Leigh quotes:
> In general, commodity fetishism tends to replace inter-human relationships
with
relationships between humans and objects: for example, the relationship
between
producer and consumer is obscured. The producer can only see his
relationship
with the object he produces, being unaware of the people who will ultimately
use
that object. Similarly, the consumer can only see his relationship with the
object he uses, being unaware of the people who produced that object. Thus,
commodity fetishism ensures that neither side is fully conscious of the
political and social positions they occupy.
If this is correct, then me and my flogger (or should it be my flogger and I?) are not an example of commodity fetishism since I know the lesbian who makes my floggers. In fact, part of the reason I use hers, is the personal relationship I have with her.
John writes:
> I think many more people are excited by S/M practices than feel
comfortable
admitting to.
You have no idea. LOL
Paul writes:
> The deeper point I was trying to make was that whatever valid reasons
offered by the women doing this cite, the fact is they are in a society
(local and generalized) that is sexist and hierarchical, and it plays a
large (but not solely) determining role in how they choose to express
themsleves sexually.
I agree that society plays some part in shaping the manifestation of a person's sexuality. What I am arguing is that it makes no sense to criticize people for how they manifest their sexuality if you are then going to turn around and claim that people should be allowed to live as they please (which was what you did). There is a contradiction here.
> To my mind this is consistent with some feminist/Marxist thought; social
roles and appearances are partially constructed by the society they manifest
in.
Okay. Since everybody does this, what is wrong in this particular instance of the woman in Japan? You never make this clear.
> people can and do construct part of their gender relationships to an ideal
defined within a capitalist system, in this case the fashion industry.
So? As I pointed out in my earlier post, sometimes my lover and dress in the leather ideal. I ask again: where is the harm? We know what we are doing. We are not clockwork oranges merely acting as puppets of societal forces.
> Somehow this turned into me being an oppressive, homophobic member of the
Christian right.
I was talking about your approach, not you. Please put away the LBO martyr crown; you are not the issue.
> This argument is going to go nowhere, but I do want to respond to some of
the more choice accusations levelled at me.
Again, my post was full of questions about your assertions. I asked where the harm was. You read a personal attack. Why? Why are you avoiding answering my questions about your statements?
For example: I asked you why there is a difference between the way she dresses in public and in private. You do not respond. For there to be a discussion there has to be give and take.
> 'Causes no harm': there was an adoptive mother and siblings. Regardless of
how you may feel about Mia Farrow and the siblings, no one deserves to have
their trust violated in that way.
When a relationship breaks up there is pain. Should people stay in them and suffer? No matter whom Woody left Mia for, there would have been harm.
As for the adoptive mother and siblings angle: what caused the pain -- the relationship between Soon-Yi and Woody or the belief that these two people should not have this particular relationship?
Again it is like the Christians: it is their belief that homosexuals are evil that causes the harm they feel, not queers themselves. My husband and I walking down the street holding hands does not cause harm. Those people who think that such an act should not be allowed in public, inflict harm upon themselves when they see us.
> 'Why be creeped out' ; because he was a parent and as such is in a
powerful
position of trust and authority. I suppose she did act in way that was
freely willed on her part, but I question whether anyone ever truly acts in
a freely willed way with a parent, adoptive or otherwise.
He was not her parent. He did not live in her household. He was the lover of her adoptive mother.
I am glad that you agree that she acted of her own free will. As for your doubts: there are power imbalances in almost all (if not all) relationships. Does anyone act totally freely in any relationship? Take my lover and myself. When we met he was in a precarious position in both his living and job situations. I was more settled. Was there a power imbalance. Yes. Does that fact invalidate our love and commitment? No. Establishing the perfect relationship lauching pad where there are no power imbalances is impossible. Look at the outcome: two people in a consensual relationship. If there was no coercion along the path, what is the problem?
> If you don't see the damage caused by reinforcing stereotypes and
reinforcing sexism in society that's your right too, I just don't see it
that way.
Okay. You assert that she is reinforcing sexism. But that is only your take (more below).
> I don't want to proscribe it, I want people to understand the harm I think
they do by accepting stereotypes roles and structures. If they want to do
that, fine with me, I'm not about to stop them for the sake of my opinion.
I don't understand this. I want to proscribe things that cause harm. I think it is necessary to do so. For example, I believe in proscribing murder. I am also not in favor of chattel slavery. Why wouldn't you want to people to stop doing things that you think are harmful? You say that you have fought for women and the LGBT community (and I am not doubting you), but how can you undertake this fight without trying to proscribe behavior harmful to women and queers? Isn't that the point of the fight?
