The feminist mistake !

The feminist mistake

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1658536.0.0.php

Anti-porn, anti-men, anti-glamour … four decades on, has the women’s movement lost the plot? After all, says controversial American thinker Laura Kipnis, modern girls just want to have fun

BY PENNIE TAYLOR

FOR A feminist, Laura Kipnis cuts a strange dash. Super-skinny, carefully coiffed and made-up to the nines, she is the antithesis of the hairy-legged caricature. But then again, she is a self-professed contrarian: a Marxist-Freudian feminist whose stock-in-trade is challenging received wisdom on the relationship between the sexes.

Unlike many of her ilk, this sister does not believe that men are at fault for women's inferior social position. Instead, Kipnis places the blame firmly at the female door, and invites - or even incites - confrontation with some uncomfortable home truths. According to her, the situation in which Western women find themselves is absurd: maternal instinct is an invention that is breeding new generations of misogynists; the urge to clean masks deep female neuroses; and fundamentally masochistic women hold themselves back by wallowing in victimhood, seeing threat at every turn.

The Female Thing is a punchy polemic on what Kipnis considers to be overlooked aspects of the feminine psyche. Essays on dirt, sex, envy and vulnerability set out to puncture complacency by exploring the darkest reaches of what she calls women's "interiority". The problems and conflicts are engagingly laid bare, but this is no self-help manual, and handy hints are not proffered.

"I wrote the book to figure it out, and I ended up with more questions than answers," says Kipnis. "It's not a bad thing to be confused. Anyway, we need to be asking more hard questions, not assuming that we have all the solutions. That's the path to smugness, and many false turns."

Boiled down, her thesis is that modern women are caught in a dilemma. "If the female condition seems especially perplexing at the moment, the reason, it becomes evident, is that women are left straddling two rather incompatible positions," she writes. "Feminism ("Don't call me honey, dickhead") and femininity ("I just found the world's best push-up bra!") are in a big catfight, nowhere more than in each individual female psyche."

Kipnis is interested in the inner woman, what she calls "feminism's unanticipated opponent", who can't seem to decide whether she wants to be dominated or domineering. If there is to be a feminist revival, she argues, we have to somehow reconcile the two.

She is intrigued by what feminism means now, 40 years after the so-called second wave brought bra-burning and radical thinking to the fore. "The gender war idea has very little credence outside women's studies classes these days, and very few women hang on to that notion," she says. "At this point in time it is not clear to me what feminism is."

Speaking at this year's Edinburgh Book Festival, author Fay Weldon - a prominent second-wave libber - bemoaned the fact that today's young women feel there is no reason or cause for feminism. Kipnis is not surprised. If feminism has stalled, she says, it is because it failed to acknowledge the fact that girls also want to have fun.

"I can see why young people would not want to be associated with a movement that focuses on campaigning against porn, and takes itself so seriously," says Kipnis. "I understand why women might not want to call themselves feminists - unless it's a turn-on for their man, of course."

Kipnis takes an unashamedly lusty approach to sex, and explores its contradictions from her particular female perspective. "Heterosexual women cannot be indifferent to men," she says. "We want them in profound ways, and despite lip-service to independence and autonomy it remains the case that women's desire to attract and keep a man dictates an awful lot of how we relate to ourselves."

She describes her book as "a report from someone with a conflicted female psyche", and is unashamed about exploring it. "There is ambivalence, there are splits, it is part of the human condition," she says. "There are splits between the desire for freedom and stability, for instance, and in terms of sexual desire, just scratch the surface and you come up with plenty. Take fantasy: one of the reasons why feminism has been rejected is that women want to be able to fantasise and have fun. They don't want it taken literally. Fantasy is not the same as wanting something to happen."

In the book Kipnis focuses on rape, and some of her observations make extremely challenging reading, conjuring images of court rooms where rape victims' underwear is brandished as evidence of compliance. The work of proto-militant feminist Andrea Dworkin is examined with particularly brutal detachment. In the mid-1980s, Dworkin caused an international stir when she wrote about her own experience of being raped, and Kipnis concludes: "To say that the account had a rather hallucinatory quality doesn't quite capture the flavour."

The argument is that we have to accept women have an erotic identification with violation. "The rape fantasy is quite key, quite central, but incredibly controversial," says Kipnis. "It is a sub-textual acknowledgement of women's propensity to masochism."

Although accepting that rape is never excusable, Kipnis quotes US statistics to show that while the incidence of female rape has declined, fear of it has grown. She blames feminism, for banging on about defensive-sounding "empowerment" and insisting on portraying women as eternally at-risk. And, she says, new forms of sexual vulnerability are emerging, exemplified by the new legal classification of "unwanted sexual advance".

