Purrverse's profile . Purrverse's homepage
 |
| Purrverse |
The question “what is feminism” was brought up on here, and it led me to think a lot about my position on feminism, but more, my thoughts on men and masculine identity, something I don't often think about as a femme. This blog (which will also be reposted on my other blog) is more of me working through some thoughts and seeing what people have to say about them, rather than me pretending to be any great authority.
With that intro...
I would say I identify as a feminist. How can I not, being a woman who would prefer to live her life without worrying that her sex or gender will cause her to be at risk for harm? Knowing that my sexuality and desirability is both what often determines my worth and also my level of safety? Taking into account that within my preferred feminism multiple genders are acknowledged, not just the gender binary, and that we also acknowledge the cruel joke patriarchy has played on men, I would say yes, I am a feminist.
“If women are trapped by the whore/Madonna complex, men are equally trapped by the warrior/minstrel complex.”
I suspect the above is why I identify with and enjoy the energy of dandies. Men who are pretty to look at, bitingly intelligent and often overconfident have just enough fight to them to be interesting, but also are in touch with the arts of seduction that, as a woman, I want to be swept up in. It's a difficult dichotomy to get right, the warrior/minstrel- I know for myself I like a man that makes me feel protected in my vulnerability, but also allows me to feel independent, a man who will both make me feel sexually desirable and yet not make sex into a big deal. Is there, actually, a balance to be struck that gets it right? I actually doubt it. I suppose that's why I go with minstrels with a bit of warrior in them, just as they are attracted to the whore with the Madonna's heart in me, a weird mix of opposing traits.
“I guess maybe that's one of the secrets of manhood that no man tells if he can help it. Every man's armor is borrowed and ten sizes too big, and beneath it, he's naked and insecure and hoping you won't see.”
Again, here I realize how I have treated men and punished them for this dichotomy. I have left men because they were clingy, almost too vulnerable and needy… but Ii have also left men because I felt they never let me in, they were too shielded. Is there a middle ground that is appropriate, acceptable, even desirable? That would take some reflection. I know that in the past couple of months I have been reflecting a lot on male behavior and gendering as it pertains to emotions and communication. Most of the men I've known don't talk about their feelings much, especially not with other men, and view such intimacies as a weakness. I know that I have generally felt panicked and concerned because of this- part of me wants to believe that men are reticent about their emotional states, only uncovering what they think you need to know, and therefore they'll tell you if there's an issue, and if they don't, there's no problem. But part of me knows better. A lot of men WANT to be that way, for sure, but end up stifling a lot of their thoughts because they don't think they can share unless they've already got the answer. They don't tend to emotionally process the way women do.
In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for men, and this sort of masculinity. I know how hard it is to pretend something doesn't hurt when it does, or to blow something off that's important to me. I can't imagine doing that every day, and I think it's no real surprise that my ex and one of my current play partners, two men who did let me have a glimpse into their rawness, gave me such a feeling of connection and love. While I don't doubt that other guys I've played with care for me in some way, those walls are still definitely constructed, and why not? They're there for safety and protection, only to be breached by those they trust, and we're not there yet, I don't know them well enough.
Men who have moved beyond that barrier system tend to be unable to accept their need for emotional validation but just don't have the walls up to prevent someone like me breaching them anyway. My ex, for example, certainly struggled with wanting that protection, needing that shield to feel normal, but yet desperate to be without it on some level. He wanted to be understood and vulnerable but not raw or exposed… like healing skin, under a band aid, sometimes you have to expose it to the elements in order for it to heal properly. It's a hard balance to figure out generally, never mind if you add the layer of being a man. I know one play partner drives me crazy with his being busy and radio silence in these weeks I've been away, and how hard it is to get in touch with him, but when I put it into the context of male gendered behavior it begins to make some sort of sense- it has taken til now to realize how little he's told me about himself, really, and how much he knows about me in comparison.
Furthermore, this isn't a British trait, though I think Brits are more gender neutral when it comes to the expectation to hide or disguise your emotional state. I've known several men over here in California who struggle to express themselves and their emotional health, though I will add, generally in the geek community. And everywhere I've had clients who I think struggle in that way… but they come to me as a refuge, as a place they can be emotional and honest and not worry about judgment. I think this is one huge reason I see my work as so important- I think we need to stop teaching men that emotions are weakness and start teaching them that being true to themselves and their process is a strength.
