Spare Coochie, Ma’am?: Coopting Social Movements for Sex
Men are trash. It’s plastered all over the TL, it’s seen everywhere from IG memes to entire Twitter accounts dedicated to exposing the detrimental horniness and general tomfuckery of the male population. It’s a statement that many men, most of whom are missing the point of the phrase, take great offense to.
Not me, though. Nope. I understand that the phrase “men are trash” only applies to the segment of the male population that is self-serving and doesn’t know where the clit is. I know that “men are trash” only applies to men who are trash, and not to any upstanding members of society, such as myself.
“Men are trash” is so much more than a simple catchphrase to be shouted by self-empowered women. It is a signal to men, and to society as a whole, that women do not exist for the pleasure and consumption of men, hence why it is most often used whenever a man expects some sort of response or attention from a woman he is trying to talk to or interact with. It is a reminder that this self-righteous attitude held by men, that they deserve to be sexually rewarded for doing the bare minimum—that every woman should respond favorably to their advances, and that women, as a whole, should stop “complaining” about systemic inequalities, for example, and just suck dick and cook—is ubiquitous enough that every woman has experienced it, or knows someone who has.
Men are not allowed to be offended by this blanket statement. In a world where women still have their bodily autonomy relentlessly policed by the government, in a world where a woman still has to justify her self worth should she choose not to be a mother or a housewife, in a world where women are routinely killed and harassed just for being women, men cannot claim that such a phrase should be discontinued just because it hurts their feelings. Women’s lives heavily revolve around the comfort and whims of men as it is; there is no reason to add another burden for them to bear.
See, I understand why “men are trash.” I told you I’m a feminist. So you wanna go to back to my place and talk some more, maybe watch a movie or something?
Co-option is a shitty thing, and it’s important to understand what it actually is. Co-option, in for the purposes of this essay, is considered to be synonymous with recuperation, which is defined as “the process by which politically radical ideas and images are twisted, co-opted, absorbed, defused, incorporated, annexed and commodified within media culture and bourgeois society, and thus become interpreted through a neutralized, innocuous or more socially conventional perspective.”
For some recent, mainstream examples of co-option, look no further than rainbow capitalism. For a quick overview on the beginning of the modern LGBTQ movement, the Stonewall Riots were a series of spontaneous and violent demonstrations in response to a police raid on the bar, and is seen as the starting point of the modern gay liberation movement. Since that time, the LGBTQ community has fought tooth and nail for basic human rights—nationwide, LGBTQ couples weren’t allowed to marry until 2015; some of the last states to decriminalize homosexuality only did so in 2003, and the US military didn’t do so until 8 years later.
At its core, the LGBTQ movement has stood for values inherent to the fabric of America: a search for equality, the desire for adequate representation, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No matter how “American” these tenets may be, however, one doesn’t have to look very hard to see that simply existing is a right many wish to deny members of the LGTBQ community: LGBTQ adults are the most frequent victim of hate crimes. In 2017, there were 7,175 hate crimes. About 16% of those hate crimes were based on sexual orientation bias alone.
So whenever Pride Month comes around, it’s obviously important to show support to the community and stand with them in solidarity against hatred and bigotry. We’ve seen a widespread shift on the corporate stance on Pride, at least in terms of marketing; ad campaigns and special Pride edition product lines have become nearly ubiquitous in recent years, with many companies choosing to adopt a rainbow colored version of their logos during June. As helpful as this steady normalization of gay existence is, it’s still inherently exploitative.
Companies are profiting off of the long and violent history of the gay rights movement in America, all in the name of a quick buck. Microsoft recently unveiled a string of Pride related products and even has a whole page on their website dedicated to supporting the LGBTQ community and its charities. AT&T unleashed a new “Live Proud” campaign, which seeks to elevate and provide a platform for members of the LGBTQ community, whether they work for AT&T or not.
But it’s all bullshit. Microsoft are AT&T have donated more than $600,000 and $3.1M, respectively, to politicians that oppose LGBTQ protections. AT&T, for all their bluster, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to one Representative Bill Flores, a man who hinted that the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage somehow contributed to the 2015 Baltimore riots, and cited it as a prime example of the “breakdown of the family.” Another beneficiary of AT&T’s corporate sponsorship is Representative John Shimkus, a man who so strongly opposes LGBTQ protections that the only time he voted in favor of them was by accident.
