![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerAnd I know it's probably going to upset people, and I'm sorry about that.
I think I remember reading once about a Christian sect who believed that all sexual intercourse was sin. Consensual or not, between adults or not, within marriage or not, procreative or not--all sex was sin, full stop. I remember thinking that it made a strange kind of sense; the only thing stopping Christ from coming again and bringing paradise on earth was the fact that we kept on breeding new human beings. Presumably once the entire world had been induced to stop breeding, the Rapture or whatever would happen and those living at that point would simply never die. It's at least as reasonable as young-earth creationism.
And then last night I read an article by a radical feminist--it's here--which claims that all sexual intercourse is rape. Consensual or not, between adults or not, within marriage or not, procreative or not--all sex is rape, full stop. The only reason women pretend to enjoy it is because they've been coerced or brainwashed into it. The writer mentions casually, as it were in passing, that "Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception." I'm not up on biology, so I'm open to correction, but the only alternative methods I know are comparatively recent in date and involve surgical procedures.
I think this is where I get off the bus. If that is radical feminism, then radical feminism is not the feminism for me.
Of course I would say that. I'm a man, and radical feminism tells me there is no such thing as a male feminist. I shouldn't have been on the bus in the first place.
There is much wrong with the way men treat women. One in four women get raped (in the more ordinary sense of being forced to have sex against their will). I know a hell of a lot more than four women. So, logically, I have female friends who have been raped, and that makes me more angry than I can say. I hate being a member of a gender that tolerates this. I hate being a member of a gender that tolerates the notion that women are of less worth than men. I hate being a member of a society whose institutional norms benefit men more than women, in which women's bodies are not their own to control. I am all for any social change that redresses that imbalance.
But.
I had occasion a while back to look up one of the oldest poems I know. It's by that great and talented writer Anon, probably from the sixteenth century, and it's here. Wife wakes husband up in the middle of a winter's night to tell him to go out and rescue their cow. He doesn't want to, because it's cold and his cloak's worn out; he plans to go and get a new one in the morning, possibly with the money he saves from not having to feed the cow. She wins, because she's right.
Societal norms are one thing. Institutionalised sexism is a great wrong. But down here, where we all live, at the individual level, there are women who submit to the domination of men, and there are women who chase their husbands round the house with a skillet. In all races, in all classes, there are men who dominate their wives, and men who know perfectly well that their wives will not put up with being dominated for one second, and moreover that they are right not to do so. And I believe that there always have been.
The patriarchy exists. The patriarchy is a great evil, perhaps more so in these times than it ever has been. The next few generations of male children, assuming there are any, must--MUST--be educated properly to regard women as equal in all respects to men, and if their parents don't do it the state must. We must breed a generation of men who would no more think of forcing sex upon a woman than they would think of deliberately crapping in their underwear; it needs to be that basic, because it is that basic. We must breed a generation of men who will think it grotesque and contemptible that their predecessors sat quietly while women worked the same jobs as men for a fraction of the reward, while men made unilateral legal decisions about the status of a woman's body; just as we think it grotesque and contemptible that our predecessors bought and sold human beings as chattels just because they looked different. And I think it's possible, because we already breed men who listen to women with respect, who know in their hearts that women are their equals and sometimes their betters, who would not even think of trying to dominate their wives. And I believe that we always have. We just need to do it more.
Or, alternatively, we could breed a generation of women who will find the idea of a man touching them abhorrent, who will for ever regard men as the enemy to be kept at least fifty feet away on pain of death, who will go through anything rather than allow a man to have intimate contact with them. And then, I submit, we will find out fairly shortly if that Christian sect was right.
I think I remember reading once about a Christian sect who believed that all sexual intercourse was sin. Consensual or not, between adults or not, within marriage or not, procreative or not--all sex was sin, full stop. I remember thinking that it made a strange kind of sense; the only thing stopping Christ from coming again and bringing paradise on earth was the fact that we kept on breeding new human beings. Presumably once the entire world had been induced to stop breeding, the Rapture or whatever would happen and those living at that point would simply never die. It's at least as reasonable as young-earth creationism.
And then last night I read an article by a radical feminist--it's here--which claims that all sexual intercourse is rape. Consensual or not, between adults or not, within marriage or not, procreative or not--all sex is rape, full stop. The only reason women pretend to enjoy it is because they've been coerced or brainwashed into it. The writer mentions casually, as it were in passing, that "Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception." I'm not up on biology, so I'm open to correction, but the only alternative methods I know are comparatively recent in date and involve surgical procedures.
