The first post from my sister in struggle and sass Saida Grundy, who will be appearing here from time to time, is a response to “Dating While Feminist: An Anatomy of an Intellectual Affair” (via Crunk Feminists Collective).
Blog begets blog, and this will be no exception. More typically, however, feminist stances posted to the internet(s) give way to counter-bloggage and commentary retort from those on the outside of our movement. The patient amongst our sister-comrades may even take noble attempts to explain to our foes the histories and social contexts of Black feminist politics that we already knowingly share and understand amongst each other. The less patient among us– say… me– usually just take to internetthugging because my patience for male patriarchs and their allies is limited if not expired.
So, from the outside, it may be surprising to witness feminist dissent amongst feminists. And yet, this is where I find myself–in ardent disagreement with my feminist community over the sexual consequences of feminism in our romantic lives.
Without any intention to misrepresent the post’s point, I will summarize briefly the bulk of this lament: The author is a smart and rising feminist academic. The author is a heterosexual and still has a pulse, so she sometimes finds herself attracted to her male intellectual peers and colleagues. These male colleagues often engage the author in deep intellectual discussion(what she describes as “an intellectual affair”) and yet do not reciprocate sexual interest in lieu of presenting said author with the almighty friend card. Where this may seem typical to the experiences of adult professionals across the board, what has been argued here is that this lack of sexual interest coupled with shared intellectual stimulation constitutes a “mind-f*ck” in which feminists in particular are repeatedly used for mental exercise but not considered as candidates for sexual pursuit.
As a homegirl, I can “get” the former complaint, that women—particularly women involved in the incestuous f*ckfest of academia—often navigate the very ambiguous territory of dating within the profession and have to brace ourselves for rejection. But my feminism takes issue with the latter—the notion that our feminist identities and intellectual depth have somehow muted our sexual desirability to men, and, perhaps more disturbingly, that men’s unreciprocated sexual interest while maintaining intellectual interest is somehow “using” us.
Such a take on feminist ‘dating’ has me doing something I have never actually done before: defending men. While I do understand the hurt feelings that come naturally with any unidirectional romantic interest, I just can’t help but think that men are damned if they do, damned if they don’t on this one. While there is a valid point to how our political presentations of ourselves make us more or less desirable to potential partners (i.e. nothing makes me lose my erection faster than a man with pronounced homophobia issues) I refuse to think that in the history of heterosexuality a man has ever said to himself “I would totally bag dat if she wasn’t so SMART!”
What black women feminists and non-feminists alike more often encounter with our male colleagues is unwanted sexual advances that place us frequently in positions of disempowerment and compelled feelings to play nice and take it lest we get labeled man-haters. What happens more frequently is the harassment of our lesbian sisters for violating the heterosexual contract and being unavailable to male pursuit. What we regularly encounter are men who fake feminism for the aims of lowering our guard against them (and hopefully, our pants). And yes, what we unfortunately still face is the humiliating real life old school Anita-Hill-Pubic-Hairs-on-a-Coke-Can style sexual harassment in the workplace. It is politically irresponsible to bemoan straight men keeping it above the belt without taking account of the hurtful and devastating consequences that their sexual entitlement has caused black women.This is real exploitation. A man not giving up the penis after intense scholarly debate is not.
Feminism has gifted me the quite pleasurable experience of being able to date smart, kind, and thoughtful men (even within academia!) and enjoy them sexually and intellectually. But the sexy part? That was all me. I choose and navigate my sexy inasmuch as I am conscious that it still plays to conventional male heterosexual desire. I won’t give feminism credit for my desirability outside of a brief shout-out for allowing me to feel more in control of my sexual power. But I most certainly won’t have it blamed by my sisters for stifling theirs. To claim that feminism somehow negates our allure to men smacks in the face of the daily exploitation that even feminists face because of our sexual desirability.
