Marriage, Part One

Full disclosure: I’m writing an anti-marriage essay. I’ve been happily, sappily married for 10 years. Hey, we all have demons.

Feminism has achieved significant improvements for women in marriage*. It’s no longer legal to batter your wife, and in many places, it’s illegal to rape her. Women have property rights and can get divorced. Despite these important gains, marriage has not changed in its destructive impact on women.

What is the purpose of marriage? In spite of advertising’s message, it isn’t romantic love. The purpose of marriage is to raise children. The state and society believe this goal is reached best by maintaining traditional gender roles. That is, men are human and do things, women are caretakers of their husbands and children. Sure, women can work, have friends, and even have (suitably feminine) hobbies, but their true function is serving others. Gender roles are enforced from birth (prenatally if the sex of the baby is known), and marriage is the formal implementation of those roles. In other words, a woman cannot escape her assigned function.

Let’s look at a really basic example. The huge wedding industry targets women, not men. As if it was still 1950, marriage is considered a prize for a woman and a trap for a man. Therefore, women have to cajole/lure/trap men into marriage. Women are willing to do this because marriage is their ultimate reward in life. Well, babies are their ultimate reward, but there’s still strong societal pressure to be married when having children.** Given the facts of marriage-what women and men gain and lose from marriage-it seems clear that men are the winners. After marriage, both women and men give up variety in their sex partners, women get financial help from their spouse, men get financial help their spouse, and someone to look after their every need, as well as raise their children. But society, reflected in advertisers, sees women as the big winners:

The fact that marriage, as a smaller model of society, offers nothing but a trap for women is demonstrated by the bride-to-be’s choice in names. Before getting married, women must choose whether to keep their last name, take their husband’s name, or hyphenate the names. Many women think taking your husband’s last name is decidedly anti-feminist. Now, I don’t want to ruffle any feathers, but I’m afraid I’m going to. The choice available to women over names is a false choice.

Taking your husband’s name is seen by many feminists as losing your identity and becoming an appendage of your husband. Fair enough. But keeping your “maiden” name is not maintaining your individual identity, it’s retaining the name you inherited from your father only, remember? It’s a typical patriarchal issue: you can’t win either way. One might argue that a man could change his last name to his wife’s last name as a gesture to marital equality. Silly one, the state is far ahead of you in keeping control.

The enforcement of gender roles is one of marriage’s most harmful consequences. The same problems-living mindlessly according to assigned gender roles-can and do occur in couples who are living together, but at least cohabiting involves some flexible thinking: “I’m not going to get married just because everyone expects me to.” Getting married means, on many levels, buying into sex roles established long ago: boys do things, and girls take care of everyone. Marriage is an antiquated institution that promotes, supports, and enforces gender roles. As such, it must die a terrible death.

Coming soon: Part 2 The larger implications of marriage

* My focus is on heterosexual marriage in the U.S.
** Ask any single mother how she’s treated if you need proof.

Twisty’s Porn Again

Twisty wrote something wonderful here. My favorite part:

As we have seen time and time again, two things happen whenever anyone “transgressively” redefines beauty (or sex, or femininity, or motherhood, or anything else popularly believed to be the purview of women). One, the transgressive redefinition only transpires when there is money to be made and flesh to exploit. Two, although it represents only a cosmetic shift in art direction, the new line of sexbot demarcation is touted and accepted as some kind of paradigmatic feminist breakthrough.

This is the type of post we need: razor-sharp, insightful, and informative. This elephant applauds.

Update: Oops, I forgot to say I found out about this post from Pippa.

Radical Feminist Lesbian Festival

An intimate gathering of radical feminists
May 25-28, 2007

The Radical-Feminist Lesbian Festival is a lesbian festival open to all radical feminist womyn (lesbian, straight, bi,undeclared, other). If you know that men are waging a war against women and that rape, battering, incest, pornography, and prostitution are some of the main instruments of male supremacy; and you’re unalterably opposed to all forms of domination and oppression, you share our radical feminist beliefs. This festival is designed to bring together womyn who share these beliefs for sustenance, support, encouragement, and plotting and scheming about the overthrow of patriarchy. See FAQ for more details.

