74
VIEWS
0
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view ProgressiveC's profile
    Posted March 11, 2015 by
    ProgressiveC

    More from ProgressiveC

    Fifty Shades of Grey is a Feminist Story

     

    Feminists, it’s time for you to accept that Anastasia Steele is a feminist too.

    In the Story of the Eye, Georges Bataille wrote, “Nothing is more necessary or stronger in us than rebellion.” Feminism, for me is just that: rebellion. And not rebellion for the sake of rebellion -- but it’s a naturalist instinct that society will not dictate my fate -- because that free will belongs to me. Politically and personally, feminism stands for the art of fighting against oppression, claiming one’s destiny, supporting the choices of women and men, and striving for equality. Additionally, feminism supports ones right to enjoy sex (including out of wedlock). Lately, though, when it comes to Fifty Shades of Grey, many feminist seem to be anti-sex. Seems its voice has been stolen by divisive voices that want to harbor their idealism -- preferring political and social identity to live and thrive in fascism instead of freedom. I shouldn’t be surprised by this recent false outrage because this control mechanism of feminism has been festering for years.

    Conservative women certainly understand liberal feminists’ contradictions best. In April 2012, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen criticized Anny Romney for not understanding the economic hardships of average Americans because she chose to be a stay-at-home, and lived a life of luxury. Explicitly, Rosen said, “Guess what...His [Mitt Romney] wife [Ann Romney] has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing.” Never mind the difficulty of managing children with diverse personalities and staggering schedules, in conjunction with being a wife. Of course and with good reason voices on the political right were outraged. Rightly, voices in the political atmosphere condemned Hilary Rosen comments like Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte that said, “It's insulting that the president's adviser would dismiss the value of the important and the hard work women do in raising children.” It’s to be noted that First Lady Michelle Obama and the DNC condemned Hilary Rosen statements as well. Unfortunately, the misappropriate words of Rosen -- though she apologized -- had already been tattooed into the conversation about feminism and not for the positive. Instead, the comment further cemented female homemakers’ grievances that they were not welcome to apply for feminist theories.

    Before the misapplied comments of Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney, liberal women, the thresholds of feminism were quick to judge Sarah Palin because her daughter Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock. They accused her of being irresponsible because she supported abstinence programs over sex-education programs. Never mind Palin’s daughter had received sex-education lessons and not abstinence only. Never mind that Palin was not exactly thrilled her teenage daughter had sex out of wedlock which resulted in a pregnancy. And never mind that Palin was a mom choosing to support her daughter during a very difficult time over abandoning her daughter -- instead choosing to nourish Bristol into motherhood -- oh the crime. This was a chance for feminists to stand with a woman for being a good mother in a stressful situation -- NOPE -- instead feminists whipped Palin with shame -- aligning her to worst mother of the year and a contradicting one too. On this issue, a CNN iReport commentator said, “Family values are a Republican platform," adding, it’s a “travesty” about Bristol’s pregnancy. Apparently the family values Republican brand was tainted. But how so when the party platform is prolife and Bristol choosing to keep her child aligned with the political rights set of family values? Where were the feminists to celebrate her choice to give life a chance?

     

    Further insult, is the recent uproar by feminists about E.L. James Fifty Shades of Grey book that has been adapted into a movie. The story is about Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey that engage in an adult sexual relationship that involves S&M. I will admit I’ve only read book 1 of the trilogy. As a feminist I find the relationship between the characters engaging, desirable, and spiritually enlightening. The language between the characters is light versus dark. Relationships are complicated, and vary by personality and needs. Feminists have accused, suggesting, Anastasia Steele is in an abusive relationship because she involved herself in submission. Never mind the fact she chooses this fate. Apparently, the audience must negate the fact that Anastasia negotiates the terms of the S&M contract. It is Anastasia that determines the volume to her pleasure and pain. I guess feminists want us to disarm from the language and vision of Anastasia lasciviousness of being tied and whipped. Seems feminists want to control the sex of women too.

    In the New Republic it says, “Fifty Shades of Grey represents the ultimate triumph of a female point of view in culture, preoccupied with love and sexuality, with emotions, with the possibility (or impossibility) of forming enduring loving bonds with a man, and with the intertwining of pain and pleasure in romantic and sexual relationships.” That sounds good to me, but not to the New Republic, as I came to realize upon reading the article further. Oh the horror that a woman would choose romance and a man over so-called feminists’ bylaws: career first, independence first, women must never let a man be the driver in the relationship. Clearly, they have dismissed their own message that by dictating the laws of ones’ life is detrimental to the case of feminism in and of itself – which is a setback to equality and freedom -- a feminist’s bylaw by the way. Have they no shame?

    Madonna recently said Fifty Shades of Grey is “Not very sexy” and she’s on par with the feminists against the book although for different reasons. Feminists have been fierce in criticizing fictional character Anastasia for being involved with Christian Grey. He permanents the characteristics of jealously and controlling habits, and is transparent about it. Yet feminists have determined this quality is sinful. Feminists secede from the fact that his dark tendencies have been exposed by Christian himself from the offset of their blossoming relationship. He is honest with Anastasia about his habits -- that he’s not a man to fall in love with because he does not partake in love -- instead he thrives from being in control. Anastasia on her own time and in her own space reviews this information, ultimately choosing to be a submissive actor, both physically and emotionally. Christian is not a rapist, he’s a sadist, and this is not a crime. Feminists have confused this. Carey Purcell in the Huffington Post believes the relationship of the fictional characters sets a dangerous precedent, and need not be cloned. After-all, feminists know what’s the best kind of relationship to be involved in; we all must fall in line, and do what anarchism I mean feminism instructs us to do, and apparently S&M is bad for the soul.

    The contradiction of the feminists’ movement is not surprising, sadly, and it’s become more and more difficult to claim it -- due to the judgment of women for being skilled in their free will to choose. Especially to choose decisions “we” fear like motherhood, marriage or submission -- while at the same time feminists celebrated women that burned their bras, feminists celebrated Madonna during her Erotica and Sex book phase, feminists celebrated Britany when she admitted she was no longer a virgin (before marriage), feminists celebrated Miley for semi-masturbating on live television with a blown-up plastic banana. And when I say celebrated, I mean there were no illicit judgment due to artsy of personal choice. Thus, I ask, why do the majority of the feminist writers hate E.L. James book that involves a female giving herself 100 percent over to a man? I suspect it has to do with the masculine control and the fear it will penetrate the women’s rights movement to obliteration. Oddly, in their perverse mind submission eviscerates equality? For a woman to allow herself to be submissive, to be whipped, cuffed, gagged, well that’s borderline pornography, and no woman has a right to choose that. Except if you believe this, maybe you should stop calling yourself a feminist, because “A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism,” wrote Georges Bataille.

     

     

    [Image courtsey of Yahoo Images]

    Add your Story Add your Story