yeah, i’m a miserable victim (updated)
March 13, 2007 by thinking girl
two of the common things I hear from people who are opposed to feminism are that feminists practice victim politics, and that we - and our friends and family, by extension, presumably due to our incessant whining - must be miserable. I got both of these today, in yet-to-be-approved comments.
so, are feminists just victims? don’t we just need to stop all our whining? Well, the short answer is NO. to all those who have ever had this thought, please be directed to this post, at a great new blog I discovered, Finally, a Feminism 101 blog. The gist is that women do suffer oppression based on their gender, everyday, in every society, and it leads to a lot of really bad things for women, like poverty, ill health, rape, illiteracy, hunger, malnourishment, maternal death, slavery, forced prostitution, forced marriage, female genital cutting, domestic violence, and other forms of exploitation. Check out my Blog Against Sexism post for more details. And hey - don’t take my word for it, go check out studies and stats at the UN website. Be sure to check out the links to UNIFEM, WomenWatch and UNICEF while you’re there for a more specific look at some of these issues. Don’t like the UN? Check out the Global Fund for Women. The bottom line is, there are a lot of women globally who are victimized in a variety of ways. Patriarchy hasn’t run out of ways to oppress women yet, and the old ways keep on keepin’ on, so as feminists it is our responsibility to raise our voices in protest.
And perhaps those who so easily toss around the “victim politics” label might jsut be doing so to deflect attention from their own inability and unwillingness to examine their role in the global hierarchy and how they might be actually contributing to the oppression of women. It’s funny that the ones who so often throw this one out have tried to have a “meaningful dialogue” with feminists about how wrong we are, and think of themselves as pro-gender equality, yet resort to the same kind of thing that the more rampant misogynist pulls out of his bag of tricks. But yeah, we feminists are just plain wrong to see patriarchy everywhere.
As for the “are you really happy in your life, because it seems like you’re so angry, and you’re never going to be happy if you keep up all this analysis and whatnot” - to this I say guess what? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW ME. Don’t play the “I’m concerned about your happiness” card with me, cuz no you’re not, and YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW ME. And what’s more, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, EITHER. so just give it up.
This is one step away from the “all you really need is a good fuck” argument, as well as the “you’ll never find a husband with that feminist attitude of yours” argument.
NEWSFLASH 1 - cock is not the cure-all for the problems facing women in this world. In fact, I’m guessing that for some women, cock is exactly the fucking problem, considering cock is so often used as a weapon against women in rape and sexual assault. Cock is not enough to make up for the poverty, the violence, the illiteracy, the poor health, the enslavement that women experience. Not nearly. Besides, only 25% of women can orgasm with penetration alone. But I’m sure you all knew THAT, being the Don Juan Casanovas that you are - no woman is ever left unsatisfied by you.
NEWSFLASH 2 - not everyone wants a husband. I sure as hell don’t. no fucking thank you.
But since the subject at hand is MY personal happiness, I’d like to just say, I’m just fine, don’t worry about me. And if you actually did know me, you’d be fucking lucky.
UPDATE: It occurred to me I should fill my readers in on the specific comments that motivated this post, and the follow-up post, also, i hate men, don’t really want equality, and should be grateful for the scraps i’m given from patriarchy’s table. Here are the specific comments that motivated this post:
Malignor said:
Extremists have been known to shape the world, from Ghandi to Hitler, but I am hard pressed to think of a world-changing extremist who didn’t have a existence marked by hardship, suffering, insanity, persecution and/or death as a result of their ambition. I doubt any of them were truly happy. I’m very happy (Are you?), and I live in the same world you do. I also tend to live in harmony with the world, as-is, and the changes I make are to my own piece of the world, and to myself so I can better live in it. Self-destructive extremism is the sort of thing that would not only hurt me, but also my friends and family. I hope your friends and family are okay (are they?).
P-Stone said:
Personally I think you’re spending your lives feeling more pissed off and oppressed than you should or have to and I want nothing more to do with it.
And just today, Kelson said:
To conclude, thinking girl, you need to stop the drama queen and victim attitude. It’s downright pessimistic and ultimately not attractive. If you’re strong enough then you should work towards something positive instead of complaining about men ruining your life. I recommend you slap on some make-up, head to a club, work a free drink out of a man and get fucked!*.
All of these quotes are taken from comments made on the thread, professional pick-up artists run woman tricking business to help guys get laid. For some reason, this post has drawn a litany privilege-defending asshattery.
