Only Children

[mistersloane]

To be fair, my lot did have Audre Lorde.

Audre Lourde is fucking brilliant.

 

[nomadthethird]

Are you sure Audre Lourde wrote that? It sounds like one of Zhao's new age headtrips.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I simply pointed out that matriarchal cultures--which are more common in non-Western societies--have lower incidence of rape, abuse, sexual inequality, sexual double standards, etc. This is just an anthropological finding, feel free to look it up if you like. It's not some kind of mystical center. Just a model that we can look to for clues on how to move away from the mess we're in now.

Where are these matriarchal societies, though? A lot of "non-Western" societies leave us in the dust when it comes to being patriarchal. Do I need to mention parts of Africa where women are routinely raped in their tens of thousands as a tactic of war, or Iran where a rape can result in brutal corporal punishment for the victim? Mass female infanticide/abortion in India, China...?

There may be groups tucked away here and there that are in some sense matriarchal, but I'd guess they probably form minorities even in their native countries.

Having said that, I'm sure one of the smaller African republics has a parliament made up mostly of women, though I've forgotten which one...ring a bell, anyone?

Edit: I hate posting things like this because it always makes me feel like I'm going to be seen as some kind of cheerleader for the Great and Wonderful West...fuck knows, the developed world causes enough problems for itself and for other countries too, I just think it's important not to get beguiled by Orientalism. Though in fairness nomad did say "matriarchal cultures--which are more common in non-Western societies...", not "non-Western = matriarchal". If she could post some concrete examples, that would great.

 

[mistersloane]

Having said that, I'm sure one of the smaller African republics has a parliament made up mostly of women, though I've forgotten which one...ring a bell, anyone?

That's Rwanda

 

[nomadthethird]

Where are these matriarchal societies, though? A lot of "non-Western" societies leave us in the dust when it comes to being patriarchal. Do I need to mention parts of Africa where women are routinely raped in their tens of thousands as a tactic of war, or Iran where a rape can result in brutal corporal punishment for the victim? Mass female infanticide/abortion in India, China...?

There may be groups tucked away here and there that are in some sense matriarchal, but I'd guess they probably form minorities even in their native countries.

Having said that, I'm sure one of the smaller African republics has a parliament made up mostly of women, though I've forgotten which one...ring a bell, anyone?

Edit: I hate posting things like this because it always makes me feel like I'm going to be seen as some kind of cheerleader for the Great and Wonderful West...fuck knows, the developed world causes enough problems for itself and for other countries too, I just think it's important not to get beguiled by Orientalism. Though in fairness nomad did say "matriarchal cultures--which are more common in non-Western societies...", not "non-Western = matriarchal". If she could post some concrete examples, that would great.

Yes, of course, there are patriarchal societies in the East, too.

So what's your point?

 

[nomadthethird]

Here, Mr. Tea. I have class soon, I don't have time to wade through 500 page textbook pulling out examples of matriarchal societies. A google search should suffice.

Lourde might well be brilliant, but you wouldn't know it from that chapter. That was some Oprah book club caliber inanity, right there.

You might want to pathologize anyone who desires or gets off differently from you, and that's your prerogative. But sexuality, by definition, is based on the deepest psychological needs a person has. Lourde's continuous assertions that her own sense of sexual euphoria and the feelings it is based on are more "erotic", more "true", more "real", and "deeper" than everyone else's is just plain nonsense.

In my group therapy, there was a woman who had a very hard time trusting people, especially in her sex life but also in general. She did not have a long term partner, and found all sorts of ways to avoid getting mixed up in a relationship. But where did this come from? Was it because she was shallow and fake and merely seeking inauthentic "sensations"? No. Her mother had set her on fire when she was 3 years old. Her step-father and brothers raped her on a daily basis for years. This person has very deep feelings associated with her sexuality--like we all do--they're simply different from yours. She was stuck in a cycle of repetition compulsion, as is common in abuse victims. This, though, was a good sign: it meant she was at least trying to break through and grow out of her regressed patterns.

Sexual dysphoria is as authentic as sexual euphoria, and the feelings associated with ANY person's sexuality are deep, real, and as authentic as anyone else's.

 

[grizzleb]

You ignoring me?

 

[nomadthethird]

Sorry, no. Just busy.