Patriarch here. I know Sai and she’s smart and stuff, but I left this post feeling that I learned nothing about how being a feminist actually affects her dating life or desirability. It’s kind of broad and maybe if there was some personal anecdotes, I’d get a better personal understanding.
I want to say first that I got love for the CFC and I am glad that a conversation can emerge from this, because it IS difficult to challenge other feminists when they are ‘talking feminism’ without looking like you are enorsing our common enemy (patriarchy…the concept, not always the actual ‘patriarchs’).
When it comes to matters of the heart, members of both genders can be guilty of trying to rationalize rejection or lack of connection in a way that makes them feel better.
In reading the original post, I didn’t feel like it was a matter of feminism so much as, perhaps, a man who was not attracted to the writer. This is not to say she’s not an attractive woman, but even the most beautiful woman will come across a man who doesn’t want her. Beyond that, there was something off-putting for me with the part where Crunktastic described the scenario of sitting on a panel with a man, but then assuming that he would feel that she was too smart for him. I think it’s a bit sexist to assume that someone who is your peer in that space is automatically intimidated by your academic achievement.
I can attest to the benefits of feminism in dating that Sai speaks about (and I will offer my interpretation of that for you, BS Randy). I feel free to date whom I please and bed who I please. I have a level of confidence and assertiveness in myself that I feel is largely attributed to feminism. I have encountered men who find my stances to be not only impressive, but attractive. I’m not seeking validation through a relationship, nor do I look for potential suitors to become my patriarchal overlord or “upgrade me”. Do non-feminist women embody these qualities? Sure, but feminism helped ME to arrive there.
That said, I have fretted over how feminism may affect my personal dating life. I’ve done it on this site. I am keenly aware that there are men who ain’t trying to hear what I’m saying and that some men are turned off by the feminist title. However, these aren’t usually the ones who want to sit up and debate with me for 5 hours. If I couldn’t seal the deal in 5 hours, I don’t think feminism would have as much to do with it as attraction. I don’t feel men say “She’s too smart to have sex with.” Honestly, I have dealt with men who can’t even spell the words ‘intellectual debate’ and rejected brothers who had a lot of what I wanted in terms of knowledge, but didn’t do it for me physically. Furthermore, I’ve been asked out by a few men who HATE my politics.
I think that a man who enjoys you enough intellectually to chat with you for the length of three movies AND finds you attractive would not be restrained from hollering because you are a feminist. Now, if we are discussing brothers who would rather enter long term relationships with women who aren’t their intellectual peers, I can see that. But I just feel like in this case, there was either a lack of attraction or some ineptitude in macking game on one or both parties parts. Was there flirting? Or just debating?
Well stated Ms. Grundy. I agree. I’m attracted to women with intellectual heft, lessons from my mother. Patriarchal privilege doesn’t apply here. Bell Hooks criticized Cornell West for the same thing. Feminist entitlement on display. My feminist friends have no problem initiating sex with men they intellectually engage.
I gotta disagree with you “Brandon St. Randy” the piece really gets at a deeper questions in terms of what role one’s ideology plays in shaping desire.
The way to “answer it’ (if we believe it could be answered) would be to look at the marginal effect. What’s the intersection of ideology and outward aesthetic. If a sister is a “feminist” and say “aight” in the looks department, does she get passed over more quickly than a woman who is a “patriarchy advocate” and aight? I venture to think the patriarchy advocate would get more play or is less likely to get placed in the “friend slot.” But I don’t think we can easily measure that stuff and i’m not sure how much we get from debating that hypothetical.
For me, the tension really comes at the end when she talking about what is “real exploitation.” It dances a dangerous line in terms of classifying oppressions as authentic or inauthentic. I lean towards Lorde when she said, “there is no hierarchy of oppressions.” but at the same time can see where Sai is coming from.
In the end, it’s all about working on multiple fronts to right wrongs, wrongs that are all relatively defined. Glad her commentary was added to the dialogue.
I have to agree with Brandon here.
