feminism and straight sex
My previous post with critique of Maureen Dowd's article in the NYT magazine is relevant -- the whole reporter trend of going after "women regress and love it" with faulty research is something that I want to call bullshit on.
But there is something more problematic about the original article and its replies. Why is the success or relevance of feminism measured by the ability of straight women to "catch a man"? Why is the ability to find marriage material how one should judge where to place the bar of social critique?
There is some argument to be made about the ways in which feminism (or backlash) has affected interpersonal relationships both sexual and political. All of these articles talk as if feminism actually "happened" in some way and we are going back, rather than arguing that feminism was articulated at some venture and continues to operate as an idea but not a reality for most women.
When I read the article this weekend, the first thing it made me think was "I'm gay." I stood up out of bed and looked around my apartment. For some reason it struck me very suddenly that I lived with another woman and that my concerns were very much removed from what Dowd was talking about. At the same time, I felt that most of the people I knew approached relationships (issues of sex, whose going to pay, and what is a successful relationship) with a lot more maturity then all of subjects of these articles. There is no crisis of faith, no attempt to recraft oneself as "the hunted," and while there are plenty of concessions I find depressing -- they often aren't intentional, let alone strategized.
My point is this: feminism has the potential to restructure all personal interactions. It could, if ever embraced, destabilize all sorts of sexual scenarios. But the merit of equality is not how many dates it gets, its not even how much things have changed, its that equality is desirable. Of course there are a million moral relativist claims to be made here. I'm just more interested in a real exploration of cultural forces and sick of feminism being relegated to the scapegoat for the dating woes of modern America. It has to mean more than that.
In the meantime, someone needs to explain hetereosexuality to me, cause I don't get it.*
*I mean, I get it. I get men and women sleeping together and dating and all that. What I don't get the belief that it's "natural" or "just what you are" anymore then I buy that claim for the queers.
But there is something more problematic about the original article and its replies. Why is the success or relevance of feminism measured by the ability of straight women to "catch a man"? Why is the ability to find marriage material how one should judge where to place the bar of social critique?
There is some argument to be made about the ways in which feminism (or backlash) has affected interpersonal relationships both sexual and political. All of these articles talk as if feminism actually "happened" in some way and we are going back, rather than arguing that feminism was articulated at some venture and continues to operate as an idea but not a reality for most women.
When I read the article this weekend, the first thing it made me think was "I'm gay." I stood up out of bed and looked around my apartment. For some reason it struck me very suddenly that I lived with another woman and that my concerns were very much removed from what Dowd was talking about. At the same time, I felt that most of the people I knew approached relationships (issues of sex, whose going to pay, and what is a successful relationship) with a lot more maturity then all of subjects of these articles. There is no crisis of faith, no attempt to recraft oneself as "the hunted," and while there are plenty of concessions I find depressing -- they often aren't intentional, let alone strategized.
My point is this: feminism has the potential to restructure all personal interactions. It could, if ever embraced, destabilize all sorts of sexual scenarios. But the merit of equality is not how many dates it gets, its not even how much things have changed, its that equality is desirable. Of course there are a million moral relativist claims to be made here. I'm just more interested in a real exploration of cultural forces and sick of feminism being relegated to the scapegoat for the dating woes of modern America. It has to mean more than that.
In the meantime, someone needs to explain hetereosexuality to me, cause I don't get it.*
*I mean, I get it. I get men and women sleeping together and dating and all that. What I don't get the belief that it's "natural" or "just what you are" anymore then I buy that claim for the queers.
posted by good golly at 12:38 PM
7 Comments:
i've been heterosexual my whole life and i don't get it, either.
To me (lately but maybe forever) all romantic relationships seem unnatural and pointless, unless the romantic relationship is with yourself.
aimee, you are my case in point. what do you mean "i'm hetereosexual"? those words don't even mean anything to me. esp when i know you'd make out with me if i asked.
I had a gay colombian fashion designer chasing after me this summer while I was in NYC. After a while I starting thinking, "you know, if I was homosexual he would be a great catch." For me, that is the definition of heterosexual--when preented with the opportunity to be intimate, sensual, whaterever with someone of your own sex you say "nah, not interested." The same goes for homosexuals. I gues what the real argument is whether sexual preference is categorical or more like a spectrum (i.e. no one is totally gay and no one is totally hetero). That's SJ argument, which I can dig in theory but the fact that I am so thoroghly disinterested in the male body as an object of physical affection and very interested in the female body as an object of affection I have a really hard time finding my grey areas. I like strong women--does that mean I like women with masculine characteristics and thus subconsciously would rather be with dude? I feel like what ever gets you super hot and bothered (makes you so horny you lose some minor brain functions) is probably what you prefer. I think it is safe to assume that most people who "switch teams" are never really all that excited about the team they were on.
And just so we are clear, intellect, style and personality can make me hot too (i.e. my college gf Jenna), but it is a different frequency. And, ultimately, if one has a penis there is a seemingly impassible gorge between us which personality cannot bridge.
i don't think its spectrum. i think its socialization and choice. ie the male body has been socialized for you in a de-sexualized way. i don't think there's anything "natural" or unique that makes someone say "nah thanx" -- i think its homophobia, fear, and revulsion (which, in the end, are all the same thing).
not to say that my own sexual reactions aren't equally socialized and marked by fear. as a girl, i am innundated with images of men as sexually brutal, as violent, as dominating. it makes it much harder for me to quiet the white noise and want to duke it with them. but i am partially aware of it - i know why i don't pursue men as often as i do the ladies. not simply because of my white noise, but because of what i think it means to be socialized as a man in our culture and how uninterested i am in deconstructing that for someone else. i'm busy. and utterly not seduced by the whole bad-boy, savior-lady paradigm.
I never used the word "natural" or suggested that sexuality was. I agree there are conditions. Personal and social conditions--which is why using the term homophobic seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Homophobia is a aversion to gays and their sexual activities, which does not characterize my relationship to homosexuality in any way. At the same time, the male body neither titilates, disgust, nor scares me. Or rather it does so in equal proportions which flatten how I see it. You bring up choice, but only in the negative as though sexuality is a function of what you avoid more than it is of what you gravitate towards at different time. That is what I was saying about people who change the sexual orientation they profess outwardly is that they were probably avoiding themselves rather than investigating (which can be arduous in a society that does not make more for multiple sexual orientation). To switch to the affirmative, I don't think I can make the choice to be sexually attracted to men (which would have to be true if I could or did, as you suggest, make the choice to be attracted to women). Again, I think it is an unfair and somewhat passive-aggressive argument to suggest sexuality stems from fears. I "fear" the sexual and mental prowess of some women and its abilty to influence me to do things I rationally wouldn't do. That desire to touch fire, to risk the anihilation of my rational mind and be remade, is my sexuality. And the fact that the source of that fire is female is what makes me hetero. The hetero part is so after the fact, but it is still the end. Would argue that I de-power men so that I do not see fire in them, and that that is a conscious choice?
Post a Comment
<< Home