The Chronicles of Hiatus Presents "The Invaders of Women's Personal Space"

After a tedious and unwanted departure from my usual place of residence, I have returned with a creepy anecdote about an uncomfortable encounter with a dude. So, brace yourself, for the not-so-exciting, but still a pretty eerie tale that illustrates patriarchy and male entitlement.

***

I am at work taking care of children at the beach and I notice a food and drink stand that is set up nearby. Coffee, of all beverages, is being sold at this stand and mouth watering ensues since, you know, nothing calls for a steaming cup o' joe like the summer heat! 

At the stand, a woman takes my order - she is kind and absolutely not creepy. As she is fiddling with a slow "one cup" coffee machine, a dude is throwing down some f-bombs. The man is white and probably in his early to mid forties. He is wearing sunglasses and has pierced ears and a few forearm tattoos; his hair is short and spiked and he wears a chain around his neck. He proceeds to make small talk and asking me how many kids I was minding. I manage to get away before he can say anything else. It was not until the second visit, for yet another cup of coffee that his presence becomes creepy. Once again I am at this stand and the man is there and appears much more talkative. As the coffee-machine takes a while to work, the dude uses this idle time to create more small talk with me. I try and stick to discussing the weather. We do not get much seasonal weather in the summer up here (eh?) so it is usually a safe topic. Despite this old standard, the man departs from the weather and moves onto a conversation about my abundance of mosquito bites. "Oh, look at your shoulder!" he tells me, "You have so many bites just on that one shoulder there."I tell him that I realize how bad my shoulder is and how I find it annoying to have so many bites in one place.

Since my shoulder is not very interesting, at least in my opinion, I start to welcome a change in conversation or better yet, a conclusion to my cup of coffee. Rather than dropping the bug-talk, the man actually gets up and walks towards me. 

My mind is well-aware of his intentions - they have become so predictable and tiresome over the years of personal invasions. I am also aware of the entitlement that many men feel towards personal space, particularly women's personal space.

And so, the man moves behind me and begins to put his fingers on my shoulder, feeling the largest bug-bite with his fingers. The whole experience lasted a few seconds, but instantly, I feel violated. In response, I find myself making some awkward gesture or noise before I proceed to quickly grab my coffee and make my way back to my spot in the sand. 

Should I have protested right then and there? While taking care of kids? Something along the lines of "do not touch me" - I failed to utter much of anything. The larger society appears to view this type of interaction as "normal," since men often feel that touching that is not sexual in nature, like the touching in this situation, is acceptable and even somehow "friendly." Many entitled people see this non-sexual touching as completely ordinary, and certainty not as an invasion of someone's space. 

However, what is intriguing and yet enraging to consider, is how this form of stranger-touching is viewed as normal when it is done to women and children, but not when it is done to men by other men. How likely would we see a man randomly touching another man that he does not know in a public place? Would you see a man randomly scruffily rubbing another man's hair, as some adult strangers to do to random children that they do not even know? How about a man kissing the hand of a male stranger or just touching another dude-stranger's hand in anyway at all? Oddly enough, we do not see a lot of up-close and in-my-personal-space interactions going on between adult males who have never met before. 

We must recognize the power dynamics at play in our society - the power that establishes these entitlements make room for not just violation of space, but violence against women at large. If our personal space was considered as valuable as a man's personal space than perhaps violence against us would become less common. When men feel as if they are authorized and entitled to accessing a women's bodies and personal space, we know that we are still living under an oppressive patriarchal force that perceives women (and children, as well) as objects. This is not to say that some women do not violate children's personal space. 

Women and children, at large, are viewed as passive, non-thinking, non-feeling creatures without boundaries or feelings of their own. This is made clear by the enormous numbers of cases of violence against women and children by male perpetrators. This is also made clear by the normalization of these invasive interactions by complete strangers.

But I digress.

Men respect the boundaries of other men because the social norms set up by the social hierarchy requires their allegiance to the status quo and to one another. Men who step out of these boundaries, or question male entitlement at large will often fall victim to other men; they do not fall victim, systematically and disproportionately to women and children. This is how patriarchy presents itself to the masses and yet the masses do not see it. Why? Because they have grown accustomed to the principles of male-dominance; males at large, as a sex-class, have been unquestioned in their privilege for so long. This unquestioned privilege has  become a routine force in the continued oppression of women, children, the earth and the rest of the global community at large who is not a class-privileged white guy.

