Maybe it's because I had a rough week regarding my relationships with members of the opposite sex, but I truly enjoyed Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto. Recently, I have had the discussion with my peers regarding the stereotypes our male friends have no problem sharing. My biggest pet-peeve is when I am voicing a dissenting opinion and it is quickly discarded with either me being an "emotional" woman or speculation whether I am on my period. I had always wondered with maybe men were just too simple to have complex thoughts mixed with emotions.
I called several of my friends to read certain exerts from the article. While some liked it, others questioned the article's stance saying it was too dramatic. My experience at Spelman College has shown me two things. Women are very quick to look at both sides of an issue (especially if it pertains to men) and Men have the luxury of enjoying male privilege. I have yet to hear any of my male peers say anything is to sexist or patriarchal. Whether the author truly believes that The male is no longer needed in our society or that he "is a biological accident' (Solanas) is irrelevant to me. I like the play on supposed gender ideologies and supposed gender strengths and weaknesses.
In English I learned about the Freudian concept, meaning that every little girl wishes she could be a boy. However, I remember thinking how great it was I could wear pants, shorts, skirts and dresses while boys could only wear pants or shorts. I liked being a girl because I did not know or understand yet the societal limitations of being a female. The whole can be summed up with the quote, "Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy." The examples of women being able to bear life and why we have vigorous work weeks were intriguing and something I had not really thought about. But why after reading all these progressive and revolutionary thoughts are women focusing on the fairness on how men are portrayed? Is that the forefront issue. Since I too am socialized in this world I started to focus my attention on that "injustice" but I had to stop and think what was the overall message or point of this article. I don't think it was to protect the already overvalued male gender.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
SCUM Manifesto....Whoa!
While reading this manifesto, I couldn't help thinking about what happened to the author to influence her radical views. We all live in patriarchy, and, although I despise it, I have never thought of such extreme measures to end the sexist oppression of women. I couldn't stop trying to decide whether the author is serious, or is she just trying to conjure up a reaction from her audience. Her article, I thought, is one of the reasons why so many people reject feminists. They equate feminism with her line of thinking, but I don't think she is a feminist at all, or at least not the same kind that I am.
Additionally, through this article, she is not advocating to end sexist oppression, she is enforcing it; I don't know who is more sexist: her or the men she speaks of. I think it was Audre Lorde of maybe bell hooks that said, "You can't knock the down the master's house using the master's tools," meaning that you can't involve yourself in the same tactics and practices used by your oppressor in the efforts of trying to fight oppression. I don't think she gets that concept at all!
Additionally, through this article, she is not advocating to end sexist oppression, she is enforcing it; I don't know who is more sexist: her or the men she speaks of. I think it was Audre Lorde of maybe bell hooks that said, "You can't knock the down the master's house using the master's tools," meaning that you can't involve yourself in the same tactics and practices used by your oppressor in the efforts of trying to fight oppression. I don't think she gets that concept at all!
As Dr. Kuumba’s door states… Well behaved women rare make history... SCUM
First let me start off by saying WOW Ms. Valerie Solanas is hostile. I’m feeling that she has some built up tension that explodes in her language on paper. But it made for quite an interesting read whether than having to pull out a dictionary to understand every other word. Breaking it down into many sections from the beginning I got the feeling that Ms. Solanas was taking a look at the current society and imagining what it would be like if “there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.” Please someone who reads this blog make a comment and let me know what you think. Secondly, she goes into how women can now reproduce without having a man and how men are really only “incomplete females, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage.” And that “to be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.” So from jump in a sense I could tell that was going to be that for lack of better words a male bashing article? I got the feeling that she took the idea of what already is in today’s society in which men are the SCUM and she reverses it to what if women were the SCUM.
