Comments on: how the Radical Feminists™ made me mad today http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/ politics, media, culture and life from a queer boricua in brooklyn Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:45:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: DJ QueenB http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-49088 DJ QueenB Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:30:47 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-49088 Hey there. Wow, i stumbled on to this blog when typing in the google search column, "queer, polyamory." I have never really had faith in this kind of search, as in the past it has brought shit to the table, but today was a different story. I am a queer polyamorous Chicana living on the San Diego/Tijuana border. And I just wanted to say that, wow it feels good to read your words and be able to relate to them. The thing that bothers me the most about reading material in general on polyamory, is that a lot of it is written via a heteroexist lens. In any case, i have a blog too, it's not a big one or anything, mostly just my thoughts, but my most recent post is definitely tied to exploring love, sexuality, polamory, etc. Check it out if you are interested: http://djqueenb.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/coming-into-myself-as-a-sexual-being/ Anyway, keep fighting your words, they are fulfilling. Abrazos en la lucha. Hey there. Wow, i stumbled on to this blog when typing in the google search column, “queer, polyamory.” I have never really had faith in this kind of search, as in the past it has brought shit to the table, but today was a different story. I am a queer polyamorous Chicana living on the San Diego/Tijuana border. And I just wanted to say that, wow it feels good to read your words and be able to relate to them. The thing that bothers me the most about reading material in general on polyamory, is that a lot of it is written via a heteroexist lens. In any case, i have a blog too, it’s not a big one or anything, mostly just my thoughts, but my most recent post is definitely tied to exploring love, sexuality, polamory, etc. Check it out if you are interested:
http://djqueenb.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/coming-into-myself-as-a-sexual-being/
Anyway, keep fighting your words, they are fulfilling. Abrazos en la lucha.

]]> By: The Strange Credibility of Polyamory « freaksexual http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-40813 The Strange Credibility of Polyamory « freaksexual Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:31:17 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-40813 [...] as well. Polyamory is mentioned positively on well-known feminist blogs, for example here, here, here, and here. Polyamory is generally met with curiosity and tolerance on these blogs, even when the [...] [...] as well. Polyamory is mentioned positively on well-known feminist blogs, for example here, here, here, and here. Polyamory is generally met with curiosity and tolerance on these blogs, even when the [...]

]]> By: Bitch | Lab » The 17th Carnival of Feminists http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-7720 Bitch | Lab » The 17th Carnival of Feminists Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:37 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-7720 [...] AngryBrownButch writes a post that captures one reason why sex positive feminism emerged in the first place: the dispute over sexual minorities and sexual dissidents and whether their sexualities were considered male-identified (or objectively supporting patriarchy) or not. We sometimes call these disputes the ’sex wars’ of the late ’70s and 80s: Lately, I tend to avoid the blogs of self-proclaimed “radical feminists” (in which “radical” apparently means “more feminist/less brainwashed than thou). While we probably agree on a great deal of feminist thought and philosophy, the frequent posts and subsequent debates about how all pornography and BDSM are inherently patriarchal and evil, well, they just give me headaches, so I’d rather not partake. [...] [...] AngryBrownButch writes a post that captures one reason why sex positive feminism emerged in the first place: the dispute over sexual minorities and sexual dissidents and whether their sexualities were considered male-identified (or objectively supporting patriarchy) or not. We sometimes call these disputes the ’sex wars’ of the late ’70s and 80s: Lately, I tend to avoid the blogs of self-proclaimed “radical feminists” (in which “radical” apparently means “more feminist/less brainwashed than thou). While we probably agree on a great deal of feminist thought and philosophy, the frequent posts and subsequent debates about how all pornography and BDSM are inherently patriarchal and evil, well, they just give me headaches, so I’d rather not partake. [...]

