The author of that blog is a marxist, and therefore is examining the aspects of gender-bias in culture from a marxist perspective (the situation of domination and submission, who benefits--as the consumer--and who is being exploited), and, ultimately concludes that there are elements of patriarchal culture which encourage undesired behavior. In this, she is correct, and I understand pretty much all of her arguments by the school of thought they are based in. And it is always interesting, and perhaps even helpful, to know (or at least consider) why one does or think something and why that action is thought to be, or is thought not to be, acceptable. The article has its merits, but I do have my issues with the author.
I've read other articles on her blog, and articles he has linked to. I don't like invalidating assessments. Even though I think she does wrong in the way she strictly defines subjects of "love", "consent", and "dysfunction" in her own terms, ignoring how others define them for themselves (her article criticizing another feminist for her BDSM fetishism is a good example of this).
While I would not attempt to define the first two, the use of the phrase "dysfunction" has always been an interesting subject for me. As someone who has severe social anxiety and is mildly paranoid-schizophrenic, "dysfunction" has meant that something interferes with your ability to function. If you can cope with that thing, and find ways to enjoy life/self, then, well, you can hardly be called "dysfunctional" for you are, in fact, "functional".
However, I understand that her argument would have been something along the lines of the Marxist view that just because something is "functional" doesn't make it "right".
As a final note, and this is the one that could get me in trouble with her (or even people on here, maybe), I would like to address that, as someone who is training to be a professional actor, I've been taught that he measure of any interaction is a.) "what the person wants, and b.) "what that person is doing to the other person to convince them to give it to them". She talks about emotional and social manipulation. In my worldview, every interaction (including healthy sexual activity) involves coercion of some form. It should be mutual, but people are always working on each other for one thing or another. Relationships and sex are one of those things. So, how do we define what is "healthy" coercion, and what isn't? I'm not so sure there's a way to define that which would be applicable to everyone, though, there's certainly forms of bad coercion which are wrong for anyone.
In my experience, it is easier to define chaos than to define what order is; what is evil rather than what is good, and I'm not really sure that defining one would automatically define the opposite.
But that's me. I don't know anything, really. I've come to grips with the fact that I don't ever have any answers. I just thought I'd weigh in with something other than "feminism is dumb."
EDIT: And one more question is biting at me has to do with her criticism of the BDSM fetishist. She argues that the fetishist gets a sexual high out of BDSM because she, in her own words, was abused. It was her way of coping with and conquering that fear by reliving it. To make sure we understand: even the woman who is in BDSM is saying this is the case.
How that relates to me, and the existential/philosophical question it brings up has to do with my career as an actor. As I said before, I experience severe anxiety in social settings, with people (especially women). I grew up in almost total isolation. I am one of the last people who would want to be an actor and would pursue it (maybe). To me, though, it gives me a high because it allows me to cope and conquer that fear. To me, people would say that was healthy.
Why, then, is my coping mechanism and ability to get a rush from something that has traumatized me for most of my life, considered good, but hers is "unhealthy" and makes her a victim?
Someone might argue it is because she is a victim, then, of the patriarchal society, and, I cannot argue that. But I can say this: so am I. I didn't meet the standards of the patriarchal society, and still don't. I didn't match the ideal male persona and so was used in a way by other men to establish their own meeting of this critirea. So, idk, in my mind, I don't see it as different. But I do wonder if I am missing the part that makes it so. And if so, why?
At what point (and perhaps here I do get preachy) do we accept that we all have bullshit in our lives and whatever we do to make ourselves happy and to cope is good, as long as we aren't destroying our ability to function (only helping it) or hurting anyone else.
Of course the marxist like her (or the marxist in me) would argue that the things we do in society are always harming others by way of implicit consent, and that is a valid way of looking at things in terms of cause and effect.
*shrugs*
Discord
Light Style