I don't have to present this on a feminist slant

[trinityvixen]

I was literally this close to tears this morning.

Yesterday, at Pandagon, there was this truly reprehensible article about this guy who argued that a feminist really wants to be dominated (because every woman secretly wants that, dontcha know?). I won't accuse a single guy I know of thinking anything like this asshole because it's clear that he's an asshole and there's nothing to like about anything he says. Do I, a feminist, want an equally strong, strongly-expressive partner? Absolutely! Do I want a man who will ignore me when I whine, dominate me in all physical relations, and have to be the boss? FUCK NO. The whole feminist thing? It's about equality. It's about getting respect for my strength and understanding that I will, willfully and equally, respect my partner's strength in turn. I am up for the throw-down, knock-around stuff. Know what will make that even hotter? If my partner let's me do the throwing. There's nothing like a little submission. Oppressive male ASSHATS like this wanker ought to understand that much. What he doesn't understand, clearly, is that it isn't supposed to be that way--a struggle for dominance--all the time in a happy, healthy marriage.

Then there was this article written by his decidedly unhappy wife. Despite all his protestations that his sexual abuse of her was perpetrated on a willing partner (who he declared to be a brash, ballsy feminist), his wife is an emotional wreck, and her column made my heart sink and burn for her. I had thought it was possible that his article was just boasting. Think of the stereotypical black male, who talks about booty and hos until his girlfriend gets home and then he's a henpecked ninny. That's what I assumed his article was coming from. Turns out his emotional abuse is ten times worse than the overt sexual abuse he wrote about with such pride. Real man, my ass.

But read her column. It's devastating. And it reaffirms my opinion that the attempt to force young people to hold out for marriage as the be-all, end-all for humans as sexual creatures is a horrible thing, not least of which because the burden of ensuring marriage retains some unimpeachable spit-polish of perfection falls unfailingly on the shoulders of women. Marriage is not the answer. Respect is. Confidence is. Given that this is what becomes of women who were pressured all their lives to fall into marriage because their lives were incomplete without it, I'd sooner die an old maid. I have siblings, they're having or will have babies. I can be the Crazy Cat-Lady Aunt TV, and I bet my life would be more satisfying than anything I could have if I were as desperate as this poor woman.

I hope she divorces his ass, but the saddest feeling I had this morning was from knowing she probably never will.

Comments

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

This is not entirely related to the article, but it's something I always think. Still, I'm going to walk a v-e-e-e-r-r-y-y careful line here, but I've always felt many feminists (and many people fighting for equality in any respect -- but not all of them) are probably fighting for an idealized version of equality or perhaps even a minor slant in their directing because in real life I think equality wouldn't really be all it's cracked up to be.

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

*direction

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think that's actually the problem, that it seems that way to you. There was an article I linked to before where women's steps towards equality are viewed as privilege rather than rights. Because it upsets the very definite male advantage in the world. It's like affirmative action--it seems like that's unfair, and that it's not equal (and, to be fair, it's not, strictly), but we still need it because there will be no racial harmony without a few steps pushed through rather than waited upon (affirmative action does for minorities in a few years what would otherwise take centuries, I fully believe that).

There's nothing wrong with fighting for the ideal. And feminists put up with a lot of backlash because people scoff at the very idea of equality being possible. Doesn't mean we should stop trying, right? Maybe we'll never figure out who gets to keep their last name, or whose lineage will carry on with the children's last names, or things like that. But could we at least pay women the same as men for the same work (we still don't), give them the awards they earned without making them work twice as hard as male colleagues (they have to, for the same level of perceived "productivity")? Is that not worth it?

And with marriage? I think marriage the most imperfect institution in the world. Someone in this book Sex in History said that marriage wouldn't survive with two whole people (as opposed to, say, one whole person and one subservient one), and that seems an unfortunate reality unless we rework the gender politics to where we can see entering marriage as a melding of equals rather than a ceding of one to the other.