Sigh. I can’t believe people post that stuff. Comments like that confirm my generalized theory — people are idiots.
I think feminists are an angry lot because we’re not hiding our heads in the sand. We’re reading and learning and enraged by what’s out there. I’d rather be angry and an activist than blissfully ignorant. I’m angry so, hopefully, some women in the future won’t have to be - as much. And while I sometimes write angrily, I’m actually very happy. Being angry even makes me happy sometimes!!
There. Good to get that off my chest.
I am so sick of those cliche arguments from anti-feminists. By saying that we’ll never be happy with the analyzing we do of the world that we live in is pretty much saying “ignorance is bliss” and we should go with that. If the majority of feminists eventually prescribed to that way of thining (rather, non-thinking), the oppression of the patriarchy will only get worse. Anyways, once enlightened, I find it hard to force ignorance upon one’s self.
As for the marriage and cock statements, it’s gotten to a point where I don’t even find such comments worth my two cents. Maybe if those same people who could come up with a credible comment that worth ruminating and discussing, then I would. However, a person can only take but so much ignorance in a day.
On the “why do you want to be a victim” attitude, I think that they miss the whole point of “victim.” People don’t choose to be victims.
Say one of these guys was walking down the street and was mugged. He would be pissed off, and angry, and want some changes made so that people could walk down the street without getting mugged. No one would be saying that he was choosing to play the victim, and his being angry and wanting change would be characterized as empowerment or “fighting back.”
Women did not choose to be victimized by gender oppression (or racial oppression, or class oppression, all of which intersect all of the time). We were being born and minding our own business being humans and were metaphorically mugged by sexism. Feminists are the ones who get angry and fight back.
Being angry at something also does not preclude happiness in life. The two are not opposites or mutually exclusive. Also, sometimes happiness is not the goal. Sometimes justice and satisfaction are the goals. Sometimes, the goal is just survival.
Excellent post! Right on! Plus, I now want a t-shirt that says “Cock is not a cure all.”
What’s remarkable about those criticisms against feminism is the sense of entitlement they betray. That’s what really marks cultural dominance: Hi, I’m ignorant and privileged, and not only am I entitled to walk and talk and dress the way I want, but if you dare threaten the freedom of my ignorant speech, then I am entitled to presume knowledge of your innermost desires and fears–and criticize them.
All I presume to know are effects and their material causes. I know the physical manifestations of sex oppression as you describe them here and elsewhere. I know that in an ostensibly free country, my behavior in private is mine but my behavior in public is almost always constituted in relation to male behavior: I must be sweet and helpful at work to get results, I must be invisible when I go out at night to avoid aggression. That suggests to me that sexism is so deeply embedded and condoned in our culture that it is not recognized as sexism. (The way racism is not recognized as racism, as I’ve recently blogged.) That sounds to me like something worth talking about.
Hi, I’m ignorant and privileged, and not only am I entitled to walk and talk and dress the way I want, but if you dare threaten the freedom of my ignorant speech, then I am entitled to presume knowledge of your innermost desires and fears–and criticize them.
Right on tanglethis!
“I’m entitled to my anger at being called out and made to feel uncomfortable, but you’re not entitled to your anger at being treated this way every damned day!”
Right on! Thanks for the fem101 link.
This is something that really irks me. I wrote here: “…it isn’t feminists who make rape survivors out to be victims; it is the rapists that victimize them by raping them.” I’m sure that could be broadened to include all the other ways women can be victimized.
But feminism is about more than recognizing the truth of women’s victimhood. It’s about fighting back. So what’s wrong with trying to stop the victimization of women? Why do critics have a problem with that?
I totally agree. Fatherly Concern is patronizing and rarely in the interest of empowering the ‘victim’.
That said, I have to say this “massive black unrelenting cock” did kind of make my day:
http://www.plasticbag.org/images/extra/the_coming_of_the_small_kit.jpg
damn it! my comment got munched! *sigh* let’s see if I can remember what I said…
Dave - yeah, it never really ends. just a stream of it all the time. it gets tiresome to sift through, not just here but at other feminist blogs. What I don’t understand is, why do anti-feminists seek out feminist blogs anyway? obviously it’s just to be combative. But seriously, I don’t go around looking for MRA sites and white supremacy sites and homophobic sites and then leave comments at them - and I’m pretty fucking sure that my viewpoint is a hell of a lot more moral than anything I would read there!