Matriarchal simply means a form of society that a) is not centered around monotheism, b) does not exclude women from prominent positions of power, c) has no history of oppressing women and excluding them from landownership, priesthood, scholarship, etc., d) where women are considered sexual agents and often seen as the dominant partner in a sexual relationship (in direct contrast to our patriarchal view that women are always already dominated by men), and probably a few other traits I'm not remembering at the moment.

Our culture is nowhere near "matriarchal", although strides have been made away from traditional patriarchy.

You can look up the terms online, you'll find lots of info.

 

[grizzleb]

Here, Mr. Tea. I have class soon, I don't have time to wade through 500 page textbook pulling out examples of matriarchal societies. A google search should suffice.

Lourde might well be brilliant, but you wouldn't know it from that chapter. That was some Oprah book club caliber inanity, right there.

You might want to pathologize anyone who desires or gets off differently from you, and that's your prerogative. But sexuality, by definition, is based on the deepest psychological needs a person has. Lourde's continuous assertions that her own sense of sexual euphoria and the feelings it is based on are more "erotic", more "true", more "real", and "deeper" than everyone else's is just plain nonsense.

In my group therapy, there was a woman who had a very hard time trusting people, especially in her sex life but also in general. She did not have a long term partner, and found all sorts of ways to avoid getting mixed up in a relationship. But where did this come from? Was it because she was shallow and fake and merely seeking inauthentic "sensations"? No. Her mother had set her on fire when she was 3 years old. Her step-father and brothers raped her on a daily basis for years. This person has very deep feelings associated with her sexuality--like we all do--they're simply different from yours. She was stuck in a cycle of repetition compulsion, as is common in abuse victims. This, though, was a good sign: it meant she was at least trying to break through and grow out of her regressed patterns.

Sexual dysphoria is as authentic as sexual euphoria, and the feelings associated with ANY person's sexuality are deep, real, and as authentic as anyone else's.

Right, because there isn't a 'neutral' sexual position/seat in the first instance. If you exist as a sexual being there is an element of it that is constructed by your experience and impressions in childhood or so on - whether you are what we would call 'well adjusted' or a 'nymphomaniac' or whatever, there's always an element of it that is fixed based on experiences. What should be aimed at is your sexuality being something that does not pose any major problems for you/ people around you/ something you are comfortable with...

 

[grizzleb]

Sorry, no. Just busy.

Matriarchal simply means a form of society that a) is not centered around monotheism, b) does not exclude women from prominent positions of power, c) has no history of oppressing women and excluding them from landownership, priesthood, scholarship, etc., d) where women are considered sexual agents and often seen as the dominant partner in a sexual relationship (in direct contrast to our patriarchal view that women are always already dominated by men), and probably a few other traits I'm not remembering at the moment.

Our culture is nowhere near "matriarchal", although strides have been made away from traditional patriarchy.

You can look up the terms online, you'll find lots of info.

I dunno, I guess the reason all that bothers me is again that it sets one sex above the other, (a move towards the female as dominant partner). A move towards that is just another step in the sexual war of attritition that's been going on forever. it benifits no-one for half of everyone to feel aggrieved. I don't really benefit in any sense from my society being 'patriarchical' in origin, so why do many women still fell aggrieved? When most people of both sexes say that things should basically be equal?

 

[nomadthethird]

I dunno, I guess the reason all that bothers me is again that it sets one sex above the other, (a move towards the female as dominant partner). A move towards that is just another step in the sexual war of attritition that's been going on forever. it benifits no-one for half of everyone to feel aggrieved. I don't really benefit in any sense from my society being 'patriarchical' in origin, so why do many women still fell aggrieved? When most people of both sexes say that things should basically be equal?

You're still missing the point. The point is not to move to a literal structural governmental matriarchy. The point of looking at matriarchy (and the reasons why rape is less common there, sexual equality is more easily achieved politically, and such) is as a point of reference, a place to take cues from regarding what works from within that model. We can simply discard whatever doesn't work (no need to favor women over men in government, say.)

Nobody's saying women should be 'dominant', just that we should go back to a sort of matriarchal stance on female sexual power--i.e. that it's as real and potent as male sexual power, that women can act sexually, that women are not simply fantasms or apparitions of the male gaze, etc.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Here, Mr. Tea. I have class soon, I don't have time to wade through 500 page textbook pulling out examples of matriarchal societies. A google search should suffice.