I, personally, think equality is everything it's cracked up to be. No more hate crime. No more discrimination based on quirks of genetics that no child can help. I can't see as that's a bad thing.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

The ultimate goal of equality, I would think, would be to make various traits irrelevant. That is, not to bother having to fill out your race, height, gender or age on any forms because no one cares.

The backlash I feel like I see the most, though, is that women [as a collective] don't all want to be indistinguishable from men; some want to be equals, some want to be dominant, some want to be subserviant, some want to be breadwinners, some want to be homemakers, some want to be able to dress up and get noticed for being sexy women while still attracting men who are only interested in their minds, etc. Or, in other words, because women have no consensus of what they want (neither do men, incidentally), men have a tendancy to feel like women (as a collective) want everything that any indivdual wants. Does that make sense?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think so, and I don't think there's anything wrong with not having a consensus--"What Women Want" the guidebook. Why should we have to want something specific when we argue for equal rights, equal treatment? There's no reason a woman couldn't be all or any of those things, if a man can be any or all of them, right?

That's what equality means to me--full recognition that women are people and just as confused about how to make their way in the world as men. I don't think any want to be indistinguishable from men, just accepted intellectually on the same level. I say: celebrate the differences in men and women, but don't base assumptions of gender roles upon genetic sex, is all.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

I think it isn't a problem for "women" that they don't have cohesive desires, but it is a problem for "feminism". The movement has to be cohesive or it just ends up looking silly. If all of its most vocal members were reasonable people, they all WOULD say the same thing, by putting their individual desires aside and speaking in broader (no pun intended) terms: "We want to be able to CHOOSE to have careers, OR be homemakers, OR do whatever else men can do." Instead, they highlight individual things they want, and some feminists (NOT only antifeminists) with enough prominence to be noticed say that women who choose to be homemakers are setting the movement back 50 years (or something equally silly) and it all falls apart. This is part of my issue with all sorts of activism, but I think it's especially pronounced among feminism. You're correct here, but too many high-profile feminists aren't saying what you're saying, and it makes the whole endeavor look bad.

It probably doesn't help that men, even if we're not all exactly the same, tend to have a more limited and similarly-aligned list of wants. We're really very simply creatures, you know. But it may accentuate in our minds the notion that "women don't know what they want". It seems absurd to treat a group, women, as an entity, but the thing is, we can do it with other men and it works pretty well.

It really isn't my goal to make excuses, although my wording makes it sound that way. Better we (to treat men as an entity) change how we view women than that women change their behavior. God, imagine if women were like men? *shudder*

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I don't think women are that unlike men. I would love for feminism to also reverse male stereotypes, such as males being horny, uncontrollable bastards when it comes to wanting sex. You think women are any better, biologically? We just hide it better. Ditto the double-standard for sexual abuse--there's no way that a guy should be expected to roll off (or, heaven forfend be happy) about a girl performing sex acts on him he doesn't want/while he was unable to mount a defense as "But hey, I got laid." Her actions--of not taking no means no--should be held to similar standards as men doing the same to women.

In my mind, that's what feminism should do--eliminate the double standard. Unfortunately, as you put it, the famous feminists aren't getting noticed for doing that so much (and the ones that are are too moderate--aka the reasonable end of the spectrum of activism--to get as much notice).

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

Well, I meant any equality. Maybe I don't really have a point and I just think a lot of people are lazy and just find something to blame. Certainly that's not all feminists or any "ists" and I'm all for women's rights AND equal rights, but I think even if the world was equal a lot of people would keep on complaining because they can't figure out that they still need to put in some effort.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh, there, I think, we are in perfect agreement. Again, don't know who said it, but if humanity woke up tomorrow and all visible differences--race, age, gender-- and all religions/nations were indistinguishable from one person/nation to the next? They'd find something to hate each other for by noon. Depressing as, mate.

