Glance down my blogroll, and you will find Girl With a One Track Mind, the diary of a sex fiend. Abby, or ‘The Girl’ as she calls herself, has just published her memoirs, putting the highlights of her two years online onto the printed page.
The diaries are often funny and usually titillating. However, there also exists in Abby’s writings a confident feminism and a highly moral outlook. Some of the best posts, which inspire the greatest reader response, are those which deal with overcoming harassment, and fighting against the sexism of the film industry. Being a nyphomaniac does not mean the same as ‘loose morals’ and ‘The Girl’ is actually very particular about who she chooses to take on her adventures. Honesty and full disclosure are her watchwords. Her diaries are fantastic guidance for anyone who wants to be true to themselves and their desires, while still respecting oneself and other people…
The diaries work so well in online form because they are anonymous – Abby is obviously not her real name. If ‘The Girl’ were to interact with people who knew about her writings, the entire nature of the relationships she experiences would change beyond all recognition. Her comments on hitherto anonymous lovers would become unethical and impossible, since a fairly wide circle of people would know who they were. Anonymity is crucial, and the blog cannot work in any other way. This fact is obvious to anyone who has ever read the blog, and will be apparent to anyone who buys the book.
No so obvious, however, to the idiots at the Sunday Times, who have ‘outed’ Abby, publishing her real name over the weekend – (a journalist tracked her down via her publishers). The result, claims ‘The Girl’ on her blog, is that she has had to confess her lifestyle and blog to members of her family. She will now find a whole new kind of prejudice within the film production community, if indeed she gets any further employment at all from this sector. The blog posts may well dry up as a result. Finding a boyfriend will be a nightmare. And all for a poxy, soulless, off-the-front page expose in a Sunday newspaper, by a stupid journalist, Anna Mikhailova, who has missed the entire point of The Girl’s output. The real identity of ‘The Girl’ was never important. Shame on you Anna – for spoling our fun, and quite possibly the life of a decent, talented person. You have done no good.
My goodness, Clarice, you are a judgmental sort of person. What it comes down to is that you think the Girl should censor herself in the name of feminism. I think that’s kind of sweet.
No Katy, that’s not what it comes down to at all.
Sigh.
In courts of law it is now necessary for those that judge us to decide whether an act was caused 1. with intent 2. recklessly or 3. negligently and also whether harm was caused to what extent and whether harm was anticipated.
Now I am not suggesting that any criminal act has been committed but if anyone is suggesting that some harm may be caused then surely it would be a good thing for the perpetrator to at least step back and “have a think” and then proceed in which ever way he/she sees fit.
I am surprised at Rob on this one, because although I may not go as far as Clarice I do agree that her points this time have not been countered convincingly and I agree that horse dead and flogging do come to mind.
Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that you would prefer the Girl to censor herself in the name of feminism? I mean, you’ve described her as idiotic, harmful and morally bankrupt. I assume from that that you would prefer her not to say what she does.
I agree with you that promiscuity is not the same as feminism, but it is as possible to be promiscuous and feminist as it is to be chaste and feminist or somewhere in between, isn’t it?
Hi Katy. No, you assume incorrectly. I have stated my objections quite clearly, which, for the sake of clarity, I shall repeat (again):
“I don’t think she does very much to explicitly refute the overstatement of the link between feminism and promiscuity, and that, since she is explicitly, and by her own claims, riding on the back of feminism, I think is objectionable”.
I am not objecting to anything she explicitly says (except for the “feminist” claim, for the reasons above). Of course it’s possible to be promiscuous and feminist! The point I am trying to make is that one’s sexual behaviour is orthogonal and irrelevant to one’s feministness, and that this point is undermined by Abby’s actions.
Oh how times have changed. Didn’t Germaine Greer say that one couldn’t consider oneself a feminist until one had tasted one’s menstrual blood on the head of a lover’s penis?
And probably, in those days, without a condom.
I’ve had a think about this some more. I think part of the reason why your analysis seems unfair is that any claim of being ‘feminist’ or ‘riding on the back of feminism’ came after the blog was written and the book published. So I would agree that The Girl has not made herself clear, and not refuted those links, in the wake of all that controversy. Perhaps the interview in the Guardian was a mistake in that respect.
