Self Perception and Male Violence

This post is basically in conversation with this amazing article at Feminist Current on the rhetoric around male victims of violence. All quotes unless otherwise sourced are from that article. I hope that by being in conversation with this article that I can better understand it and share some insights with you.

Women overestimate their own use of violence but underestimate their victimization. Woman normalize, discount, minimize, excuse their partners’ domestic and sexual violence against them. Women find ways to make it their fault.

To be feminine is to be a good victim, at best a willing victim. Refusal to comply with femininity is seen as violent, an abnormal act of defiance. It's a double bind: if we comply with femininity, we are submitting to male violence. If we resist femininity and male violence, men will target us for even more violence as a corrective political control. In this way women are encouraged to underestimate what we suffer through; it is our "natural" place to suffer. Of course, femininity is not our natural place. Women are not natural subjects to male violence. Men have created a system of indoctrination and conditioning young women to accept male violence as natural. The first model for domestic abuse is the abusive father.

The effect of fatherhood on females is to make [women] male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior. (via Solanas' SCUM Manifesto)

Masculinity is about being at the top of the gender hierarchy and maintaining this position through dominance, violence, and intimidation towards women. Males conditioning women to expect and accept male violence keeps these systems alive. Gaslighting techniques are common necrophallic techniques, especially in long term domestic abuse. 

He blames you for the impact of his behavior.
He becomes upset and accusatory when his partner exhibits the predictable effects of chronic mistreatment, and then he adds insult to injury by ridiculing her for feeling hurt by him. If his verbal assaults cause her to lose interest in sex with him, he says, “you must be getting it somewhere else.” (p. 126) (via Is it really ABUSE?)

Interacting systems normalize male violence, allowing males to describe their own violence as invisible, dismissing their cruelty as inherent and finding resistance a notable aberrant. Remember this beautiful Lierre Keith quote - "Masculinity sexualizes acts of oppression." It is because of this that we can create parallels between all systems of male violence: they rely on the same operating system of metaphors. That legal systems would exacerbate the invisibility of male violence while also displaying and sexualizing the victims becomes obvious.

In contrast, men overestimate their victimization and underestimate their own violence (Dobash et al. 1998). Men are more likely to exaggerate a women’s provocation or violence to make excuses for initiating violence and, where retaliation has occurred, in an attempt to make it appear understandable and reasonable.

Again, men are perpetuating a system in which male violence may be used to "correct" and dissuade female resistance. Refusal to conform to femininity and be available to men is considered provocation for male violence. Even if the woman is a girl; even if the man is a stranger.

Earlier this week a man in a car pulled up next to a 14-year old girl on a street in Florida and offered to pay her $200 to have sex with him. [...] The girl said no. So what does this guy do? He reaches out, drags her, by her hair, into his car, chokes her until she blacks out, tosses her out of the car and then, not done yet, he runs her over several times.  Bystanders watched the entire episode in shock. [...] This was an incident of street harassment taken to extremes. (via huff post)

I relate this example because it demonstrates the entitlement that all men feel they have to all women at any moment. The intersection of the pornification and male entitlement is the extreme violence of this case. Note, also that bystanders did not interfere - men support this violent punishment for refusal; women fear being caught in the extreme correctional violence. Women to are witness to what happens when you attempt to boycott men. Normalized male violence is a form of political control. 

Paul Keene, used the defence of provocation for his killing of Gaby Miron Buchacra. His defence claimed that he was belittled by her intellectual superiority and that he lost control after rowing with her by text over a twelve hour period. That a jury accepted his defence is a further example of how men’s violence is minimized and excused. Not only by men and the women they assault, but by the legal system.

Again, these forms of gas lighting transverse male systems of power in order to make women doubt their own perceptions of male violence. Purposefully, men blind women to the hollowness and cruelty behind the facade of normalcy. They do so with well documented attacks on women's personhood and sense of self.

• He denies what he did.
  A non-abusive partner might argue with you about how you interpret something he did; an abuser denies his actions altogether (p. 128).


• He justifies his hurtful actions or says you “made him do it.”
  Here the abuser is using your behavior as an excuse for his own....He says he’ll stop some form of abuse if you give up something that bothers him, which is usually something you have every right to do (p. 128). (via Is it really ABUSE?)

The right to claim abuse as a mitigating factor in domestic violence homicide cases was vitally important for women like Kiranjit Aluwahlia, Emma Humphreys and Sara Thornton, all of whom had suffered years of violence and abuse at the hands of the men they killed. That such a defence could be used in Paul Keene’s case only illustrates how differently women and men who use violence are treated.