> Thanks for equating my opinion with 2500 years of actual oppression.
But those 2,500 years of oppression also started with an opinion: God hates fags. Not a fact -- an opinion, a belief. I am only pointing out the similarity of the methods employed.
> If I'm small minded then so are the others (and I'll accept I may alone on
this in this discussion) who view reinforcing sexist stereotypes as a
negative thing to do.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. When you see that women dressed that way, you see someone "reinforcing sexist stereotypes." I see someone making a personal choice that she herself says "relieves stress."
Any society, capitalist or otherwise, is going to produce stereotypes. It is something we human beings do. Add to this behavior the fact that human beings share so much genetic material, the number of stereotypes generated is not going to be very large. The problem is that capitalism uses these steroetypes in order to control capital.
The problem is that you cannot get at the real villians: the capitalists who exploit the human habit of creating stereotypes. So, you settle for the next best thing: going after those who engage the stereotypes. I think you are misaiming.
Take you and your wife. As you admit, you are the stereotypical heterosexual, monogamous couple. Can I not, therefore, level this accusation against you: by your actions you are reinforcing an oppressive stereotype. Why would a feminist subject the woman he loves to the sexist institution of marriage? Why didn't the two of you just live together? Why have you restricted her sexual freedom though monogamy?
As you answered: "The relationship my spouse and I have is right for us, I don't begin to pretend that it's one everyone has to engage in." Sounds good to me. Maybe the woman in Japan feels the same way: she does she not believe that anyone else has to dress the way she does. It is what works for her.
I think a queer theory/performative approach works here (see I do like theory sometimes LOL). You being in a hererosexual, monogamous relationship is no more reinforcing of an oppressive stereotype than the woman in Japan and her outfit. You are merely both doing what works for you. You are playing with (and adapting as needed) the stereotypes/roles that human beings/societies naturally generate.
The problem is that capitalism expolits the things/behaviors that work for people. We could decree that all people wear identical outfits and outlaw marriage and monogamy, but I don't think that is realistic -- all those objections about individual choice and expression, etc., etc.
> What proof do you want about the damage of sexism and the associated
stereotypes
I agree about the damage of sexism. Where I disagree is about the stereotypes. These stereotypes would occur whether there was sexism or not. The problem is how sexists abuse these naturally occuring stereotypes. Instead of condemning the stereotypes, educate people in the positive way of dealing with them -- of not taking them as gospel to be followed, but roles to be played with and adjusted as necessary. Return the power to the individual, instead of disempowering her through your criticism.
This approach also solves the contradiction of your position: instead of railing against stereotypes (and then saying you do not want to proscribe them), you can rant against capitalist exploitation of stereotypes and advocate people taking control of them. You proscribe not individuals' actions, but capitalists' expolitation of the stereotypes. It is all about education. You cannot liberate people from playing with stereotypes/roles; we are performative creatures. But you can liberate people from the exploitation capitalists try to effect through the manipulation of stereotypes.
> I don't need to hear from someone who doesn't know me or my history that
I'm
intolerant.
I do not think you are intolerant. I think your position is inutile. I also think it has an aura of paternalism.
I think your position also hamstrings your activism. You have defined actions as being harmful, but then say you don't want to proscribe them. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
R writes:
> sadistic personality disorder and sadomasochistic disorder are clearly
defined emotional problems.
You must have the same copy of the DSM-IV that Chris Doss does. Is it available on amazon.com?
> finding a mentally ill masochist for a partner may mean what a person is
doing isn't illegal, not that it's not mentally ill or deviant behavior.
Deviating from what standard?
> sadism is a form of character disorder
According to whom?
> interesting. ever looked into it?
Yes indeed. In fact one of the reasons I joined LBO was to experience the masochistic viewpoint.
Mike writes:
> In other words, sado-masochism is a social disease. Homosexuality is not
a social disease; it is a natural feature of genetic outcomes in the animal
kingdom
Really? So some sexual orientations are natural and some are diseased. And your empirical evidence for this is . . . ? (Sometimes you guys make this just too damn easy. LOL).
Hint: if there are examples of bdsm in societies other than capitalistic ones then your "theory" that:
"the passive acceptance of dominance and submission rituals is key to maintaining a class society -- in its modern guise, wage-slavery. This aspect of authoritarian psychology is nurtured socially."
flies out the window. No matter what kind of society people created, there would be both a bdsm community and bdsm activity of some sort.
I love when vanillas explain my world to me.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister