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.

About NEED ...

Gebara Chapter 2 – Evil and Gender

“What constitutes Humanity – the creative differences between the sexes – is one of the special locations in which Evil demonstrates its work . . . why have these men and women who need one another established a hierarchy based on their bodies and started a kind of war in their relationships?  And why does this relation between bodies, the site of good and evil, become, especially for women , a place of crucifixion and a place of exclusion?” (pg 67)

It is very interesting, indeed, to note that women and men actually NEED each other in order to continue our species.  We absolutely need each other in order to create another human being.  We need each other to survive.  So why do we oppress and villainize each other?

I suppose there’s maybe something to the thought that people like to feel like they don’t need anyone – that, in needing someone else, they’re admitting that they’re incapable in some way.  And  that, to assuage their feelings of impotence, they then put the blame of that feeling onto the person (gender) that they need – which, by necessity, leads to discord.

Could it be as simple as that?  I know that I really don’t like to feel like I need someone else to reach fulfillment in my life.  Yet I do know this:  without a man, I wouldn’t have my amazing children who make everything in life “worth it”.  Being divorced and single at the moment, I also don’t like to admit that I crave an intimate connection with a reciprocating man.  But I do.  Do I need one, though?  I dunno – does the need  (and I’m talking NEED, not "want") go beyond procreation?

Ok – then this question comes to me:  All of the “experts” on happiness also say that Humans need  a connection to God if they aspire to reach a true pinnacle of joy and satisfaction in their lives.  So, why, in the name of God, are we using institutions created for the sole purpose of building/strengthening a relationship with him/her as the very conduits of our crucifixion of each other?  (And although in the interest of being accountable I’m tempted to insist that the torture goes equally both ways, it’s pretty historically –and presently – apparent that the majority of the malevolent behavior is coming from men in that arena).

What gives?

Baddest vs. Goodest

I enjoyed the pleasure today of lunch with a good friend.  He was courteous enough to buy me a delicious Pot Roast Sandwich and to engage in delightful conversation.  (Lucky me, huh!)  Between chomps of the Incredible Beef and Onion Sensation that was mine to devour, I talked with him about duality/polarity.

It all started with the comment that "Bad" or "Evil" was a necessary force - that it was only through its existence that one could enjoy "Good" or "Pleasure".  Essentially, that a person is unable to define something without knowing its relational opposite and then comparing/contrasting it against said opposite.  My friend, whom we shall call 'da Doktor, held that without such comparison, true awareness could not be had - nay, could very probably not even be conceived of.  (Did I get that right, my friend?)

But ... eh ... I dunno ...

In the first place, that sounds a lot like "black or white" to me.  Granted, there would necessarily be a grey area between them, but said grey scale seems to exist only as a means of HOW black or HOW white rather than as a lens of its own.  Furthermore, I have mentioned before that I've prefered to see reality through the shades of grey rather than as a black and white contrast.  My other friend, Multi-B-To-'da-Three, though, broadened my vision by describing the vividly colorful tapestry that illustrates his life.  (Naturally, once I caught a glimpse of his, I immediately painted a gloriously-hued masterpiece of my own ).  And with THAT said, even the shades of grey seem archaic and wretchedly limited...

'da Dok presented a very well stated argument, however, by furthering that perhaps appreciating the world through the eyes of contrast may well be the *simplest* way to really get a satisfying bite of this juicy thing called Life.  The simplest to do, and the simplest to teach.

Hmmm.  I'm just not sure of how that's easier ... Doesn't it seem easier to just choose to enjoy (or not-enjoy as it were) something rather than to run it through some sort of comparison model to decide if it's "good" or "bad", or "gooder" or "badder"? Don't comparisons seem like a totally convoluted and unnecessary quagmire capable of making life much more complicated than it needs be?  Especially considering that one can simply choose to experience whatever is happening in the Now just as it is ... nicely and deeply and fully?  I tend to think that comparisons such as sweeter or more bitter are really irrelevant to whether or not right now is painful or pleasurable... 

In fact, I'll even go so far as to assert that requiring a comparison to define an experience will always leave that experience lacking - that it will  rob it of its authenticity by subjugating it to something else.

It seems to me that by taking something and determining its value based on how it relates to something else is to be in a dependent and reactive state of living - whereas to experience it at face value for nothing more or less than what it IS is to infuse life with independence and active appreciation...

What are your thoughts?

Aristotle: The Man With the Plan

Although I'm a Philosophy major in my senior year, I must confess that I am only in my second semester of the study of Philosophy.  I have almost 200 credit hours and am just a smidgen short of a 4.0 GPA, but the majority of those 200 credit hours are General Ed courses and classes that apply to my former major of (ugh!) Business Administration.

With that said, today was the first time -ever- that I have read anything by that Pillar of Philosophy, Aristotle.  Of course I have heard of him over the years, and especially in the last two semesters I've endured countless references to him and his writings, but for the most part I have been totally unaware of anything significant he said or did beyond the abstract "Father of Philosophy" title that he and Plato have monopolized.

So ... today I finally cracked open my first volume of Aristotle in the form of the Nicomachean Ethics.

And I'm in love.

Based on his reputation (and my experience of more contemporary Philosophers who have furthered his ideas) I had expected a dry, hard-to-read, pompous, pedantic and overly-intellectual read.  Much to my delight, he writes clearly, reasons easily and makes some really practical points.

My favorite statement of those I read today is:  "Choice is the starting point of action ... The starting point of choice, however, is desire and reasoning directed toward some end ...  Now thought alone moves nothing;  only thought which is directed to some end and concerned with action can do so ..."