I think people are fundamentally lazy, which is why the slide back to pre-feminist era stuff is pretty depressing to me. Women still go to college in droves, but they go for their MRS degrees then have short careers they then intend to leave for babies. So much for making our way...

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Nothing wrong with that! There's something wrong with being forced into it, but I'm under the impression that a lot of women choose to drop out of the workforce to raise children of their own accord. My mom, for example, went through the full M.D. program and residency, and just when she started doing real medical work, had me and decided to stay home.

One of my problems with the feminist movement is the contempt it seems to have for women who choose to be homemakers, as if no sane person could ever really choose that life.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Actually, the feminist movement doesn't hold housework in contempt, that's anti-feminist backlash. Feminism, at its center, holds that women don't have to be homemakers. Anti-feminists then screech about how feminism is anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-man (hence the ever-popular "man-hating feminist" which all people who identify with feminists are confronted with before they've said a word about feminism otherwise). Plenty of feminist blogs I read have happily married writers with kids chiming in. They don't hate homemaking as a career; they hate that many women don't see an alternative or are never allowed to see one. It stunts the potential of half our race.

Consider it like this: it's like what the wingers did with anyone who questioned Dubya after 9/11--"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!?!" Um, I just want to know why we're going to Iraq to fight a war when the terrorists weren't there. Questioning authority and holding it responsible for its actions and for telling the truth to the public--political dissent, in other words, is the most American thing you can do. Likewise, feminism goes, "You don't have to be a homemaker." They say nothing else on the subject besides "You can have whatever you career you want." And, as soon as we question whether women ultimately have to return to wife and mother role? Bam, anti-feminist backlash calls us housewife/mother-hating women. Go to college. Have the career you want. If kids come up and are more important? Stay with them.

My comment about the MRS degree was meant with a hint of irony, too, because, again, contrary to anti-feminist (aka patriarchal and the dominant) thinking, feminists do have a sense of humor.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

(Ah, an excuse to use this icon)

This looks like a pair of depressingly weak people. The guy is a macho jerk who treats his wife like crap to make him feel more like a man. That doesn't really need explaining. The woman, on the other hand, was a passive-agressive emotional wreck before marriage:

He returned my calls. He told me he loved me. He was totally unsuitable - he should have been backpacking across South America with a 24-year-old in a boob tube, not worrying about feeding the lawn - but we decided to get married. "I want to be tied to you, Chubby," he emailed me when I gave him an ultimatum. "I've never had a doubt." I showed him that email the other day, and he looked doubtful he had ever written it.

Hint: If you're dating someone 10 years your junior with the maturity of someone 20 years your junior, you have severe doubts about the relationship, and you have to give an ultimatum to get an engagement, you probably should step back before getting married. More ridiculous, though, is...

Out for dinner last night, I could tell he was in a strop and asked why. "My mum rang to ask me if I am really gay," he said miserably. Ah. I had written down all the reasons why we might not be having sex. Pointing out that him being homosexual was just one of 10 didn't really make him feel much better.

Hint: Suggesting in a public forum that your husband might be gay is not a productive way of solving marital difficulties. Not that I'm an expert, but it doesn't really take one to figure that out.

So, I'm not going to consider this guy the main problem in their relationship. The key, I think, is not expecting people to get married for the sake of marriage, and reminding people that marriage doesn't fix problems with a relationship. She gave him an ultimatum (wrong) and he took it out of a believed obligation (also wrong), and now they're both miserable. Sounds a little like my parents were.

Marriage is still a key societal institution and very good for children as a general rule. I still believe that everyone needs someone else to serve the functions of a spouse, but the needing isn't one-way.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I think I'm agreeing with Edgehopper that both of these people are idiots who should never have been in a relationship with each other. The guy is abusive, indeed, but also amazingly oblivious to how desperately unhappy his wife is while proclaiming he knows all the secrets to what women want. (He also seems to think she's a "strong feminist", and I'm not entirely sure where he got that idea.) The woman, on the other hand, reeks desperation like she bathed in it, and apparently hasn't the first clue what a healthy relationship looks like. Or if she does, she doesn't care that her relationship sucks because, hey, she needs a man to be complete, right?