Notes:

Photo of woman in bubble found here

David Cameron on Multiculturalism = Islamophobia and Eurocentrism

Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron recently took a jab at the country's multiculturalism in a recent speech, according to The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour (2011). The Guardian covered this story many times and likely from a left-leaning perspective. However, I have a left-leaning bias and so it is difficult for me to support extreme right-wing racist beliefs or see them objectively. The Guardian supports multiculturalism by dedicating space to issues of race, gender and class. However, I fail to believe that all right-leaning individuals would feel racializing and stereotyping entire groups of people is not acceptable.

The speech itself assured listeners that even non-violent Muslim groups of Britain are unclear about British values like gender equality, integration and democracy. The speech not only stirred up anger in many people around the world but so did its impeccable timing. A right-wing group called the English Defence League, stationed in Britain, held their largest march on the day of Cameron’s speech. Much criticism was felt as Cameron did not criticize the English Defence League or EDL who are openly islamophobic or disliking of Muslim people (Wintour 2011). Instead of seeing the positive aspects of multiculturalism, Cameron spoke of segregation and some sort of “reverse” racism:

"We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them." (Wintour 2011:2).

Instead of attempting to blame all non-British groups of such segregation, he openly admits that terrorism lies within Islamist extremism. However, he tries to state that the ideology is separate from Islam and that despite many Muslim people’s non-violence; they still pose a threat to Britain. The threat, according to Cameron’s speech, is the unwillingness of the Muslim community to accept, what Cameron calls a “real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values” (Wintour 2011:2). Cameron calls for governments not to merely tolerate this apparent extremism, but to openly confront all extremism.

            This article reveals a clear representation of racial segregation that is happening all over the so-called developed world. Groups of individuals are being lumped together and stereotypes have been and are stemming from this type of classification. The British Prime Minister had no words for any other non-white or non-british group, just the Muslim people. Any time that anything occurs in the Middle East, like the recent uprisings in Egypt, Islam gets mentioned. David Cameron used his speech to almost mirror the far-right groups like the EDL and support ideas that people with differences should just integrate into one culture. This is an atrocious and dangerous concept, especially coming from a country as prominent as Britain. It comes down very simply to the issue of race and perceived differences between people. Cameron is telling his country, from his position of power, that people are different, so we must attempt to make everyone part of the same group. British people, according to Cameron, have the ideal lifestyle so everyone else, but mainly the Muslim people, should embrace it.

            Multiculturalism is about various cultures, not just Muslim people. Unfortunately, David Cameron used his time to focus on only one group, leading to the recent cries of disgust from the general public. I am shaking my head and checking my calendar to make sure it is really 2011. It is difficult for me to grasp the sheer racism that exists within the minds of those in positions of power. How will society accept other people and respect differences if leaders of the supposed “free world” are placing all Muslims under one bigoted stereotype? It is clear to me that, ever since the horrible attacks of September 11, the Muslim world has been under assault. Racism has been sprouting up all over the West and Europe since that terrible day, but many do not view it to be racism but rather an issue of religious tolerance. This kind of lumping together of non-violent and violent Muslims is destructive. Cameron is basically telling them to leave their religious beliefs at the border, extremist or not, because all people should integrate into British culture. Not only is this ethnocentric, but it is downright mirroring of a white-supremacist regime that believes only one culture can be appreciated – the dominate one.

            A major issue for me as I was reading this news piece was regarding Cameron’s idea that white people are somehow oppressed by Muslims (Wintour 2011). This idea that the ruling class, which is almost always white, can somehow be oppressed by a group of people that the ruling class has already labelled as inferior, is obscene. This rationale holds no real ground and when considered by any compassionate human being, sounds downright ridiculous. Powerful people like Cameron can cause destruction when they call for an “integration” of other cultures into white culture. Muslim people are viewed as “the other” in many regards – the US, for example, views Muslim people as the antichrist to American life. Muslim people exist only when compared to the dominant group. In popular media, we only receive one idea of a Muslim – the terrorist who oppresses women. In the West and Europe, Muslim people are always linked to their skin colour or place of origin. I doubt that many people believe the fact that white Muslims exist. However, our society thinks of Muslims as simultaneous with Arab descent, as if there is something wrong with Arab people. There is some discomfort in the idea of someone not being born in the West or Europe, some internalized racism that seems to seep from mouths of the powerful. Stereotyping of Muslim people is stereotyping of Arabs, as well as they are all grouped together. Everyone has to fit into some box, some form of classification, it seems. Why are we so uncomfortable with other people’s beliefs and choices? It is not acceptable to tell other people what beliefs they should hold, or what kind of lifestyles they should lead. That is called fascism and it has no place in our world.