What I do not agree with is the notion that the writings themselves are objectionable for the same reason. I think the writings are personal, and non-preachy enough in themselves that they do not need further clarifcation. Nor do they announce themselves as any kind of contribution to the feminist canon.
Thanks for that Rob.
The writings themselves, if they were intended to be read by large numbers of people (and the fact that they’re on the internet suggests that they are, as does the fact that she’s consented to a book publication) are objectionable in my view, for the same reasons, albeit less so.
You yourself say elsewhere here that to have The Far Left held up as “typical” is a communication problem for The Left. A similar argument applies here, and I think it’s rather strange if you can’t see it. I will put it in simple steps for you:
1. To have female promiscuity (or puritanism) held up as “the norm” (or “the ideal”) is a problem for women who do not share that particular lifestyle.
2. Abby’s blog (prior to the book) runs a very real risk of her sex habits/desires being seen as “the norm” – see the all the women’s comments saying things to the effect of “me too!” (which support the view that hers is the norm), and the men’s comments of gratitude for giving them “insight” into “a” woman’s mind (which support my claim that her writings are at risk of being held up as “the norm”). See also the popularity of the blog for its titillation capacity, which might understandably suggest to those who witness the phenomenon that her way is seen as an “ideal”.
3. Therefore Abby’s blog is a pr problem for all women who don’t share her way of life, because she has picked a particular topic where it is likely to be the case that one highly publicised (and popular) viewpoint will be seen as either the norm or the ideal.
I’m not saying she shouldn’t have written it (I’m undecided on that front), and I’m not saying she’s a bad person, or that other people’s promiscuity is a bad thing (unlike you, who reserves the right to distinguish between “good” and “bad” promiscuity in women). I’m also not saying that a responsibility to make the points I’ve made necessarily fall reasonably within the scope of what she’s doing, but then she a) shouldn’t be calling herself a feminist, or allowing other people do so unchallenged, and b) shouldn’t be surprised when people make the kinds of points about her that I’ve been doing.
I also think there’s a implicit subtext behind the blog and its popularity which Abby exploits and her readers enjoy, but which no-one is honest enough to acknowledge, and which I have been harshly criticised here for even alluding to, presumably because people didn’t want their “fun” spoiled.
Rewarding women (with positive attention or with money) who actively and knowingly titillate in a public way, is tantamount to endorsing such behaviour, no? I would say it is similar to paying a prostitute. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with being a prostitute, but there is something ethically wrong with engaging the services of one. I expect to be treated rather harshly for saying such a thing – I appreciate it is not a comfortable thought for many (especially men) to entertain.
Woops, sorry I didn’t mean for it to be that long.
Cherry picking for a moment (sorry!) from Clarice’s last comment on rewarding titillation – I won’t be harsh, I promise.
I think there is a clear difference between titillating for reward, and rewarding something that titillates. Yes, the blog (and presumably the book, which I have not read) is titillating. I have no doubt that many people read it *specifically* for this. There is also no doubt in my mind that the blog/book was also written to be more than simply ‘online consumer porn’ however. Comparing the blog to prostitution is to deny that there is any intended value over and above the titillation, which I reject.
I appreciate that is simply one point out of many that you have made in your argument, and am not claiming this overturns all your points – this one simply jumped out at me. I’ll have a think about the rest.
Clarice,
To have female promiscuity (or puritanism) held up as “the norm” (or “the ideal”) is a problem for women who do not share that particular lifestyle.
But to have chastity or sexual restraint held up as “the norm” or the “right” way for women to behave, which still happens, is just as much of a problem for women who do not share that particular lifestyle.
Abby’s blog (prior to the book) runs a very real risk of her sex habits/desires being seen as “the norm” – see the all the women’s comments saying things to the effect of “me too!” (which support the view that hers is the norm)
It might reassure women who are very sexual that they are not the only ones who feel that way, but that’s hardly the same as saying that it is normal to feel that way and wrong not to.