Feh. I think the only good thing to come out of this is the fact that they never had or adopted children. Darwin would be pleased to see them out of the gene pool.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That's what I object to with the push of marriage of late--the idea that you need a partner to complete you. I think it works for many if not most, but the some of us who aren't so sure about that? We don't appreciate the inference that getting ourselves some penis is the way to fix things, thanks (and, relax, dudes, I am being snarky and sarcastic there--feminists have fine senses of humor).

But, my God...when that whole "I wanna be a daaaaaddy" part came up? Nearly had kittens. I can't imagine worse parents. He'd want just the status, the good-father guy type praise, and she'd smother them to compensate for love lacking elsewhere. That's a recipe for a disaster if ever I saw one.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

"Of late"? What is this "of late"?

People have always been socially pushed towards marriage, for good or ill. Now granted, guys could get out of it somewhat easier, but they were still looked at askance if they didn't marry eventually.

This isn't a new thing. The reasoning behind it - that you have to be married to be "complete" with your "soul mate", rather than to fulfill your social obligations - may have changed somewhat, but that pressure has always been there.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I suppose I find it less hideous that marriage was entirely out of convenience back in the day (hundreds of years back). I wouldn't want an arranged marriage or anything, myself, but there's something to be said for not using psychological manipulation to force people into marriage. It's not "completing your soul" to find a husband or wife; it was "get married for X,Y,Z good reasons (mostly money, money, and money) and make babies to start it all over again."

The psychological abuse of finding single people somehow deficient just seems that much more insidious next to that.

[newredshoes]

(Dude! I don't remember that one at all! What's the strip/arc that that's from?)

Ow. The whole thing is just ow.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

It's from the arc where the XBot tries to go away and be human, with...unpleasant results. And gets named Zeke.

[newredshoes]

Ahhh, I remember now. There was one weekend during finals where I read the whole run. It's terribly addictive.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It is! I re-read the whole thing again recently. I love Ethan. Whenever I'm really pissed, "Crapfuck!" comes easily off the tongue.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

God, what arc of Ctrl+Alt+Del was that from? I think Zeke was trying to become human, and he left to find stuff out in the world and when he came back, that's when he got his name...right?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

(yes, nice icon, but it's too hard to read what Zeke is saying--can you crop it more and make it larger? Love Ctrl+Alt+Del, myself)

Hint: Suggesting in a public forum that your husband might be gay is not a productive way of solving marital difficulties. Not that I'm an expert, but it doesn't really take one to figure that out.

It was part of like ten things she wrote that could be the problem, and I gather she wasn't serious about it, just bringing it up as one of the few possible (note: not probable) reasons he was so cold to her. Now, this guy got into a relationship with her knowing full well she was a writer, and he also made the boneheaded mistake of chosing never to read her work (which, okay, maybe gives her more freedom to report accurately, but which is majorly shitty--not taking an interest in her professional and creative output), so he doesn't get to complain that she put that out there when he never bothered to look at it before she did so.

That they both needy, insecure people, I don't doubt. He just gets less of my sympathy because she offers up herself as vulnerable, meaning she's self-aware even as she was self-deceived, and he just acts like a prick as a cover and denies he is the problem. I prefer a person who is at least aware of their faults--it's a huge step closer to rectifying them than they would be were they still in denial.

And, I dunno, I don't think marriage is for everyone. I've always felt it was fairly alien a thing to me, and I came from parents married thirty+ years now. It is wonderful and makes the people I know who've gotten married so very happy, so I'm thrilled. I just look at them and go "That works for them. Good for them." I'm not sure it works for me, and, because I have that basic viewpoint, because I've experienced that approach, I can easily believe I'm not alone in thinking that way, and I can see that people with less confidence (like this woman) might not realize that it's okay not to get married. And that's a damned shame.