Defective Breasts

I originally had decided not to publish this post, because after all, we don’t really need another post on how people in western cultures view breasts. But when I opened today’s paper, I saw an article on The Boob Lady, and just lost it. So here goes.

When I got sick this past spring, I joined a Yahoo group for people with chronic illnesses. One of the regular emails consists of a list of links from the Mayo Clinic that provides information on a variety of health concerns, from preventing the flu to dealing with intractable fatigue. So imagine my surprise when a recent link from the the Mayo Clinic covered breast augmentation.

I clicked on the link, because I wanted to know how breast augmentation could possibly be related to health. One of the reasons suggested for breast augmentation was priceless:

* Correct a defect in the development of your breasts, such as having breasts of unequal sizes

So this is how breast implants are related to women’s health! Only, I’m confused as to what health problems I’m risking by having uneven breasts. Is the smaller breast more susceptible to cancer? Am I in danger of damaging the larger breast by closing a door on it? I’m afraid to admit this, because clearly I’m a developmental freak, but most parts of my body are uneven. Can medicine come to the rescue? The only thing worse than misogyny is when misogyny enriches the medical industry.

Frankly, my misaligned breasts haven’t caused me any problems in life. My mismatched feet, on the other hand, have caused considerable problems, since one foot always has an ill-fitting shoe. Maybe the Mayo Clinic will send me an article about foot implants. But then, I’d have to work my way up my body, undergoing multiple surgeries to even myself out so that I don’t exhibit any developmental defects and make other people uncomfortable. Oh, wait, uneven body parts are a health issue. I’m sorry to say I’ve typed this entire post with uneven hands. How could I have been so reckless?

I think I’ll focus on actual health problems, like this intractable fatigue.

***
The Boob Lady

Thursday’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a story on a woman who likes to be called “The Boob Lady“. I read the story, hoping against hope that TBL would be preaching a message of self-acceptance, and encouraging girls to challenge the messages that bombard them daily. Imagine how excited I was when I read that she speaks to girls in junior high school, and that her philosophy was that “They should be comfortable in their own skin.”

Optimism only leads to disappointment.

She didn’t start out as The Boob Lady.

A creative-writing class unearthed her feelings about her breast lift surgery two years ago and the impact it made on her life.

“For most of my life, my breasts would arrive in the room before I did,” she said.

After nursing and raising those children and getting into shape, she underwent a breast lift — a surgery that removes excess flesh and moves the nipples up — and for the first time, she felt like she had breasts that aligned with her petite body.

“Finally, I’m comfortable with me,” she said.

TBL wants girls to be comfortable in their own skin. That phrase, comfortable in your own skin, is important to me. I’ve been working for a long time to achieve that level of acceptance of myself. The way that I understand the phrase, it means that you accept yourself as you are. It does not mean that you accept yourself once you’ve had surgery to get rid of the unacceptable parts.

The article just gets worse and worse:

“They’re not the end-all be-all but they are the things that define us as women,” Squires said. “They’re out there all the time. They define our sex, but it isn’t who we are.”

Silly Boob Lady, our breasts do define who we are. Someone, get this woman a radical feminist analysis of body image, stat! She attempts to preach about the need for a positive body image.

Bodies, she said, change a lot. And so do your breasts, with life-changing events such as pregnancy and birth, or through exercise.

“They’re in a constant state of flux,” Squires said. “Change is a good thing. If you don’t like your breasts today, you may like them in 20 years.”

But surgery to “improve” your breasts is acceptable. It’s impossible for me to reconcile the idea that bodies are to be accepted as they are, as they change, but plastic surgery is okay.

…What’s unnatural are boobs deliberately hiked up by some tits-on-a-platter bra, á la Victoria’s Secret,” she wrote.

But breasts subjected to surgery are natural? Restrictive bras are unacceptable, but surgery is fine? Wouldn’t it be so much easier to encourage women and girls to accept their bodies as they are? Loving your body, without reservation, without “fixing” it first, should not still be subversive. Unfortunately, it still is.

