Pro-sex yet leary and weary of casual sex because I know myself and it doesn’t often work for me (it is boring and I’m an emotional creature and so I attach). Feminist but worried about the anti-porn, women-as-victims structure of some feminisms. Worried about critiquing anti-porn feminisms because not entirely comfortable with the way women are treated and portrayed in mainstream heterosexual porn. Admire Eve Ensler and Betty Dodson all at the same time. Wish that activism against human trafficking didn’t so often slide into anti-sex-work arguments that condescend to adult woman who claim choice and power. Think, though, that Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have some seriously pointy points. Also think that reacting against “there is no consent when there is oppression” line of thinking forces pro-sex and sex-worker activists into extreme positions where they have to downplay the dark sides of the industry and play up the cupcakes, cash and orgasms. Want to be able to discuss violence against women and the importance of claiming your sexual pleasure without setting up permanent camp – or throwing rocks – at either end of the philosophical spectrum. Maybe I’m a ideological nomad. Have recently started to appreciate Camille Paglia and think that Katie Roiphe is right (which pisses me off greatly) and that sometimes feminists don’t like kids. Neither does our society. It isn’t terribly unique but it isn’t okay, either. Love my kids but am not defined by motherhood and am not that worried about fucking up because I have faith in my children. Don’t want to be judged by my looks but totally want to be celebrated for my looks. And then there is the knowledge that this looks game is a racist one, too, and I could go my entire life without ever confronting it. Except I must confront it. Tired of marketers slapping a pink ribbon on products and think they’re talking to women while also tired of the boy language that pervades the blog-o-sphere (and, ummm, the world). Still, really do think that a lot of men are getting screwed over by The Man. Also suspect that some apprentice pick up artists are studying women because they want to improve their social skills and find a nice girlfriend (mostly because one smart, warm-hearted, socially-adept guy told me so) but then there are the misogynists. Fuck them (don’t). Want to use vivid, compelling, physical language. Don’t want to reinforce social stigmas and straight-up discrimination by insinuating that to be blind, deaf, dumb or lame is an awful, invalidating state of being. Wild about theory but worry that we beat each other about the head and shoulders with a fist full of it. Wish that people would be nicer to each other and think a little harder and own the gaps between what we wish for and where we are.
Cleavages: The Lines That Shape Us.
6 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Pingback: seeming contradictions in feminism are in fact intermingling on the ground…thank goodness | Cleavage by Kelly Diels. on February 22, 2010
- Pingback: Sex Positive and/or Anti-Violence « Off Trajectory on February 22, 2010
- Trackback: perfume reviews, aftershave reviews on January 22, 2012
- Trackback: enmpower yourself on January 24, 2012
- Trackback: affiliate marketing on January 25, 2012
- Trackback: Web applications tools on January 25, 2012
I love you So Much. Marry me and teach me and be my friend! Thank you for articulating my thoughts.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 18th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
@Catherine Caine, it’s on. Let me know what to wear and where to be.
I’m so glad this landed with you.
[Reply]
Love it love it love it.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 18th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
@Glad, thank you so much for telling me so. I really appreciate it.
[Reply]
Yes! FUCK yes! I feel like you’ve stepped into my brain and added punctation to the thought cloud/web/network that resides there.
Well, with slightly less emphasis on women’s issues and more on men’s, being male, and children’s issues, how education is a tool to stifle motivation, how our language effects our society, how sign is a language and whether that makes deafness a culture and the fear (of change, mostly) that I may have to join it soon. More and more and more, always ending up somewhere in between the exremes others try to define the world by.
There is so much I want to say, to qualify, as I tread the grey of black AND white, I’m bursting as the seams. I think I need to start my own blog.
Also, to “not that worried about fucking up because I have faith in my children.” That’s real strength there, that letting go, and I admire it.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 18th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
@Chris, so gratifying to hear that from you.
The polarisation of debate: there is something in each of these poles that resonates with me. I can work my way through the theory. I get the outcomes. And yet I suspect that that spaces in between – where there is cognitive dissonance and unresolved answers and exploration – are where the real work gets done.
[Reply]
Chase Brumfield
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
@Kelly Diels,
“I suspect the spaces in between… are where the real work gets done”
Not sure you know the gravity of the truth you just stated.
Yes and no… the binary answers of our time… the two most stifling and suffocating words in the english language…
[Reply]
Chris
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
@Kelly Diels, yes, and the logical, linear outcomes are often unsatisfying to me. I feel rationality isn’t realy productive unless informed by empathy, so exploring paradoxes, koans, may be a way of seeking wisdom.
[Reply]
Dave Doolin
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@Chris, semiotics will rot your brain. In a good way.
[Reply]
Chris
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
@Dave Doolin, Isn’t that called growth?
