Fear of a Feminist Future
October 18, 2016 10:38 AM Subscribe
A future shaped, at least in part, by women poses such a profound identity threat as to be unthinkable to many ordinary joes.
I'm so interested in the connection between fear of civil rights and this "dystopian" Wild West future that's gained so much cachet recently - where men get guns and women get raped and everything gets looted by zombies or terrible "other" people or whatever. I do think there was a sense of relief in imagining those worlds, a sense of things being back to a certain normal. Young female me was a bit excited by prepping and Peak Oil when I first discovered it on the internet - I mean, back to the land, right? It only took a little while to discover its underbelly of female enslavement fantasies.
posted by fast ein Maedchen at 11:13 AM on October 18, 2016 [65 favorites]
posted by fast ein Maedchen at 11:13 AM on October 18, 2016 [65 favorites]
I love the reading list at the end!
posted by erratic meatsack at 11:21 AM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by erratic meatsack at 11:21 AM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dystopias always contain a utopia inside them - you just have to figure out what you're escaping by the collapse of society. I always figure that the Hunger Games, for example, has as its utopian element "a society where everyone belongs somewhere and has a job". Zombie future dystopias have, as you say, a patriarchal-utopian grain - the future may be horrible, but at least we're no longer oppressed by political correctness. Also, in all dystopias, you know who the enemy is - regardless of the nature of the enemy, it's something you can point to.
posted by Frowner at 11:23 AM on October 18, 2016 [49 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 11:23 AM on October 18, 2016 [49 favorites]
Why do they have to see it in such a dualistic way, if it's not patriarchy then it has to be matriarchy? The growing acceptance of gender fluidity surely foretells a way beyond all that?
posted by mareli at 11:27 AM on October 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by mareli at 11:27 AM on October 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I love the idea that these future evil women reject knowledge and prioritize feelings. Because if you look at a certain hyper-masculine movement in America right now......
posted by lumpenprole at 11:29 AM on October 18, 2016 [58 favorites]
posted by lumpenprole at 11:29 AM on October 18, 2016 [58 favorites]
Yes, 20 years or working in science has taught me that the idea that men = logic and women= emotions is ass backwards. You can get a group of women who basically loathe each other to work happily together on a project and get a good result. It won't make them like each other better but they'll get it done. But if one of the guys makes fun of the other guys t-shirt they can't be in the same university system for 12 years.
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 AM on October 18, 2016 [122 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 AM on October 18, 2016 [122 favorites]
I was really struck by the author's observation that paranoid fantasies about feminism in the future never seem to deny systematic oppression and normalized abuse of women, they just present a lot of woe-is-me that (ostensibly) "decent men who don’t hate women very much get swept up in the collective punishment of those who do."
It's #NotAllMen as a sci-fi subgenre.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:45 AM on October 18, 2016 [53 favorites]
It's #NotAllMen as a sci-fi subgenre.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:45 AM on October 18, 2016 [53 favorites]
Why do they have to see it in such a dualistic way, if it's not patriarchy then it has to be matriarchy? The growing acceptance of gender fluidity surely foretells a way beyond all that?
Folks like their archys.
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:48 AM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Folks like their archys.
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:48 AM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
female enslavement fantasies
I have never been able to grasp this. I get that it could (might?) come from some sort of "I deserve a woman" entitlement, and this way hey, you're guaranteed a woman and she has to stick around! but it's like... these guys complaining about never being paid attention, don't they realize that having someone choose to be with them is leaps and bounds better by every measure than having a woman whose true intent they're guaranteed to never know because she's a slave and they all know it and so the crippling self-doubt is absolutely one-hundred percent sure to go on? For pete's sake, what the heck.
(and yeah for the "but what if no one chooses me!!" um this is part and parcel of the human condition, and it ain't just straight men who deal with it. If any of us were entitled to love, it wouldn't be love, now would it.)
posted by fraula at 11:52 AM on October 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have never been able to grasp this. I get that it could (might?) come from some sort of "I deserve a woman" entitlement, and this way hey, you're guaranteed a woman and she has to stick around! but it's like... these guys complaining about never being paid attention, don't they realize that having someone choose to be with them is leaps and bounds better by every measure than having a woman whose true intent they're guaranteed to never know because she's a slave and they all know it and so the crippling self-doubt is absolutely one-hundred percent sure to go on? For pete's sake, what the heck.
(and yeah for the "but what if no one chooses me!!" um this is part and parcel of the human condition, and it ain't just straight men who deal with it. If any of us were entitled to love, it wouldn't be love, now would it.)
posted by fraula at 11:52 AM on October 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Why do they have to see it in such a dualistic way, if it's not patriarchy then it has to be matriarchy? The growing acceptance of gender fluidity surely foretells a way beyond all that?
These are people who like someone to be in charge because it takes all the blame off them for not making good life choices. The idea of a fluid anything gives them the pitchfork wavies.
posted by fshgrl at 11:53 AM on October 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
These are people who like someone to be in charge because it takes all the blame off them for not making good life choices. The idea of a fluid anything gives them the pitchfork wavies.
posted by fshgrl at 11:53 AM on October 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yes, 20 years or working in science has taught me that the idea that men = logic and women= emotions is ass backwards.
the unrelenting insistence that you're more rational than a class of other humans is cognitive bias in action
posted by mikeh at 11:53 AM on October 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
the unrelenting insistence that you're more rational than a class of other humans is cognitive bias in action
posted by mikeh at 11:53 AM on October 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
I love how the belief is that a female-dominated world would be militantly irrational and reject anything but subjective emotions as a basis for all knowledge and decision-making. That is some great projecting right there.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 11:58 AM on October 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by Kitty Stardust at 11:58 AM on October 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
In the reading list, Always Coming Home is misspelled.
posted by bdc34 at 12:03 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bdc34 at 12:03 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, and the reading list needs Angela Carter's The Passion of New Eve, in which extreme radical feminists kidnap a male rapist, forcibly change his gender and impregnate zir with zir own semen. And that's leaving out the polygamy cult and the enigmatic MTF actor.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have never been able to grasp this. I get that it could (might?) come from some sort of "I deserve a woman" entitlement
My unpopular opinion: entitlement is EXACTLY where it comes from.
Actually I'm reading "Come as You Are," which is an EXCELLENT book (recommended by people on metafilter) and she's talking about genital non-concordance (women is 10% concordance, men are around 50% concordance) and she has an anecdote about how a fellow was confused by his erection when he saw an assault.
And then Nagoski (the author) says, well this differnce in concorance may have something to do with culture, or biology... but we're not really sure how or why.
*raises hand* I feel like I know why: because everything has been entitlement. Genitals recognize entitlement better than our brains, after while. If the world tells a man, "This can all be yours... and should be yours" and tells a woman, "You're doing [womanhood/desire/sexuality] wrong" it MIGHT LEAD to a greater concordance between genital reaction to what the brain perceives for men (rightly or wrongly) as sexually relevant stimuli.
Anyway... yeah... entitlement.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
My unpopular opinion: entitlement is EXACTLY where it comes from.
Actually I'm reading "Come as You Are," which is an EXCELLENT book (recommended by people on metafilter) and she's talking about genital non-concordance (women is 10% concordance, men are around 50% concordance) and she has an anecdote about how a fellow was confused by his erection when he saw an assault.
And then Nagoski (the author) says, well this differnce in concorance may have something to do with culture, or biology... but we're not really sure how or why.
*raises hand* I feel like I know why: because everything has been entitlement. Genitals recognize entitlement better than our brains, after while. If the world tells a man, "This can all be yours... and should be yours" and tells a woman, "You're doing [womanhood/desire/sexuality] wrong" it MIGHT LEAD to a greater concordance between genital reaction to what the brain perceives for men (rightly or wrongly) as sexually relevant stimuli.
Anyway... yeah... entitlement.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Scientists have successfully turned mouse skin cells into egg cells and used them to create viable offspring without the use of actual eggs for the first time.
One more biotechnological development, artificial wombs, and the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all.
posted by XMLicious at 12:11 PM on October 18, 2016
the unrelenting insistence that you're more rational than a class of other humans is cognitive bias in action
I think it's a general part of feeling that you are better than them. Women today, in this culture, are expected to make the effort to get along with others even if they don't like them so they will do that if needed. It's stressed as an important skill to women from early childhood. A lot of men, otoh, were raised to think that their emotional comfort was paramount. Sometimes I have a hard time not rolling my eyes when listening to grown men I work with complain about someone because their emails are too curt and it makes them feel bad or they can't work with someone because they don't agree with them.
