To the best of my abilities I can only explain how verbal racism and homophobia have become recognized as forms of oppression while sexism is not by knowing that theoretically half of black people are male and half of gay people are male but 100% of women are women, and that’s what makes the difference.

What I would like to do is point out a phenomenon that I don’t think anyone has alluded to yet: the fact that racism, anti-Semitism and almost any other “ism” that you can point to almost inevitably involves the feminization/emasculation of the other, specifically of the male other. So, during the 12th century and well up until the 17th–I think I have my dates right–the church held to the belief that Jewish men menstruated. I don’t need to detail the ways in which white supremacy consistently and purposefully works to emasculate Black men (which is not so different, in many ways, from how Jewish men were treated in Europe well into the 19th century), or the ways in which east Asian men are consistently seen as somehow inherently, essentially feminine–the list goes on–and I also think it’s important to point out that this feminization does not only happen when it’s white men who are the privileged class. In South Korea, when I lived there, Filipino men were construed as feminine. In Iran, where my wife is from, you hear it–or at least I have heard it in jokes her family sometimes makes–about ethnic Turks. What this phenomenon suggests to me is that gender oppression, or at least gender discrimination, is somehow fundamental to the overall social-psychology of oppression in ways that are important to recognize, and I think that is different from arguing which oppression came first.

Perhaps it needs a top level post of its own?

Very good idea. I was about to post a ‘let’s not talk about this here’ message, but I see I was scooped.

—Myca

As a fellow pervert :), I have to strongly disagree with your rejection of the idea that BDSM practice should be subject to radical feminist analysis (cicely, your position seems more nuanced than Myca’s blanket rejection, but I still find it problematic).

The fact that sexual preference is largely not subject to conscious control does not mean it shouldn’t be examined critically. The fact that one can both be a feminist and have BDSM desires (and practices) does not mean that one’s BDSM practice and desire is positively compatible with one’s feminism (one can also be an asshole and a feminist, or a professional torturer and a feminist, so coexistence doesn’t equal validation).

Likewise, that BDSM does not consist of a trivial replication of men oppressing women does not mean that it is unconnected to patriarchy.

While it is possible to have specific meaningful discussions of the basis of the eroticization of power without referencing patriarchal domination, I think that refusing to talk about the relationship between eroticization of power and patriarchal domination (or rejecting such arguments as naive) is crippling to a full understanding of either.

I think treating sexuality as something that just is is a mistake, and I think that trying to understand sexuality under patriarchy while ignoring that the sexuality under discussion exists under patriarchy is a mistake. I also think that recognizing that BDSM sexuality is constructed under patriarchy is not a simply blanket condemnation of BDSM sexuality, particularly not in comparison to unconsidered vanilla sexuality, which is (obviously) also constructed under patriarchy. While it is possible to work to reconstruct one’s sexuality in a direction that is oppositional towards patriarchy (and I think that Safe/Sane/Consensual BDSM is to some extent such an effort), I think that to do so requires recognizing the relationships between one’s sexuality and patriarchal oppression.

Incidentally, my own views on my own sexuality are (strangely enough) strongly influenced by Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (originally by osmosis in the late 80’s, but when I actually read it a few years back I was impressed with how strong the osmosis had been), so I feel strongly that radical feminism can provide useful tools for understanding BDSM sexuality in terms that are more complex than “BDSM is bad”.

cicely, I realize that you commented that you were not trying to start this conversation here, but I think it might be an interesting one. Perhaps it needs a top level post of its own? Amp expressed to me a willingness to have such a top level post, if you and Myca would be interested in going into these questions further.

[and on a total side note, cicely, your substitution of 'eccs' for 'x' is reminding me very strongly of the Farscape character Aeryn Sun in the virtual reality game episode in which Aeryn is portraying the princess at the top of the tower and is doing a ridiculous fake southern belle accent. Which marks me as very much a geek.]

A deliberate choice to play out a power imbalance in the bedroom isn’t the same thing is perpetuating a power imbalance outside of it. Maybe it’s just that I think of sexual/romantic relationships as something “different.” It’s just how we are. We’re attracted to who we’re attracted to. We get off how we get off. Our kinks are our kinks.

Yes, Myca, I think along those lines as well. I’m not ready to concede that anyone on the planet has the complete answer to the question ‘why is the eroticisation of power so pervasive in human seccsuality?’, and certainly not adherents to any political ideology, even one that I consider myself in harmony with on more than a few issues. I guess I’m just not big on foregone conclusions. I prefer to keep asking questions, especially about other peoples lives and eccsperiences.

