What makes some of us uncomfortable with bisexual women? It is because we think they're either lesbians having straight sex or straight women testing out their fantasies on us before returning to men?
In today's post-modern, queer-focused world, bisexuality is being promoted to lesbians as the latest fashionable trend. This has resulted in lesbian politics, namely feminism, being passed over for sexual hedonism, where the only thing that matters is sexual pleasure and desire. Similarly, bisexuality is sold to heterosexual women as some type of recreational activity far from their "natural home" of straight sex. It is seen as "temporary lesbianism."
It is more à la mode to have sex with a man if you are a lesbian than if you're a straight woman, who is merely doing what she is expected to do "naturally." Lesbians having heterosexual sex are seen as transgressive, when in fact they are simply reverting to a traditional way of being a woman. For a straight woman, having a girlfriend on the side is almost like having the latest Prada handbag.
Camille Paglia, the most famous "anti-lesbian lesbian," has written reams about how she worships the penis and cannot understand those of us who do not. In fact Paglia, like many lesbian tourists who sleep with women on the weekend and go back to hubby on Monday morning, thinks lesbian sex needs to be "spiced up" by the odd "het" shag:
Women, I think, are naturally bisexual. You know I'm not telling lesbians to stop sleeping only with women, but to leave open a part of the brain toward men and accept male lust and find men extremely attractive and get horny in relation to men and ogle their bodies and do something with them, then sex with women will be hotter.
Has Paglia internalized so much anti-lesbian oppression that she, too, thinks that all lesbians need is a good bit of heterosexual-style shagging?
But many lesbians, and even bisexual women themselves, mistrust the concept of swinging both ways. One U.S. study of bisexuality, which draws on interviews with 400 self-identified lesbians and bisexual women, found that a substantial number of bisexuals prefer to hang out with lesbians instead of other bisexual women in social situations, and have greater political trust in lesbians than they do in other bisexual women. It was also found that "[s]ome bisexual women actually doubt whether bisexual women exist at all."
Whatever our views and politics about lesbianism may be, we cannot deny that women face compulsory heterosexuality from birth. Despite huge progress since I came out in 1977, it is still not really acceptable to reject men and choose not to live under their guardianship, whether you are in Saudi Arabia or the U.K.
When I write about making a positive choice to be a lesbian, and that I believe there is no gay (or for that matter bisexual) "gene," I am accused of being an ideological robot and therefore not genuinely sexually attracted to women. That is nonsense. I personally feel that straight women are missing out on the best sex on the planet, but that is their choice.
If we put aside lesbian feminism, the way most people approach sexuality is that they think we are straight, gay, or attracted to both sexes. For bisexual women living under the tyranny of sexism, choosing to be lesbian is a liberatory act.
Those of us who grew up in a time and context where there was a political analysis of sexuality were able to make a positive choice to be a lesbian. I believed then, and I believe now, that if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-bind
1) Shooting everyone with a disease WOULD help in many cases and more importantly
2) Nobody was suggesting shooting all of the men, so to speak. Identifying them as the cause and root of misogyny is not the same thing as wanting to throw them all off the bridge.
If you're arguing that ideas can't be compared to viruses then you're wrong. They have frequently been compared to such, and it's a solid analogy.
If you're arguing that misogyny as a concept is better compared to an aimed weapon than to an infectious disease that some people don't even realize they have, then you're wrong there to. Misogyny is not a weapon that men use against women. It is a sickness.
If you were trying to argue a third point, then please state it again in different language because your previous comment was unparseable.
If you're arguing that ideas can't be compared to viruses then you're wrong.
I don't see where I said or even implied that in my comment.
Misogyny is not a weapon that men use against women.
This is where we disagree. I do not buy into the notion that men are just dopes, helpless victims who have unfortunately been infected with some virus that spreads from person to person through no concerted action of their own. Viruses are typically spread without any help from the infected person, inadvertently, through mere contact. When they kill people, it's not intentional on the part of the person who infected person B.
That's not how misogyny works.