Now I know that men in general can work together with people that they don't like because sports teams, the military etc jobs exist and not all those men like each other. They are expected by authority figures to suck it up and get the job done so they do. But there is a big segment of men that just can't or won't or do it but go home and are horrible to their families then die early of a heart attack. Our culture is to blame for that.
posted by fshgrl at 12:25 PM on October 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think it's a general part of feeling that you are better than them. Women today, in this culture, are expected to make the effort to get along with others even if they don't like them so they will do that if needed. It's stressed as an important skill to women from early childhood. A lot of men, otoh, were raised to think that their emotional comfort was paramount. Sometimes I have a hard time not rolling my eyes when listening to grown men I work with complain about someone because their emails are too curt and it makes them feel bad or they can't work with someone because they don't agree with them.
Now I know that men in general can work together with people that they don't like because sports teams, the military etc jobs exist and not all those men like each other. They are expected by authority figures to suck it up and get the job done so they do. But there is a big segment of men that just can't or won't or do it but go home and are horrible to their families then die early of a heart attack. Our culture is to blame for that.
posted by fshgrl at 12:25 PM on October 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
the unrelenting insistence that you're more rational than a class of other humans is cognitive bias in action
"cognitive bias" seems a little too anodyne of a term for this, to me. There should be something a little more high-energy.
posted by thelonius at 12:26 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
"cognitive bias" seems a little too anodyne of a term for this, to me. There should be something a little more high-energy.
posted by thelonius at 12:26 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
So basically the men of the alt-right think that the end of civilization would give them all their privileges back and put women back in the position of being traded as property, whose value is expressly in their physical beauty, pedigree and fertility...but they're terrified that women would do the same to them?
Got it.
posted by Autumnheart at 12:28 PM on October 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
Got it.
posted by Autumnheart at 12:28 PM on October 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
having someone choose to be with them is leaps and bounds better by every measure than having a woman whose true intent they're guaranteed to never know because she's a slave and they all know it and so the crippling self-doubt is absolutely one-hundred percent sure to go on?
This assumes these alt-right types are capable of self-doubt. Why would they ever consider the intent and desires of those they deny basic humanity to?
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:33 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This assumes these alt-right types are capable of self-doubt. Why would they ever consider the intent and desires of those they deny basic humanity to?
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:33 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
One more biotechnological development, artificial wombs, and the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all.
And, of course, vice versa.
posted by lhauser at 1:07 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, of course, vice versa.
posted by lhauser at 1:07 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a rather cutting remark Le Guin makes in one of her stories, about how when we speak of prehistoric peoples we glamorize the dangerous act of hunting, and associate it with men, while completely ignoring the other 90% of food that came from gathering work, which anyone can do, including women, children and old people, but which is thereby much less exciting.
She does a lot of poking at the idea of the "backside" of heroism; the women, servants, peasants and others who do all the actual work of feeding, clothing, sheltering and so on for the hero, and without whom he would be helpless. This sticks out most to me when reading Tolkien and other authors who appear to have built worlds almost entirely devoid of women and common people.
When we talk about a vision of the future, for me that's what I want to be visible, the real work, the boring, mundane, absolutely necessary tasks that keep us all alive. And I want men to understand their value too.
posted by emjaybee at 1:09 PM on October 18, 2016 [84 favorites]
She does a lot of poking at the idea of the "backside" of heroism; the women, servants, peasants and others who do all the actual work of feeding, clothing, sheltering and so on for the hero, and without whom he would be helpless. This sticks out most to me when reading Tolkien and other authors who appear to have built worlds almost entirely devoid of women and common people.
When we talk about a vision of the future, for me that's what I want to be visible, the real work, the boring, mundane, absolutely necessary tasks that keep us all alive. And I want men to understand their value too.
posted by emjaybee at 1:09 PM on October 18, 2016 [84 favorites]
Emjaybee I'm pretty sure you're referring to the marvelous essay, not story, The Carrier Bag Theory Of Fiction
posted by Cozybee at 1:14 PM on October 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Cozybee at 1:14 PM on October 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
Great piece!
As for the reading list, it's (obviously deliberately) short, but I feel I need to add Joanna Russ's The Female Man.
posted by languagehat at 1:15 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
The most terrifying prospect of all is what happens when women work collectively. The idea of women organizing, sharing information and resources, and coming together to change the world—rather than competing for male attention as is right and natural—is terrifying enough when it’s a few pink-haired weirdoes on the internet. The thought of what they might do with real political power sends shudders through the locker room. This, incidentally, is how we got to the point where a bloviating man-child with distressing hair and an entitlement complex bigger than his unpaid tax bill, a man whose main political strategy is to stand at a podium screaming about Muslims and Mexican rapists, is still, to millions of Americans, a more conceivable president than his only normally monstrous opponent who happens to be female. A world with women in charge, a world where women stand together and for each other in any respect, is not just inconceivable—to conceive of it is an active identity threat for those whose sense of self has always needed a story with men on top.And "the brostradamus logic of late capitalism"!
As for the reading list, it's (obviously deliberately) short, but I feel I need to add Joanna Russ's The Female Man.
posted by languagehat at 1:15 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
There's a rather cutting remark Le Guin makes in one of her stories, about how when we speak of prehistoric peoples we glamorize the dangerous act of hunting, and associate it with men, while completely ignoring the other 90% of food that came from gathering work, which anyone can do, including women, children and old people, but which is thereby much less exciting.
From Voices—
From Voices—
"I always wondered why the makers leave housekeeping and cooking out of their tales. Isn't it what all the great wars and battles are fought for -- so that at day's end a family may eat together in a peaceful house? The tale tells how the Lords of Manva hunted & gathered roots & cooked their suppers while they were camped in exile in the foothills of Sul, but it doesn't say what their wives & children were living on in their city left ruined & desolate by the enemy. They were finding food too, somehow, cleaning house & honoring the gods, the way we did in the siege & under the tyranny of the Alds. When the heroes came back from the mountain, they were welcomed with a feast. I'd like to know what the food was and how the women managed it."posted by Celsius1414 at 1:20 PM on October 18, 2016 [30 favorites]
Cozybee, yes, but it's a theme she returns to in different ways in other works too.
posted by emjaybee at 1:27 PM on October 18, 2016
posted by emjaybee at 1:27 PM on October 18, 2016
the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all
Ethan of Athos being the optimistic outcome.
posted by clew at 2:23 PM on October 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ethan of Athos being the optimistic outcome.
posted by clew at 2:23 PM on October 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
You can get a group of women who basically loathe each other to work happily together on a project and get a good result. It won't make them like each other better but they'll get it done. But if one of the guys makes fun of the other guys t-shirt they can't be in the same university system for 12 years.
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 AM on October 18 [34 favorites +] [!].
honestly, this is not my experience. I've seen both men and women undermine and/or demolish projects-teams-work-groups-whatever for all manner of reasons, from the pivotal to the trivial. It genuinely feels like a human thing as opposed to a Mars-vs-Venus thing.
posted by philip-random at 2:27 PM on October 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 11:35 AM on October 18 [34 favorites +] [!].
honestly, this is not my experience. I've seen both men and women undermine and/or demolish projects-teams-work-groups-whatever for all manner of reasons, from the pivotal to the trivial. It genuinely feels like a human thing as opposed to a Mars-vs-Venus thing.
posted by philip-random at 2:27 PM on October 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
One more biotechnological development, artificial wombs, and the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all.
So that's why the Dark Enlightenment contains a transhumanist tendency.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:44 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
So that's why the Dark Enlightenment contains a transhumanist tendency.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:44 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The silliest bit of these alt-right dreams is the idea that these chair-bound bros are capable of being frontiersmen. It's hard to imagine them chopping wood or plowing fields.
posted by zompist at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zompist at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
honestly, this is not my experience. I've seen both men and women undermine and/or demolish projects-teams-work-groups-whatever for all manner of reasons, from the pivotal to the trivial. It genuinely feels like a human thing as opposed to a Mars-vs-Venus thing.
Oh it's definitely a human thing and anyone can do it. But you have to be a certain kind of person to think it a ok to undermine a group project for reasons. And ime, most people who think it's ok to do that were raised in a certain way and have certain ideas about how important they are vs the group. And in this culture that's mostly men.
Having said that Americans as a people are marvelously good at doing group projects and getting along. I have worked in quite a few countries and the nature of my work is collaborative, and Americans are much more likely to prioritize group goals over personal stuff than most anyone else I've worked with. There is a reason its easier to get stuff off the ground places like the US and the UK.
Traditional macho cultures, otoh, are a hotbed of perceived insults and hurt feelings in comparison. The whole culture of disrespect thing manly thing is the worst. Like seriously, I don't know how anything gets done. People feel entitled to blow everything up over the smallest thing.
posted by fshgrl at 3:13 PM on October 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh it's definitely a human thing and anyone can do it. But you have to be a certain kind of person to think it a ok to undermine a group project for reasons. And ime, most people who think it's ok to do that were raised in a certain way and have certain ideas about how important they are vs the group. And in this culture that's mostly men.