In any case, it is not impossible for an individual to work in a battered womens shelter, campaign for better childcare facilities, a more even distribution between the seccses of wealth in society, whatever - i.e make a significant practical contribution to the betterment of womens lives, then go home (or somewhere) and engage in consensual d/s seccsual activity! These things are not mutually eccsclusive.

I think between your last post, and your great post on feminist activism vs theory, you’ve extrapolated what I was (at least) looking for nicely. Thanks.

Violet’s answer at least confirmed for me that my understanding of the why was coming from the same place.

However I’d still like to see a more detailed discussion around what is gained by way of analysis from asserting the primacy of female oppression. I want to make it clear I’m not challenging it - I think it’s just as valid as claiming racism is the first - but I think we might all gain a better understanding of how that assertion of the primacy of female oppression informs radical feminist thinking. Sticking it out there as an abstract principle I don’t think gives enough insight - a practical explanation of its application, and what was gained, I think might be more helpful.

With regard to Heart’s first paragraph which is causing the most controversey, I read it and 1) disagreed with it based on my own knowledge and 2) couldn’t for the life of me see how it was pertinent to the following couple of paragraphs outlining the primacy of female oppression. So while I disagree with it, I don’t see it in any way negating the argument that follows.

I agree with the first of the two big ideas, that removing legal barriers won’t be enough - we need to confront core values of patriarchal culture - but I find the eccspression of some RF ideology…feels like closing doors to other possibilities rather that opening them.

cicely, I agree with you, and others who have made a similar point — which is why I followed by saying:

My point is that the question of origins…is an evolving discussion that can and should be separated from the analytical insights that radical feminism offers about the world we live in today.

It’s a historical fact that the insights of radfem came bundled with a theory about historical origins, but we need to keep the one and place the other in the “TBD” category. The origins of sexism and its relation to other forms of oppression is an open question — hell, I’ve worked on it most of my life. I’ve always embraced radical feminism (most of it) while reserving judgment on the associated historical theory.

I’ve never worried too much about labeling myself, but in my own mind I think of what I do as “deep-structure” feminism, rather than “radical.”

Remember the state police who were stopping Black men and women who carpooled voters to the polls who were cited or harassed for driving a taxi without a license? Black men and women arrested or threatened with arrest at polling places and in their homes, not to mention the latest “investigation” of alleged voters fraud where these “investigators” went into the homes of mostly elderly Black voters to harass them. Macines that spit out ballots with errors on them in White precincts, yet swallow up similar ballots in Black precincts. And the list goes on….

Do they bomb people’s houses if they try to vote, or lynch them in large numbers? No, because they don’t have to do that to chill or intimidate people from voting.

Has the party that has relied on their political support done anything to address this racism? Of course not. They just want Black men and women including elected officials to sit down and shut up.

We should have analysis of violence against women, as well as analysis of violence against Blacks, through police brutality.

A good book that addresses this is Policing the National Body, an anthology of issues involving the criminal justice system and women of color.

In LE, there is certainly sexist attitudes against women, but more so especially intertwined with racism, against Black women(although White women get treated accordingly, when associated with Black men, i.e. during racial profiling stops.). Black women are also viewed as being a threat in ways that White women are not, regardless of class(though class does play a role). Black women have been shot dozens of times by officers while in medical distress, holding a cellphone and other similiar situations. Black women of all classes are subjected to racial profiling, while walking or driving in vehicles(or even by being passengers especially if they are with White men). Black and Latino women are subjected to more racist and sexist slurs. There’s a situation in my city involving that problem right now.

Often these behaviors against Black women and men are done with the intent to benefit White women and men in the guise of providing safer neighborhoods in cities. And the behavior of police officers towards Black men impacts Black women as well, who are relatives or in relationships with Black men. Some of the “tough on crime” programs espoused by many White women even feminists have had devastating impacts on men and women of color particularly Black men and women b/c they are so weighted in favor of Whites in their applications. There’s a saying: Serve and protect White neighborhoods by policing Black and Latino neighborhoods.

She said we first have to ask ‘Where does omnipresent male dominance come from?’ I replied that we only have to ask that question first if we’ve already decided that male dominance is the answer to ‘my’ question.

Right, Cicely. Honestly, anytime I encounter someone who wants to condemn all BDSM because they’re viewing it all through the lens of male dominance/female submission, it’s hard for me to take them seriously even a little.

It’s not even that I get angry or hostile, it’s just that I pretty much recognize that they’re coming from a place of deep and blinding ignorance and stereotype. “Oh, that’s so cute. You saw a TV show once that mentioned BDSM and now you think you know what you’re taking about? Awww.”

