Yesterday I broke my blogging fast to write a response to Suzanne Venker. Venker is the author of the book How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage as well as three inflammatory Fox News opinion articles (1, 2, 3), getting her a lot of attention in the Twittersphere and my own personal circles. I've had some time to think since my last post, and I have decided that it is important to articulate my problems with Venker's claim that happiness requires the admission that "men and women aren't 'equal'". Why? Because Venker's perspective is a frighteningly popular one, a 'guilty pleasure' admission to which people will and do latch as an excuse to perpetuate what may seem on the outside to be an attractive traditional pathway. In reality, these articles reveal a limited understanding of a complex world, tempered by unacknowledged and poisonous privilege.
These articles are dripping with privilege, perhaps evidenced by the Freudian slip that was a picture of a same-sex couple used to depict lasting love and peaceful marriage in Venker's most recent piece. This wouldn't be a problem, if Venker wasn't writing about marriage as strictly under the domain of heterosexual couples. Since discovering the mishap, the picture has been replaced by a generic pair of stick-figure people supposedly depicting a man and a woman, public-bathroom-style. What does that tell an audience? Could they just not find a reliably heteronormative photo of a happily married "straight" couple? Wasn't the original enough to demonstrate that just because a person wears pants doesn't mean they're a man?
Sorry, Venker. The gender-fuck already happened, and no picture on the web is going to erase that stain from the internet's memory.
The ironic thing about it is that Venker's article attempts to dismiss her critics because she doesn't believe gender is a construct. "[T]he truth must be heard..." she writes. "Unless, of course, you’re beholden to feminism. In that case... [y]ou’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct."
Her supporting evidence is a joke. "Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball. This doesn’t mean men can’t take care of babies or women can’t play sports. It just means each gender has its own energy that flows in a specific direction. For God’s sake, let it flow."
Seriously? It's not like there is a whole history of dolls and balls being forced into the faces of 'little girls and boys' by advertising and moms like Venker or anything. Obviously the submission of impressionable minds to traditional gender norms enforced by figures of authority perfectly demonstrates that gender is not a social construct.
Vernker's piece is composed of heteronormative, cis-genered privilege, but it is also the cry of an upper-middle-class white woman who does not seem to comprehend the idea of life for life's sake sans traditional marriage and babies.
Her simplistic perspective of history ignores feminine oppression, pretending feminism exists solely for the purpose of proving that gender is a construct to fuck up marriage and get ladies jobs (as if deconstructing marriage and giving ladies jobs is the worst thing that could possibly happen to anyone ever). It's so much more than that. It's the rejection of the objectification of women. It's the protection of the feminine voice. It's the refusal to accept that there is one path for which I was designed and that all others are unnatural. This separate-but-equal attitude Venker adopts (the same perspective historically adopted pre-civil-rights and used in the present day by many in the same-sex-marriage debate) just isn't reasonable. Separate but equal is an illusion, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain.
From one woman to another, I have a different perspective to offer Venker:
Yeah, Suzanne, I really like the idea of getting married and adopting children and having a family, but never in a million years would I sacrifice the rights that generations of feminists (yes, feminists, not just women) have fought for me to have just so I could acquire what you perceive as peaceful and socially acceptable marriage.
09 February 2013
08 February 2013
Doctor Straightlove or: How Suzanne Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Oral Sex
Re: Suzanne Venker
When I first begin reading Venker’s opinion articles on Fox News, I find myself positively exhilarated. “The battle of the sexes is alive and well”, she writes in her first article.
“Women aren’t women anymore”, she writes.
When I first begin reading Venker’s opinion articles on Fox News, I find myself positively exhilarated. “The battle of the sexes is alive and well”, she writes in her first article.
“Women aren’t women anymore”, she writes.
Kinky, I think. What does that make me, a person who does, in fact, identify as a woman? Master? Dog-trainer? Prison guard? Oh, baby.
From that point on it is clear to me that Venker isn’t writing about heteronormative perceptions of love and marriage; nor is she even conscious of the pro-cis-gendered lens through which her article speaks.
No, Suzanne Venker is giving EL James a run for her money, writing quite possibly the cleverest under-the-rug BDSM fiction since the poorly disguised Fifty Shades of Chicken. She is simply using the tools in her toolbox. As a woman who “lives in St. Louis, MO, with her husband and their two children”, Venker has a unique and powerful perspective that allows her to discuss kink with a subtlety that defies even the unique perceptive abilities of Fox News.
From that point on it is clear to me that Venker isn’t writing about heteronormative perceptions of love and marriage; nor is she even conscious of the pro-cis-gendered lens through which her article speaks.
No, Suzanne Venker is giving EL James a run for her money, writing quite possibly the cleverest under-the-rug BDSM fiction since the poorly disguised Fifty Shades of Chicken. She is simply using the tools in her toolbox. As a woman who “lives in St. Louis, MO, with her husband and their two children”, Venker has a unique and powerful perspective that allows her to discuss kink with a subtlety that defies even the unique perceptive abilities of Fox News.
Sometimes, though, perhaps too subtle…
“In a nutshell, women are angry”, she writes later on in the aforementioned article.
