season of the bitch

“Today, feminist criticism equates ‘the true self’ with a face unaltered by artifice. Such a concept paradoxically defines the presence of self by the absence of its expression. The self is thus imagined as passive and preexisting rather than processual and consciously spoken. An ‘expressive self’ seems as valid and liberating a concept as the pared-down notion of unvarnished selfhood advocated by feminism. From an ‘expressive’ viewpoint, valuing individuality is not inconsistent with the unabashedly artificial self-adornment practices of the 1960s.”

Fresh Lipstick, Linda M. Scott. p 264

“Today’s feminists would not begrudge the expression of sexual orientation and desire through dress within the lesbian community, but the attitudes that pathologize the same behavior from a heterosexual female are still powerful. In the spirit of Simone de Beauvoir, they consider the effort to ‘dress for sex’ with a man a pathetic, self-demeaning behavior–as if the human need for affection and erotic experience were less legitimate in a heterosexual situation. Presenting oneself in a way that expresses availability and desire is the way humans, male or female, gay or straight, get the love that they need. Nevertheless, one segment of the sexual spectrum is still precluded from expressing itself without condemnation from feminists: The feminine, heterosexual woman is still presumed to have no agency in the performance of gender, regardless of her transgressions in work, sexuality, or politics.”

Fresh Lipstick, Linda M. Scott. Page 234.

One of my favorite ladies in all of bloglandia has been getting far more than her fair share of shit these days. So here’s something to cheer her up: pretty boys and talk of porn! (below jump, because there are a lot of pictures) » Read the rest of this entry «

It got a little out of hand. So I’m reposting it here, as its own post. I really, really appreciate someone actually taking the time to engage and ask questions here. And though I’ve been snarky, seriously, if there’s something you’d like to know, I’m absolutely willing to discuss it.

here’s a link to my recent “My Feminism” post.

I actually have quite a few criticisms of raunch culture. Mostly they come from a sort of Marxist angle–that our sexuality is commodified and sold back to us in a very specific light, and that’s problematic, yes. I’ve written a bit about this, and actually was just saying yesterday that it might be time to dig out Das Kapital and write the big ol’ critique of porn and sex work as WORK rather than as social signification.

Like I said, I’ve been all over the map in terms of physical attractiveness, and I do absolutely think that there’s a beauty premium and that people get treated differently because of how they look. And that is a problem.

But I see the mind-body dichotomy as a problem, too.

The female was always associated with the body in that little binary there. And the body was BAD. So a lot of the feminism that I relate to is about reclaiming the body as good. As a source of joy and pleasure for the woman herself. (If you REALLY want to get geeky, I’d be happy to send you a copy of a paper I wrote for a film theory class that explains some of that.)

My biggest problem with Twisty is that she makes bold declarations that something is unfeminist or that it’s rape culture. If you read my post on feminism and heterosexuality, well, that’s something that bothers me greatly. In all my thoughts on female desire, I’ve never been quite able to break with the fact that I am a straight girl. I like men. I fantasize about men. I do actually enjoy heterosexual sex, even giving blowjobs and being shoved around some. It’s my desire, and as the quote I posted above says, my desires don’t revolve around what I’m repudiating.

So to me, to call things that genuinely turn me on ‘rape’ is insulting. It’s denying my agency, and while Twisty likes to tell us all that we don’t have any agency because of patriarchy, well, I’ve got to live this life and so until the Revolution comes and we overthrow the patriarchy/capitalism, I’ve got to find ways to make myself happy. So do we all.

Twisty said “The idea that women’s public sexuality can so precisely mirror traditional male fantasy while simultaneously existing in a kind of pro-woman, I-do-it-for-myself alternate universe is the cornerstone of funfeminist “thought.””

Unfortunately, my sexuality DOES mirror traditional male fantasy quite often. And it’s not because I haven’t examined enough or tried other options, or opted out altogether for a couple of years. So I DO have to find a way to reconcile those two facts.

And as I mentioned in several of the posts above and over the past few months, I had an ex who rather than wanting me to participate in wild sex or wear ‘porny’ clothes, wanted me to wear conservative clothes, was freaked out by my actual sexual desire, and basically wanted me to conform to the same ideals that I see vaunted over at Twisty’s–don’t dress sexy, don’t express your sexual desires, don’t be active sexually (not to be confused with sexually active) etc. So if I’d done that, I’d be pleasing a man. And he liked to use my feminism as a way to get me to behave the way he thought–if you’re a feminist, he’d say, why do you need men to look at you?

And so yes, at this point I would say that my freedom now to wear what I damn well want is a feminist act. My freedom to fuck how I damn well want is a feminist act. And those things don’t oppress anyone, because I’m not trying to force anyone else’s desires into the same box as I live in.

