit trans people. Trans people are inconvenient to their theory on human gender, so they are trying to redefine them, undermine them and erase them. If a human born with the physical structure of a female wants to express themselves throughout life in a masculine way, and identify themself as a man, this gives the gender role of ‘masculine’ a connection to ‘man’ that doesn’t come from indoctrination. When people make a conscious choice of the role they are comfortable with, these radical feminists try to find a reason within their rigid framework, and come to conclusion that trans people are wrong about themselves. And do they therefore treat trans people as another victim of the patriarchy? No, it appears not. Many of them dedicate their lives to ridiculing and vilifying trans people, as if such a tiny group of extremely vulnerable people actually have an impact on feminism in general.
Conclusion
This is where we reach the bottom of the barrel with this fringe movement within feminism. What can we do? Every political and ideological movement in the history of human beings has extremist groups and unsavoury spin-offs.
The only problem comes when they claim the whole movement as their own, and suck people in with a generic call to arms in the name of equality, all while attempting to hide to ugly truths at the very heart of their beliefs. And here it comes, claiming ownership of feminism:
While, the arguments I’m articulating here do, effectively, constitute “radical feminism,” in that it is a kind of feminism that “gets at the root,” I am defining something even more straightforward than that: Feminism – a real and definable thing that holds meaning!
No.
Feminism can accept that heterosexual sex is enjoyable, while tearing down the patriarchy. Feminism can accept and support women who sell sex, while tearing down the patriarchy. Feminism can accept that women and men generally have different styles of expression, while tearing down the patriarchy. Feminism can embrace trans people and how they choose to express themselves, while tearing down the patriarchy.
How’s that for a rousing speech? With no subtext.
You’re getting closer and closer and closer everyday, Violet. All PIV as rape is really not an aberration, it’s simply the logical and rational conclusion at the end of feminism. It’s not a subtext at all, its the very cornerstone, where it all began and where it all ends.
LikeLike
Closer to what exactly? You don’t agree with anything I wrote there, do you? You just like the critique of radical feminism.
By the way, you never did answer my question in the homeschooling post. If you personally had such a bad experience, why did you put your own kids through it?
LikeLike
I agree with some of the things you wrote, Violet. As to a critique of rad/fems, I much prefer them to popular, social feminism because they are more honest and logical. Wrong about many things, but at least they confront the truth of their own ideology.
Why did we homeschool when I had such a bad experience? Because it was the best thing for the kids and that bad experience taught me what pitfalls to avoid in order to make it successful.
Kind of funny, the day you wrote your post, our school had yet another incident and arrested a teacher. You presented an idea that school was a safe place and home was potentially dangerous, but actually schools as institutions practically invented abuse. Parents, due to that bond we have with our kids, are the most qualified to look out for their best interests. It doesn’t always work out, but the idea that schools are somehow safer than homes is kind of flawed.
LikeLike
Do you have a copy of Michael and Debi Pearl’s Christian bestseller, “To Train Up a Child”?
LikeLike
Apologies, some context will help. You said, “Parents, due to that bond we have with our kids, are the most qualified to look out for their best interests.”
To which I answered…
LikeLike
Oh well, trust you to find the illogical fringe of feminism to be the most logical. 🙂
As christianagnostic pointed out on the homeschooling post, when things go wrong in schools there are procedures in place. When the procedures aren’t good enough and someone is harmed, they are inevitably reviewed and changed. There are many checks and balances, and improvements are open to scrutiny. That’s great that someone who is a danger to kids was identified and removed from a school. I don’t think schools are inherently safer than homes (although I might be interested to investigate it), my point was that schools are a safe place for kids to explore and make bonds with other adults. I don’t think all parents on their own are ‘best’ qualified to look after the best interests of their kids, I’ll certainly take feedback from other people.
LikeLike
A well-reasoned and engaging post, Violet. Yes, I am more than just “a pretty thing to look at,” although I do not always mind being objectified. It happened to me recently as I stood in line at the grocery store–“handsome man” she called me–and I felt good for the rest of the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the difference is that your attempts to be treated seriously in areas like employment won’t be hampered by the notion that you’re a pretty little thing. In general, objectification is much stronger and of greater impact for women. I’m confident humans can find a way to enjoy chosen and natural appearances without undermining abilities.
