"Mirroring the Reagan era’s 'me-first' ethos, it eschewed economic issues and those related to male violence in favor of a politics of personal fulfillment centered on the concept of female pleasure. (In my 'French Feminisms' class, the preferred term for such was
jouissance.) The rough idea was that women should be celebrated not just as desirable objects but as desiring subjects, and that, in liberating their libido and seizing the terms of their objectification, they might liberate themselves, too. It followed that even entanglements that appeared to present asymmetries of power could be justified on the ground that the participants were acting out a fantasy or engaging in role-play. Conversely, the inherently emotional aspect of sex, along with its ability to make one human feel bound to another, went unmentioned. So did the fact that, in heterosexual relations, biology rendered the female party the more physically vulnerable one.
It was thanks to this line of thinking—a line I later came to regard as casuistry—that I was able both to justify my affair and to identify myself as a feminist while conducting my personal life in a way that might suggest otherwise. That X considered himself a 'male feminist' and appeared to harbor few ethical qualms about what we were doing seemed to be further evidence that nothing about our situation could possibly be wrong. And, besides, wasn’t morality 'socially constructed,' too?... By the second month, I was in a quasi-fugue state."
X was a professor — at Cornell. The author, a Cornell junior majoring in comparative literature, was 20. X was 15 years older than she and married. The year was 1990.
Whatever a "
quasi-fugue state" might be, a "fugue state" is, these days, in a medical setting, called
"dissociative fugue" and defined as: "One or more episodes of amnesia in which the inability to recall some or all of one's past and either the loss of one's identity or the formation of a new identity occur with sudden, unexpected, purposeful travel away from home."
31 comments:
Your definition of "fugue state" doesn't seem to fit what this person describes. Which might be more of a psychotic break? I'm no shrink but I'm guessing she felt dissociation, "present but absent," mentally partitioned?
Nice to know that X was such a bold pioneer for women's rights. Not an aging predator who violated the trust of a student hardly more than half his age.
Looks to me as if this kind of "feminism" was hijacked by horndogs.
She was clearly duped into thinking she was happy.
No woman could truly be happy when at its roots the relationship was based on such a disparity in power
Because of feminism, she did what a man told her to do. She was an adult woman who slept with her professor, whom she knew to be married, because Ronald Reagan was so sex-positive. She can't be held responsible for anything because her mind went blank.
Kudos to her for perceiving that she would have benefited from a moral framework that at least explained to her that sex leads to attachment, but otherwise, she sounds unapologetically destructive.
In this sense it appears “quasi-fugue state” means “brainwashed.”
Shorter Lucinda Rosenfeld: "I wanted to ball this married guy - so I did."
Unless you're deliberately making a baby, sex is just fun. For love or not is a personal character decision ("Who am I going to be?"). Say you take it as a sign of your own personal commitment.
Or, not uncommonoly, if you're a woman, it's no longer exactly fun but still serves as a sign.
One of the benefits of an Ivy League education is the ability to construct detailed, intelligent-sounding excuses justifying what we did and want to do. It is like playing chess against yourself. If you are a smart girl, you will need an elaborate excuse. It sounds like the professor had a similar moral construction. She could at least plead some version of starry-eyed youth. Or rather, we could plead it for her, because it sounds like she doesn't want to think she could be like the other girls.
For a moment there, I thought "X" would be revealed to be Bill Clinton.
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
Can someone explain what the heck is the "Reagan-era me-first ethos?"
I'm sure it is an insult, as are the frequent references to the "Reagan-era decade of greed."
After reading this and the post regarding James Watt my takeaway is that people are more liable to be condemned and cast out of polite society for what they say, as opposed to what they do.
The most valuable skill in today's zeitgeist would seem to be the ability to construct a richly evocative excuse for your own behavior using words that are not in a dictionary of Basic English.
Everyone is stuck living with themselves, but what's your narrative? Can you explain yourself? Could you sell it to St. Peter at the gates?
As a fellow Gen-Xer, I was 18 in 1990, this article practically sums up almost all co-eds I knew at that time. My female peers in college were completely messed up. The more traditional and conservative their parents were, the more messed up they were.
Cutting, bulimia, anorexia, smoking to stay thin: women hammered their own bodies to have some semblance of control over their lives. But this was all wrapped up in a type of narcissism that is really hard to explain.
I could get through the first part of that article but I had to stop. There was that narcissism, the author was spinning a story that boosted her own ego. Her descriptions of her host family and the Mormon girl show it. Her bulimia may have started in Spain, but her self-harm probably started long before then.