It’s an issue that is pervasive as it is shitty. In the last handful of years, with the rise of feminist movements and gradual awakening of social consciousness in the last two generations, the world is becoming more receptive to systemic inequalities and issues that marginalized communities face. Young and old people alike turned out in droves to protest gun violence in Washington, D.C just last year. Dairy sales are declining as more consumers switch to plant based alternatives; animal welfare concerns were a large factor for the choices of Millenials and Gen Z’s. We came of age in a post-9/11 world, and we’re not afraid to tackle the problems facing our world.
It’s heroic, really, in a tragic, that’s-fucked-up-that-we-have-to-save-the-world-from-Boomers type of way. Unfortunately, lust is one of helluva drug, and while some of us are busy trying to save the future from being fucked, some of us are using it as an opportunity to get fucked.
As much as people like to bash identity politics for being inherently divisive and having a tendency to be wholly unrealistic in their expectations or assertions, the fact of the matter is, they are, in my opinion, a natural part of the political process. Identity politics are innate part of the political activities marginalized groups and underrepresented peoples. These same people are bound together by common interests and shared experiences, and through these commonalities, they are able to build authentic connections that lead to strong support systems and tight-knit communities.
The fact that these spaces are being infiltrated by those who hold less than pure intentions is as much of problem as it is disingenuous. But, then again, who am I to determine how genuine someone is about what they advocate for? Is it not enough that people simply be involved and agitate for a change in the status quo, whether it be in the context of the #MeToo movement or by trying to hold companies accountable for their screw ups? Is a hardline stance needed to keep communities and movements from being bastardized and eventually rendered unrecognizable from their original purposes?
I think these are questions that don’t necessarily require a community response so much as they require self-reflection. I am a firm believer in what I’ll call “genuine activism,” or activism for the sake of whatever cause(s) a person wishes to support. The spirit of charity is just as important as the act itself. The fact that there is a perceived or actual benefit from someone’s involvement and contributions does not excuse the moral quagmire that is created when a person or entity does something positive for a cause but continues to work or support actions that oppose it. How valuable can a person’s involvement be if they’re only doing it because their crush is into it or because they want to look like a good person?
Such actions stray into “performative wokeness,” and can lead to more radical and less intelligible opinions hogging more of the limelight. These same opinions could be mistakenly circulated by those new to the movement, and are therefore unfamiliar with its lore, further perpetuating its popularity. Sometimes, it can even be weaponized against the same communities they claim to support.
But what about more “benign” cases? What about the people who have a casual interest in something, get more involved, meet people, and end up sleeping with someone because of it? Shouldn’t they be #cancelled too?
No, because that’s just basic human interaction. There is a distinct difference between only doing something to benefit yourself and unexpectedly receiving a personal benefit from your involvement. Outwardly, they appear to be similar, if not exactly the same thing. Inwardly, however, the difference is clear, and by principle, is exploitative and co-opts the movement. Why are such seemingly minute differences important to consider anyway?
Because such differences reveal the vanity of the actors in question. Because it is important to cultivate a society that does things not for Instagram and Twitter and Facebook, but for the causes and peoples that those movements benefit. Because it is essential that we hold ourselves accountable for whatever bullshit we try to pull and be honest with ourselves in regard to our intentions, because that sort of self-reflection is the only way we can truly become better people.
The co-option I speak of falls into two camps. Both are based in vanity and that pesky, human desire to be liked and included. One is fueled by blatant self-interest; actors only do things because they think they will gain social standing or some other material or immaterial benefit from their participation. The other is steeped in overcompensation, whether it be a desire to make amends for past transgressions or to try and excuse a continual pattern of inexcusable behavior. Of these two types of co-option, I’ve spoken at length on the former. But the latter?
I think it’s the more insidious of the two. It’s a quiet sort of co-option that, like its shit-sucking cousin, seeks to improve its own status and appearance. Unlike its cousin, this brand of co-option eats at the person doing it. It can be a far more personal experience than the former, as it literally turns the actor into an actor. The difference between how a person might act in their public and private life creates a clear distinction in their personalities, and how their conduct becomes a mask they take on or off depending on present company. Such mask wearing is already a large part of human interaction: we all act a certain way or refrain from being a certain way because of whoever we’re with.
Unlike the innocuous mask wearing of daily life, however, this brand is inherently hypocritical. But, whether or not the person or entity in question is bothered by their hypocrisy is another question entirely. The more important thing to note about this overcompensation, though, is that it is inherently toxic, not only to themselves, but to the movement as a whole. Those who overcompensate have no problem projecting their insecurities or shortcomings onto others; those things are already hallmarks of overcompensation. If the overcompensation is coming from a place of trying to excuse past behavior, the actor in question may try to police members of the community or movement into acting or speaking a certain way.