See also the popularity of the blog for its titillation capacity, which might understandably suggest to those who witness the phenomenon that her way is seen as an “ideal”.
It’s a blog written by someone who enjoys having sex and talking about sex, which appeals to other people who like having sex and talking about sex.
Therefore Abby’s blog is a pr problem for all women who don’t share her way of life
How? I just don’t understand how this can be right. There are thousands of blogs out there written by women who say and do things that I don’t agree with and/or wouldn’t do. I don’t lie awake at night worrying about whether people will think I agree with what they say or do the things they do. I just accept that they are not the same as me and move on. And no man has ever turned up to a date with me brandishing a butt plug* and whining, “But the Girl does this sort of thing all the time…”
Rewarding women (with positive attention or with money) who actively and knowingly titillate in a public way, is tantamount to endorsing such behaviour, no? I would say it is similar to paying a prostitute.
That is exactly the sort of sentiment that gave birth to the feminist movement. One of the things that women were fighting for was the right to be sexual if they wanted to without being judged for it. If being a feminist is about supporting other women’s right to be who they are and express what they feel without fear of judgment or censure, I am not sure that you’re really a feminist yourself.
*Actually, no man has ever turned up to a date with me brandishing a butt plug, full stop.
Hi Jherad
If you read what I said, I wasn’t comparing the blog to prostitution. If I was, you’d have a fair point, but I was not. What I was doing, was comparing rewarding titllating behaviour to paying a prostitute. It’s a metaphor. I wasn’t comparing the blog to prostitution, and I have explicitly stated many times above my awareness that there is more to the blog than titillation both in intent and in content.
Cheers
Hi Katy N
To your first point, I agree wholeheartedly.
To your last, I disagree. What women were fighting for was the right not to be judged on their sexual behaviour. Unfortunately, that got translated as fighting for the right to be sexual, which is not quite the same thing. The former entails the latter, but the converse is not true. Which is why I think it’s not enough to fight for the right to be sexual, without also fighting for the more general case, the right to self-determination without judgement. And if you’re fighting for the more general case, then since that includes the right to be sexual, there really is no need to fight for that in particular – in fact, it’s more economical and beneficial just to fight for the general right to not be judged for one’s sexual behaviour whatever that might be (as long as it is not illegal or mean).
Your middle points I will have to give some thought to, I’m afraid I’m too busy just now, but I will come back to it if that’s ok.
x
Right then.
Yes, the blog might reassure and validate some women, I agree with you there. However, I did not say that that is the same as saying that it’s normal to feel that way and wrong not to. What I said was that a highly publicised case of a woman being sexual, together with a lot of women saying “me too!” could make it look like that behaviour is normal and it is wrong or less valued to deviate from this particular lifestyle.
Therefore Abby’s blog is a pr problem for all women who don’t share her way of life
Not all of the thousands of blogs out there enjoy the readership hers does, and are published into books and get anything like the media attention. Laying aside for a moment the reasons why this might be (which might suggest there is something different about this particular blog), Abby’s blog is a particular case because it relates to a very specific area where women have historically been controlled, exploited and abused, and which, coincidentally, relates in my view to the very most intimate core of one’s psyche. Furthermore, it is very much an area which is culturally vulnerable to being overwhelmed by male sexuality. And, from what I’ve read of it, her particular tastes are vanilla enough to be seen as somewhere close to the norm, and titillating enough to be seen as somewhere close to an ideal of female sexuality. A bdsm blog, say, or a dogging or swinging blog does not threaten perceptions in the same way, as these are very much seen as atypical and as such would not command such wide appeal. So no, I wouldn’t worry about those either.
I do see your argument, but you’ve taken a very unsubtle illustration of how the blog might influence people, which is bound to be easy to refute and sound silly to boot – in reality media influences occur in a more subtle, often unconscious way.
in reality media influences occur in a more subtle, often unconscious way.
Yes, in a very imprecise and often ineffective way too. If you’re susceptible to one form of mind control, you’re also going to be susceptible to the counter-message, which is disseminated just as effectively. Which is why I reject the idea that we can make a firm, causal link between the GWAOTM blog and any negative sexual experiences people may or may not be having. there’s just one extrapolation too many in the chain for me.
