Check out Margaret Corvid’s fascinating piece in the New Statesman on male sexuality and the appeal of misogynistic movements to sexually frustrated men. As a professional dominatrix who’s also a feminist, she’s acutely aware of the ways conventional masculinity restricts and impoverishes male sexuality.
When I became a professional dominatrix after years in the kink scene, I expected my kinky work to involve lots of spanking, whipping and bondage. And, to my delight, it has. But in the majority of my sessions, I am creating a space for men to explore areas of their sexual lives that society feels are unmanly; they come to me to be penetrated, to be used, to serve, to submit, to worship, to be taken. A client might have any or all of a bewildering array of fetishes, but they mostly come to me to experience something well outside the very narrow confines of what society says that it means to be a man.
Unfortunately, as she notes, Men’s Rightsers and Pickup Artists offer nothing to men who feel confined by these narrow notions of manhood; indeed, their definitions of manhood are both retrograde and restrictive.
One of the greatest tragedies of the men’s rights movement is that, in the end, its lessons serve only to drive men further away from what they yearn for. Pick up artist techniques and aggrieved entitlement are unlikely to help men achieve the goal of intimacy, but feminist values can teach them the skills to communicate with respect.
You’ll notice a few quotes in there from me, from an email interview she did with me as well as from my post Is the Men’s Rights Movement driven by the rage of the rejected? (I also discussed the issue in this post on the weird sexual undercurrents in A Voice for Men’s Facebook “memes.”)
Re legalization and an increase in trafficking, look specifically at Holland and Germany. Der Spiegal did a big story about this issue in Germany not too long ago.
Having known a (shy, asexual, wonderful in every way) woman who was called a “filthy, evil patriarchalist rape fetishist” by one of Cathy Brennan’s cronies, I think that the only term that should be used for her and her cohort is “asshole”. Any other terms, especially if hijacked by MRAs, are unnecessary.
Also, on human trafficking: It must end. No nations permit slavery, and yet women are forced into sex slavery and prostitution on a daily basis. Men, too, and even children in some areas.
And that pisses me the fuck off.
I have only seen TERF used in two contexts–one, by one feminist to try and out-feminist another (rarely ever in context of actual belief, but rather as a threatening insult), and two, by MRAs trying to take down or discredit a feminist.
The statistic in Australia give a clear picture of the phenomenon. Prior to legalization there were far fewer illegal brothels than after legalization. Obviously, if it is not a crime it need not be investigated when reported. The info is out there if you wish to look at it.
GroundPetrel, am I correct in assuming that you are in favor of collective punishment in general? Or does it just apply to anyone who insults a friend of yours?
Actually from what I recall Holland is considering reversing legalization, mostly because of the increase in trafficking that’s resulted. They tried it, it didn’t work, so now they’re rethinking, essentially.
Thank you for explaining, kitteh. I appreciate it. Does Dworkin Appropriating Shitheel work?
@ the bewildernesst, I’ve been googling since I read kitteh’s original comment to find this information, but it’s been elusive thus far.
My apologies to all, I will avoid said term in future, thank you for letting me know.
thebewilderness, I don’t know what you mean. I am very protective of my friend, yes (perhaps too much so), but what I’m saying is that Cathy Brennan is an asshole (seriously, the levels she goes to to harass trans people are just plain vile), as are several of her followers. The MRAs have used the term TERF as a snarl word to harass women, and therefore the term’s disparaging value should be minimized by not using it to describe a couple of assholes who stalk and harass innocent people.
Sort of like how I tried earlier to find alternatives to “crazy” because the definition I’m used to differs from the commonly-known definition. TERF, whatever the intended definition, has become a snarl word for the MRA shitheads. Ergo, alternatives are a good thing.
@Cassadra
I know, I am a male, but a feminist or at least there ally. I have had fights over feminism I lost a friend because he refused to see the male privilege we shared.
@Kittehserf:
I guess simple put she think my think they supposed to dom but want to be sub. And it would help there problem if the were free to see that
I guess “stupid” was the correct answer, then.
OH my Cthulhu. I just realized that I’m a MGTOWer.
I’m going my own way compared to what society expects of me! I have no desire to date or have sex or have children, at LEAST until I’m (in the first case) 36 and an associate professor, minimum, somewhere, (in the second case) in a stable relationship of at least six months with a compatible woman, and (in the third case) never, especially not biologically.
Meanwhile, society expects me to go have about 3 dating relationships with lots of casual sex until I settle down in the suburbs with 2.4 eternal toddlers and a grill.
I’m going my own way, damn it!
(the above was intended mostly as humor)
@ GroundPetrel
What I mean is that you appear to agree that killing Brennan’s children is an appropriate response to the things Brennan says and does. Brennan is a Lesbian activist who does to Trans activists exactly what they do to lesbians.
This has very little to do with her “cohort” assuming that you mean to use that word and are not having an Inego Montoya moment.
Pretty much all other men seem to be doing better at the going their own way thing than MGTOW, but apparently they think that angrily obsessing over something is the way to free yourself from it.
Oh, for f’s f-ing f.
On and off topic, because toxic masculinity:
Paul is crusading for Victor Zen, and is threatening to doxx what looks to be pretty much everyone at KSU’s interdisciplinary department. He’s started with one.
Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part I – Introduction
To be fair to Margaret Corvid:
Context suggests that “men consumed by anxiety” and “those who feel a sense of sexual frustration” refers to men who are suffering anxiety for not being sufficiently masculine (because of course one of the core tenants of misogyny is that masculinity is a precious resource that is so limited that even most men can’t have it and that fewer men have masculinity than should have masculinity because of feminism) and men who feel sexually frustrated refers specifically to men who don’t feel comfortable exercising their submissive fantasies for fear of being seen as feminine. I assume this because the only anxious men to whom she refers in the article are men who have anxiety because they’re not masculine enough for the manosphere and who are sexually frustrated because they don’t feel comfortable pursuing their real sexual desires. Now, the manosphere might tell them that their anxiety and sexual frustration is women’s fault because women won’t have sex with them and that their sub fantasies are the result of feminist propaganda, hence the analogy to fascism. Margaret Corvid wants to tell them their anxiety and sexual frustration is the fault of the manosphere, which shames them into repressing their desires and keeps them from asking their partners to dominate them. So, the solution that Margaret Corvid wants to give them is the conviction that it’s okay to not be super masculine, that it’s okay to be feminine, and that it’s okay to fulfill your sexual fantasies with a domme, whether she’s pro or not. That’s her attack on the false ideology of men’s rights and the alternative to the fascism of the manosphere. I really don’t think that she’s saying that some woman somewhere has to have sex with a sexually frustrated woman right now. It just doesn’t fit with anything that she wrote in the article. She, as a pro-domme, is personally willing to have sex with men who are frustrated because they don’t feel comfortable fulfilling their sub fantasies elsewhere, but she doesn’t expect all women everywhere to be willing to fulfill some man’s sub fantasy.
However:
Her phrasing in that paragraph is shitty. It suggests to the casual male reader curious about feminism that women should be more open to fulfilling his sexual fantasies, even if they don’t want to do so. She’s responsible for that poor phrasing and any bad messages that anyone gets from that article.
Also, I’m not really sure how her solution is going to stop men who are extremely masculine and who are not sexually submissive from becoming sexist. Saying that liberating male sexuality will end the war on women is a pretty big, misleading exaggeration and really only works if she’s assuming that all men are sexually submissive.
tl;dr: I don’t think that Margaret Corvid thinks that every man out there is entitled to the type of sex that he wants from the woman that he wants, but I do think that she phrased some parts of her article poorly. I also think that her argument is too narrow.
Some men want to be “liberated” from the laws that tell them they can’t have sex with unconsenting women, or with children. I’m not seeing how liberating those men from those constraints would benefit women in any way. Also, what about the men who’re getting plenty of sex who still hate women, like Roosh?
Again, myopic viewpoint that’s being inappropriately generalized.
Ken L.
I know this post has already been addressed, but I want to throw in my two cents here: No, it is NOT the job of the marginalized to educate the privileged. We can, and we often do, but it’s not our job to tell the privileged how they hurt us and step on us and our rights on a regular basis. Allies can educate, but they shouldn’t speak over those who are actually oppressed. (Men shouldn’t speak over women when it comes to feminism, straight people shouldn’t speak over LGBTQA+ people when it comes to queer rights, ect.) This means they should let those who are oppressed do the talking, and allies can spread their points to those who they share privilege with.
The whole “educate me, then!” is a lazy-as-fuck excuse from those privileged people who don’t want to do their own work, who don’t care enough about learning what they did wrong to actually go find answers themselves, but instead want to order those they’ve hurt and oppressed to also go do their homework after they’ve done something to hurt/offend/oppress someone.
If men want to learn about feminism and the problems women face today, it’s not hard to do a simple damn Google search for feminist education blogs or even sites like WHTM and various tumblrs (even though, yes, I know there’s this stigma around tumblr and their brand of feminism).
An addendum: People who also drop the “Educate me, then!” excuse could also be looking for a “debate”, or they just want to prove that the oppressed person is “wrong” somehow, or is looking to just make a mockery of them then.
We shouldn’t have to, and often don’t, bother with these kinds of people for those reasons.
@cassandrakitty Regarding Holland specifically, I found an analysis that casts doubt on whether sex trafficking has increased as much as people say. And it’s still hard to conclude whether trafficking has increased or our awareness of the need to measure trafficking has increased.
I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. From what I gleaned from a quick googling, there are some states in Australia where brothels are legal, and some where they are not. Presumably there are also some regulations on legal brothels. Are you saying that there are more brothels in states where it is illegal than there were before? Or are you saying that there are more brothels that break regulations than there were before? I also don’t understand what you mean by “if it is not a crime it need not be investigated when reported”. If it is an illegal brothel, why wouldn’t it be investigated?
Shaun: a collection of threats of violence against women labelled TERFS.
All the trigger warnings apply.
*Scrolls down through comments thread*
*Watches in horror as it descends into a transphobic shitfest painting us as evil violent rapists*
*Deletes We Hunted The Mammoth from bookmarks and never sets foot on this site again*
Women, including feminists, have been offering an alternative to the idea that women are a subhuman creature, created for men to use and abuse, for hundreds of years.
Why do peeps pretend that there is no alternative on offer? Stinks of bullshit.
Look carefully at who’s arguing the “nope, no increase in trafficking here” POV and what their motivations might be. Also, read the Der Spiegal article. Other than that, honestly, I’m really not up for having this debate again, since I’ve done so plenty of times already. Maybe someone else will be willing to pick up where I’m leaving off.
(Not meaning to be hostile, btw, it’s just that the endless debate about the issue of sex work gets wearying after a while. I’m taking a mental health break from it.)
@ParadoxicalIntention
Why would the privileged give u there privilege on their own? Look at the civil rights struggle in the sixty. a large majority of northern whites, LBJ and other people in power did not give a shit about the issues until they saw the attack at Pettus bridge. They were forced by the oppress to listen. Granted their is still a shit load f racism in are country. To think that this issues is any different is ridiculous.
If the oppressed don’t do that then what changes. By default the privileged are the only one who can make change happen. To continue in this fairy tale that one day the privileged will just give it all up peacefully on their own without some major awaking instigated by the oppressed is insane.