Ask a Feminist: What Do You Think of Radical Feminist, Twisty Faster?

Image courtesy of LexnGer

This question is from male feminist and friend of NAW, Jeremy:

So I was reading Twisty's post today about the nude revolutionaries business and she argues that for western women to use their nude bodies for the purposes of subversion doesn't work because the nude female body is always re-inscribed into the male gaze. I wonder, then, if the female body must be hidden, how is this not simply placing the power over the female body back into patriarchal terms? She's right that a nude female body will be subject to the male gaze, but by hiding the body it is also responding to the shaping of the male gaze.

I couldn't remember if you had, so I was hoping you could point me to one of your blog posts that takes up this issue of female nudity, feminism, and the male gaze, or if you haven't written on it, I'd love to hear your thoughts. My initial reaction to articles on iblamethepatriarchy is usually one of resistance, but maybe because I think it's because I don't like that version of feminism because it feels to man-hating and second-wave-y to me. I'd love to learn otherwise, but from my infrequent reading, it sure seems that the spinster aunt doesn't like men, and doesn't like male feminists, so I end up being told that any response I might have is wrong or unwelcome right out the gate. Sure, that's what women have experienced for a very long time, but to try to shift the tables so men are then in the persecuted social position is the angry approach of second-wavers who seemed to often want to simply usurp the male authority rather than address the problematic social imaginary and logic that perpetuated the inequality and mistreatment.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your musings.



Now, ordinarily I'm wary of questions about man-hating feminists, since many people ask those questions out of ignorance. Their evidence for the existence of man-hating feminists tends to either come from pop culture representations of hot but angry women with short hair who say they refuse to shave their legs but who always have smooth legs on screen - or some people just get these questions from applying their pre-conceived notions of feminists in such a way that no matter what I say, they think anything other than "I want to obey a man" means "I want to dominate a man." I say, "You know, it's especially problematic that women are so often portrayed without faces in print advertising," and they say, "Sure, blame it all on the men!" Even though I never mentioned men. So, I'm normally cautious about those questions. 


But Jeremy's question struck a cord with me. Not only do I know Jeremy is himself a feminist who knows there are various camps in the movement and who does not buy into those stereotypes - I also know that Jeremy's asking about a specific blogger and about a recent post that left me with some similar questions. Plus, he's asking about a radical feminist that we at NAW kinda endorse by including a link in our blog roll. Awhile ago I posted about a conflict between Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy and a sex positive blogger (whom I linked once in my original post but am not linking again). See, Twisty uses a lot of anti-men rhetoric. This isn't to suggest that she hates all men - she has posted about male friends, for instance. But she is aggressively anti any form of patriarchy or femininity, as she sees patriarchy as the system at the root of all evil, and as she sees femininity as an unnatural system constructed to take power from women.


So recently Twisty blogged about nude feminists and explained why she saw a real reclamation of power in an Egyptian woman's decision to post nude photos in protest of restrictions placed on female attire in her home country, but why she saw a Canadian woman producing a pin-up calendar to simply play into patriarchal values. And that post is what inspired the first part of Jeremy's question - he wants to know my thoughts on this issue and whether I'd agree with Twisty. And, I am very much biased on this issue - we've discussed pornography at length on NAW since Erica sees it as (frequently) empowering, where I see it as (always) degrading to all participants, and usually degrading to women. Erica and I of course have our different biases - as someone who has never willingly watched anything that most people would call pornography, I feel outright traumatized if a pornographic image pops up on my computer. I feel violated - it is a violent experience for me. For Erica, the right kind of pornography can be quite liberating. So, we have different opinions. And there are a lot of different opinions out there. If I had my druthers, pornography would be illegal in the US, or at least more restricted. Yes, I'm that extreme. But I also recognize that quantifying and defining pornography is like trying to catch a shadow. While I see that vampire romance novel as pornographic, I know many people who disagree - and I don't have the right to make it illegal.


So I don't have a very good answer for this question of whether the pin-up calendar is liberating. If I had the stomach to click on Twisty's links to the calendar, I could tell you my opinion of that particular example of nudity-for-feminism. But I'm so opposed to pornography that I'm not about to click on something that touts itself as being in pin up girl style.