I can quite understand your logic, Bert, but I disagree with the premise that “you’re also going to be susceptible to the counter-message, which is disseminated just as effectively“.
The media influences to which I refer are not in the form of precise and explicit messages, but in the implicit beliefs and attitudes underpinning them. Because these are implicit, they are harder to be aware of, and hence to question. Usually you just come away from such a communication feeling either inexplicably shit, or inexplicably angry.
The “counter-message” is not disseminated just as effectively, since typically, owing to its less titillating flavour, it simply doesn’t get anything like the same coverage or attention.
My apologies Clarice, I extrapolated ‘rewarding women who (…) knowingly titillate in a public way’ being similar to paying for prostitution, as your comparing the blog to prostitution, which was wrong.
I think my argument is still applicable though – there is nothing wrong with rewarding women who publish work which happens to titillate, if that is not obviously the main purpose of the work (which to me at least, it is not).
It irks me in the same way that politicians do when they dismiss satire as comedy.
“I think my argument is still applicable though – there is nothing wrong with rewarding women who publish work which happens to titillate, if that is not obviously the main purpose of the work (which to me at least, it is not).”
Well, this is something I am really not sure about, unless I modify your assertion to something like the following: There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as the reason for rewarding it is not premissed upon its titillation factor. In Abby’s case though, I’m fairly sure that’s a large part of why it has been rewarded.
I don’t think the main intended purpose of the work is necessarily that relevant in my objection, compared to the main reason for rewarding it. In philosophy and psychology, it is well-known that actual function is weighted far more heavily than intended function in the semantic interpretion and categorisation of artifacts.
But even if you disagree with me on that point, it beggars belief that someone could seriously argue that a blog entitled “Girl With A One-Track Mind” does not appear to have the main purpose of titillating. Once you read it of course, one might see it differently, but it is clearly seeking to attract people to it on the promise of titillation, and judging by the comments, it does not disappoint in that regard.
The reason I phrased my objection in the way that I did was precisely to avoid putting the question of overall merit entirely with the motives of the individual reader.
I first found GWAOTM after reading an article somewhere about the site’s intended premise – in that context, the lurid title and explicit content has more intellectual value than pornographic. What you get out of the site is very much reliant on what you are looking for – which brings us to the problem.
There have been numerous controversial pieces of ‘modern art’ placed in various art galleries over the years – they invariably raise some media attention, but remain unvisited by those who they would be least likely to ‘inspire’ in the way the artists imagined. The internet has given many people an easy way to express themselves, artistically or otherwise – but rather than be segregated off into a gallery only visited by those interested in ‘modern art’ or whatever – the content instead is in little tents on the street. Anyone can visit any tent, and you don’t really know what is inside until you take a peek. Once inside, you are wholly submerged in the world of the author/artist, and it is up to you to figure it out.
I would argue that the possible ‘damage’ done to those who have come to view the site as pornography is minimal – if people want to see examples of women objectifying themselves, they can (and will) get strong examples elsewhere – in full sweaty technicolour detail – and without the possibility of ever picking up the intended message of GWAOTM. For those who have read GWAOTM as something thought-provoking, they would be poorer for having not been able to read it, or having had to read a neutered version of it, cut down so as not to subvert those who lack the intellectual tools necessary to interpret the content correctly.
I’ve sidestepped around your point on the ‘main reason for rewarding it’ somewhat, as I think it is less relevant. The work stands on its own merits – but if people want to buy it as porn, fine. People looking only to get their kicks will get them somewhere. I do not doubt that the book would be less financially successful without this element – but to reason that this necessarily means that the book was written to capitalise on this income, or is devalued as a work, is (in my opinion) to go a step too far.
Argh, and this post took far too long to write. Time to sleep!
Hi J
I was more concerned with the ‘damage’ done by those who use the blog as some form of titillation (which is not quite as extreme as pornography, and apparently, more socially acceptable too). But never mind.