I don't disagree that having a partner is nearly essential for child-rearing, if only for a parent's sanity, but I stop short of saying it's better for the kids because there are a lot of fine single parents, and lots of places (like this couple's example) where having parents split is better than having them together. Fortunately for me, not wanting to get married won't affect my kids because I don't really want those either. Yuck.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Sorry, in this case, I think writing about these problems in such a way is a shitty, shitty, passive-aggressive thing to do. And while she may see her problems, I don't think she has any intention of actually taking responsibility for them or changing anything. She whines about her previous relationships and their suckiness - well, guess what? The only common factor was her.

This is a pair of screwed up people who are in a great deal of pain and also really nasty. He's aggressively cruel, she's passive aggressively cruel, and they feed off each other. Neither should be in a relationship with anyone. It's sad and pathetic. The most troubling thing, though, is that they're writers who are adding to the ammunition each gender has to point at the other gender and say "See? They're all crazy!"

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

::shrugs:: I don't think she's entirely forgiven, but, again, he knew what she wrote and chose to ignore it. This isn't carte blanche to air their dirty laundry in public, but it's fairly ignorant and stupid besides of him to cry foul after the fact like he didn't know she'd been chronicling their wedding and married life for a newspaper. It's like signing on to be on a reality show then bitching about how you end up looking. Hey, buddy, you agreed to this.

That said, I don't like the passive-aggressive stuff, mostly because I know I'm guilty of it myself, and I dislike that. I try to be more forward now when I'm pissed off--if it turns out that I don't have a good reason to be mad (which was something I think that I and most passive-aggressive people are always afraid of being caught out at being), I apologize. It's hard, but it's the adult thing to do. I hope she learns it just as surely as he learns not to be such a sulky baby.

[umeyard.livejournal.com]

Ironically i have to comment to you here..all i can think of right now is after listening to a friend of mine whine years ago about how terrible all her relationships were and blah blah blah....one of my friends went out and got her a poster that said "The only thing all your failed relationships have in common is you".

Truely brilliant, although cruel. Sometimes people are so obsessed in finding the faults in others, they forget to look for the faults in themselves.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

For once I actually agree with you. Dude's an ASS, to severely understate things.

I may or may not avoid getting into the comment replies where I don't agree. :P

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Go ahead. This has been a surpassingly un-stepped-on-toe discussion, even where I've disagreed, which is saying a lot, given the usual sorts of snaps I make when discussing this stuff.

[umeyard.livejournal.com]

Okay, this may be my personal bias on the topic comming up here but after reading the second article all i could think was "Honey, thats marriage." Some people get the hearts and flowers and happy ever after. Most people that I talk to, and myself included, just end up feeling trapped. Now, granted my marriage was far from conventional and my husband was a total putz, but still. I can count on one hand the number of couples my age that happily married. This story is sad, yes, but more accurate then most people would ever want to admit. And although i did not read any comments, i am sure alot of people are empethetic to her plight and wish she would walk, but its not that easy. We are raised to think that come hell or high water we need to fight to make a marriage work. This is not always the case. She knows she can leave, she is deciding not to for the reason that she feels she cant do any better. Its hard to feel any sympathy for her. Maybe its because i stood in her shoes, and those worse then hers, and here I stand a stronger person. IF she is going to act like a dishrag she should be expected to be treated like one. And to contradict the first article, I am willing to bet if she took a stand and said "Look, Asshole..." he would take some notice and respect her more. Okay, really this is turning into a rant so will back off some, but really she is just as much to blame as he is. Tell her write something better when she grows a spine. Writing an acticle on her life may evoke sympathy, but if she took a stand and wrote about that it would give inspiration. Okay, I am done.