Note again, the difficulties these women are going up against.

• The abuse they faced is erased by the legal system


• The abuse they faced is erased by their abuser


• Their abuser utilizes gas lighting to prevent the movement to self defense


• Women's self defense is seen as abnormal and excessive


• Women's self defense faces higher penalties than the initial abuse


• The gas lighting technique is amplified by male systems of power

A radical feminist perspective, based on an understanding of socially constructed gender roles and differences within the framework of patriarchal society does not mean that all men are violent to women, or that men are genetically pre-disposed to violence. It means the opposite. It means that women and men are socialized and that – within the limits of choice permitted by the social environment – we can choose to be different.

Self Perception and Male Violence

This post is basically in conversation with this amazing article at Feminist Current on the rhetoric around male victims of violence. All quotes unless otherwise sourced are from that article. I hope that by being in conversation with this article that I can better understand it and share some insights with you.

Women overestimate their own use of violence but underestimate their victimization. Woman normalize, discount, minimize, excuse their partners’ domestic and sexual violence against them. Women find ways to make it their fault.

To be feminine is to be a good victim, at best a willing victim. Refusal to comply with femininity is seen as violent, an abnormal act of defiance. It's a double bind: if we comply with femininity, we are submitting to male violence. If we resist femininity and male violence, men will target us for even more violence as a corrective political control. In this way women are encouraged to underestimate what we suffer through; it is our "natural" place to suffer. Of course, femininity is not our natural place. Women are not natural subjects to male violence. Men have created a system of indoctrination and conditioning young women to accept male violence as natural. The first model for domestic abuse is the abusive father.

The effect of fatherhood on females is to make [women] male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior. (via Solanas' SCUM Manifesto)

Masculinity is about being at the top of the gender hierarchy and maintaining this position through dominance, violence, and intimidation towards women. Males conditioning women to expect and accept male violence keeps these systems alive. Gaslighting techniques are common necrophallic techniques, especially in long term domestic abuse. 

He blames you for the impact of his behavior.
He becomes upset and accusatory when his partner exhibits the predictable effects of chronic mistreatment, and then he adds insult to injury by ridiculing her for feeling hurt by him. If his verbal assaults cause her to lose interest in sex with him, he says, “you must be getting it somewhere else.” (p. 126) (via Is it really ABUSE?)

Interacting systems normalize male violence, allowing males to describe their own violence as invisible, dismissing their cruelty as inherent and finding resistance a notable aberrant. Remember this beautiful Lierre Keith quote - "Masculinity sexualizes acts of oppression." It is because of this that we can create parallels between all systems of male violence: they rely on the same operating system of metaphors. That legal systems would exacerbate the invisibility of male violence while also displaying and sexualizing the victims becomes obvious.

In contrast, men overestimate their victimization and underestimate their own violence (Dobash et al. 1998). Men are more likely to exaggerate a women’s provocation or violence to make excuses for initiating violence and, where retaliation has occurred, in an attempt to make it appear understandable and reasonable.

Again, men are perpetuating a system in which male violence may be used to "correct" and dissuade female resistance. Refusal to conform to femininity and be available to men is considered provocation for male violence. Even if the woman is a girl; even if the man is a stranger.

Earlier this week a man in a car pulled up next to a 14-year old girl on a street in Florida and offered to pay her $200 to have sex with him. [...] The girl said no. So what does this guy do? He reaches out, drags her, by her hair, into his car, chokes her until she blacks out, tosses her out of the car and then, not done yet, he runs her over several times.  Bystanders watched the entire episode in shock. [...] This was an incident of street harassment taken to extremes. (via huff post)

I relate this example because it demonstrates the entitlement that all men feel they have to all women at any moment. The intersection of the pornification and male entitlement is the extreme violence of this case. Note, also that bystanders did not interfere - men support this violent punishment for refusal; women fear being caught in the extreme correctional violence. Women to are witness to what happens when you attempt to boycott men. Normalized male violence is a form of political control. 

Paul Keene, used the defence of provocation for his killing of Gaby Miron Buchacra. His defence claimed that he was belittled by her intellectual superiority and that he lost control after rowing with her by text over a twelve hour period. That a jury accepted his defence is a further example of how men’s violence is minimized and excused. Not only by men and the women they assault, but by the legal system.

