Jump to content

Feminist hysteria is causing the infantilization of women


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only thing, though, Obsidian, is that I don't see how Obama really "challenges the status quo" or "white privilege", such as they are. Except in cosmetic ways. At best he represents a segment of the ethnic population that's been co-opted into the power structure. This serves to blunt criticism of and divide opposition to said power structure, thereby reinforcing it more than anything. But the power structure has changed him a lot more than vice versa. Assuming he EVER intended to really change it that much.

 

No doubt that all kinds of nonsensical racial paranoia exists among tea bagger types - I saw an article the other day about some right wing nut job who figured Obama was importing ebola into the country as a plan to decimate the white population. They ARE losing status and prestige and they're freaking out. No question of that.

 

None the less, I see Obama as being a very minimal threat to the status quo in any appreciable sense. As is generally the case in American politics, it's mostly a shadow play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt that all kinds of nonsensical racial paranoia exists among tea bagger types - I saw an article the other day about some right wing nut job who figured Obama was importing ebola into the country as a plan to decimate the white population.

 

Haha! I read some similar paranoia regarding internment camps just a day or two ago, as well -- though not for the white population, but everybody the state disapproves of or something along those lines.

 

EDIT: found it, and it is even paranoidier than I remember!

 

15335062808_dc2ac14570_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to my thoughts on the ACTUAL thread topic at hand, the author is basically guilty of what she's alleging: She's infantilizing women by implying that are naive and easily manipulated, a view that is deeply ingrained in our culture, and something that feminism has actually been fighting against for decades.

 

I think I've addressed this before on another thread. If need be, I can try to restate that and clarify my position.

 

One quick aside, in response to Kurgan:

 

l should say it's the PERCEPTION that the Teabaggers have. And, if you look at Obama's life before becoming president, he did a lot of work that helped minority groups (and the poor in general of all races, but the real sin is helping black people). Hence why the Tea Baggers regard 'community organizer' as a pejorative. He actually was trying to help improve the status of black people. That's why the Tea baggers are so threatened by him, and are okay with people like Cain and Jindal. They are not doing anything to actively benefit minorities, so they are 'acceptable' brown people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to my thoughts on the ACTUAL thread topic at hand, the author is basically guilty of what she's alleging: She's infantilizing women by implying that are naive and easily manipulated, a view that is deeply ingrained in our culture, and something that feminism has actually been fighting against for decades.

OK, but even if the author is guilty of infantilizing women herself (and I'm not saying she is), so what? It doesn't necessarily mean feminist hysteria is not causing the infantilization of women.

 

Ted Bundy calling John Wayne Gacy a serial killer doesn't make Gacy any less murdery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing:

 

Feminism and civil rights HAVE impacted somewhat the manner in which women and minorities interact with white males, especially WITHIN the establishment; the halls of power, as it were. They've made a president Obama or a president Hillary real possibilities. Openly racist and sexist epithets are sternly frowned upon, at least in any official capacity.

 

What feminism and civil rights are not and can never be, is a real threat to the actual way that wealth and power work in America. The 1%, so to speak, are not in the least bit threatened by more women and minorities within their ranks. Some individual members thereof certainly are. But as a strata of society taken as a whole, no. A lot of modern leftists seem to think that white male power and privilege form the foundation of the entire social order. If the CEOs of all the Fortune 500 corporations were black or women, this wouldn't matter AT ALL from the perspective of maximizing share holder value or of privileged access to government and overall social influence. If "leftists" today were worthy of that term, they'd know this. Not that this makes equal opportunity across racial and gender lines completely superfluous, only that it should not be looked upon as a subversive threat akin to anarchism.

 

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if today's social conflict theory set is worthy of even the term "liberal", let alone "radical." Their GREATEST influence is within Ivy League academia and mass media, with no small presence in the legal system and corporate HR departments - pretty much the "system" or the "status quo" by definition. If the kinds of feminism and anti racism you'd find on a lot of campuses was truly a threat to the powers that be, do you think these venerable, tradition bound elitist institutions would countenance five seconds of it ... let alone allow, nay ENCOURAGE courses that actually instruct it?

 

Think about it.