I don’t know whether my circle of friends are representative of BDSM as a whole or not, but I do know that among us there are Mdom/Fsub couples, Fdom/Msub couples, Fdom/Fsub couples, Mdom/Msub couples, switch couples, bisexual couples, bisexual switch couples, triads in which a man is submissive to his wife but dominant with another man, couples who are mostly vanilla with each other but dominant if they bring an outsider in to play, etc, etc, etc . . . Hell, right here on this board, we’ve had me, a switch male and Thomas, a submissive male (correct me if I’m wrong, Thomas) as two men discussing BDSM. Neither of us conform to the stereotype.

I guess my point is that to call BDSM a representation of male dominance and female submission is both 1) factually inaccurate in the huge and important number of cases where there aren’t any women, aren’t any men, aren’t two people, the woman isn’t submissive, or the man isn’t dominant, and 2) it seems to miss the point even in the cases where it’s not factually inaccurate on the face of it.

What I mean by #2 is that . . . well . . . hmm . . . look, I don’t think that gay male relationships are sexist because they exclude women. In fact, I lose respect for people who make that argument. I don’t think that a relationship between two white people is racist because it excludes black people. Once again, I would lose respect for anyone who make that argument. For me, BDSM is the same thing.

“Excluding women” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding women outside of it. “Excluding black people” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding black people out of it. A deliberate choice to play out a power imbalance in the bedroom isn’t the same thing is perpetuating a power imbalance outside of it. Maybe it’s just that I think of sexual/romantic relationships as something “different.” It’s just how we are. We’re attracted to who we’re attracted to. We get off how we get off. Our kinks are our kinks.

—Myca

I find the whole “seccual eccspression” thing rather charming, actually.

:o)

I see all kinds of gains made in combatting sexism and racism, and then (discouragingly) all sorts of mutations of sexism and racism reappearing. What kind of actions will bring about real, lasting change? What kind of “fight” is this? To what extent are we working against natural instincts? (And, as I implied earlier, in what ways can natural instincts be in favor of feminism or anti-racism?) Another question is - when will we know the fight is over? Does it require “eternal vigilance”, so to speak? (I suspect it does, unfortunately.)

Another poster mentioned the idea that radical feminism has to do with attacking sexism at its roots. This concept makes the most sense to me.

Oddly enough, that definition almost seems too encompassing! I mean, what non-misogynist wouldn’t want to see the roots of sexism eliminated?

Really enjoying the discussion, and see good points made on all aspects.

Perhaps a missing piece of the puzzle is -*why* do radical feminists consider it important to acknowledge (suspend disbelief for a second if you need to) that the oppression came first & is the root of all other oppressions?

I don’t know the answer to this myself, and hope others here have some thoughts.

Myriad, I thought you were asking ‘why do radical feminists ‘want’ it to be acknowledged that the oppression of women came first?’ This is something I’d like to hear more about because when you asked the question I was reminded of a discussion I once had with a radical feminist about seccsuality. (still no letter ‘eccs’ on keyboard - sorry if this is getting irritating, I’ll get a new one soon…) A debate was going on about BDSM or even just d/s in general, and practioners of same were being challenged on the grounds that this was harmful to all women. I suggested that if the radical feminists didn’t start from the accusatory position that these women were doing wrong, we could begin by asking a not so loaded question like ‘why is the eroticisation of power so pervasive in human seccsuality?’ The radical feminist said it was a good question but that it had ‘its’ loading through omission. She said we first have to ask ‘Where does omnipresent male dominance come from?’ I replied that we only have to ask that question first if we’ve already decided that male dominance is the answer to ‘my’ question.

Anyway, I was getting the feeling that if I didn’t agree that ‘where does male dominance come from?’ was the starting point, I couldn’t have a conversation with this woman. At least I could only have one on her terms, and it was actually a ‘different’ conversation than the one I was wanting to have. (But which I’m not trying to start here…)

Violet Socks wrote that one of the two big ideas radical feminism encompasses is that the oppression of women is the root oppression in human society. So I’m guessing lots of conversation is probably jammed or cut off there as in my eccsperience in this particular case.

I agree with the first of the two big ideas, that removing legal barriers won’t be enough - we need to confront core values of patriarchal culture - but I find the eccspression of some RF ideology (if that’s the right word here), when it operates like this, feels like closing doors to other possibilities rather that opening them.

As to whether sexism is more important than racism, I suppose that depends on whether you are a victim or student of one, the other or both. Is it suggested that the conquest or understanding of sexism would entail the conquest or understanding of racism?