I think it all comes down to threat to privilege. Feminism is a threat to unearned male privilege. and hence the valorous defenders of male privilege show up on feminist sites to try to defeat us.
Sage - yeah, I’m with you. I’d rather be an angry fighter than a complacent bobblehead. And I agree, that the anger I feel when I learn about social injustices actually does give me something positive: Hope. Because when you figure out that this stuff is all based on social discourse and practice, and not on any concrete biological reality of any significance, then it also means that these social discourses are subject to change. And that is a powerful thing.
Marya - welcome, and thanks - I agree. Once you’ve taken the red pill, you can’t go back and take the blue pill. You just can’t. And really, would you even want to?
Clio - I like that, metaphorically mugged by sexism. Good one! I’ll order a T-shirt with that on it along with the Cock Isn’t A Cure-All one.
and you’re right, I think we’re beyond hedonism as a moral theory. Or at least non-celebrities are.
But seriously, if happiness was the ultimate reason for living, it still wouldn’t take away the fact that social circumstances prevent everyone from being able to achieve the purpose of life to the same degree, or even at all. Other things are more important than just personal happiness.
tanglethis and schemanista - sorry, I’m going to group you here, because what I have to say builds on what both of you wrote.
I think you’re right, TT, to say that this is something worth talking about: the ubiquitousness of sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, etc…. is so strong that we don’t even see it - it is rendered invisible. But more than that, what is rendered invisible is the other part of oppression: privilege. Oppression isn’t just made up of suibjugation; oppression is also made up of subjugation’s flip side, privilege. The two live side by side; one doesn’t exist without the other. And getting rid of oppression means eliminating both of these things.
Red Jenny - Yes, you’re right. Victims don’t make themselves into victims. If they did we’d call them something else, like willing accomplices. But that’s the rub: these anti-feminists believe, and more importantly, want us to believe, that we are willing accomplices in gender oppression. Because our society works on a doctrine of meritocracy. Doesn’t matter that the doctrine is false, and that not everyone has earned the privileges they enjoy in life. That is the libertarian ideal upon which our society is based (at least in the west here).
And look around - it sure looks like millions of women are willingly participating in things that we feminists like to say are products of patriarchy. Like my favourite example, femininity. But of course, just because women are doing something, doesn’t mean that they are doing it willingly, or thoughtfully, or in a feminist way. (not to say that women who do participate in practices that feminists often deem to be part of patriarchy are doing so mindlessly or without autonomy.)
I think the answer to your question as to what’s wrong with trying to stop the victimization of women, aside from NOTHING, is that doing so challenges the social order, and more specifically male privilege. Those who oppose feminism ultimately have too much invested in the current social order, like all their unearned privilege, to want to see it overturned. Because then they might not end up on top.
Rainbow Girl - thanks for sharing - made my day too!
I don’t have much to add, except i for one have really appreciated & been enlightened by your feminist point of veiw. I’ve always thought your passion & focus in what you believe is admirable.
You’ve helped me to realize how important feminism is.
This is what I say when I hear people criticize feminists:
“If it wasn’t for feminists, who knows how long it would have been before women could vote or get any kind of birth control or for that matter any rights in the US.”
I’m glad you stick up for women!
give ‘em hell, TG.
L>T - thanks! I’m pleased and humbled that I have helped you understand feminism better through this blog. I like your response to the anti-feminists! And don’t worry, I’m gonna continue to stick up for women for as long as I live.
RenEv - thanks!!
I will!!
“Besides, only 25% of women can orgasm with penetration alone.”
25%!
Wow. That many women are satisfied? Goodness, who are these men who know what they are doing!?
Hmmpf.
“But I’m sure you all knew THAT, being the Don Juan Casanovas that you are - no woman is ever left unsatisfied by you.”
What’s the old saying?
It’s not what you have, but, how you use it, that counts.
And sadly, some men never learn how to use either head; the little one, or the big one.
L>T: “If it wasn’t for feminists, who knows how long it would have been before women could vote or get any kind of birth control or for that matter any rights in the US.”
My mother, the first feminist I ever knew, still talks about arguing with the bank because they wouldn’t give her a bank account in her legal name. As far as they were concerned, she was legally “Mrs. Hubby Lastname”
This was 1969. Women got the vote in 1917! (Canada)
ThinkingGirl: Oppression isn’t just made up of subjugation; oppression is also made up of subjugation’s flip side, privilege. The two live side by side; one doesn’t exist without the other. And getting rid of oppression means eliminating both of these things.