 

These are forms of dissent that have been manufactured and disseminated by "the system" and depend entirely on the power structures they go through the motions of criticizing for their very existance. Many of the fringe right groups they villify actually have better claims to being a real threat to the social order. Between that and the aforementioned Victorianesque purity that really seems to be at the heart of a lot of this so called feminism, the fact that their true concerns inevitably always boil down to aesthetics and sexuality, I'm starting to think there's nothing really "radical", let alone liberal or progressive about it. More like conservatism in drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the 1% aren't threatened by civil rights and feminism. But, they make good wedge issues for cynically manipulating people to their benefit.

 

By all accounts, Nixon was a very accepting person without the slightest bit of personal racism. He had black Secret Service agents and a black Air Force One pilot who he was on friendly terms with. That did not stop him from creating the Southern Strategy, using the racism of the southerners still bitter about civil rights movement as a mechanism to gain power. It was used by Reagan and other Republicans up until the mid-90's.

 

Remember, the Teabaggers are the useful idiots of the establishment (Wall Street, the 1% and corporate America). What better way to get Tea Party voters to support policies that directly harm them than to exploit their prejudices to the establishment's benefit.

 

Of course the establishment Republicans don't care about Obama's race. And honestly, they have benefitted from many of his policies. But, they also benefit from inflaming racism against him, convincing elderly bitter white voters to vote against their own best interests. So, if they can use racism or opposition to feminism to their advantage, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going on a bit of a tangent Obsidian...?

 

And, on this:

 

Obama is a black man. He identifies as such, and he connects to black culture. That's the real sin. He does not cast off his black heritage and act like it's not part of him. ... He has openly worked against the status quo by climbing the ladder to power on his own merits, and seeks to help other blacks and minorities to do the same.

LOL, really?

 

We're talking about Obama here, not Al Sharpton.

 

As a 1%er, Obama has been better to me than even Bush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the establishment Republicans don't care about Obama's race. And honestly, they have benefitted from many of his policies. But, they also benefit from inflaming racism against him, convincing elderly bitter white voters to vote against their own best interests. So, if they can use racism or opposition to feminism to their advantage, they will.

This is certainly true.

 

In the same vein, though, I think the "liberal" and democrat establishments use the same issues to get their own demographics all riled up for their own political benefit. If the "conservatives" sell working class white males on status anxiety, blaming minorities and feminists for their woes, the "liberals" sell the same to the precarious black and female middle class - get them blaming their woes on working class white males. Relatively little policy ends up being enacted to benefit either segment of the underclass, but the ideological propaganda machines work overtime to keep the base outraged and therefore loyal. It's an old game. In the days of their strength, the trade unions had their members all in a snit over "brown" and "yellow" labor stealing their jobs, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, feminists are too busy fighting with each other over who is more feminist. That's the real friggin problem. There are so many dichotomies that it makes my head spin. Show your boobs! Cover it up so that men don't think of you as a sex object. You're just enabling rape culture, blah blah blah.

 

I just want to do my job, live my life, raise my family the way I see fit. If someone takes issue with the way I work or live because I'm a woman, I can stand up for myself without having to call in the troops or cry that I'm a victim, thankyouverymuch. I have and will continue to call people on their BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra, on 12 Oct 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:snapback.png

This article seems pretty straw mannish to me and is making a lot of assumptions that women are "being told" this or that, which I don't even know to be the case, as if women collectively or individually can't make up their own minds, in the first place.

Do you watch TV? Read opinion pieces? Have a Facebook feed?

 

I'm not even a wimmen, yet have personally seen each and every example you quoted... multiple times! I think I even made a thread about the "bossy" thing.

 

Aside: one of my friends is what you might call a "feminazi" based on how rigid and humorless she is about "women's issues," the books she reads, the company she keeps, etc. But she recently made the choice (the personal choice) to be a stay-at-home mom until the youngest is in grade school, and is now ready to murder the next friend who lets out a subtle-but-obviously-disappointed sigh, a "But, but... you're so educated!" observation, or quasi-accusatory query about why her husband isn't the one putting his career on hold to take care of the demon spawn.

 

She is "being told" by people who share her belief system, people she has long considered friends, that she has chosen... poorly. And having heard her make identical comments regarding other "smart" women choosing to "waste their potential" as homemakers, I am getting secret immense pleasure seeing her taste her own medicine.

