Marx, Sex, Power, and Women

Gebara Chapter 2 – Evil and Gender – thought #3

“…North American feminists want to use sexuality in the same way that Marxists use the notion of work.  Workers experience estrangement from their work through the exploitation of their work by their bosses or the dominant class.  Similarly, women experience estrangement from their sexuality through the exploitation of their sexuality and theft of their autonomy by male domination.” (pg 69)

Yeah.  “Theft of their autonomy”.  I like that phrase.  I also know that no one can take my power unless I relinquish it first.  So how is it “theft” … hmmm.

Well … speaking from experience, no matter how closely I hold my power, if my entire life is lived within a context where my power is not acknowledged and where, when insisting that I retain my power, I just don’t fit in it gets pretty darn tempting to just let a little bit of it go … and then, maybe just a little bit more … and the slow ooze goes on until one day there’s just nothing left.  I did that once.  And the day I woke up realizing that I had let all of my power slowly leak away was a rude awakening indeed.

It was a lot harder to take it back than it had been to give it up.  I found that fighting for it rarely left me victorious, but that by changing the rules a lot was accomplished.  

 I essentially just turned the table on the game and changed *my* reality to be one that did not acknowledged the mere possibility that I was impotent.  It worked.  Well, I should say, it is working… the more I reclaim the more aware I become of other places I have left it lying around awaiting retrieval.  Currently, I’m obsessed not with how much of my power men hold, but with how much of it Money (and its legion of demi-demons) holds.  I’m feeling very impotent in today’s Commercial Corporatocracy.  ANYWAY – I digress.

I find the word “estrangement” thought provoking.  If a woman becomes estranged from her sexuality, that means that she no longer connects to it.  Does that mean she also denies it? 

Let’s consider what not being connected to /denying one’s sexuality (not gender, not sex) might look like:  Overweight?  Frigid?  Unconscious yet Superficially Successful Attempts to be Not-Beautiful?  Destructive instead of Creative?  Feeling Unlovable and/or Undesirable?  Feeling Exploited?  Feeling Dis-Connected from Humanity?  Resentment of one’s situation?  Yeah – that’s how it was for me in my marriage.  Perhaps I divulge too much of myself ...   (Note:  I was not married to a “bad” man … he’s actually a darling … I just gave too much of my power away, and once I re-claimed it, the dynamic of our relationship didn’t adjust to fit the new circumstances.)

Exploitation.  Someone using my sexuality to achieve their ends: to sell things, to show status, to engender ideas, to display virility by parading me around as a possession/conquest...  Yeah … it’s a tragic fact … that has happened and continues to happen on a grossly exaggerated scale to women-at-large.  

 I suppose the “Evil” that plays out here is that somehow, women have bought into the fact that that’s what their sexuality is FOR.  And that SEXUALITY is the only thing that defines them as a woman.  While there are definitely women who have not bought in to that nightmare, fake boobs, provocative clothing, meticulously painted faces and emaciated bodies attest to the fact that many, many, many women have.  Hook, line and sinker.

… and there are still those who wonder what on Earth feminists could be concerned about …  go figure.

Beerconomist: An Answer to Your Question on Socialization

For whatever reason, I am not being able to post this as a reply to your comment, Beerconomist, on my Socialization... post.  So ... I'll put it here as a post of its own.  Rock on!!

For me, to "be the change" is to embody a full acknowledgment and appreciation of the diversity and complementarity of each person's role.  To define the principle of "fair" as being: every person experiencing what will serve her/him best in the context that s/he can best serve humanity in return.

We've been discussing Plato's Republic in my Ancient Philosophy class.  In it, he takes great pains to critically and finitely define "justice".  If considering that Justice and Fairness are synonymous, my above-mentioned definition serves as a terrific launching point from which to refine my personal definition of justice. I have not finished The Republic yet ... I'll let you know how this definition-working progresses as I explore the many many definitions Socrates works through.

Men and women do have strengths and abilities that differ by sex.  That reality has been empirically proven time and time again with both animal and human subjects.  The problem as I see it is that one (woman) has been deemed, socially, to be inferior to the other (man).  To live MY life as an empowered, centered and contributing citizen, and to seek out and appreciate those qualities in everyone around me will, I hope, dispel some of the gender disparity my children witness from other people.

This applies to your question about sexuality: Yes, as a heterosexual mother, my preference for a male sexual partner will definitely influence what my children think is "normal".  However, how I reference and behave around/toward homosexual people will *also* shape their perception of what is "normal".  If my children witness me living my belief that people are free to choose physical intimacy within whichever man/woman combo they prefer, and the fact that I choose a 1-man + 1-woman combo is no more than a matter of personal preference, they're still open to choose from the full plate of options while NOT feeling like any sort of deviant ...  Yeah?

