[girltrouble]

I'd also say it falls into being "femme" behaviour. Putting it into butch/femme classes actually makes a lot of sense; while they are echoes of what could be considered stereotypically male/female behaviours, they effectively remove sex from the equation.

i think the problem-- and it was some feminist high-femme dykes that pointed this out--- is that the wider culture AND feminist circles think of that femme power as weakness, or lack of power, but it is far from it. and i think that feminists need to take a look at that, examine it. the other way of thinking, that there is only male power and that it neutralizes all other power, is sexist. i think feminism will/has/should move in that direction.

[girlygirlgag]

oh, come on, nh. your contention that power is the ability to determine one's own destiny, not the destiny of others, is, honestly, absurd.

when your boss fires you, does he not exert power?

if power is a matter of social contract, then what does a gun do? rewrite the contract?

the social contract doesn't change, but the context does. the social contract doesn't change, but the context does if you know the gun isn't loaded.

i think what you describe in your last para below, is the way we assume that power works, it is the male=gun sort of view, but if someone doesn't abide by the social contract, refuses to play along, or knows that the "gun" isn't loaded/doesnt exist/apply to them, the context changes.

you switch between power and 'coersion' when it suits you. your labeling it as such is a means of changing it's context and meaning. in the story i gave about getting a tire changed, i doubt anyone who is in the slightest bit sane would call flirting with a man to get him to change a tire is coersion. holding a gun to his head, perhaps. using his "dick" to your own advantage? not even close.

as i said in the private email with you nh, i think like many, you confuse sex (what is actually between your legs, or more precisely the organs in your body cavity) and gender (which is more society's perception of your actions) they are not one and the same thing.

this is an important distinction. to make this more clear i think we should talk about this not as male-masculine/female-feminine power dialectic, but rather in terms of a butch/femme one.

because your sex is male does not mean that you are relegated to strictly butch power. you have an option of using any type of power you choose. but because of your socialization as a man, you would more than likely be prone to use butch power. in the same way that in certain situations, women would probably use a more femme power. there is certainly a difference between because when you say that there is not male or female power there is simply power, i think you are putting on those same blinders that you spoke about in one of your posts. my story is asking, is there a means of using femme power as a form of resistance to patriarchy? i say yes. now you may not be aware of the kinds/forms of femme power, other than the most blatant, because of the "sea" you swim in. it's similar to the way that white people aren't always aware of white culture because they don't know anything else. but the reason i talked about femme power in the context of dyke communities is because in that context male and female power-- as you put it-- is removed from a body attached view. that is not to say there is not sexism, misogeny, or any other hatred in that community, but rather simply it is a different M.O. for women to exert or exercize power absent of it being attached to maleness specifically.

despite your need to relabel it coersion, i think there is very much a case to be made for femme power as resistance.

Silly GT, nohope is here to guide us all to being "good feminists".

[mornington]

*applaudes*

i've seen guys use thier looks/whatever to get girls to do thier cooking/work/sew on a button - is that coersion? there's no threat involved (which is how i'd define coersion). I'd also say it falls into being "femme" behaviour. Putting it into butch/femme classes actually makes a lot of sense; while they are echoes of what could be considered stereotypically male/female behaviours, they effectively remove sex from the equation.

[girltrouble]

oh, come on, nh. your contention that power is the ability to determine one's own destiny, not the destiny of others, is, honestly, absurd.

when your boss fires you, does he not exert power?

if power is a matter of social contract, then what does a gun do? rewrite the contract?

the social contract doesn't change, but the context does. the social contract doesn't change, but the context does if you know the gun isn't loaded.

i think what you describe in your last para below, is the way we assume that power works, it is the male=gun sort of view, but if someone doesn't abide by the social contract, refuses to play along, or knows that the "gun" isn't loaded/doesnt exist/apply to them, the context changes.

you switch between power and 'coersion' when it suits you. your labeling it as such is a means of changing it's context and meaning. in the story i gave about getting a tire changed, i doubt anyone who is in the slightest bit sane would call flirting with a man to get him to change a tire is coersion. holding a gun to his head, perhaps. using his "dick" to your own advantage? not even close.

as i said in the private email with you nh, i think like many, you confuse sex (what is actually between your legs, or more precisely the organs in your body cavity) and gender (which is more society's perception of your actions) they are not one and the same thing.

this is an important distinction. to make this more clear i think we should talk about this not as male-masculine/female-feminine power dialectic, but rather in terms of a butch/femme one.