I’m Back!

I took a break from blogging due to health problems. After awhile, I realized I didn’t want to come back. I’m crushed by the state of the world, by the way the women are forced to live. The amount of suffering and despair is overwhelming. Fortunately, I’ve been reading blogs, and you’ve all been getting to me.

Amy posted Despair, she wrote. The post is written in response to a question she received via email: “”I am wondering how you deal with despair…How do you stand knowing what you know, seeing what you see, feeling what you feel for womyn???? “

The entire piece got to me, but two things stood out. Her direct and honest answer:

Answer #1: I don’t. I spend quite a lot of time feeling crappy.

Ah. Other women go through this too. There’s no way around the fact that fighting for women hurts. I found this response freeing. It meant my struggles weren’t the product of me being “not tough enough”. (I have a lifetime of people telling me to “toughen up” and “get a thicker skin”.) The pain was part of the process. The work we do for women, for everyone, is critical. It is not, however, free from harm.

Amy also included a quote from Andrea Dworkin:

It is important to understand that we will live with a fair amount of pain for most of our lives. If your first priority is to live a painless life, you will not be able to help yourself or other women. What matters is to be a warrior.

There is no such thing as a painless life, but we seem to seek it out as if it was our natural state. Avoiding pain is arguably the strongest motivator for humans. What we need to learn is that it’s okay to be in pain. We don’t have to avoid pain at all costs. We do have to learn to find ways to deal with the pain so that it doesn’t break our will to fight. Read Amy’s whole post to see how she copes.

Sometimes painful situations in life paired with online hate become too much. An excellent and thoughtful writer, Amananta, has decided to stop blogging. I will miss her voice terribly, but I wish her the best, and hope that things improve for her soon. Elaina left a comment on one of Amananta’s posts that really energized me:

We are in a war here, Amananta. We only really lose if we stop fighting. Keep on screaming. Folks are still asleep; we all have to scream to wake them up before the sky falls.

Thank you for writing that, Elaina. Resistance can take many different forms. There will be times when we cannot fight in the way we want. But we must keep fighting, in whatever way we’re able. Even small actions can have a big impact.

Finally, this morning I read a post by Biting Beaver, in which she said:

All of our fighting and screaming, all of our defending and begging and frustration, all of our anger and sadness will die, impotent and ineffective for we are battling an army, the likes of which we never could have comprehended. We are, for all intents and purposes, trying to empty oceans with teaspoons.

She’s right. Misogyny will not be overcome in my lifetime. It may never be overcome fully. But we fight so that one day, women will not have to live as we do. The outcome is uncertain. When and how will women be able to live as fully-recognized human beings? We don’t need the answers. We don’t need to know how it will all work out. We just need to keep fighting. We just need to resist.

I Give Up

I’m furious. I’ve been trying to read a few sex pos blogs to understand their perspective, and hopefully (ha!) open a dialogue. What set me off was a comment left on Bitch Lab’s blog. I’m not going to refer to the subject of the post, because I’m taking exception with one comment:

Anthony Kennerson Says:
August 11th, 2006 at 11:48 am

And this crap about “coercion” and how prostitution is innately rape solely because the woman pays for sex that she apparantly doesn’t like: Does the thought that the woman might actually like the acts she does (or the client does on her) even to the point of doing them in private for free ever cross RM’s synapses?? Or, the fact that coercion can vary in degree and form; and to simply reduce all encounters between the prostitute and the client to mere rape simply because the woman “needs the money” is pure lunacy?? Especially given that there are so many NON-sexual professions where women have been forced to do so much worse “for the money”?? (Ever heard of the casting couch in mainstream film, RM???)

Of course, all this bullshit spewed by RM is really all about what I have been saying all along: It has nothing to do with liberating women or even socialism or feminism. It is all about THE SEX…mostly the loathing of other women who enjoy the “wrong” type of sex.

This is going to take a special double dose of SmackDog Whupass ™…first chance I get to the blog, it will be on.

Radfem has officially become the new ex-gay.