How about combining semiotics with evolutionary psychology and the idea that all information, physical or digital, is a pattern of links (connections)?
Perhaps there is a reason we understand the world through metaphor.
[Reply]
Dave Doolin
replied:
on February 21st, 2010 at 10:04 am
@Chris, careful with the evo psych, though. Some people have a love/hate relationship with the subject. Heh.
Semiotics is cool because nobody knows wtf it means.
[Reply]
Wowwy wow wow! OK, one thing I kind of got out of this was a thought I’ve often struggled with. I don’t think most true “feminists” from the movement would like me. I’m too girly and it’s almost like they don’t like women themselves.
Especially women who stayed home with their kids for 10 years and “depended” on a man.
OK, I really need to go to sleep now after thinking my way through that.
Another post I loved:)
Debbie Ferm
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
@Debbie Ferm, I don’t think we need – or ought – to conform to any social stereotype of feminism.
This: “Especially women who stayed home with their kids for 10 years and “depended” on a man.” – this is not at odds with feminism. I’ve done this. There are choices to be made, and this is one of them, and I thank the feminists who came before me for ensuring that there was more than one choice available. And for making this a choice to embrace rather than an inevitability.
[Reply]
I think there really is no way to “win” the porn or the feminism debates. A position that takes the best from each side (and each side usually does have a pointy point, as you say) is generally the most realistic.
I was recently caught in a bit of crossfire (as is my wont) about my position on porn. I think it’s important to recognize the good, acknowledge the bad, and do our best to make it better for more people. I’m new to the blog and am highly enjoying it – thank you!
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 18th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
@Rebecca, no, there isn’t a way to win – but I think sex (and porn) is a great lens through which to examine a lot of important cultural cleavages.
[Reply]
Damn, woman. I stumbled upon on of your posts at problogger and I am intrigued to say the least. You writing is … provocative. I haven’t read anything like it before. It’s like a mad mess of words that somehow end up painting a picture. Good job. It’s unique, fun and exudes confident. I’m subscribed.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
@Chris Scott, I might have to print that comment and frame it. mmmmm. Thank you so much.
[Reply]
This. It reads like a manifesto for me – except that I’m not that well-read in feminist theory and not a mom. But yes. Love.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
@Evamaria, I’m not that well-read in feminist theory (any more) and maybe you’re right. Maybe there’s a manifesta here just waiting to be born.
[Reply]
wholly jeanne
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
uh, maybe a womanifesto? seeds are here, sugar.
[Reply]
Wow. Are you in my head? I have been a lifelong sex positive feminist and even though I had my years of militant dworkinism [early twenties, I grew out of it]I know that as humans we cannot extricate ourselves from our sexuality. I share your frustrations of wanting to be all hell yeah on the sex front but feeling conflicted with the oppression of the ‘male gaze’. Our life, our experiences, our idealogy and the way we present ourselves should all just be kick ass as far as I’m concerned, there will always be things to make us question and reconsider but this is good, it helps us grow. Kelly, you are kick ass my darlin, thanks for sharing your thoughts, it made my day better.
[Reply]
boom.
I do love your thought streams kelly. You tug-of-war so clearly. having said that i have no idea of what you mean about male and female language; is there anywhere cool i can read about this?
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
@Paddy, what I mean by masculine and feminine language is this:
linear, heroic conquering language that uses battle metaphors vs. emotional, intuitive language.
In a really simple, stereotypical comparison it is
like this:
http://www.copyblogger.com/heroic-language/
and this:
http://www.copyblogger.com/feminine-copywriting/
[Reply]
Paddy
replied:
on February 21st, 2010 at 10:14 am
@Kelly Diels, ah thanks for the links kelly
[Reply]
This! Yes, this! You have put so much out there and so much that hits home! Thanks, Kelly!
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
@Nicki, thank you so much. I’m so glad you liked it.
[Reply]
I sat down to write a quirky little blog post about a quirky little idiosyncrasy in my quirky little existence and then, as Paddy wrote: “boom”.
Am quiet and stilled and this will give me much to think about…much. I will ponder it all at my 6-year old’s dance-a-thon today as I watch the way the boys and girls are “supposed to act” (differently) and the way they are treated by the adults (differently). And I will notice my own actions.
Boom.
Thank you again…as ever.
XO
TG
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
@Tanya Geisler, “boom” is a way beautiful compliment. Thank you to you and to Paddy for that.
’tis the dance-a-thon season, it seems. My 3 year old nephew just had one too.
[Reply]
I just had this realization and I thought, who would want to hear this? Kelly.
Women refer to themselves as girls all the time – we have phrases in our vernacular at the ready:
– I’m just not that kind of girl (for instance)
But, men never refer to themselves as boys. They would say, ‘I’m not that kind of guy’ – never boy.
