NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3046

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 6.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!remarque.berkeley.edu!muffy
From: Annette M Van <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Shaming men's sexuali
Date: 28 Dec 1992 21:55:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 97
Sender: [e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy)
Approved: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Annette Van) writes...
AMV> Granted, there are men who may feel their sexuality's "being shamed"
AMV> but, other than normal human anxieties and neuroses, I'm inclined to
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AMV> believe that the outcry in defense of male sexuality (whatever that is)
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^?!?!?!?!?^^^^
AMV> is a product of the backlash.  I feel this suspicion regarding some
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Will [e-mail] responds...
<First of all, I consider your attempted discreditation of the Men's
<Movement's defence of male sexuality to be somewhat counterproductive.
<Indeed, if I wanted to use a similar tactic, I could categorise your
<remarks as "a part of the backlash against the Men's Movement".  Even
<so, my point is that people should try to solve the problems which they
<consider important, rather than demeaning other people's problems by
<calling them a "backlash" against their own particular concerns.
<Second, I take a certain amount of umbrage to your parenthetical question
<of "whatever that (male sexuality) is".  Wouldn't you feel offended if
<were to summarily dismiss any sort of analysis of female sexuality by
<saying "whatever that is"?  Considering this, the fact that men and women
<so often misunderstand each other's sexuality, should be cause for further
<*non-judgemental* analysis, rather than just giving up and seeming to not
<care.

Point number one that Steeves makes is exactly the kind of defense that
my original article pointed out as smacking of liberal humanism.  I did
NOT undertake a critique of Men's Movements as Steeves claims--I merely
said that I regard the outcries that seem so in evidence currently in
regards to feminism's supposed attack on male sexuality to be part of
the backlash.  In the next sentence, I speculated that this informs my
suspicion regarding "SOME" men's movements.  Steeves spirited response
to my casual mention of men's movements only serves to further heighten
my suspicion as per the problematic arguments he makes.  E.G., to
suggest that one should concentrate solely on solving one's own problems
without undertaking critique of societal forces that influence and
construct those problems is naive to say the least.  Of course, feminism
must critique hegemonic and patriarchal constructions of male sexuality
as these constructions have a direct effect on women.  Unfortunately for
Steeves, this does necessarily involve an attack on many aspects of
constructions of male sexuality.  A feminism that would not undertake
critique of constructions of male sexuality would become driven by a
kind of biological determinism as it would not recognize that women are
also constructed by hegemonies--it is "counterproductive", in my
opinion, to naively believe that feminism can go about affirming men's
movements wholeheartedly without some suspicion.  This is not to say
that some men's movements are not feminist (I do think men have
something to offer to feminism) but, instead that women must, because of
their ongoing victimization, be suspicious of them.  Women must not
remain naive and unquestionning.  Unfortunately, just because Steeves
believes men's movements to be okay does not mean that we should believe
him or anyone for that matter.  In addition, Steeves should be reassured
that this suspicion of mine does not locate itself in any way solely
upon men's movements, I'm suspicious of many things (call it feminist
paranoia) and I think that, for me, this strategy is extremely helpful
in negotiating the everyday.  I think it is problematic if women are
asked to stop their critique of men's movements because it is
"counterproductive."  Counterproductive to whom, I wonder.  If Steeves
regards himself as a feminist, I wonder why he does not encourage
critique; after all, feminist groups (well, okay, some of them)
encourage well-informed critique of their workings.  Critique, as well
as affirmation, IS productive.  And, imporatantly, critique is not the
same as saying something is wholly bad.  If I critique men's movements
this is not necessarily to say that they must all immediately be
banished--perhaps it's constructive criticism?

The second point that Steeves makes in regards to my article is merely a
misreading on his part.  My parenthesis points out that I believe that
their is no such thing as a true "men's sexuality" (or women's for that
matter) but that, when people use the term "male sexuality" they are
invoking a set of constructions about men's sexuality.  I would not feel
offended if someone said "women's sexuality--whatever that is"--quite
the contrary!  I would regard that person as acknowledging that when we
invoke those terms we also recognize their constructedness and
"slipperiness."  Of course, women and men don't understand each other's
sexualities--we have been trained to believe that these are things that
we can quantify and understand when such an understanding is
unattainable, particularly if such an understanding must be gendered.

Point three (a very small one); Steeves believes in fairytales if he
believes in "non-judgemental analysis."  Can he explain to us how this
comes about?  Long gone are the days when I believed that anything was
non-judgemental or apolitical.  Telling feminists off for not being
non-judgemental has been a wonderfully long-standing and effective
strategy for the continuation of women's oppression.  Here it surfaces
agian only in another guise!

Annette.




--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.