 

 

 

I don't deny that if you look hard enough, you can make the case that ANY message with any agenda you want to cite can be found in mass and social media, including anti-feminist messages, not just contradictory feminist messages. My point is that I don't believe in the conspiracy idea that there is some cabal of a secret feminist society that has taken over, is dedicated to social engineering a society that transforms America into a matriarchy, and is now sending out marching orders to all women everywhere on how to live, what is approved of, etc. Look, if you want to listen to right wing opinion, or left wing, on political issues, there's an app for that. IF you want to listen to 4 women on a couch in front of a live audience, cackle on about silly nonsense, there's an app for that, too. For every feminazi message you can cite, I can probably find a counter example of a TV show, or print, or a facebook meme that women shouldn't take responsibility for their lives, be self centered and live a hedonistic lifestyle, and let the rest of the world handle their problems for them. The existence of shows like the Kardashians is proof of that.

 

 

So, no Pong, I don't buy that. Yes, there are a host of messages being sent to women on how to be a proper feminist and how to be properly outraged, but mass media is chock full of hundreds of other examples of other messages directed at other groups, too, including a counter-narrative to the traditional feminist view. It really comes down to the individual on what they tend to watch on TV, hear on radio, read, or post on social media. It's the age-old argument of one gravitates towards what one associates with.

 

 

Quote

Do women really feel like they are being coddled? Is that even the message that is being collectively conspired and presented in the first place? Seems more to me that Ashe Schow is just interpreting for herself what she sees as "being told," and "telling us" what she sees as an absolute truth, which is just her arbitrary interpretation. It seems to me that if a woman is truly in control of herself, even if what this article alleges is true, they aren't going to be insecure enough to even worry about what politicians, pundits, and celebrities are "telling them" what they ought to be outraged or upset about, in the first place. If a woman can truly think for herself, she is going to decide what she ought to be concerned about on her own (or not), and the author is guilty of the very thing she is alleging.

I don't know how people feel collectively. As stated earlier, I don't think coddling is the intent at all. I think it's a hugely ironic byproduct of trying so hard to make women strong and independent.

 

As far as being in control of yourself, people are very much affected by what they hear and what is expected of them, even if it is untrue or unrealistic, and even if they claim to be independent. The shows you watch, the books you read, the people you talk to -- it all affects you.

 

 

 

 

Again, it comes down to what the individual seeks out to read, watch, listen to, etc, though. Why do you think there are so many points of view being blasted daily through mass and social media? It's because the market has been so segmented, that there is a message for almost any train of thought. I don't deny that what you read, see or hear affects you over time and changes your world view, but these days, I think there are enough messages being sent out, that people nowadays tend to just seek out a message they agree with and just listen to that, to reinforce what they already think. For example, let's take the typical Rush Limbaugh listener. Do you think such a person who is a fan of Limbaugh wasn't already a republican or conservative BEFORE such a person started listening, or is Limbaugh just preaching to the choir, and re-enforcing what his audience already believes? Of course it is the latter. Limbaugh doesn't persuade anyone, he is just re-enforcing opinions (or fears) people already have, and giving them legitimacy, because they hear what they already believe being broadcast on radio. But one has to actively seek that out and listen to it, to either agree with it, or become outraged by it. I think the same thing can be said about these contradictory feminist views the author of the article is citing. That is why I think the author is guilty of the same thing she is accusing the media of doing. She herself is cherry picking examples, and then forming her own conclusion. If someone is empowered and thinks for oneself, be it a man OR a woman, those views aren't going to affect them, unless they let it happen. Conversely, depending on someone's world view (or emotional baggage), two people can view the exact same message very differently, sometimes in a distorted way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, being feminist, to ME, means I should be able to do what men do for work without being paid differently based on gender, that I should be able to dress the way I want to without fearing assault based on my dress and that I should be regarded with just as much respect as a male in the same situations.

 

It doesn't mean, to me, that I should expect to be given a pass or advantage when competing in sports or physical jobs that have to do with safety or that gender differences should be totally ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that I don't believe in the conspiracy idea that there is some cabal of a secret feminist society that has taken over, is dedicated to social engineering a society that transforms America into a matriarchy, and is now sending out marching orders to all women everywhere on how to live, what is approved of, etc. Look, if you want to listen to right wing opinion, or left wing, on political issues, there's an app for that. IF you want to listen to 4 women on a couch in front of a live audience, cackle on about silly nonsense, there's an app for that, too. For every feminazi message you can cite, I can probably find a counter example of a TV show, or print, or a facebook meme that women shouldn't take responsibility for their lives, be self centered and live a hedonistic lifestyle, and let the rest of the world handle their problems for them. The existence of shows like the Kardashians is proof of that.