Having said that Americans as a people are marvelously good at doing group projects and getting along. I have worked in quite a few countries and the nature of my work is collaborative, and Americans are much more likely to prioritize group goals over personal stuff than most anyone else I've worked with. There is a reason its easier to get stuff off the ground places like the US and the UK.
Traditional macho cultures, otoh, are a hotbed of perceived insults and hurt feelings in comparison. The whole culture of disrespect thing manly thing is the worst. Like seriously, I don't know how anything gets done. People feel entitled to blow everything up over the smallest thing.
posted by fshgrl at 3:13 PM on October 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Female empowerment may be a relatively late development, but so are ranged weapons that don't rely on upper body strength.
posted by rmd1023 at 3:16 PM on October 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 3:16 PM on October 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
David and Goliath? (or, more apropos perhaps, The Clan of the Cave Bear)
posted by XMLicious at 3:25 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 3:25 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The silliest bit of these alt-right dreams is the idea that these chair-bound bros are capable of being frontiersmen. It's hard to imagine them chopping wood or plowing fields.
I know, right? I'm a desk jockey, and while I have my periods of high fitness, on my best day there are plenty of women who could snap me in half without breaking a sweat. The idea that these basement dwelling neckbeards would be able to subjugate women in the post-apocalypse is scorn inducing.
I mean, every morning on my way to work there's a young mother who runs past me pushing a pram the size of a VW, while also gripping the leads of two dogs. The dogs frequently look tired. She doesn't. I'm pretty sure that she would crush Vox Day, and her chows would gnaw on his bones that night.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I know, right? I'm a desk jockey, and while I have my periods of high fitness, on my best day there are plenty of women who could snap me in half without breaking a sweat. The idea that these basement dwelling neckbeards would be able to subjugate women in the post-apocalypse is scorn inducing.
I mean, every morning on my way to work there's a young mother who runs past me pushing a pram the size of a VW, while also gripping the leads of two dogs. The dogs frequently look tired. She doesn't. I'm pretty sure that she would crush Vox Day, and her chows would gnaw on his bones that night.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I haven't even finished reading the article yet, but I had to come here to say -- I can't wait to join the Hive Vagina! Where do I sign up? And I am looking forward to including the phrase toenail-chewing bigotry into dinner conversation tonight. Just for funsies!
posted by pjsky at 3:43 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 3:43 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
One more biotechnological development, artificial wombs, and the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all.
Imagine their shock when these alt-right supermen wake up and discover they were mice all along?
View the chilling episode "Of Mice and Women" on this week's episode of The Twilight Gynozone!
*cue Wilhelm Scream*
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:44 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Imagine their shock when these alt-right supermen wake up and discover they were mice all along?
View the chilling episode "Of Mice and Women" on this week's episode of The Twilight Gynozone!
*cue Wilhelm Scream*
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:44 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would like to report that autocorrect changed Wilhelm to Wilhelmina, so the Revolution is probably already underway...
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:46 PM on October 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:46 PM on October 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
Great piece! It has really helped me frame my feelings on, and understand this election cycle. I have been bemused by the support for a man who is so very cartoonish, like, my brain would spasm when I tried to think about it because it just seemed so strange.
This also ties in so well with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 4:01 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This also ties in so well with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 4:01 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that these basement dwelling neckbeards would be able to subjugate women in the post-apocalypse is scorn inducing.
Ah, you underestimate them! They know that they won't immediately become savage conquerors once the apocalypse begins, they'll need a training montage or two to get there. That's why these fellows always, always find some alpha "dad" to flock to (I bet you can think of a high-profile example of this phenomenon that's been all over the news lately). He'll get them through the first wave of gynozombies and SJWtroopers and then they'll flower into their own alphahood in the new world order, I think is the underlying plan there.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:13 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Ah, you underestimate them! They know that they won't immediately become savage conquerors once the apocalypse begins, they'll need a training montage or two to get there. That's why these fellows always, always find some alpha "dad" to flock to (I bet you can think of a high-profile example of this phenomenon that's been all over the news lately). He'll get them through the first wave of gynozombies and SJWtroopers and then they'll flower into their own alphahood in the new world order, I think is the underlying plan there.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:13 PM on October 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm a big consumer of escapists lit aimed at a male market, and even there, the alt-right are mostly the bad guys.
posted by ridgerunner at 4:24 PM on October 18, 2016
posted by ridgerunner at 4:24 PM on October 18, 2016
Ah, you underestimate them! They know that they won't immediately become savage conquerors once the apocalypse begins, they'll need a training montage or two to get there.
Nah. They will all totally Kylo Ren their crappy bunkers the first time they stub their toe, and then they will all die from exposure. By freeing the rest of us from the nonsense of these macho assholes, the Collapse will actually bring about their feared feminist gynotopia.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:04 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nah. They will all totally Kylo Ren their crappy bunkers the first time they stub their toe, and then they will all die from exposure. By freeing the rest of us from the nonsense of these macho assholes, the Collapse will actually bring about their feared feminist gynotopia.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:04 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Realistically, these bros would die of sepsis from their inability to manage basic habitat hygiene (changing sheets, washing clothes, disposing of organic refuse).
posted by Kitty Stardust at 5:55 PM on October 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Kitty Stardust at 5:55 PM on October 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Traditional macho cultures, otoh, are a hotbed of perceived insults and hurt feelings in comparison. The whole culture of disrespect thing manly thing is the worst. Like seriously, I don't know how anything gets done. People feel entitled to blow everything up over the smallest thing.
That right there about a hundred times over. And the worst thing you can do to some fellows is denigrate their own sense of masculinity, insinuate that they're a "faggot" or a "pussy", or cast aspersions on their conspicuously diminutive hands.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 5:57 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
That right there about a hundred times over. And the worst thing you can do to some fellows is denigrate their own sense of masculinity, insinuate that they're a "faggot" or a "pussy", or cast aspersions on their conspicuously diminutive hands.
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 5:57 PM on October 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
so a feminist society is a post-capitalist society? - am i to conclude that one can't be a feminist and a capitalist? - am i to conclude that non-capitalist societies would not be dominated by men? what does the historical record say of that?
just what does a post-capitalist society look like, anyway?
it seems to me this article raised questions that it really didn't answer
posted by pyramid termite at 6:16 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
just what does a post-capitalist society look like, anyway?
it seems to me this article raised questions that it really didn't answer
posted by pyramid termite at 6:16 PM on October 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've seen at least one alt-right prepper type talk about "enslaving an Amish community" to do the whole fieldwork thing. I mean, maybe he was joking, but? All i could think was "do you know anything about Amish people? I am pretty sure they would just get shot rather than work for you. It's kinda in their charter."
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:20 PM on October 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:20 PM on October 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
Traditional macho cultures, otoh, are a hotbed of perceived insults and hurt feelings in comparison. The whole culture of disrespect thing manly thing is the worst. Like seriously, I don't know how anything gets done. People feel entitled to blow everything up over the smallest thing.
Oh my god, men used to have a whole ridiculous ritual where they'd shoot each other with guns or stab each other with swords over the tiniest little thing. Literally, they'd throw let's-kill-each-other parties over perceived insults. Men are hilariously emotional.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:30 PM on October 18, 2016 [38 favorites]
Oh my god, men used to have a whole ridiculous ritual where they'd shoot each other with guns or stab each other with swords over the tiniest little thing. Literally, they'd throw let's-kill-each-other parties over perceived insults. Men are hilariously emotional.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:30 PM on October 18, 2016 [38 favorites]
One more biotechnological development, artificial wombs, and the alt-right can escape the gynopocalypse by retreating into a wonderful, wonderful world where there are no women at all.
I've never felt the appeal of Warhammer 40K, but perhaps this is it.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:46 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've never felt the appeal of Warhammer 40K, but perhaps this is it.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:46 PM on October 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Realistically, these bros would die of sepsis from their inability to manage basic habitat hygiene (changing sheets, washing clothes, disposing of organic refuse).
Like the time Rick in the walking dead was raising pigs then he dipped his dirty face and hair in the groups rain water barrel to clean up and they got some kind of febrile disease and a bunch of them died but no one was all "hey Rick, I think you killed a bunch of people"? Yeah, that annoyed me so much.
posted by fshgrl at 6:50 PM on October 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
Like the time Rick in the walking dead was raising pigs then he dipped his dirty face and hair in the groups rain water barrel to clean up and they got some kind of febrile disease and a bunch of them died but no one was all "hey Rick, I think you killed a bunch of people"? Yeah, that annoyed me so much.
posted by fshgrl at 6:50 PM on October 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
so a feminist society is a post-capitalist society? - am i to conclude that one can't be a feminist and a capitalist? - am i to conclude that non-capitalist societies would not be dominated by men? what does the historical record say of that?