In addition, as someone who has followed the close to 50 comments on this particular Crunk post, I’m having a bit of trouble with the rather broad and reductive depiction Saida is painting of both the post and the commentary.
She writes, “And yet, this is where I find myself–in ardent disagreement with my feminist community over the sexual consequences of feminism in our romantic lives.”
Where is the monolithic response from “your feminist community?” Last I checked, there are almost 50 responses on that post, some of them wildly divergent. The beauty of the post and indeed, the CFC blog itself is that it creates a space that showcases exactly how diverse feminist thought can be. To reduce the post and the surrounding commentary to a bunch of feminists whining about the fact that their politics render them asexual to heterosexual men not only misrepresents the original post but the exciting, disparate, engaging debate around it.
I’m all for grown ass, brilliant feminist women agreeing to disagree. I not only think it’s okay but necessary to move it forward. But let’s give each other the mutual respect to disagree without mis-representing.
I write this as a feminist who commented on the CFC post, one who is imminently in touch with her sexy in both my private life and my public feminist work.
Respectfully,
Joan
Ok, so, I didn’t read the original piece but here’s my take on being a smart girl.
It does happen, more often than not. Admittedly, when it has happened to me, in some small way, it is my own fault for intellectually/romantically slumming it. I was even told once that girls who look like me aren’t supposed to speak/think like I do. Whatever the fck that is supposed to mean.
I’m kinda like that character in the Kanye skit who’s degreees have degrees. Some guys like to pick my brain and hear what I have to say, some guys get slack jawed and stare at me angrily agape because they didn’t understand some of the “SAT words” I used and “big words make me mad!”
Pondering this, I have to wonder:
Is it the feminism or the intellect/book smarts that causes a riff in romance?
Though I’m all for Girlpower, I shrug the feminist label off quite fervently. We make a dangerous assumption when we decide that everyone who proclaims themselves a feminist is an academe as well. I’ve met PLENTY of poorly read chicas who were all up in the idea of calling themselves feminists and were really dumb as a couple of bags of rocks. Really, really stupid rocks at that. Through some warped lens and logic, a Nicki Minaj could consider herself a feminist, but by no means is she about to get any articles published in scholarly journals. Does this make her less of a “feminist” or just not an intellectual?
Is there a way for us to separate the two or does the quest for higher learning automatically place female academes in the feminist file cabinet?
many thanks to ALL of the above comments and the time you all took to give me thoughts to chew on. I just want to be clear that I am discussing sexual attraction, and am not delving into the nuances of long term love potential. Yes, sex can lead to love and as my ace boon Dumi reminds me, cutting off sex is often cutting of love possibilities. And though both love and sexual attraction are complicated and politically constructed, there is something, at least in the most primal sense for me, that doesn’t let me point a finger at feminism for a lack of recipricated sexual interest. I also want to be clear that though our discussion of men here can be broad, the author in the original CFC post seemed to be speaking specifically of intellectual/progressive men who, I am assuming, would not be put off or disinterested in dating feminist women. The play of feminism into our romantic lives as women can play into a RANGE of outcomes, including men who are turned on, patriarchs who want to prove we’re sham and just need to be subdued by good dick, men who are turned off because they can’t take no head-strong woman poppin off bout that woman power bullshit, and my personal favorite, THE FAKE MALE FEMINIST (names redacted to protect the innocent).
This conversation is really rich. I hate that I even interrupted it. Carry on.
First, I’d like to take a poll. How many of the women here have been or know of another woman who has been told any variation on the following statement. Mind you, I do mean EVER – by a person of any sex or gender identity, on a date, in the workplace, at the family BBQ.
“You’re so smart, it’s scary.”