Well I wasn't after an exhaustive list, I just thought you might be able to point to one particular (extant) group.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Nobody's saying women should be 'dominant', just that we should go back to a sort of matriarchal stance on female sexual power--i.e. that it's as real and potent as male sexual power, that women can act sexually, that women are not simply fantasms or apparitions of the male gaze, etc.

Is it really the case that female sexual power, as you put it, is not recognised? I mean, look at how many sex toys are marketed at women, condoms with ribs or dots 'for her pleasure', all kinds of pills, potions, lotions, lubes...

...or is there some problem here with the degree of commercialisation? But it's hardly as if male sexuality is not commercialised (porn, anyone?).

 

[poetix]

What is sexual power? I've never really correlated sex with power - for me, power formats sex according to its imperatives, not the other way around. So when people talk about female sexual power, are they talking about female power over sex - control of the institutions and discourses that determine how sexual experience is formatted? Or are they talking about some way of being powerful that arises from one's sexual being?

Audre Lorde says that eros is a source of power because it unifies experience, connecting sensual experience with the most deeply felt reserves of selfhood. Eros associates and connects what power puts asunder; it is an impulse towards integrity. (This notion runs counter to the sexual pessimist tradition according to which sexuality disturbs and destroys integrity). It is a wellspring of agency because it knits together a self-being that possesses the integrity necessary for action, and because it is a source of (practical rather than theoretical) self-knowledge. In this view, whatever disrupts integrity and promotes dissociation is antithetical to eros, and weakens agency. This is a concept of "female sexual power" that is concerned with overcoming the forces that fragment and dislocate women's selfhood. It is closely related to the rhetoric of Black national liberation (Fanon, for example), which regarded colonial occupation and exploitation as promoting the division and dis-integration of whole societies as a deliberate strategy for weakening resistance.

How might one talk about "sexual power" - male of female - without recourse to this metaphorics of unity and disunity?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

That's Rwanda

tho tbf it's not a parliament of "mostly women", it is 45/35 in a parliament of 80. actually, there is a law in the Rwandan constitution which guarantees 30% of the seats in parliament to women. that makeup also - I believe - somewhat accurately represents the gender ratio of Rwanda, which is a better higher female to male than the world norm as a result of many men & boys having been killed in the genocide or the last 15 years of on/off wars that followed (women as well of course, just not as many).

also, I haven't followed this entire debate but, Mr. Tea, I'm not sure you quite have a grasp on what the term "Orientalism" entails. matriarchal societies, it depends on what you mean by that. I don't think there have been many that were dominated by women in the way that cultures have been ruled by men but there are plenty of examples where things were more even - where women held some kind of power whether it is/was through lineage, property ownership, religious or political authority, etc. The Iroquois are an example I can think of off the top of my head, tho certainly there are many more. tho that's also not say that matriarchal societies are 1) common or 2) necessarily "better" than those run by men.

I don't really benefit in any sense from my society being 'patriarchical' in origin

are you serious man? you're far less likely to be attacked, especially to be the victim of rape or spousal abuse. there are numerous professions you'll find it relatively easier to go into, & you're more likely to be better paid once you do. you're also far less likely to suffer from sexual harassment at work. I could go on, but what's the point? it's true that the patriarchy isn't as clear cut in the modern world as it likely would be in a society being studied by an anthropologist but it's pretty laughable nonsense to say it don't exist or that it have enormous impact. come on now.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

just that we should go back to a sort of matriarchal stance on female sexual power

I'm also not a fan of the concept of literal "matriarchy" any more than other inherently unequal arrangement, but that comment (whatever semantics bollocks Poetix wants to get into about the definition of "power" & Fanon & whatever) essentially, as I understand it, it really just means women as agents of their own destinies/sexual agendas.

 

[nomadthethird]

I've never really correlated sex with power

Yes you have, several times in this thread--you've correlated sex with male power over and over. You've never (once, that I've seen, anywhere) correlated this same sort of sexual power with women.

- for me, power formats sex according to its imperatives, not the other way around. So when people talk about female sexual power, are they talking about female power over sex - control of the institutions and discourses that determine how sexual experience is formatted? Or are they talking about some way of being powerful that arises from one's sexual being?