Again, these forms of gas lighting transverse male systems of power in order to make women doubt their own perceptions of male violence. Purposefully, men blind women to the hollowness and cruelty behind the facade of normalcy. They do so with well documented attacks on women's personhood and sense of self.

• He denies what he did.
  A non-abusive partner might argue with you about how you interpret something he did; an abuser denies his actions altogether (p. 128).
• He justifies his hurtful actions or says you “made him do it.”
  Here the abuser is using your behavior as an excuse for his own....He says he’ll stop some form of abuse if you give up something that bothers him, which is usually something you have every right to do (p. 128). (via Is it really ABUSE?)

The right to claim abuse as a mitigating factor in domestic violence homicide cases was vitally important for women like Kiranjit Aluwahlia, Emma Humphreys and Sara Thornton, all of whom had suffered years of violence and abuse at the hands of the men they killed. That such a defence could be used in Paul Keene’s case only illustrates how differently women and men who use violence are treated.

Note again, the difficulties these women are going up against.

• The abuse they faced is erased by the legal system
• The abuse they faced is erased by their abuser
• Their abuser utilizes gas lighting to prevent the movement to self defense
• Women's self defense is seen as abnormal and excessive
• Women's self defense faces higher penalties than the initial abuse
• The gas lighting technique is amplified by male systems of power

A radical feminist perspective, based on an understanding of socially constructed gender roles and differences within the framework of patriarchal society does not mean that all men are violent to women, or that men are genetically pre-disposed to violence. It means the opposite. It means that women and men are socialized and that – within the limits of choice permitted by the social environment – we can choose to be different.

What's Owed - NOTHING

Every time women take time to care for themselves, to foster sisterhood, we are assaulted by pleas for our attention.

Feminists have for years created safe spaces for women, expanded the rights of women, and decried male violence. Women stand forefront to expand the protection for victims of male violence. In improving the lives of women, women allow each other to give more to our communities. Men may even gain some periphery benefits; destroying the toxicity of gender hierarchy would cure many ills for male and female victims of male violence. But our women's work, energy, is our own and hard won at that. 

Consider for example male violence in terms of rape: Women created our definitions of marital rape, statutory rape, date rape, and expand definitions to include more forms of non consensual sex as rape. Women continue to expand these definitions in order to offer protection to victims of male violence. Feminists do this to protect each other from male violence as the threat of rape is a prevalent form of political terror men use over women; women incidentally created a protection for male victims of male rapists.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to improve the conditions in which battered women live,” Meyer argues, “but when putative efforts to just 'make it better' become the end goal, the political vision and motivation to address the real exegesis of male violence becomes sublimated... The political disappears and domestic violence becomes a naturalized part of what appears to be an unchanging or unchangeable social landscape.” (Meyer 2001, p. 23). (via disloyal)

Feminist action is political action; the personal is political. Preventing and penalizing male rapists is part of a coherent political strategy taken on with women's time and energy. Men continue to rape despite women's work. 

When women speak out regarding men raping women, we are told to care about male victims. Of course we already do and provide significant resources to male victims. Biophilic, we give support to all life by existing, by combating the necrophallic, by creating networks of life and growth. We created legal protections, crisis lines, shelters, and support for those battered and abused by men. It is because of our women's work that they have any claim to legal protections and do not face assault for 'buggery/sodomy' - yes, male victims coming forward have been convicted with buggery. And yes, feminists are doing the work of undermining this homophobic violence perpetuated by men and the male justice-penal system.

What this does is conflate rape with consensual relations and conflate the sexual abuse of a child with sex between adults. Ultimately it sends the message that it is the homosexual nature of the act that is offensive/egregious/illegal rather than the rape of a child. (via Feminist Conversation)

Women are already taking on so much to fight against male violence, putting ourselves at risk to protect ourselves. The energy we already give to male victims is never enough. Our critics tell us that feminists must fix the problem of male rapists, that we are not focusing enough on male victims.

This argument/critique relies on a few premises:

• Women must fix the problem of men raping men
• Women must engage with men
• Women have power to engage with and change male systems of violence
• Women, having limited resources, must give those resources to men
• Women must limit the resources we give to women in order to attend to men
• Men are not being called on to act or change their behavior
• Men are currently neutral in regard to male rapists

Laying out these premises, I hope that to a feminist the flaws are obvious. Women are systemically disenfranchised from systems of patriarchal power; women's energy is sapped and the labor-value produced devalued and stolen by men; men are responsible for their own violence. Men value male rapists; masculinity values violence and dominance especially over women; rape culture is pervasive and encouraged in male-only spheres.  It becomes obvious that our critics are seeking to undermine our political power by diverting our energy back to men. Women in no way required to attend to men, clean male messes, or even speak to men. We do not owe them our polite smiles or our spiraling energy. 

