The Evolution of a Feminist
There are some things that I identify as integral parts of my personality: paganism, polyamory, bisexuality, intellectualism, and feminism. All of these elements started to be demonstrated at a very young age, but feminism was the most blatant of them and has proven to be the most evolving. I'll be taking the time here to explore how my experiences as a survivor of incest, as a pagan, and as a member of the fetish community have shaped my understanding of feminism.
As a child (and no, I don't mean "as a teenager." I mean "as a six year old"), I was a militant feminist. If I had clung to the very rigid views and physical responses, I would today be called a FemiNazi, instead of my friends insisting that they view me as a "humanist." In my view at the time, girls were at least as good as boys, and anyone who didn't believe that should be beaten up. I had no patience for sexism, and I was always trying to find my next favorite heroine.
My first step into relativism came from just such a moment. In fourth grade, a boy at recess loudly proclaimed that girls were dumb, as elementary children in the in the '90s were wont to do. I had just trained myself not to bite my nails, so I used them. Yes. I clawed a boy's arm, drawing blood, to prove that girls weren't dumb. So, he runs to our teacher, and in her infinite wisdom, she makes me a peer mediator. My 10-year-old self thought that it was the most ridiculous move, but years later, I realized her genius. She looked at young me, knowing that I wanted to be teacher, recognizing me as an avid reader, and I once again proved that I care way too much about whatever I'm doing at the time, so she put me in charge of other people's problems. And it worked. From 10 years old, I was actively engaging in seeing all sides of a debate, and finding a way to resolve the gap.
As a survivor of incest, I have had a very...magnified view of the patriarchy. My father made very clear that bodies were negative, unless they were sexualized objects. When he restructured our family, he fundamentally demonstrated to my mom that she was expendable and he was grooming me to be her replacement. He gave lip service to fostering independent thought and education, but undermined any opportunity to truly meet that goal. As soon as we would get vested into something, he would find a reason not to be involved - usually claiming that we have enough money (unless he wanted something, then we had plenty). He would use logic that we couldn't dispute with information that we had available, like when he suggested that I not go to the performing arts high school because I would then have to choose between the violin or creative writing (I later found out that a friend of mine dual majored in creative writing and technical theater), or that I shouldn't attempt the International Baccalaureate program because I should learn how to interact with "normal" people. If I had known then what I know now, I would have told him that I wanted to hide in the Ivory Tower for the rest of my life and that he could suck it. This use of logic and the restructuring of our family, which were central parts of my childhood, inform my current understanding of coercion. The relegation of bodies as negative, unless sexualized in the male gaze, shapes my understanding of body-shaming and the dangers of negative body discourse.
As a pagan, I learned the importance of balance. Masculine and feminine energies exist and display in many forms for many reasons. Neither is innately positive, nor is either innately negative. If either overtakes the other, the resources of the universe are thrown out of balance. Yes, this is very zen, but it's important. Neither is better than the other. We need both types of energy, both types of deity and mythological figures to create a pantheon. And you need variable archetypes in each gender. As a Jungian Pagan, I believe that pantheons and mythology cannot serve their purpose as hyperbole of the human experience without a range of archetypes - and that includes both men and women. Men and women are necessary for magic to work. HOWEVER. I have also experienced a great deal of coercion in paganism, particularly under the guise of "sacred sex." I am, honestly, a huge proponent of Sacred Sex. Using it as a coercive tool taints the meaning of the ritual. Sex is a beautiful, healing, unifying experience, and often invokes in me a religious connection to my body, energy flows, and partner that is almost impossible to emulate. The use of sacred sex ritual to coerce anyone (yes, it happens to men AND women) is debasing of the act itself, insulting to the energy/deity/ritual, and, most importantly, makes the coerced person into nothing more than a ritual object while removing their ability to understand their own magical will. That is not an initiation rite. That is, at best, coerced sex.
In the fetish scene, I learned nuance. There are a lot of very strange lines that exist in fetish circles. You are expected to understand yourself well enough to express your limits, what limits are a bit more "squishy" and which are no-go's, how to indicate when or if those limits change, and to trust your partner(s) in the scene to recognize those changes. That is a lot of trust, in yourself and in other people. There are also more fetishes than I can count, ranging from exceptionally subtle (braided hair, stockings, or particular accents) to taking immense effort in set-up (suspensions, blood letting, scene play, or 24/7 Dominant/Submissive relationships). Experiencing this range of experience, the variable definitions of coercion and abuse, and watching people very dear to me be abused in these situations (and doing all that I can to support them in their recovery), I am now much more sensitive to alternative views of rape, coercion, and fantasy for these experiences.
As a feminist, here are my views, in the best summation that I can offer. I am sex positive. That means that people have the right to explore sexuality however they please, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, including coercion and rape. I am gender positive. That means that everyone has a right to express their gender identity however they please and should not be shamed for it. I believe in gender equality. That means that everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of gender (biological or otherwise). I am a symbolic interactionist, which means that I recognize that the way that we discuss bodies, sex, and gender fundamentally affect how people understand and internalize each of those things. In my understanding of gender equality, that includes an understanding that men can, and are, raped. They are raped not just by other men, but also by women. Just as feminists have worked diligently toward the goal that women could discuss being raped without any more shame than that which came with the event itself, I would see it that men are granted the same opportunity.
