On the eve of almost Valentine's day
I am going to do a rant on feminisms and sado-masochistic sex...Saw it coming, did you? Oh, phantom audience, you know me so well.
So here's the problem with feminist epistemology/standpoint theory/ being real about women's lives, being real about men's lives, men's bodies, women's bodies, etc...etc...etc...They never actually talk about sex!!!! What could be a better site for analyzing/locating the social construction of gender/ identity? For looking at the way social norms mediate and construct biology? The way symbol and metaphor interact with and exist within embodiment?
And we don't even have to talk about Freud to get that squishy/ throbbing feeling in our underpants, all we have to talk about is Power and I'm already hot...
So yes, feminists want men to examine the way patriarchy constructs their notions of their own masculinity...but what about bull dykes with whips...or straight girls with perfect makeup with whips, or men that look like boys who tie up their partners and torture them until they come?
What about fantasies that rely on taboos being taboo? What is sex anyway? Yes we want to know: what is language? What is the difference between humans and advanced primates? What is gender? What is race? But what about asking the question what is sex? What is an eloquent argumentative, assertive feminist who gets off on being spanked and called a slut? What is pornography anyway? Have we academics even bothered to define our terms here? Is a story as pornographic as a picture? Why/ why not? I am tempted to read Elaine Scarie's latest on disgust, I heard an excellent interview with her on her book on Beauty...anyway, what's my point? My point is I don't mean we should examine sexuality, as Foulcauld did, not the "notion" of it...how about IT, the thing itself? And not phallic symbols either. I'm talking kinky sex people. The relation of sex and power. What can this tell us about the ubiquity of power relations which feminists say they want to do away with. Isn't that sortof like saying you want to do away with society? And besides, are you sure you don't want blatantly unequal power relations to exist even in the form of discourse? Because I'm telling you right now, if I didn't have archetypes based in reality of overly aggressive buisness men and their submissive short skirted secretaries, or highheeled, cold faced horse training women with deep red lipstick weilding whips, I really don't know what my sex life would be reduced to:0
There, sex are you happy? Now who wants to guess what gender I am?
ps I had to stop talking about power dynamics so I wouldn't get too turned on...but don't tell my students/ colleagues :)
So here's the problem with feminist epistemology/standpoint theory/ being real about women's lives, being real about men's lives, men's bodies, women's bodies, etc...etc...etc...They never actually talk about sex!!!! What could be a better site for analyzing/locating the social construction of gender/ identity? For looking at the way social norms mediate and construct biology? The way symbol and metaphor interact with and exist within embodiment?
And we don't even have to talk about Freud to get that squishy/ throbbing feeling in our underpants, all we have to talk about is Power and I'm already hot...
So yes, feminists want men to examine the way patriarchy constructs their notions of their own masculinity...but what about bull dykes with whips...or straight girls with perfect makeup with whips, or men that look like boys who tie up their partners and torture them until they come?
What about fantasies that rely on taboos being taboo? What is sex anyway? Yes we want to know: what is language? What is the difference between humans and advanced primates? What is gender? What is race? But what about asking the question what is sex? What is an eloquent argumentative, assertive feminist who gets off on being spanked and called a slut? What is pornography anyway? Have we academics even bothered to define our terms here? Is a story as pornographic as a picture? Why/ why not? I am tempted to read Elaine Scarie's latest on disgust, I heard an excellent interview with her on her book on Beauty...anyway, what's my point? My point is I don't mean we should examine sexuality, as Foulcauld did, not the "notion" of it...how about IT, the thing itself? And not phallic symbols either. I'm talking kinky sex people. The relation of sex and power. What can this tell us about the ubiquity of power relations which feminists say they want to do away with. Isn't that sortof like saying you want to do away with society? And besides, are you sure you don't want blatantly unequal power relations to exist even in the form of discourse? Because I'm telling you right now, if I didn't have archetypes based in reality of overly aggressive buisness men and their submissive short skirted secretaries, or highheeled, cold faced horse training women with deep red lipstick weilding whips, I really don't know what my sex life would be reduced to:0
There, sex are you happy? Now who wants to guess what gender I am?
ps I had to stop talking about power dynamics so I wouldn't get too turned on...but don't tell my students/ colleagues :)
posted by slave to my amygdala at 8:50 PM
1 Comments:
I can see that I do not have the academic background to know whether or not I am stating something terribly obvious in relation to your post, but I am compelled anyway. And after all, if someone else has said it before, it validates it, right?
All kinds of crazy kids talk all day long about the absolution of power or its redistribution in an even-handed manner. And I admit, it's pretty attractive. But it's silly. It's nearsighted. Power exists in human relations because it is neccessary. This is not to say that I advocate facsim, nationalsim, autocracies, plutocracies, theocracies, or any other impressive word with a predictable suffix. But small amounts of power in intelligently balanced systems are the key to the progression of society and relationships. This power need not be fixed, and actually I believe that when fixed, it becomes diseased and destructive. But there are certain archetypal roles that have proven themselves valid in piles of examples throughout history.
This foundational data having been stated, I react to sex. From my understanding, there seem to be two different paths of clearly defined behavior. There is the "role-playing" of the stereotypical suburbanites, the wife quietly purchasing the nurse's costume and a stethoscope for her husband, and this is considered harmless. And then there is "fetish" behavior. You seem to be talking about this. I know that the idea of fetish behavior is taboo. But this seems pretty near-sighted to me. We live in a world in which the extremeties of power are constantly on display, in a variety of forms throughout our society. Whether in politics (and yes, I consider the killing and subjugation of a populace guilty of at most being ruled by a dictator as somewhat extreme), in entertainment, in the tireless quest for wealth. Why in the world would we expect this to remain outside of our personal lives? These extreme displays and exchanges of power in our naked lives are simple reflections of the concepts valued in our public existence. It seems goddamn silly to think of us reacting in kind to situations considered "normal" to polite society as suddenly "abnormal" because it is private.
Hm. I didn't expect that rant. So you want to go out sometime?
Post a Comment
<< Home