*raises hand*
Now if we can experience or at least fathom experiencing that outside of the romantic realm, why is it so hard to consider that it can happen in that space as well? When I read hyperbolic comments from (and please forgive my paraphrasing here), “Never in the history of has a man ever said I’d hit that, but she’s too smart” to “Sounds like heteronormative BS” and remarks that take leaps to conclusions about a woman’s game AND her commitment to other issues like sexual harassment, then I have to wonder if the intent behind them is truly to dialogue or to play quien es mas macha, feminista, bella lo que sea. And I’m ALL for checking heteronormativity (my own included), being self-reflective so I can step up both my mack game, warrioress chops and anything I else I must to lead the life I deserve, deepening my understanding of how patriarchy wounds the brothers and how women – even those of feminist impulse — are sometimes complicit, challenging the opportunistic hijacking of feminist ideals, language by patriarchal opportunist, and otherwise riding with my sisters on the issues that they’re facing. I’m down for alla that. I mean, I’m thisclose to asking Yellow Mary to send me a list of these assholes that’ve been fucking with her so I can take a crowbar to their windshields.
In addition to agreeing with what Joan said about the misrepresentation/oversimplification of the original post and its ensuing comments, I’d also add that it has been unsettling to me that it would lead to some of the preening I’ve read. Even if I wasn’t wild about the tone in which Yellow Mary challenged folks to concretize the injustice within the scenario Crunkastic put forth, I’m not going to front like it’s not a legitimate question. I mean, I felt the sister was just using that particular scenario to spark a discussion of a larger pattern so in a way keeping to the particulars of the example misses the point, but still it’s fair to push us to link the personal and political in a more concrete way. Our inability to do so allows the pattern to continue.
That said, I’m having a harder time with the feminism-ain’t-disrupt-my-swerve-so-must-be-you posturing as an “argument” for dismissing the possibility that there could be something truly amiss for many women here that cannot always be attributed to individual “stuff.” Especially when the post seems to be resonating with so many. I’m just not seeing where the feminism is in dismissing something as an issue because it doesn’t happen to be one that you personally face. I guess we are indeed going to have to agree to disagree because when the conversation reaches that point, I don’t know where else it can go. When merely having heterosexual desire becomes synonymous with heteronormativity, for example, how does the dialogue continue (especially when the very insightful contribution of a queer, polyamorous woman’s is conveniently ignored.) In fact, if there’s something about all this that does strike me as heteronormative is how quickly it devolved into women feeling compelled to defend or assert their sex appeal to other women. In all honesty, that is bugging me way more than ol’ boy who jumped into the conversation with his Mel Gibsonesque rant.
On a closing note, thatb*tch, fun but excellent point! I guess we do equate feminism with intelligence, ad maybe just maybe it may not be that smart to do that.
But I get how the two can get conflated. To become a feminist does require a certain inquisitiveness or at the very least, a desire and willingness to question social norms.
As a southern girl who was raised in a very traditional home with a mother who (and this is hard to say and digest) is sexist in many ways, it has taken me two failed marriages to realize how patriarchy/male privilege has impacted me through life. I say all of that to say, I used to be great at dimming my light, intellect, desire, world view. It was not until the middle of my second marriage that I realized I felt enslaved and had to seek therapy to figure out why I was falling apart. And I was doing just that-unraveling and living a lie.
I am intellectualized and breaking down race and gender in ways I never knew I could these days, and in the process writing about the things that I am learning. I also ask a lot of questions now that I didn’t before as I pay closer attention to people’s actions and reactions and I am unafraid of asking how and why. I’m realizing that this makes me less datable(possibly). I am approached by men generally the same as before I started “doing” gender, but when I present my politics or assert my new found “I’m a full human being and thus your equal” power, men are less likely to “stick around”, which I’m learning to be completely comfortable with.
All that to say, I think the issue becomes feminist/womanist women being put in the “friend” pile or not being seen as “datable” because they present themselves as full human beings without shrinking or apologizing. I’m convinced that my ex husband would not want to marry today’s Jo vs the one he knew 12 years before.