Right, let’s always argue from the perspective of women who are having fun as sex workers. It’s all about the freedom, especially male sexual freedom, and who cares about those women who are being tortured?

It’s all about the sex? Yes, thank you, we’re all prudes. You’ve dismissed an entire movement that’s fought for women’s lives and women’s rights with one sentence. Thanks for being so upfront in your hatred.

Equating radical feminism with the ex-gay movement is despicable. He is very concise: in just two sentences, he belittles and others radical feminists. I’m terribly sorry that his sex life might be affected by having to consider the rights of women. This is typical male privilege, and Mr. Kennerson desperately needs to educate himself on both male privilege and misogyny. [Hint: If you’re a man who is viciously attacking a group of women who are standing up for women’s rights, there’s a problem with your behavior!]

What really offended me is that these hateful statements went unchallenged by the women posting on the blog. So much for opening a dialogue.

Please Mr. Kennerson, give me a dose of SmackDog Whupass™. Radical feminists know a bit about male aggression directed at women. We think it’s wrong.

Taking It Too Far?

Update:
My first thought when I woke up (late) this morning was “I’m revoking my late-night blogging privileges. I’ve got to get that post off my blog!”

But then I read all of your wonderful comments, and decided it was a good topic to discuss, even if I was uncomfortable.

Subtitle: I am NOT trying to stir up the old beauty shitstorm!
This post is about what I’ve been going through lately, and I’m interested in feedback.

This is how I’m looking these days:

I’ve worked hard to be aware of patriarchal standards of beauty when they pop up in me, and fighting to reject them. This process has been occurring over several years. But I seem to have made remarkable progress in the last few months. If you’re not sitting down, please do so before continuing.

Oh, I guess you would be sitting at your computer, wouldn’t you? Still, brace yourself.

I’ve been going out in public without shaving my legs.

The horror! Now, before you get too excited, I’m still a shaver. I will still shave, but I no longer shave daily, and last time I was at the allergist’s, I realized I was out in public, wearing shorts, with leg hair that was long enough to be soft. I had a tiny attack of panic, then was so proud of myself that I wanted to tell someone. A scan of the room revealed that no one would be sympathetic. (Aside: I used to refuse to wear shorts when I was this fat. Who cares that heat makes me ill? Suffer fatty! So I’ve made progress there too. Go me!)

But wait, there’s more! I haven’t experienced that burning pain on my upper lip that comes from hair removal in I don’t know how long. My mustache is nice and dark. Again, don’t think I’ve conquered anything-I’m sure to burn the hair off again at some point. But to have gone this long without my Nair (burning-hair-off attack chemical) is amazing for me.

So in two areas, I have made positive progress. But I’m “letting myself go” in other ways, and I can’t figure out if I’m rejecting beauty standards or being lazy because I don’t feel well. Isn’t there something to be said for having a little pride in one’s appearance (as in not smelling terrible, and not looking like I’ve given up on doing laundry)? Is there? I’m not being sarcastic, I’d like to know.

I shower and wash my hair every day, and I use deodorant as well. But I do not comb my hair or dry it, and it forms an interesting and very messy frizz around my head. I’m wearing sloppy clothes, and I haven’t bothered to remove the Bumble fur from myself before leaving the apartment (white hair everywhere). I often have hay somewhere on my person, but hay removal is a losing battle. Whenever I eat, I end up wearing part of my meal. I’ve been this way since childhood, so I don’t think it will change. When I’m at the bank and see a juice stain on my shirt, I can’t even work up embarassment.

I realize that all of this could be happening because going anywhere takes so much effort that I can’t be bothered by my appearance. I also know that my friends will come rushing to my defense and tell me not to worry about a silly thing like appearance when I have bigger issues. Those friends would be right. But in a rambling way, I’m trying to ask a philosophical feminist question: where do we draw the line? Where does a woman find the line between rejecting patriarchal standards and how she is happy in her appearance? If I had energy to be outside working, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass how I looked then. But I’m talking about how I look when I run errands, or just in my daily life.