Men need to step up. I need to step up. Feminists have been saying this since the 70’s and I think it’s as true now as ever.
Every time I let a racist or misogynistic situation pass by unremarked, I’ve done my part for the patriarchy.
Not exactly the legacy I want to leave for my daughter.
[...] out The Thinking Girl. She’s on point. Watch her go off on that whole victim thing (So tired it [...]
Ann - well, just because 25% can, doesn’t mean they all are….
What was the line from “When Harry Met Sally…”? Something about all men think that they haven’t been with a woman who’s faked it with them, but most women have faked it, so you do the math? 
schemanista - Yikes about your mom!
I hear you. we all need to step up, stop hiding behind privilege, get the word out. I know sometimes it can be unwise or even dangerous to take a stand, so we have to make sure that we can at least survive under patriarchy, but I agree that we must do what we can when we can to fight oppression of all flavours.
I’ve gotten the “just need some cock” one a lot. It takes all my power not to point out that I’m probably “getting cock” on a more frequent basis than the complainer’s wife or girlfriend and somehow, my willingness to believe that women are people hasn’t disappeared.
Thinking more about it, guys who say that are asserting what they *think* Andrea Dworkin said, that all sex was rape. Basically, they’re arguing that sex is the cure for female self-esteem, that a good hard pounding will remind the bitch that she’s nothing but a cum dumpster. The idea that women have affirming, joyful sexual encounters doesn’t come into the equation.
Hey Amanda - wow, I’m star-struck! Thanks for coming by - I’m a big fan!
yeah, I couldn’t agree more… I just commented on another thread about Dworkin’s concept that when a woman is being abuses, rapes, oppressed, etc., she isn’t being misused, she is being used in exactly the way patriarchy has constructed and intended her to be used.
I for one am sick and tired to death of the valuation of a woman being tied to whether or not a man finds her useful in this way.
Sorry it’s probably a thing that has said by TG and others thousand times, more eloquently and comprehensively, but I just want to say that I’m really sick of this sex-crazed world, that sexual attractiveness is the big source of virtue and those who are not sexually attractive or beautiful are worthless. Especially for women. Where are role models for young, intelligent women to look upon, not the ones to imply that being a sexual symbol is the best course of success in patriarchy? Sexual liberation is a worthy cause, but sexual liberation under patriarchy is dire.
That sort of comments is based on the premise that one’s purpose of life should be to pursue her/his own happiness. If I could choose I would choose to be happy rather than unhappy, but I don’t regard my personal happiness as the purpose of my life. I choose to live justly, it’s paramount, no matter how it makes me unhappy or angry. When people put their own personal happiness above happiness and justice of the entire humanity, all sorts of evils; oppression, war, crimes etc; spring up. If activists put their own happiness above justice, notable social progresses, such as abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage,
couldn’t have been achieved. Also, I choose a path to the enlightenment, not to the blissful ignorance (if it exists). Socrates dissatisfied is better than a pig satisfied.
LL - thanks for joining in, LL. I couldn’t agree more with what you said.
I too am sick and tired to death of sexualized female role models. And the bad thing, I think, is that it seems like the alternative female role model is the masculinized woman, the woman who has adopted a sort of pseudomasculinity in order to achieve success who has bascially denied or pushed underground her sexuality. it’s so weird.
Ugh, tell me about it TG. I once had a friend who was quite religious and so when thinking about what she might want to do as a profession the idea of ministry came up (she was actively involved in her church so this is not a huge stretch). However, she decided against it because (drum roll please…
she doesn’t like female ministers. (WTF?) Why? “Because they are never sexy”, and she thinks women should be sexy. WHAT THE HELL? First of all, does she hold this standard for male ministers? NO. Would the sexiness (in a malestream sense) necessarily be good for a minister in so far as it helps their ministering? NO. I’m all for sexual ministers, and hell what they want to do in their personal lives is fine by me, if they want to look sexy because it pleases them, fine. BUT writing off an entire gender of ministers because you haven’t met one that is “sexy enough” EGAD! As if they are subclass citizens because they’re not swinging their hips up to the alter.. fuck.