 

I am not sure how to respond to this. Sorry. Will read it again later when I have more time.

 

 

So, no Pong, I don't buy that. Yes, there are a host of messages being sent to women on how to be a proper feminist and how to be properly outraged, but mass media is chock full of hundreds of other examples of other messages directed at other groups, too, including a counter-narrative to the traditional feminist view. It really comes down to the individual on what they tend to watch on TV, hear on radio, read, or post on social media. It's the age-old argument of one gravitates towards what one associates with.

 

I agree about birds to a feather. That said, you don't see the MRA folks shaping policies on college campuses, in the workplace, or waging campaigns to correct/shame people for saying the wrong thing (but they are relatively new on the scene; maybe they just need more time). So even if people only gravitate toward messages that excite them, certain messages have actually trickled down to the policy level, while others remain in the realm of Jägermeister-fueled hand-puppets, and have little to no measurable effect upon our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I agree about birds to a feather. That said, you don't see the MRA folks shaping policies on college campuses, in the workplace, or waging campaigns to correct/shame people for saying the wrong thing (but they are relatively new on the scene; maybe they just need more time). So even if people only gravitate toward messages that excite them, certain messages have actually trickled down to the policy level, while others remain in the realm of Jägermeister-fueled hand-puppets, and have little to no measurable effect upon our society.

I am assuming MRA=Men's Rights Activists.

 

Sure, you don't see the MRA shaping policies on college campuses, in the workplace, or waging campaigns to correct/shame people for saying the wrong thing, etc, but one thing you must keep in mind that policies ebb and flow as the pendulum shifts. Feminism was and is a reactionary movement against much of the history of western civilization (for sake of this argument, we will limit it to the middle ages on), where women largely were considered second class citizens and couldn't vote or own property and literally had no voice. So in the grand scheme of things, several generations of Feminism and political correctness are still in their infancy, compared to the rest of western civilization. Sure, when the feminist movement (in the 1970s) was in full swing, it was lead by radicals with extreme views. I think it is fair to say that in some aspects of feminist thought has swung the pendulum too far, and as a result you had the MRA folks come into being, as a counter-counter movement. But I don't think it is fair to say that MRA is necessarily a new movement, but rather a movement that demands a restoration of how things were prior to feminism. I think it remains to be seen if the pendulum will swing back the other way, as it often does in other issues. It likely will, but hopefully not swinging back too far, and still leaving behind the concept of fairness for all, regardless of gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that I don't believe in the conspiracy idea that there is some cabal of a secret feminist society that has taken over, is dedicated to social engineering a society that transforms America into a matriarchy, and is now sending out marching orders to all women everywhere on how to live, what is approved of, etc. Look, if you want to listen to right wing opinion, or left wing, on political issues, there's an app for that. IF you want to listen to 4 women on a couch in front of a live audience, cackle on about silly nonsense, there's an app for that, too. For every feminazi message you can cite, I can probably find a counter example of a TV show, or print, or a facebook meme that women shouldn't take responsibility for their lives, be self centered and live a hedonistic lifestyle, and let the rest of the world handle their problems for them. The existence of shows like the Kardashians is proof of that.

No 'cabal' has taken over, no. What you do have with feminism, though, as with any ideology, is an organized belief system that does engage in activity with the intention of taking power, or at least of influencing things somewhat. That's why these movements are formed in the first place. The MRA myth that radical feminists pretty much dictate to the courts and the government is no less hyperbolic than any other wild conspiracy theory you can think of. In many, many places, feminists fight an uphill battle against the religious right over abortion, and so forth. That said, my ample experience with them in social media shows an almost frightening degree of ideological uniformity and a very strong tendency towards being self referential and relying on sanctioned authority and catechism while in discussion - "quoting the bible to prove the existence of God", as it were.

 

Plus an almost overwhelming sense of entitlement to unquestioned agreement based on their status as "oppressed" peoples and besides, it's just the nice, decent, gentlemanly thing to do. Oh, and if you disagree with them, it's also because you're not getting laid. Which has a funny way of suddenly becoming a bad thing, rather than something that males only want because of "entitlement." No ideology in present circulation so forthrightly rejects any notion of burden of proof and demands allegiance solely on the basis of their identity alone. Other ideological groups might not make good cases, but they do, to varying degrees, try. Not so the feminists. It's always "agree with me or you're a bad person", not as a last resort, but a first measure. Every time. This would not be a problem were this the behavior of the odd crank, but this is standard operating procedure with them. They ALL do it.

