My sister* sends on this article about the wives and girlfriends of Colombian gangsters withholding sex until their partners give up violence.
Studies found that local gang members were drawn to criminality by the desire for status, power, and sexual attractiveness, not economic necessity, Colombian radio reported.
One of the girlfriends, Jennifer Bayer, told Britain’s Guardian newspaper: “We want them to know that violence is not sexy.”
Ms Bayer said the women had come up with a strike anthem rap song that included the lyrics: “As women we are worth a lot. We don’t want to fall for violent men because with them we lose too much.”
It’s a fascinating tactic, if nothing else. The ban is being called “the strike of the crossed legs,” which is… interesting. I give these women a lot of credit for doing what they can to try and stop the epidemic of violence in Colombia. I certainly applaud them for going straight to the source of that violence, and using whatever means they have to halt it. I always like to see pushy broads standing up and demanding that things change for the better.
And so when I criticize this tactic — as I’m about to do — I do it with much hesitation, because I recognize that these women have the best of intentions, and I don’t necessarily think that they’re doing anything wrong. So let is be said that my issue isn’t with their behavior, it’s with the system that puts them in a position in which that behavior is a compelling choice. My issue, then, is with the construction of sex as something that women give to men, and which can be withheld as punishment. It positions sex as something specifically for men, which women are simply tools of. When women withhold sex as a form of social protest (as opposed to withholding sex on an individual level simply because she doesn’t feel like having it at that moment, which is obviously a completely different ballgame), we continue to reinstate the idea that sex is a gift that we give men, as opposed to something that we do because we enjoy it in our own right.
Of course, I’m being pretty heteronormative right now to assume that a woman even needs a man in the room for sex to take place, so there’s that. But given that the majority of women do partner with men, that this campaign is focused on hetero couples and that promoting political lesbianism really isn’t my bag, I think the analysis still holds.
I’m also not sure that this has any chance of succeeding, if only because human beings are animals, and if there’s one thing animals like (besides food, water, and shiny objects), it’s fucking. A moratorium on fucking is pretty hard to maintain when both parties involved have a deep desire to do it, and are pretty much guaranteed to slip up from time to time.
But that said, good for these women to try and take away some of the social prestige attached to gang violence. Withholding sex may not be my ideal way to go about it, but if part of the allure of gang activity is that you’ll get a lot of chicks, having those chicks refuse to fuck you seems to be a pretty direct way to address the problem.
I don’t really understand why the mayor has to get involved, though. Thoughts?
*She also threatened, “You’d better give me a shout-out!” So there it is, Chrissy, there is it.
It’s not the tactic that’s bothering me–it’s the “strike” model, in which women are portrayed as labor and men as bosses in sex. Perhaps a better frame to view this protest in is the “embargo” model, in which one party refuses to trade with another party until the other party changes its behavior.
Another way to see it is that it’s not “we are witholding sex as a form of social protest” but rather “men who engage in these activities are not men [we] will have sex with. We do not find you sexually attractive when you engage in behavior we detest.”
The former, I agree, does make men seem oddly entitled. The latter does not IMO.
I don’t buy your distinction. You are criticizing their behavior, as well you should, because their behavior reinforces the very attitude about sexuality you oppose.
It’s not a compelling choice, even according to patriarchial assumptions about sexuality. As you say, it won’t work, at least not for very long. So at best, it’s silly. At worst, it further associates a woman’s body with property, as something to bargain with.
Yes and no. Their behavior is motivated by a system which allows it to be effective. As a parallel, I engage in all kinds of patriarchy-approved behaviors. I wear make-up. I occassionally make very poor attempts to lose weight. I dress femme-y. I wax off my pubic hair. I do these things because they benefit me in a patriarchial society, and because I gain pleasure from some of the benefits that they bring. Many other women make similar decisions.
But I don’t walk around criticizing every individual woman who wears make-up, because it’s more complicated than “her behavior reinforces the very attitude that I oppose.” It does, and so does my behavior. But the issue is bigger than individual decision-making, and our individual decisions have to always be weighed and negotiated given the contexts that we’re operating in. That’s why, while I suppose I am criticizing their behavior, I don’t fault them for it. Is that more clear?
*Coffee spit*
I’m sure you don’t, Mrs. Violent Gangster. :)
You just find all the other things sexy, like status and money. And it remains to be seen whether sociobiology is stronger than artificial morality.
It also reinforces the notion that men are entitled to sex if they do “behave”, even if the selected woman is not game.
Rereading my eariler comment, I sound a little self-righteous. Sorry about that.
I think there is a distinction but a different one. There’s a difference between criticizing an action and criticizing a person. I may argue, for instance, that action x is wrong without condemning every person who does it because that would require me to consider various extenuating circumstances.
I think that’s what’s going on here. You write that “I don’t necessarily think that they’re doing anything wrong.” I’d rephrase that as “What they’re doing is wrong but they’re not blameworthy because their actions are reasonable products of a society that rewards certain false assumptions about sexuality.
I find this fascinating because there’s an ancient Greek play called the ‘Lysistrata’ in which the women of Athens and Sparta wage a sex strike to end the war and the women have just as much difficulty abstaining from sex as the men.
Of course, given that this play was written by a man and plays on ancient Greek male assumptions about women’s insatiable sexual appetite, which served as an excuse for strictly regulating all manner of female sexual behavior, the play (and what it says about female sexuality) can be seen as helpfully feminist or profoundly not.
Oops! Didn’t notice the title of the post (just remembered there was no mention of the play in the article I read earlier today).
I should clarify: I’m sure you don’t think that violence is sexy…
Ok..so my major problem with this is hypocrisy. The hyprocrisy of these woman who are doing this “strike”. In a nutshell…they’re with these gangsters aren’t they?! Apparently, being a gangster is sexy because these are their girlfriends/wives. Don’t tell me that they weren’t gangsters/violent when they met. If these woman think that, they were simply seeing what they wanted to. I hate that when I make this argument that I”m about to, woman call me bitter. Simply, if they knew me they’d see that it is not true. However, there are so many nice guys who are lonely or who wish they had a hotter girlfriend. Unfortunately, these woman are busy organizing strikes of sex for their gangster boyfriends (I know thats a generalization, just try to see my point). IMO, this has less to do with these woman trying to reduce violence and more to do with them trying to change the bad boy to good with their beauty. I know not all woman are like this, but the types that marry gangsters are.
I don’t think you’re bitter, Caith. However, I think you may be totally ignorant of the situation these women are actually in. A woman may get involved with a man and not actually know he’s in a gang. He may not get involved in a gang until after he already has a girlfriend of wife. And for certain women, *all* men in their neighborhoods may be involved in a gang in some aspect or another. And I don’t think it’s as simple as simply withholding sex until the violence stops – these women do seem to understand where they stand in relationships with men in gangs, and I think that’s paving the way for women to feel free to leave the relationship if their demands on these issues aren’t met.
I’m sure they realize withholding sex isn’t an instant solution, however, they are working towards making this lifestyle seem less appealing because they’re refusing to participate in one of the main draws towards gang life. And because the appeal of gangs isn’t economic, they might actually have some chance at breaking down the idea that “being in a gang” = “lots of hot women who love you *for* being in a gang”.
You’re making judgement calls on these women without understanding their social or community situations, and that’s only being counter-productive. Make snide comments about these women all you want, but it’s not really adding anything intelligent to the discussion.