Just for the record, the impression that “radical feminists” are sex negative might be mistaken, and is certainly misinterpreted, but it’s not completely insane.
While doing a little due diligence for my previous post (no, I don’t always do due diligence) I ran across this quote from 60’s/70’s feminist activist Ti-Grace Atkinson
If feminism has any logic at all, it must be working for a sexless society.
Perhaps not coincidentally, both the quote, and the “Take Charge” camera ad predate the work of radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin to define sexual consent for women as a valid social, let alone legal, concept.
Hard to believe since, today, he looks like a 1970s version of Austin Powers, but when that ad was current the man in it was a dead-serious male archetype! But when you hear, especially, feminists talking about male privilege, he’s embodying exactly what they meant.
Now. Are there feminists in the world today who take Atkinson’s stance on sex? Sure, just like there are still men who take the Vivitar man’s stance. Is Atkinson’s the dominant stance in feminism? Um, that would be a pretty unambiguous “no.” Is the Vivitar man’s the dominant stance among men? Err, best we can say is “we’d like to hope not.” And, if so, then is attacking feminism for positions held back when Austin Powers would have been current events the most logical possible use of anyone’s time? Me neither. But I digress…
The real big deal for me, though, is that when taken out of context, statements like Atkinsons tend to be picked up and used to reinforce the daft, dominant male notion that women as the “no-sex” class, innately disinterested in sex and from whom, therefore, sex must be… extracted. But Atkinson is not the only source of that conceit. Notice Vivitar man’s look of determination? Notice also his partner’s amused, if-you-say-so body language? So does it really matter what else Atkinson might have said?
More and more it seems to me what’s really going on, in dating, in so-called “pick-up artist” strategies, in relationship books, in expressions of feminist frustration and anti-feminist admonitions, is that women aren’t so much anti sex as anti-phony-bullshit-designed-to-get-sex. Until we, meaning us men, recognize just how hugely different those two things are, things aren’t going to get any easier. For anybody.
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-12-30 19:52.
Sex with assholes can't be fun :-). Still, what I said sounds like "I'll show him! I'll withhold sex. That'll teach him!" What is sad is that there are women who will put up with just about anything. What is scary is that sometimes it is not apparent just how much some men hate women until it is to late.
[Thanks, Mag. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-29 22:20.
Oh, I'm pretty sure assholes DON'T deserve sex... because sex with assholes isn't any FUN.
[It's totally fine to break up because someone's an asshole and sex with them is no fun. I just wasnt to be careful about sex being withheld *as punishment.* Thanks, Plymouth. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-29 09:05.
I realized after I wrote my last comment "I hope they are honest about their hate to the women in their lives so that no woman will have sex with them" that what I wrote is consistent with the whole idea of sex/no sex and that sex is something that women give men as a reward or withhold as punishment. I am realizing how ingrained this thinking is. So sad.
[Yup. It's *astonishingly* hard. And it's not like it doesn't get me too -- the first alternative phrasing I came up with was "...so women would have sex with someone else instead..." except my little reflex twitch said "oh but women wouldn't want to do that..." Right. Like they'd want to stick around for consistency's sake instead? Like assholes deserve no sex simply as punishment for being assholes instead of for more substantial reasons (like, um, their partners avoid them because they seem repellent and/or dangerous?) Anyway, it is tough. And yeah, sad too. Thanks, Mag. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-12-28 15:45.
I'm going to have to learn more about these Pick Up Artist communities. My brother is apparently very interested in them. It was funny, since he was talking to me about it and he was clearly very interested in it for many personal reasons, but also because he was fascinated by the social dynamics at play. As he was telling me about it, he stopped and then said, "Yeah, I don't think you'd actually like this at all. In fact, you'd probably hate it. But you'll probably find it really fascinating."
I'm starting to think he's right. This deserves more attention. For what it's worth, he suggested that I check out The Pickup Podcast as a place to start.
[It's a funny concept. From the outside it seems to be based almost entirely on mistaken assumptions about women, first of all, and mistaken assumptions about what is significant to women about interesting, confident, capable men. Also the mistaken assumption that having sex is so good for self-esteem that it's worth lying about yourself to get it... as if authentic self-esteem can be based on lies. I dunno. Thanks, Maymay. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-12-28 17:19.