 

So while I don't think there's a conspiracy per-se, it does seem like a whole lot of group think is going on here, that IS being directed by a loose, informal association of leaders who share a number of tacit agreements. Strong taboos exist against straying from the party line, except in the sorts of pre-approved, cosmetic ways that really just reinforce the party line anyway - criticisms of feminism for being too "white" or too "hetero" and so on. A sort of informal variation on what their Marxist Leninist forebearers called democratic centralism.

 

I agree about birds to a feather. That said, you don't see the MRA folks shaping policies on college campuses, in the workplace, or waging campaigns to correct/shame people for saying the wrong thing (but they are relatively new on the scene; maybe they just need more time). So even if people only gravitate toward messages that excite them, certain messages have actually trickled down to the policy level, while others remain in the realm of Jägermeister-fueled hand-puppets, and have little to no measurable effect upon our society.

 

That could change, mind you. Just a few, or maybe even a single good leader to sharpen up their ideology and moderate their message could have an impact that could really snowball over time. Perhaps it's time for a career change ... <grin>

 

The degree of reverence given feminism in most "official" cultural spaces - colleges, mainstream media and so forth, is another real problem I have. Can you say "sacred cow", people? The MRA movement, for all its absurdities, exists almost entirely because criticism of feminism simply doesn't exist elsewhere, except maybe the far right ghetto, where it's not really a big thing anyway. The right in America today has no ideology what so ever except for personal hatred of the persons of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, plus whatever democratic party personality happens to be representative in the given region or congressional district. The MRAs were created pretty much entirely by the closed system of belief that feminism is, and that characterizes our broader culture's embrace or ignorance of feminism. They are, and will for the foreseeable future be, the only game in town for those who are skeptical of feminism. And just so we're clear here, I'm not just talking of the classical liberal notions of what feminism is; equality before the law and so on. I'm talking "tumblr feminism" type stuff - the whiny, sanctimonious, victim mongering type stuff the article criticizes.

 

And that's NOT a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

My point is that I don't believe in the conspiracy idea that there is some cabal of a secret feminist society that has taken over, is dedicated to social engineering a society that transforms America into a matriarchy, and is now sending out marching orders to all women everywhere on how to live, what is approved of, etc. Look, if you want to listen to right wing opinion, or left wing, on political issues, there's an app for that. IF you want to listen to 4 women on a couch in front of a live audience, cackle on about silly nonsense, there's an app for that, too. For every feminazi message you can cite, I can probably find a counter example of a TV show, or print, or a facebook meme that women shouldn't take responsibility for their lives, be self centered and live a hedonistic lifestyle, and let the rest of the world handle their problems for them. The existence of shows like the Kardashians is proof of that.

No 'cabal' has taken over, no. What you do have with feminism, though, as with any ideology, is an organized belief system that does engage in activity with the intention of taking power, or at least of influencing things somewhat. That's why these movements are formed in the first place. The MRA myth that radical feminists pretty much dictate to the courts and the government is no less hyperbolic than any other wild conspiracy theory you can think of. In many, many places, feminists fight an uphill battle against the religious right over abortion, and so forth. That said, my ample experience with them in social media shows an almost frightening degree of ideological uniformity and a very strong tendency towards being self referential and relying on sanctioned authority and catechism while in discussion - "quoting the bible to prove the existence of God", as it were.

 

Plus an almost overwhelming sense of entitlement to unquestioned agreement based on their status as "oppressed" peoples and besides, it's just the nice, decent, gentlemanly thing to do. Oh, and if you disagree with them, it's also because you're not getting laid. Which has a funny way of suddenly becoming a bad thing, rather than something that males only want because of "entitlement." No ideology in present circulation so forthrightly rejects any notion of burden of proof and demands allegiance solely on the basis of their identity alone. Other ideological groups might not make good cases, but they do, to varying degrees, try. Not so the feminists. It's always "agree with me or you're a bad person", not as a last resort, but a first measure. Every time. This would not be a problem were this the behavior of the odd crank, but this is standard operating procedure with them. They ALL do it.

 

So while I don't think there's a conspiracy per-se, it does seem like a whole lot of group think is going on here, that IS being directed by a loose, informal association of leaders who share a number of tacit agreements. Strong taboos exist against straying from the party line, except in the sorts of pre-approved, cosmetic ways that really just reinforce the party line anyway - criticisms of feminism for being too "white" or too "hetero" and so on. A sort of informal variation on what their Marxist Leninist forebearers called democratic centralism.