When we look closer at our critics we find that male victims reap privileges of their maleness even as they face homophobia. (Remember: lesbians are the victims of sexist homophobia; men are still men.) Really, go read this whole article for the take down on the lies told about male victims. Being the victim of rape is terrible and deserving of sympathy and support. No feminist doubts this. So. Why do critics feel the need to exaggerate and outright lie about male victims?

‘It’s harder for men to report, there’s much more of a taboo for men’
Exactly the opposite:

• men are more – not less – likely to call the police
• men are more likely – not less – to press charges
• men are less likely – not more – to drop charges (Kimmel 2002)

Another way to get round the issue of unrepresentative reporting is to look at who gets killed, dead people don’t get the choice of whether or not to inform the police. UK Homicide records between 2001/2 and 2011/12 (11 years) show that on average 5.7% (296 total) of male homicide victims and 44.2%(1066) of female homicide victims are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Expressed as an average of those killed by a partner or former partner over 11 years, 22% were men, 78% were women.
Note, the domestic homicide figures do not tell us the sex of the perpetrator, nor is the sex of the perpetrator revealed for all other types of homicide. Men are overwhelmingly killed by other men – regardless of the relationship between victim and perpetrator. Women are overwhelmingly killed by men – regardless of the relationship between victim and perpetrator (via feminist current)

I would take this moment to point out another example: the theft of black women's energy in both the civil rights movement for the black vote and the female vote. I hope to write a more extensive post on this to give it the due attention deserved. Black women, and women of color, do not owe men or white women our energy. 

Remember freedom before femininity. Imagine our Amazonian future. Enjoy your vision, visage, victories. Know that loving yourself as a woman - connecting with our history - exploring our witches' strength and creativity - know that this like all women's work is real. You don't have to justify your work or yourself. You have value inherit, not because what you give or give up. That worth is not tied to men.

Anything less than everything from women will never be enough for men. Give them nothing. 

What's Owed - NOTHING

Every time women take time to care for themselves, to foster sisterhood, we are assaulted by pleas for our attention.

Feminists have for years created safe spaces for women, expanded the rights of women, and decried male violence. Women stand forefront to expand the protection for victims of male violence. In improving the lives of women, women allow each other to give more to our communities. Men may even gain some periphery benefits; destroying the toxicity of gender hierarchy would cure many ills for male and female victims of male violence. But our women's work, energy, is our own and hard won at that. 

Consider for example male violence in terms of rape: Women created our definitions of marital rape, statutory rape, date rape, and expand definitions to include more forms of non consensual sex as rape. Women continue to expand these definitions in order to offer protection to victims of male violence. Feminists do this to protect each other from male violence as the threat of rape is a prevalent form of political terror men use over women; women incidentally created a protection for male victims of male rapists.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to improve the conditions in which battered women live,” Meyer argues, “but when putative efforts to just 'make it better' become the end goal, the political vision and motivation to address the real exegesis of male violence becomes sublimated... The political disappears and domestic violence becomes a naturalized part of what appears to be an unchanging or unchangeable social landscape.” (Meyer 2001, p. 23). (via disloyal)

Feminist action is political action; the personal is political. Preventing and penalizing male rapists is part of a coherent political strategy taken on with women's time and energy. Men continue to rape despite women's work. 

When women speak out regarding men raping women, we are told to care about male victims. Of course we already do and provide significant resources to male victims. Biophilic, we give support to all life by existing, by combating the necrophallic, by creating networks of life and growth. We created legal protections, crisis lines, shelters, and support for those battered and abused by men. It is because of our women's work that they have any claim to legal protections and do not face assault for 'buggery/sodomy' - yes, male victims coming forward have been convicted with buggery. And yes, feminists are doing the work of undermining this homophobic violence perpetuated by men and the male justice-penal system.

What this does is conflate rape with consensual relations and conflate the sexual abuse of a child with sex between adults. Ultimately it sends the message that it is the homosexual nature of the act that is offensive/egregious/illegal rather than the rape of a child. (via Feminist Conversation)

Women are already taking on so much to fight against male violence, putting ourselves at risk to protect ourselves. The energy we already give to male victims is never enough. Our critics tell us that feminists must fix the problem of male rapists, that we are not focusing enough on male victims.