SHE excoriates third-wave writer Naomi Woolf for exposing one of her professors as a letch. "The premise that such situations are invariably exploitative has become the new propriety, with colleges around the country devising complex regulatory codes often banning relationships between any professor and any student," she writes. "Note that this requires a large dose of amnesia about all the professors still on the faculty married to former students, a few even happily."

Blaming everything on the rapaciousness of men, she says, conveniently leaves female desire out of the story: "If anything has made recent feminism irrelevant and ridiculous, it's this reductiveness about desire and the embrace of victimology."

Part libertarian, part liberationist, Kipnis (now 51) grew up in Chicago and caught the tail end of militant 1970s feminism. But she says she was never a full-on subscriber. "As I got older I became more interested - but in a distanced way," she says. "In America, radical feminism ended up being very conservative, and they didn't ask for enough."

She concedes that mid-20th century feminism made some advances. "Sure, women won the right to work 80 hours a week in soulless corporate high-rises just like men, but that has had limited impact. There may be women CEOs among the Fortune 500 companies now, but where is the larger social restructuring?," she says.

"Early on there was a sense that changing the position of women in society would change society as whole, but that has not happened. Individuals may have gained advantages, but social inequality has increased: the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. What kind of achievement is that?"

If society is serious about equality, Kipnis believes that childrearing has to be fundamentally restructured and properly rewarded. Making motherhood more attractive, especially to educated, high-earning women, demands a better social deal, she says. "Whether that means that men do more kid duty, or well-paid professionals step in because vastly more resources are directed at the problem - it will remain the case that taking on child-rearing full-time immediately drops you down a few dozen rungs in the social-equity ranks."

First, though, women have to shake off the shackles of maternal instinct. Kipnis says it's a relatively modern phenomenon, an economic luxury that is an invention of the industrialised era. Now that economies need more women in the workplace, conflict has arisen between the old mores and a modern reality that manifests in guilt and blame.

Kipnis has little time for those who argue that stay-at-home mothering is best for children. "In the US there is a trend for women to give up everything to raise their kids, and it's being called new radicalism'," she says. "That's incredibly recidivist and so dishonest, like saying boob jobs equal empowerment."

She believes that the overbearing style of today's former careerists turned full-time mothers is breeding selfish narcissists who will surely perpetuate our problems. "You have to wonder what industrial-strength varieties of neurosis will soon be appearing in this generation of over-parented children as they near adulthood," she writes.

KIPNIS herself is childless and single. Though she has never married, she has been involved in a number of long-term cohabiting relationships with men. She does not apologise for focusing her writing on her own milieu: white, middle-class, heterosexual America and concedes that regarding her brand of femininity as the norm risks over-generalising. "But in the largest sense I am interested in more freedom for all, regardless of gender. I believe there should be much more economic justice, and I would like to see feminism keep that in mind. Now, it's not just about women, but greater equity right across the board."

Although trained as a painter, Kipnis is professor of media studies at Chicago's Northwestern University, where she teaches film. Her writing is an entertaining sideline that allows her to "play around with ideas", which means turning comfortable constructs on their head.

In her previous book, Against Love, Kipnis examined coupledom and concluded that adultery is nature's way of keeping marriage alive. In this one, she identifies household chores as the sex war's front line, commenting that "men's refusal to really share the housework isn't just the big hurdle for gender equality: the whole future of heterosexual marriage probably hangs in the balance".

Indeed, dirt provides a rich seam for Kipnis to mine for insight to the female condition. Contemplating women's relationship with messiness, she asks: "Is there something about cleanliness that peculiarly gratifies some element of the feminine psyche?"

Reflecting that some women say cleaning helps them to deal with their feelings about their bodies, Kipnis says: "Perhaps the shape of the problem begins to come into focus: the household and the body stand in for each other at some sort of not entirely conscious level. But here's the complication: wouldn't scrubbing away at unwelcome feelings also serve the dual purpose of confirming them? Can you scrub away an existential condition?"

Her writing style is deliberately sassy, and sprinkled with expletives, in an effort to emulate the magazines that these days dole out girly guidance. That brought a backlash when the book was first published in America last year, with countless critics missing the jokes. "I must have hit a nerve, because there was a real sense of anger," she says. "They mocked my style and picked on me. Maybe I'm just too ironic for an American. The British get it, as do the Irish, but the US maybe has less sense of humour."

She says she also faces repeated questioning about the role of nature over nurture, and whether aspects of femininity are not in fact dictated by genes and brain chemistry rather than social conditioning: a predisposition to pink, if you like. "That's very reductive, and I'm just not interested," she says. "History proves there's nothing hard-wired about the female psyche. We can adapt if we want to."

For her research, Kipnis immersed herself in trash mag culture, and admits that she found it addictive. "Obviously, we are all trying to fix ourselves because change at the social level is stalled," she says. "There's a lot of internalised pressure to achieve a look, to be thin, to do things the right way. In the old days, illegitimacy or gayness were huge scandals. There are just different kinds of freedom and unfreedom now, and women ought to be aware of that."