One thing that bothers me about Philosophers as a stereotype is their propensity to analyze, dissect, discuss and argue everything down to the most specific of details (whether one is using the singular or plural meaning of the word "the" in his/her thesis, for example).  And they sit there in their armchairs posturing as the pinnacle of wisdom to their devoted followers seated at their feet.  And then that's all they ever do.  Sit and dissect.  Sit and analyze.  Sit and argue.  Maybe write something once in a while ...

Lame.

I'm reminded of a blog post my exceptionally brilliant sister wrote in which she wonders when  people are gonna actually DO something.  Her post is concerned more with the idea of social movements than with Pillsbury-Soft-Armchair-Philosophers, but her point resonates still... You can read it here: http://beerconomist.blogspot.com/2011/09/best-last-paragraphs-to-book-ever.html

I am also reminded of another correlating idea.  Although I "chose out of it" 25 years ago, I was raised in the Mormon (LDS) religion.  A common mantra repeated therein is "Faith without works is dead."  As in:  you can trust and believe all you want, but nothin's gonna HAPPEN if you don't do a little sumpin' about it. 

So, uh, what to do ... what to do ... what to do ...
What are YOU gonna do?

Evil.

Out of the Depths – Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation - Ivone Gebara

Initially, I’m impressed at how well correlated this book is with what I read from Womanspirit Rising.  In reading WSR, I had several questions pop up in my mind – and many of them, by the first chapter of Out of the Depths, have been addressed.  Additionally, ideas that I formulated  as I was reading WSR have been confirmed.  This is cool.  KUDOS to my instructor for being so familiar with the literature to be able to correlated it so well!

So … Evil. 

Gebara seems to delineate the concept of Evil into two sub-sections … Evil that is given, and Evil that is received.  The way I read it, she removes “Evil” from the nebulous realm of concept and places it firmly into the physical world as something we can actually notice and act upon.  I like that.  She states, “Evil is so mixed in with our existence that we can live in it without even taking account of it as evil.” (pg 1)  “I’m thinking,” she continues as an example on pg 2, “of countless women who live in almost blind obedience in their homes or in religious institutions, without taking any notice of the exploitation that they endure and that, in a certain sense, they copy.”  (Remember, this is a feminist text.)

At first, I must admit, I struggled a bit with the very word “Evil”.  I prefer to think in the spectrum of greys as opposed to the duality of black an d white, and “Evil” seems so absolute – and so absolutely BAD.  But as I continue reading, I’m growing accustomed to the term encompassing much more than the blackest of “sins” or the darkest of hearts.  It is emerging as a part of everyday living that we all do to ourselves and to others.  “Some deeds become evil through excess; some through insufficiency.  Evil may result even when we have good intentions.” (pg 2)

Differentiating between Evil for Men and evil for Women, she states that Evil, as far as men are concerned, has always been viewed as some ‘thing’ that happens, that takes hold of human beings, surrounds them, attracts them and leads them to "sin" - yet is an act that one can undo/redeem … In the case of women, however … the prevailing thought in Theology is that  Evil is in a woman's very being. (pg 4)  (An example I thought of:  Original Sin:  Who’s traditionally blamed for the ultimate break of Humanity from God?  And how many women –at least through traditional Western Organized Religion- have been able to actually shake that blame?)  On the whole, she seems to classify Evil for Women as an allowing rather than as a action – ie:  allowing these thoughts of being “evil incarnate” and their consequent actions to happen - to continue to silently suffer, and to allow these things to continue generation after generation after generation.

She furthers to comment that Evil in women, at least as viewed by Organized Western Religion, seems un-redeemable.  “We know that the hard things men endure, especially their sufferings, can be redemptive,” she asserts, “but the evil women endure (suffering, self-sacrifice in favor of another) too often counts for nothing.  We need only to remember that in Christianity the aspect of sacrifice that is salvific is basically male.  Male sacrifice is the only kind that redeems and restores life;  male blood is the only blood of any value.  And this has been the case from the Old Testament to the New, right up to contemporary theologies.  Women’s bleeding is filthy, impure, dangerous.” (pg 7)

Ok  - my first thought as I read this is: I wonder how this correlates with the idea of Virgin Blood Sacrifice?  In this case, it seems, (aside from the one-time blood of Jesus Christ)it’s only the pure virgin’s blood that can bring redemption. 

And here’s where my brain is taking it:  BUT – note that she is only worthy if she is a virgin.  Interesting.  Note also, that her blood is used to redeem OTHERS – not herself.  Hm … More interesting.  Thirdly – she must actually DIE in order for redemption of others to occur.  –whoa- .  Notice from my previous paragraph the parenthetical description of what Gebara claims the “evil women endure” is … specifically:  suffering and self-sacrifice in favor of another.  Wow.  So, EVEN WHEN A WOMAN IS USED AS THE MEANS THROUGH REDEMPTION IS ACHIEVED, she is experiencing EVIL – is having it literally thrust upon her and is not given the option to refuse it. 

WAIT, THOUGH … I’ve gotta back-track a bit … it’s not Christians who do Virgin Blood Sacrifice.  Hm.  Aw, hell … that’s a whole new can of worms … SEE how it’s not only Organized Western Religion???  Shit.

Remembering that I’m not writing a dissertation here, nor offering any sort of formal argument, but rather fleshing out my thoughts and reflecting on what’s being offered by Gebara, what are your thoughts?