(quotes taken from the book "Self-Made Man" by Norah Vincent, which is interesting, but definitely not the last word in gender theory).
| 20 Jun 09, 4:40 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs  |
I don't buy into the warrior/minstrel duality (or the more traditional definition of being a lover or a fighter) because it just plainly doesn't fit. That said I don't buy into the whore or madonna idea for women either, I think they are just two modern media archetypes and they have no bearing to real women at all as far as I can see. There are no polar ends of the male spectrum as far as I can tell. Some of the greatest warriors have been poets, and a great many abject wretches can't string a sentence together. It saddens me that the male gender is viewed as guarded and distant when in reality this is obviously not the case. I mean a good couple of thirds of human culture is the result of male expression. From William Shakespeare and Mozart to John Lennon and Miles Davis the feelings of men permeate art, music and literature and have done for as long as they have existed. While so many would like to dismiss the male gender as primitives that really is just silly. I think male strength is sometimes overrated though, because people don't realise that it is actually a lot easier to be a man dealing with men than it is to be a woman dealing with women. There's a reason why bitching is called bitching, and it's because it's a distinctly female domain. Women bitch about each other all the time (okay maybe some don't, but I've never yet met one that didn't). Men don't bitch nearly as much. That makes it so much easier to get by. We don't need armour. All this talk of armour and barriers and things being breached makes it all sound very dramatic I think, when really we're just talking about existence. Just going along through life is not a struggle to juggle emotional chainsaws along a tightrope. We just get on with it. That's not closed off or unhealthy, it's just the ability to deal with things internally. A problem shared is, after all, a problem two people have. Most men have the emotional intelligence to just handle their own internal strife without help. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for Chuck Norris to change sides. Edited 20 Jun 09, 4:43 AM by Doghouse_Reilly | ||
| 20 Jun 09, 4:49 AM Purrverse US, 7 yrs |
Maybe this is what I've picked up as a femme with male friends, but... It seems to me that men don't really talk or share much with each other. However, they often open up more to their female friends, which would suggest that they DO want to express themselves more and feel unable to. Studying psychology, I see a lot of men who do "just get on with it", but who also drink or drug to excess, for example, or take risks as a way of letting off some extra steam. And definitely from my experience at clinics, men DO need help handling their internal strife, mainly because they're expected not to have any internal strife. "I can't tell if you're playing some kind of feminazi mind fuck game on me or if you're trying to seduce me." -Sex and Death 101 | ||
| 20 Jun 09, 8:06 AM The_Colonel_Whatwhat 3 yrs |
Is it more macho or less to dress up in women's boots and skirts?  I came, I saw, I concurred | ||
| 20 Jun 09, 5:24 PM PrinceCaspian UK(SE), 6 yrs |
I don't find combining the two difficult at all.
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde | ||
| 20 Jun 09, 5:50 PM Purrverse US, 7 yrs |
PrinceCaspian: well, if you look at the blog before this one, I certainly prefer and hang out with people who don't struggle with that dichotomy. Same with women, actually, I tend to hang out with women who transcend the virgin/whore thing. However, while yes, of course there are exceptions, I guess I'm considering these things more in society as a whole. I would posit that men who are exploring their sexuality, and even posting on boards such as this, are more often than not more self-aware of these sorts of imposed pressures and have decided what to do with them. "I can't tell if you're playing some kind of feminazi mind fuck game on me or if you're trying to seduce me." -Sex and Death 101 | ||
| 20 Jun 09, 10:10 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
At the risk of committing treason against my gender by revealing one of our more cunning strategies to impress the fairer sex; the simple fact is a lot of guys turn on the sensitivity because girls like it. To quote the dating advice of the great Philip J Fry; "Make up some feelings and tell her you have them."
I think regarding drugs and drink (basically different flavours of the same thing) I see this in many ways as self medication. Some people take anti-depressants to keep them happy, some guys just like to get wasted. Least that's what I do, gives me a break from over-thinking things. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for Chuck Norris to change sides. | ||
| 21 Jun 09, 10:35 AM PrinceCaspian UK(SE), 6 yrs |
It's odd while I see merit in both the supposed aspects of the male I see no intrinsic merit in either whore or madonna. I think most of my nilla friends deal with this quite well. I think most don't embrace as much of either as I do but that's just their choice. I guess I don't see the two as being in conflict in any way. Wheras I can see how virgin and whore would be "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde | ||
| 21 Jun 09, 10:05 PM Purrverse US, 7 yrs |
Actually, while virgin/whore is often how the female dichotomy is constructed, I would almost define it more often (the dichotomy I see/hear about in my life) as mother/whore. "I can't tell if you're playing some kind of feminazi mind fuck game on me or if you're trying to seduce me." -Sex and Death 101 |