This argument/critique relies on a few premises:

• Women must fix the problem of men raping men


• Women must engage with men


• Women have power to engage with and change male systems of violence


• Women, having limited resources, must give those resources to men


• Women must limit the resources we give to women in order to attend to men


• Men are not being called on to act or change their behavior


• Men are currently neutral in regard to male rapists

Laying out these premises, I hope that to a feminist the flaws are obvious. Women are systemically disenfranchised from systems of patriarchal power; women's energy is sapped and the labor-value produced devalued and stolen by men; men are responsible for their own violence. Men value male rapists; masculinity values violence and dominance especially over women; rape culture is pervasive and encouraged in male-only spheres.  It becomes obvious that our critics are seeking to undermine our political power by diverting our energy back to men. Women in no way required to attend to men, clean male messes, or even speak to men. We do not owe them our polite smiles or our spiraling energy. 

When we look closer at our critics we find that male victims reap privileges of their maleness even as they face homophobia. (Remember: lesbians are the victims of sexist homophobia; men are still men.) Really, go read this whole article for the take down on the lies told about male victims. Being the victim of rape is terrible and deserving of sympathy and support. No feminist doubts this. So. Why do critics feel the need to exaggerate and outright lie about male victims?

‘It’s harder for men to report, there’s much more of a taboo for men’

Exactly the opposite:

• men are more – not less – likely to call the police


• men are more likely – not less – to press charges


• men are less likely – not more – to drop charges (Kimmel 2002)

Another way to get round the issue of unrepresentative reporting is to look at who gets killed, dead people don’t get the choice of whether or not to inform the police. UK Homicide records between 2001/2 and 2011/12 (11 years) show that on average 5.7% (296 total) of male homicide victims and 44.2%(1066) of female homicide victims are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Expressed as an average of those killed by a partner or former partner over 11 years, 22% were men, 78% were women.

Note, the domestic homicide figures do not tell us the sex of the perpetrator, nor is the sex of the perpetrator revealed for all other types of homicide. Men are overwhelmingly killed by other men – regardless of the relationship between victim and perpetrator. Women are overwhelmingly killed by men – regardless of the relationship between victim and perpetrator (via feminist current)

I would take this moment to point out another example: the theft of black women's energy in both the civil rights movement for the black vote and the female vote. I hope to write a more extensive post on this to give it the due attention deserved. Black women, and women of color, do not owe men or white women our energy. 

Remember freedom before femininity. Imagine our Amazonian future. Enjoy your vision, visage, victories. Know that loving yourself as a woman - connecting with our history - exploring our witches' strength and creativity - know that this like all women's work is real. You don't have to justify your work or yourself. You have value inherit, not because what you give or give up. That worth is not tied to men.

Anything less than everything from women will never be enough for men. Give them nothing. 

Unpacking, Unwrapping - Expanded

I wrote last about unpacking internalized issues of discrimination. I will give an expanded explanation for why I put this work as primary.

First, I find that it is important to have a coherent theory and logical framework before taking action. It seems to me that you must understand yourself, the system and also your place in the system in order to take effective action. If you don't carefully read about and question the way things are, you won't know the first step to efficiently changing our current system-society.

Now, when I talk about a resistance, I am talking about an organized political resistance. I'm not just talking about something that comes and something that goes. I'm not talking about a feeling. I'm not talking about having in your heart the way things should be and going through a regular day having good, decent, wonderful ideas in your heart. I'm talking about when you put your body and your mind on the line and commit yourself to years of struggle in order to change the society in which you live. -Andrea Dworkin (via DGR)

Second I do recognize the barriers to the "appropriate" or "real" types of activism. It is necessary to understand these barriers and create streams of action that are accessible to all women. As a scholarship recipient, I am aware of the risk involved in protest that leads to arrest in a way that other students -literally- can afford to be blind to. It's well know that black and other minority protesters face higher degrees of violence, penalization, and judgement in their activist work. I was truly touched by the comment that poor women of color write poetry as activism rather than academic novels not due to a lack of talent but a lack of resources. Therefore I do not feel comfortable relying on or valuing these forms of activist work over others that are more accessible. I refuse to reinforces these hierarchies of work value and accreditation. 