It strikes me sometimes as a reversal of the Kantian categorical imperative (I’m sorry if I’m sounding like one of those overeducated middle-class wonks that were getting ragged on over there, but once again, that’s who I am and I can’t fight it). People get angry because of the way I or Ren or Caroline looks or acts or talks, because they confuse our advocacy for our right to do that with advocacy that the rest of the world behave that way. I am not trying to impose my lifestyle on anyone else, and all I ask is that they don’t do it to me.

As far as burlesque goes, well, I just transcribed an interview with Margaret Cho the other day, and she was talking about how bellydance and burlesque actually helped her get over her body issues because she would go to bellydance events and see older women, bigger women, young women, skinny women, all of them dancing and shaking it and having a great time and being beautiful. The same thing with a lot of the neo-burlesque movements–there are plenty of them that revolve around non-porny ideals of beauty, and women find a lot of acceptance there.

Yes, to some degree it’s still performing for the gaze. But I’ve argued before and will again (because I looooove feminist film theory) that the gaze is not necessarily masculine.

Again, thanks for actually engaging. If you have any other questions I’m totally up for answering them.

“The idea seems to be this: it is understandable that women would want to be men, for everyone wants to be elsewhere than in the feminine position. What is not understandable within the given terms is why a woman might flaunt her femininity, produce herself as an excess of femininity, in other words, foreground the masquerade. –Mary Ann Doane, “Film and the Masquerade.”

Certain types of radical feminism posit that anything ‘feminine’ is automatically a tool of the patriarchy–jewelry, skirts, makeup, sex with men. To me, though, that seems to be an attempt to do just what Doane is referring to above–to leave behind the feminine position. While it is not an attempt to ‘become’ man, it is an attempt to disavow the feminine, in the same way that Hillary Clinton’s talk of shooting guns and drinking whiskey and bombing countries was an attempt to prove herself unfeminine enough to be President.

In other words, if we can simply disavow the ‘feminine,’ we will have power. This plays out most particularly when it comes to ideas of ‘proper’ sex. If we can declare ourselves ‘political lesbians’ even if we aren’t actually attracted to men, we will be free from the yoke of patriarchy. If we do not give oral sex to men, or we refuse penetration, we are making a political statement, not a personal preference.

But the problem of femininity is that we are both pushed to embody it and devalued for doing so. And so when we disavow it, we are shaking off one part of the double bind only to embrace the other–ditching the love for the physical, the pretty things, for the intellectual, insisting on being valued for our minds, not our bodies. We are embracing the male half of the dichotomy, a dichotomy which is inherently false.

I don’t like dichotomies–I like transgressions. I like contradictions like pink boxing gloves, things that simultaneously leave behind the boxes women were shoved into and embrace the roles that may have been forced on us, but that we adapted for ourselves. I can indeed wear high heels and a pretty dress and hot pink lipstick and still school you on health care policy. I can wear a miniskirt and still know more about Irish literature. I can be both.

“The masquerade, in flaunting femininity, holds it at a distance. Womanliness is a mask which can be worn or removed.” -Doane

We have that choice, to be feminine or not to be, now. We are body and mind, regardless of which mask we wear–that much we can’t avoid. No matter how much Western culture has striven to privilege the mind over the body, they cannot be separated. But being able to play with representations of that body, to change it, present it as we want to, hide it, flaunt it, use it.

“The very fact that we can speak of a woman ‘using’ her sex or ‘using’ her body for particular gains is highly significant–it is not that a man cannot use his body in this way, but that he doesn’t have to…Nevertheless, the preceding account simply specifies masquerade as a type of representation which carries a threat, disarticulating male systems of viewing.” -Doane

Men may not have to use their bodies, but we are free to choose to do so or not to do so. And when we do so, we can do it not simply as a treat offered up to men on a silver platter, but as a way to disrupt and confuse the binary, the false dichotomy, and confound the gaze.

“In theories of repression there is no sense of the productiveness and positivity of power. Femininity is produced very precisely as a position within a network of power relations.” -Doane

So can we choose to produce femininity as a position not at the bottom of power relations, but at the top? Or as a positive? Can we, instead of disavowing everything traditionally named feminine, use those things and enjoy them, and take power in them?

“Empowerment” is a tough word to use these days, but Ren’s post there is a great one. Us “pro-porn” or “sex-poz” types get derided for calling things “empowering” that other types call “patriarchy-pleasing.” But truly, I believe that there is power and pleasure in our bodies as well as our minds, and in beauty as well as in intellect, in art as well as politics. And hell, I think that’s what Pop Feminist’s blog is all about.

So I come to the other half of my title here: heterosexuality. And the question–can heterosexuality be a radical choice?