Ms. Solanas even goes into painting a picture as one reading this could imagine “in a sane society the male would trot along obediently after the female.” Meaning that the male is “docile, and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female ho cares to dominate him” and that the male actually wants to be dominated such as having mommy take care of him from now on. The reason why above I said it seemed as if she were switching the notion of being SCUM because she states that the problem is not between males and females but between SCUM (dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females) and those who are nice, passive, accepting, “cultivated”, polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy’s Girls. Almost as if SCUM were women breaking the “lady like” label society places on women. As a result, SCUM are women waiting for the opportunity to de-brainwash “millions of assholes” and make a change in history of women’s lives by “systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder.” The only purpose of men is to “encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.” In addition to the only way men get to fraternize with women is after a speech announcing in a sense how they are comparable to a piece of shit. I don’t understand that? First they have to reduce themselves completely to be worthy of our womanly essense?!?
For some reason while I was reading the part that starts off “SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking up, and killing until the money-work system…” I thought of Malcolm X and how he was for violence and that it was going to continue until enough people started cooperating until when violence was no longer necessary. But yet in still after all of this as much as now this may be the way I was societally brought up but still we need men just like men need us. We are all entitled to our own opinions; however, what good would it do to objectify and dehumanize men to make a statement about the way we are treated? By doing all this would we really come to see the utter uselessness and banality of the male? And how would we? By being complete liberated women who some are still going to dominate other women just as a man does based upon the hierarchy of society and that some do need to lead and some need to follow based upon the fact that not everyone can be a leader. If everyone was a leader then who would be implementing the leaders ideas to carry them out and make a difference? I’m not saying men need to be the leaders and women the followers. I’m just asking in the end and thinking about it as a whole would eradicating men really be beneficial?
VAGINAL DESTINY??!?!?!
I truly enjoyed The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm. Much of the information expressed was confirmation of tales and facts I had heard over time. I didn’t know “frigidity” was the term used to describe women when they do not reach vaginal orgasm. It was completely understandable that the lack of vaginal orgasm was due, in part, to male partners not taking time to stimulate the clitoris to the point of orgasm AND the mere fact that sexual interactions were/are used to benefit the man in many cases. In another class, I had recently learned that orgasms were greatly encouraged by psychological influences and stimuli. So that was not surprising. The thoughts that we must “redefine our sexuality” (228) in order to properly repair the lack of vaginal orgasms was empowering to me. The charge to “demand that if certain sexual positions now defined as ‘standard’ are not mutually conducive to orgasm, they [can] no longer be defined as standard” (228) was also empowering. I think it is necessary for women to take charge of our bodies and embrace sexuality as an empowering aspect of life and an opportunity to be expressive not silent.
It was interesting to learn that men have always been aware of the clitoris and managed to figure out how to use it for their benefit. Their ability to arouse and lubricate the woman was merely for their assistance in the act of penetration. They had no desire to allow her to completely enjoy the experience…. “Leaving her both aroused and unsatisfied” (229). So sad. Another interesting, and humorous concept, is that of women faking orgasms. Although it is viewed as a form of comedy in Pop- Culture, it was interesting learning why women have been faking for generations. The attempts to stroke the male ego or lore a man into your possession were amongst the top reasons women have been faking for years.
As in every other reading there are areas of concern and confusion for me as the reader. I was appalled when I read the Freudian concepts of vaginal orgasms. His initial thought that “clitoral orgasm was adolescent, and that upon puberty, when women began having intercourse with men, women should transfer the center of orgasm to the vagina” (228)… What on earth?! Transfer?! I was even more appalled with the fact that women were being advised to seek psychological help in order to overcome their “frigidity” (which was a man-made LIE designed to degrade women and weaken their sexuality). And this psychological assistance was meant to help her achieve “natural role as a woman” (228). So now my orgasms somehow determine my womanhood? It further states that this damage to women’s mental health kept them from achieving their “VAGINAL DESTINY”!!!! What on earth!?
It was interesting to learn that men have always been aware of the clitoris and managed to figure out how to use it for their benefit. Their ability to arouse and lubricate the woman was merely for their assistance in the act of penetration. They had no desire to allow her to completely enjoy the experience…. “Leaving her both aroused and unsatisfied” (229). So sad. Another interesting, and humorous concept, is that of women faking orgasms. Although it is viewed as a form of comedy in Pop- Culture, it was interesting learning why women have been faking for generations. The attempts to stroke the male ego or lore a man into your possession were amongst the top reasons women have been faking for years.