A feminist society would produce feminist outcomes - that sounds like a tautology, but I actually think it's an easier starting point because it's a bit easier for people (mostly women, of course) to come to a broad (get it, I am so funny) agreement about what "feminist outcomes" are. We could generally say that feminist outcomes might take many forms but that there would be neither structural nor personal/individual limits placed on women because of gender, and I think we'd have to say that there should not be personal or structural limits placed on women because of the particularity of their experience as women either - so no "rich women have ALL the opportunities, poor women just have an equal opportunity to compete with men for janitorial jobs", for instance, and no "as long as you're not sexist, it's cool that women of color suffer racist abuse".
We might disagree about what degree of inequality could exist in a feminist society, but I think feminism has moved past the classic white feminist "as long as rich white women can live lives similar to those of rich white men, feminism is achieved!" model. So anything which tends to crystallize wealth and create permanent inequality (like the ability to accumulate large fortunes, invest them and create a hereditary aristocracy) can't really exist in a feminist society.
If you can make a capitalist society produce feminist outcomes, rock on with your bad self, etc; I tend to think that a society which produces feminist outcomes and is capitalist will look so different from any capitalist society now extant that it won't really be recognizable to us. A feminist capitalist society would need to create sharp limits on how much wealth any one person or family could accumulate and it would need to create a very high baseline for living conditions, so that whatever wealth one could accumulate across generations couldn't affect the quality of one's education, health and nutrition or the basic opportunities of life.
Of course, that's assuming that what people mean by "capitalism" is "the accumulation of wealth and the creation of class stratification", when I think very often people mean "a certain degree of economic self determination for individuals plus enough economic competition that the people who like economic competition don't get bored".
posted by Frowner at 7:09 PM on October 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
A feminist society would produce feminist outcomes - that sounds like a tautology, but I actually think it's an easier starting point because it's a bit easier for people (mostly women, of course) to come to a broad (get it, I am so funny) agreement about what "feminist outcomes" are. We could generally say that feminist outcomes might take many forms but that there would be neither structural nor personal/individual limits placed on women because of gender, and I think we'd have to say that there should not be personal or structural limits placed on women because of the particularity of their experience as women either - so no "rich women have ALL the opportunities, poor women just have an equal opportunity to compete with men for janitorial jobs", for instance, and no "as long as you're not sexist, it's cool that women of color suffer racist abuse".
We might disagree about what degree of inequality could exist in a feminist society, but I think feminism has moved past the classic white feminist "as long as rich white women can live lives similar to those of rich white men, feminism is achieved!" model. So anything which tends to crystallize wealth and create permanent inequality (like the ability to accumulate large fortunes, invest them and create a hereditary aristocracy) can't really exist in a feminist society.
If you can make a capitalist society produce feminist outcomes, rock on with your bad self, etc; I tend to think that a society which produces feminist outcomes and is capitalist will look so different from any capitalist society now extant that it won't really be recognizable to us. A feminist capitalist society would need to create sharp limits on how much wealth any one person or family could accumulate and it would need to create a very high baseline for living conditions, so that whatever wealth one could accumulate across generations couldn't affect the quality of one's education, health and nutrition or the basic opportunities of life.
Of course, that's assuming that what people mean by "capitalism" is "the accumulation of wealth and the creation of class stratification", when I think very often people mean "a certain degree of economic self determination for individuals plus enough economic competition that the people who like economic competition don't get bored".
posted by Frowner at 7:09 PM on October 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
so a feminist society is a post-capitalist society?
In the views of many feminist thinkers, capitalism is based upon exploitation of entire classes of people, so, not really the best form of society for ensuring equality. Penny advocates socialism in other works. She explicitly states that Western capitalist societies don't have much space for women other than as marketable goods:
"It remains unspoken, though, that aspect of commodity value – although we do speak of the ‘commodification’ of women’s bodies, there isn’t much acknowledgement that femininity and sexuality really are commodities, purchased and traded for profit."
am i to conclude that one can't be a feminist and a capitalist?
I'm not sure she states this outright anywhere, but she certainly does connect capitalism/consumerism with limited possibilities for women:
"Then we are told that the ultimate liberation is to have control over the body, to ‘free’ the body from this artificially-induced state of liminality, that freedom, that individual liberation, always somehow seems to involve being quiet and well-behaved and buying all the things. And that’s freedom. The absolute limit of what bourgeois feminism can offer us is terminal exhaustion and a cupboard full of beautiful shoes. I think that’s massively unambitious." More here.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:15 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the views of many feminist thinkers, capitalism is based upon exploitation of entire classes of people, so, not really the best form of society for ensuring equality. Penny advocates socialism in other works. She explicitly states that Western capitalist societies don't have much space for women other than as marketable goods:
"It remains unspoken, though, that aspect of commodity value – although we do speak of the ‘commodification’ of women’s bodies, there isn’t much acknowledgement that femininity and sexuality really are commodities, purchased and traded for profit."
am i to conclude that one can't be a feminist and a capitalist?
I'm not sure she states this outright anywhere, but she certainly does connect capitalism/consumerism with limited possibilities for women:
"Then we are told that the ultimate liberation is to have control over the body, to ‘free’ the body from this artificially-induced state of liminality, that freedom, that individual liberation, always somehow seems to involve being quiet and well-behaved and buying all the things. And that’s freedom. The absolute limit of what bourgeois feminism can offer us is terminal exhaustion and a cupboard full of beautiful shoes. I think that’s massively unambitious." More here.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:15 PM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think a starting point would be a good, clear, shared definition of capitalism, because the word is used so many ways. If someone just means "society involves some amount of buying and selling rather than the state distributing all the things or there being anarchist/usufruct practices or some form of pre-capitalist barter a la David Graeber", then that isn't necessarily "capitalist" in the classical sense. Does "capitalism" imply "consumerism"? I'm not sure that it does, because you definitely have capitalism long before there's anything like a contemporary consumerist identity.
For me personally, living in China in the mid-nineties and the early 2000s made me think that a limited buying-and-selling sector of the economy adds interest to people's lives (you could certainly see this, IMO, in 1997 in the coastal cities) but that when this is more than a sector of society and when it comes to be the most powerful sector (as it did later on) basically things suck.
Quite a lot of science fiction has limited-buying-and-selling in feminist societies - Ursula Le Guin's Always Coming Home has trade between communities that is very clearly structured around competitive advantage and people's desire for better stuff; Samuel Delany's Triton and Stars In My Pocket Like Grains of Sand have capitalism as one lifeway among many; Sherri Tepper's books generally have some trade or small buying-and-selling in them.
I guess you could get really technical and say that capitalism depends on the theft of surplus value by the capitalist and on alienation of workers, so you can't really have classical capitalism and feminism....but I tend to think that societies are imperfect, and maybe you get a little alienation or a little lost surplus value as the price of satisfying people's needs for recognition and achievement, because I think that we can safely say that in high tech societies with a lot of moving parts, people tend to want recognition and achievement.
Of course, all this assumes that we don't move to a post-scarcity society a la Iain Banks (where you get recognition and achievement through being, for instance, the best player of games) or Joanna Russ's Female Man, that we want a high-tech society and that we don't want an intensely authoritarian or religion-dominated society, what you could call a feminist dystopia.
So I guess when someone says "can you have a feminist capitalist society" I would say..."Maybe? Depending on how you define capitalism and what kind of society you expect to have?"
posted by Frowner at 7:32 PM on October 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
For me personally, living in China in the mid-nineties and the early 2000s made me think that a limited buying-and-selling sector of the economy adds interest to people's lives (you could certainly see this, IMO, in 1997 in the coastal cities) but that when this is more than a sector of society and when it comes to be the most powerful sector (as it did later on) basically things suck.
Quite a lot of science fiction has limited-buying-and-selling in feminist societies - Ursula Le Guin's Always Coming Home has trade between communities that is very clearly structured around competitive advantage and people's desire for better stuff; Samuel Delany's Triton and Stars In My Pocket Like Grains of Sand have capitalism as one lifeway among many; Sherri Tepper's books generally have some trade or small buying-and-selling in them.
I guess you could get really technical and say that capitalism depends on the theft of surplus value by the capitalist and on alienation of workers, so you can't really have classical capitalism and feminism....but I tend to think that societies are imperfect, and maybe you get a little alienation or a little lost surplus value as the price of satisfying people's needs for recognition and achievement, because I think that we can safely say that in high tech societies with a lot of moving parts, people tend to want recognition and achievement.
Of course, all this assumes that we don't move to a post-scarcity society a la Iain Banks (where you get recognition and achievement through being, for instance, the best player of games) or Joanna Russ's Female Man, that we want a high-tech society and that we don't want an intensely authoritarian or religion-dominated society, what you could call a feminist dystopia.
