The "no-sex" class and feminism's the "sex" class
In comments to a previous post E raised a point I've mentioned but haven't really dug into
I've been really enjoying this rif on the feminist observation that women are the sex-class. You probably know this, but just in case, when a feminist talks about women as the sex-class what they have in mind is the ways in which women are culturally defined in terms of their sexual attractiveness to men. Part and parcel of this is the denial that women have any sexual desires or sexual identity of their own. In that sense you aren't really in any disagreement.
Perhaps a good unpacking of the phrase 'sex-class' would be 'class whose role is to be an object of sexual desire'.
If I haven't been clear about this before I'd like to make clear now that my inquiry into the paradigm that puts women in the "no-sex" class is fairly consistent with, say, Shulamith Firestone's radical feminist definition of women as the sex class. But if the dialectical and materialist class analysis Firestone brought to feminism makes sense to women it *doesn't* resonate with men... to the point where we're inclined to say "in our dreams!" Because for whatever indisputable *abstract* privileges such class division might bring to us our *experience* of it is... pretty disempowering.
So in the face of that contradiction -- holding the reins of patriarchy on the one hand and feeling totally out of power when it comes to sex on the other -- I decided to try and (mis)apply a standard strategy from mathematical logic: attempt to prove the contrary position -- that men perceive women as the *no* sex class -- and see what shakes out. And, in fact, tons of fascinating stuff shakes out that as one starts putting it together starts pointing to ways out of a self-constructed trap that benefits no one.
And the thing is men *really do* behave as if women have no innate sexuality. The language we use, the metaphors, the impressions we get, the stories we tell each other, the assumptions behind the ways we seek, conduct, maintain, and wreck relationships with women, our otherwise inexplicable attraction to the dreadfully off-point "men's rights" movement, to misogyny, to homophobia, to virginity, to divorce, to prostitution, to strippers, to pornography, to sexual harassment, to workplace discrimination, to household duties, to frigidity, to promiscuity, to blowjobs all take place within that paradigmatic conviction that if/since women aren't naturally interested in sex we have to coax, pry, trick, force, pay, barter, bargain, beg, intoxicate, seduce, induce, produce, or reduce sex from you.
In other words whereas Firestone makes a good (though also obvious) case *that* men see women as non-animated, if not outright *inanimate* objects for sex, I'm trying to drill out *why* we would think so.
For the record, Firestone's seminal 2nd-wave classic The Dialectics of Sex, is in my opinion hampered by her overreliance on the economic and revolutionary language of Marx and Engles. If she had instead concentrated on Marx's theories around alienation I think she might have gotten to, and perhaps done a better job with, my theory of women as the *no-sex* class. The "no-sex" class paradigm inherently, and unnecessarily, alienates all gender interactions.
If the world Firestone lived in wasn't ready to kick it to the curb in 1970, almost 40 years later it's certainly ready now.
Figleaf,
I have lurked here long enough and feel like now I have to comment. As I read this post, I thought about why your posts on women as the "no-sex" class resonate with me. I think this post helps me understand. You are writing from a male perspective. As a male, I find it difficult at times to identify with the ideas of feminism much as I agree with them because I have not had the same experience as women. I cannot view the world and the interactions among men and women the same by the very nature of my being a male in a patriarchal world. Try as I might to see the world the same as a women, I cannot. By you bringing in a male perspective and shining the light on male behavior you have helped me to shine that same light on my own thoughts and behaviors and I thank you for that. I am sure that I am not totally being coherent in my thought process and how what I am saying connects together, but the point is that you have put into words the ideas that I have thought and never been able to verbalize so again thank you for helping me to continue to grow as a person.
[Thanks so much for stepping up and saying so, Josh. That was the breakthrough for me too -- realizing that while we can learn a lot from feminism we can only learn so much, and after that we have to find a way to do some heavy lifting ourselves. And it's not like there isn't plenty of lifting to be done. For the record I thought you put your words together very well. Thanks again. --fl]
As I said, I am really enjoying the theme, no criticism intended. Sounds like this metaphor works better for you and Josh, and some really interesting discussion is coming out of it.
I'm not particularly a Firestone fan, just wanted to observe that we have two different metaphors both of which illuminate the same phenomena. The fact that they are of the forms P and not-P would no doubt make Derrida happy in the pants.
[Yup, they're pretty isomorphic. My big concern though, by the way, is that at least for men the Firestone version actually *reinforces* the "no-sex" class paradigm. I passionately believe that my inversion of it breaks down both the P and not-P versions. (In the sense that in rhetorical call-to-action terms "guys, you don't *have* to do that" is way more effective than "guys, you *shouldn't* do that.") Thanks, E. --fl]