Kipnis is adamant that she has no desire to be adopted as anyone's guru, which is why she is reluctant to reveal too much personal detail or dole out advice. However, when pushed, she does volunteer that the one book she would recommend for a 15-year-old girl is Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. "It is really radical, far more thinking than most," she says. "She tries to be scathingly honest and there's a refreshing lack of sentimentality, which is the great feminine downfall."

And if there was one warning? "Make sure you are secure with your own income source. It is absurd and naive to assume that you are going to be supported by a man for the rest of your life."

Oh, and "step away from the dustpan, girlfriend". According to Kipnis, that might just save the world.

The Female Thing is published by Serpent's Tail, £8.99


Comments :

Posted by: wendyann
Feminism has faded, little girls dress like adults, women see nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery and waxing every hair from their body. TV is populated by blonde, fake boobed women who are as bland and inoffensive as can be. I read that when asked who their role model is most school girls said Jordan! This makes me fear for the future and my little girls future.
Feminism has faded, little girls dress like adults, women see nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery and waxing every hair from their body. TV is populated by blonde, fake boobed women who are as bland and inoffensive as can be. I read that when asked who their role model is most school girls said Jordan! This makes me fear for the future and my little girls future.

Posted by : Sam, Glasgow on 6:49am today
Sounds a fascinating book and one that has the courage not to toe a 'female studies' line. My own daughter's future will be defined by herself, if she wants to emulate Jordan, so be it, if she wants to be the next madame Curie, she'll have my support. As her dad, my job is to make sure she has the confidence and the education to make that decision for herself.
Sounds a fascinating book and one that has the courage not to toe a 'female studies' line. My own daughter's future will be defined by herself, if she wants to emulate Jordan, so be it, if she wants to be the next madame Curie, she'll have my support. As her dad, my job is to make sure she has the confidence and the education to make that decision for herself.

Posted By; Pat Kibbon, USA on 8:10pm today
Out of the vast sea of assertions made in this article, I would like to comment on one small aspect: "She says she also faces repeated questioning about the role of nature over nurture, and whether aspects of femininity are not in fact dictated by genes and brain chemistry rather than social conditioning...." Once again, a feminist invites us to assume that brain chemistry or social conditioning are the only choices and that social conditioning is the same as artificially imposed. I, for one, decline to make either assumption.
Out of the vast sea of assertions made in this article, I would like to comment on one small aspect:
She says she also faces repeated questioning about the role of nature over nurture, and whether aspects of femininity are not in fact dictated by genes and brain chemistry rather than social conditioning ...
Once again, a feminist invites us to assume that brain chemistry or social conditioning are the only choices and that social conditioning is the same as artificially imposed. I, for one, decline to make either assumption.

Posted by: dad4justice, New Zealand on 10:43pm today
As a six year veteran of the secretive, unaccountable and idiosyncratic Family Court I ask why myself I have been subjected to such bias and prejudice from government agencies that fraudulently claim they act in the child’s best interests? I think long and hard and could it be that radical feminists like our small nations Prime Minister Helen Clark be held responsible? Maybe the unlawful gender discrimination by a radical feminist government creates total imbalance within the court system and is responsible for only 1 in 10 cases will eventuate for a judge to order a shared parenting arrangement? Fatherlessness and parental alienation are starting to cause serious problems for society, but sadly the government has a gender eye patch on. It is blind to the obvious damage and is shamefully silent on the callous discrimination and total destruction of the family unit. These powerful feminazis will not be stopped as they have important family destructive policy to implement as the twisted harlots push their insipid ideology of hatred. The present government is guilty of child abuse through criminal negligence by failing to protect vulnerable children. They enjoy alienating biological fathers from the sad children’s lives, this leaves the kids vulnerable prey for evil doers! Radical feminists within the government chant half the couple, twice the parent while our country is debased by infant murders and the terrible deluge of violence. New Zealand should never have to tolerate this. The world would be a better place without radical feminist’s fill of hatred, as children deserve better than that. Kids need dads too.

Posted by: Anthony, Glasgow on 4:13pm today
dad4justice - I have to agree with a lot of what you say. There has developed a nasty vindictive, and dare I say it - vengfully sexist element within the femanist movement. The irony, is that by defining the narrow parameters that 'switched on' women conform to, they actually make women appear less, not more equal. Why shouldn't a woman dress the way SHE wants to? But it is in the policy area, that this section does the most damage. Laws are passed which seem to constantly just demonise and attack men. What I find annoying, is that if you look at the wimin behind this, the ones arguing that they have been the victims of discrimination, their nearly always from the privileged middle classes. They wouldn't know discrimination if it hit them on the heads. The fact is, they've enjoyed more privileges, advantages, inside tracks, and faced less true discrimination than a great deal of men.