So I guess when someone says "can you have a feminist capitalist society" I would say..."Maybe? Depending on how you define capitalism and what kind of society you expect to have?"
posted by Frowner at 7:32 PM on October 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
"but it's like... these guys complaining about never being paid attention, don't they realize that having someone choose to be with them is leaps and bounds better by every measure than having a woman whose true intent they're guaranteed to never know because she's a slave"
They're not interested in being liked for who they are; they're interested in "respect" -- not earned respect, but the deferential, theatrical show of respect by powerless people to the powerful. They do not know the difference between earned respect and forced respect, and they don't really care -- they just want to be recognized as important and elite. Deference from other, lesser humans is how they know they're powerful.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:43 PM on October 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
They're not interested in being liked for who they are; they're interested in "respect" -- not earned respect, but the deferential, theatrical show of respect by powerless people to the powerful. They do not know the difference between earned respect and forced respect, and they don't really care -- they just want to be recognized as important and elite. Deference from other, lesser humans is how they know they're powerful.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:43 PM on October 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I have never been able to grasp this. I get that it could (might?) come from some sort of "I deserve a woman" entitlement, and this way hey, you're guaranteed a woman and she has to stick around! but it's like... these guys complaining about never being paid attention, don't they realize that having someone choose to be with them is leaps and bounds better by every measure than having a woman whose true intent they're guaranteed to never know because she's a slave and they all know it and so the crippling self-doubt is absolutely one-hundred percent sure to go on? For pete's sake, what the heck.
Chorus of entitled guys: "These slave women, they're hot and have vaginas, right? They'll do just fine."
posted by theorique at 2:53 AM on October 19, 2016
Chorus of entitled guys: "These slave women, they're hot and have vaginas, right? They'll do just fine."
posted by theorique at 2:53 AM on October 19, 2016
Oh, and the reading list needs Angela Carter's The Passion of New Eve, in which extreme radical feminists kidnap a male rapist, forcibly change his gender and impregnate zir with zir own semen. And that's leaving out the polygamy cult and the enigmatic MTF actor.
The 'forced feminisation' trope is not without a healthy degree of transphobia, and dear god does the term "mtf" make me wince. Trans women are women, best not to use a term that places the word "male" front and center in reference thereto.
posted by Dysk at 3:49 AM on October 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
The 'forced feminisation' trope is not without a healthy degree of transphobia, and dear god does the term "mtf" make me wince. Trans women are women, best not to use a term that places the word "male" front and center in reference thereto.
posted by Dysk at 3:49 AM on October 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, The Passion of New Eve was written from a well-intentioned place and deals well with many of her frequent themes, but it was very clearly written with no knowledge or consideration of trans people's experiences. I think Carter is pretty good at dealing with violence, ambiguity and forced gender performance generally (that is, I don't think it's a standard "forced feminisation" narrative) but it is not a comfortable read.
There's a bunch of seventies SF that deals with people changing genders, forcibly or voluntarily, without being trans per se. Some of it is really good SF (Delany's Triton, for instance, which has smart stuff to say about gender and misogyny), some of it has powerful elements and tries not to be transphobic but doesn't work (last section of Russ's Female Man - later she issued a short "I wrote this in ignorance and wouldn't do it this way again" statement; I'm sure she would have said more but her health was very poor in the last fifteen years of her life and she wrote almost nothing). Most of it assumes that physical gender alignment stuff is really easy, whether it's in a near-future dystopia or a far-future post-scarcity society, and that hand-waviness makes it read oddly, even though there's no reason to assume that on Delany's sorta-post-scarcity Triton, for example, sophisticated medical technology should not make gender changes really simple.
The thing is, when you look at those books as a contemporary reader, you can't help but immediately see the absence of actual trans people both in the writer's social circle and in the societies of the novel, and it's weird. It's the equivalent of writing a far future gender-egalitarian society where no one does any of the things that we now today associate with women - where it feels like some of the characters have just been given women's names, or like we've arrived at the far future by gutting everything associated with femininity out of the human, or like these far future humans have evolved from some other humans, not us here.
That is, in terms of the plot taken on its own terms it's not impossible, but it makes the book read very strangely and uncomfortably even if the book is otherwise accomplished and has other stuff to say.
posted by Frowner at 5:18 AM on October 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's a bunch of seventies SF that deals with people changing genders, forcibly or voluntarily, without being trans per se. Some of it is really good SF (Delany's Triton, for instance, which has smart stuff to say about gender and misogyny), some of it has powerful elements and tries not to be transphobic but doesn't work (last section of Russ's Female Man - later she issued a short "I wrote this in ignorance and wouldn't do it this way again" statement; I'm sure she would have said more but her health was very poor in the last fifteen years of her life and she wrote almost nothing). Most of it assumes that physical gender alignment stuff is really easy, whether it's in a near-future dystopia or a far-future post-scarcity society, and that hand-waviness makes it read oddly, even though there's no reason to assume that on Delany's sorta-post-scarcity Triton, for example, sophisticated medical technology should not make gender changes really simple.
The thing is, when you look at those books as a contemporary reader, you can't help but immediately see the absence of actual trans people both in the writer's social circle and in the societies of the novel, and it's weird. It's the equivalent of writing a far future gender-egalitarian society where no one does any of the things that we now today associate with women - where it feels like some of the characters have just been given women's names, or like we've arrived at the far future by gutting everything associated with femininity out of the human, or like these far future humans have evolved from some other humans, not us here.
That is, in terms of the plot taken on its own terms it's not impossible, but it makes the book read very strangely and uncomfortably even if the book is otherwise accomplished and has other stuff to say.
posted by Frowner at 5:18 AM on October 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Okay, "enslaving an Amish community" is a hilarious idea. Mostly because I am quite sure it would not work out like the would-be slavers expect. Will there be popcorn after the apocalypse?
(I am reminded of the joke with a subject who is variously an Amish person or member of another pacifistic group... "Excuse me, I mean you no harm, but you're standing where I'm about to shoot.")
posted by rmd1023 at 5:18 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I am reminded of the joke with a subject who is variously an Amish person or member of another pacifistic group... "Excuse me, I mean you no harm, but you're standing where I'm about to shoot.")
posted by rmd1023 at 5:18 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
(that is, I don't think it's a standard "forced feminisation" narrative)
Everything I've read about it (not having a copy to actually read myself) really very strongly suggests that a traditional forced feminisation narrative is very much part of the plot, even if it isn't the focus and it attaches a bunch of symbology to it.
posted by Dysk at 5:36 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everything I've read about it (not having a copy to actually read myself) really very strongly suggests that a traditional forced feminisation narrative is very much part of the plot, even if it isn't the focus and it attaches a bunch of symbology to it.
posted by Dysk at 5:36 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd say that these guys do yearn to be liked...but in an action-movie kind of way, where they achieve "great things", save the day, are admired and liked by other men, and then they get to choose the hot woman of their choice as a reward--who will, of course, be blown away by how awesome they are and be completely willing to go along with it, even if she's orders of magnitude more competent and/or hated him when they met. Non-hot women will either be the funny friend, the competent whizgig-operator who exists solely to facilitate the hero's goals and then disappears, or extras that nobody cares about and who just conveniently die in the first few scenes...I mean months.
Like seriously, these guys think this shit is going to play out like they're starring in their own action movie. They think it's going to be like Fight Club, where they kick each other's asses in a form of bonding ritual and suddenly in a few weeks they're all tough and ready to subvert society. Yeah, that's not actually how it would work in real life. Especially without things like, say, a functioning emergency medical system. After all, so many doctors and nurses are women...
It occurred to me last night that, as far as Western society is concerned, most men don't even have the advantage of being able to recognize threats from other men that aren't blatantly obvious. They envision a "threat" being a bear, or a dude with a gun who says "I'm going to kill you!" or someone who jumps you in the obviously dangerous dark alley with the run-down buildings and creepy soundtrack.
Whereas women, all this time, have been burdened with the responsibility of determining even the smallest signs of a threat. They're dressing to disguise their body characteristics, carrying keys as brass knuckles, making drug-testing fingernail polish, wearing headphones without music on public transportation, taking alternate routes home to throw off a tail...just because society expects that from women and blames them if they get attacked. Women learn to do this when they're still children.
So yeah, who is really the better-prepared gender for a society where you have a target on your back and protection from law enforcement is essentially non-existent? Pretty sure it's not the dudes. They think in terms of openly carrying a gun and being seen as the toughest guy in the room. They're not thinking of how they would do stuff like get groceries and then get back home without the asshole following you and figuring out where you live.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:03 AM on October 19, 2016 [21 favorites]
Like seriously, these guys think this shit is going to play out like they're starring in their own action movie. They think it's going to be like Fight Club, where they kick each other's asses in a form of bonding ritual and suddenly in a few weeks they're all tough and ready to subvert society. Yeah, that's not actually how it would work in real life. Especially without things like, say, a functioning emergency medical system. After all, so many doctors and nurses are women...
