Posts Tagged ‘Nadine Strossen’

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

So what are the  desires of powerful women? What is it that ‘turns them on’ beyond power? Where does their healthy urge merge with deviance, or illegal activity?

I suspect the answer is that what turns them on is what turns anyone in power on: the tools of power–rape, violence directed at the poor, child molestation, class and gender oppression, the committing of crimes withouit accountability, and social control. Profiles exist of such people, but these profiles are directed against, embodied, and engendered male.

The difference is that no one has yet questioned what these women are, or what is really beneath the surface of their desires, or how much they fit the sexual profiles of power they themselves have established.

But here below, is a clue, from a recollection of Andrea Dworkin, militant one-winged anti-male feminist, activist against rape, oppression, enslavement, and pornography. In the published recollection, she describes a “love” for her mother, Sylvia ( she does not ‘name’ her father in that same piece) that was in her own words, her “first great romance.

Andrea Dworkin, childhood sexual experience with her mother, and other children.

 I have idyllic memories of childhood in Camden: my brother, my father, and me having tickling fights, wrestling, on the living room floor; me in my cowgirl suit practicing my fast draw so I could be an American hero; a tiny sandbox on our front lawn where all the children played, boys and girls together, our Eden until a certain year when the girls had to wear tops–I may have been five but I remember screaming and crying in an inarticulate outrage. We girls played with dolls on the stoops, washed their hair, set it, combed it out, dressed the dolls, tried to make stories of glamour in which they stood for us. I remember being humiliated by some girl I didn’t like for not washing my doll’s hair right–I think the doll was probably drowning. Later, my grandfather married her mother across the street, and I had to be nice to her.

I was happier when we moved from dolls to canasta, gin rummy, poker, and strip poker. The children on the street developed a collective secret life, a half dozen games of sex and dominance that we played, half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding. And we played Red Rover and Giant Steps, appropriating the whole block from traffic. And there was always ball, in formal games, or alone to pass the time, against brick walls, against the cement stoops. I liked the sex-and-dominance games, which could be overtly sadomasochistic, because I liked the risk and the intensity; and I liked ordinary games like hide-and-seek. I loved the cement, the alleys, the wires and telephone poles, the parked cars that provided sanctuary from the adults, a kind of metallic barrier against their eyes and ears; and I loved the communal life of us, the children, half Lord of the Flies, half a prelude to Marjorie Morningstar. To this day, my idea of a good time is to sit on a city stoop amid a profusion of people and noise as dark is coming on.

My question is: what exactly is she re-living on those steps, and why is she seeking her memories of children, and children’s games to re-live it?

We have a father encouraging heroism in the young Andrea; a father establishing a sexual angst based but clear boundary by stopping the play at tickling, but we have a mother who is omnipresent, omniscient, and possibly controlling a child’s deepest fears about death and harm in every situation, and yet that mother is adored.

Dominance in sexual situations; dominance in sexual situations with children; secrecy in dominance games with children. Are glimpses into Andrea Dworkin’s—one feminist among many, but what a feminist she was– inner motivations.

The key, in my opinion, to understanding the motivations, libidos, and power quests of women isn’t going to be found in asking patriarchy the same old questions about men, but from understanding the scant empirical evidence of powerful women’s self-edited, or self- suppressed, self-censored, coded, and hidden dialogues.

In Andrea’s case—and Andrea who became grossly overweight in her later years, like many child victims of maternal sexual abuse—she played out her early sexual power quests in front of her mother, as she said, and her early sexual experimentation, and its direction occurred “half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding.”

That conspiracy of hiding is the biggest clue, along with the fact that it was Andrea, and other girls who had other mothers, that played such things out—in front of mothers.

I personally believe that women’s rape fears are the internalized, non-verbally cued, female embodied, and maternally engendered fear that fathers would not approve of the behaviors that mothers instill, encourage, embody, and condone, as long as those behaviors take place in front of women.

And those women, just like cops, like to mediate wider social interactions, and to see what young vaginas are up to, voyeuristically, from the outside looking in.

Andrea never had children, and I suspect it is because she knew herself well, and protected them pro-actively from herself, and her mothers female embodied, voyeuristic Lacanian gaze. Later Andrea extrapolated that gaze into her views of pornography, and projected that gaze onto men in general, rather than being a true hero, and discussing her interactions of childhood sexual dominance play that could likely have been encouraged, embodied, or manipulated by her mother, and the mothers of other girls whom she played with.

That is my pure specualtion of exactly what it is that might lay beneath the surface of feminist projections about male sexuality, after all, the evidence i so scant- but I believe that underneath women’s dialogues lurks Andrea, on the steps, still looking for kids to play with and dominate—and another mother to look at her approval seeking, dominance-based sexual displays.

Nuit Blanche - Key hole sessions - Girls.Greas...