As for Jeremy's second question, about radical femininsts and man-hating, I have a few thoughts, but they're still conflicted. On the one hand, I don't share Jeremy's concern that Twisty wants to usurp male authority and set up a world where men are persecuted in the place of women. If anything, I get the impression Twisty just doesn't wants to live apart from men. Granted, she'll then go and post something about a male friend just to confuse me, and she says everything so tongue-in-cheek that I can never tell when she's serious. In fact, I've been chuckling over her posts for so long that it came as a shock to me when I read a recent post that is opposed to romantic relationships of any sort. When I saw the title indicating she was going to "give relationship advice to no one in particular," I expected something pithy about how damaging a certain type of relationship can be: instead, she advised all women to avoid relationship, even adding a note that homosexual relationships are just as damaging because they're based on heterosexual patterns.


And suddenly I sat back and thought, "Crap. She's serious." But even as I type this blog post, there's a part of me that thinks, "I don't know - she can't be against all relationships." But she says she is, and I think I'm guilty of putting up Twisty in my own image. So how do I feel about Twisty's message? I don't know!


But back to Jeremy's request for links to NAW posts dealing with issues of nudity, the male gaze, etc. 


First off, one of our earliest posts came from Erica in 2009, "My Body's Politik," where Erica discusses these issues in the context of her own body and her conflicted emotions about weight loss.


Then I've got a post from last year where I listed off various discussions involving feminism and the body, "Bodies and the Blogosphere." Incidentally, that post includes a brief discussion of Twisty's views on pornography.


If you want to see a full-on conversation about pornography, Erica and I had a conversation in a series of posts last year. First Erica responded to "Bodies and the Blogosphere" (above), in "Porn, Porn, Porn." I then did some research in order to provide an articulate answer and wrote, "The Problem with Porn: Part 1" and "The Problem with Porn: Part 2." Sadly, I never felt that I'd finished that discussion. The timing was just bad - it was the beginning of a particularly stressful period of my life, a period which never quite ended (I know, I know, Rich World Problems and all that). 


You might also appreciate Erica's discussion of "Self-centered Sex Differences" and how the concept of penis envy assumes a penis inherently brings power that breasts and a vagina don't. And then there's Michelle's post about the class virgin/whose (false) dichotomy, "Caught Between an Angel and a Prostitute."  And there's also my post from Fall 2010, "Naked Skin: Why I Love My Face Without Makeup."


And then you really should just look over the entire month of January 2011, as our theme was the body. I also kinda wish I could find an earlier post where Erica pointed to a plus model who was in a relatively tame commercial but who faced a strong retaliation from family-minded folks who interpreted her curves as pornographic. Which is, again, why I recognize that pornography is a tricky, tricky, tricky subject.

From Erica: Unseen Victims of Domestic Abuse

Last week, while our posts focused on basic information about domestic abuse, we kept mentioning one thing in passing: victims of domestic abuse come from all walks of life, all backgrounds, all identities, all persuasion, and all ages. Today, I'd like to give more consideration to what that means, both for the sake of changing our stereotypes about abuse and also for the sake of increasing access to services that can help.

First, we'll go back to the stereotypical abusive relationship. Mainstream culture and media, more so than we may think, promote an image of abuse that involves a man and woman in their early-to-mid 30s, married more often than not, who are White, marginally affluent, and have a couple of children. The woman is meek, the man is domineering, and there's a lot of physical violence, especially if the husband's been drinking. The only physical or mental dis/Abilities portrayed are her injuries and his out-of-control rage.

There are so many possibilities and identities missing from this picture, it's hard to swallow. Do some people and situations mirror this image? Of course. Do all? Certainly not, and the problem is that our society, including many of the legal and social initiatives that exist to eradicate domestic abuse, often only accommodates this one.

Let's just take a brief look at who gets left out by this picture:

• People of Colour
• Lesbian, gay, and bisexual folks
• Trans and intersex folks
• The elderly
• Men who are abused by women
• Adolescents
• People with dis/Abilities
• Folks who aren't married
• Folks living at one socioeconomic extreme or another
• Immigrants, particularly those who don't speak English fluently
• Folks being abused by relatives other than their spouse or partner
• Folks from particularly strong religious families or communities
• Victims with active addictions to alcohol or illicit substances
• People living with HIV/AIDS
  

For folks in these and other groups, the barriers to leaving an abusive relationship are compounded by the additional barriers their abusers may throw at them, along with stigmas from others and themselves.

