Now here is a righteous rant from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy.
When you live in the patriarchy, it can be difficult to tell to what extent your feelings are influenced by the zeitgeist that the patriarchy creates and maintains. Sort of the same way that fish probably have never discovered water.
So while I'll admit to some ambiguity about the edges of Twisty's argument, I'm not sure to what extent that may be Stockholm Syndrome and to what extent it may reflect genuine progress that feminists have made that make it at least "safer" to express my sexuality in ways that are "acceptable" or "approved" by the patriarchy. We're still living in a culture that makes it difficult for us to make genuine choices, which, I suppose, is Twisty's main point. What do you think?
1 comment:
I see her point, but there has to be room for women to express ourselves sexually - and express our sexuality - in ways that make us feel good. Maybe everything *is* tainted and I can't possibly choose to wear high heels or nail polish or a sexy dress authentically, but "sex-negative" feminism (if I can use that term) is just as dangerous. Or at least is was to me personally. Back when I was developing my feminist consciousness, about a million years ago, I was reading a lot of the classics - Robin Morgan, Sonja Johnson, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Ti-Grace Atkinson, etc. - and it seriously almost destroyed my relationship because I couldn't find my way between what I was *supposed* to want and what I actually *did* want in the bedroom and my relationship more broadly. It took years (and Pat Califia and Inga Muscio and some of those "sex-positive" but righteous babes she excoriates) to repair the damage to me personally, my psyche, my view of myself, my sexuality, and my relationship. There has to be room for both, or it's not my revolution.
Post a Comment