LikeLike
Here’s a hypothetical for you, Violet: Ms. Smith has always found it easy to find good jobs in part because of her physical attractiveness. Is she being objectified, even exploited? Is this a bad thing for her?
LikeLike
I’m not much into hypothetical questions, every situation is unique. In general, people shouldn’t be getting jobs because they look more attractive – another aspect of inequality that hits both sexes. It’s a bad thing for society at large if when we judge people by appearances.
LikeLike
In the hypothetical example Jim gave, Ms Smith may have benefited from the situation, but the rest of the society loses. Her peers (or at least one of them) who applied for the job and possibly could have done it as well, or even better, but were not chosen because of their appearance affected the choise, lost.
Her employer who made the choise for an irrelevant reason, such as an appearance, may have lost the better qualified worker. She herself may have lost, in the sense, that to get the job to wich she may be underqualified in comparrison to someone else, she is required to submit to a culture of making real efforts to look good. Now she may, or may not see the sacrifice of her time and effort worth while. In any case she has perpetuated to a culture of providing jobs for bad reasons, she may even become aware of this fact, and it may be a stressfull experience.
“Each and everyone of us has a responsibility to stand up for the equality of mankind.” Stina Flink Museum educator at Upplands Museet, Sweden.
Our hypothetical Ms Smith may also have lost in the sense, that her work be it adequate, good or even exellent may often be undermined and disregarded, because people think she got the job, not on her actual professional merit, but because the person who made the choise did it on poor and irrelevant grounds. This may even become a strain on her future career, if she works in a narrow field of work and she becomes known as someone who got a job she really was not qualified for only because of her looks. If she got several jobs by the same method, as suggested in the hypothetical example, it is possible that some of this harm is extrapolated every single time. Surely the harm is greater than the benefit?
LikeLike
Agreed, rautakyy, and yet I’ll continue to prefer more attractive people to less attractive ones in a thousand subtle ways, as will you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Yes, so true.
There is also something to be said for making oneself as attractive as possible. To demand the whole entire world change and human beings to actually alter our nature under the guise of some human idea of fairness isn’t exactly moral. Why shouldn’t people look their best, feel their best, and have others respond positively to them?
LikeLike
Wow, you two are odd. So you are suggesting that because humans have a tendency to respond more positively to people deemed physically attractive (which is mainly a matter of social conditioning) it would be immoral to attempt remove this irrational bias from, for example, job interviews? It’s the kind of pure illogical reasoning I’ve come to expect from you Insanity. Jim, on the other hand, is just being superficial. I prefer attractive people in one way: that they are nice to look at. But I generally prefer looking at interesting people, so even that gain is minimal.
LikeLike
No Violet, I believe we should all wear our bunny slippers and pajama bottoms to job interviews, stop combing our hair, and basically just slump around the world demanding respect and telling people they shouldn’t judge us.
Like that even sounds rational.
LikeLike
Looking smart isn’t the same as being attractive.
LikeLike
Being attractive simply means being pleasing and appealing to the senses. You are acting as if everyone in the entire world must relinquish what they find “pleasing and appealing to the senses” because the whole idea offends you.
LikeLike
No, Violet, I’m not being superficial. I’m being realistic. And bias shown toward attractive people isn’t “mainly a matter of social conditioning.” Facial symmetry, for example, is a sign of healthy genes, i.e., it’s indicative of a desirable mate, and that’s why it’s universally recognized as attractive. Please don’t call me superficial while being superficial, Violet.
