As this page gets more and more hits from mainstream viewers, I’m really coming to the realization that there are no more tenacious defenders of women’s oppression than women. More on this later.
April 26, 2008...6:00 am
Just a note
Jump to Comments
21 Comments
April 26, 2008 at 7:52 am
Yep, tenacity is what’s needed and we have lots of it! Hang in there, sister! :) xx
April 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“no more tenacious defenders of women’s oppression than women.”
Something about men having a more vested interest in patriarchal establishments, systems, and rituals…
April 26, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I know what you mean, but I’ve had a lot of women get seriously vicious when the think I’m telling them make-up and high heels might not be the Sex and the City party they think they are, and a lot of women are pretty heavily invested in not facing up to the realities of sexism lest their comfortable conception of the world be destroyed.
April 26, 2008 at 4:27 pm
That will continue Nine. And it will be a thorn in your side. You will win some and lose some (if I may use such a P-stocked statement as that).
No one wants to think of themselves as pawns or minions–it’s insulting, it means questioning at a really deep level– it means one’s “core” might not be the hardened static entity as one thought. Such a massive upheaval of the Self is exhausting and time consuming.
Plus it means de-connecting and rerouting so much of the way we experience joy and happiness.
*Why* would a woman change her tune if it is getting her compliments and attention and, possibly, a husband/jobs/orgasms/ approval?
These are the factors she has come to know as happiness–so why change.
All you can do is show time and again the connections between these happiness factors and sexism/racism/able-ism/ageism/size-ism. Moderate the assholes and have patience.
Lucky for you women are receiving violence and sexual assault at an unspeakable rate. So for all blogging purposes your arguments are a bit more applicable and certainly chocked with evidence. The ones who refuse to acknowledge these horrors as connected to themselves or the world around them don’t belong on your blog. Plenty of them do, in fact, blog. My advice: leave them be.
As for our pawn nature I really just mean “affective.” We are *affected* beings. No one should take it as an insult. If humans couldn’t be affected or changed then we’d still be doing what we did when we were earthly first-timers.
Humans can change, can stop oppression, turn things around. And it’s a big fucking compliment if you ask me.
(excuse the soapbox! You just rock on like ya do!)
April 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“Women hating women is just men hating women by proxy” (attr. Twisty)
April 26, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Exactly, Spicy. It’s pretty sad, and I’m beginning to get some serious exposure to it through this blog.
April 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm
So true.
“What wrong with dressing like a hooker if I want to? It’s because I like to, not because anyone tells me to” mentality makes me want to head butt a brick wall.
Go you ^_^
April 27, 2008 at 1:14 am
Yeah, well… people fear change, especially those who’ll be most affected by it. People fear change because they fear a loss of control, a loss of the ability to “choose” to follow traditions, feel threatened, feel accused…
Yeah, Spicy. If only it could be said in a way that might make a few more people see it.
April 27, 2008 at 4:31 am
I’m loath to post anything here, as that I’m a man writing in reply to your comment that some women are the strongest proponents of their own impression. If you feel perhaps this is impolite, please just delete it.
However, I just wanted to say I think I understand something of what you’re saying. As a law student in a sometimes nauseatingly conservative school I am reminded of how different some people’s beliefs are from my own.
A month ago in constitutional law we spent a week on Roe v Wade, the cases that led up to it, and the cases that have followed since. I’ve pretty much become known as the school’s resident liberal atheist, but I thought that at least with this subject I would not be alone in my views - I was wrong. Only about 40% of the class would have upheld Roe, and it was very evenly split along gender lines. Other than me, the men in my class were very muted in their opinions (and now I wish I had been quiet too). When I found myself arguing against three of my classmates, all of whom were women, and all of whom were vehemently against abortion… well, it was like the Twilight Zone.
After easily rebutting their arguments that abortion was not necessary (they claimed less than 5% of women get abortions during their lifetime, for example), and after they realized that they weren’t going to win on facts and statistics, they turned to the classic ‘god’ based arguments.
I realize now that it was a mistake to say that without the option of abortion, pregnancy would be a tool used by men to ensure women stayed subservient, and that overturning Roe would set back gender equality for generations.
At the time I thought this was a basic fact, that it was irrefutable. But, well, I was laughed at by many of the women in my class, and many of the men looked at me like I was a fool. In retrospect, it might have been a little strange to make that statment, since I’m male and all, but it doesn’t make it any less true. And I can’t stand the fact that people would have actually listened and thought about that statement if one of the women in the class had said it instead.
Anyway, that’s why I can understand why you feel like that.
April 27, 2008 at 4:43 am
Dan - It’s funny, you sound like the exact opposite of the small (but vociferous) contingent of conservatives who complain that universities (especially the one I went to for undergrad and the one I’m at now) are dominated by liberals and that they don’t feel free to speak their minds. Maybe your experience is proof that these guys are full of shit (not that we needed much proof of that).
I firmly believe, having studied women’s history extensively, that it’s usually women who fight the hardest to preserve the status quo. I suppose when one’s identity is bound up in adhering to patriarchy-defined gender roles, any perceived change in gender formation can be conceived of as a threat to one’s identity and security within the social system one is accustomed to.
That said, I’m awed that such a large contingent of women in today’s world would argue against one of the (if not the) fundamental foundations of women’s freedom from male domination. It really is evidence of either an extremely effective system of religious and political indoctrination, or a widespread case of Stockholm Syndrome (thanks, L).