It occurred to me last night that, as far as Western society is concerned, most men don't even have the advantage of being able to recognize threats from other men that aren't blatantly obvious. They envision a "threat" being a bear, or a dude with a gun who says "I'm going to kill you!" or someone who jumps you in the obviously dangerous dark alley with the run-down buildings and creepy soundtrack.
Whereas women, all this time, have been burdened with the responsibility of determining even the smallest signs of a threat. They're dressing to disguise their body characteristics, carrying keys as brass knuckles, making drug-testing fingernail polish, wearing headphones without music on public transportation, taking alternate routes home to throw off a tail...just because society expects that from women and blames them if they get attacked. Women learn to do this when they're still children.
So yeah, who is really the better-prepared gender for a society where you have a target on your back and protection from law enforcement is essentially non-existent? Pretty sure it's not the dudes. They think in terms of openly carrying a gun and being seen as the toughest guy in the room. They're not thinking of how they would do stuff like get groceries and then get back home without the asshole following you and figuring out where you live.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:03 AM on October 19, 2016 [21 favorites]
Everything I've read about it (not having a copy to actually read myself) really very strongly suggests that a traditional forced feminisation narrative is very much part of the plot, even if it isn't the focus and it attaches a bunch of symbology to it.
We may be meaning different things by "traditional". I mean, I've read the book, I've read a lot of other similar SF because I read SF for amateur academic/teaching reasons...but I would absolutely agree with you that I would not recommend it to anyone, outside of people reading it as part of a complete-ist survey of feminist fantasy/SF in the seventies, or people researching Angela Carter.
I completely agree the forced feminisation pretty much is the plot - I think it's handled differently than in other comparable books, but it's not even remotely separable from the rest of the book. That's one of the reasons why I would not teach or recommend it. I don't teach The Female Man or similar books either.
For my own purposes I try to understand them in context based on what I know of Carter and Russ (because this is basically my field), but I don't think that knowing more about why they were written as they were makes those books suitable to teach or to read for fun. They reflect the pervasiveness of transphobia and bad thinking about gender in feminism and bad ideas about gender in the seventies generally*, such that even people like Carter and Russ, who were not individually, consciously transphobic, write books that have very substantial transphobic content.
I'm interested in how seventies/early eighties feminist SF works in general, so I am interested in trying to understand what Russ and Carter thought they were doing. But I'm not interested in trying to recuperate these books. One of the things that is disturbing to me about feminist SF studies generally is how unwilling people are to talk about the bad aspects of the foundational writers - Tiptree and Russ in particular.
*I think that in Carter in particular you see a lot of loosey-goosey glam-rock-era bad thinking about gender performance that is more than just the result of the feminism of the time.
posted by Frowner at 6:48 AM on October 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
(And I think that "attaching a bunch of symbols to it" makes it worse. "I am a cis man who has been subject to a horrific act of medical torture; my experience is painful and terrible in many ways" is...not a story I'd want to read, but much less screwed up than the same story with a lot of "and this is a METAPHOR ABOUT GENDER" ladled on top of it.)
posted by Frowner at 6:52 AM on October 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 6:52 AM on October 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, it's traditional relative to the genre forced feminisation stories (such as are very popular in certain rather problematic Internet trans communities - the sort where 'trap' is considered a compliment because it means you pass) rather than relative to feminist or seventies scifi (where I'm going to just shout out to LeGuinn for proving that while there doubtlessly were a lot of terrible ideas floating around, there were more thoughtful alternatives).
posted by Dysk at 7:01 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 7:01 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the appeals of post apocalyptic fiction is the idea of the loosening of bonds, the idea that the characters were restrained from doing what they wanted by society but now that the emergency has happened it's ok to break into the sporting goods store and just take all the cool shit. Plus, of course, the appeal of all your problems being reduced to very simple, not even slightly ambiguous, problems that can be resolved by simply killing the right creatures/enemies.
I've always figured that was a big appeal of war: it makes things simpler. You don't have to worry about the long term consequences of your acts, you don't have to engage in the messy and complex realm of consensus and decision making that will never satisfy all parties and always leave some people feeling upset or aggrieved, existential threats make everything very simple.
Zombie fiction, and post apocalyptic fiction in general removes even the moral quandaries of war. You must defeat the existential threat or you cease to exist, all the messy stuff about long term impact is irrelevant. And, as a bonus, the existential threat is a nameless, faceless, completely unsympathetic enemy you can kill and never feel bad about killing! If you don't defeat the zombie hordes right this second you'll die. So fuck property rights, break into Wal-Mart and grab a gun. To hell with environmental worries, drop napalm on the undead fuckers. Who gives a shit about consensus driven decision making, there's a goddamn zombie trying to break down the door, shoot it!
To people feeling constrained by society, confused by the difficulty of intractable problems with no clear solution and no way to avoid hurting someone, there's a certain appeal in the simplicity .
This is why so man zombie movies stop after the crisis has passed because then you've got to go back to the messy complexity of real life. Now that hte zombies are defeated how do you clean up and rebuild society? Now that the zombies are defeated how is Wal-Mart reimbursed for the property that was stolen, however justifiable that theft was? The zombies are defeated, but a whole lot of minorities who previously weren't well armed or trained now are and they've spent the past X years learning all manner of survival skills that would be really damn useful in using violence to get social justice. They aren't likely to just meekly accept a subordinate role in society again, is there a civil war now or will the dominant society accept that they just can't stomp all over the minorities now?
I've always been the sort of person who wondered what happens after the punchline of a joke, so to me fiction that skims over the apocalypse and focuses on the aftermath, the rebuilding, has been more entertaining than the consequence free joyful riot of the apocalypse itself.
As for feminism and the future, I think most of it has to do with mareli's comment:
mareli Why do they have to see it in such a dualistic way, if it's not patriarchy then it has to be matriarchy? The growing acceptance of gender fluidity surely foretells a way beyond all that?
One of the core axioms of conservative thinking appears to be a belief in a sort of Law of Conservation of Oppression. The idea that we can just get rid of oppression, that people can live together as equals and no one needs to be oppressed, seems to be literally unthinkable to a great many conservatives. The idea is seemingly so alien to the that they literally can't conceive of it.
They appear to believe that there's a fixed amount of oppression in the world and that if one group becomes less oppressed that means another group must become more oppressed. Total oppression must remain constant.
Thus they see any effort at ending the oppression of any group as a direct attack on them, clearly to make another group less oppressed must mean that they become more oppressed so that total oppression remains constant.
This is also, I think, why so many of the SF-bros seem obsessed with trying to imagine a dark underbelly to the Federation from Star Trek. They can't accept an egalitarian society, somewhere, somehow, oppression must remain constant.
Part of it, I think, comes back to control. Like Orwell noted in 1984:
Freedom, therefore, is defined as being the biggest, cruelest, most oppressive person in the universe, that's the only way you can know you aren't being oppressed.
Of course they fear a feminist future, they know that it means they must become the oppressed class. There is no other possibility that their ideology permits them to imagine exists.
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on October 19, 2016 [21 favorites]
I've always figured that was a big appeal of war: it makes things simpler. You don't have to worry about the long term consequences of your acts, you don't have to engage in the messy and complex realm of consensus and decision making that will never satisfy all parties and always leave some people feeling upset or aggrieved, existential threats make everything very simple.
Zombie fiction, and post apocalyptic fiction in general removes even the moral quandaries of war. You must defeat the existential threat or you cease to exist, all the messy stuff about long term impact is irrelevant. And, as a bonus, the existential threat is a nameless, faceless, completely unsympathetic enemy you can kill and never feel bad about killing! If you don't defeat the zombie hordes right this second you'll die. So fuck property rights, break into Wal-Mart and grab a gun. To hell with environmental worries, drop napalm on the undead fuckers. Who gives a shit about consensus driven decision making, there's a goddamn zombie trying to break down the door, shoot it!
To people feeling constrained by society, confused by the difficulty of intractable problems with no clear solution and no way to avoid hurting someone, there's a certain appeal in the simplicity .
This is why so man zombie movies stop after the crisis has passed because then you've got to go back to the messy complexity of real life. Now that hte zombies are defeated how do you clean up and rebuild society? Now that the zombies are defeated how is Wal-Mart reimbursed for the property that was stolen, however justifiable that theft was? The zombies are defeated, but a whole lot of minorities who previously weren't well armed or trained now are and they've spent the past X years learning all manner of survival skills that would be really damn useful in using violence to get social justice. They aren't likely to just meekly accept a subordinate role in society again, is there a civil war now or will the dominant society accept that they just can't stomp all over the minorities now?
I've always been the sort of person who wondered what happens after the punchline of a joke, so to me fiction that skims over the apocalypse and focuses on the aftermath, the rebuilding, has been more entertaining than the consequence free joyful riot of the apocalypse itself.