Queer Politics, Gender and Patriarchy Pt. 1: You can’t be a Sadomasochist and a Feminist

Recently I have been reading “Unpacking Queer Politics” by Sheila Jeffreys and it has got me thinking about various things. Now, I realize that Sheila Jeffreys is not incredibly popular but I believe she is incredibly informative and really cares about women. The reasons for her unpopularity are lame and hold no real ground. Most people dislike her because she actually questions things and tries to get to the root, which is why she’s a radical lesbian feminist. I honestly believe that we need more women like Sheila Jeffreys to really deconstruct this male supremacy we live in.

Anyway, her book that I’m reading is fantastic and is teaching me a lot about queer theory since I honestly haven’t gone through it. She explains it as well as deconstructs the principles that blanket over lesbianism. Jeffreys explains how the original queer theory was established by gay men and just really speaks about queer men and basically ignores lesbians. She also states that there is a definite difference between the lesbian feminist community and the lesbian community, which she argues is built up around male dominance, patriarchal influences and heterosexuality. Everything I was curious about in the lesbian community is making much more sense after reading this book. I will get to that in my next post, but before I would like to state the importance of Jeffrey’s critique of sadomasochism in the queer community, particularly in the lesbian community.

Jeffreys has criticized practicers of S&M in various articles, critiques and published books. She states that S&M interest in the lesbian community is heavily influenced by homosexual male culture. Now, many people will jump on the wagon and call Jeffreys a homophobe, or at least hateful of gay men, which is entirely untrue. It feels as though a radical feminist or a radical lesbian feminist cannot attempt to deconstruct or critique the gay male community without assault. There’s a huge difference between feeling homosexual men are all one way and questioning male supremacy, gender roles and power struggles in the community. I believe her critique of S&M is fair and in-depth as well as being completely tied to radical feminism and the dismantling of gender.

As most of us know already, sadomasochism is the practice of inflicting or receiving pain for sexual pleasure purposes. That’s basically the jest of it. The practice is debated amongst some feminists much like the critique of sexuality itself. Radical feminists obviously believe that one cannot desire to hurt, rape, beat and humiliate other women for sexual pleasure and still be fighting for women’s freedom. I have met, however, women who consider themselves radical feminists but support sadomasochism. I think this ridiculous concept stems from the fact that many people don’t understand the concept of radicalism, they believe it means “hardcore” or something equally ridiculous when it actually means root. So if you consider yourself a radical feminist and you attempt to find the root to oppression you most likely wouldn’t be able to find anything empowering about S&M. Unfortunately, many of today’s younger feminists have taken the libertarian/post-modernist route and decided to embrace patriarchal practices, worship their vulva by performing in patriarchal plays like The Vagina Monologues and watch pornography.

When I first started seeing so-called feminists supporting S&M practices, I was horribly confused. I couldn’t and still can’t understand how anyone can say they are a feminist while supporting such violence that obviously is male in nature. Jeffreys believes that this idea of S&M fitting into the lesbian culture has changed the entire community, separating the lesbian feminist community and the lesbian community. I have hung around a few lesbians a few years ago, I was very close friends with one woman who considers herself a radical feminist but had informed me that if her friend wanted to practice BDSM with another woman, she would find nothing wrong with it. Obviously, I couldn’t grasp how this made any sense and I started to notice a pattern in her politics. Her politics were incredibly libertarian in that she believed people should just do whatever they feel like and it can still be considered political or revolutionary. This is a giant misconception about feminism.

As I stated before, beating and humiliating a woman for sexual pleasure is not feminist, progressive or radical. I would hangout with her at lesbian bars and gay clubs – I would notice some women would dress like men and spank other women who were more ‘feminine’. Apparently this was ground-breaking and progressive, acting like a chauvinist dude and spanking other women and objectifying them was feminist. How can this be? Well, because she seemed to believe that if a woman did it with another woman it was okay. Apparently you can’t be a woman and hurt other women? I guess that’s why female brothel owners must be feminist and respect the women they sell to men to be sexually tortured. This of course, is not exclusive to the lesbian community, it is merely an example of my confusion surrounding the community and it’s relationship with radical feminism, or lack there of. I know a lot of heterosexual couples that participate in S&M, and since they enjoy it, it must be liberating and excused from any feminist critique.

Do you think sex should become re-privatized and thus hidden away so that the rad fems can’t question its roots? How will women be free if we only question some things and not others? Especially if the practices are harmful to women?

I hope to share more thoughts after I get through more of this great book.