As an example, let's look at People of Colour, particularly those who may be living in a predominately White area. One barrier to leaving an abusive relationship might be fear of "confirming" a negative stereotype about a particular racial or ethnic background. Consider stereotypes about African-American men- that they're highly aggressive, sexualized, and dangerous- and consider how a predominately White community might react to the news that their neighbour is being abused by her African-American husband. Or consider how that community might react if it becomes apparent that abuse is happening in a couple of Middle Eastern origin, given that White society assumes that partner abuse is acceptable in Middle Eastern cultures. Rather than supporting the victim in escaping the abusive situation, the community might defect to the stereotypes and assume that "it's okay for you, this is supposed to happen." It might also happen that the community be supportive, but act in a way that suggests that they're "rescuing" the victim from a bad situation caused by the race or ethno-cultural background of their abuser. Either way, dealing with the racism of the community or society at large- and potentially confirming it by revealing the abuse- can be a significant barrier to leaving.

In a similar vein, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and intersex folk all face barriers associated with community-based and society-based stigma. In an effort to gain acceptance of their relationships, LGBTI folks and their allies have often painted extra-rosy pictures of their day-to-day lives. Coming out about abuse can disrupt this positive stereotype and exchange it for the negative one: that LGBTI folk are incapable of having responsible, healthy relationships. And on the subject of "coming out:" for the LGBTI person who isn't out, the threat of being involuntarily "outed" by their abuser can be enough to keep them from trying to leave their situation, particularly if their families or friends are homo- or trans-phobic or if their employers are likely to fire them shortly thereafter. The latter is especially a concern for trans folks, since gender presentation is not protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the US.

Stereotypes and stigmas are massive barriers for all of the folks on the list above- people with dis/Abilities (they have relationships?), the elderly (they have relationships?), adolescents (it can't be serious, it's puppy love), religious folks (their religions must say it's okay), immigrants (they don't know any better), men being abused by women (he's a sissy or he's lying), people at socioeconomic extremes (they don't know any better or they're rich so who cares?), folks who aren't married (they get what's coming to them), folks with active addictions or HIV/AIDS (they deserve what they get), and folks who are being abused by non-partners (that doesn't count as abuse). And one of the big problems that these stereotypes cause is that shelters, hotlines, counseling services, and legal protections often buy into them as well.

This buying-in doesn't necessarily mean that shelters openly espouse the sorts of views I've described here. Rather, it tends to mean that organizations often forget that there are special barriers for these victims and that they may come with particular needs as a result. For example, neither of the shelters I've worked at was readily accessible for anyone in a wheelchair, and for safety reasons, neither of them permitted victims to bring any caregivers to the shelter. Suddenly, a victim who requires assistance to eat, use the bathroom, bathe, or do any number of mundane activities is unable to go to a shelter because of the fear- on the part of the shelters- that a caregiver is the primary abuser or will be unable to maintain the confidentiality of the shelter location. Many shelters, including those funded by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, don't have space for male survivors of any sexuality, gender-queer survivors never cross their radars, and even trans women will often be asked to leave if they're "outed" to shelter staff- something I've seen happen. Adolescents, unless they're over the age of 18, are rarely accepted to shelters in their own right, because legally they're supposed to be residing with their parents. Folks with active addictions are often turned away for liability reasons. And it can be costly and impractical for shelters to provide resources, referrals, and staff that are competent in many languages and cultures and familiar with immigration laws.

Of course, the barriers presented by "buying in" are legal as well; many of the legal protections we'll discuss next week, such as restraining orders and custody papers, are more difficult to obtain when there are stereotypes operating against one's credibility and capabilities. A pernicious stereotype that affects the ability of LGBTI people to get restraining orders, for example, is that abuse between LGBTI partners is just "fighting between friends," and therefore no restraining order is needed. One's ability to express oneself verbally or in writing- in English or in any language- can impact that as well, and having a mental health diagnosis (especially bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) also reduces the likelihood that one's story will be believed.

Later in the week we'll come back to this topic and take a closer look at the social power dynamics that impact marginalized peoples' decisions to leave abusive situations. For now, however, I invite you to check out some of the Domestic Violence Awareness Month activities that are going on around the country, and participate if you are able!

As always, if you are experiencing intimate partner abuse or know someone who is, please contact your state's Coalition Against Domestic Violence or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) for information, referrals, and safety-planning. To keep yourself safe, always remember to clear your browser history and, if using a cell phone, your call history.