April 27, 2008 at 11:05 am
It really is evidence of either an extremely effective system of religious and political indoctrination, or a widespread case of Stockholm Syndrome
Or a realistic assessment of danger. I just read this
amazing interview with Dr. Judith Lewis Herman and this quote reminded me of this thread:
Fear is something that we’re all biologically wired to experience when we’re in danger. We share this with other animals. When we perceive danger, we alert, we startle, we look around and figure out, do a quick appraisal of the situation, and we either fight or flee. That’s being revised now by some researchers looking more at women who say that “fight or flight” is a little bit more the male response. “Tend and befriend” — there’s a tendency to kind of huddle with one’s kind that you observe more in females. But, okay, fight or flight: there’s a whole biology of fear that’s involved.
Tend and befriend - isn’t that a reasonable description of women who ally themselves with the patriarchy?
Judith Herman goes on to say feminism is the answer!
[...] whenever I teach, and whenever I do my therapeutic work. I don’t think patients, survivors, victimized people can recover in isolation. They need other people and they need to take action in affiliation with others. I don’t think therapists can do therapeutic work alone. When we’re isolated with this, we do give in to despair. We do burn out. Or we lose our perspective. Ultimately if you’re talking about horrible abuses of power, you’re talking about the atrocious things that one person does to another person. And just when you think you’ve heard everything, and there’s simply nothing else that you could imagine that one person would intentionally do to another, somebody comes along with a story that just blows you away all over again. So, you’re dealing with very profound questions of human evil, human cruelty, human sadism. The abuse of power and authority. And the antidote to that is the solidarity of resistance. Nobody can do that alone.
April 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Gotcha covered, Nine.
Spicy, the “tend and befriend” response to fear sounds really applicable. It would explain so much: women who protect men’s reputations during discussions about male privilege; women who remain friends with men drunk on their privilege; and so on. If we remain friends with our oppressors, we (think we) come under fewer opportunities for them to hurt us. It’s like constantly tip-toeing around a sleeping giant — don’t wake him with our anger or questions or he’ll kill us one way or another.
April 27, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Beauvoir had it right when she said that both men and women hate to be under a woman’s authority. It seems as though both sexes prefer male versus female dominance. Because of the sexual trade-off between men and women, male dominance is willing to provide female oppression with concessions (while promoting general male camaraderie) whereas female dominance wouldn’t ensure either female camaraderie or male concessions.
April 27, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Not that I don’t think you can handle yourself, Nine, but perhaps we could pool our pennies and hire L to handle that shit for us? Whenever I’m sputtering like “what? are you kidding me?!” L takes ‘em down.
Is it not horribly disheartening?? It really stops me from connecting with other women, because I often have urges to proclaim my sisterhood with another woman but she could always turn around and snap my head off for implying that the sexual objectification of her isn’t her choice. (My mother pulled this on me the other day, and told me that if I didn’t want men looking down my shirt I should cover up a bit better. WTF?!)
April 28, 2008 at 3:11 am
maybe a new “mainstream” reader.
The women I know who defend patriarchy are usually involved in a patriarchal church, which promises a better afterlife for sucking the dregs of the patriarchy in this one. They also have often built some street cred from the mother role and don’t want that tiny bit of respect (or whatever non-crazy people call it) removed, even if it means more respect for, you know, being human. Who can blame them for not believing that they will not get replacement cred if they give up that nano-respect for pushing out children?
Oops, I forgot the ones who still get nano-credit for being hawt or pleasing men sexually. The crumbs seem like a good deal, while recognizing the reality hurts. It hurts me every day. But I cannot ignore reality…
April 28, 2008 at 4:34 am
Haha, zz, thanks for the recommendation. However! I don’t think I’d be any more effective than Nine Deuce here. I mean, really, what else is there to say? Stop defending your own oppression. The end.
April 29, 2008 at 1:31 pm
This blog has gone completely nuts with readers and commenters. I can barely keep up!
Good thing most of us aren’t trolls, patriarchy apologists, and Uncle Tom’s.
April 29, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Yeah, but there are plenty of those. I think you’ll know who I mean if you’ve had a look around.
April 30, 2008 at 3:03 am
Your blog is fantastic. I’m not surprised you’ve attracted more readers. Although, I’m sure lots of ‘em got here by typing “porn” into a search engine or something.
I linked to your blog because I felt that everyone needed to read your stuff about porn, but I only have two readers of my blog, and I have it blocked from search engines to keep my stalker away.
I’m so sick of these fucking cyberstalker nutjobs. Get a pair of balls and come and confront me in person so that I can kick the shit out of you, you cowardly asshole!
May 1, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Oh, and I am reading “Rubyfruit Jungle” right now, and I happened to come upon this passage:
“I dunno. Me, I don’t like fights, right or wrong. I smile and say ‘Yes’ to the boss at work and ‘Yes’ to Carrie and ‘Yes’ to my folks when they was alive. I slide by.”
“I can’t do that, Dad.”
“I know. You’ll pay for it honey. Tears and bitterness, ’cause you’ll be out there fighting all by yourself. Most people are cowards, like me. And if you try to get them to fight they’ll turn on you, bad as the people you originally fightin’ with. You’ll be all alone.”
I thought that was apt when I read it.
May 7, 2008 at 6:29 am
Women collude with patriarchy in the mistaken belief that they are somehow gaining power and prestige. It is these women that continue to be one of the greatest threats to feminism.
Leave a Reply