Really, feedback would be great-you will not offend me. Really, please let’s not start up attacking each other over appearance issues. We’re just talking about messy me.

Photoshop that baby out of the picture!

I can’t remember where I first saw this story, but it’s been featured on several blogs. Apparently, babytalk magazine featured a nursing infant on the cover of their current issue. What’s more, the infant was attached to a visible breast. Readers were appalled, as shown in the following quote:

“I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine.”

Conservatives object to breasts exposed in the context of breastfeeding for reasons that run along the lines of “Because breasts are dirty“. Conservatives do a great job of compartmentalizing and condemning the female body. Liberals object to the conservatives’ “prudish” perspective and express wonder that anyone would be offended.

Why is everyone missing the point? In our society, breasts have been completely co-opted for heterosexual men’s pleasure. (Reminder: only heterosexual men matter in our society.) Breasts are for arousing and getting men off. Look at this quote:

“There is a real puritanical streak in America,” Moran told AFP. “You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

“But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it.”

Moran is right on both counts. Of course this viewpoint is ridiculous, not to mention sick. But it is an accurate reflection of how things are in society. We don’t object to women showing skin as long as they do it in a sexually provocative manner. Women showing part or all of their breasts in a way that gives hetero men erections are following the dictates of their assigned roles, even serving with distinction!

But let a women expose a breast to feed her child, and the sanctions come out. Why is anyone surprised by this? Protests come not just from discomfort with nudity. Breastfeeding violates what breasts are for. I’ll restate the fact: breasts exist for the sexual pleasure of heterosexual men. So it should be no surprise that we only object to displaying breasts when it’s a baby’s satisfaction at stake.

Think I’m wrong? Have a look around the liberal blogosphere. Check out the comments made by male liberals. In addition to condemning the prudishness of Americans, men were compelled to state just how lovely that breast on the cover of babytalk is-so perky, so full. One man even expressed envy, oh how he’d love to be that baby!

See? Breastfeeding is acceptable if the boob in question makes men hard.

Thank the Planet for Strong Women

Feminist First came up with the wonderful idea to blog about women who support us.

The woman I’m expressing thanks for today is Suzanna Rose. She taught my first women’s studies course. Suzanna was my introduction to strong women. She modeled strength in everything she did. The light dawned that, no, we really didn’t have to take any crap. It was a watershed moment for me.

In addition to opening my eyes and providing a great education, she stood by me through my toughest time in college. Along with two other women, I filed a formal complaint against one of the most powerful professors at the university for sex discrimination. This professor opted to neglect teaching in his introductory biology course in favor of making horrific comments about women generally, and singling out “third world” women in particular. Suzanna provided counsel and support for the duration of the case. When the hearing turned out to be a sham, and the professor was given a slap on the wrist, she consoled me that now this professor’s actions were on record. In the future, things could turn out differently because we’d made things easier for other women by fighing. Those words are still with me.

Growing up without role models is extremely difficult. I was lucky enough to find a role model in my early twenties. Suzanna, thank you.

Limits of Feminism

Feminism is a huge label incorporating women of many different perspectives. Usually diversity is a positive thing. But how do you react when members of your own group are effectively fighting for the other side?

Elsa posted a comment on my last post. I posted a reply that became far too long for the comments section. Also, I believe these arguments need to see the light of day whenever they appear. They’re old, they’re tiresome, but they have to be addressed rather than left to stand unchallenged, so I’m posting my reply here instead.

Exploiting women (or anyone) ticks me off too:
http://greenerside.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/green_is_sexy_c.html

Then I’m shocked you wrote about the Vegan Vixens in a positive manner.

At a harp seal benefit

For the record, I grew up in the feminist movement, literally, marching in the front row of demonstrations and attending NOW conventions around the country as a toddler, teenager, and young adult. I’ve never shied from labeling myself with the “F” word.

Great. But being feminist means standing up against all oppression of women, not just when it’s convenient, and not indulging in it yourself.

I agree with many of the things that you discuss (great post on the tortuga ads) but also believe that there should be room for all viewpoints as well as all body types and species to coexist.