because your sex is male does not mean that you are relegated to strictly butch power. you have an option of using any type of power you choose. but because of your socialization as a man, you would more than likely be prone to use butch power. in the same way that in certain situations, women would probably use a more femme power. there is certainly a difference between because when you say that there is not male or female power there is simply power, i think you are putting on those same blinders that you spoke about in one of your posts. my story is asking, is there a means of using femme power as a form of resistance to patriarchy? i say yes. now you may not be aware of the kinds/forms of femme power, other than the most blatant, because of the "sea" you swim in. it's similar to the way that white people aren't always aware of white culture because they don't know anything else. but the reason i talked about femme power in the context of dyke communities is because in that context male and female power-- as you put it-- is removed from a body attached view. that is not to say there is not sexism, misogeny, or any other hatred in that community, but rather simply it is a different M.O. for women to exert or exercize power absent of it being attached to maleness specifically.

despite your need to relabel it coersion, i think there is very much a case to be made for femme power as resistance.

[nohope]

I guess that depends on ones definition of power. But for me power is the ability to determine ones own destiny. Not the destiny of others, but ones own.

There for from my perspective power is non-gendered. But who has power with in any particular context is a function of the social contract.

If there is such a thing as gender recognized by the social contract, and if that gendered social contract conceives of a male gender among others and if all other genders are subservient to that male gender then what we have is called patriarchy. And under a social contract, in which patriarchy operates, yes non-men exercise less power and there fore have limited ability to determine their own destinies outside of prescribed social norms.

[lapis]

Nohope, sounds like, according to your definitions, that power is indeed gendered as it falls under patriarchy, which, again according to you, seems inescapable. There have certainly been matrifocal societies and many people would argue that agriarian societies were egalitarian--maybe not matrifocal--but certainly put a different kind of premium on women's contributions. So, it sounds like, in your schema, women are basically fucked. guess your name is quite fitting. Thanks.

[nohope]

As I mentioned to Girltrouble in a private discourse we had, I don’t think there is such a thing as "famine power" and "masculine power," there is just Power

Further more what I believe Girltrouble was describing is not power at all but rather coercion. She called it persuasion. But the truth is that those people who would be persuaded are not persuaded because of their inner strength, but rather because of their inner weakness. i.e. what we are talking about is suckers. Now the ability to sucker people is not power…. And to sucker someone is ultimately a form of coercion. And that coercion is made possible because of Patriarchy and the limitations it puts on men as well as women. A rational and stable person would not fall victim.

So is there a place where "feminine power" is considered libratory for women? Sure there is a place. But is being seductive that "feminine power?" I think not. But lets say it is. If so it only exists with in ht confines of patriarchy. With out patriarchy femininity would have no "power." Does that mean it never is libratory for women with in patriarchy? Probably not…. But it does mean that it usually isn’t, no matter how much thought we have put into it.

And the reason is that when we use patriarchal tools to gain feminist ends, we ultimately strengthen and reinforce the patriarchy.

And important distinction here is women and woman. Just because something empowers a female does not mean it empowers all females. The metric for women liberation is does a particular action empower the group. I mean to me that is what makes an action libratory verses repressive.

The means are the ends.

p.s. I find the question is something feminist, to be kind of pointless, be cause feminism has become to fluid an idea to have any meaning. Women’s liberation is at lest a little more precise.

p.p.s. on the subject of Matriarchal societies. There is no real evidence that matriarchal societies ever existed. What we generally call matriarchal is in actuality egalitarian with no one having unearned privilege as a consequence of “gender.”

[lapis]

Hi. I haven't posted here before but have wanted to--and it's daunting because there's a thick conversation going on here--so I apologize for not being complete in my analysis. My question lines up with some of the critiques of patriarchy here. Basically, I worry about patriarchy as this omnipotent and totalizing term--I wonder if society assigns patriarchy too much power as this force that defines beauty. I just wonder if before patriarchy (like in primitive matriarchal societies with fertility goddesses and such) if there were gendered definitions of beauty that have been absorbed into patriarchy. I guess I am just wondering if, like girltrouble has pointed out, there is a space for femininity to have power without seeming completely sanctioned and controlled by the big "P." This is a question for beauty and in bdsm--can the bottom (particularly a femme bottom or girly girl) have power? Is there really no place for conscientious self-definition as stereotypically feminine?