These beliefs are relativistic, and I find myself softening around the edges. Fundamentally, though, I have found a center of steel. No, I am not as militant as some of my sisters, but I am dedicated to these goals, and I no longer stand by when I fear that there is something amiss. I cannot change anyone who is not ready, but I will be sure to provide the tools when they are.
As a child (and no, I don't mean "as a teenager." I mean "as a six year old"), I was a militant feminist. If I had clung to the very rigid views and physical responses, I would today be called a FemiNazi, instead of my friends insisting that they view me as a "humanist." In my view at the time, girls were at least as good as boys, and anyone who didn't believe that should be beaten up. I had no patience for sexism, and I was always trying to find my next favorite heroine.
My first step into relativism came from just such a moment. In fourth grade, a boy at recess loudly proclaimed that girls were dumb, as elementary children in the in the '90s were wont to do. I had just trained myself not to bite my nails, so I used them. Yes. I clawed a boy's arm, drawing blood, to prove that girls weren't dumb. So, he runs to our teacher, and in her infinite wisdom, she makes me a peer mediator. My 10-year-old self thought that it was the most ridiculous move, but years later, I realized her genius. She looked at young me, knowing that I wanted to be teacher, recognizing me as an avid reader, and I once again proved that I care way too much about whatever I'm doing at the time, so she put me in charge of other people's problems. And it worked. From 10 years old, I was actively engaging in seeing all sides of a debate, and finding a way to resolve the gap.
As a survivor of incest, I have had a very...magnified view of the patriarchy. My father made very clear that bodies were negative, unless they were sexualized objects. When he restructured our family, he fundamentally demonstrated to my mom that she was expendable and he was grooming me to be her replacement. He gave lip service to fostering independent thought and education, but undermined any opportunity to truly meet that goal. As soon as we would get vested into something, he would find a reason not to be involved - usually claiming that we have enough money (unless he wanted something, then we had plenty). He would use logic that we couldn't dispute with information that we had available, like when he suggested that I not go to the performing arts high school because I would then have to choose between the violin or creative writing (I later found out that a friend of mine dual majored in creative writing and technical theater), or that I shouldn't attempt the International Baccalaureate program because I should learn how to interact with "normal" people. If I had known then what I know now, I would have told him that I wanted to hide in the Ivory Tower for the rest of my life and that he could suck it. This use of logic and the restructuring of our family, which were central parts of my childhood, inform my current understanding of coercion. The relegation of bodies as negative, unless sexualized in the male gaze, shapes my understanding of body-shaming and the dangers of negative body discourse.
As a pagan, I learned the importance of balance. Masculine and feminine energies exist and display in many forms for many reasons. Neither is innately positive, nor is either innately negative. If either overtakes the other, the resources of the universe are thrown out of balance. Yes, this is very zen, but it's important. Neither is better than the other. We need both types of energy, both types of deity and mythological figures to create a pantheon. And you need variable archetypes in each gender. As a Jungian Pagan, I believe that pantheons and mythology cannot serve their purpose as hyperbole of the human experience without a range of archetypes - and that includes both men and women. Men and women are necessary for magic to work. HOWEVER. I have also experienced a great deal of coercion in paganism, particularly under the guise of "sacred sex." I am, honestly, a huge proponent of Sacred Sex. Using it as a coercive tool taints the meaning of the ritual. Sex is a beautiful, healing, unifying experience, and often invokes in me a religious connection to my body, energy flows, and partner that is almost impossible to emulate. The use of sacred sex ritual to coerce anyone (yes, it happens to men AND women) is debasing of the act itself, insulting to the energy/deity/ritual, and, most importantly, makes the coerced person into nothing more than a ritual object while removing their ability to understand their own magical will. That is not an initiation rite. That is, at best, coerced sex.
In the fetish scene, I learned nuance. There are a lot of very strange lines that exist in fetish circles. You are expected to understand yourself well enough to express your limits, what limits are a bit more "squishy" and which are no-go's, how to indicate when or if those limits change, and to trust your partner(s) in the scene to recognize those changes. That is a lot of trust, in yourself and in other people. There are also more fetishes than I can count, ranging from exceptionally subtle (braided hair, stockings, or particular accents) to taking immense effort in set-up (suspensions, blood letting, scene play, or 24/7 Dominant/Submissive relationships). Experiencing this range of experience, the variable definitions of coercion and abuse, and watching people very dear to me be abused in these situations (and doing all that I can to support them in their recovery), I am now much more sensitive to alternative views of rape, coercion, and fantasy for these experiences.
As a feminist, here are my views, in the best summation that I can offer. I am sex positive. That means that people have the right to explore sexuality however they please, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, including coercion and rape. I am gender positive. That means that everyone has a right to express their gender identity however they please and should not be shamed for it. I believe in gender equality. That means that everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of gender (biological or otherwise). I am a symbolic interactionist, which means that I recognize that the way that we discuss bodies, sex, and gender fundamentally affect how people understand and internalize each of those things. In my understanding of gender equality, that includes an understanding that men can, and are, raped. They are raped not just by other men, but also by women. Just as feminists have worked diligently toward the goal that women could discuss being raped without any more shame than that which came with the event itself, I would see it that men are granted the same opportunity.
These beliefs are relativistic, and I find myself softening around the edges. Fundamentally, though, I have found a center of steel. No, I am not as militant as some of my sisters, but I am dedicated to these goals, and I no longer stand by when I fear that there is something amiss. I cannot change anyone who is not ready, but I will be sure to provide the tools when they are.
A very interesting and enlightening read.
ReplyDelete