]]> By: curt http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-7500 curt Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:36:19 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-7500 I am a polyamorous straight male - we do exist. There is a scarcity of polyamorous straight people in general though so unless I'm dating a polyamorous girl then there's usually much confusion, doubt, explaining (and inevitably failed relationships) with monogamous women who are poly curious because of their attraction to me. With regards to whether my polyamory is patriarchal or not... I'm not sure. I'm a male, and often I have feelings of love for more than one person which I'd rather be honest about than hide like a guilty secret. If my partner has feelings for another person I appreciate the honesty too, and hopefully the communication in making the relationship continue to work. It's a party if I actually like their partner also. I'm not imposing a male dominated view on anything - I just encourage honesty and communication and hope for the best. If I fantasize about spending the rest of my life with two women who mean the world to me is that patriarchal? They mean the world to me because they do. Why should I be forced to choose? I don't force them to be with me either, and I don't force someone to accept my polyamory or otherwise face consequences. I view polyamory not as an active "let's see how many chicks I can score at the same time, and guess what dude, they're all totally cool with it" chauvanistic POV. Instead I recognize that I can have feelings for more than one person that aren't in conflict. And if they are, dammit I want to talk about it and not feel repressed about how I feel. Polyamory is about communication. Communication and words like negotiation. Influencing, forcing, guilting, selling, dominating, submitting etc - these are things I don't think have anything to do with polyamory, and if they raise their ugly heads then at least polyamory gives a voice to really talk about it. Personally I believe all that dom-sub stuff is an extension of biology and hormones... something primal at its core when your body gets off on either fight or flight. I tend to accept that definition first if it ever comes up in my relationships. I cannot comment on people that choose dom-sub relationships as a permanent lifestyle... that kind of thing is open to debate about rationale etc. As a straight guy all I know is that I am capable of polyamory and that means I really get off on communication over anything else. And anything else can sometimes fall under that "heat of the moment" thing where anything goes, wrong or right in other's eyes. I am a polyamorous straight male - we do exist. There is a scarcity of polyamorous straight people in general though so unless I’m dating a polyamorous girl then there’s usually much confusion, doubt, explaining (and inevitably failed relationships) with monogamous women who are poly curious because of their attraction to me. With regards to whether my polyamory is patriarchal or not… I’m not sure. I’m a male, and often I have feelings of love for more than one person which I’d rather be honest about than hide like a guilty secret. If my partner has feelings for another person I appreciate the honesty too, and hopefully the communication in making the relationship continue to work. It’s a party if I actually like their partner also. I’m not imposing a male dominated view on anything - I just encourage honesty and communication and hope for the best. If I fantasize about spending the rest of my life with two women who mean the world to me is that patriarchal? They mean the world to me because they do. Why should I be forced to choose? I don’t force them to be with me either, and I don’t force someone to accept my polyamory or otherwise face consequences. I view polyamory not as an active “let’s see how many chicks I can score at the same time, and guess what dude, they’re all totally cool with it” chauvanistic POV. Instead I recognize that I can have feelings for more than one person that aren’t in conflict. And if they are, dammit I want to talk about it and not feel repressed about how I feel. Polyamory is about communication. Communication and words like negotiation. Influencing, forcing, guilting, selling, dominating, submitting etc - these are things I don’t think have anything to do with polyamory, and if they raise their ugly heads then at least polyamory gives a voice to really talk about it. Personally I believe all that dom-sub stuff is an extension of biology and hormones… something primal at its core when your body gets off on either fight or flight. I tend to accept that definition first if it ever comes up in my relationships. I cannot comment on people that choose dom-sub relationships as a permanent lifestyle… that kind of thing is open to debate about rationale etc. As a straight guy all I know is that I am capable of polyamory and that means I really get off on communication over anything else. And anything else can sometimes fall under that “heat of the moment” thing where anything goes, wrong or right in other’s eyes.

]]> By: Not Formica » Blog Archive » Wednesday Morning Tab-age http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5479 Not Formica » Blog Archive » Wednesday Morning Tab-age Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:24:13 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5479 [...] Angry Brown Butch responds to a radical feminist critique of polyamory. An aside: how is it that I’ve never read Jack until now? [...] [...] Angry Brown Butch responds to a radical feminist critique of polyamory. An aside: how is it that I’ve never read Jack until now? [...]

]]> By: Bitch | Lab http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5088 Bitch | Lab Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:53:46 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5088 @ Midge LOL Sometimes I think male sex is anything whoever's calling it that decide it is. But, seriously, back in the late 70s, the were opposed to anything that appeared to have hierarchical power relations involved. BDSM was a big no-no. If we used dildos, that was considered wrong. Penetration sex was also wrong, for some. Butch Femme was attacked as just reproducing the patriarchy. Lesbian porn was out of the question. I was just reading a 1988 essay by Sarah Hoagland where she quotes someone from that era complaining about women who like to engage in seduction or who get pleasure from seeing their lovers succumb to their attentions. (Something like that. I'm going to post it at my blog tomorrow. There were quite a few quotes about how lesbian sex isn't free of the patriarchy in general. Back then, they wanted separatism. Where I grew up, there were two lesbian separatist communities that lasted until the early 90s. In that environment, i grew up in the late 70s 80s, exposed to lesbians at the local state college who believed in androgyny and avoided looking like either men or women. The lesbians from my hometown though? The had no problem with butch/femme. Did that make for a confusing experience for me! THere's an essay by Biddy Martin that talks about how a lot of this, she thinks, was also about class oppression: there was a fear of sexualities associated with the working class, that sex was kind of "dirty," etc. Have portions of it at my blog b/c I loved it so much. Ithelped explain a bit what I, a working class woman, was seeing. Anyhoo.... @ Midge

LOL

Sometimes I think male sex is anything whoever’s calling it that decide it is. But, seriously, back in the late 70s, the were opposed to anything that appeared to have hierarchical power relations involved. BDSM was a big no-no. If we used dildos, that was considered wrong. Penetration sex was also wrong, for some. Butch Femme was attacked as just reproducing the patriarchy. Lesbian porn was out of the question.