Thank you Saida. I think its healthy to challenge our challenge to patriarchy, its only fair.
1) to sofia and thatb*tch yes, i thought repeatedly even while writing this that the entire discussion, even in its origina conflated feminism with academic with smart. I’m sorry i didn’t take the space to parcel out those 3 things, but it seemed like they were all co-conspiring in the dilemma and so parceling them out was not perhaps the point.
2) Sofia, your point about “feminism doesn’t stop be from getting my swerve on so the issue must not be valid” (highly paraphrasing) is a really important critique. I was REALLY hoping my post didn’t come off that way and my point that i “get” the CFC post’s original point is genuine. I do get it. It just seemed weird that the CFC post was particularly talking about men who are receptive to feminist discussion but then ‘using’ feminists for mind play and getting their rocks off elsewhere. I’m am not saying this can’t be the case with some women who occupy feminist bodies (or is it feminists who occupy women’s bodies??). I just think it’s alarming to engage male colleagues/potential colleagues/people-we-meet doing-smart-shit and then be like “ARGH! why didn’t he bone me! it’s that pesky feminism isn’t it!” It’s like we’re jumping ahead to something without dealing with the very dangerous injustice right before us– that our men still sexually exploit the shit out of us.
Then the CFC post goes on to say (and i really hope i’m not confusing the author with the comments) that we as feminists get use for our minds while he goes and gets his sexual kicks with a “jumpoff.” REALLY? A JUMPOFF? that’s the language and disdain we’re using to talk about women who DO sexually engage these men?? Because that woman can be US TOO. There’s not some rampart separating the women who are sexualized from the feminists who aren’t. We’re on all sides.
“I think its healthy to challenge our challenge to patriarchy”
take away point of the day via Jo Nubian
Sofia:
“That said, I’m having a harder time with the feminism-ain’t-disrupt-my-swerve-so-must-be-you posturing as an “argument” for dismissing the possibility that there could be something truly amiss for many women here that cannot always be attributed to individual “stuff.””
I cant’ speak for Sai, but I am not stating that the ONLY possibility is that the man on the particular date in question was a lack of attraction based on something other than feminism. But I feel that the post implied that the ONLY possibility for this man’s lack of percieved interest in the writer was based on her intelligence, her degrees and her feminism. So while I appreciate it as a springboard to have this conversation about attraction, gender and dating, I also think that we do ourselves a disservice when we ignore the other factors that can lead to a lack of connection between two people. Crunktastic spoke about feminism as a potential roadblock to a few things it should actually be helping her to obtain: love, sex, partnership. Sai and I both offered a different side of the coin: how feminism has enhanced our romantic lives. Sai also discussed how men have used sexuality to reduce her ability to be in an academic space. I’m confused as to how you are perciveving a desire to convince other women of our sex appeal, or how that is a function of heteronormativity here. The commentary here was never “she must be lacking in sex appeal”, but that what may seem like a feminist problem could be a lack of connection between two people. There were some statements made about feminists not dating and/or merely having relationships with men that were sexual or platonic only. I’m not sure how it’s inappropriate to speak to having different experiences than the writer. I am also unsure where her committment to fighting sexual harassment was challenged.
I am not sure why your comment includes the ‘agree to disagree’ closer or why you’ve decided that the conversation must end here. Was it a conversation? I have no problem with someone challenging my thoughts or the thoughts of someone else who I allow to post here. But the impression I am getting from this response is that we are being told “you are hetronormative, that’s wack and we aren’t trying to hear it”. The statement about “she’s too smart for me to sleep with” was not a a good choice of words and I, too, have no problem saying that I need to check my heteronormativity at times. But I feel that you have assigned a number of things to Sai and I that just aren’t accurate. I’m not with the whole “I’m a feminist, you’re a feminist. Thus, we must be single minded and never challenge each other” thing and I definitely resent the snipe “I have to wonder if the intent behind them is truly to dialogue or to play quien es mas macha, feminista, bella lo que sea”. I dont’ see preening on anyone’s part, I see a different set of experiences in the feminist dating world that are, apparently, now invalid.