Image via Wikipedia

Moderate feminists have taken a less extreme position and stated that although extremist feminism is a necessary evil to address social problems, primarily rape by men, they note that not all men, and not all sex is controlling of women, or womens choices, and have noted as well that some women have power, and exercise complete choice in their sexual matters. However, the stipulation, the fine print underneath this moderate feminism maintains that womens choices exist within the context of patriarchy, and that matriarchy does not exist. And so women are de facto not in full control of their bodies or choices.

Unlike most social movements, where one can discern a left and a right wing, feminist movement has only one wing, which is a moderate to extreme right social and sexual conservatism. Because militant and extremist feminism exists exclusively on the right wing of promoting violence as a means of control, and both moderate and militant feminists have a basic belief in police infrastructure and intervention in all matters and at all levels of male and female interactions. Lastly, they agree that women and sex are sexual commodities that can be capitalized on, but they disagree on who should maintain the profits that are and can be made by selling womens sexual commodity. None of them have any ideas about male sexuality, or its use and abuse as a sexual commodity.

Thus, there really is no real center, and no left wing of feminism.

There are splinter groups who seldom have a main voice in the discussion, like sex positive feminists. Then there are often times controversial women who feminists disavow as being anti-feminist, conservative, or biased against feminist objectives, even though these controversial women have attained what feminists claim is unattainable for women. Christina Hoff Summers; Ann Coulter; Nadine Strossen to name a few.

These individuals and groups are not dystopian nor Utopian as is the feminist wing. These individuals and small groups are usually more day to day, blue collar, and working class; often what could be called sexually precocious,or deviant, even in moderate terms; sexually liberated, independent minded, and feeling in control of their bodies and their choices. It is apparent what they want, and what they desire, and more often than not, they go out and get it.

Homeschoolers, hippies, church groups and midwife networks who do not necessarily identify with feminism, or agree with its foundations and philosophies are feminist in practice and principle, but not in wider social practice or activism, and with good reason. Womens shopping networks, and working nurses who earn their way to the top of their professions are feminist as well, by doing, not by preaching.

Actions speak louder than words.

BDSM women desire that; feminist prostitutes who desire safer work conditions and legalization of their craft desire that; female truck drivers who love to travel and seek sex coast to coast get that, and soldiers who want paychecks and lots of play or heirarchy based power–and understand the risks–get that.

But in all the dialogue, one thing is clearly, and consistently missing: discussion about truly deviant motivations and behaviors of women who are in power, who wish to attain power, and who commit deviant acts or crimes in order to maintain power.

What does the feminist wing want? What really turns them on? It seems they want it all, and they want a police force at their beck and call that will enable that perspective without question; they want to rule, but they don’t want to actually fight for that power, or explain its rewards—they want police inserted into the dialogue on the pretense of rape, so that they can have that dialogue safely. But what are they protecting that requires such a high degree of safety to discuss or conceal it?

The wider discussion itself did not arise out of thin air. Rape, child rape, social marginalization and gender based oppression is and was an endemic failure of the American state, and failure to prosecute rape was a horrible historical fact.

In fact, women’s groups assertions that possible harassment or rape is the number one concern facing advancement and equality of women, and these actualities have basis in fact, because after all, some men had committed rape, etc., and and we compiled data that confirmed this thesis.

But what other social dialogues and mechanisms enhance thepower of rape anxieties?

And what to do about women who have power, and the same tendencies as anyone in power to use the ‘tools of power,’ which they have made clear are rape, oppression based on gender, and false notions of biological destiny. How do such women abuse power? What deviant acts are they committing in order to mask and fuel their power?

When discussing this one winged feminism, and the endless stream of female consciousness that projects rape fear and rape anxiety upon the men of the nation has one curious side effect: it masks the sexual actions, intentions, sexual desires, and sexual fantasies of these women almost entirely, while displaying that exact power over men.

In projecting that men are rapists; murderers; pedophiles, etc., and going after the data to back those assumptions, we know what it is that they say men are, and that the data aimed at collecting such information supports that men can be what they say men are—but we never quite get a glimpse of what it is that these women actually are, or to know what it is that is at the center of their libidinal reality.

So, if men are prone to rape by nature, prone to violating the basic social compact that prohibits such behavior and in a social and physical position to actually rape–to have access to victims, what of women who have access to children? What about women who have access to children AND power?

We never get a glimpse of what it is in these womens learning process that makes them so sure what a rapist is, or a pedophile—what one looks like, as they are so sure they know; what special secret access beyond post-Freudian anecdotes of child abuse, and recent decades advances in examining male deviance that support what these women claim are mens desires, and mens fantasies, apart and apparently, separate from their own.

We see how hard they have worked to convince society what it is that men are capable of, and we have seen the statistics on crime mirror to some degree the reality that they proposed—but in alarmingly small numbers, and under questionable social circumstances.

We see the police agency act as exactly what the police act as anywhere: protectors of the middle to upper class, and oppressors of the poor; all without ever asking about, seeing, or questioning what it is that these women of power desire; what it is that they are capable of. We can easily infer that police ARE the other wing of that kind of power oriented feminism.

But we have not yet examined these women, and their power.