As in every other reading there are areas of concern and confusion for me as the reader. I was appalled when I read the Freudian concepts of vaginal orgasms. His initial thought that “clitoral orgasm was adolescent, and that upon puberty, when women began having intercourse with men, women should transfer the center of orgasm to the vagina” (228)… What on earth?! Transfer?! I was even more appalled with the fact that women were being advised to seek psychological help in order to overcome their “frigidity” (which was a man-made LIE designed to degrade women and weaken their sexuality). And this psychological assistance was meant to help her achieve “natural role as a woman” (228). So now my orgasms somehow determine my womanhood? It further states that this damage to women’s mental health kept them from achieving their “VAGINAL DESTINY”!!!! What on earth!?
Monday, February 25, 2008
I disagree but hey its ok lesbian exsistence and continuum
In the article "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" the author Adrienne Rich describes several terms that are of importance to the feminist who are in practice.
Let me first say that this article was a lot for me to handle. I don't really know if its OK to disagree or not but hey I believe that I am entitled to my own opinion. Rich, starts off with talking about heterosexuality as a phenomenon and identifies the sources of male power. While she breaks them down into eight categories;the characteristics of male power. She then continues by defining each characteristic individually in there on way.
This article also brought to my attention two new terms that I was not so familiar with lesbian continuum and lesbian existence. Rich defines lesbian existence to be both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. However, lesbian continuum is a range through each woman's life and throughout history of woman -identified experience, not simply the fact a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with other woman. She then continues to break down these two terms and how the play a role with in today's society. It is interesting to me to know that lesbians existence has been lived without access to many things such as "knowledge of tradition, a continuity, a social underpinning."(p.349)
I found it to be problematic when heterosexuality was thought as the natural emotional and sensual inclination for women. I mean yes, I do understand that as people we do not have the right to say what is natural and what is not but heterosexuality is NATURAL. Natural in the form that no matter how bad a homosexual couple try to have a children they have to include the opposite sex. Ex: A woman and a woman would have to get sperm from a sperm bank and insert it through their vagina, although, when it comes to men they can either impregnate a woman or adopt a child to have children I do not believe that heterosexuality has been both forcibly and subliminally imposed on women , I feel that women have the choice as to if they want to be a lesbian or not. Homosexuality is defined to me as a spirit it is just like a jacket for example you have a choice to zip a coat or not or perhaps button it or not. This is how I view homosexuality you can either become a lesbian and later decide that you no longer want to live this life style or live as a lesbian with discrimination that society brings to the LGBT community.
When I had reached the part in the article about marriage Rich describes marriage for women to be a form of comfort in order to survive economically and having children who would not suffer economic deprivation in order to do what was expected of women. For children it would be hard to come out in abnormal childhoods now why would it be called abnormal if it was not? It is not that heterosexual romance has been represented as a great female adventure it is just normal and natural. I don't know if its even fair to say that sex with men is one sense of escape from bedrock misery. NO! it is not that women need men as social and economic protectors only it is also away for reproduction in society.
Black women have found it to be difficult to be excepted as a lesbian because they feel that they have two things going against them being black and a woman are already two things that makes them an outsider. It is still another "hated identity" that is problematic indeed.(p.353) It was funny to me how Rich mentions that women turning to women out of
hatred for men was something that was found to be lie. I would have to disagree with that thought often times yes some women find that they are "born a lesbian" or they grow up feeling this way. Another common way is when men have mistreated a women by breaking their "heart" by cheating, sexual abuse,rape, or even verbal abuse do they then find that to be the turning point in their lives. When I say turning point I mean going from dick to strictly pussy. However, was it that they were always gay or lesbian and were living in this closed box for society to except them? Or were they really heterosexual and got fed up with that one guy that made them change their mind to hating all men and decided to be with women? "There is not statistical documentation of the numbers of lesbians who have remained in heterosexual marriages for most of their lives."(p.352) I see it as self hatred just like racism in some cases, how in some situations black people choose to only date light skin black people and nothing else they have a hatred within themselves that causes them to think within this mindset. But hey this is what I feel about this whole lesbian existence and lesbian continuum its an opinion, my opinion and that's enough to make it valid and natural "so I take me as I am or have nothing at all".