Anyway, more contradictions…
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
@Juile Roads, and the strange thing is, I don’t even think all my contradictions are in fact contradictions. I think all of them are true all at the same time, but that they are only part of the story.
[Reply]
wholly jeanne
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
yes. a big ole resounding yes. they’re not contradictions. more like each is a jewel coming together in a crown. or feathers coming together in a hat. or individual sparklies jingling around your arm. they only seem contradictory when using that linear, formulaic part of the brain. it is so wonderful to be able to embrace seemingly-to-actual differences without metaphorical blackeyes and bruises.
okay. i’ll stop now. but don’t you, sugar. don’t you ever.
[Reply]
I love what you write because you write the stuff that’s in my head and I’m afraid to say. I used to stand on a soapbox, hmmm, maybe it’s time to climb up again.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
@Shawna Cevraini, blog = soapbox, yes? Thanks for listening to my froth and foam. xo
[Reply]
Always the space in between: elusive, frustrating, non-binary (dammit!), no hard lines, and always shifting. The hardest place to be. The best place to be.
Thanks for naming the poles so strongly. By doing so you call me to the softer, healthier, more grace-filled middle. Not gray, not on-the-fence; but ever stronger in my commitment to new choices, new theories, new thought, new experience, new stories, new beliefs, new practices, new reality!
As always, you draw great big, vast lines in the sand; a sandbox I most definitely want to play in. Thanks for the invitation!
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
@Ronna Detrick, oh you. You have such a gorgeous way with words. I hereby dub you the Queen of emotive prose.
Thanks for seeing the invitation and RSVP-ing “yes!”.
love love love.
[Reply]
@Kelly Diels, love the interstices. and yes, clearly the system undermines men too. we all feel the weight of it. SO why do we keep it / referencing it / etc? does it really exist if we ignore it?
also — what do think of David Deida types? is that enlightened relationship in pick-up-artist clothing? discuss.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
@ali, I think it does exist even if we ignore it. I wish ignoring it was the answer. I would give it some seriously committed silent treatment.
I don’t know a thing about David Deida. Will google and let you know. I’m intrigued. Off to do my homework. mwah.
[Reply]
THIS POST exemplifies why I love you and your blog, and why YOU are a huge success.
Thank YOU!
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@Shannon | Confessions of a Loving Wife, thank you. not so sure about the last bit, but I’ll read it forward and hope for the best (and work my ass off). thanks, Shannon.
[Reply]
Wow, this is so exciting to read. It is so smart. You put the perfect things into contrast – so many of the right questions that I don’t dare ask because it is just way too complicated to get into. This is brave and brilliant. And a little overwhelming, too.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@macondo mama, thank you so much for saying so. I’m so glad you did.
[Reply]
Wow wow wow wow wow
You are my shero. You write the way I wanted to when I was younger. And you do it so well. And you say so much. And the references are beyond me (I guess I am not as well-read as I’d like to imagine I am).
But the poles, the seeming-contradictions, the greyness in the middle. That is me. And I see it is you. And it is so many of us. And yet we are trained that it is being on the fence, indecisive, wishy-washy. And I need to teach myself that those words are no more derogetory than “sensitive” is – and I haven’t finished learning that one yet. This discussion tells me I’m not the only one learning these things.
I love hearing your voice! Thank you for putting it in front of us.
Hugs and butterflies,
~T~
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 19th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
@PicsieChick, oh you just laid down some wisdom.
“But the poles, the seeming-contradictions, the greyness in the middle…we are trained that it is being on the fence, indecisive, wishy-washy. And I need to teach myself that those words are no more derogetory than “sensitive” is – and I haven’t finished learning that one yet.”
SO TRUE.
Embracing the unfinishedness of ideas, of debate, of social projects, being able to compassionately embrace the many facets of an issue – you’re right. That is not wishy-washy. There is strength there. And just like being sensitive is not a problem, neither is the grey. It is just a part of being, and being conscious.
[Reply]
Beautiful, Kelly – I believe you speak for every woman of our generation. The Sassy generation all grown up.
I also believe that the ability to “hold the paradox” is a sign of maturity and wisdom, not at all wishy-washy. Clinging to one pole or another is what we do when we aren’t sure we can stand on our own – that is wishy-washy & immature.
This is one of my main practices in my coaching – helping clients hold the paradox of loving and accepting oneself completely while at the same time encouraging positive change.
Holding the paradox is the way to transcending the polarity. When we can soften the edges so they are less like a rigid border drawn on a map (man-made) and more like a river, fluidly curling back and forth across the landscape, we can then discover that all rivers lead to the ocean.
Like the oft quoted Rumi phrase: Out beyond ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
I’d say what you are creating here, Kelly, is just such a field.