Over the last few years, writing a novel on tight finances, I came to appreciate the enormous differences in the material demands between poetry and prose. As we reclaim our literature, poetry has been the major voice of poor, working class and colored women.  A room of one's own may be a necessity for writing prose, but so are reams of paper, a typewriter, and plenty of time. The actual requirements to produce the visual arts also help to determine, along class lines, whose art is whose. In this day of inflated prices for material, who are our sculptors, our painters, our photographers? When we speak of a broadly based women's culture, we need to be aware of the effect of class and economic differences on the supplies available for producing art. (Audre Lorde, 1981, 116)

Third, these hierarchies are rife with the same value judgments I hope to dismantle. Again, returning to the example of poetry writing: refusal to write academic papers may be about focusing on the narrative and emotional, keeping our theory open to all women. Providing space and comfort to women is valuable in and of itself. It does not need to be valued in the wage-hour or productivity; we do not produce for an overseer or for blind pursuit of individual profit. Internal emotional work is not less valuable because it is associated with the feminine. A focus on the gynocratic women's community is not to be devalued because it refuses to mix with the patriarchal private/corporate political.  

Finally, I emphasize this personal unpacking because it has fundamentally changed me. It is valuable in itself. Women deserve the time and respect to make peace with themselves. WE do not owe anyone our time, energy, loyalty, blood. We may open for ourselves, weaving out truths of our hearts. Penelope need not weave for her husband nor unwind for her suitors. Arachne may weave for her herself, in resistance and self love. She need not justify herself to patriarch Zeus or handmaiden Athena.

Unpacking, Unwrapping - Expanded

I wrote last about unpacking internalized issues of discrimination. I will give an expanded explanation for why I put this work as primary.

First, I find that it is important to have a coherent theory and logical framework before taking action. It seems to me that you must understand yourself, the system and also your place in the system in order to take effective action. If you don't carefully read about and question the way things are, you won't know the first step to efficiently changing our current system-society.

Now, when I talk about a resistance, I am talking about an organized political resistance. I'm not just talking about something that comes and something that goes. I'm not talking about a feeling. I'm not talking about having in your heart the way things should be and going through a regular day having good, decent, wonderful ideas in your heart. I'm talking about when you put your body and your mind on the line and commit yourself to years of struggle in order to change the society in which you live. -Andrea Dworkin (via DGR)

Second I do recognize the barriers to the "appropriate" or "real" types of activism. It is necessary to understand these barriers and create streams of action that are accessible to all women. As a scholarship recipient, I am aware of the risk involved in protest that leads to arrest in a way that other students -literally- can afford to be blind to. It's well know that black and other minority protesters face higher degrees of violence, penalization, and judgement in their activist work. I was truly touched by the comment that poor women of color write poetry as activism rather than academic novels not due to a lack of talent but a lack of resources. Therefore I do not feel comfortable relying on or valuing these forms of activist work over others that are more accessible. I refuse to reinforces these hierarchies of work value and accreditation. 

Over the last few years, writing a novel on tight finances, I came to appreciate the enormous differences in the material demands between poetry and prose. As we reclaim our literature, poetry has been the major voice of poor, working class and colored women.  A room of one's own may be a necessity for writing prose, but so are reams of paper, a typewriter, and plenty of time. The actual requirements to produce the visual arts also help to determine, along class lines, whose art is whose. In this day of inflated prices for material, who are our sculptors, our painters, our photographers? When we speak of a broadly based women's culture, we need to be aware of the effect of class and economic differences on the supplies available for producing art. (Audre Lorde, 1981, 116)

Third, these hierarchies are rife with the same value judgments I hope to dismantle. Again, returning to the example of poetry writing: refusal to write academic papers may be about focusing on the narrative and emotional, keeping our theory open to all women. Providing space and comfort to women is valuable in and of itself. It does not need to be valued in the wage-hour or productivity; we do not produce for an overseer or for blind pursuit of individual profit. Internal emotional work is not less valuable because it is associated with the feminine. A focus on the gynocratic women's community is not to be devalued because it refuses to mix with the patriarchal private/corporate political.  

Finally, I emphasize this personal unpacking because it has fundamentally changed me. It is valuable in itself. Women deserve the time and respect to make peace with themselves. WE do not owe anyone our time, energy, loyalty, blood. We may open for ourselves, weaving out truths of our hearts. Penelope need not weave for her husband nor unwind for her suitors. Arachne may weave for her herself, in resistance and self love. She need not justify herself to patriarch Zeus or handmaiden Athena.

pupe widget