men, women and me

reading this, one of the comments reminded me of an expression used by 2nd wave feminists to describe how women react, in certain situations, to the pressure we all feel to desolidarize ourselves from our gender (as i usually put it) in order to assert ourselves: namely, by pretending that somehow there are "three sexes: men, women and me" (for instance, by saying that, yes, most women are [insert misoginistic belief here] and implying that one, though a woman, is the exception that proves the rule).

as jo freeman puts it:

I backed into feminism through an intellectual route. Not that I lacked personal experience of discrimination which generated the proverbial "click" of so many of my contemporaries; I just didn't see it. As was true of others, I grew up believing that there were three sexes: men, women and me. Thus I was quite capable of carrying all of the stereotypes and biases about women which my culture fostered without making the personal connection or feeling demeaned thereby. I knew about women's place. I just didn't know my own.

while i'm not sure where betty friedan used the "three sexes" phrase so i don't know about attributing it to her, it's particularly interesting to me the way it's mentioned in this paper to apply to women scientists:

"...There have always been women scientists; we know that, especially in astronomy. How did these women scientists of yesteryear deal with these traditions and proscriptions? Mostly, as Margaret Rossiter, Evelyn Fox-Keller, and Vivian Gornick have amply documented, by accepting these restrictions and accommodating their ambitions to men's needs for domination. Until the late 1960s, that is, until the new wave of feminism, the survival strategy of the typical American woman scientist was to persuade the men who taught her, funded her, and with whom she worked, that there were (as Betty Friedan put it baldly) three sexes: men, women, and me: 'All of what must be true of women in general is not true of me,' these women wanted to convey. 'And to prove that to you, I will make myself as much like you, the dominant sex, as I can. I will deny my sisterhood with other women if that is the price I have to pay, deprive myself of family, if that is necessary. I'll have no spouse, pretend to have no social life, and certainly not display my sexuality in order to make you think I am not like other women, and therefore don't deserve a female's status. ..."

("The Problem of Women in Science: Why is it so difficult to convince people there is one?" by Sheila Tobias)

i alluded to precisely this issue myself in a post on the topic of women in science, over here. of course, the larger problem (in the scientific community and society in general) is that the desolidarization doesn't work ultimately: you can think there's "men, women and me" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the patriarchal system couldn't care less what you think (it's a system): it remains patriarchal, and it works by oppressing women and devaluing all it declares "feminine" - all you can do is contribute to this or not. which is a fine line that's hard to draw or see, and yet not really! as i said elsewhere,

[the] issue that men are taught to define themselves through how much they are not like women/"feminine" is not just the main cause of misogyny (which it is), but also a way to perpetuate lots of injustice that's not even directly related to gender. because, of course, to care about stuff and to show compassion is not something that real men do! real men are tough (non-ice cream-eating) motherfuckers. [*] and, once again... they're NOT WOMEN!! which can't be stressed enough. funny how it's those who speak up about this stuff who get called "frustrated" by the "tough guys"... and some women fall into this trap too: their idea of being "cool" and "different" and "special" is to make it clear that they're not like most women, either, and they, too, view both women and "femininity" with disdain. which goes back to my whole argument about choosing solidarity as opposed to denounciation, as total and indiscriminate denounciation is far from being "radical feminism" because it's misogyny... etc.

oh, and at the same time:

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. ... 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.

[that "blaming" post is pretty great if i do say so myself!:) the comments, too.]

* for anyone who doesn't get the "ice cream eating" reference, see my favorite rant in the whole world