![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sasha_featherToday is Ursula K. Le Guin's 80th birthday. I'm celebrating by thinking about The Dispossessed, which I re-read recently for my book club, Beer and Marmalade.
In Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed, Shevek nearly rapes Vea, an Urrasti woman.
In our discussion of this scene at book club, I was startled at how easy it was for me to fall into patterns of rape apology: Shevek was drunk for the first time in his life, he was in a different culture with foreign gender dynamics, he was unclear of the expectations, he did not know the rules.
Did Ursula LeGuin trick me, her faithful reader, into becoming a rape apologist here? If so, why? Perhaps it says something about how easy it is to do in a culture that supports and encourages such an attitude, how easy a pattern it is to fall into, even when you know it's wrong. And perhaps there is a point here about Shevek as a sympathetic character. It is too easy to think that rapists are monsters, that they are evil, and so therefore they cannot be our friends, our neighbors, our relatives; they cannot be famous movie directors. Even great men like Shevek can be rapists. They are people, they are not monsters with claws.
In another recent discussion, some friends brought up the Open Source Boob Project (Read about it at Geek Feminism or FanLore.)
In short, someone with a well-read journal suggested, wouldn't it be nice if people (ie men) could just go up to women and ask to grope their boobs? Wouldn't that be a good society?
NO! Said many people. For one thing, there are many reasons why a woman might not feel comfortable saying no to someone in this situation. People at WisCon responded with tags of "Proprietary Boobs" to counteract this sentiment. "Even on Anarres, where people don't own anything, they still own their bodies," I said during this discussion.
But later I thought, no! Actually, the anarchists do not even refer to their bodies as their own. When they do, they are chastized for being propertarian. They say, "the hand hurts me," not, "my hand hurts". This strikes me as dissociation from one's own body. And how far does dissociation go? If there is no property, do you own your organs? Your eggs? Do you own the actions your body takes?
There are many reasons why feminists are vehemently propertarian about our bodies, and why we insist that our bodies ARE our selves. Rape is just one of those reasons. Reproductive rights are another. Control over what happens to our bodies, and what we choose to do with them, and asserting the boundaries of our bodies: these are the things for which being propertarian about your body, taking ownership of it, are essential.
Taking ownership can go too far, perhaps, making you feel guilty when you get sick, as if it's you're fault, as if you are a bad house owner who neglected to take care of your property. But even the Annaresti feel guilty when they get sick:
Most young Anarresti felt that it was shameful to be ill: a result of their society's very successful prophylaxy, and also perhaps a confusion arising from the analogic use of the words "healthy" and "sick". (p.96, 1974/5 paperback edition)
Look! Look how she notices disabling language!
Do you think that Shevek's training in being anti-propertarian about bodies contributed to his actions? What else does this book have to say about bodies?
In Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed, Shevek nearly rapes Vea, an Urrasti woman.
In our discussion of this scene at book club, I was startled at how easy it was for me to fall into patterns of rape apology: Shevek was drunk for the first time in his life, he was in a different culture with foreign gender dynamics, he was unclear of the expectations, he did not know the rules.
Did Ursula LeGuin trick me, her faithful reader, into becoming a rape apologist here? If so, why? Perhaps it says something about how easy it is to do in a culture that supports and encourages such an attitude, how easy a pattern it is to fall into, even when you know it's wrong. And perhaps there is a point here about Shevek as a sympathetic character. It is too easy to think that rapists are monsters, that they are evil, and so therefore they cannot be our friends, our neighbors, our relatives; they cannot be famous movie directors. Even great men like Shevek can be rapists. They are people, they are not monsters with claws.
In another recent discussion, some friends brought up the Open Source Boob Project (Read about it at Geek Feminism or FanLore.)
In short, someone with a well-read journal suggested, wouldn't it be nice if people (ie men) could just go up to women and ask to grope their boobs? Wouldn't that be a good society?
NO! Said many people. For one thing, there are many reasons why a woman might not feel comfortable saying no to someone in this situation. People at WisCon responded with tags of "Proprietary Boobs" to counteract this sentiment. "Even on Anarres, where people don't own anything, they still own their bodies," I said during this discussion.
But later I thought, no! Actually, the anarchists do not even refer to their bodies as their own. When they do, they are chastized for being propertarian. They say, "the hand hurts me," not, "my hand hurts". This strikes me as dissociation from one's own body. And how far does dissociation go? If there is no property, do you own your organs? Your eggs? Do you own the actions your body takes?
There are many reasons why feminists are vehemently propertarian about our bodies, and why we insist that our bodies ARE our selves. Rape is just one of those reasons. Reproductive rights are another. Control over what happens to our bodies, and what we choose to do with them, and asserting the boundaries of our bodies: these are the things for which being propertarian about your body, taking ownership of it, are essential.
Taking ownership can go too far, perhaps, making you feel guilty when you get sick, as if it's you're fault, as if you are a bad house owner who neglected to take care of your property. But even the Annaresti feel guilty when they get sick:
Most young Anarresti felt that it was shameful to be ill: a result of their society's very successful prophylaxy, and also perhaps a confusion arising from the analogic use of the words "healthy" and "sick". (p.96, 1974/5 paperback edition)
Look! Look how she notices disabling language!
Do you think that Shevek's training in being anti-propertarian about bodies contributed to his actions? What else does this book have to say about bodies?
I think...
Date: 2009-10-23 08:33 am (UTC)Thanks for this post. I have always avoided thinking more closely on that passage in the book.
Jokerine
http://blog.hdreioplus.de
Re: I think...
Date: 2009-10-23 08:33 pm (UTC)Thanks for your comment, it made me rethink this. The passage is very uncomfortable, and it's understandable why one would avoid thinking about it too closely. A very likable and sympathetic character does a painful, shameful thing, and it is difficult to reconcile.
Re: I think...
Date: 2009-10-24 01:52 pm (UTC)Jokerine
http://bog.hdreioplus.de
Re: I think...
Date: 2009-10-24 07:25 pm (UTC)Absolutely. And being in pain, being lonely, can eventually lead to such compassion for others, such internal strength. It all eventually leads up to his moment of clarity. Huh. What a powerful book.
Re: I think...
Date: 2009-10-26 04:15 pm (UTC)