From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: bashing feminism  1/2
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:47:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: zooid.92Oct6.221645edt.37195

tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes...
CTM> In <1a342qINNqpn@agate.berkeley.edu> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.ORG> wr
CTM> >gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
CTM> >GF> I think the problem with the constant questioning of the
CTM> >GF> validity of feminism and other basic views is that we never
CTM> >GF> get beyond them to other issues.  For example, I recently
CTM> >GF> mentioned that some feminists had theorized that homophobia
CTM> >GF> is produced by patriarchy or male suprmacist ideology.  This
CTM> >GF> is a highly debatable issue; many other causes or origins
CTM> >GF> can be hypothesized.  However, instead of discussing the
CTM> >GF> issue within the context of feminism, Will Steeves wrote
CTM> >GF> in to challenge the idea that patriarchy was anything more
CTM> >GF> than a plot by power-seeking feminist conspirators to
CTM> >GF> denigrate all men.

CTM> >No, Gordon, I did *not* say that.  I *only* said that when
CTM> >"patriarchal theory" is used to explain *all* inequities in society,
CTM> >then it may be getting taken too far.

CTM> >I did *not* take offense with patriarchal theory as such, but *only*
CTM> >with instances where far too many problems are attributed to it.


CTM> But this kind of objection is not very interesting, is it?  So you
CTM> object to patriarchy being used to explain homophobia.  Why?
CTM> Apparently because you feel that it can't explain "everything."  But
CTM> claming that it explains homophobia is hardly saying that it explains
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CTM> all this world's evils.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, GOiD!  That isn't what I meant, either.  Okay, then, let me explain more
fully...

When I started postering for In Search Of Justice at the University of
Toronto (NB: a few people have requested further information about
I.S.O.J. ; I will post a FAQ entry for them, if desired), a number of
other organisations responded in a very shrill and highly emotional,
almost offended fashion.  One of these was the Student Christian
Movement, which was once entirely dedicated to Christian issues, but
has recently been taken over by proponents of the "Politically
Correct" which, in my opinion, have subverted the organisation's
original Christian focus, and have turned it into a sounding board for
their political and social issues.  At any rate, one of their
representatives, Darren Gowlett, wrote a letter to the editor of The
Varsity, complaining about ISOJ, which consisted mainly of a
discussion about "dismantling patriarchy," wherein he *did* attribute
just about *every single one* of the world's ills to it, including
wars, poverty, injustice...you name it, he included it.

It is for *this* reason, that I began taking exception to the
multiplicity of bizarre attributions which I have witnessed.


CTM> The following is why *I* think the theory of patriarchy *does* explain
CTM> homophobia.  Feel free to do a similar explanation; I'd be interested
CTM> to see what your reasoning is (OTHER than "it's already used to
CTM> explain too many things").                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I did *not* merely use this "argument" ; I did in fact attempt to show
many examples where the view was not merely male-centred, and or
male-originated, and certainly could not have originated in the belief
that "men are better than women".

CTM> There is a curious ambiguity in the general reaction to male couples;
CTM> villification, being called "sissy", "feminine", etc.  At the same
CTM> time, there is generally more "respect" for the person who is "on
CTM> top"; that is, for the male who DOES the penetration.

While this has been true for you, in your experience, I spent five
years in a private Catholic high school, and while I left the school
with *less* respect for religion than before I started, believe me, I
*know* the reasons why the students and staff were heterosexist.

And with respect to male homosexual couples, the person in the "male
role" was completely irrelevant.  Both would be seen as sissies,
regardless of who was "on top".  And the reason why this view was
taken, was because of the fact that *both* men were expected to "act
like men," ie., attempt to have sexual relations with women.  There is
nothing in this view, which implies that men are by necessity better,
but merely that they should assume their sexual role of attempting to
form relationships with women, instead of men.

CTM> strongly in "macho" type of cultures: latin american men, for
CTM> example, do not consider themselves homosexual if they are the
CTM> penetrator.

If so, then perhaps in *their* culture, *this* aspect of heterosexism
may very well be "patriarchal," but not in my own environment.

CTM> masculine?  Especially as women who display masculine traits can very
CTM> often be grudgingly admired?