Oh, I think, obviously assuming the nutshell to which Venker refers is actually one of many cock-and-ball torture devices such as the ball crusher or the testicle cuff. Of course, she seems to be getting her gender assignments mixed up. I might have suggested “With a nutshell…” which would eliminate confusion and clearly identify the woman in this particular scenario as the dominant partner. (Remember, we're talking cis-gender here.) Not everybody is as educated on the nuances of consensual sexual torture as I am. Perhaps it is her mad attempt at metaphorical complexity that causes her mix-up (or it could be a rogue editor). Unfortunately, as later analyses will show, this slip of the tongue may be the love child of her inexperience and discomfort with this hitherto unexplored sexual adventure.
I must say, though, that I am impressed with the prose she manages despite the internal confusion. She writes, “[women have] been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal ([insert some distracting bollocks about feminism here]) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.” The use of the word “raised” encourages the reader to presume that this is, indeed, a consensual act arranged in advance between two adults (well done, Suzie). Beyond that, the metaphorical imagery of the climb is absolutely tantalizing. At this point, I think each person is responsible for his or her interpretation of the text. (I, for instance, might choose to imagine this woman as a prisoner climbing up a ladder to take the power from the prison guard… perhaps not so black and white as I originally suspected! Oh, how the tables have turned!)
The thing that tips me off to her extreme discomfort is the fact that Venker automatically assumes the natural next step is for dom to become sub (“All [women] have to do is surrender…” and blah, blah, blah). She’s clearly still experimenting and hasn’t found her place yet in the community as she writes this article.
In the piece published just a few days later, it would seem she’s found her footing. “In other words, surrendering to your femininity means to put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car”, she writes in her follow-up piece.
In other words, Mr. Venker found the nipple clamps.
Unfortunately, it seems her third article marks the end of her explorations in the exciting world of BDSM. Unhappy as a dom, unsatisfied as a sub, the Venker matriarch puts away the family tools (and stops playing naughty with the family jewels) for good. “The battle of the sexes is over. And guess what? No one won”, she writes in an unfortunate public admission of defeat. “Why not try something else on for size? Like this: men and women are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities that they bring to the table. Isn’t it time we stopped fussing about who brought what and simply enjoy the feast?”
Well, at least they’ll always have oral.
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert in Suzanne Venker, her family, or her published works (and I would be positively tickled if she could be so kind as to avoid such claims regarding myself, my gender, my desires, my sexual orientation, my romantic orientation, or my humanity). I do not claim to be an expert on BDSM, either, and if I have spoken out of turn or wrongfully against any persons engaged in the BDSM community, I ask that they please graciously inform me of my mistakes and allow me to fix them.
“In a nutshell, women are angry”, she writes later on in the aforementioned article.
Oh, I think, obviously assuming the nutshell to which Venker refers is actually one of many cock-and-ball torture devices such as the ball crusher or the testicle cuff. Of course, she seems to be getting her gender assignments mixed up. I might have suggested “With a nutshell…” which would eliminate confusion and clearly identify the woman in this particular scenario as the dominant partner. (Remember, we're talking cis-gender here.) Not everybody is as educated on the nuances of consensual sexual torture as I am. Perhaps it is her mad attempt at metaphorical complexity that causes her mix-up (or it could be a rogue editor). Unfortunately, as later analyses will show, this slip of the tongue may be the love child of her inexperience and discomfort with this hitherto unexplored sexual adventure.
I must say, though, that I am impressed with the prose she manages despite the internal confusion. She writes, “[women have] been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal ([insert some distracting bollocks about feminism here]) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.” The use of the word “raised” encourages the reader to presume that this is, indeed, a consensual act arranged in advance between two adults (well done, Suzie). Beyond that, the metaphorical imagery of the climb is absolutely tantalizing. At this point, I think each person is responsible for his or her interpretation of the text. (I, for instance, might choose to imagine this woman as a prisoner climbing up a ladder to take the power from the prison guard… perhaps not so black and white as I originally suspected! Oh, how the tables have turned!)
The thing that tips me off to her extreme discomfort is the fact that Venker automatically assumes the natural next step is for dom to become sub (“All [women] have to do is surrender…” and blah, blah, blah). She’s clearly still experimenting and hasn’t found her place yet in the community as she writes this article.
In the piece published just a few days later, it would seem she’s found her footing. “In other words, surrendering to your femininity means to put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car”, she writes in her follow-up piece.
In other words, Mr. Venker found the nipple clamps.
Unfortunately, it seems her third article marks the end of her explorations in the exciting world of BDSM. Unhappy as a dom, unsatisfied as a sub, the Venker matriarch puts away the family tools (and stops playing naughty with the family jewels) for good. “The battle of the sexes is over. And guess what? No one won”, she writes in an unfortunate public admission of defeat. “Why not try something else on for size? Like this: men and women are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities that they bring to the table. Isn’t it time we stopped fussing about who brought what and simply enjoy the feast?”
Well, at least they’ll always have oral.
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert in Suzanne Venker, her family, or her published works (and I would be positively tickled if she could be so kind as to avoid such claims regarding myself, my gender, my desires, my sexual orientation, my romantic orientation, or my humanity). I do not claim to be an expert on BDSM, either, and if I have spoken out of turn or wrongfully against any persons engaged in the BDSM community, I ask that they please graciously inform me of my mistakes and allow me to fix them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)