"I was lonely, missed my close friend and around people that disliked me for no reason," sums up her experience in Spain. But it was probably more like, "I was a bad guest that tried to treat strangers as badly as that one childhood friend whom put up with my sh*t for years."
I dunno, it's not every Gen-X woman, but there are so many I know that have this narcissistic bubble that this article seems to be unintentionally capturing.
The sadder but wiser girl for me.
Did she say what grade she received in that course with Professor X?
The feminist-masculinist common cause. When first you exercise liberal license to indulge class-disordered ideology.
"I was able both to justify my affair and to identify myself as a feminist while conducting my personal life in a way that might suggest otherwise."
Not at all. Justifying whatever you feel like doing is the whole point of identifying as a feminist. And in fact, it's fairly clear that the only reason she now sees anything wrong with her "affair" is that it did not turn out the way she naively expected.
Nadine Strossen/ACLU, anti-incarceration, anti-family anarchism gussied up for dumb feminist theory majors. It enabled a lot of tenured lesbian on graduate student groping in my time in the feminist-academic gulag.
I read "comparative" as "corrosive" at first, and it goes to show that the old saying, "always go with your first instinct," is correct.
Why is it that one form or another of feminism justifies virtually any sexual behavior? Is feminism just a cover for doing what you want? Prove me wrong.
"Can someone explain what the heck is the "Reagan-era me-first ethos?"
I'm sure it is an insult, as are the frequent references to the "Reagan-era decade of greed.""
True, but the 70s were officially the Me Decade and Reagan wasn't President until 1981.
In some circles this is known as a "black-out drunk".
Some abstract theories encourage alienation from reality. Smart but troubled people become more troubled, and less focused on reality.
Why is the term "co-ed" still in use in 2023? Women have long outnumbered men in universities.
(Specific terms like "Naked Co-Ed Twister", are exempted.)
Maybe the heart wants what it wants. Just a theory.
The Reagan Era of Greed? I remember that, as well as . . . oh yeah, the Year of the Angry White Man! That was a doozy, let me tell you. Those guys were everywhere. (Not to be confused with Average White Band, Totes diff.)
Mention of the term Co-ed reminds me of one of the great passages in Barth's satire of academics, "Giles Goat Boy." Brilliant in itself, I'm struck by how much of the context is being lost.
"Learned Founder! Liberal Artist! Dean of deans, and Coach of coaches, to whose memos we still turn in time of doubt: stand by us through these dark hours in Academe. Teach me, that am Thy least professor, to profess no thing but truth; that am Thy newest freshman advisor, not to misadvise those minds--so free of guile and information--Thou has committed to my trust. Help me to grasp Thy rules; make clear Thy curricular patterns as the day; Thy prerequisites unknot for me to broadcast with the chimes. Enlighten the stupid; fire with zeal the lowest percentile; have mercy on the recreant in Main Detention and the strayed in Remedial Wisdom; be as a beacon in the Senate, a gadfly in the dorms. Be keg and tap behind the bar of every order, that the brothers may chug-a-lug Thy lore, see Truth in the bottom of their steins, and find their heads a-crack with insight. Be with each co-ed at the evening's close; paw her with facts, make vain her protests against learning's advances; take her to Thy mind's backseat, strip off preconceptions, let down illusions; unharness her from error--that she may, ere the curfew, be infused with Knowledge.
Above all, Sir, stand by me at my lectern; be chalk and notes to me; silence the mowers and stay the traffic that I may speak; awaken the drowsy; confound the heckler; bring him to naught who would digress when I would not, and would not when I would; take my words from his mouth who would take them from mine; save me from slip of tongue and lapse of memory; from twice-told joke and unzippered fly. Doctor of doctors, vouchsafe unto me examples of the Unexampled, words to speak the Wordless; be now and ever my visual aid, that upon the empty slate of these young minds I may inscribe, bold and squeaklessly, the Answers!"
Regrets? She has a few…
Just another unhappy liberal woman. This country is filled to the brim with ‘em. Unfortunately.
(In my 'French Feminisms' class, the preferred term for such was jouissance.)
So, like many young women before her and dince, she discovered that sex without an emotional connection isn’t all that great. As predicted by those evil conservatives based on 300,000 years of evolution. Go figure. L
True, but the 70s were officially the Me Decade and Reagan wasn't President until 1981.
@Free Manure, you’re trying to give facts to a feminists? They don’t want no effing facts! They got their feelz.
(In my 'French Feminisms' class, the preferred term for such was jouissance.)
Did the class also use the term "enciente" to refer to one of the consequences of jouissance?
mikee, that'd be "enceinte."
Post a Comment