I will state that I told Sai, as we read the responses, that I wish she’d said in her original comment on CFC that this “might” have been a mack game issue as opposed to saying thats what it HAS to have been. I personally think it could have been a number of things, and feminism is not off that list. But when you say feminists aren’t dating or arent dating men who know how they see the world…that’s not true.
What happens at the end of a 5 hour date when there is no kiss, but the woman isn’t a feminist? Why is it okay to assume that the only possible reason for this lack of romance to be her politics?
Forgive me if I’m rehashing points of a discussion that has been challenging, frustrating, and fruitful in so many ways over at the CFC and then here. However, I do want to say that the above post somehow assumes that talking about the ways in which some avowedly progressive men are sometimes not checking for the sisters they claim to find “ideal” (and yes, I know that paradigm is problematic) is an erroneous discussion. As I see it, what the CFC post describes is an ongoing tension/ambivalence between one’s theory and practice. I know it’s 2010, but that’s still a problem for many people–men, women, whoever. It also seems dangerous to dismiss someone’s attempt to make a systemic critique by reducing the situation to “lack of game” or attraction. Is that a possibility in the situation? Absolutely. Can it be mentioned? Sure. It is a reason to say feminism wasn’t a factor in the writer’s less than pleasant experience? No. I don’t think we can play hard and fast with feminism like that. Like, yeah we can talk about feminism in terms of rape and abuse, but not in a thwarted ice date. And I’m not saying a thwarted ice date is the same as talking about those heady issues. What I am saying is that feminism is for all times, all things, and all people.
Sai and Toldja,
See my response here:
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/dating-while-feminist-part-ii-last-words/
Crunktastic
Just finished reading Saibear’s blog and skimming through the posts. I try to mostly stay a silent observer on these things, but I feel the need to add my voice to this conversation. My voice being the voice of a NON-feminist brother.
Point Black – if a man is not trying to holla at you, most of the time it has nothing to do with your political views or intelligence – he most likely is just not that attracted to you. Never in my 37 years of life have I ever heard or encountered a Black man who said “oh she is fine, but I don’t like her politics”. As a heterosexual male, please believe me if we find a woman physically attractive and even think that she has just a OK personality, we are not going to let your politics get in the way.
In my opinion, if a man is not reciprocating the interest of a woman, there is only a short list of what is going on – 1) He does not find you physically attractive (in my single days, if I had someone in the friendbox, this was the #1 reason), 2) He does not like your personality , 3) He likes you and does not know how to close the deal or 4)He already has a woman somewhere and he is one of those rare brothers that actually respect the boundaries of relationships.
That is it. Normal every day heterosexual males are not complex….
@Saibear. Thank you very much for the clarification. I understand your position much better. Yes, it can be very difficult to tease out all the issues in general never mind in a blog post. Everyone who writes — especially on a public, online forum — struggles with that. If it were all that simple, we woulda done kicked patriarchy’s ass by now. :-0
@Toldja. There’s been a whole lotta of assignation going on both ends. I’ll take responsibility and apologize for any leaps I might have made. (Keep in mind that I’m carrying with me some comments made on the blog where the original post lives and not just what was said here. In fact, the position, “You are heteronormative, that’s wack and we aren’t trying to hear it” was the at the core of a comment ironically that came from a poster who in her initial post was very dismissive of the blog’s author.” Perhaps not everyone who is posting here has read all that’s been posted there; my bad for assuming that.)
There are also some leaps that I have never made that folks are being read into my and other responses as well. For example, I don’t recall anyone saying at any point that feminists are not dating at all or are not dating men who see their world view. Speaking for myself personally, when I read the CFC blog, I never concluded from it that the author (or any of the posters) never dates, has never dated feminist men, or blames every single unrequited attraction to feminism. I never took it as her saying that feminism was THE roadblock as much as the reaction to it was the problem. She is, after all, a self-described feminist dating in a world that is still largely shaped by patriarchy. I don’t think she has any plans on abandoning feminism because it has complicated her dating life.