As for feminism and the future, I think most of it has to do with mareli's comment:
mareli Why do they have to see it in such a dualistic way, if it's not patriarchy then it has to be matriarchy? The growing acceptance of gender fluidity surely foretells a way beyond all that?
One of the core axioms of conservative thinking appears to be a belief in a sort of Law of Conservation of Oppression. The idea that we can just get rid of oppression, that people can live together as equals and no one needs to be oppressed, seems to be literally unthinkable to a great many conservatives. The idea is seemingly so alien to the that they literally can't conceive of it.
They appear to believe that there's a fixed amount of oppression in the world and that if one group becomes less oppressed that means another group must become more oppressed. Total oppression must remain constant.
Thus they see any effort at ending the oppression of any group as a direct attack on them, clearly to make another group less oppressed must mean that they become more oppressed so that total oppression remains constant.
This is also, I think, why so many of the SF-bros seem obsessed with trying to imagine a dark underbelly to the Federation from Star Trek. They can't accept an egalitarian society, somewhere, somehow, oppression must remain constant.
Part of it, I think, comes back to control. Like Orwell noted in 1984:
“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?“Coupled with a belief in a conservation of oppression this means, clearly, that if they aren't the ones doing the oppressing, then they must, by definition, be the oppressed ones. The world consists either of victims being ground under the heel of oppressors, and the oppressors doing the grinding. If they aren't the oppressor then, automatically, by definition, they must be the oppressed. There is no third category, no other alternative.
Winston thought. “By making him suffer”, he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.
Freedom, therefore, is defined as being the biggest, cruelest, most oppressive person in the universe, that's the only way you can know you aren't being oppressed.
Of course they fear a feminist future, they know that it means they must become the oppressed class. There is no other possibility that their ideology permits them to imagine exists.
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on October 19, 2016 [21 favorites]
I apologize for writing "MTF." You were right, Dysk, it's a bad term.
Frowner jumped in with a good description of the book before I could get back to the thread, but I wanted to add that, yeah, the book is, like many of Carter's books, less an attempt to depict any real humans and more an exercise is setting up figures that embody particular philosophies. As Frowner mentioned, she held and espoused some views that are rejected today by feminists who otherwise find value in her work. It's not a feminist future utopia, but it does address the kind of world these alt-right types are fantasizing about in its own way.
Much of this book in particular deals with the concept of gender as performance, with the salient point being that this actor builds her fame on playing "suffering woman" roles as a biological male because the performance of suffering and the performance of femininity in this world are one and the same. I would also like to point out that this character is probably the most sympathetic character in the book, which is mostly stocked with extreme figures.
There is also a bit with one of these paleo-conservative Alpha alt-right types who keeps a harem of pigs, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:42 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Frowner jumped in with a good description of the book before I could get back to the thread, but I wanted to add that, yeah, the book is, like many of Carter's books, less an attempt to depict any real humans and more an exercise is setting up figures that embody particular philosophies. As Frowner mentioned, she held and espoused some views that are rejected today by feminists who otherwise find value in her work. It's not a feminist future utopia, but it does address the kind of world these alt-right types are fantasizing about in its own way.
Much of this book in particular deals with the concept of gender as performance, with the salient point being that this actor builds her fame on playing "suffering woman" roles as a biological male because the performance of suffering and the performance of femininity in this world are one and the same. I would also like to point out that this character is probably the most sympathetic character in the book, which is mostly stocked with extreme figures.
There is also a bit with one of these paleo-conservative Alpha alt-right types who keeps a harem of pigs, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:42 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the core axioms of conservative thinking appears to be a belief in a sort of Law of Conservation of Oppression. The idea that we can just get rid of oppression, that people can live together as equals and no one needs to be oppressed, seems to be literally unthinkable to a great many conservatives. The idea is seemingly so alien to the that they literally can't conceive of it.
Zipf's law is everywhere.
posted by Leon at 7:52 AM on October 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Zipf's law is everywhere.
posted by Leon at 7:52 AM on October 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Zombie fiction, and post apocalyptic fiction in general removes even the moral quandaries of war. You must defeat the existential threat or you cease to exist, all the messy stuff about long term impact is irrelevant. And, as a bonus, the existential threat is a nameless, faceless, completely unsympathetic enemy you can kill and never feel bad about killing! If you don't defeat the zombie hordes right this second you'll die. So fuck property rights, break into Wal-Mart and grab a gun. To hell with environmental worries, drop napalm on the undead fuckers. Who gives a shit about consensus driven decision making, there's a goddamn zombie trying to break down the door, shoot it!
This is why World War Z (the novel/audiobook) is basically the only good zombie story. Because it indulges in all that stuff, but then it just kind of... keeps going. And in the end, civilisation remains intact but dramatically changed, just like what happened every time humanity faced an existential threat in our actual history. The zombie apocalypse reduces down to a war of attrition, and we know exactly how to win those, but it's by banding together, rationing, and building tight communities of people who watch each other's backs, not by every-man-for-himself looting. And, indeed, the Last-Man-On-Earth types prove more deadly than the zombies when it comes time to retake lost ground.
Thus they see any effort at ending the oppression of any group as a direct attack on them, clearly to make another group less oppressed must mean that they become more oppressed so that total oppression remains constant.
Cf. Farnham's Freehold.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:55 AM on October 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is why World War Z (the novel/audiobook) is basically the only good zombie story. Because it indulges in all that stuff, but then it just kind of... keeps going. And in the end, civilisation remains intact but dramatically changed, just like what happened every time humanity faced an existential threat in our actual history. The zombie apocalypse reduces down to a war of attrition, and we know exactly how to win those, but it's by banding together, rationing, and building tight communities of people who watch each other's backs, not by every-man-for-himself looting. And, indeed, the Last-Man-On-Earth types prove more deadly than the zombies when it comes time to retake lost ground.
Thus they see any effort at ending the oppression of any group as a direct attack on them, clearly to make another group less oppressed must mean that they become more oppressed so that total oppression remains constant.
Cf. Farnham's Freehold.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:55 AM on October 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
The most realistic depiction of a post-disaster world without males is probably Y: The Last Man, but I'm not sure I'd call that a feminist future either.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:56 AM on October 19, 2016
posted by Kitty Stardust at 7:56 AM on October 19, 2016
this actor builds her fame on playing "suffering woman" roles as a biological male
"Biological male" isn't a particularly good term either, particularly when applied to someone you're using female pronouns for.
posted by Dysk at 7:58 AM on October 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Biological male" isn't a particularly good term either, particularly when applied to someone you're using female pronouns for.
posted by Dysk at 7:58 AM on October 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I apologize for being unclear in my terminology. The story presents the character more as a drag performer than a transgendered person, and the book mixes in a lot of ideas about Decadence, aestheticism, all that 70s glam Velvet Goldmine stuff. I don't believe the book presents the character as feeling, or actually identifying as, female :
"Tristessa, because she is biologically male, is able to incarnate male desire, as Evelyn notes : “He [Tristessa] had made himself the shrine of his own desires, had made of himself the only woman he could have loved !” (p.129). Tristessa’s painstaking attention to her appearance performs feminine perfection recalling the dandy’s narcissistic “cult of selfhood.” Carter blends the cult of selfhood of the dandy spectator with the cult figure of the female performer. "
posted by Kitty Stardust at 8:13 AM on October 19, 2016
"Tristessa, because she is biologically male, is able to incarnate male desire, as Evelyn notes : “He [Tristessa] had made himself the shrine of his own desires, had made of himself the only woman he could have loved !” (p.129). Tristessa’s painstaking attention to her appearance performs feminine perfection recalling the dandy’s narcissistic “cult of selfhood.” Carter blends the cult of selfhood of the dandy spectator with the cult figure of the female performer. "
posted by Kitty Stardust at 8:13 AM on October 19, 2016
I think that Carter's and Russ's (and Delany's, sort of) work of this period shows that basically you shouldn't use real people as metaphors.
Carter, Russ and Delany all use "a cis man taking on the appearance/persona of a woman" to make the point that what men want of women is not what women are but a performance that flatters men. The underlying "what men want of women" part is, IMO, perfectly true, but the plot device reads like the libel of "autogynephilia" that is used against trans women.
In Delany's Triton one of the big points of the book is that the main character basically thinks "women are doing it wrong, otherwise they would do what I want; I will adopt the appearance of a woman in order to demonstrate to all these women what a real woman should be like, and thereby I will attract a "real" man, demonstrating what "real" men and "real" women are "really" like - even though none of these "real" creatures actually exist in my society". The incoherency and contradiction of his thought on this point is intended to show, in part, that men will hurt themselves in order to preserve the notion of patriarchy. This character is an outlier in his multigendered and utopian society and is, in some ways, a tragic figure.