Misogyny is purposely inculcated and passed from men to boys, and into girls, generation upon generation. It doesn't just "happen," it was a system of beliefs and behaviors that were CREATED by men to maintain their institutional power. In order to continue to maintain that institutional power, they need to tend to and maintain misogyny. Misogyny does not innocently creep up on powerful, poor unsuspecting men like a virus. It is something that is willfully maintained and wielded to oppress and keep women in their place. Like a weapon.
I also do not buy into the notion that men do not realize that they "have" misogyny. On the contrary, they deploy it as a tool. Look at the most recent post about a woman who wanted to do a documentary on misogyny in video games and the vitriolic response she got from men who play games. The point is, men created misogyny and maintain it to suit their purposes of remaining in institutional power. If it's a virus, then it's a biological weapon. If we believe that mean don't realize that they "have" misogyny and that all they need is a little education, that does two things. One, it excuses the inexcusable behavior of men - like the recent senator who talked about throwing acid into the faces of women he disagreed with - as pure ignorance, which is stupid IMO. He knew exactly what he was doing, as do men who talk about Hillary Clinton's pantsuits or comment on how hot Sarah Palin's legs are.
And two, it puts the burden on women to "educate" them in order to remove the misogyny, when it is MEN'S responsibility to eliminate misogyny in the world.
SO yes, I do think that misogyny is more analogous to a wielded weapon that men use to maintain power than it is to a virus that creeps up on poor unsuspecting men. Because that assumes that men only inadvertently perpetuate misogyny when my experiences have shown that not to be true.
Although it's a nice delusion, to believe that if only they just "realized" they were hurting us, they would stop.
Edited at 2012-06-14 09:00 pm (UTC)
Although it's a nice delusion, to believe that if only they just "realized" they were hurting us, they would stop.
So your solution is, what, shoot them?
Or would you have preferred that I go through her comment point by point and address all the places where she's inaccurate, if not outright incorrect?
And no, I did not offer any suggestions or solutions, because misogyny is not a problem that can be solved by one comment on the Internet. I was addressing someone's fundamental misunderstanding of misogyny as something that "just happens" as opposed to something that is purposely enacted by men. My purpose was not to suggest or solve. I fail to see how my decision not to offer some simple platitude about solutions invalidates my point.
And yes, I would prefer that you go through my comment and point and address all the places I'm inaccurate. I am especially interested in hearing the opinion of someone who does NOT believe that misogyny was created and is perpetuated by men.
Viruses pass from person to person without any effort on the part of the infected individuals. That implies that you believe that misogyny just passes from man to man without any active work on the man's part.
Racism is perpetuated by many people who, if asked, would honestly say that they do not hate members of the group they are oppressing. They just know that members of that group are this way or that way, because that's what they've been taught. Ditto homophobia. Homophobia is perpetuated by many people who, if asked, would honestly say that they do not hate members of the group they are oppressing. I understand that life seems easier when you have a villain to point to and blame, but real life doesn't actually work that way.
Your viewpoint is too either/or, which is a great position to take if you're just angry, or if you need to muster the troops. I'm down with that, 100%. But if you actually want to change things, then you're eventually going to need to realize that the world isn't the us-v-them place you see it as. The more you attack them as a "them" unit, the more "they" are going to dig in and refuse to do anything but strike back.
And before you willfully misread... I am not saying that you are not allowed to get angry. Get angry. Getting angry is good and healthy. What I am saying is that you're reacting to a system-wide problem by trying to divide the system, and that's not going to work.
lol, you actually just said that.
If you are talking about your solutions questions in your most recent comment, I don't have one. Because this is a complex problem that requires a lot of thought, research, and work to answer. But no, my solution is not to shoot them. It's kind of silly that you would even ask them, aside from taking the weapon metaphor literally, which is mind-boggling.
And before you argue again that, and I quote,
"I did not ONCE say anything about men being the enemy."
...you actually did. Here:
Misogyny is purposely inculcated and passed from men to boys, and into girls, generation upon generation. It doesn't just "happen," it was a system of beliefs and behaviors that were CREATED by men to maintain their institutional power... It is something that is willfully maintained and wielded to oppress and keep women in their place. Like a weapon.
Sure sounds like "enemy" to me.
This explains misogyny so perfectly and is an awesome comment.
Seriously, I'm saving it under my "perfectly phrased responses to everything" folder.