Gender Politics, part 2: Introduction
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
When I was going to state university, the militant feminist contingent on campus was earnestly reviving the 70s slogan "The Personal is Political." At the time, although I considered myself basically feminist, I thought, "Christ, what bullshit. My personal life is just that: my personal life. My private business isn't some kind of political protest action."
… and it was just this week that I finally fucking got it. This may well be the one and ONLY case where the ivory-tower activists' more-enlightened-than-thou assertion, "if only you understood, you'd agree with us,*" actually proved itself correct. (*The implication being: "You've been co-opted by the white male patriarchy, and therefore none of what you have to say is valid, except as proof of the depths of your unenlightenment.)
Juliet Williams, UC Santa Barbara, puts it quite nicely, here:
The slogan first became popular in the 1970s as a way to convey to women who were suffering in silence that their individual experiences were, in fact, instances of widespread sexism. [...] In the effort to promote gender-consciousness, the privacy ethic understandably appeared to be an impediment, encouraging silence about just the kinds of experiences feminists wanted to bring to the political fore.
[...] When feminists say “the personal is political,” they are challenging the liberal conception of the private sphere as power-free. In subjecting private relations to public scrutiny, some worry that “the personal is political” opens the door to government regulation of every precinct of private life. But this interpretation rests on a conflation between the terms “political” and “government.” To say that “the personal is political” is to say only that private life is implicated in networks of power, leaving open the question of under what circumstances it is appropriate for government to intervene.
The motivation for writing a bunch of bullshit on gender* politics snowballed over the last few weeks (*not "sexual" politics … sex is an entirely overused and oversimplified word):
- There was my rape tirade last week, which was triggered by a phone conversation with one of the women referenced in the post.
- I researched the Terri Jentz attempted axe-murder case, specifically for that article.
- … and shortly after all that, I read the second edition of Inga Musico's book Cunt, an unusually unapologetic modern feminist "womanifesto" (to borrow the author's somewhat contrived word).
- I spent time visiting friends and family members, who run the gamut from merely ignoring stereotypical gender roles, to turning them utterly inside out.
- I talked to a younger relative about her abusive ex, who's threatening to kidnap their child (who he hasn't visited in years) now that he's out of jail again.
- A female friend took me to an indoor pistol range (I'll go ahead and apologize to her in advance for this visual … *snigger*); I'll bet money the man assisting her while she shopped for holsters, and expertly manhandled a few high priced rifles, went home and rubbed his cock raw thinking about her later that night.
- Later that week, she and I were the only two women in a bear bar in Denver, and we were both almost completely ignored (if you don't know what a "bear bar" is, go ahead and search for any combination of the words gay, male and bear on Google ;-).
- The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage.
- A guy left a comment in my rape post, saying women had a responsibility to stay out of dangerous situations, as though rapists were an unstoppable force of nature, which women needed to guard against like midwesterners guard against tornadoes.
- A regular troll on this site has, over time, revealed his beliefs that a woman who repeatedly disagrees with him just doesn't "know when to shut up," and her attractiveness (rather than the substance of her arguments) largely determines whether or not she's worth respecting intellectually.
There's just no way I could write one post that covered it all.
But before I even decide which topic comes first, I must set the stage here. Shit like this is so heavily filtered through the attitude and experience of each individual person who considers it, it's only fair to explain where I'm coming from …
A 'biblically familiar' male friend of mine once said to me, "Well, I guess if anyone asks me if I ever slept with a cross-dresser, I can say yes."
For some reason, the subject of my clothing had come up and, as it happened, the only women's clothing I had on was my socks and skivvies. I was even wearing men's long underwear. But there's just no functional male equivalent for a bra, and they don't make men's undercrackers without extra cargo room in front … if they did, and there were, I'm sure they'd be more durable, reasonably priced, and sensibly sized than the Women's equivalent, and I would probably buy them.
I wear makeup rarely enough, I could probably count my annual 'dress up days' on one hand … really, I was never much good at being a typical "girl".
I had a big metal toy truck as a kid. I loved that truck, and the big metal horse trailer it pulled. This particular toy set wasn't shelved in a gender specific shelf space at the toy store … girls like horses, boys like trucks: It swings both ways! The horses were quite inferior quality though, so more often than not, I just played with the truck. As I recall, it looked like a late 70s Chevy, in metallic brown.
My mother bought me little boys' jeans, because they had reinforced knees. I stopped getting Barbie dolls as presents after I dismembered a few of them. I stopped getting baby dolls when I poked a hole in one to find out what was inside that made it so squishy (some kind of sweet gooey stuff … I suspect if the baby had stretchier rubber outside, it would have been baby Stretch Armstrong). I climbed trees. I made bows and arrows out of slender tree branches,bailing twine, and my pocket knife.
