Fandom, Feminism, and Socialization
Nov. 14th, 2005 12:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lotesseI've been trying to understand why feminist critique, both in fandom and outside of it, has such potential to cause me pain. Because I know that it's necessary, god above I do, and I wouldn't banish it for the world. But I do get that sinking, painful, want-to-look-away-now feeling, and I'm not usre that I like it.
This semester has been one of major feminist conflict for me. I have an instinctive attraction to the feminism of women like Virginia Woolf, Emma Goldman, Carol Gilligan, and Ursula LeGuin--the idea that women should not have to turn to the yang side of things to be good feminists, the idea that there is another way of doing things that has traditionally been alotted to women that's worth hanging on to.
Gilligan is a perfect example of this: she points out that men and women tend to view moral dilemmas differently, men focussing on rights and women on responsibilities. Only men's way of thinking has been regarded as correct and/or mature by the psychological establishment. Gilligan argues that the other way, the one that has traditionally been sociallized to the female role, is just as valid. LeGuin does this, too. She talks about writing with the female voice, tellling the yin-ish stories. And I like this idea. This feels like somewhere where I belong. Because I do, as a person, value caretaking above individual achievment. Heck, I'm a socialist. Something Le Guin mentions: the story has been definied (by men) as a thing with a conflict, something that moves the way a thrown spear does. She rejects this, talks about the novel as a vessel, as a carrier bag, something to tuck bits of things into.
Okay, all well and good. but a lot of these ideas are criticized as being part of feminist backlash, trying to tie women to the domestic role again. And I want to say, "no, really they aren't. All women don't have to be like this, it's just that I am, and I don't want to be devalued for it." But I can see their point. And it makes me oh so anxious.
Perhaps it's that I vehemently don't want to be part of the problem. I see the reality of sexism, and I want to make it better. I want to help. And I hate feeling like I'm supporting the misogynists by being the way I am.
Or maybe it goes even deeper, to a desire to not be controlled. I hate the idea that all these things that I think and feel, that I think are me, are really the result of my brainwashing at the hands of those who I would oppose. I want my thoughts to belong to me, not to someone else. And yet I know that there are women who have stuck their heads in the sand and refused to recognized the reality of sexism, and I know that they impede the progress of feminism. It happens. but I don't want it to happen.
I don't want my pleasures to turn out to be guilty ones. When LeGuin or C.S. Lewis or even my own darling Tolkien makes me happy, I don't want to think that it si only so because my thoughts and feelings are not my own. Re-reading Anne, I realized that Anne's life made me happy, and wasn't that horrible, because she goes to college and all but then goes back home to raise six kids and Gilbert gets to have a career. I felt this pang of anger towards myself for enjoying this portrait of the feminine mystique. And then I thought that LeGuin would talk about writing motherhood, writing the yin story, that Gilligan would talk about the fact that Anne chose to help individulas rather than fight the system, and that it maybe wasn't so horrible after all.
The end of the matter is that the things that make me happy, the images and dreams that I most cherish, are not going to be acceptable to a certain brand of feminism. And that makes me very, very afraid, because the success of the feminist movement is something very dear to my heart. And when the things that I love are accused of sexism, it's going to freak me out, because it will plunge me into re-evaluating myself. Someone over on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
miriam_heddy's journal brought up shaving, but for me the equivalence isn't there. I know that, when I do shave, I'm caving to social pressure. I don't do it often, but I recognize that it makes me far less likely to wear skirts. I know my motivations in that scenario. I'm not acting with complete courage, perhaps, but I'm certainly not deluding myself. And it's that delusion that I worry about, that I will do anything to end.
If the things that I love are sexist, if I love them for the wrong reasons, then I regard that as something I must change. Because I am determined to lead the self-examined life.
This semester has been one of major feminist conflict for me. I have an instinctive attraction to the feminism of women like Virginia Woolf, Emma Goldman, Carol Gilligan, and Ursula LeGuin--the idea that women should not have to turn to the yang side of things to be good feminists, the idea that there is another way of doing things that has traditionally been alotted to women that's worth hanging on to.
Gilligan is a perfect example of this: she points out that men and women tend to view moral dilemmas differently, men focussing on rights and women on responsibilities. Only men's way of thinking has been regarded as correct and/or mature by the psychological establishment. Gilligan argues that the other way, the one that has traditionally been sociallized to the female role, is just as valid. LeGuin does this, too. She talks about writing with the female voice, tellling the yin-ish stories. And I like this idea. This feels like somewhere where I belong. Because I do, as a person, value caretaking above individual achievment. Heck, I'm a socialist. Something Le Guin mentions: the story has been definied (by men) as a thing with a conflict, something that moves the way a thrown spear does. She rejects this, talks about the novel as a vessel, as a carrier bag, something to tuck bits of things into.
Okay, all well and good. but a lot of these ideas are criticized as being part of feminist backlash, trying to tie women to the domestic role again. And I want to say, "no, really they aren't. All women don't have to be like this, it's just that I am, and I don't want to be devalued for it." But I can see their point. And it makes me oh so anxious.
Perhaps it's that I vehemently don't want to be part of the problem. I see the reality of sexism, and I want to make it better. I want to help. And I hate feeling like I'm supporting the misogynists by being the way I am.