Ummm, my impression is that Atkinson (as tended to be her focus) was not talking about sexuality or having sex, but about biological sex and gender as well as sex roles.
[Could be, Heather. I really didn't know anything about her before this morning. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-12-28 17:23.
I should add (sorry, just home from work and a bit brain-dead) that Atkinson HAS said that the institution (read: the ideal of intercourse as women's duty, or as intercourse as the only "real" sex) of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.
But while it's been a while, I read the above quite in its original context in college, and unless early senility is creeping in, she was talking about sex roles with that quote you pulled.
[You'd never know that from the 10,000 MRA/anti-feminist sites that cite those two lines. Gender politics was raw enough in the 1970s, with men saying *all kinds* of out-of-control things back then, from "the only place for women in the Black Panthers is on their backs" to "women are never more powerful than when they're on their knees." So it wouldn't be completely out of line to learn she meant exactly what she said. But yeah, the more of those early radicals I read the more nuanced they look -- it makes complete sense that she would have meant sex *roles,* not sex itself. (It *really* makes sense given that she advocated lesbianism which, while anti-heterosexual isn't quite the same thing as anti-sex. At all.) Thanks, Heather. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-12-28 18:24.
You know, color me crazy, but MRA's or people opposed to feminism as a reputable source for feminist quotes and theory? That's like looking to pro-life groups for reliable information on abortion, eh? :)
Not so much.
But you know that already. :P
Atkinson certainly voiced mega-issues (and in some cases, very militantly, but then, you saw a lot of that in the few feminists who did then because people were even WAY more resistant to the idea that the politics of intercourse, the institution of intercourse, was anything anyone should even be allowed to QUESTION, that the few feminists who took it on tended to do so very forcefully and broadly) with penis-in-vagina intercourse, especially as a mandate. But then, to presume that means anti-sex -- especially for a passionately lesbian woman? -- meh.
Butcha know, straight folks do tend to get pretty loopy around that question still, and I do think that it's always worth taking a look at why that happens, and realizing that's often largely BECAUSE so many STILL class intercourse as sacrosanct in a way other sexual activities are not.
All the same, yeah: that quote? I don't remember it being in the context of talking about sexuality at all. You'll also note you can find her talking in a few places about how a future woman president would ideally be sexless, and again, she's not talking about that woman's sex life, but about overall sex roles and gender. She used that phrase "sexless" a lot, and with some easy searching, you can see the context she seemed to always use it in.
[Yeah, I only mentioned the MRA sites because they're bastions of the old paradigm, for which quotes like that are trans-fatty, corn-syrupy food groups. Thanks, H. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-29 06:59.
Hey Figleaf, sorry to ask what may be obvious to everyone else, but what are MRAs? Sometimes acronyms loose me-a while ago I was totally confused by PUA (Pick Up Artist), which I had never heard of. Thanks!
[MRA is short for "Men's Rights Activists." Let's just say about them that they really, *really* hate feminism because they think feminists are *even worse* than regular women are. But mostly they live inside the "no-sex" class paradigm of "hey, I'm bringing home the bacon, so why don't I get more sex?" Thanks, Mag. --fl]
Submitted by 1842 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-29 07:09.
Never mind, I found it. How I love the internet. It's Men's Rights Activists. Wow, I have never seen anything so hateful in my life. Well, I guess nazi skinheads are like that and maybe these guys are nazi skinheads? Or maybe it's a joke? I don't know but I wonder if they really feel that way or they are just talking shit? I hope they are honest about their hate to the women in their lives so that no woman will have sex with them. I guess there will always be women who will put up with it, which is really sad.
[And what's so hard about MRAs is they think the answer is to *fight* feminism instead of trying to work together to climb out of the incredibly muddy rut we're all stuck in. There's nothing wrong with wanting men's rights, but there's something goofy about fighting so incredibly bitterly for the "right" to stay stuck in a rut, nor resisting so aggressively when anyone else tries to climb out. Thanks, Mag. --fl]