Let me first say that this article was a lot for me to handle. I don't really know if its OK to disagree or not but hey I believe that I am entitled to my own opinion. Rich, starts off with talking about heterosexuality as a phenomenon and identifies the sources of male power. While she breaks them down into eight categories;the characteristics of male power. She then continues by defining each characteristic individually in there on way.
This article also brought to my attention two new terms that I was not so familiar with lesbian continuum and lesbian existence. Rich defines lesbian existence to be both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. However, lesbian continuum is a range through each woman's life and throughout history of woman -identified experience, not simply the fact a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with other woman. She then continues to break down these two terms and how the play a role with in today's society. It is interesting to me to know that lesbians existence has been lived without access to many things such as "knowledge of tradition, a continuity, a social underpinning."(p.349)
I found it to be problematic when heterosexuality was thought as the natural emotional and sensual inclination for women. I mean yes, I do understand that as people we do not have the right to say what is natural and what is not but heterosexuality is NATURAL. Natural in the form that no matter how bad a homosexual couple try to have a children they have to include the opposite sex. Ex: A woman and a woman would have to get sperm from a sperm bank and insert it through their vagina, although, when it comes to men they can either impregnate a woman or adopt a child to have children I do not believe that heterosexuality has been both forcibly and subliminally imposed on women , I feel that women have the choice as to if they want to be a lesbian or not. Homosexuality is defined to me as a spirit it is just like a jacket for example you have a choice to zip a coat or not or perhaps button it or not. This is how I view homosexuality you can either become a lesbian and later decide that you no longer want to live this life style or live as a lesbian with discrimination that society brings to the LGBT community.
When I had reached the part in the article about marriage Rich describes marriage for women to be a form of comfort in order to survive economically and having children who would not suffer economic deprivation in order to do what was expected of women. For children it would be hard to come out in abnormal childhoods now why would it be called abnormal if it was not? It is not that heterosexual romance has been represented as a great female adventure it is just normal and natural. I don't know if its even fair to say that sex with men is one sense of escape from bedrock misery. NO! it is not that women need men as social and economic protectors only it is also away for reproduction in society.
Black women have found it to be difficult to be excepted as a lesbian because they feel that they have two things going against them being black and a woman are already two things that makes them an outsider. It is still another "hated identity" that is problematic indeed.(p.353) It was funny to me how Rich mentions that women turning to women out of
hatred for men was something that was found to be lie. I would have to disagree with that thought often times yes some women find that they are "born a lesbian" or they grow up feeling this way. Another common way is when men have mistreated a women by breaking their "heart" by cheating, sexual abuse,rape, or even verbal abuse do they then find that to be the turning point in their lives. When I say turning point I mean going from dick to strictly pussy. However, was it that they were always gay or lesbian and were living in this closed box for society to except them? Or were they really heterosexual and got fed up with that one guy that made them change their mind to hating all men and decided to be with women? "There is not statistical documentation of the numbers of lesbians who have remained in heterosexual marriages for most of their lives."(p.352) I see it as self hatred just like racism in some cases, how in some situations black people choose to only date light skin black people and nothing else they have a hatred within themselves that causes them to think within this mindset. But hey this is what I feel about this whole lesbian existence and lesbian continuum its an opinion, my opinion and that's enough to make it valid and natural "so I take me as I am or have nothing at all".
SCUM...it's a good thing!
I’m sure many of my peers will agree that S.C.U.M by Valerie Solanas was quite the comical page turner. I couldn’t help but feel somewhat disappointed when I realized I was on the last page of the text.
One of Solanas’ points for this text I can only imagine is to empower women. “And, if a large majority of women were SCUM, they could acquire complete control of this country within a few weeks…The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn’t squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it’s made up of people they are utterly helpless without”. What is so frightening about this statement is that it is absolutely true. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. I think that should be said again. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. The idea of patriarchy was created to prevent women from realizing that. Women = Power.