From Emily: Dating and communicating

We're all familiar with the stereotypes about how men and women approach communication. According to these stereotypes, women are more likely to initiate serious conversations and men have the emotional maturity of a toddler, which leads them to do everything they can to avoid direct communication. This is an essential theme to family sit coms; the woman puts her hands on her hips and says "we need to talk," and the guy whines and groans and does everything he can to distract her. (Has anyone seen "Everyone Loves Raymond"?). I don't know how accurate these stereotypes are, and I have no intention of making an argument about their accuracy or lack thereof. What I would like to explore today is how traditional gender roles in heterosexual dating patterns contribute to this stereotype.

Not everyone follows traditional dating roles, and I say thank goodness for that! But even some very liberal and socially progressive individuals adhere strictly to the idea that a man should pursue a woman, and not the other way around. She can reciprocate the interest, the argument goes, but she shouldn't take over the chase because she deserves a man who's willing to chase her. My thoughts on mixing hunting metaphors with dating descriptions aside, this view is surprisingly prevalent in mainstream television, film, etc. (Just look at the book and film He's Just Not That Into You). But how do these prescriptive roles influence the way men and women communicate about their feelings, motivations, and intentions?

Here's how I see it: These roles make dating a more straightforward experience for men than for women. If a man who adheres to these roles is interested in a woman, he asks her out on a date. He instantly knows whether that first date will happen, because she tells him "yes" or "no" right away. If he is still interested after a first date, he asks her out again. And so on. There's always a chance the woman is accepting the dates without interest, or a chance that she'll accept a date only to cancel later, but in general a man can tell whether there will be another date very soon after inviting the woman on another one. In a storybook world this would never be a problem. A man would ask a woman out, she would accept or not accept, and couples would figure out how they felt one date at a time, until that crucial moment when they would both reveal their love.

But what happens when a man doesn't initiate another date right away, and the woman isn't sure why? Whatever gender stereotypes tell us about female intuition, most people can't read minds, so this is a plausible scenario. It could be the man is busy, or that he feels broke at the moment. It could be that he isn't sure whether he's interested and needs some time to sort things out. But then again maybe he's lost interest, and he simply won't call. This scenario could happen whether he said "I'll call you" or not. To a man in this predicament, the situation is clear. If he's interested he'll ask her out again, even if it takes a week or two before he calls. But the woman must wait before she learns his intentions. I attend school in a conservative environment, and I frequently hear men complain about women who make up excuses to avoid dates instead of admitting they've lost interest. Yet how many of those same men let women know that they will not be calling for another date? I would guess almost none. It would probably feel rude and presumptuous. Besides, the man knows that he's lost interest and will not initiate another date, so he doesn't need that information communicated the way that the woman will if she's interested in him.

So, if a woman is confused about a man's intentions, or if she wants to change the pace at which they're dating, or if she isn't interested but a man keeps asking her out despite all the hints she drops, what are her options? She could try to initiate a date with him, but that would be straying from traditional dating patterns. Some women will do this, but many who adhere to traditional gender roles will not. So, short of exiting traditional roles, she has only a few options:

1. Drop hints/ play games and hope she can subtly get (or share) the information she needs

2. Accept her confusion / annoyance, and just grin and bear it

3. Initiate a serious discussion

The problem with the first option is that subtlety often falls flat. And the second option can be extremely unpleasant. This leaves the third option: verbal communication. Many people avoid this option simply because they want dating to feel casual and natural, and it can't feel that way if everything is vocalized in explicit detail. In traditional heterosexual dating, a man would have more reason to avoid it, though, because he already has the information he needs: If he likes the woman he'll ask her out again, and if not he won't. If he wants to go out more, he'll ask her out more, and if he wants to go out less often, he'll ask her out less often. But if a woman is placed in the position of only saying ,"yes," "no," or "how about later," she may in fact need to discuss the relationship in a way her traditional male counterpart doesn't understand, and that need would make her much more likely to risk the awkward elements a discussion may bring.

Personally, I think the behavior patterns you start when you're dating carry over into longterm relationships and marriages. If a man and woman do develop serious difficulties communicating while they're dating, then a couple rings, a cake, and some vows probably won't make that go away. So maybe we can all be a little more open, honest, and direct, regardless of what dating patterns we prefer.

--Emily