Is there any space for femme-ininity as resistance? I worry that sometimes subverting patriarchy necessarily means denying certain kinds of bodies and getting neutered...

[nohope]

The excuse of the male dominated precedent only goes so far in today's society. Women in many ways voluntarily "subject" themselves to many of the expectations of beauty and behavior laid before them, not just to be appealing to the opposite sex, but also for the acceptance of other women and essentially for their own self confidence. It isn't because we "need" a man, or must "place" ourselves socially. It's self ritual, it's female bonding, AND it's sex-appeal hype. Patriarchy may have started a lot of it, but it has absolutely become a woman's prerogative.

You seem to be saying that the two cannot coexist. However, I would say that Patriarchy is not an “excuse,” a very rightwing way of depicting feminist analysis, but a framework for understanding our actions and choices from a gendered perspective.

That is to say that regardless of whether we believe gender and sex ultimately exist, and I don’t think they do nor do I see a meaningful difference, the rest of the world believes they are very much real and they act accordingly.

Patriarchy is the context upon which the majority of human actions take place.

To say patriarchy no longer exist or that it is no longer relevant is to view the world through blinders.

And once we accept those blinders, certainly every action will look as if it is freely chosen.

[looktothehills]

The excuse of the male dominated precedent only goes so far in today's society. Women in many ways voluntarily "subject" themselves to many of the expectations of beauty and behavior laid before them, not just to be appealing to the opposite sex, but also for the acceptance of other women and essentially for their own self confidence. It isn't because we "need" a man, or must "place" ourselves socially. It's self ritual, it's female bonding, AND it's sex-appeal hype. Patriarchy may have started a lot of it, but it has absolutely become a woman's prerogative.

[girltrouble]

lol... is that your attempt at contributing to a conversation, no hope?

[nohope]

i think that it can be useful to examine WHY we choose the things we do. If I'm doing something that the patriarchy approves of, I'm sure as hell going to check that out.

GGG-my ? to you would be-why do you wear mini skirts? tight shirts? etc. Not saying it's bad, but asking why? I think sometimes this stuff is sooo firmly entrenched in us that we can think we are "just doing it for ourselves" but in reality that's not totally true.

rudderless makes some great points-really nice. i don't think it's just the effort involved, although that's part of it. To me, when a feminist gets a boob job, she is capitulating to the pressures of society. Does that make her not a feminist? Of course not, as long as she believes in equality and all that good stuff. However, she should be aware that she is capitulating. She should NOT try to pass this off as a "feminist" act.

My main problem is when people try to defend their actions by calling them feminist. hey, we all choose our battles-just don't call it feminist...i mean, if you like watching mainstream porn, fine, but don't say it's a feminist act. Doesn't mean YOU aren't a feminist, but don't try to say oh it's feminist because it's ME doing what I want. That's what bugs me a lot.

Again, I really don't care what individuals do, for the most part, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. ANd I do think we have to take responsibility for the part that we, as women, as feminists, play, when we strengthen gender roles, etc. It's not about feeling shamed of our bodies, or the feminist rules, or anything like that. It's being aware of how your personal choices can effect others.

Now, that being said, I DON'T think this is anywhere near the most important issue in feminism, far from it. There is clearly tons and tons of big stuff that is WAY more important. But I get frustrated when I see people saying "Oh this is feminist, because I'm a feminist, and I'm doing it." That doesn't make it feminist! A feminist posing for playboy is not a feminist act-it's just a woman posing for playboy. I get tired of the excuses....
exactly. exactly! Not blaming us as individual women, trying to make choices in a world where we are constantly being pressured to be this or that....but blaming patriarchy for forcing us into these stupid choices.

maddy29- you are a lonely voice or reason in the wilderness

[girltrouble]

well, i'd like to agree with you, and i guess in someways that i do, but disgarding patriarchy because it's outdated?

the trendyness of a word is kind of irrelevant, if it accurately describes words in a consise way. i think of patriarchy as a shortcut. without it you end up using a feew sentances to get to the same meaning as one word. patriarchy hasn't outlived it's usefulness by a longshot.

that said, i think i know what you are getting at. it's been discussed a lot here lately. you want to move away from a constrictive definition of feminism. (although you phrased it in terms of the patriarchy). the problem with that is that it falls in to the right wing trap of absolving the patriarchy. it's a neat trick, and an easy one to fall into. but the problem isn't the word patriarchy, it's an old, antiquated, fixed idea of feminism.

i think that is one of the reasons that some younger women are afraid of calling themselves feminists-- they equate it not with what feminism has become-- an evolving idea of gender equality as a benefit to society-- both men and women. republicans tend to promote that old concept in language, using terms like "feminazi" to recall a man-hating feminism that hasn't existed for decades. it's to their advantage-- it's just another way that they use fear. they ignore the fact that feminism has been evolving from the start. it's incorperated different classes, cultures, racial and gender identities. but that 'focus on the male gaze' (a hilarously smart turn of phrase, btw) is still needed as long as it is men still in power.

femme identity, is, to my mind, the next thing that needs to be seriously incorperated into that gender equality ethos. i posted something in another thread talking about a cableshow here in seattle that was talking about femme identity, and femme resistance. it's a concept that comes from the dyke community, where there is often a butch/femme dichotomy in dating. as long as there has been a butch identity in the dyke community there has been one for femmes. for long stretches femmes were either, bimbos or traitors. but for some time there has been a new undertanding of femme strength, and the ways a femme identity uses and flexes it's power. sadly most times power is viewed only thru a prism of masculinity. but femme power is just as potent. it's just that most people are unaccustomed to viewing and calling that power.

one of the people on that cable show made this illustration:
"now, if i got a flat tire, which takes more intellegence? to change the tire myself, or to charm someone into doing it for me? the end result is the same. it's just a different kind of energy used to get the job done each way."

there was an illustration about femme resistance talking about when a butch would get in an alteration with a straight male. the femme would interceed using her femininity to defuse the anger in the situation. in that case the femme power is stronger than the masculine.

i agree that it is useful to have a view that is complex rather than one that is simple. bianaries are such a typically western way of thinking. and i think there is more than enough room in that evolving idea of feminism. it'd be another way that feminism is-- and has-- moved away from it being a movement of middle class white women to one that is inclusive of all types of women and men who believe in the equality of the sexes.

[rantrave88]

hey everybody!

Hi GGG! you rule!

i remember this thread when people were getting mad at male posters for posting on bust!

anyways, in the spirit of all that, I deem the construct and word "patriarchy" to be deeply problematic and outdated! It is 2007, guys, (yeah, I said guys, and I'm okay with using gendered language in alternate gendered situations)!

My point is that I believe there to be too much focus on the male gaze, and not enough shift to the wonderful performative powers of femme "ie the pretty girl"

I think Femme, whether it be lesbian, or trans, or just a sorority girl at the bar is pretty complex and hard to discuss in terms of "feminist" or "not."

The "patriarchy" says a lot of things. The "patriarchy" says that I should call myself a woman and not anything else because i was born with a vagina. The "patriarchy" deems gender and sexuality material and not philosphical, and most importantly, doesn't allow for possibilities.

I am ALL about possibilities! And I believe that gender expression does not always have to be discussed in terms of pop culture iconography. I don' t think we are giving women and femmes enough credit for being media-savvy and understanding that we are constantly being manipulated. Regardless if you are in an ivory tower or not, just growing up with electronic and/or print media in your environment allows you to understand over time (even just subconsciously) that you are affected to some degree.

i lurve Dolly Parton. I don't believe that "patriarchy" is the only thing that told us to wear big tits and big makeup. Femme adornment has a history that has to do with lots of different gazes, not just horny hetero men. I think that needs to be taken into context when we look at women dressing up today.

And this "male gaze" outside of film theory is not one-dimentional! We have all kinds of males and men and masculinity. Pop culture just tends to be more binary-oriented because that's how spectacle works--with clear-cut, black and white constructs.

In conclusion, I would like to say: Roseviolet, I loved your post about costumes! I agree!

[LoveMyPugs]

nickclick -

I just posted something about the Bratz dolls in the WTF thread. Those dolls are gross. I posted some links to their pictures. You should check it out.

I just finished reading the article you posted and it makes me sad for young girls. If I have a daughter I'm going to try very hard to protect her from that kind of shit in the media.

[nickclick]

is this a good place to discuss this article ?
Media gone wild, Girls are bombarded with sexual messages, study says

[girlygirlgag]

Edited and taken tot he argument thread, for good measure.

[maddy29]

Fuck off. Seriously.

[girlygirlgag]

gah, why do i even bother???

Grow up. Seriously.

[raisingirl]

I love this thread and am glad to see its revival (grazie, Tesao. Mwah!).

Will be back after I've done some reading...