Another interesting concept I pulled out of S.C.U.M was Solanas’ definition of the different types of women in our society—the SCUM and the approval –seeking Daddy’s Girls. According to this article there is the need to re-educate the Daddy’s Girls and introduce them to the life of SCUM—full of looting, law breaking, fucking-up, and murder. SCUM women are advised “take care” of those men that attempt to force patriarchy upon us, which would leave only the open-minded, and equality driven men to exist (if there are any of those). Although this article took it somewhat to the extreme, the points Valerie Solanas was making should not be taken lightly. If the women are to make in progress in this society, we must together “fuck up” societal norms. When you look to the civil rights movement, you notice that the majority of African-Americans were participants. Three people can make a little bit of noise, but three billion can really shake some shit up.
Long story short, I really enjoyed this article, it was meaningful, entertaining and eye opening.
One of Solanas’ points for this text I can only imagine is to empower women. “And, if a large majority of women were SCUM, they could acquire complete control of this country within a few weeks…The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn’t squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it’s made up of people they are utterly helpless without”. What is so frightening about this statement is that it is absolutely true. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. I think that should be said again. If women were to all of a sudden become extinct, life as we know it would cease to exist. The idea of patriarchy was created to prevent women from realizing that. Women = Power.
Another interesting concept I pulled out of S.C.U.M was Solanas’ definition of the different types of women in our society—the SCUM and the approval –seeking Daddy’s Girls. According to this article there is the need to re-educate the Daddy’s Girls and introduce them to the life of SCUM—full of looting, law breaking, fucking-up, and murder. SCUM women are advised “take care” of those men that attempt to force patriarchy upon us, which would leave only the open-minded, and equality driven men to exist (if there are any of those). Although this article took it somewhat to the extreme, the points Valerie Solanas was making should not be taken lightly. If the women are to make in progress in this society, we must together “fuck up” societal norms. When you look to the civil rights movement, you notice that the majority of African-Americans were participants. Three people can make a little bit of noise, but three billion can really shake some shit up.
Long story short, I really enjoyed this article, it was meaningful, entertaining and eye opening.
OMG...SCUM Manifesto!!!!!
Valerie Solanas' Manifesto was meant to be an attack on the patriarchal culture, promoting the idea of a violent revolution to establish an all-female society. What is most outstanding about the piece is that in spite of its extremism and furious style, and aside from the violent message it conveys, it actually makes lots of sense when dealing with social analysis and scientific facts. (It gets most interesting when she describes her theory that a male is actually an incomplete female, which is the total opposite of the Freudian theory.)
Her description of men as lacking individuality and being interchangeable, is the same idiology used in our patriarchal society, and it is the basis on which they justify polygamy... since they feel that if one woman cannot do her job as perfectly as she should, then we'll get a second one to complement her deficiencies... totally oblivious to the fact that this will destroy the woman emotionally, and socially.. as well as putting the blame on her in the end, since she is the one with the deficiencies, and never caring how this will damage the family as a whole, or the children in particular... In short they feel that women are interchangeable.
At first I found her ideas extreme and uncalled for, but dont you think that these same ideas which are being applied to women in this day and age are similarily extreme and uncalled for? The difference is that she was sent to a mental institution because this idea is insane, but the men of today are given the benefit of the doubt, and they're justified, and are never sent to get the apropriate psychiatric care... and sometimes their actions are even encouraged and condoned by society. WTF???
Her description of men as lacking individuality and being interchangeable, is the same idiology used in our patriarchal society, and it is the basis on which they justify polygamy... since they feel that if one woman cannot do her job as perfectly as she should, then we'll get a second one to complement her deficiencies... totally oblivious to the fact that this will destroy the woman emotionally, and socially.. as well as putting the blame on her in the end, since she is the one with the deficiencies, and never caring how this will damage the family as a whole, or the children in particular... In short they feel that women are interchangeable.
At first I found her ideas extreme and uncalled for, but dont you think that these same ideas which are being applied to women in this day and age are similarily extreme and uncalled for? The difference is that she was sent to a mental institution because this idea is insane, but the men of today are given the benefit of the doubt, and they're justified, and are never sent to get the apropriate psychiatric care... and sometimes their actions are even encouraged and condoned by society. WTF???