I was just reading a 1988 essay by Sarah Hoagland where she quotes someone from that era complaining about women who like to engage in seduction or who get pleasure from seeing their lovers succumb to their attentions. (Something like that. I’m going to post it at my blog tomorrow.

There were quite a few quotes about how lesbian sex isn’t free of the patriarchy in general.

Back then, they wanted separatism. Where I grew up, there were two lesbian separatist communities that lasted until the early 90s. In that environment, i grew up in the late 70s 80s, exposed to lesbians at the local state college who believed in androgyny and avoided looking like either men or women. The lesbians from my hometown though? The had no problem with butch/femme. Did that make for a confusing experience for me!

THere’s an essay by Biddy Martin that talks about how a lot of this, she thinks, was also about class oppression: there was a fear of sexualities associated with the working class, that sex was kind of “dirty,” etc. Have portions of it at my blog b/c I loved it so much. Ithelped explain a bit what I, a working class woman, was seeing.

Anyhoo….

]]> By: Feministe » One Man, One Woman http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5085 Feministe » One Man, One Woman Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:01:22 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5085 [...] I’m curious about everyone’s opinions about polyamory as opposed to polygamy. Generally speaking, I’m with Angry Brown Butch: I suppose the whole thing hits a rather personal sore spot for me, since I am polyamorous. And, while I do not think that polyamory is some perfect philosophy, or that it is easy to navigate without fucking up or hurting people, or that it is inherently better than chosen and intentional monogamy, I also think that chosen, intentional polyamory that is pursued in an open, honest, equitable and kind way is far preferable to societally-enforced, by-default monogamy. Everyone always seems to think that polyamorous relationships are destined to blow up in people’s faces, but hey, monogamy doesn’t seem to have that good a success rate, either. [...] [...] I’m curious about everyone’s opinions about polyamory as opposed to polygamy. Generally speaking, I’m with Angry Brown Butch: I suppose the whole thing hits a rather personal sore spot for me, since I am polyamorous. And, while I do not think that polyamory is some perfect philosophy, or that it is easy to navigate without fucking up or hurting people, or that it is inherently better than chosen and intentional monogamy, I also think that chosen, intentional polyamory that is pursued in an open, honest, equitable and kind way is far preferable to societally-enforced, by-default monogamy. Everyone always seems to think that polyamorous relationships are destined to blow up in people’s faces, but hey, monogamy doesn’t seem to have that good a success rate, either. [...]

]]> By: Midge http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5083 Midge Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:09:02 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5083 what i find the weirdest is that one of the radical feminist tenets is that marriage is a harmful source of oppression for women. let's say you're a straight-identified woman: if you can't be monogamous, and polyamory "can't exist" in our society, what are you supposed to do?? you could choose to be in only lesbian relationships, but then what happens if you accidentally have "male sex" (whatever the eff that is) with your lesbian partner? can anyone in the world be a "true" feminist? what i find the weirdest is that one of the radical feminist tenets is that marriage is a harmful source of oppression for women. let’s say you’re a straight-identified woman: if you can’t be monogamous, and polyamory “can’t exist” in our society, what are you supposed to do?? you could choose to be in only lesbian relationships, but then what happens if you accidentally have “male sex” (whatever the eff that is) with your lesbian partner? can anyone in the world be a “true” feminist?

]]> By: Doyle Saylor http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5082 Doyle Saylor Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:55:55 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5082 Nice essay ABB, I will continue to follow your thinking. Excellent thinker. Doyle Saylor Nice essay ABB,
I will continue to follow your thinking. Excellent thinker.
Doyle Saylor

]]> By: AngryBrownButch » Blog Archive » if my friends could see me now http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/how-the-radical-feminists-made-me-mad-today/#comment-5079 AngryBrownButch » Blog Archive » if my friends could see me now Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:18:56 +0000 http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2006/05/31/73#comment-5079 [...] Lookie here - my piece on polyamory and radical feminism made it into the 17th Carnival of Feminists! [...] [...] Lookie here - my piece on polyamory and radical feminism made it into the 17th Carnival of Feminists! [...]

]]>