The way our society treats traditionally female positions is a powerful indicator of what we Americans value.  And social norms are inherently based on what a society values - and these norms, naturally, perpetuate themselves.  In this, I believe that our nation has simply lost sight of what "true" priorities are.  Billions of dollars are spent on entertainment and on buying politicians, while just a small fraction of that is spent on "public servants". 

Note that there are a significant number of male nurses, male teachers, female cops and female firefighters these days.  I think that this particular piece of socialization is more specifically due to our lack of discernment between what perpetuates a glorious society and what perpetuates the *image* of a glorious society.  Though the disparity was originally based on gender, these days it seems to have shifted to an issue of classism and distorted values.

And what can I do in regards to "being the change"?  Turn off the TV.  Stop paying more money  for Dish Network EVERY MONTH than I donate to the firefighter's *annual* fundraiser. (Well, actually, as you know, my children and I don't watch TV ... some of these suggestions are unabashedly meant for other members of our society who may be reading this post looking for information they can implement into their lives).  I can praise how amazing that police officer is for keeping our town peaceful instead of calling her/him a 'pig' while gazing doe-eyed at Johnny Depp and Snookie.  I can spend as much time volunteering at my child's school as I do frittering away on Facebook, and I can *honor* myself for being willing to take a financial "hit" in order to fulfill the TREMENDOUSLY valuable role of Mother.  Finally, *while* mothering, I can be an ACTIVE mother who fills my children's holistic needs - those  beyond their basic survival necessities of food, clothing and shelter - by respecting them as persons, by spending quality time with them, by assuring them repeatedly that I am luckier than any person alive because I get to be THEIR mama. (Note: I am not suggesting that a woman MUST be a stay-at-home mama if she prefers to entrust her children to a loving caretaker and to participate in the workforce ... and I can keep that option open for my children by also honoring that woman's choice)

Maybe also I can just refuse to acknowledge that money is in any way an accurate measure of value ... and to teach *that* to them with not only my words but with the example of my lifestyle.  I can be PROUD to be a non-consumer.  I can ENJOY keeping a garden.  I can DELIGHT in BEING CREATIVE with limited resources.  And I can show them that life is FUN, RICH and REWARDING when living it in that paradigm by loving my life.

Still tied in knots my Bestie Beer Buddy?

Socialization ... briefly ... and Then I'll Leave ya Hanging ...

Gebara Chapter 2 – Evil and Gender – thought #2

“To say man or woman is already to introduce a certain way of existing in the world, proper to each sex – a way of being a product of a complex web of cultural relationships.  Female and Male also have their effect on relationships between women and men exercised in private and in public.” (pg 68)  As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu sees it, “distinct identities are established as habits through an immense and continuous work of socialization.  A game of opposition, verified in every culture, occurs between what is attributed symbolically to men and what is attributed symbolically to women.” (pg 68)

WHY DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT OPPOSITION !?!?!?!  JEEZ …. THERE IS A REALITY IN WHICH THAT DOES NOT EXIST ! ! ! !  Aaarrgh!

It is a basic Sociological fact (taught in the first few weeks of a Sociology 101 course) that “gender” and “sex” are not synonymous.  That “sex” refers to reproductive organs/functions only, and that “gender” is a widely-defined and varied cultural/social perception of what someone possessing a specific biological set of “equipment” is meant to do/be.

The context into which Gebara has put this definition seems to indicate a desire to condemn socialization – the process through which a blank-slated baby learns to become a Human.  The fact of the matter is that socialization happens.  No matter what.  And, for the most part, it’s done both unconsciously, and with intent to prepare a child to be the best and most functioning human it can be.  Yes – socialization has also been used viciously … such as in Nazi Germany … but it’s not the process that is to be condemned – it’s the way the process is used when it is specifically directed towards less-than-loving ends.

I will not deny that people get socialized into accepting and embodying negative behaviors.  Racism, Sexism, Fear-of-Difference, etc are things that can take hold without ever being consciously taught.  (It is for this reason that Plato suggested that children be removed from the home and educated by professionals who had the good of the State as their first priority).  And it is also true that parents have a right to raise their child in the best way they know how.  Except in cases of abuse or neglect, this right of theirs trumps.

So … I suppose the answer to the dilemma is in changing our OWN behaviors.  On a singular, one-person (myself) basis.  At least that’s what Gandhi says … BE the change you want to see in the world …

I think I rambled way off topic here.  O-well.  This is my essay and I’ll do what I want to.