Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

'Woman' Is Not My Slave Name

I agreed with Naomi McAuliffe in her worry that feminism is doing itself no favours with its choice of high profile campaigns this year in Is the Muff March a cunning stunt? (For more on cunning stunts masquerading as feminism see this blog post) Where we differed was with the principle behind the march; in this case “the very real issue of cosmetic genital surgery.”

A real issue? I understand the personal is supposed to be political, but this is just a bit too personal. It may be the statistical case that “Labiaplasty, vaginal tightening, and hymen reconstruction are all on the increase”, but if women are choosing to do these things with their own highly evolved brains, where is the issue? The (apparently) oppressed women inside the Harley Street clinics were not privileged a voice to enlighten us. If they had, a curt, 'Get stuffed and mind your own muff business', might have been the response.


The feminists succeeded in getting headlines, but what benefit to the cause – indeed, what cause? Only WH Smiths could have benefited from the stunt, being spared a few hours of 'radical', 'guerilla' feminist activities denouncing the female form as pornographic and slapping stickers over pert boobs. In the war against sexual objectification, the next step may well be putting paper bags over pretty girls faces as they walk down the street. Come to think of it, these Object and Feministing girls would do well in Dubai, enforcing purdah.

But back to the elusive “issue”. With nobody being physically forced into anything, McAuliffe invoked the feminist context of collective female shame. Always a safe bet as, not being perfect, humans very often feel shitty about themselves whatever their sex. History is littered with ideologies which have sought to harness this nebulous power. “Women and girls have to live with accusations of smelling like fish, smelling during our periods, having vaginas that are too slack, having labia that is not neat enough, growing too much hair (as though it's a choice), or not decorating a minge like a Christmas tree with some ghastly vajazzle. They're reacting to these accusations with razors, wax and a surgeon's scalpel.”

If this is anything to go by, feminists are spending far too much time hanging around with teenage boys, (or frequenting Mumsnet - the vernacular is pretty much indistinguishable.) To take serious note of either opinion has the political weight of engaging in a debate on climate change with the Monster Raving Loony Party. There's an adage about arguing with idiots that some feminists would do well to heed.

Another thing which jarred about this protest was the implication that such surgery was driven by vanity. Many surgical procedures in those clinics are not actually 'cosmetic' (as if that were a pejorative term – it isn't) but reconstructive. But typically, these feminists jumped to the most negative opinion of women as vain, shallow, and easily led creatures. What a woman recuperating after getting a 3rd degree perineal tear repaired would have made of their caterwauling we don't know.

It reminded me too of the 'too posh to push' myth; a myth pretty much perpetuated by women in the media. Anyone who has ever been through childbirth knows it is not about being posh, it is about a genuine mortal fear of childbirth and wanting to avoid unimaginable pain. So unimaginable, in fact, it's impossible to imagine it afterwards. That's a neat biological trick! It's about a series of trade offs: between facing that fear and pain (surely an individual choice in a civilised and technologically advanced society) or having a few extra days bed rest and a sore tummy; between childbirth induced vaginal and rectal trauma or a fully functioning pelvic floor.

It's one of the cornerstones of our civilisation that women do not have to face the mortal horrors of childbirth alone and without help if they need or want it. Why lead them up the garden path, then slam the door in their faces? I find it odd, not to say highly disturbing, that it is feminists, and not 'The Patriarchy', who are protesting that there should be limits to those privileges; and not based on medical or fiscal considerations, on ideological ones. Thankfully we do not live in a feminist autocracy, and our reformed patriarchy gives women the choice to avoid these traumas, and to have them surgically fixed, for whatever reason they so choose – bladder control or good sex – without the harassment of the establishment. Feminism once fought for women to have opportunities and choices such as these. Now it almost seems like it wants to revoke them.

As a society, we have come far. No man can now take to the pavement, pious placard in hand, telling women what they ought to be doing, and rightly expect to be called anything but a sexist pig. So what does that make these feminists?

Actions speak louder than words. For all the cries of feminism being a pro-women organisation, more and more it actually appears pro-feminist and anti-women. The disconnect between feminism and women is becoming more palpable as time passes. If it is for women, why won't it listen to us? Why not take criticism where its due? Why not adapt? The feminists on the 'Muff March' perfectly illustrate how orthodox feminism today is not about creating opportunities for women or empowering them to make their own choices. It is about disseminating archaic 20th century dogma and slavishly following ideology, in spite of women’s wants, needs and lived experience today.

So here's my question: Does feminism serve women or do women serve feminism? That's not a rhetorical question. It needs to be answered.

Too often feminism connects the word 'woman' with terms of weakness, victimhood and shame. If I could tell these feminists anything, it is that times have changed and 'woman' is not my slave name.