 

Eh, maybe there are feminist thinkers who do believe that, but I think by and large, most feminists don't want to supplant men in the power structure. They just want to have an equal voice and an equal opportunity as any man does. And what is wrong with that?

 

I am not an expert on the history of feminism as a movement by any means, but my understanding of the feminist movement is that it has gone though different waves, flavors if you will, over time. In the beginning, it was largely white, college educate, upper middle class women from western civilization. But, the following waves recognized that the first wave did not necessarily speak to all the concerns, desires, wants, and needs of other groups of women from various ethnic and economic backgrounds, with each wave adding more and more dimension to concerns of various groups of women. For example, the white Christian upper class married women of the first wave assumed that their needs were the same as a minority, black single mother lesbian, and felt they could speak for that group However, in later waves, it became recognized that not only assumed too much in thinking that the first group could speak for other groups, but some groups of women had entirely different agendas. Thus there was a fragmentation of the feminist movement.

 

I think today, there still is a disconnect with some of the feminist leadership or philosophers, and the "real world" every day feminist woman. I don't mean to pull other nightly posters into my argument, so apologies before hand, but I think Destiny Skywalker, CM, ad MG are good examples of everyday, "real world" feminists. They work hard and want equal recognition. DS and CM in particular have achieved a certain amount of success in life, and had to overcome a certain amount of "old boys club" to get where they are, but also don't necessarily want to tear down all of society to remake it into some matriarchal utopia, where men get some measure of payback for past wrongs. I think they embody everything that is good about the feminist movement.

 

Conversely, you have the cliched feminist academics who live in their ivory tower fantasy lands, some could be said to be resentful of men in the extreme, that may be espousing what you argue above. The reason for this world view could be as varied as each individual. Maybe they are just maladjusted people who couldn't find a career anywhere else, and just happen to write well and landed in academia. I don't know. But one thing is clear to me, is that like the previous waves of feminism (at least as I understand it), I don't think they reflect what mainstream, real world feminists believe, in many cases. And what I am arguing is that even if that extreme view of some of the radical academic feminists is expressed ubiquitously in mass and social media, I think at the very least, the real world feminists of the world recognize their fantasy world arguments, and indeed anyone who can think critically for themselves, that some of the philosophies professed by these ivory tower types for what they are, as invalid and unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It needs to be made clear that there is not one, all encompassing 'feminism' to which all feminists prescribe.

 

Feminism is divided into three phases. I'm simplifying here, because I don't understand all the nuances myself.:

 

First-wave feminism was active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and was primarily focused on gaining women's suffrage and property rights.

 

Second-wave feminism is actually what many people think of when they think of feminism, and was active in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Second wave worked for other issues, allowing women to make gains in the workplace, strengthening rape laws, bringing the issue of domestic abuse to the foreground, etc.

 

Unfortunately, second-wave feminism had two major flaws. One was that it was an almost entirely white, upper-middle class movement, one that largely ignored and ostracized transgender women, minorities, and women who did not adhere to second-waver's definition of women . The other major flaw led to what's been called the 'Feminist Sex Wars', the result of a conflict between anti-pornography (or, derisively, 'anti-sex') feminists, like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, and what are called 'Sex-positive' feminists, like Susie Bright and Betty Dodson, who essentially believe that, without sexual freedom for women, there can be no equality.

 

These two issues led to the emergence of the current form of feminism, the third-wave. Born in the 1990's, third-wave is largely, although not entirely, made up of sex-positive feminists, and is largely focused on issues that affect non-white women and women who are not heterosexual, part of the gender-binary, or who are just part of a sexual minority. Issues that concern third-wave include, but are not limited to, reproductive freedoms, eliminating gender stereotypes, gaining sexual equality, equal pay, an end to sexual bullying ('slut-shaming'), sexual violence, and changing what has been dubbed 'rape-culture' (the idea, well founded I might add, that society excuses and normalizes rape via the messages it sends). Some, although not all, also seek the reform of age-of-consent laws because their implementation is often sexist.

 

While there are still second-wavers active today, most feminists now are third-wave, and they REALLY don't get along with second-wave feminists. You are pretty much guaranteed a bloodbath if you put the two in the same room.