LikeLike
“So you are suggesting that because humans have a tendency to respond more positively to people deemed physically attractive, it would be immoral to attempt [to] remove this irrational bias ….” NO, Violet! It’s not that there’s anything wrong with trying to remove the bias, it’s the fact that the bias is more than simply a social construct. Ugly people shouldn’t be discriminated against–there, I said it!–but they really are ugly, whether you like it or not. And as a human, you have the same “tendency to respond more positively to people deemed physically attractive.” So you see, we actually agree on the discrimination issue. It’s just that you seem unwilling to admit that ugly people are in fact ugly and attractive ones attractive. Admitting that they’re ugly or attractive isn’t “superficial,” it’s merely accepting reality. So, let’s all make an effort to treat ugly people fairly. Fine. But they really are ugly.
LikeLike
Jim wrote: “Agreed, rautakyy, and yet I’ll continue to prefer more attractive people to less attractive ones in a thousand subtle ways, as will you.”
Yes, indeed I will, but not necessarily in every possible situation – Like in job interviews. Only way to awoid our biases is to at least become aware of them. We have plenty of natural traits, like preferring what we personally percieve as attracting, that we are actually able to put aside and that is equally a natural trait of ours.
What is attractive is a subjective matter. Only objective side to it is who is attractive to whom and when. I know people I found at first to be very unattractive, but who have become attractive in my eyes as I learned to know them. Even their looks seems better to me, though I recognize, that for someone to really be attractive to me, they also have to have an attractive mind. Some people who had ugly mind, may become decent human beings by learning more about the reality around them.
The claim Jim made, that some people just “really are ugly” is nonsense. The ancient Mayans used to prefer elongated skulls, wich by modern standards would be seen as weird and abnormal. They also inserted gems to their teeth, wich seems like a fashion statement again today. To me that seems like these people had food in their teeth and I find it less than attractive, but I would not discriminate against anybody on that grounds in a job interview, not even for work in service sector.
We may be able to come to a consensus on what can be considered generally attractive within a certain culture during some very limited time period, but it is only the majority vote on the issue and not some truth statement about it. Facial symmetry is considered a general thing about being attractive, but it is not a necessity for anyone to be actually attractive to others, not even in the sense, that it was the majority vote about every face.
LikeLike
Pingback: do you prefer attractive people? | violetwisp
The idea of “more than a pretty thing to look at” is interesting. “Pretty” basically means good genes, which to a large extent means good symmetry, doesn’t it? Yes, I know we as society have gone far beyond that (ex: photoshopping, and Victoria’s Secret models being certainly not the norm and are more the extreme), but aren’t we naturally inclined to subconsciously look for good symmetry since they are biological indicators of good genetics? Tyra Banks and Marilyn Monroe had the same symmetry ratios (apparently), both were celebrated models, yet both look very different looks in so many ways. Who gets to define “pretty” except on symmetrical terms?
Another thought is that in our society you can still get ahead being ugly – you just have to be either rich, or smart – i.e. get somewhere by using your brain. Helen Thomas trumps all the Fox News beauties in terms of career success, as does Christiane Amanpour, as does Barbara Walters. Katie Couric? Katheryn Bigelow? Judi Dench? Helen Mirren? Coco Chanel? Sheryl Sandberg? Same with guys. Look at this guy – http://www.seanstephenson.com. Osteogenesis Imperfecta and yet he has a beautiful wife. Consider Stephen Hawking, or any one of the Fortune 500 CEOs.
I’m not bringing up these examples to try and make a case that there aren’t stereotypes or that there isn’t systemic discrimination out there. I know there is. I bring these examples up to make a case that while the systemic problems do exist, there are instead two classes of people that cross all gender, color, economic status, and whatever lines – those who use the problems as their excuse to do nothing, and those who either use them to their advantage, or get past them regardless.
And radical feminists, I think they just get stupid here, trying to automatically include everyone in their cause on the one hand, yet trying to chew up and spit out all women for having any sort of advantage, be it their looks or anything else.
I agree, VW, at their base they seem to be both illogical and alienating, no matter what side of their issues one happens to be on. For every one of their supposed absolute “truths”, there’s thousands of walking contradictions which is why they’ll likely continue to lose.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Godless Cranium and commented:
I don’t usually reblog stuff but I really enjoyed this post by Violetwisp. I don’t agree with the entire thing, but I can certainly get on board for most of it.
LikeLike