Hence, my resignation. It doesn’t come from wanting to end the conversation but rather losing hope as to where it can go in the face of all these assignations. True, in having the dialogue, we can get to know each other better, understand the experiences that shapes our personal opinions and, hopefully, find some common ground (which obviously is not the same thing as reaching an agreement.) I felt that we had gotten to a point where we are not so much discussing the issue as much as we are arguing as to whether it IS an issue. If that’s the case — maybe it’s not but if it is — I’d rather have another conversation. But you do have me thinking that maybe I was wrong, and that this difficult part is only the beginning of the conversation. I’m not saying I’m there yet, just saying that I’m considering that possibility. Thank you for raising it.
One place where we do agree is that there is no one type of capital F-feminism with a 40-point platform that we all have to sign before we get our membership cards. Now while I’m all for a larger tent, I’m kinda thinking that we could stand to have some principles of unity so our movements don’t get hijacked (Exhibit A: Sarah Palin.) But that’s another discussion for another day.
I cosign Sister Toldja’s response to Sofia. While I recognize the value in discussing a larger pattern of experiences among feminists, I feel like the CFC post didn’t allow for that with the highly specific facts it relied on. It appears pretty obvious that Saida took the CFC post as a whole, commentary and all, into consideration. This was great because the writer responded to commentary and really created an interactive space in the comments area. I’d say, the true “discussion” of denied romantic/sexual experiences for feminists was more intimately discussed in the comments, but not thoroughly laid out in the post. After reading the post, the first question that popped in my mind was “wait… what made this a ‘date’? Sounds like networking to me” – therein lies the problem with relying too heavily on one personal experience to catapult a discussion on something that I believe likely happens to hordes of women… But I digress – no need to go into the CFC post.
focusing on this specific post, I am so glad you wrote this response to the CFC post. Though I don’t see the monolithic position you speak of when you refer to the “feminist community” you disagree with. I think you really mean that you are in dissent with the specific feminist who wrote the CFC post. It’s perfectly fine to say that. She wrote a blog post highlighting a highly personal, specific experience, and so it seems perfectly right for you to respond with “that is not my experience”. Her experience is what the CFC writer gleaned from. I think it’s important to recognize that the sexual consequences of our feminism – as foreign as it may sound to you or I – is no less valid of an issue among intellectual women. (I am not so quick to specify it as a “feminist” issue). So on one hand, as a woman who is constantly confronted with harassment (and is therefore GRATEFUL to get non-sexual male attention from good looking, smart feminist allies), I feel you on your hesitation to call the ice-cream “date” a sign of partriarchy. On the other hand, I don’t believe in compartmentalizing feminism in such a way that the sisters not being hit on, feel like they can’t speak up.
lastly, you and your internetthugging = one of the reasons why I admire you! (another conversation for another day).
Thanks for the post! great read!
As i’ve processed some of this today it occurs to me that part of what makes this particular issue contentious, at least for me, is not that we’re just presenting different views of feminist oppression, but that the dilemmas I and CFC are presenting here stand directly counter to each other!
Let me explain (and i just spoke with a homegirl about this so i credit her for forming much of this clarity)– Those of us who have been on the victimizing end of male sexual desire have a hard time feeling sympathy for situations in which men are not sexual. I really want that to be heard. It is not that I do not think it is hurtful to be sexually rejected, but when you live each day with the blood curdling experience of male harassment and sexual exploitation it is honestly hard to hear or understand that some of our sisters are fighting TO be sexualized.