This policing can be entirely unnecessary or tone deaf: as an example, consider a white person who tries to tell black people not to say “n*gga.” Perhaps they heavily used the word in the past and were reprimanded for it, and are still deeply embarrassed because of it. Due to this lingering embarrassment, they feel a need to police others’ language for any number of reasons: they might want to “reclaim” whatever social or moral standing they might have lost by using the word, and by policing others, they might regain it; they might seek the same power that the people who originally reprimanded them once held; they might simply want to embarrass and punish someone else for doing the same thing they got embarrassed and punished for. The illogic of such policing, however, is that the black community, generally speaking, has reclaimed the word for their own. It now carries a different meaning and connotation than it once did, in the sense that what used to belittle and dehumanize a black man now empowers him.
Conversely, the overcompensation may be coming from a place that attempts to excuse a pattern of inexcusable behavior. The level of overcompensation will always be inversely proportional to the perceived“inexcusability” of the actor’s conduct. That is why actors believe they must overcompensate in the first place, whether they realize it or not: no matter how active they are in their communities or movements, no matter how much they do, no matter how much they learn or try to police others, nothing will ever be enough to “make up” for their continual gaffes and missteps. Such overcompensation is further escalated if the actor realizes that their behavior is in direct contrast to what the movement expects of them, but continues to misbehave anyway.
Regardless of the method or reasoning, co-option, on principle, is inexcusable. It stands in direct opposition to the spirit of activism and the spirit of the cause(s) a person wishes to support. It creates and perpetuates morally shallow behavior, in that self-interest drives charitable behavior, rather than a desire to rectify inequality and injustice. More importantly, however, it allows us to look like better people without actually being better people.
To conclude, I had the chance to reach out to a friend to see what they had to say on the matter and the response was enlightening, to say the least.
Do you feel that it invalidates their involvement in the movement if they’re using it to advance their own agenda or is there a spectrum of pussy pandering (he actually cares about this stuff but is also using it to pick up girls on the side vs he doesn’t care and is only there for the women)
Darya: Yes because it shows that at the end you only care about us when you [stand to] gain something from it rather than actually respecting us as your equals. [W]e don’t want your “support” if you only support us to advance your agenda; if you are only a self proclaimed feminist to get laid then you need to consider some moral realignment. It’s unfair to only support us when you feel you will benefit from it rather than out of the sake of morality and viewing women as equals. [I]f at the end [of the day] you still only view us as sexual expeditions then obviously there is some mentality reshaping you have to undergo.
In what ways can men be better allies and avoid being disingenuous? What makes it “okay?” Is the line drawn at having it as a common interest between two people?
Darya: Men can be better allies by listening to women’s stories and acknowledging that there are no exaggerations by what we say. We do not have overreaction when it comes to what we face every day — being talked down to, being scared walking down the street at day or night time, scared of walking anywhere alone, afraid to speak up in class without being shut down, discouraged from finding well paying work, having to be nice to men that hit on you out of fear, literally so they won’t kill you… the list is endless.
If men actually listened to what we were saying rather than invalidating our experiences and immediately becoming defensive, just listen to us and sympathize. Showing sympathy even if you are unaware of our struggles is validating and women will respond well to sympathetic men. Not men that don’t really listen, not men that don’t really digest what we have to go through daily but maybe validate it so they can fuck whoever they’re trying to fuck. We want you to emotionally comprehend our struggle and seek to aid us in finding equality between the sexes.
Small things such as refraining from using the word bitch and calling men “pussies” are also helpful to the movement and men oftentimes cannot wrap their minds around women telling them they can’t do something, so they’re outraged when we make such requests despite the fact there are such negative, sexist connotations behind those words, particularly created by men in order to insult and degrade women.
Additionally, the fact that western men try to say feminism in the West isn’t valid because women are oppressed in the east is absolutely absurd and quite insulting. Eastern women don’t need your input nor your help, they are more than capable in helping themselves and creating solidarity amongst each other. They don’t need a western male insight that has no idea what the actual conditions of women are in these countries and even if they are oppressive it is not your say nor your right to devalue other feminists movements and demonize eastern cultures simultaneously. It is all quite problematic and when men do so it very much delegitimizes their so-called “allegiance.”