Similarly, in The Female Man, the wicked cis male society gets rid of women by violence and exclusion but creates a class of cis men who are forced into submissive social roles and treated with chivalry/contempt/violence/ownership, and who perform "femininity" in terms of dress and affect. Russ is making the point that "women" are constructed as a class because patriarchy requires a class to exploit, so in the absence of women (implicitly in the absence of both cis and trans women; the class of exploited people in the novel are not depicted as trans women but as cis men forced into a role), men will create a woman-like class.
Both books say things that are, IMO, true of patriarchy - "women as a social class" (which is not the same as "people who identify as women") are formed out of exploitation; men really will subject themselves to genuine suffering to preserve patriarchy.
A really adroit writer who was thoughtful about trans people's experiences could perhaps write these plots in such a way that they make only the point that the author seeks to make and do not replicate transphobic tropes, but wow, you would have to be very adroit, and you would constantly risk falling over into saying harmful things that you didn't mean. (Based on familiarity with Russ's, Carter's and Delany's fiction, letters and autobiographical material, I am confident that none were/are TERFs and that none would want readers to think that their work was meant to challenge trans women's gender.)
But, again IMO, because Carter, Delany and Russ were all writing without giving too much thought to the actual experiences of trans people (this is probably the least true of Delany, and Triton is much the most complex treatment of these ideas) this aspect of their work is indistinguishable, ideologically, from consciously transphobic writing.
It's something I find really difficult to deal with, because I think that all three writers have a huge amount of important stuff to say about patriarchy and women's experiences, and most of the time, the way they write about women's experiences is not about biology but about the social - the contempt and hostility faced by women under patriarchy, the particular kinds of language used to marginalize women, the way that the constant threat of violence is used against women, the emotional and material work assigned to women. I don't think that any of the three are at all interested in saying that gender is "biological" in a TERFy sense - quite the opposite.
And again, I'm left with a situation where because the writers decided to use real people as metaphors, their work becomes hugely problematic and the most obvious readings are out of keeping with what they generally intended in their other work.
Don't use "gender changing" as a metaphor, or a way of "exploring" patriarchy, basically.
posted by Frowner at 8:41 AM on October 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Carter, Russ and Delany all use "a cis man taking on the appearance/persona of a woman" to make the point that what men want of women is not what women are but a performance that flatters men. The underlying "what men want of women" part is, IMO, perfectly true, but the plot device reads like the libel of "autogynephilia" that is used against trans women.
In Delany's Triton one of the big points of the book is that the main character basically thinks "women are doing it wrong, otherwise they would do what I want; I will adopt the appearance of a woman in order to demonstrate to all these women what a real woman should be like, and thereby I will attract a "real" man, demonstrating what "real" men and "real" women are "really" like - even though none of these "real" creatures actually exist in my society". The incoherency and contradiction of his thought on this point is intended to show, in part, that men will hurt themselves in order to preserve the notion of patriarchy. This character is an outlier in his multigendered and utopian society and is, in some ways, a tragic figure.
Similarly, in The Female Man, the wicked cis male society gets rid of women by violence and exclusion but creates a class of cis men who are forced into submissive social roles and treated with chivalry/contempt/violence/ownership, and who perform "femininity" in terms of dress and affect. Russ is making the point that "women" are constructed as a class because patriarchy requires a class to exploit, so in the absence of women (implicitly in the absence of both cis and trans women; the class of exploited people in the novel are not depicted as trans women but as cis men forced into a role), men will create a woman-like class.
Both books say things that are, IMO, true of patriarchy - "women as a social class" (which is not the same as "people who identify as women") are formed out of exploitation; men really will subject themselves to genuine suffering to preserve patriarchy.
A really adroit writer who was thoughtful about trans people's experiences could perhaps write these plots in such a way that they make only the point that the author seeks to make and do not replicate transphobic tropes, but wow, you would have to be very adroit, and you would constantly risk falling over into saying harmful things that you didn't mean. (Based on familiarity with Russ's, Carter's and Delany's fiction, letters and autobiographical material, I am confident that none were/are TERFs and that none would want readers to think that their work was meant to challenge trans women's gender.)
But, again IMO, because Carter, Delany and Russ were all writing without giving too much thought to the actual experiences of trans people (this is probably the least true of Delany, and Triton is much the most complex treatment of these ideas) this aspect of their work is indistinguishable, ideologically, from consciously transphobic writing.
It's something I find really difficult to deal with, because I think that all three writers have a huge amount of important stuff to say about patriarchy and women's experiences, and most of the time, the way they write about women's experiences is not about biology but about the social - the contempt and hostility faced by women under patriarchy, the particular kinds of language used to marginalize women, the way that the constant threat of violence is used against women, the emotional and material work assigned to women. I don't think that any of the three are at all interested in saying that gender is "biological" in a TERFy sense - quite the opposite.
And again, I'm left with a situation where because the writers decided to use real people as metaphors, their work becomes hugely problematic and the most obvious readings are out of keeping with what they generally intended in their other work.
Don't use "gender changing" as a metaphor, or a way of "exploring" patriarchy, basically.
posted by Frowner at 8:41 AM on October 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yeah, it may be unintentional transphobic horseshit in service of a good message, but it's still transphobic horseshit. Reproducing or importing problematic language and ways of talking about a character from the work under discussion is also completely avoidable.
posted by Dysk at 8:48 AM on October 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:48 AM on October 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm hitching my wagon to the funniest and fun people no matter the gender...
posted by judson at 10:24 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by judson at 10:24 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read The Passion of New Eve Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, and it definitely had an impact; images from the book float up out of my memory from time to time, and I still recall the unhappy queasy feeling I had while reading it, but I strongly expect that I would not enjoy retreading it for all the reasons Dysk (and Frowner) bring up. At best, it was a novel of its time, a time that had little conceptual room for transgender stories, but I suspect i would discover that it was more an expression of a kind of feminism that still doesn't have much room for trans narratives. So I wouldn't recommend the book, except for certain academic purposes, I guess.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:19 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:19 AM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
We already live in a feminist future.
depends where you're living, I suspect
posted by philip-random at 11:30 AM on October 19, 2016
depends where you're living, I suspect
posted by philip-random at 11:30 AM on October 19, 2016
We already live in a feminist future.
By what definition?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:41 AM on October 19, 2016
By what definition?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:41 AM on October 19, 2016
Okay, points taken on my reading recommendations. Carry on.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:28 PM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitty Stardust at 12:28 PM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The most realistic depiction of a post-disaster world without males is probably Y: The Last Man, but I'm not sure I'd call that a feminist future either.
Oh it is really really not. I have so many issues with that series. SO MANY.
posted by emjaybee at 1:54 PM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh it is really really not. I have so many issues with that series. SO MANY.
posted by emjaybee at 1:54 PM on October 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, every morning on my way to work there's a young mother who runs past me pushing a pram the size of a VW, while also gripping the leads of two dogs. The dogs frequently look tired. She doesn't. I'm pretty sure that she would crush Vox Day, and her chows would gnaw on his bones that night.
I only realised this when idling musing that of course I can bench/squat/deadlift my kid, that's like 90% of physical play with a child. All the childless dudes were wide eyed because I am a soft and squishy mama-type, how the hell do I even know how much I can deadlift, and how can I bench 50lb anyway?
It's like talking about dudes doing all this physical labour with yardwork and so on, when sweeping/mopping is just as much labour but done more frequently, along with changing beds/lifting children/stacking pantries etc. I don't build muscle like my husband does, but I do similar physical labouring.
posted by geek anachronism at 5:48 PM on October 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
I only realised this when idling musing that of course I can bench/squat/deadlift my kid, that's like 90% of physical play with a child. All the childless dudes were wide eyed because I am a soft and squishy mama-type, how the hell do I even know how much I can deadlift, and how can I bench 50lb anyway?
It's like talking about dudes doing all this physical labour with yardwork and so on, when sweeping/mopping is just as much labour but done more frequently, along with changing beds/lifting children/stacking pantries etc. I don't build muscle like my husband does, but I do similar physical labouring.
posted by geek anachronism at 5:48 PM on October 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
The most realistic depiction of a post-disaster world without males is probably Y: The Last Man, but I'm not sure I'd call that a feminist future either.
I couldn't deal with the author's issues with worldbuilding, which is not even to touch on that in a book where there are three billion women on the planet and one man, the book is still about the man.
posted by bile and syntax at 7:14 PM on October 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I couldn't deal with the author's issues with worldbuilding, which is not even to touch on that in a book where there are three billion women on the planet and one man, the book is still about the man.
posted by bile and syntax at 7:14 PM on October 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
« Older A LARP where everyone forgot their character... | A first date at the fancy-pants Brandy Library Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Long Live the New Matriarchy (when it finally comes!)
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:07 AM on October 18, 2016 [5 favorites]