I would hardly say *that*, Cindy.  Indeed, in the case of my "ex,"
from before I was married, *she* was what might be called "masculine"
(Hell, *she* was the one who was committment-phobic, unwilling to
discuss problems, preferred to discuss information and did not like
discussing emotions, kept her feelings to herself...), but nowehere
was she respected by the boys in her high school before she went to
university.

Again, the lack of repect given to men and women who are "gender
benders" is due to their lack of conformity to gender roles, rather
than that the male role was inherently better.  It was just a case of
- men should act like men ; women should act like women.

CTM> Turning now to lesbian women, again there are two main, curious
CTM> reactions.  The first is the reaction to them as providing sexual
CTM> entertainment for some other man.  What these two may mean to each
CTM> other is irrelevent, the common assumption is that this is for the
CTM> benefit of some other man.  This is a perception commonly used in
CTM> pornographic films.  It is interesting because it is a complete
CTM> dismissal of what the two women might think of each other: they're
CTM> assumed to both thinking of the enjoyment of some other man.

This is consistent with the theory that men are more responsive to
visual stimuli, and would enjoy seeing a lesbian sex scene.  That
women do not similarly enjoy male homosexual sex scenes is consistent
with the theory that they are not as stimulated by visual stimuli, as
men are.  Indeed, most men and women I spoke to, who have this view,
think that "it's gross," ie., the penetration of an organ primarily
used for excretion of solid waste.  This does not occur in (most)
lesbian sex scenes, and thus adds to the visual stimulation that is
perceived.

Again, I would attribute men and women's response to opposite-sex
homosexual sex is mainly based in our theories regarding visual
stimulation, and in the heterosexual bias of using only organs of
heterosexual sex.  In other words, men's enjoyment of lesbian sex is
based on the visual element, while women's lack of enjoyment of gay
sex is based upon their lack of visual arousal, in addition to the
bias against use of "non-sexual" organs ; in neither case is
"maleness" assumed to be "better".


CTM> Women that are known to be lesbian are often told that having sex
CTM> with a man will "cure" her.

As men who are gay, are told that having sex with a woman will "cure"
them.  Again, there is the assumption that "following your role" is
demanded, rather than that "men are better".

CTM> Lesbians are very often completely invisible.  Male couples may
CTM> invoke instant hostility on very little provocation (the
CTM> gay-bashing -- and killing -- of a father and son enjoying a walk
CTM> some years ago comes to mind), whereas women pairs are much
CTM> harder for society to spot since simple friendship is so much
CTM> assumed for much female-female interaction.  This is also
CTM> consistent with the notion that sex is important for men, but not
CTM> to women.

True, but it is not just men who think that sex is more important.  A
lot of women also believe that sex is not as important to them as it
is to men.  The various theories stating that men have a generally
more active sex drive than women, should explain the phenomenon of men
wanting to enjoy sex more than women.

CTM> Again, in same-sex pairs, the assumption holds that there is a
CTM> "female role" and a "male role" but for the female-female pair,
CTM> it is the woman "playing the male" role that gets accused of
CTM> being a man-hater,

I too, have heard the theory that in lesbian relationships, there is a
"butch" and a "femme," who are masculine and feminine, respectively.
However, while the "butch" is reviled, not just because she is seen to
be "man hating," but because she (and her partner) are not following
their assigned sex roles.

CTM> Patriarchy holds the elder over the younger and man over the
CTM> woman, and pairs them together.

But, the "matriarchal" views of some less moderate feminists, hold
"women and children" to be more important.

CTM> In couples that do not fit the mold, assumptions are still made
CTM> that the male/female roles are still in play, and the reactions
CTM> to the various roles homosexual people are presumed to fit in are
CTM> consistent with a general view of considering the man more
CTM> important than the woman.

As this missive has shown, perhaps this is true in your experience,
and in certain cultures (I don't know about Latin America, but I will
take your word on it), but in my experience and in my culture, the
belief of heterosexism is more based upon the dislike of people
violating sex roles, than the belief that thos who do so, but "take
the male role," are in some way better.

I am not attempting to "justify" heterosexism, as I oppose such views
myself as well (I hope that this has come through in the things that I
have said), but I am merely opposed to attributing the problem to
patriarchy.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.