It’s a shame you view my point on ‘the main reason for rewarding it’ as less relevant – I don’t see your reasoning for this. I have no-where reasonsed that people using the blog or buying the book as titillation necessarily tells us anything about why it was written – you misread me if you think that I have. The logic of my point goes like this:
If I intended to kiss you, but accidentally killed you instead, how would my fine motive affect your deadness? I believe it would not. It might reduce my culpability, but I believe you would still be dead, and your deadness would be a direct result of my actions. Going on about the intended function of my actions would not change their actual function one jot. Anyone who thinks intended function is all clearly needs to think that one through a little bit. Please note that by saying this, I am not saying that intended function is entirely irrelevant in judging the merits of an action (it clearly is not), but simply that it does not trump the actual function by any means.
Imagine that a person produces a work which has, say three intended purposes, and let us say these purposes are a) self-expression b) to counter a cultural belief that sexual women are “bad” and c) to stimulate frank and open discussion. Now, let us imagine that in the course of meeting these purposes, the content happens also to titillate. If the main reason the work gets attention, and the main reason that it makes money is because of the titillation factor, then the person is clearly not being rewarded for any of the fine purposes that motivated the blog, but rather for the fact that it titillates. This I think is wrong, regardless of whether there is titillating material available elsewhere.
Where it happens, it implies that a work which seeks to fulfil those same three intended purposes but does not have titillating content will receive less attention and make less money. The intended purpose of the work which happens to titillate is subverted by those who use it for titillation. In this case, its overall merit, and its fine motives are at best diluted and at worst redundant. It is wrong if the blog is being rewarded primarily for being titillating, rather than for its other motives, since it implies that that titillation is its primary value. It implies that titillation is more valuable than whatever its other motives might have been. But that seems to be exactly what has happened, and that seems to be exactly the state of affairs that prevails.
What I do think is that people who seek to be titillated should not only be doing this thoughtlessly, or without taking responsibility for so doing. Attracting titillation-seekers and then facilitating them to explore and consider the motives and implications behind their titillation-seeking is a good thing. But Abby does not in my view do this.
I guess what I’m coming down to is that I believe it is perfectly possible that some forms of expression/art/information can be subversive in the wrong hands – but ask if we then have a moral responsibility to restrict access to that content to prevent subversion in the wrong hands – or whether we take a free approach and make it available to all, and to heck with the consequences.
If instead of being an ‘anonymous’ diary of the thoughts, emotions, and day by day sex-life of ‘The Girl’, GWAOTM was instead a series of essays discussing sexuality, the overall message may be the same – it would be a completely different work however, and would hold different levels of appeal as a novel, art, and science. No doubt, less people would get the ‘wrong’ message, but it may hold less appeal as a work to those who were able to receive the ‘correct’ message from either piece.
I can see your point on the diary not doing enough to encourage ‘titillation seekers’ to develop their thoughts further, though I think this is a question of the work being too narrow in its objectives.
Doesn’t it depend rather on what the consequences are? Freedom is nice, but I’d quite like to be protected from your freedom to hurt people, say, and as part of this protection, there should be a moral obligation to take due care not to harm others in the course of exercising your freedoms.
Take the titillation out of GWAOTM, and the message actually becomes rather different. With titillation, the intended message is easy to ignore. As far as having appeal as “science”, while it is based on a sample size of one, I’m afraid it has none. Ditto for its basis on a self-confessed self-selected sample of commenters.
I think she has the right to be as narrow as she likes in her objectives, but I do think once she puts her work into the arena of mass media, she must bear responsibility for the perfectly predictable way in which it is likely to be used and interpreted, and for any harm resulting from that. For unpredictable subversions of its message, of course she cannot be held responsible.
To twist the words of Roberto, I do think we must demand some degree of intelligence and understanding from our media producers.
I believe that it is wrong to take a strong feminist stance on this. The problem is that one ends up generalising about female and indeed male sexuality. Clarice writes of how ‘many men’ are titillated by almost any women between the ages ’14 and 35′, this is a generalisation and would make a walk in busy street impossible for men. This is like saying all women are ‘asking for it’. I don’t think it right to polarise male and female sexuality in this way.