 

Now that we've got that squared away, I will explain why I feel the author of the piece is guilty of the very thing she alleges. Because society itself inherently infantilizes women.

 

If you hang around feminists, especially third-wavers, for long enough, you will inevitably hear the word 'agency' thrown around. Agency, in feminist discourse, is the ability of a person to act of their own volition. When you remove their ability to act of their own will, you remove their agency.

 

When a woman is denied the ability to speak on her behalf, she's denied agency. When a woman's contribution to a work is denied or minimized, she's denied agency. When a woman is denied the right to make decisions about her own health and body, she's denied agency. When a woman is treated as prop or a prize to be won in entertainment, she's denied agency. When a woman's right to make sexual decisions for herself is removed, or she is shamed for her sexual choices, she is denied agency.

 

Society routinely does this, in ways large and small. I'll give you one example:

 

I've mentioned before, a recurring trope in entertainment. We have all seen it: A father interrogates his teenage daughter’s boyfriend, threatening to cut the boys balls off if the boy lays a hand on the dad’s ‘little girl’. The implication here is, that the girl needs her father, a male authority figure, to protect her chastity. The father, not the girl herself, is in charge of controlling sexual access to the girl. He is the gatekeeper to her sexuality. When the girl then married, that gatekeeper status is passed on to her husband. At no time is the girl portrayed as being in control of her own sexuality.

 

The implication being, that a woman’s sexuality belongs to MEN. That women are not supposed to be sexual on their own terms.

 

Sex in popular culture is not something women HAVE, on their own terms. It’s something DONE TO them. It’s something they do to please their husbands, an act to get over with quickly so they can get back to something else.
Very rarely do you see a work of fiction where a woman is portrayed as an openly sexual being without any shame or judgement at all. When we do see female lust, it’s usually played for comedy, as something ridiculous and absurd because it is such an aberration.
Almost never do you see the acknowledgement that a woman has a libido and sexual desires of her own.
When a woman is shown to be sexual, it is almost always presented as a result of her being ‘damaged’, or a ‘victim’.
The implication: That the girl is not a sexual being, that she possesses no sexual autonomy of her own. Because of course, if the girl has sex with the boy, it MUST be his idea. (Which also, by the way, contains the implication that the boy is a borderline sexual predator, but that's another issue). Sexuality and agency is removed from the girl, the implication being that she possesses no sexual desires of her own. Because according to society, women are not sexual beings. She has no will of her own, she just does whatever the boy says. Of course the boy ‘took advantage’ of her, because she is inherently naive, chaste and innocent.
It denies her an identity, makes her an inherent victim, essentially a puppet to be led around by other people.

 

This is but one way (and the most easy to explain) in which society itself denies women agency, in which women are infantilized. This is something that feminism, especially third wave with it's focus on the idea of 'agency', has been fighting against for a long time.

 

The author of the article linked is guilty of what she is alleging, because she is implying, probably unintentionally, that women are as easily manipulated and vulnerable as society already believes they are.

 

Oh, and the first person to post tl;dr, gets a virtual slap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a fun read. Thanks, Obsidian.

 

I disagree on the author -- still haven't re-read the article, but I think she's saying that feminism and the government are, through speech restrictions and other means teaching women (probably inadvertently) that they are super vulnerable and must be protected every step they take in life -- teaching them to be babies, essentially -- which really isn't the same as saying women are infantile. She's talking about a learned behavior. Like raising your hand in class. Or saying "please" and "thanks." Or using the toilet rather than pooping in your pants. I mean, we teach people how they should think and modify their behavior their whole lives through gradeschool, college, work training, church, self-help books, etc. I mean, if everybody who is conditioned to behave a certain way is infantile, the only adult on the planet is some guy who's lived in a cave his whole life. And he probably poops in his beard.

 

But yeah. While most people are probably innately more one than the other, you can teach helplessness and you can teach self-reliance, and people will use the tools they have been given.

 

One amusing game to play with famous sex-positive and anti-sex feminists is to do a random search and looking at ten images of each. Which ones are smiling and which ones are scowling? Mind you, it's not 100%, but the results are often pretty lopsided!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding "agency" as Obsidian described it, I think what the author is questioning, and what I've been asking for a long time now, is whether or not this:

"When a woman is denied the ability to speak on her behalf, she's denied agency. When a woman's contribution to a work is denied or minimized, she's denied agency. When a woman is denied the right to make decisions about her own health and body, she's denied agency. When a woman is treated as prop or a prize to be won in entertainment, she's denied agency. When a woman's right to make sexual decisions for herself is removed, or she is shamed for her sexual choices, she is denied agency."

applies to the self described feminist leadership itself?