One of my stepsisters recalls our "playing house" sessions often being delayed by my complaints: "Why do I always have to be the husband?!" I was being typecast at the age of six! (But I do recall that I always wanted to be Luke Skywalker when we played Star Wars …)
And so on, and so forth. I was, in a word, a tomboy. A major tomboy. I was so baffled by the whole boy thing, that when I got a big crush on one, I'd start copying him. Listening to the same music, dressing kinda the same … not catching on to the fact that most boys like girl girls, not 'boy' girls*. I finally started figuring it out when I was in college. The "difference" thing was apparently the whole magic trick. Who knew?! (*When I got crushes on girls, OTOH, I was just utterly tongue-tied, and followed them around like a puppy.)
But lest you think I am about to come out of the closet in a big public way, I'm not. I never lived in a closet in the first place. In addition to all the boyish traits already mentioned, I went to modeling school as a teenager. Wore lots of short skirts, high heels, and 50s lipstick-and-eyeliner makeup in college. I worked as a stripper for a couple of years after I got my bachelors. I enjoy playing dress up.
I put posters of cute boy musicians on my walls, and gazed meaningfully at them.
I can do the girl thing, and I can do it damn well. But it is definitely something I do.
Super-femme girl is something I "put on" along with my lipstick … not unlike a skilled and convincing drag queen, now that I think about it. (You know: Not particularly subtle, but convincing enough to make straight men write songs like "Lola". ;-)
But by and large, I'm 'butch' for a girl. Maybe not butch by flannel-and-leather-clad lesbian standards … but by mainstream hetero/bi-girl standards, I'm way butch. I intimidate people, especially men. I know this because friends tell me so, after they get to know me well enough not to be intimidated anymore. I once auditioned for a sex-ed "how to say no" video, and was told while my audtion was the best they'd seen, it wouldn't be "believable" … I was the kind of girl high school boys were scared of.
So, basically what I'm getting at here is that I'm not approaching gender politics from a Brady Bunch "typical hetero-WASP American" perspective, exactly (for one thing, my family doesn't have enough money to pull "WASP" off, even if they wanted to). I've been such a consistent outsider throughout my life, I'm not ever sure what the "female perspective" is supposed to be … all I know is, It Ain't Me.
(And yes, part 2 is the introduction, because Small Fucking Town, Big Fucking Silence was really part 1, without me knowing it.)
I can hear my testosterone screaming: We want Pictures!
lol
I hadn't commented on a post on a while, the topics were very serious and I didn't feel I had anything to add. I don't have anything to add now either. Just wanna say I love your texts.
ps. You sure have lived a unusual life :)
27th May 2008 at 5:47 am | permalink |Excellent.
27th May 2008 at 5:50 am | permalink |Ewww … yeah, the visual made me cringe. ;-)
27th May 2008 at 11:09 am | permalink |"Seducing one's neighbor to a good opinion and afterwards believing piously in this opinion—who could equal women in this art?—"
F. Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, S. 148.
27th May 2008 at 11:32 am | permalink |@Bruno: Yeah, it's about time for another lighthearted post, methinks.
As soon as I think of one. ;-)
@Jack: Thanks. :-)
@Becca: Y'know, I thought to myself, maybe it's excessive and cruel to put that thought in her head … but the point had to be made, and it was *such* a good example. lol
And OK, OK, OK … I'll dig around on the bookshelf and find my Nietzsche collection already! ;-)
27th May 2008 at 1:34 pm | permalink |"S. 65 - Devotion.— There are noble women who are afflicted with a certain poverty of spirit, and they know no better way to express their deepest devotion than to offer their virtue and shame. They own nothing higher. Often this present is accepted without establishing as profound an obligation as the donors had assumed. A very melancholy story!"
"S. 66 - The strength of the weak.— All women are subtle in exaggerating their weakness; they are inventive when it comes to weaknesses in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments who are hurt even by a speck of dust. Their existence is supposed to make men feel clumsy, and guilty on that score. Thus they defend themselves against the strong and 'the law of the jungle.'"
F. Nietzsche, Die Fröliche Wissenschaft
27th May 2008 at 1:57 pm | permalink |@S. 65: Gee, the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
@S. 66: *gag* (But I'm not gonna say I don't do a little eyelash flutter and general simpering, if I think it'll get me out of a traffic ticket. ;-)
27th May 2008 at 3:00 pm | permalink |I had to read this several times. I'm sure ( in someone's opinion)I've over simplified this (or missed your point completely). This is what I took from your post.
1)You are educated.
2)You are and for the most part always have been a Tomboy. Unless it behooves you to act more feminine.
3)Your parents couldn't afford for you to become a "Women's Airforce Service Pilot" or "white American of Anglo-Saxon decent"
I assume you felt this was needed background information. Did you assume we (men) would just chalk certain opinions and comments in "gender politics 1" to feminist bull?
Or, are you saying gender politics plays a significant role in rape and the prosecution of rapist?
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the two post.
The phrases "if only you understood, you'd agree with us," is bullshit (sounds like you agree)! It can be used in any argument, anywhere with anyone about anything as a substitute for intellectual thought.
How about this, "maybe if you were a women and you were raped , you'd be able to understand".
I'm a firm believer in that whole walk a mile in my shoes thing.
27th May 2008 at 5:14 pm | permalink |oops wrong acronym I meant "white anglo-saxon protestant".
27th May 2008 at 5:26 pm | permalink |@Rick: Yeah, you missed the point.
1.) I don't think of "men" as a homogenous group, so I'd never assume all men would chalk any one thing up in any one universal way.
2.) Yes, I think gender stereotypes and socialization (the basis of 'gender politics' as I'm using the phrase) play a VERY significant role in rape and the prosecution (or lack thereof) of rapists.
3.) As I said in the post, I couldn't possibly write one piece that would encompass all the subjects I wish to address in this general subject area. So, don't think it's all about rape. It's not. It's not even mostly about rape. That post just happened to precede the idea of addressing the broad topic of gender relations in the first place.
4.) An introduction doesn't generally encompass the entirety of an argument, so there isn't an overriding "point" to be had in this one post. It's background information. And yes, I think the background information is important to understanding my particular point of view. You may or may not agree.
27th May 2008 at 5:36 pm | permalink |While "if only you understood, you'd agree with us" may be bullshit, "if you weren't such an idiot, you'd agree with us," explains a large segment of political argument and media coverage.
28th May 2008 at 3:44 pm | permalink |@Kavan: Y'know, while the latter may be more directly insulting, I think I'd rather be openly insulted than condescended to. ;-)
28th May 2008 at 5:49 pm | permalink |Okay - Most of what you wrote has fuck all to do with gender politics, more to do with how a person fits into the heirarchy of the society that they live in.
As a tomboy you have taken many 'male' traits and used them in your dealings with others - you only intimidate men because you act like one and in many cases they don't know how to deal with this having been socially conditioned to expect women to behave in a completely different way (I've lived most of my adult life with a woman who also has these traits, and has been described as a lesbian on a number of occasions because of it, and my eldest daughter is already showing signs of having a similar personality) - aggression and being 'up front' straight talking are generally male traits, female traits are generally more behind the scenes - I hate to use the word bitchiness but it sort of explains what I want to say. Even the moniker you use on this site is 'stand up and put them up' in its connotations.
Your comments on putting on your make up 'not unlike a skilled and convincing drag queen' really just highlights how far from the norm your social conditioning has been.
Our lives and our interaction with our society for the most part is conditioned into us in our early formative years - for many people, who are socially 'well adjusted' (I use this term loosely here) and 'successful' or 'slavishly obedient' or 'just plain stupid' the need to question that social conditioning doesn't really arise (or when it does it can lead to serious mental maladjustment).
For others (in general those who do not have a 'happy' childhood for one reason or another) the questioning of the social conditioning starts reasonably early in life (in my case the earliest incident I can remember is auditions for my infant school choir - up until my turn every child had passed the audition and I can remember going forward thinking how the fuck do I fail this audition because I didn't enjoy singing and didn't want to be part of a choir - P.S. I did fail the audition by the way - but it was the whole situation that I look back on and think 'that was very strange' - Why didn't I want to be like all the others?, Why did I want to be different? Why did I want to follow my own path?)
Why, you may ask, did I talk about social conditioning? Well it was because if you look at base animal instincts plus the social conditioning of the individual involved you can pretty much understand all human behaviour. There are a few exceptions but for the most part everything fits this pattern, its just a case of having enough information to understand it.
28th May 2008 at 6:01 pm | permalink |@Ian: I don't see that anything you said contradicts anything I said at all … social conditioning is one of the root causes of gender conflicts, misfits, and all-around gender-related bullshit, as I see it.
But it's the fact that such issues are dealt with so differently when raising girls vs. boys in most cases that put it under the umbrella of "gender politics" in my view.
28th May 2008 at 8:33 pm | permalink |