Or maybe it goes even deeper, to a desire to not be controlled. I hate the idea that all these things that I think and feel, that I think are me, are really the result of my brainwashing at the hands of those who I would oppose. I want my thoughts to belong to me, not to someone else. And yet I know that there are women who have stuck their heads in the sand and refused to recognized the reality of sexism, and I know that they impede the progress of feminism. It happens. but I don't want it to happen.
I don't want my pleasures to turn out to be guilty ones. When LeGuin or C.S. Lewis or even my own darling Tolkien makes me happy, I don't want to think that it si only so because my thoughts and feelings are not my own. Re-reading Anne, I realized that Anne's life made me happy, and wasn't that horrible, because she goes to college and all but then goes back home to raise six kids and Gilbert gets to have a career. I felt this pang of anger towards myself for enjoying this portrait of the feminine mystique. And then I thought that LeGuin would talk about writing motherhood, writing the yin story, that Gilligan would talk about the fact that Anne chose to help individulas rather than fight the system, and that it maybe wasn't so horrible after all.
The end of the matter is that the things that make me happy, the images and dreams that I most cherish, are not going to be acceptable to a certain brand of feminism. And that makes me very, very afraid, because the success of the feminist movement is something very dear to my heart. And when the things that I love are accused of sexism, it's going to freak me out, because it will plunge me into re-evaluating myself. Someone over on
miriam_heddy's journal brought up shaving, but for me the equivalence isn't there. I know that, when I do shave, I'm caving to social pressure. I don't do it often, but I recognize that it makes me far less likely to wear skirts. I know my motivations in that scenario. I'm not acting with complete courage, perhaps, but I'm certainly not deluding myself. And it's that delusion that I worry about, that I will do anything to end.If the things that I love are sexist, if I love them for the wrong reasons, then I regard that as something I must change. Because I am determined to lead the self-examined life.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 03:22 am (UTC)We're all just people, at the end of the day. How is putting up more barriers like that going to help anything?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 06:00 am (UTC)Did I say that men are incapable of acting decently, sensibly? No. But when they, or women, are being stupid or violent just to establish pecking order or impress their mates, for example, I reserve the right to mock them.
my menstrual blood is made of pureed rose petals
Date: 2005-11-17 06:27 am (UTC)VIA FEMINEA ??? is this like VIA APPIA? can i get delicious food from such a road, which happens to be the name of a fine restaurant but a stone's throw from my domicile?
also both men and women have social orders
were you ever in middle school
do you remember those bitchy cliques
those are prototypes, a microcosm of a LARGER and mostly-UNIVERSAL idea of a totempole, pecking order -- have you noticed that women can be BITCHES and DEMEAN each other and be generally intolerable
that's not because they're acting masculine.
***
similarly, are you saying that there are fixed definitions of masculine and feminine? that they are universal? does this have anything to do with lotesseflower's claim that she was talking about gender-related issues without any heed for biology?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 01:51 pm (UTC)"Feminine" virtues include practicality and the ability to work together without letting competition get in the way of the mutual goal. I never said all women have these qualities, or that no men do. "Masculine virtues" include courage and leadership, which are useless unless married to practicality and harmoniously working as a group. For example. Notice how I used quotation marks every time I said "feminine". That means I'm referring to the collection of traits that our culture defines as feminine. I admit that I think there are certain biological elements that make women more inclined to behave in certain ways, too.
Why on earth are you so upset that someone might prefer the "feminine" way? If I'd said I prefer the masculine way, would you have got your panties in such a bunch?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 04:30 pm (UTC)And I'm a guy.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 06:04 pm (UTC)Most of the objections I got to what I said here was in response to my assigning any sort of essence to "feminine" or "masculine". I realise they are imprecise terms but unfortunately we're going to have to discuss what society sees as gender-defined behaviour if we're going to discuss feminism at all. You can't pretend they don't exist. Once again: I never said all women act a certain way, or that all men act a certain way. I said: I prefer the "feminine" behaviour model. The quotation marks should tip you off at least that by "feminine" I do not mean "female" - as everyone should know those words are not synonymous - but the behaviour model associated with femininity.
maybe I am dense
Date: 2005-11-17 08:37 pm (UTC)what, pray tell, does that mean?
Re: maybe I am dense
Date: 2005-11-18 12:42 am (UTC)Re: maybe I am dense
Date: 2005-11-18 07:08 am (UTC)^5
no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 01:00 am (UTC)You are the worst theorist ever.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 01:07 am (UTC)Do you think it's worth it to explain Baudrillard's theory on seduction and feminism?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 04:26 pm (UTC)Because, uh.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 05:56 pm (UTC)check this shit oooooout
Date: 2005-11-17 07:15 pm (UTC)Did I say that mud people are incapable of acting decently, sensibly? No. But when they, or arayans, are being stupid or violent just to establish pecking order or impress their mates, for example, I reserve the right to mock them.
HAHAHAH I'M AN INTERNET WIZARD
also, all of you stop pretending fawning over elfboys makes you literate. pick up a copy and pale fire and please shut UP.
Re: check this shit oooooout
Date: 2005-11-17 07:32 pm (UTC)Re: check this shit oooooout
Date: 2005-11-17 07:35 pm (UTC)Re: check this shit oooooout
Date: 2005-11-17 07:33 pm (UTC)