If you liked the post on the tortuga ads, how can you object to this post? I’m making the same point in both posts!

Viewpoints that support exploiting women are not welcom. As far as body types go, I didn’t mention anything about body types. Granted, there is one specific body type that’s exploited in this particular manner, but that wasn’t my point.

Yes, women’s bodies are used to sell all sorts of things. But it’s our individual choice to be upset by that, to give it more power than it deserves.

Sigh, I’m working hard to be polite, because that statement really angers me. You’re saying it’s ok for women to be exploited, and we just need to take a happy pill so we’re not bothered by it. Just close your eyes and it will go away? No, you see WE NEED TO BE ENRAGED AT THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN, not shrug it off as being “not my problem”.

And I’d argue that the Vegan Vixens don’t cater to misogynists but to people who in some way worship women, albeit in a shallow, lightheartedly lustful way. Want misogyny? Turn on any prime time detective show where the victims are ususally young women being horrifically sliced and diced.

First of all, men who need to see women in a submissive, sexbot way are “real” misogynists. They do not worship women. If they did, women would be running countries, making top dollar, and enjoy full human rights. Those innocent men would be the ones in a subservient postition. After all, one is subservient to the object being worshipped.

Misogyny exists everywhere, and we should be fighting it everywhere. Selective attention to oppression does not work. The Vegan Vixens feed right into misogyny: we’re here for male enjoyment, so go right ahead and use us.

If some women want to prance around and get their male meathead counterparts to think a different way about what they eat, who cares? Let those people carry on with their silly antics.

I care. Lots of feminists care. Exploiting women for a noble cause is wrong. Those “silly” antics have consequences for women. This is exactly the same point I made in my post on turtle eggs and sexism. You can’t be selective in its application.

If you don’t like that the Vegan Vixens may look like the usual thin, stereotypical pop culture “hot” women, then work to create your own alternative. Not all people even like those body types anyway.

You’ve missed the point by a mile. My objection isn’t over the Vegan Vixens’ body type. I don’t want to spread the exploitation to women of all body types. I want to END the exploitation. Why are you fixated on body type when I never mentioned it?

There’s no stopping a different group of women from starting their own low-budget cable channel to give a different twist on the same subject.

Again, let’s spread the exploitation! After all, why should fat women miss out? Golly, sounds like fun!

In fact, I’d rather see more people prance around freely feeling as sexy as they want. Maybe there’d be more room for all types of people to feel comfortable in their own skin and for Americans to better respect nature, starting with our own bodies.

The Vegan Vixens aren’t just prancing around feeling sexy. They’re using their sexiness as a tool to get men’s attention in order to promote veganism. That isn’t self-expression, it’s exploiting women’s traditional role (sex object for men) to achieve another goal. That exploitation limits women.

I’ll say it again: exploiting women of all body types for any purpose is wrong. Period.

My “yech” about Howard Stern refers to his pandering to the lowest common denominator and his consistent degradation of women (and therefore men too) that has no redeeming value.

Well, that’s a good start.

Playboy, on the other hand, seems pretty benign when you compare it to other magazines and websites out there–and unlike Stern’s show, Playboy over the years at least offers solid writers and journalism. Yeah, the old thing about the articles.

As I said before, I’m opposed to picking and choosing which types of oppression matter, because they all matter! I don’t care if Playboy offers Nobel quality literature. It still puts women in the category of existing for men’s pleasure. Please spend some time thinking about the consequences of that.

As for my own eating a salami sandwich, I do that maybe twice a year. Nobody’s eco perfect. The world’s a big place. Some of the kindest people I know, who devote their lives to helping people, are meat eaters. And some of the least pleasant people I’ve met are vegans. And vice versa, as it takes all types, right?

Elsa, did you read my post? Really? Because your frequent mention of body types, and now this, make me really wonder.

I didn’t say anything about you eating salami. Brace yourself: I’m an omnivore. I rarely eat meat, but I do eat it. My objections to your post were centered on your endorsement of the Vegan Vixens as a positive thing for the environmental movement. It’s unacceptable to exploit women to further any cause.