My experience is that ‘many men’ today respect women, believe in the rights of women and do not believe women to be ‘asking for it’. Conversely, Clarice, do you believe that all men are ‘asking for it’? Do you really believe that men think about sex all the time? I’m sure that we would never get anything done if that were the case (why do I hear the voice of my wife say ‘exactly’).
Clarice, I’m sure that you do agree that not all men are sex crazed but I would agree that there are likely to be more men than women that are sex crazed. Yes, and I do believe that men are more likely to be distracted by a pretty/sexy woman walking down a street. I am a married man with what I believe to be a healthy sex life (no blog intended on this subject I’m afraid), I have never cheated on my wife but I have to admit that I too find that a pretty/sexy woman will sometimes catch my eye but it ends there. Furthermore, I do not believe that I am in the minority.
But, Clarice, you do attack GWAOTM for titillating us men, these men that cannot control themselves! You suggest that men will read GWAOTM and believe that all women are like her – surely you do not really believe this? And what makes you think that many women will not read GWAOTM and be titillated? Do they then go on to act out the escapades described?
I didn’t read very much of GWAOTM, I quickly lost interest. I must say that I have actually found how she is handling the loss of her anonymity far more interesting. I’m not against what she has written as I do think that individuals should feel free to express themselves and it might well be helpful for men and women to discover how a particular woman of a particular sexuality lives her life. What I believe she is guilty of is betraying the trust of her lovers – if anything it is the men that have been sexualised in her writings.
So the issues here become broader than a feminist one – it is more about human sexuality and the right for humans to be fulfilled sexually without fear of any intimate details being relayed in verbal or written form. The various lovers that GWAOTM had encounters with are men with feelings, her writings have sexualised them, turned her encounters with them to mere sexual experiences. No matter what GWAOTM says about how her lovers have been happy with her book, she will never know what they really think – they are probably decent guys who realise what has been said has been said and nothing more can be done. In their shoes I would have said the same thing but would have felt betrayed. It would be one of those things that would hang over you, you get married (there’s a book), you have kids (there’s a book) … She can apologise but the damage is done, for her it was self inflicted, naive maybe but still self inflicted. If she really felt that she had betrayed her lovers she could offer them the profits but then they probably wouldn’t accept.
It irks me the way she complains about the press invasion. When you publicise your sexual escapades what did she really expect? Somebody would have figured out her identity. It’s a mystery – we all love a mystery. All the ‘we feel so sorry for you Abby’ really irritates me. If she had been male I’m not sure people would have been quite so sympathetic.
Finally, what really bothers me is that this is yet another site that children might find their way onto. Blogs that are that sexually explicit should be tagged as such. This website has received lots of publicity and the author should put some warning that the website is sexually explicit. I get so fed up trying to check parental controls work correctly for every sexually explicit site – in this way the blogosphere needs to grow up a bit.
In summary – hats off to you Abby for being open and honest about your sexuality, nothing to be ashamed of there; shame on you for betraying the trust of your lovers; stupid of you to believe that you would remain anonymous; and further shame on you for not warning or protecting your blog from minors.
I sound like a real grump!
(PS I did laugh at the story of the visit to the Gynaecologist though.)
Hi Keith
I’d like to make a few points if I may:
1. Saying “many men” do such and such is not the same as saying “all women” do such and such. Anyway, I’ve addressed this point ad nauseam above. Commenting on well-documented sex differences is not the same as making generalisations – it just takes a modicum of intelligence to grasp this, that’s all, and I have explained it above.
2. “Many men” say they respect women, and I think a majority genuinely believe this to be the case, but as long as they are presuming to judge what someone may or may not do on the grounds of their gender, stigmatising “women’s” work, and as long as they are rewarding titillating behaviour disproportionately, I would beg to differ. The size of the porn industry, the statistics on sexual violence and so forth are simply not compatible with a world in which most men “respect” most women. Perhaps you and I have a different idea of what respect is.
3. The formulation of your assertion that “”many men” respect women” is kind of weird. The respect in your view is applied in a generalised way to women in general (though you say it’s wrong to generalise), but the “respecters” get a qualification. Weird thoughtless double-standard kind of thing going on there, if you want to be picky about it.
