DISCUSSION FORUM:
feminism and its influence on the portrayal of sexual power
This is an archive page for February 2001.
Where reader comments are of interest or where they raise significant points I will publish my response in dialogue pages such as this one. Reader comment excerpts are in black and my replies in red.
Please send your scathing critiques and observations to Thinkbomb.
From: Floppyx11@aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001
I am extremely disturbed by your site. How can you be serious? Women have
been oppressed since the beginning of time and continue to be as we have
entered the twenty-first century. How do you explain the systematic rapes
of women during wars? Why hasn't there not been a female president? Why can't
I walk down the street without being harrassed verbally or otherwise? In
some places, I am not even allowed to control my reproductive rights.
Tampons are taxed because they are a "luxury" for women, not a necessity. Women
have not been allowed to vote, have access to education in the same way males
have and have been denied the ability to obtain a legal divorce up until this
century. Did you ever stop to think that we might be sick of living in a
man's world? Why is it that I am supposed to change my name upon getting
married? So I can be my husband's property. Yeah right. I think your just
jealous that men are starting to fall from their pedastals. You're scared
and don't know what to do about it so you create this site to oppress women
even more. You're poor girlfriend. I'm assuming she's left you by now
since you can't seem to satisfy her. Too bad. Men and women could work great
together if they really tried. Please stop spreading mysogyny. No one is
going to get anywhere unless they are willing to be compassionate and
educate themselves. Are you from the mid-west?
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
Men get harassed walking down the street
too sometimes. But while women get whistled at, the men get punched in the
face. Doesn't make it acceptable. Harassment by individual men is almost
inevitable. It can be minimised. And just because tampons are taxed it doesn't
mean you are oppressed. This is really inane. Women don't have to change
their name when they marry and I doubt whether most women care. In fact many
would consider it an honor, because a man has vowed to take her under his
wing. In a sense a woman has more freedom. She can choose to keep her name,
or hyphenate her name, or take her husband's name. Choice! Clinton, Rodham-Clinton, or Rodham, depending on your mood that day, and how much you want to ride on the prestige of some lousy male.
The list of issues goes on. I have no objection to you raising points about
women having certain lacks of freedom. But keep it in perspective and retain
your empathetic global understanding of history and politics.
From: "Frank Lee" franklee@waitrose.com
A significant problem with semantics appears to lie at the heart of any
attempt to counteract the oppressive nature of feminism. It centres around
what we actually mean when we use the term 'liberal', but more specifically
whether feminists have changed its meaning - either wittingly or
unwittingly. Since feminists police language so rigorously I would think the
former is more likely since their version of 'new liberalism lite' can then
be used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in all sorts of bigoted legislation.
The Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure put forward the idea that what is
signified can sometimes be mobile under the sign - that words are not
rigidly attached to their meanings. As you say in your essay, the argument
that there are many different varieties of feminism can be used to take the
heat of 'radical' feminists. Yet the arguments of even the most extreme
feminists, are still couched in a liberal framework and borrow extensively
from the language of liberal politics. In connection with women they use
words like 'freedom', 'equality', 'oppression', 'struggle' etc. Because we
know that 'radical' feminists are quite happy to see disabled, black,
impoverished and vulnerable men of all types go to the wall so that wealthy
white women can have more, perhaps it is time we re-emphasised the all
inclusive nature of liberalism. A very small first step might be to define
the concept of liberalism and re-attach it firmly to the word, on websites
like this one. Here are a few of the elements which I feel constitute
liberal ideals and represent the antithesis of feminism:
1) A more equal distribution of wealth for all people, not just women.
2) Decent health care, access to education, the law, justice, employment and
habitable housing for all, not just women.
3) A voice in the media and politics with a say in how one is represented
for all, not just women.
Perhaps this all seems a bit wet and (horror of horrors), idealistic, but
its a damn sight better than the 'liberalism' on offer from Greer, Faludi et
al.
Even in this e-mail about language I have fallen into the trap of obliquely
dignifying extreme feminists by calling them radical. 'Radical' still has
connotations of noble struggle attached to it from the 1960s era. In a
recent letter to a British feminist (yes I did get a reply!) I posed the
following question: 'In Valerie Solanis' 'S.C.U.M. Manifesto' she posits the
idea that creating men is about as worthwhile as creating blind people. Is
she a radical feminist or is she a fascist bigot?' This lady, a Faludi
clone, was adamant that Solanis was merely 'radical' in her views. In my
dictionary's definition of 'radical', I can't find anything to suggest that
devaluing two forms of human life in one sentence has anything to do with
radical politics at all. I suppose on this basis Hitler was just a bit of an
old radical and not a fascist at all!
So, even in our criticism of feminists, I suggest we dispense with any
vocabulary with even the faintest hint of '60s liberal politics.
'Revolutionaries', 'radical', 'caucus', 'movement', 'liberal', 'dissident',
'rebellious and many other inappropriate words, which often inadvertently
put our texts into semantic territory which feminists long ago colonized for
themselves. Words such as 'pervert', 'bigot, 'hypocrite', 'coward',
'psychopath's, 'despot', 'lickspittle', 'racist', 'fascist', 'Quisling',
'abuser', 'sly', 'unctuous, 'weak', 'liar', 'exploiter', 'selfish',
'betrayer', 'sleazy', 'rapacious', 'sweaty', 'lazy', 'conventional',
'crass', 'voyeur, 'arse crawler', 'boss's woman', 'arrogant arsehole',
'dictator', 'brutal', 'barbarian', 'elitist', 'eugenicist',
'conformist','intolerant', 'cretinous', 'worm', 'pisspoor', 'inadequate', 'Conservative', 'crude', 'leech', 'sleazy', 'narrow', 'cruel'
etc. These words are widely used against men, which is why they have their
original meanings largely unsullied. Feminists don't feel the need to police
their meaning because they are seldom, if ever, used against them. This is
not about name calling. it is about using words which powerfully convey the
barbaric anti-humanitarian secret behind that oh-so-liberal feminist facade.
Skip to next archive (January 2001)
I think that you should look at things from
both sides of the sexual fence to get a moderate and balanced perspective.
Whenever you consider what has happened to women historically you should
think about what things have happened to men that might be similarly
oppressive. People such as yourself seem to virtually forget that men even
exist. Just because women couldn't play on a Nintendo game in 1748 or
microwave their dinners in AD 460 does not mean they were oppressed by men.
Sounds stupid doesn't it. But consider your claim that women didn't have
voting rights. Most men did not have them either, in a historic period when
this had not yet been contemplated.
Subject: Feminism's Semantic Fig-Leaf
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001
Who's Next??