Before I was sexually active at all, I was active in the gay-straight alliance at school. I can’t say that I was a super-activist back in high school or anything fun like that, but I was aware and accepting of other options. I didn’t go through any Chasing Amy phases or anything like that, but I can say with certainty that I didn’t come to sex with men because it was pressed on me or because it was presented as the only option.

I came to it through my own desires and choices. I didn’t do things until I was damn well ready to, and sure, just like everyone, I had issues to work through (and still do, but don’t we all). But I embraced sex and sexuality on my own terms–and those terms involve men. That’s what I’m attracted to, though there are more women on a daily basis who turn my head and make me smile. It’s just not sexual most of the time. My fantasies 90% of the time revolve around men.

And yes, I mean sexual fantasies, not some dream of ‘finding the One’ or any of that crap that according to Cosmo and even smart women I know are ‘girl porn.’  And acting on those desires, even when they are traditional performances of femininity or even exaggerated performances of femininity (my love for corsets, admittedly not really sexual as much as aesthetic, for example) IS an informed feminist choice for me.

Just as now, freed of the ex who wanted to tell me what to wear, I take pleasure in each time I step out of the house in a low-cut shirt or a miniskirt or short shorts because it was my choice and no one else’s, I take pleasure in each time I decide for myself what I want to do and who I want to do it with, when I make the first move and I break the rules.

And now, here’s a man for you to objectify.

Or if not that, then they want you to be something that you just aren’t, even though you might wish you could be. That’s worse.

-Kate in ‘Girl You Want’

My review of DEMO is here. Go on, read it. Then come back here and delve into this post.

I’ve mentioned Laura Mulvey’s theory on ‘the gaze’ in film before, and linked there to a good summation of her, plus some notes on reactions to her. Even more basically, she posits that film assumes a male spectator who takes pleasure in looking-at. She differentiates between “voyeuristic” looking, which asserts control over the person or thing looked at, and “fetishistic” looking, which turns the object of the gaze into something pleasing in and of itself–a fetish.

I wrote a paper deconstructing this a bit back in the day, threw some Kristeva in there, and was given a pat on the back and a department award.

But I’ve never seen a better examination of this whole theory, and how it leaves the movie theater and comes into our lives, than DEMO #5, ‘Girl You Want.’

(If you haven’t read it yet and you think you want to, go, buy the new collected edition, and then come back and read this. If you have read it, or you probably won’t but want to see what I’m on about, keep reading.) » Read the rest of this entry «

In this post I wrote about the nastiness inherent in hating other women for their looks. Now I have to take on the flip side of that argument–a discussion of pure physical lust.

Cassandra Says (in between pictures of one amazingly beautiful man):

Funny how taboo that still is to admit for a lot of people, that women look, that men get looked at. Personally I’m profoundly uninterested in associating with either women who won’t admit that they look or men who’re uncomfortable with being looked at. This is me, folks – I’m a sensual creature. I’m visual. I like to look.

I have a friend who constantly defends her love for Roger Federer by swearing up and down that it’s all about the game. She’s the same friend who reminds me all the time that there’s more to a man than his looks, and that I should be choosing them for their brains–a reminder that I sorely need at times.

However, this discounts a whole part of attraction and desire. I like to remind her that it’s OK to look. It’s especially OK to look at a celebrity who you’re in all likelihood never going to meet.

She doesn’t know Federer. I don’t know Clive Owen. And those people are probably quite happy that we don’t know them. We know and like what’s put out there for us to see, and the rest is kept for them and the people who actually know them.

That doesn’t necessarily contribute to dehumanizing them, something that’s inherent in the usual discussions of “objectification.” Cassuto, in The Inhuman Race, writes of the tendency of people to try to turn other people into things, but I’d argue that simply appreciating the physical beauty of another person can be the furthest thing from treating them as a thing.

I wrote here about the different types of attraction I feel, and of course they shift as you get to know someone. But that doesn’t change the original physical attraction.

I wouldn’t want to be with someone who didn’t find me attractive, who didn’t think I was the prettiest girl in the room. Of course, I want them to like my mind too, but I want that physical attraction to be there.

I think part of the problem here that sees physical attraction as shallow or objectifying is that mind/body false dichotomy. Which was always equated with mind=male and body=female. So of course women are the only ones that can be looked at sexually, and men cannot be, right? Wrong.

Because we know that it’s crap, that we are all body AND mind. To recognize that someone is pretty, to take a sexy picture of them is not to deny that other parts of them exist. Sure, there are ways to objectify someone–to treat them as if they are not a person, to abuse them, insist they do things that they don’t want to do, deny their agency and ability to choose for themselves.

Just as when you see this picture of me, you know that there is a face and a front of my body, and if you read my blog, you know that there are a gazillion opinions inside me too, when we look at pictures of attractive people, we know that there is a person there. We appreciate how attractive they are because they are people, not because they are things.

So it’s OK to look. The problem comes from how you treat people, not how you see them.