Follow the link to see the Facebook debate about the Muff March

17 comments:

  1. Interesting thoughts. Intra and inter sexual competition and display confusion abounds in the biologically naieve.
    Men think that their one-upmanship always impresses females who in turn think that everything they do to attract attention they do is imposed by males.
    Your own sex is not your natural ally.
    If all the guys in the world disappeared tomorrow Angelia Jolie might start returning my calls.
    I only said "might"!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If ALL of them did you would find yourself spoiled for choice!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Basic Instructions on some ways that the sexes confuse themselves on what the opposite sex wants/imposes:
    http://basicinstructions.net/
    I have actually had this conversation with some people (the shoe bit, not the Uncle Sam bit)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder if you ran across this recent thing in the LRB:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n24/jenny-turner/as-many-pairs-of-shoes-as-she-likes

    Not sure what I make of all the arguments yet, but it seems to be discussing similar, or at least related, issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hadn't see that, thanks. Not sure what I make of all the arguments either, there seem to be quite a few!

    After an initial frist reading I've come away with the impression that there is a confusion between feminists about what feminism is; Is it as a humanitarian movement or a political movement? Is it about identifying women's unique struggles to survive and thrive and then on deciding how to affect positive change.

    A profound weakness seems to be that it is not evidence lead, but ideologically driven - and no one can agree on the best ideological route to take!

    I don't see how this problem can ever be solved, but until it is, it's simply a case of who can shout loudest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Paula. I try to stay away from the word "feminism" itself, except with people like yourself. E.g. a person of proven sanity who isn't not about to use me, or any other non-Jeremy Clarkson male, as the proxy target for a lifetime of disappointments with the opposite sex.
    I had a conversation (sort of) with the assistant dean of a large university the other day who started the conversation (I am truly, truly not making this up) with the words "As a man you are assuming that..."
    I hadn't said a word up to this point. Further conversation on the topic seemed redundant. It would have spoiled her fun.
    Anyway...I guess that both sexes make the mistake of confusing competition with the members of their own sex with other kinds.
    Men are perhaps more open to the idea that they are in open competition with one another for access to resources? But this seems obvious to me from the inside, so to speak. I guess I miss a great deal of the the female-female competition, which just slips below my radar.
    Having said this, I have certainly seen hurt looks from male students when I don't endorse their "but evolutionary theory entitles me to act like a dick" theory of biology.
    "But you are meant to be on our side", they opine.
    I then refer them to the remark about the sainted Angelina above.
    By way of an (annecdotal) control--I have never had the same sort of encounter detailed above with (known) lesbians as with heterosexual women. This leads me to hypothesise that some uses of feminism are really control mechanisms for manipulating the members of the opposite sex through guilt. Lesbians do not much care how the opposite sex sees them or in manipulating them so don't have any use for this mechanism. For them feminisms represents something purer and more political perhaps? Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rob, I don't seem to have your direct email anymore. Is there anything in your doctorate thesis about self consciousness and coital orgasam? I'm journalistically musing around a tentative hypothesis about good dancers having more orgasams (females not males).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Email is r.j.king@lse.ac.uk
    Website http://lse.academia.edu/RobertKing/About
    A few years back Stuart Brody did a paper about gait and orgasm. Brody seems to excite strong emotions among folk--don't know him or his work really--but I often get referred to him. Paper is at J Sex Med 2008;5:2119–2124
    I think he gets stick for telling women how to orgasm (or, at least, that is how he is interpreted as being).
    We didn't look at self consciousness per se, although Jay did do something a few years back about attachment style and likelihood of coital orgasm
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616730701868555
    Yours sounds like an interesting hypothesis. A lot of women we surveyed and interviewed did talk about release, letting go etc--especially with regard to ejaculation. I would not be at all surprised if being self-conscious makes that more difficult.
    Deborah Sundahl does workshops that I have attended on that.
    I still find it interesting that there is so-called deabte about an anatomical function that is well established in the literature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paula,
    Have uploaded PhD to site. The interview stuff feels very naieve now--I would be much more systematic these days. However, the rough and ready nature did give us some interesting insights--for example it would never have occured to me how important smell is to female sexual response. This immediately suggests a whole bunch of testable things about pill use (which changes olfaction) and deodorant use (which masks singals) and the possible knock-on effects of these.
    Am doing a project with Suzi Godson of the Times involving this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for this Rob

    A Woman's History of Vaginal Orgasm is Discernible from Her Walk - abstract here:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00942.x/abstract

    ReplyDelete
  11. NB - Anything in your doctorate thesis re corrolates between being able to spell orgasam (sic) and achieving one? (joke!)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Paula. 'Fraid not. However I was frequently reminded of Trivers rather cruel comment about Steve Gould and the by-product hypothesis. "You have to wonder how often Steve has been close to that blessed event for him to regard it as a by-product"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trivers is insane. Brilliant, and insane. All the good ones are. The really smart ones with a mathematical bent (Price, Boltzman, Turing) do themsleves in. Their equations undermine human vanity. Watch this space. Triver is smart...I give him five year tops

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://feministryangosling.tumblr.com/
    You have probably seen these--but just in case...

    ReplyDelete