4. As for men being titilated, I did not attack GWAOTM for titillating – she’s perfectly entitled to do so. I simply made some comments regarding the fact that her work does (by her readers’ admission) titillate, and the implications of this.
The rest of your points regarding things I’ve said have been addressed above, which you will see if you have read it. I am growing rather tired of being accused of saying things I never said though.
“If Abby had been male” is an interesting angle. If she had been male, her actions would have been seen in a quite different way, so in many ways, it is not a fair comparison. You are not comparing like with like, since the social and sexual conditions prevailing for women are so different from those prevailing for men. May I recommend you have a look at Daughters of Egalia by Gert Brandenburg, if you want to see what I mean.
I also don’t feel terribly sympathetic if a handful of men are sexualised and betrayed. My culture and the whole of human history tells me it’s ok to sexualise and betray women, so I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy when men whine if it’s done to them. It’s a great shame if men have to suffer what women have suffered for generations in order for them to realise that it isn’t very nice.
I liked your other points, and of course, there’s more going on than “just” a feminist issue with all this, that just happens to be where I came in.
Hello Clarice
‘Daughters of Egalia’ sounds very interesting – I shall get hold of a copy. Everything else – fine but …
“I also don’t feel terribly sympathetic if a handful of men are sexualised and betrayed. My culture and the whole of human history tells me it’s ok to sexualise and betray women, so I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy when men whine if it’s done to them.”
Ouch. This is just not right. This is an ‘eye for an eye’ mentality and I believe it is outdated and solves little. You are human and happen to be female and I happen to be male, I did not choose to be male. I am also quite capable of empathising with those women who have and continue to suffer, they are fellow human beings. You, as a female, do not have a monopoly of empathy for females just because you are female.
I really believe that the role of the feminist movement is not to ‘get back’ at males or ‘let them know how it feels’ but instead to ensure equality of rights and opportunity between females and males.
You do not know any of those men. How male are they? At what point would a male be allowed to join the ‘sisterhood’, when he loses his genitals? Is that all? No, when you show little sympathy you show little sympathy to fellow human beings.
Oh yes! Well said, Keith I quite agree.
When it gets down to the individual level, of course I don’t have a monopoly on empathy, and of course every case must be considered on its own merits. When speaking about populations, however, it is currently a fact that men on average are less empathetic than women (cf Simon Baron-Cohen). I don’t personally think this is the whole story by any means, but I’ve yet to conduct the research that demonstrates a more detailed picture. When you look at the pattern of how men as a group have behaved towards women as a group throughout all of history, it either just isn’t very consistent with the notion that there is any notable degree of empathy in the culture towards women, or, if there is empathy, then there must be an upsetting amount of sadism.
My position does sound like ‘an eye for an eye’, but it is not, and I don’t endorse such a mentality. The logic behind my remarks was that a woman could be forgiven for thinking that men would not mind being betrayed or exploited, since that is how, throughout history, they have behaved towards women with impunity. Do as you would be done by, would be closer to my position on this. Of course, this could be interpreted quite differently – if women do not like being betrayed and exploited then you could argue that they are more culpable if they do it to other people. If Israelis feel hurt and upset and damaged by the holocaust, then perhaps they have more responsibility to treat other people kindly and with respect than those who had not been inflicted with such horrendous treatment. On the other hand, they may just as finely take the attitude “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”, in the aggression and violence stakes.
The role of feminism is definitely not to get back at males, but I do believe that if they can appreciate how it feels, then that is a perhaps a good step in the journey towards ensuring equality of life. If it makes one man think “hey, this isn’t very nice”, who wouldn’t otherwise have bothered to even consider it, then that’s a good thing.
In an ideal world, gender would be irrelevant, but until we get there, I’m afraid a premature gender-blindness in assessing the rights and wrongs of things is not always a fair or helpful thing. A male can never join ‘the sisterhood’, by virtue of his DNA. Any person can join ‘the humanhood’, however, as long as they treat human beings reasonably, regardless of gender.
Pingback: Conceptual Reality - We