[Reply]
I feel like a guy who accidentally stumbled into the little room marked Women. Oops! I gotta get out of here, but the conversation is interesting.
I love stream of consciousness writing. There is so much power packed into this style. And you do it so well.
I’ll be excusing myself now.
[Reply]
I think at the end there you tapped into my life philosophy, which simply stated is, “Don’t be a dick.” Kind of covers a lot, that.
[Reply]
Kelly, this is the best post you’ve written ever. EVER. And you’ve written some damn fine posts.
Also, I hate the word “post” almost as much as I hate the word “blog”. Your work is pure artistry.
That is all.
[Reply]
Dave Doolin
replied:
on February 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
@Erica Swanson, it’s an essay published on a web page.
I use the word “article” quite a bit.
[Reply]
Erica Swanson
replied:
on February 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 am
@Dave Doolin, ooo. I like essay. Maybe prose fits in this case. Thanks Dave.
[Reply]
Our society on the one hand seems to spoil children with far too much attention, but on the other hand, this doesn’t seem to be the kind of attention kids need for healthy growth.
[Reply]
Don’t want to reiterate too much what has already been said, but Wow!
You really nailed this one. For me. I love that you can be authoritative without being dogmatic, express your perspective while acknowledging the complexities of maintaining one single position.
So often I feel people don’t recognize the inherent tension in their opinions; the fact that life is lived on a spectrum, not in binary choices. I enjoyed how you captured that in your thoughts. Like many others here, I felt your had pulled the thoughts from my own head and put them on the page.
There’s not much overlap between your blog and Seth Godin’s but oddly he just posted an idea about why people take extreme positions (http://bit.ly/bZwNi3) and I thought about it when I read your post.
I don’t think extreme positions are helpful to advancing a conversation, but Seth’s point may be valid in a game theory structure.
I don’t know you, but this post has created an amazing emotional connection that feels a lot like love. Thanks for that.
[Reply]
Mmmm … the spaces in between. Love it. Thank you for your commitment to your art, and having these kinds of conversations.
(@Siddhartha:the Seth Godin connection popped for me, too.)
[Reply]
“pro-sex yet leary and weary of casual sex because I know myself and it doesn’t work for me”
When it comes to sex, women are screwed, basically (no pun intended) because nature’s set things up so that orgasms trigger oxytocin in our brains, the ‘hormone of love and cuddle’ chemical which I believe is also what nature uses to get us to bond with our KIDS. Powerful like heroin. In other words, we’re wired to bond through the sharing of our bodies because it works for Mama Nature even when it doesn’t work for us. (And once you get hooked on that bad boy, it takes two years for the oxytocin to clear from your system). What interests me here is why ‘casual sex’ — which for purely biological reasons we should all be leary and weary of — was ever the ideal in the first place, or something we feel we should be badass enough to engage in without the looming spectre of attachment — how we attempt to achieve male sexuality just like women in certain cultures ‘achieve’ blonde hair blue eyes. I’m not saying I’m against it or don’t do it. I am saying that for us, it’s rigged with neurotransmitter-induced emotional mines, and it’s like we’re not supposed to admit it, that it’s part of a female source of shame or something.
[Reply]
“Want to be able to discuss violence against women and the importance of claiming your sexual pleasure without setting up permanent camp – or throwing rocks – at either end of the philosophical spectrum.”
I’ve been in the violence against women “camp”, working at rape crisis centers for years. And I would say that nearly all of us (at least those in the under-40 crowd), are doing that work because we are pro-sex, because we want to be able to claim the full range of our sexuality, because we don’t want to walk around in fear that we’ll be punished or violated for embracing sex. So while the manifesta is waiting to be written, these camps are already intermingling on the ground.
[Reply]
…also, I love that you wrote this as a big ‘ol chunk of text, in blatant defiance of the thee-shalt-be-brief-and-leave-lots-of-white-space commandment of blogging…
[Reply]
I have no point to make that you didn’t make in your post, I just wanted to write and say Yes. Just yes to all the fine lines and gray areas and subtleties and choices and raw edges side-by-side that don’t seem compatible but somehow are. I love that life is complex and I do believe that we’re smart enough to sort this out, on our own terms.
[Reply]
So well said, thank you! Takes a lot more strength to dwell beyond the edges than it does to be intellectually lazy and hang out in a clearly defined box.
[Reply]
I heart your mind.
[Reply]
I adore how you’ve written this piece. It’s of course made more powerful by your fabulous message – but I really appreciate the artistry of the writing style. Way to raise the level of debate.
[Reply]
Love it. I love your writing, I’ve ben stuck on your site since I found you via twitter on wednesday. Did I mention that I love it hehe.
[Reply]