blaming again

i blame the patriarchy's "empowerful" critique continues with another brilliant ditty by twisty; this time, it mostly addresses a response she got to the last one - "post-postmodern sexuality" - from a self-professed supporter of the sportcorset. i won't dissect that response, as twisty and kyso kisaen at punkassblog aldready do a beautiful job of that. i even want to add a huge disclaimer to my support of twisty's point: like i said on a different occasion, i cannot agree that women who succumb to/embrace the "sexbot" image are the worst conformists to the patriarchy and can't be feminists. (to be honest, i don't think that twisty thinks so either; i believe she's saying this for the sake of making a larger point, and that is actually what i don't find particularly fair, or rather feminist, about it.) again, i'm of the opinion that as long as we agree on the fact that the nature of the patriarchy is that it infuses everything, so there's no total escape for any of us, it makes no sense (and it doesn't really help!) to say that certain "types" of women are, a priori, the enemies of all womankind and lovers of all things patriarchal. the way i put it before is that the patriarchy does the same thing: offering only binary value systems, placing women in rigid categories, shaming them and refusing them agency, blaming the victims for the system which victimizes them. and i'd say one has to be extra-careful of doing anything that comes even close to replicating those tactics - even if it's rhetorically satisfying to do so. that's precisely why there's so much resistance to the "sexbot"/"empowerful" critique, why women will say: "but, no, this doesn't make sense to me and if radical feminism is about being an anti-sex prude who wants all women to be one way i don't want anything to do with it." basically there's a point there where the critique of what the patriarchy dictates a woman should be and do becomes a way to put women down, also... and as such, an anti-feminist, not feminist (and let alone "radical") stance. instead, let's close in on particular behaviors and choices.

i won't go into a discussion of the "sexbot" choices women might make except to say, ok, it's true that those choices are just like any other ones when it comes to embracing or not what gets called "femininity." it's true that singling those out just because they have to do with sex makes no sense. and it's also true that no one can say they're completely "innocent" there, anyway: if you've been alive in the patriarchy, you have dressed gender-appropriately at some point at least to some extent. again, i see no difference really between dressing in sexy clothes and, say, knitting - both are patriarchy-approved expressions of "femininity." and both have about the same intrinsic lack of merit. BUT. that being said, we have to acknowledge that differences can easily come in. the main one: being a "sexbot," unlike knitting, is directly related to the fact that the patriarchy controls women mostly through trying to relegate them to being the sex class. i know that if i ever felt that a large part of my identity/femaleness revolved around knitting, that knitting was important because only women who knit attain a certain status and it's really my duty as a woman to knit, and besides if knitting involved hurting myself - stabbing myself with the needles, say - then i'd take a step back and think that maybe i wasn't doing it because i liked it but because i was being forced to... like it. (actually, i'd take a step back and scream.) and though i do not believe that dressing "like a slut," just like enjoying sex, has to negate being a feminist at all, i do think your devotion to the patriarchy may be outweighing any critical stance if you also say stuff like "the vagina is empty and it needs filling" or "even though they make me gag and i'm no good at them, i should still be giving blow jobs to the guys i'm intimate with" or "i exercise solely to look good for men and so, yes, i would wear a sportcorset"...

but that's not even my point. the author of the "post-postmodern sexuality" post is not one-dimensional at all (as she puts it, she'd like to draw a "line between edgy-ironic postmodern sexuality and dumb slut"); she talks of paradoxes and constructs of the patriarchy and different feminisms, and she offers several "non-ironic" thoughts along the way ("I think it’s both irrational and impractical to chide women who knowingly opt into certain constructs of the patriarchy unless the aim is to abolish gender altogether.") she even talks about how some people - her included - simply choose not to "fight" ("Unless a woman is to be a soldier, someone who has dedicated her life to “stepping up” against the patriarchy, then the feminist agenda requires not only sacrifice, but actual effort."). which is fine. but - exactly like her romanian counterpart here, she worries that she might not be feminist, after all (she used to think she was). and exactly like her romanian counterpart (who "has never felt really discriminated against based on her sex" and "doesn't think she knows any really misogynistic men"), when she elaborates her position after being challenged about some of her points in the comments, she finally says:

But regarding feminism, I neve felt as though it helped me understand anything about being unhappy because I never felt as though I was victim of the patriarchy. I’ve taken two graduate courses in feminist theory and maybe one or two others at the undergradate level and for me, they provided more historical reference and general awareness; what I learned didn’t seem directly applicable to my own life.

I grew up being taught that the only obstacle to my success would be my personal drive and initiative, and part of me has never given up believing that at a fundamenal level, even though I intellectually understand that we do live in a patriarchy and women are theoretically at a disadvantage.

and here. that's what it is. "theoretically," huh? i think it doesn't even matter whether you might "be" a feminist, how much you choose to embrace patriarchal constructs about gender and sex and so on... in fact, we're wasting too much time with rhetorics. much of feminism is about recognizing that those constructs exist - but it's not just that. it's also fighting sexist oppression to the best of your abilities. and that's really what twisty is saying, even if she's saying it in a "radical" way. if you, however, choose to distance yourself from sexism and oppression - because you're sure you, unlike the great majority of women out there, are somehow "above" those things, that you're the special one who's totally escaped sexism and patriarchy - you're not only truly deluding yourself but taking an actively anti-feminist position. i think that's the essential point here, under all of it; that it's not all - or even mostly - about you. and women who say that kind of thing are choosing not to be feminist, plain and simple, and i think that's worlds away from being criticised for not being feminist because one embraces some aspects of patriarchy-defined "femininity," just as it's also entirely disingenuous of them to wonder if they might be "feminist" after all. anyway, i feel that i can give such women an honest answer to the dishonest question: NOPE. really.

i'm soooo allergic to this "but i've never felt discriminated against!!" bullshit.

ps: what if the aim is to abolish "gender" altogether? gender as we know it?