Sunday, February 24, 2008
“Oh Baby! That’s my spot!”
Well. I guess after reading these articles we, as a gender group, have realized the damage we have done by faking orgasms. All the “oooh” and “aaah” and responses to ego boosting questions like “whose pussy is this” have caused major set backs to females around the world. Although I’ve never been one to fake orgasms, I, too, admit that I have done it once or twice when my man has been working hard to get me there and I just wasn’t coming. Didn’t want to bruise his ego, you know? But after reading this article I probably ruined things for the next girl. Or perhaps I didn’t. I bet she faked too.
I feel Koedt had very valid points to her theory of “the myth of the Vaginal Orgasm”. I have noticed that all of the reasons that Koedt mentioned why men maintain the myth were absolutely valid. I have found them to be true in my personal life. Example: “Sexual Penetration Is Preferred” meaning that men like vagina that provides lots of lubrication and friction…how many times has a man licked or rubbed on a woman’s clit just enough to lubricate it enough to stick his penis in it. Not for her. For him. Or maintaining “The invisible woman”. Like I mentioned before, questions like “whose pussy is this” excludes the woman from the sexual act and makes her vagina HIS. It’s not about her. It’s about him. Or devaluing the vagina for the “Control of Women”. Men don’t want women to know that their clitoris is the “penis” of their sexuality; however men have realized this and tried to tame and control women by cutting off their clitorises and robbing them of any sexual pleasure ever in life. However, they don’t sew up their vaginas. Know why? Cause men still need women’s vaginas to stick their penises in so they can have friction and lubrication so they can come. They wouldn’t cut that off. Cause it’s not about us. It’s about them. Or fear of “lesbianism and bisexuality”also motivates men to spread the myth. If more women understood that that all they needed to achieve an orgasm was their clitoris they would masturbate just as much as men jack off and realize that they don’t need men; even for sex. A penis becomes expendable…and the there would be no songs praising I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T women who need nothing from a man but his penis; cause then she wouldn’t even need him for that.
I feel Koedt had very valid points to her theory of “the myth of the Vaginal Orgasm”. I have noticed that all of the reasons that Koedt mentioned why men maintain the myth were absolutely valid. I have found them to be true in my personal life. Example: “Sexual Penetration Is Preferred” meaning that men like vagina that provides lots of lubrication and friction…how many times has a man licked or rubbed on a woman’s clit just enough to lubricate it enough to stick his penis in it. Not for her. For him. Or maintaining “The invisible woman”. Like I mentioned before, questions like “whose pussy is this” excludes the woman from the sexual act and makes her vagina HIS. It’s not about her. It’s about him. Or devaluing the vagina for the “Control of Women”. Men don’t want women to know that their clitoris is the “penis” of their sexuality; however men have realized this and tried to tame and control women by cutting off their clitorises and robbing them of any sexual pleasure ever in life. However, they don’t sew up their vaginas. Know why? Cause men still need women’s vaginas to stick their penises in so they can have friction and lubrication so they can come. They wouldn’t cut that off. Cause it’s not about us. It’s about them. Or fear of “lesbianism and bisexuality”also motivates men to spread the myth. If more women understood that that all they needed to achieve an orgasm was their clitoris they would masturbate just as much as men jack off and realize that they don’t need men; even for sex. A penis becomes expendable…and the there would be no songs praising I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T women who need nothing from a man but his penis; cause then she wouldn’t even need him for that.
Frigid or Just Tired of Faking Sexual Arousal?