A lot of us are that man (weirdly enough) on the other side of the icecream date. Trying to network, trying to be taken seriously, and having present company think crude thoughts about us, pretending to be interested in our minds for sexual aims, and carefully crafting their professional power over us to benefit their sexual interests. This was my initial and visceral reaction to the CFC post– that we are arriving too early at a place where we WANT sexual interaction when the fight to even get a space to be non-sexualized has not been won.
I wonder how many of the women who empathized with the CFC post were victims of sexual abuse, unwanted sexual advances, sexual harassment, etc (and to be clear, sexual harassment DOES NOT have to constitute male sexual desire. women can be harassed for being undesirable as well). Because for those of us who deal with this daily it strikes a sensitive place where we recall the humiliation and degradation of being sexualized without our consent.
I am just surprised that the original CFC post was not sensitive to these experiences. I have increasingly come to understand that being desexualized is a hurtful experience and I am fortunate that my fellow feminists shared this.
This has been quite a day and I have spent a lot of it having off line conversations about this. I feel that it seems that folks are, unsurprisingly, exhausted and ready to put this down. Not a bad thing, I think there were some discoveries, some connections and some MAJOR food for thought for all of us who participated. And I am grateful for that.
Here are the two things that will keep me up tonight if I don’t get them off of my chest:
1)I take great issue with the assertion that Sai and I were “reifing the structures of the patriarchy”. As there is no monolithical thought amongst feminists, then there will be times in which one of us sides with a man over one of her feminist sisters. Beyond that, Sai wasn’t saying “the men are right”, but rather “you might me assigning something to this brother that just isn’t true.” I don’t feel that my loyalty to other women has to take presidence over my love for our men. We take them to task, we ask them for more, but we can’t be afraid to step up and defend them when it seems appropriate.
2) I don’t think anyone suggested that feminism is only a space to talk about civil rights or sexual terrorism. But I do think it’s fair for someone to ask “is this a feminist issue or not?”
3) I worry that I caused you pain today and if I did that, I am truly sorry.
That said, I think Saida’s last comment sums up a lot of what I am feeling right now. I hope that we are able to continue to have these conversations. I dont have a problem being challenged by one of you all than someone from outside the feminist community (which is broader and more diverse than some folks want to believe), because I’d like to believe we can have these chats in a spirit of love and building. I do, however, hope that the next conversation can skip some of the roadbumps that this one had (some very broad statements from myself and a few very nasty “You ain’t no real feminist” snipes from others).
late to the discussion, but just want to throw this out there….what qualifies as consent for sexualization? i think many men get cues from tight clothes, low necklines and skin baring. are we, therefore, inviting being sexualized when we dress ourselves in ways that stimulate the imaginations of men?
Ms. Toldja.
Just a small word from the “margins” here. I fully understand this isn’t my conversation (in that it’s the women’s). But it does involve me in a way, as the ‘Subject Cause’ so to speak.
(Well, maybe not “me”, as in personally, bein’, uh, you know, dreaded whiteyman, but as in Male, ok?)
From the Sidelines, it begins to feel a bit of a squeeze. If a man is very respectful, cautious even, about overstepping any appropriate bounds, for her feelings and emotions, then have we “desexualized”, inadvertently?
But then if we are honestly deeply attracted, attempt to (hopefully tactfully and respectfully) express that we can run the risk of the “over-sexualization” (is that a word, lol) in the minds of any particular woman.
If those two divergent viewpoints press the boundaries in a great deal, from opposing directions, where then is that illusive “middle ground” for us males?
It can become such a narrow strip of pavement that it’s hard to find, or stay on.
Make any sense?
(Back to the bleachers. Nice post and comments Ms. Toldja)
Well I’m teaching a class of adult students and one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and big gorgeous breasts comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops and tight pants which emphasize her breasts and her figure. She often asks me over to her desk with a question. And she gave me a present. She’s friendly to me and comes up to my desk to ask something . She must know that it really turns me on. Or is she just being friendly – I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. I want her to get her exams so she can get into university. I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. Check out my blog
Ross