I got this anonymous question in my inbox on Tumblr:
after reading yr post abt men not being able to imitate the contents in "love," i thought abt this research paper i wrote on adrienne rich abt her (for lack of a better word) radicalization of opinions relating 2 the patriarchy. at one point, she advocates for the rejection of heteronormative society & the patriarchal structure by recognizing the most ethical form of human relationship as tht btwn women. what do U think of this? yr thoughts & writing r wonderful, i'd just like to hear more
bc of how long my answer is, I decided it wld be best/most appropriate to answer it here
~
I wish I were more familiar w Rich’s work — but just from what U have said here n from what I have read … I wld say that I have certain ideas abt this that are somewhat reflective of her own opinion, but not enough to say that I agree completely
I wldn’t say the most ethical form of human relationship is that btwn women — although I can understand why Rich wld arrive there if she was specifically talking abt patriarchy n heteronormativity at face value [as opposed to materially], n if that were all one needed to take into account
I find that conclusions like this often come from a failure to take capitalism, hegemony, n interlocking systems, structures, n processes reliant on violence into account, of which patriarchy is only one [if we can even say it is “one” in an extricable, isolable sense] — n also, wishful thinking abt exactly what is entailed in femininity (i.e., that it is wholly “innocent”, “ethical”, "victimized", n thus cannot occupy the role of “perpetrator” or “oppressor”)
not only is it entirely possible for women to reproduce exactly the same kinds of violence that men enact… they do so, n often enough that it cannot be seen as an exception to the rule — embodying power granted by certain power dynamics (e.g., racism, imperialism, colonialism) to enact violence; for examples, see the way white womanhood has historically been used as a means to persecute, mutilate, n murder black men, n the ways white women have directly participated in that violence; see the way female US soldiers perpetuated physical n sexual violence, torture, n murder against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the Bush administration
what is particularly striking abt both of these examples is that photographic evidence tells us that these women relished the opportunity to do violence; they enjoyed it – they smiled n posed alongside the men they had dehumanised n destroyed, n sent these photos to friends n family in the way one might send postcards
even on an individual level, women in same-gender relationships are not exempt from the kinds of violence that manifest themselves in heterosexual, monogamous relationships — intimate partner violence takes place at the same rates, if not higher (see the 2010 CDC study on intimate partner violence among straight, gay, n bisexual individuals, n the 2014 (?) National Violence Against Women survey of same-gender n "opposite-gender" monogamous relationships)
so we can see here that, to some extent, femininity n womanhood do not preclude their subjects from being “unethical” — whether it’s toward men, or toward each other — I think then that there are a few questions that naturally follow from this:
- what is being mobilised in order to make these ostensible “reversals” n “subversions” in violence n power possible, given what we think we know abt femininity/womanhood? following that,
- given that femininity n womanhood don’t negate or preclude violence, what exactly within the feminine is redeemable, i.e., what wld cause us to have the intuition that we shld seek refuge n praxis in relationships w women, or that love is rooted in the feminine? n finally,
- what is the most ethical form of human relationship?
the answer to (1) is fairly straightforward: anywhere that it is possible to effect a power imbalance, it is possible to enact violence n to produce unethical relationships btwn ppl; these power imbalances aren’t necessarily systemic, although it’s more than likely that they take their cues from or rely in part on established systemic power imbalances to manifest themselves (n this is one reason why liberal “privilege politics”, i.e., white privilege, straight privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, etc., are insufficient for describing the ways power imbalances manifest themselves materially)
although in terms of binarised gender n power imbalance, femininity n womanhood traditionally [n nearly universally] occupy the victimised/subjugated space, it is specifically this space-occupation that makes invisible the ways that women can n do manifest violence/the unethical thru other means on micro n macro levels
with (1) answered, we can move onto (2): while femininity n womanhood do not preclude their subjects from violence, this does not change what they are centred around insofar as they are related to masculinity n manhood: care – women’s unreciprocated, unending care of everyone around them, primarily men; this certainly isn’t the only thing femininity n womanhood centre around, but it’s a central tenet of their function
in response to a reply to the post I wrote abt men n transactional relationships, I clarified my stance on femininity n love: altruism, martyrdom, n self-sacrifice are not valuable ways of going abt love, but they are conditions produced by non-reciprocity – that is, femininity in love is transformed into self-sacrifice bc masculinity only ever takes; but if both partners were giving [in meaningful, nurturing, nourishing, sustaining ways] then the problem of self-sacrifice wld be eliminated – this specifically is what we can salvage from femininity, n why we have certain intuitions abt its worth n abt why women shld turn toward each other
finally, (3): with this knowledge, how can we go abt forming the most ethical relationships possible w others? I’ve answered this before in part, actually – but I’m gna repeat it in the context of the conclusions I’ve derived in this post: the most ethical relationships possible are those that are (1) devoid of any kind of power imbalance, or actively relinquish/reject power over others, n (2) that entail mutuality, being together w each other, nurturing n sustaining n collaborating w each other, in the place we meet (as opposed to reciprocity, which I think can sometimes be interpreted as “give n take”, n is still transactional)