People are talking about the fact that in a vast network or system of exchange, women exist as full sexual subject and agents, to the same extent that men do. Women are desiring producers to exactly the same extent that men are. They are workers in the same desire factory men work in. Some might think this type of agency doesn't extend very far even for men; fine. I'd disagree, because I don't think desire is predicated on a lack, but that it's always implicated in "constructive" projects (some very difficult to understand or parse, yes, definitely). Ultimately, the impetus behind talking about female sexual power (women as desiring producers within desiring machines) is based on a wish to reverse the believe/insistence that women are "not sexual subjects", as some psychoanalysts who shall remain nameless have suggested (and which has been the dogmatic refrain of paleo-feminists since the 50s.)

Audre Lorde says that eros is a source of power because it unifies experience, connecting sensual experience with the most deeply felt reserves of selfhood. Eros associates and connects what power puts asunder; it is an impulse towards integrity. (This notion runs counter to the sexual pessimist tradition according to which sexuality disturbs and destroys integrity). It is a wellspring of agency because it knits together a self-being that possesses the integrity necessary for action, and because it is a source of (practical rather than theoretical) self-knowledge. In this view, whatever disrupts integrity and promotes dissociation is antithetical to eros, and weakens agency. This is a concept of "female sexual power" that is concerned with overcoming the forces that fragment and dislocate women's selfhood. It is closely related to the rhetoric of Black national liberation (Fanon, for example), which regarded colonial occupation and exploitation as promoting the division and dis-integration of whole societies as a deliberate strategy for weakening resistance.

Integrity? What? Disconnection? Disconnection from what? Their authentic innercore slash Ursprung of Dasein? Fascism. "Selfhood"? I thought you didn't believe in individuals/individual selves? Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about here and I suspect you don't really either, but it sounds nice, and the sentences are well-written.

How might one talk about "sexual power" - male of female - without recourse to this metaphorics of unity and disunity?

Easily and without complication.

 

[nomadthethird]

tho that's also not say that matriarchal societies are 1) common or 2) necessarily "better" than those run by men.

They are necessarily lower in rape, incest, child abuse, and many other female-victimizing criminal behaviors.

I'm also not a fan of the concept of literal "matriarchy" any more than other inherently unequal arrangement, but that comment (whatever semantics bollocks Poetix wants to get into about the definition of "power" & Fanon & whatever) essentially, as I understand it, it really just means women as agents of their own destinies/sexual agendas.

Yup, exactly. Not difficult to understand, was it?

 

[mistersloane]

Integrity? What? Disconnection? Disconnection from what? Their authentic innercore slash Ursprung of Dasein? Fascism. "Selfhood"? I thought you didn't believe in individuals/individual selves? Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about here and I suspect you don't really either, but it sounds nice, and the sentences are well-written.

I think you're being a bit harsh here. Poetix tried to explain Lourde's worldview admirably and witchily - I certainly couldn't have done that. I think Poetix really did know what they were talking about, however much it might clash, on first read, with stuff. Lourde's stuff is as hermetic as Mary Daly. I recommend the poetry : I used to sit with someone who would read her out loud to me and we would both weep with laughter; no disrespect to Audre; I used to weep with laughter at Plath as well. You have to find your own entertainment without a TV.

 

[nomadthethird]

I think you're being a bit harsh here. Poetix tried to explain Lourde's worldview admirably and witchily - I certainly couldn't have done that. I think Poetix really did know what they were talking about, however much it might clash, on first read, with stuff. Lourde's stuff is as hermetic as Mary Daly. I recommend the poetry : I used to sit with someone who would read her out loud to me and we would both weep with laughter; no disrespect to Audre; I used to weep with laughter at Plath as well. You have to find your own entertainment without a TV.

Well, they were honest questions... I understand Poetix was explicating Lourde's work, but I don't think what she believes passes a cursory "is this similar to Heideggerian crypto-fascism?" test... which is a problem for me. I strongly disagree with what I've read so far of Lourde's worldview, or any worldview centered on a version of "authentic selfhood". I think these kinds of ideas are politically very sinister, when you scratch through the veneer of moralism and grandiloquence.

I think her writing style reminds me of bell hooks or Toni Morrison, so I can see how you'd like her for that.