(no subject)
I subscribe to Bang magazine, a feminist forum which is sometimes very thoughtful but sometimes drives me natty. (Most memorably when they talked about slash a couple of years ago.)
In this latest issue, they managed to claim that BtVS was better than Charmed because it didn't have the love/duty conflict. Which makes me wonder what show they've been watching. But that wasn't the article that really disturbed me.
What really disturbed me was an article on the difficulties that arise when you try to reconcile your feminism with your sex life. One of the interviewees was a women who had trouble enjoying sex since she preferred the bottom position, and taking the bottom position made her feel like she was giving in to the way of the patriarchy and thus betraying her fellow sisters.
And there was not so much as a hint in the article that this might be a somewhat nutty way to look at sex. It was seen as an actual problem that women are "programmed" to react sexually to things that are, supposedly, degrading (like taking the bottom position).
All I can think is, wasn't feminism supposed to liberate women? In my opinion, the point is to make clear that women don't have to act a certain way to be "real" women, and that we have as much right as the men to try to win our happiness and fortune the way we choose.
Feminism as a list of "dos" and "don'ts" where women are supposed to feel guilty because they don't live up to the standards someone else has made seems to me only a new form of oppression. I'd definitely argue that a person who takes the bottom position during sex is a hell of a lot less a victim than a person who doesn't take the bottom position, despite wanting to, in fear of not being "feminist" enough.
Sometimes I despair at the human being's ability to just leave well alone and let people be happy.
In this latest issue, they managed to claim that BtVS was better than Charmed because it didn't have the love/duty conflict. Which makes me wonder what show they've been watching. But that wasn't the article that really disturbed me.
What really disturbed me was an article on the difficulties that arise when you try to reconcile your feminism with your sex life. One of the interviewees was a women who had trouble enjoying sex since she preferred the bottom position, and taking the bottom position made her feel like she was giving in to the way of the patriarchy and thus betraying her fellow sisters.
And there was not so much as a hint in the article that this might be a somewhat nutty way to look at sex. It was seen as an actual problem that women are "programmed" to react sexually to things that are, supposedly, degrading (like taking the bottom position).
All I can think is, wasn't feminism supposed to liberate women? In my opinion, the point is to make clear that women don't have to act a certain way to be "real" women, and that we have as much right as the men to try to win our happiness and fortune the way we choose.
Feminism as a list of "dos" and "don'ts" where women are supposed to feel guilty because they don't live up to the standards someone else has made seems to me only a new form of oppression. I'd definitely argue that a person who takes the bottom position during sex is a hell of a lot less a victim than a person who doesn't take the bottom position, despite wanting to, in fear of not being "feminist" enough.
Sometimes I despair at the human being's ability to just leave well alone and let people be happy.