 

When a woman is denied "the ability to speak on her behalf" by a feminist leadership who claims to know better than she herself what is or is not 'offensive' or 'sexist', is she denied agency then? I've personally read feminists who claim, with a stroke of logic that would make the 1935 Soviet Politburo proud, that no woman should have the right to challenge or question feminist ideology on anything, since she has said ideology to thank for her "freedom" in the first place. If she cannot be depicted in entertainment as being romantically or sexually involved with a man for fear of outcries of "women in refrigerators" "Stepford wife" or something such, is she denied agency then? If women are shamed for making sexual choices that feminist ideologues disapprove of, are they denied agency then?

 

When the bulk of the opposition to depictions of female sexual agency in popular culture and media come from feminists themselves, crying "objectification", "sexualization", "commodification" or what-not, are they denied agency then? If this supposed female agency is to be exercised in a cultural climate in which the only permissible paradigm of discussion of gender relationships is 'male oppressor/female victim' and statements by men that they are not always such bad actors as they are made out, or that women are not always so great are met with canned cries of "privileged males need to make everything about themselves" or the like, can this agency really be looked upon as genuine? Plus, the notion that "If the girl has sex with the boy, it MUST be his idea, Which also, by the way, contains the implication that the boy is a borderline sexual predator" is pretty much the stock-in-trade perception behind much feminist advocacy and lobbying over the shifting definition of consent, defining as "rape" sex that occurs after a few drinks, and so forth.

 

Not to mention the question of: what of men? If any exercise of "agency" on part of a male; a cis-heterosexual white male especially, is viewed solely and entirely through the 3rd wave feminist lens of "privilege" vs "marginalization" and therefore met with cries of "harassment" "objectification" or "entitlement", do women (who still prefer overwhelmingly that men make the first move) have agency then? Men who buy into this certainly don't, though it seems to me based on observation that a male's entitlement to "agency" is contingent entirely on his propensity to spout feminist slogans. If a woman is reduced from the status of "human being" to the status of "object" as a result of a male's sexual desire for her, as the common use of the term "objectification" I've observed in feminist and liberal blogs and so forth would imply, does this likewise imply that a girl is "not a sexual being, possessing no sexual autonomy of her own?" Can her sexual agency exist if and only if the male's doesn't? If a teenage girl's boyfriend is threatened not by her father, but mother or sisters or girlfriends, does the girl herself somehow have more control over her own sexuality?

 

You see, I think it comes down to this: based on what I've seen in my fifteen years of interest in sexual politics, and what the author of this article is also observing, is that "feminism" is trying to serve two masters here: One a socially libertarian, individualist sort of view emphasizing individual "agency" as Obsidian put it, though still prone to the rather absurd notion that male and female "agency" are mutually exclusive and adversarial. The other a view that can best be described as sexual Marxist-Leninism; with gender replacing class in their overall analysis, and a self appointed feminist leadership in a "vanguard" role, denying its ability to deny "agency" to women OR men on the grounds that they're representing an oppressed people and therefore not capable of being oppressive themselves. Again, pretty Soviet thinking here.

 

I'll conclude by adding that the terms "3rd wave" and "sex positive", the later especially, absolutely make me want to vomit. Most of them differ from Andrea Dworkin only in that they lack her honesty and candor, hiding behind libertarian ideas of self ownership and paying lip service to sexually liberal philosophy - mostly by attacking the religious right's stances on clerical celibacy, sex ed and so on. The reality, as demonstrated by her aversion to sex in the media, the offense she'd take to a male's interest in and attraction to her, ongoing concern with 'objectification' and insistence that movies, T.V, comics, etc. are sexist unless ALL the leads are single amazonian women, would not be out of place one iota on a lesbian feminist commune circa 1970. She just doesn't even have the backbone to stand up for it, and likes to have a handy rationalization on hand for why it's okay for HER to enjoy dick when she gets it.

 

I'd take Andrea Dworkin in preference to any tumblr feminist or blogger on Jezebel any day. At least she was honest.

 

All of the above, of course, is based on my own personal experience and observation, which I will say is quite extensive. That said, your mileage may vary. I hope it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.