Yesterday, since radfem really got my ire up, I wrote a post describing how they are basically a religion. I stand behind everything I said too. While I found their recent equating of psychological analysis of societal fears of lesbian attraction to transwomen to rape to be extremely problematic (hence my ire being bubbled up), I try to focus my fight elsewhere when they don’t come in to my crosshairs. However, I think it is very important for me to understand how they think.
First off, since these issues are complicated, it is best to hear all sides of the argument. Because of a “language barrier” with different operational definitions of what it means to be a woman, it’s difficult to see it from their perspective without trying to get inside their head. My seeking to understand them was to -truly- see the other side from the same context they give it (at least as much as is possible for me). I can safely say on several counts “you’re still wrong”, but I don’t like to do that if I can’t do it “accurately.”
Also, for many reasons, while I don’t want to make them my primary enemy, I know that for several reasons we will inevitably be in conflict when various issues heat up. While the transphobia issue is fading from all but the most extreme radfem portals (twisty faster has denounced it back in 2009, which lead to a big rift in her cult of personality audience). I also see the idea of men and women as collective classes to be extraordinarily fatalistic to say the least. The narrative of “it doesn’t matter why men seek to enslave us with PIV sex, or even if they realize they are doing it; all that matters is that they do” is a somewhat simplistic view of an extremely complicated situation. Furthermore, it places genders into an almost “moral dichotomy,” but I’m repeating my last post at this point. I am an extreme individualist, and mentally I don’t feel like a man or a woman (some days I feel like more of one then the other, but neither denote my identity). Both of these things make me the enemy. Prioritization of individualist experience to the sexes as a group is the narrative of postmodernism that destroyed “real” feminism in their eyes. My gender fluidity is irrelevant to them as being born male, I have ALL the privlege (not just some) whether I like it or not. As a MAAB, I am literally incapable of being part of the solution since the only way one can truly do so is to grok the female experience.
This leads me into my most personal reason they and I are at odds. I do believe their points aren’t without merit. While my own points still stand, and we will never agree, their points aren’t entirely invalid. What scares me is if I had encountered this 10 years ago, when I was in a more formative phase, it would have devastated me. While I didn’t always call it feminism because of a misunderstanding of what it means (future post?), a lot of the ideas were rather easy for me to absorb whether I knew it was ‘feminism’ or not. Things like the lie of gender roles, sociological constructs, the deceptive narrative of society and the status quo; these were things I have been after since my teen years (and probably longer then that on a subconscious level). If I had seen things like how men are truly beyond redemption, PIV sex is solely a means to enslave women, etc. I would have been heartbroken. Desperately asking “what I can I do, I want to change this, I want to help.” However, further reading would only lead me to find that no matter what the cause, men are beyond redemption. The requisite for being part of the solution is to truly grok the female experience, and despite my inherent disconnect with “feeling like a man”, this would be impossible for me in their definition. The whole “inherently destructive” narrative would have stung because I have strong emotions and had a predilection toward violence when I was younger (I have made great gains in controlling that, but I can’t deny it’s a part of me). Honestly, I probably would have killed myself out of duty. So basically, my reason for opposition is that I know somewhere out there is a young man who thinks just like me who found radfem first and may have killed himself because of it. It’s admittedly over-dramatic, but I can’t deny the possibility, since I KNOW that would have been me if I discovered it 10 years ago.
Nowadays while I agree with the concept of privilege in principal (even though I think it is greatly distorted among different “camps”), I think the idea that the existence of people in privileged positions being inherently oppressive is complete and utter crap. People oppress by what they do, not what they are (a key disagreement I have with radfem it seems).
Regardless of all this, I’m not out to get them. While I can’t deny that we are natural enemies, I’m not on the attack (although I do feel justified in giving them a “counter-punch” to their reaction of the cotton ceiling talks). I want to change society as a whole, I want to make it so that LGBT people can be fully accepted as they are. I want to destroy the idea of pre-defined gender roles and sex-class appointments. People should be seen as people, no more, no less. US society has been rapidly backsliding on issues like sexism in the last 2 years. These are the points of attack I wish to engage on, and in this case, radfem are my allies (the enemy of my enemy and all that). I just think it’s important to know all the sides of the issue. This includes how the other sides think, even when I don’t agree with them. It’s the only way to objectively see my beliefs versus the scrutiny of those who disagree. Plus, if this does de-evolve to warfare, I can attack at areas that they aren’t trained to defend, since the language barrier usually barricades that sort of thing.
Finally, because I don’t feel I have particularly strongly made my point as to why I believe I am right despite knowing how they think, I’ll give some counter examples to their mentality as I have come to understand it.
1. No woman truly wants PIV sex.
-FALSE: I won’t give names or identities, but lets just say that several of my galpals absolutely love it. Like I said last time, some of my galpals have a penchant for being blunt and oversharing, and have explained to me in great detail how they love “his cock in me” (it was an amusing conversation, and most of my other friends were in the other room because the “TMI” was too much for them to deal with, which gave me a wicked schadenfreude).
2. Porn is exclusively for men and the exploitation of women.
-FALSE: The porn INDUSTRY is jaw-droppingly problematic, but that’s not the same as erotica in and of itself. That’s like saying because there are problems in the agriculture industry (and there are), food is problematic. I believed this on a passive level for a while. However, that illusion shattered to bits when I came face to face with slash fanfic. It is primarily female dominated, to the point where in some circles, being male and knowing about it/reading it is equated to a stereotypical teenage boy peeking in the girls locker room (one of those “female spaces” radfem goes on about). This is sexuality raw and unfiltered through a female gaze. While things obviously vary with individual tastes (and there is quite a bit of it from women just discovering their sexuality), sex is a very real recurring theme. Acts of dominance and submission (“seme” and “uke”) are as standard here as they are in any other heteronormative idea. One of the common themes is the idea that these 2 men, stoic and reserved, when with their erotic partners have that armor pierced. That raw, powerful emotional bond that emanates from them. While I don’t find that particularly erotic, it is a pretty neat concept. Also, and this will pop radfem’s mind, just like one of the most problematic parts of the mainstream porn industry, a disturbing number of slashfic involves rape, and isn’t objected to at all.
I don’t have anything against fandom subculture at all (although there are some parts of it that bring up my ire a bit). I am just pointing out that “porn is solely by and for men dominating women” is patently disproven here.
I’m sure there are many others, but those are the most definitive 2 I can think of.
I promise next time I’ll post about something else.
ETA: When I said I thought radfem was a religion, I knew I was on to something, but I think I made a larger connection then I realized.
I read an interview with Mary Daly (the King David of radfem, the woman after the goddess’s own heart) in enlightenment magazine. What I saw there confirmed what I have been saying more then I thought possible. I knew she was a central figure in feminist theology, but her responses, her views…what I read there was not the works of an academic philosopher seeking to challenge the system. Those were works of a religious founder (although it could be argued that Dworkin “came first”, but I don’t know if she took the religious approach). Deliberately detaching herself from “the world” in all its trappings, she seeks to become her ideal. A combination of naturalism and the belief that women are inherently holy. I don’t know her views on men because she works so hard to detach herself from sin menfolk, but they aren’t good to say the least. I knew I was on to something, but to think it would be confirmed this thoroughly. Oh well, I’ll cut this off here. An interesting interview, and confirms what I said last post more then I had dreamed.