Sorry, a rant… but one that has been balled up inside me for a long time. And I think that it does show how it is not good enough to be a woman who is good at her job, especially a “man’s job”, you need to top all that up with an extra dose of ssexpot in order to still be a woman… As a girl in one of my classes said, “Great, I’m so smart and so successful I guess I’ll have to take off MORE clothes now!” (sarcasm of course)
M - that is a really bizarre story. gla dyou could get it off your chest!
LOL re: having to take off more clothes the smarter and more successful you get as a woman!
A perfect lesson in rhetorical devaluing here.
I don’t know about anyone else, but hearing someone accuse a group of practicing “victim politics” is almost always utterly ridiculous. The connotative meaning of the phrase — that victims are somehow “exploiting” their status on the receiving end of a crime to climb the power ladder — serves to further emasculate the oppressed by making them feel guilty over desiring to better their situation. And even if the phrase is interpreted in the most favorable light, the meaning is still equivocal: the “victim” cries wolf to attract sympathy to further their causes. In that case, I see no victim, only an aggressor.
The accusation of victim politics is simply a method by which an oppressive group can continue to dominate the oppressed and mask blatantly racist/sexist/etc. ideals with a convenient euphemism.
Additionally, it reinforces the weak status of the oppressed (women, here) by painting a pathetic image: the crybaby who uses tears to get his/her way. If I had enemies, I’d certainly want to envision them in that state, helpless and weak, sobbing over trivialities. Of course, the accusation of victim politics also conceals and demeans what the oppressor fears most in the oppressed — independence and ambition. When was the last time you thought of an infant having goals beyond instant gratification?
Funny how these phrases seem so carefully crafted and house all sorts of subtle nuances. Feminism and other forms of activism must combat rhetoric as well as meat-and-potatoes oppression.
What a wonderful digression.
Clark - thanks for your comment - very insightful! and yes, I think you’re absolutely right - it’s kind of a distract-and-conquer strategy, isn’t it? well, as I’ve recently decided, I will fall for it no longer!
Patrairchy IMHO is probably is the most trancendant form of oppression and finds itself in all spheres of society. Also, feminism represents the viewpoints of oppressed womenhood, something that all women from all societies share in common is thier sex and gender.
However, there are other forms of oppression and womenhood is but one form of common identity between peoples and sometimes i get the feeling that this is downplayed. I think there is a thin line between discussing the factors that are relevant to a feminist analysis of a circumstance and “trying to one-up the minority groups and appropriate their oppression” (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146)
It is this concern that makes it very difficult for me to engage with identity politics. My thoughts are half formed on this TG my apologies if this seems vague but i am going to write about this in detail (not feminism more identity politics) in my blog in the near future.
Hi Stixzz,
I’m kind of working through similar issues with regards to identity politics right now, so I can relate to what you’ve said here…as for patriarchy, it’s a much used word in feminism and sometimes hard to know quite what it means when someone refers to it. Sometimes I think we need a new word…to express what is really the intersection of male dominance, white dominance, class dominance etc…when I say ‘patriarchy’ that’s really what I want to express, but too often people think it only refers to gender oppression. Hmm. Is there a better word?
It probably is just the fact that for the sake of shorthand we use one word to describe a particular form of oppression we feel afinity with and thus leave in the background the other dimensions in the multifaced forms of oppression when looking at a given issue.
Hmm there definately should be a word, Im sure if i worked harder at university id know what that word was!
how about an acronym - White Rich Male Supremacy (WRMS)? We could add in Able-bodied for WRAMS, and how about Hetero? where could that go… how about SHWARM - Supremacy of Hetero White Abled Rich Males? should we add Christian? SCHWARM?
seriously, I know what you mean. I often use ‘megalomaniacs’ as a catch-all.
I don’t know if we must give up on identity politics altogether. Recognizing intersectionality is part of a solution, I think, as well as beginning work from marginal perspectives and never ever attempting to “speak for” a group of women, only allow women to speak for themselves and commit ourselves to listening. It’s difficult to talk about “women” because there are so many kinds of women, and as I read somewhere recently, women aren’t segregated as women - communities organize along class and racial lines rather than gender lines. So women have differing interests according to their particular social location with regards to race and class in particular. BUT I think there is definitely a common experience to be found in being female in this world, and organizing around that common context of struggle, with a common goal in mind of eliminating any kind of oppression women experience (no matter where it comes from), is the only way to go forward.