What I would love to get into here, is Naomi's very interesting reaction to Pandora's post. You would do well to stop now, open her post in another tab and comeback after you read what she has to say about it.
Now I’ve read a couple of blogs by sexually submissive feminists (such as the very good Girl With a One Track Mind) and it’s something I’m really trying to get my head around. It seems counter-intuitive to me because my instinct is to encourage women to be powerful and assertive against a historical backdrop of oppression. But this blogger dresses up in chool uniforms and other costumes, and is spanked, dominated, tied-up and sexually submissive.
Assuming you have read her post, you will understand that she addresses her discomfort - a discomfort that I would argue is really quite healthy. I think we need to be uncomfortable when we are challenged. Not because it is fun, but because working through that discomfort is always a good teacher.
What I don't think that Naomi really addresses to a strong degree, is that women being powerful and assertive while also being sexually submissive are not mutually exclusive. First of all, submissive does not equal powerless. To the contrary, subs have very strict control over their situation (there are extremists who forgo safeties, but they are exceptional in BDSM and usually are men). They have an equal say in the rules before the fact and they have absolute control over the situation. I would even go as far as to say that subs actually have rather more control than your average sexual partner. The rules are generally very firmly established beforehand in a way that few casual couplings would even think about and in a way that few enough established couples ever really discuss. For most couples the preferences of their partners are learned as they go and often enough there are things that never really get established.
What is definitely unfeminist, is a feminist telling another woman how to have sex and what she can and can’t get her kicks out of. I want my feminism to include, for example, those women who have a gendered analysis of the world, they campaign for women’s rights, they challenge people’s everyday sexism and yet they're also down with consensual arse-slapping.
Sexuality is way too easy a target for some people. Growing up in U.S. culture makes it really easy for folks to have a visceral reaction to kink that doesn't happen to be their kink. The thing that a thoughtful person has to keep in mind, is that one's sexuality is not generally reflective of their identity outside the context of sex. I have all sorts of fetishes - though I am pretty vanilla for the most part. The thing is, my kink really isn't relevant outside the context of my sex life and sometimes discussions about sex. That someone might happen to like to be spanked, smacked around, disparaged horribly or otherwise abused, does not make them somehow less of a man or women. It just happens to be something that gets them off and probably also has some psychotherapeutic value.
If you are still having some difficulty wrapping your head around the idea that women who are sexually submissive, can also be strong feminist voices, consider the following questions. Would you ever even think about questioning the right of a women to call herself a feminist, simply because she is a heterosexual? Or because she prefers other women? How about because is just totally nuts over her sex toy collection? Can she be a feminist if she just really doesn't like sex at all, alone or with a partner? How about if she really likes sex in the great outdoors? I think that there are very few people indeed, who would argue that anything on that list could preclude a women from being a feminist and those who would are fringe loons. So why then would you consider it unfeminist for a women to have a sexual preference for being dominated?
The counter argument is: these women are perpetuating rape myths, they’re playing out their own internalised misogyny and they are making it harder for other women who are fighting against patriarchy. I simply do not think that this is true.
In this specific context, I cannot give a large enough and resounding enough call of BullShit! Not to Naomi's response, but to the expressed sentiment. What makes it harder for other women is
Moreover, this is a major sticky issue with identity politics across the board. Blaming a member of the out group, for being a bad representative of that group. Or even worse, being a member of the outgroup and judging every single thing you do, in terms of the implications as a representative of that group. This is not to say there may not be contexts in which this position is valid. But it is absolutely absurd to act like any one person can be held responsible for how they make that group look. I'm a caucasian male. Is anybody going to seriously claim that when I was a rather extreme substance abuser, that my substance abuse reflected poorly on white dudes? Is anybody going to say with a straight face, that my rather extreme philandering when I was a tad younger makes beige guys look bad?
Oh wait, there are very similar pressures exerted on men too. There are people who would claim that I have reflected poorly on other men - maybe not because of the philandering, that is after all, an archetypal masculine ideal. And I am sure that the substance abuse wouldn't be a problem - at least if I would just shut the fuck up about my addiction issues already. But I have committed some cardinal sins of man. I have questioned and probed into social conceptions of gender. I have no problem whatever, telling my male friends that I love them, if the situation call for such intimate validations. I am not the least squicked out about homosexuality - I have even experimented myself. And I have been known to wear clothes that usually only women wear - like skirts and stuff.
There are several other flavors of folks who would judge men, in relation to my personal actions. Or who would just be horrified that I do things that reflect poorly on them. I think I will just wander to the other end of the spectrum. Guys who are horrified that I would be the least bit critical of women - especially self styled feminists. It is, after all, none of my fucking business. Men who are horrified by the idea that I regularly hold doors for women (and other men often enough) or that I quite often will open the passenger door for my lovely girlfriend. Men who whimper at the notion that I have on occasion, been a bit of a pugilist. How could I be such an insensitive and brutish bastard?
So fuck all, I guess that it actually does count if you're a white male. Just not quite the same way it does if you happen to be sporting a uterus. And not even close to the same way it does if you are the member of an out group, say non-beige, queer, a damned foreigner...
Naomi has a lot more to talk about, so if you haven't stopped over there, do it NOW!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment