As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Deciphering [Feminist] Text.
Mim
I prefer my lovers…dead.Registered User regular
I prefer my lovers…dead.Registered User regular
Hello H/A,
I just read Catherine MacKinnon's "The Second Wave" and I am having a hard time understanding what she is saying. Probably because she is talking about something complicated (sexuality) and using confusing jargon (she adds in unnecessary words, but I've found that to be true with TONS of philosophy writing so I'm somewhat used to it).
Am I right to assume she's saying that all sex and sex related activities are tied to men/masculinity especially with dominance and that anything submissive is construed feminist? And it's the same in homosexual relationships as well? She made a point that after the Sexual Revolution women who had sex freely were still catering to just men. And I also know she's anti-pornography. So that bit of the text was understandable.
So, is she saying that anything considered sexy, sexual, sexually freeing are all constructed by men and for men only? Or is she saying something else? Because, she doesn't seem to offer an alternative where sexuality can be constructed by women, and even when something was thought to be constructed by women, it was really just for men.
Am I headed in the right direction?
I just read Catherine MacKinnon's "The Second Wave" and I am having a hard time understanding what she is saying. Probably because she is talking about something complicated (sexuality) and using confusing jargon (she adds in unnecessary words, but I've found that to be true with TONS of philosophy writing so I'm somewhat used to it).
Am I right to assume she's saying that all sex and sex related activities are tied to men/masculinity especially with dominance and that anything submissive is construed feminist? And it's the same in homosexual relationships as well? She made a point that after the Sexual Revolution women who had sex freely were still catering to just men. And I also know she's anti-pornography. So that bit of the text was understandable.
So, is she saying that anything considered sexy, sexual, sexually freeing are all constructed by men and for men only? Or is she saying something else? Because, she doesn't seem to offer an alternative where sexuality can be constructed by women, and even when something was thought to be constructed by women, it was really just for men.
Am I headed in the right direction?
Mim on
0
Posts
You're also pretty spot on generally concerning the biggest arguments against.
So, is she saying "Don't have sex or appear sexy" ? I mean, that seems what her argument is boiling down to, that women should do neither of them to finally have the upper hand. I hope I've misunderstood her on that point.
To a certain extent you should conceptualize the ideas presented as "stepping stones", as no work is ultimate and the missteps and mistakes of the past lead us to better, more complete answers that fit our culture "better" down the line. "Women should not be sexy" isn't an argument for the 21st century, but in the 1970-80, etc. the revolt against male-dominated sexuality was theoretically (pure theory) necessary in order to better balance subsequent critiques and ideas.
Specifically, a lot of MacKinnon's work is heavily Marxist. The existence of a patriarchal state (male) and an oppressed proletariat (female) necessitates, in Marxist terms, a revolt against the state. The concept of "gender war" is meant to overthrow the patriarchy and institute a "feminist" state in which the social conditions allow for expressions of female sexuality.
It isn't, to the best of my knowledge, that female sexuality is bad and evil, but that the social and cultural structure of patriarchy creates a de facto complicity with the exploitation of women. In order to have a sexual expression in equality, the patriarchal structure must first be destroyed.
We were discussing Xena, Wonder Woman, Ripley (from Aliens), Buffy and Willow, etc. Lots of my classmates liked Ripley because she wasn't dolled up but they kept mentioning Xena was "sexy" with a negative tone. And I was like "Her costume isn't sexy, its functional and even if it is sexy, what IS wrong with being sexy and a hero?"
Then I read MacKinnon's piece and inexplicable rage consumed me. So I wanted to make sure I was actually understanding what she was saying before talking about it in class.
And that particular line of thought (sexuality as a performance) still does have relevance today. Quite a few writers blame it for a number of sexual difficulties, the prevalence of some kinds of sexual violence, and various paths to relationship-fail.
But there was a part of the text where she was discussing homosexual relationships and how they don't escape what women do escape because there is a dominant and submissive role. I didn't understand that as it is out of the heterosexual "norm".
She also didn't provide a way for women to take control or how to change it. Because she mentioned that women went out and had as much sex as men which a lot of women considered empowering and taking charge of their sexuality but she dismisses it by saying it just played into men's hands. She doesn't state what women should do in order to take their sexuality back.
It's something I've asked a lot on various message boards, with how do you do things for yourself but not appear to be playing into men's hands. Many Women wear mini skirts, makeup, do their hair, shave their legs, etc but they do it for themselves while only some women do it for men. However it seems like even if we're doing it for ourselves because men will look we falling into the male glance.
Argh this is getting confusing anyways, I do not want this to go to D&D, so I'll just stick it to analyzing MacKinnon's text. Oof.
I thought it was functional and not sexy. She always wore armor on her most vital parts (the chest/abdomen area), her legs and arms could move freely and her skirt wasn't as constricting as pants (pants can get caught on things and is much harder to catch a skirt on something from my own experiences).
So, I will ask the class why they are equating sexiness with a lack of pants, but I thought there was nothing sexy about that outfit.
I don't know, you're kind of on the right track but I think its flat-out ludicrous to deny that most conventional expressions of femininity are done for patriarchal approval (note that this is distinct from "for men", since people of both genders can and do act to prop up a patriarchal culture). All that's happened in this arena in the last 40-odd years is that (white, western, educated) women have managed to negotiate the amount of performance down somewhat and created a culture where one can actually opt out of performing sexy entirely under certain circumstances (but you often have to be able to justify it by having a particular job or social role). Like, woohoo, skirts, hose, hats, gloves, heels and fullface makeup are no longer compulsory before leaving the house. Super... didn't really solve the core issue though.
No, no it isn't. Most armour of the Western ancient world was made to primarily protect the head and torso. A wealthy warrior in the dark ages wearing a hauberk would likely still have unarmoured arms and legs. Assyrian spearmen wore leather corslets and bronze helmets, Greek hoplites wore a cuirass and helmet*. Roman legionaries wore an iron helmet and a cuirass of either leather, chainmail, or iron plates. Not many professional soldiers wore armour on their arms and legs, even cavalry. The Roman equites and foreign auxillary horsemen were armoured much like the infantry. Alexander's companion cavalry fought bare legged. The Celts even fought naked. Most ancient soldiers or warriors fought bare limbed, or even wearing less.
Xena's armour would be pretty functional, except for the conspicuous lack of protection for her upper chest and the shape of her metal breast plates. Much of her torso is covered and pteruges protect her upper thighs. Bracers protect her arms and greaves, or what may be tall boots, protect her lower legs. What is odd is the lack of a shield and helmet. The two things which were extremely dangerous not to have. Most did not have armoured limbs but even the poorest would need a shield to expect to live. But then, it is fantasy.
*Plus bronze greaves to protect their lower legs.
It's been a while since I've read Mackinnon, but I wrote my MA thesis on feminist science and its relationship to second wave feminist theory, so I feel as if I am somewhat qualified to answer this question. :P
Essentially, Mackinnon's point about homosexual relationships is that they tend to mimic heterosexual power dynamics. That is, the two people, even though they're the same sex, tend to play out the traditional masculine and feminine roles within it. Think about the stereotyped butch and femme lesbian pairs if you need an example. So, one partner is still dominant and the other is still submissive, a power difference which she views as the central problem with patriarchal society.
As to your question about how women should take their sexuality back, I think she would answer that women need to overthrow male constructions of sexuality, before they are even able to conceptualize alternatives for themselves. They need to stop sexualizing themselves in accordance with the patriarchal standards presented in advertisements and pornography. They need to fight against the sex industry which is responsible for masculine fantasies. For the most part, like many radfems, Mackinnon is more concerned with delineating what is wrong with society than with coming up with alternatives to it.
Her friend and fellow antipornographer Andrea Dworkin does imagine alternative, women-friendly forms of sexuality at points in Intercourse, and I think Mackinnon's visions would probably look fairly similar. Again, most of Intercourse is about what is WRONG. She only touches in a couple of paragraphs about how to have genuinely liberating, egalitarian sex.
P.S. I'm a lurker. My fiance directed me to this thread. I hope I was helpful.
PSN: GetMediaeval
As someone who is not particularly well read on the subject, I found that informative. Thank you.
Except most people without shields took care to protect their limbs, although Xena was well protected compared to her male counterpart:
To be fair, her counterpart (the male lead of the show that spawned her spinoff) was a demigod. I don't believe he was outright immortal, but I do believe he was portrayed as being significantly more resilient than the average person.
Xena herself was (as I recall, and it's been quite a while) was merely a highly trained and skilled warrior with the backing/attention of the gods in some form or another at various times, but a fully mortal woman all the same. (a brief glance at Wikipedia doesn't note any divine parentage, but if I've missed something I apologize)
But of course they both wore massive suits of Plot Armour, so it only really mattered what they wore when the writers decided it was worth noting.
How would one then go about enjoying intercourse without having dominant/submissive roles and how would women look sexy without feeding into patriarchy/pornography's standards of beauty? I don't mean to ask this as your opinion but of Dworkin's.
It just seems complicated because to me it sounds like this things I do for myself (shave my legs because my leg hairs get caught in my socks and that is a ton of ouchies) because it is sexy TO ME still runs co-current with the Western Patriarchy's view of what is or isn't sexy. Are they saying we can't wear make-up, shave our legs or do our hair? Or are they saying "You can do these things, but make sure they're for you alone?"
The thing to take away from those theories isn't that you can't do any of those things, but that when you do them, you should be cognizant of the tensions that underlie them. I should note that you won't find that idea expressed anywhere in MacKinnon or Dworkin (as far as I'm aware), but like Kae said, their purpose was simply to show the problems. You're asking too much to expect them to find solutions, because short of a total reboot, there are no universal solutions. Women have to negotiate their gendered spaces and roles for themselves.
This is where a little Marxist theory comes in handy. It's based, at least in part, on the idea of "false consciousness" from the Frankfurt School (of Marxism). The short and simple answer is that we're so fooled by the system that we can't even grasp the reality of our oppression...so you just think you're doing it for yourself, when in reality you're just being suckered by the pervasiveness of the dominant and oppressive system. It's an interesting and provocative theory with all sorts of problems.
Yeah honestly, the thing that bothers me most about your posts in here Mim, is that your anger is misdirected. Its not McKinnon's fault that we're stuck in this cultural dilemma, and just because she spotted the problem, its not necessarily on her to provide a solution. So performing femininity is fraught because people may react to the performance in ways that screw our lives up. Opting out isn't necessarily the only, or even best solution for a given person (although some do embrace that approach). Most of us just learn to make compromises; to keep the stuff we like, damn the rest, and call out anyone who makes harmful assumptions about why we're doing Thing X.
That's part of answer to your class's question: heroines don't have to be traditional sexy to be such, but most heroines in our culture "just happen" to be so - partly because being a hero is about being awesome in all respects, regardless of gender. Its interesting to watch the effect of the rise of the anti-hero on this phenomenon though - its now ok to have massive, overriding flaws and still be a hero, but you still kind of have to be a looker if you're a lady. See: Starbuck and her clusterfuck of a personal and professional life vs Wikus' general suckiness, etc etc. Wikus is pasty and chinless, Starbuck... ain't.
I suppose the reason I am angry with MacKinnon is because I come from a different train of thought than she does. If I was to take a guess, I'd say that I was on the "sex-positive" side of feminism than I was on her side. I read up on her and I saw she was anti-pornography (and she states it in the text) and it set my bells off. I know a tiny bit about the "Sex Wars" so I know there was a rift within Feminists, and I guess I just took the other side.
And I most humbly disagree that Starbuck is a looker. I mean, compared to the other women in the show, she isn't, and I don't think many would stop and look her way if she were a real person, but it was her personality that bring men in. But that's a topic for something else entirely.
However, Lucy Lawless herself participates in the sex-positive feminist answer to MacKinnon and Dworkin's theories. The idea is basically that if sexuality traditionally oppresses women by constructing them as the object of male pleasure, than the feminist answer should be for women to construct themselves as actively sexual beings and as subjects, rather than objects, in sexual interactions. The idea of women owning their own sexuality and honestly believing that they have the right to sexual pleasure challenges the patriarchal power structure.
Of course, a number of modern Marxist feminist critics have noted that capitalism has co-opted this idea, that "girl power" has been reclaimed for commercial value and repackaged for the sexual pleasure of men (see: the Pussycat Dolls).
So the question you have to ask yourself is where you personally stand on the issue. Do you believe that female heroes should be openly owning their own sexuality and that they overcome oppression by transforming themselves into sexual subjects (not objects)? You can find feminist theorists who agree with you, and I suspect you'll be reading some of them later on in your class. However, there are counterarguments against that position surrounding the way that corporations have taken the image of female sexual power and turned it back into a passive image of wild women who are ripe for the purchase/conquering of men.
Edit: Heh, you posted that last response about being sex-positive while I was writring mine. Maybe this at least can help you frame your arguemnt for class.
Hopefully. I don't think we'll be talking about the other sex-positive feminists with this class (Women and War). It's mostly been about women being raped, what men do during war time and how women are used as property and lots of the bad side of what happen to women during war. This is probably the first time we've gotten around to actually talking about women taking strong leadership roles (we did talk about war nurses, but it was in the tune of them being outside the battle and observing than within the battle and killing people if that makes sense?) and when we did, everyone in the class started harping on Xena and said she was "sexy" with a negative tone but hailed Ripley as a true hero because she wasn't sexy. Someone also mentioned Roseanne...
So it bothered me they felt that sexy = not much a hero, when I felt that being sexy doesn't mean you kick any less ass than the un-sexy heroes.
This has been super informative even though it wasn't meant for me, thank you everyone.
I have my own issues with the concept of dominance/submissiveness being rooted in the subject of [hetero]sexuality and applied to aspects external to that. I am of the belief (and have developed my own theories - outside the scope of this) that all social interaction will place the different participants at various levels of dominance, often self-balancing to find an equilibrium. This is not dependent on gender or sexuality and can be observed in humans and animals in both couple and group dynamics. Yes, gender and sexuality can have varying degrees of impact on dominance tendencies, but I take issue with all these wholesale/universal concepts and declarations which seem to be prevalent in this author's work(?). For example: picking cotton was an act done by black slaves - but the act of picking cotton is not itself an act of submission.. the the idea that all cotton picking must be abolished in order to end slavery doesn't make sense. I suppose you could say I simply find her arguments to be logical fallacy.