![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the things I can't square with my experience is the "feminist sex problem." The one where feminists of my generation were suppoosed to have turned their backs on sex, to have equated seuality with patriarchal oppression--where we were supposed to have abandoned our sexual bodies and turned our backs on anything flirtatious and fun.
Because we all cut off our hair and threw away our underwear and wore nothing but generic "masculine" clothes, don't you know, and we were just horrified at the idea of rambling around in bed. Yes.
I see this coming from people I would think would know better than to spread such nonsense. People who I think generally have good ideas. But they weren't there then, so they are free to make up history as it suits their current prejudices, I guess.
This is not how I experienced those years. I was (and am) a fairly plain-dressing person, fond of jeans and loose shirts, and not fond of silky undies (to mke they are sweaty and cut into my skin, not sexy feelings). But for me, these clothing choices were always highly sensual, and the little decorations that I did wear (remember the lace-trimmed henley tee? the embroidered chambray shirt?) seemed sexy to me. And to the nice fellow, oddly enough. As for hair--I kept mine long, mostly, but it was a pretty fancy deal the couple times I had it short. Either way, my hair was simple, but it was part of the sexual body I had. My choice: not to repel the patriarchy, but to be comfy in my body and therefore freely sexual. In my terms.
There are a lot of nuances to sex and sexuality, and really truly telling people that the young women of forty years ago were anti-sex if they weren't into whatever body presentation you have currently decided is the accepted sex-positive one is not helpful in any way: not helpful to anybody's feminism, and not helpful to anybody's sexuality.
Because we all cut off our hair and threw away our underwear and wore nothing but generic "masculine" clothes, don't you know, and we were just horrified at the idea of rambling around in bed. Yes.
I see this coming from people I would think would know better than to spread such nonsense. People who I think generally have good ideas. But they weren't there then, so they are free to make up history as it suits their current prejudices, I guess.
This is not how I experienced those years. I was (and am) a fairly plain-dressing person, fond of jeans and loose shirts, and not fond of silky undies (to mke they are sweaty and cut into my skin, not sexy feelings). But for me, these clothing choices were always highly sensual, and the little decorations that I did wear (remember the lace-trimmed henley tee? the embroidered chambray shirt?) seemed sexy to me. And to the nice fellow, oddly enough. As for hair--I kept mine long, mostly, but it was a pretty fancy deal the couple times I had it short. Either way, my hair was simple, but it was part of the sexual body I had. My choice: not to repel the patriarchy, but to be comfy in my body and therefore freely sexual. In my terms.
There are a lot of nuances to sex and sexuality, and really truly telling people that the young women of forty years ago were anti-sex if they weren't into whatever body presentation you have currently decided is the accepted sex-positive one is not helpful in any way: not helpful to anybody's feminism, and not helpful to anybody's sexuality.
Tags:
So, Welcome to Night Vale won me over. I still think it's overrated, but that doesn't keep it from being kind of fun. And now I want to listen to more shows. I got linked to Thrilling Adventure Hour but I didn't like it. It was too manic and kind of forced sounding.
Any suggestions for more to listen to?
And while we're on the subject of Night Vale. Once I had a conversation with my father about Bob Dylan lyrics, about when Bob Dylan didn't seem to be saying much about the issues of the day any more. My dad was understandably disappointed, and it suddenly occurred to me, you know how a lot of his lyrics never made too much sense if you listened too closely? -- Bob Dylan never meant as much by his lyrics as his fans did.
And I believe the same is true of Night Vale. A lot of it is Cool Bits thrown together in a way that seems sort of mysterious and threatening, but the thing doesn't much hold together either in the short run or the long run. It's not a problem if you understand it as a romp, but if you're expecting a big payoff -- I don't think there will be. Eventually the producers will be ready for the next thing and they'll tie it all up -- or not -- and wander off. Or worse, they won't get bored, and the Cool Bits will get their shiny worn off by too much repetition and permutation. They may acquire more meaning over time, but if they do, it will be due to a nice accident.
Thesde observations are the result oif having listened to most of it in a week-long period of time, which is a process guaranteed to expose all the shallow bits and weak structures of a thing meant to be consumed in small weekly doses. Obviously I enjoyed it enough to want to catch up with it, and obviously hearing the less than brilliant aspects of it didn't turn me off too much, because I went back to hear the last two updates.
The things that bug me, though -- they keep bugging me, and that's okay.
Any suggestions for more to listen to?
And while we're on the subject of Night Vale. Once I had a conversation with my father about Bob Dylan lyrics, about when Bob Dylan didn't seem to be saying much about the issues of the day any more. My dad was understandably disappointed, and it suddenly occurred to me, you know how a lot of his lyrics never made too much sense if you listened too closely? -- Bob Dylan never meant as much by his lyrics as his fans did.
And I believe the same is true of Night Vale. A lot of it is Cool Bits thrown together in a way that seems sort of mysterious and threatening, but the thing doesn't much hold together either in the short run or the long run. It's not a problem if you understand it as a romp, but if you're expecting a big payoff -- I don't think there will be. Eventually the producers will be ready for the next thing and they'll tie it all up -- or not -- and wander off. Or worse, they won't get bored, and the Cool Bits will get their shiny worn off by too much repetition and permutation. They may acquire more meaning over time, but if they do, it will be due to a nice accident.
Thesde observations are the result oif having listened to most of it in a week-long period of time, which is a process guaranteed to expose all the shallow bits and weak structures of a thing meant to be consumed in small weekly doses. Obviously I enjoyed it enough to want to catch up with it, and obviously hearing the less than brilliant aspects of it didn't turn me off too much, because I went back to hear the last two updates.
The things that bug me, though -- they keep bugging me, and that's okay.