I think this is where I get off the bus. If that is radical feminism, then radical feminism is not the feminism for me.
Of course I would say that. I'm a man, and radical feminism tells me there is no such thing as a male feminist. I shouldn't have been on the bus in the first place.
There is much wrong with the way men treat women. One in four women get raped (in the more ordinary sense of being forced to have sex against their will). I know a hell of a lot more than four women. So, logically, I have female friends who have been raped, and that makes me more angry than I can say. I hate being a member of a gender that tolerates this. I hate being a member of a gender that tolerates the notion that women are of less worth than men. I hate being a member of a society whose institutional norms benefit men more than women, in which women's bodies are not their own to control. I am all for any social change that redresses that imbalance.
But.
I had occasion a while back to look up one of the oldest poems I know. It's by that great and talented writer Anon, probably from the sixteenth century, and it's here. Wife wakes husband up in the middle of a winter's night to tell him to go out and rescue their cow. He doesn't want to, because it's cold and his cloak's worn out; he plans to go and get a new one in the morning, possibly with the money he saves from not having to feed the cow. She wins, because she's right.
Societal norms are one thing. Institutionalised sexism is a great wrong. But down here, where we all live, at the individual level, there are women who submit to the domination of men, and there are women who chase their husbands round the house with a skillet. In all races, in all classes, there are men who dominate their wives, and men who know perfectly well that their wives will not put up with being dominated for one second, and moreover that they are right not to do so. And I believe that there always have been.
The patriarchy exists. The patriarchy is a great evil, perhaps more so in these times than it ever has been. The next few generations of male children, assuming there are any, must--MUST--be educated properly to regard women as equal in all respects to men, and if their parents don't do it the state must. We must breed a generation of men who would no more think of forcing sex upon a woman than they would think of deliberately crapping in their underwear; it needs to be that basic, because it is that basic. We must breed a generation of men who will think it grotesque and contemptible that their predecessors sat quietly while women worked the same jobs as men for a fraction of the reward, while men made unilateral legal decisions about the status of a woman's body; just as we think it grotesque and contemptible that our predecessors bought and sold human beings as chattels just because they looked different. And I think it's possible, because we already breed men who listen to women with respect, who know in their hearts that women are their equals and sometimes their betters, who would not even think of trying to dominate their wives. And I believe that we always have. We just need to do it more.
Or, alternatively, we could breed a generation of women who will find the idea of a man touching them abhorrent, who will for ever regard men as the enemy to be kept at least fifty feet away on pain of death, who will go through anything rather than allow a man to have intimate contact with them. And then, I submit, we will find out fairly shortly if that Christian sect was right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-18 08:48 am (UTC)Could the Christian sect have been the Shakers? They certainly believed in total celibacy for all, though I have no idea what their justification were (past tense, of course - they died out some time ago). And there were other such groups around too.
I seem to recall Jesus once told a young man that he could care for his family, or follow Jesus, but not both, and that the latter was the only way to God. Sorry, but I cannot remember for certain where I read it. Certainly, if (like Jesus) you believe that Armageddon is coming within a matter of years, sex would seem a distraction from what mattered, and for the inevitable resulting children, an extremely cruel choice.
Back in the 1980s I recall reading about communities of lesbians who sealed themselves into communities which didn't let men in - like enclosed orders of nuns, though with a different logic, and no priest allowed in. I don't know if there are any such communities around nowadays, and they were always a small minority within the lesbian community as a whole. Maybe the feminist you are reading (I cannot find her name in her blog, but that might be me) emerged from such a group.
Also agree with the point about "Mother Nature" in the comments. Though I would point out that evolution produces practical solutions, not always solutions that match our sense of right and wrong.
Many of the problems feminism is fighting are a result of the fact that evolution has made us a species whose males are generally physically bigger (and stronger) than our females are, and also very aggressive.
And then there is the common moral belief that sex should only be within marriage, and how well that prohibition works in harmony the hormones of teenagers. But ... let's not go there.
Is there a middle way which is fair to everyone, regardless of gender? Yes - though I am unsure it will be the one I think it should be. Is it practical? I believe so. Will Humanity ever create a society which follows that middle way? I am certain I won't live to see it, but I hope so.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-18 03:57 pm (UTC)When daintiness and delicacy is considered attractive in women and not in men, and when size and strength are considered attractive in men and not in women, small slight men and big burly women don't get selected. When aggression is praised in little boys but not in little girls, you're going to get men who perform aggression and women who don't -- even if their behavior was identical as small children.