Why is that the first scholars to describe the sexual sensitivity of women were men? A man who has a completely different biological make-up than a woman. A man who is aware of his power as a man, who then uses it to justify social, economic, and even sexual factors to ensure that he remains as the superior figure. Anne Koedt and Adriene Rich's articles go hand in hand. The characteristics of male power that Rich used to describe the power of men are all contributory to the Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm. The first characteristic to deny women their own sexuality, this denial creates the notion of the abscence of a clitoris. This is made evident in the "frigidity" of women. Hence, the creation of the vagainal orgasm. Instead of realizing the highly sensistive area of the clitoris, the male is content with this penis rubbing the vaginal walls of a woman because this is where his penis is most comfortable. The mosit, wet, encompassing walls around his penis create sexual arousal for him again and again. While his partner is supposed to fake a sexual arousal and maybe even orgasm. Her acting does not help the situation because this only makes him think that they are both being pleased. Perhaps if he found out that they really weren't being pleased, this would disrupt the masculine nature of his ego. An ego shattered might mean that now the woman has to suffer from the force of his male sexuality upon her, which is the second characteristic of male power that Rich points out. But because he does not take the time to figure our his partner's body and what makes her toes curl, he places of his frustration, energy, and arousal into beating her brains out through what I call rape. It is not violent sex that is wanted, rather it violent sex to make a point or to achieve something. Get into a woman's mind. Sex is not purely physical. This is something that Koedt makes clear with her example that some women can achieve an orgasm through sexual fantasies or fetishes. This indicates that the sentiments start in the mind, the psyche. In essence, the arousal is physical and a woman is able to reach a sexual climax. But the problem is woman have been defined in sexual terms. Not necessarily by body type, shape, etc., but instead how they can, in fact, please a man. As a result of this, a vaginal orgasm is created to uphold the egos of man who pry on women to feel powerful and in control. This then leaves women in a subordinate position. Left used, abused, mistreated all in the name of satisfying a man, who does not take the time to get to know her body. Rather, everything is "rush-rush," in the midst of all of this "sexual eruption" the clitoris is left lonely, untouched, and perhaps even dry. It is not only the myth of the vaginal orgasm that has to be destroyed, but also the implication of masculinity. Masculinity and all that it encompasses holds up this notion of a vaginal orgasm. This is why women who are fired are crazy and need psychiatric help, so says Freud anyway. But do we really think that will ever happen? Of course not because our lovely clitoris poses a threat to masculinity. A threat to masculinity would disrupt the patriarchal society that we live in. The masculinist forces would never let that happen. American as a matriarchal society would be nice, huh? But it seems like just a dream now.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Okay so I was really annoyed after reading this article. Why do people go through so much trouble to point out differences that determine what group is superior and what group is inferior. If there is ever a case where there is true inferiority and superiority, the differences would be obvious, I think. There would be no need to go above and beyond to point out the differences that make something better than something else. If this Freud character was so smart, he would construct all of his research before deciding that women who don't have vaginal orgasms are frigid...there is no such thing as a vaginal orgasm, so all women are frigid. I am sure there was some information regarding the fact that if women have some sort of organ that is SPECIFICALLY FOR PLEASURE, it might have something to do with some sort pleasurable feeling, like, I don’t know, maybe a freaking orgasm.
The thing that really pissed me off was the fact that people took it so far as to perform clitoroidectomies on women. Are they so scared that the slightest evidence of women having something that resembles a penis might give them some kind of power? Here's an idea: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POWER OF THE PENIS!!! IF SOMEONE IS POWERFUL, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A PENIS!! Who knows what if the most powerful men in the world have some of the smallest peni? What if a mans' penis is smaller than a woman's clitoris (lol)? Is he less than a man? Some may argue thst he is. Maybe before we decide to elect Barack, we should check his pants first! Furthermore, why don't we take a look up Hilary's skirt; she is pretty powerful. Just to make sure...
The thing that really pissed me off was the fact that people took it so far as to perform clitoroidectomies on women. Are they so scared that the slightest evidence of women having something that resembles a penis might give them some kind of power? Here's an idea: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POWER OF THE PENIS!!! IF SOMEONE IS POWERFUL, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A PENIS!! Who knows what if the most powerful men in the world have some of the smallest peni? What if a mans' penis is smaller than a woman's clitoris (lol)? Is he less than a man? Some may argue thst he is. Maybe before we decide to elect Barack, we should check his pants first! Furthermore, why don't we take a look up Hilary's skirt; she is pretty powerful. Just to make sure...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)