Shulamith Firestone the Culture of Romance (1970)

Shulamith Firestone “The Culture of Romance” (1970)

Summary: Firestone’s central thesis is: “Romanticism is a cultural tool of male power to keep women from knowing their conditions” (para 2). Thus, Firestone’s is claiming that “romanticism,” really the romantic relationship, is a device which is culturally created for the purpose of oppressing women. Firestone then breaks “Romanticism” into three components (that together make up the romantic myth): 1) Eroticism, 2) The sex privatization of women, and 3) The beauty ideal. Eroticism: “Eroticism preserves the sex class system” (para 4). We are a highly sexualized culture which relies heavily on the objectification of women. For men the constant presence of the hyper-sexualize female object is rather like a constant taunt/tease for men...it is a stimulation which can only be acted upon/released through gential intercourse in the private bedroom as that is the only socially accepted type of sex and the only socially acceptable place for sex. For women, the presence of these hyper-sexualized female objects, in turn make them see themselves as erotic object and this fosters the mind-set that “I exist only to be enjoyed by man.” This mind-set is detrimental to women and highly oppressive for, “I exist to be enjoyed by man” quickly turns to “I do NOT exist if I am not being enjoyed by man” and this leaves no room for female pleasure/enjoyment while simultaneously allowing a class system to persist. The Sex Privatization of Women: Here, according to Firestone, woman becomes her set of physical attributes (attributes which individually taken are carried by a large portion of the female collective). However, because she becomes her set of physical attributes general praise or condemnation are taken personally...i.e. she IS blonde, big boobs, luscious lips, blue eyes and this reduces her individuality to a specific physical attribute. This practice denotes the inferior status of women in our culture. The Beauty Ideal: The beauty ideal is rather self-explanatory. By constantly trying to mimic an ever changing beauty ideal women are being objectified and are kept busy objectifying themselves. The Beauty ideal also enhances the sex privatization of women (you are your physical parts) and eroticism.

Response: I really like this article and believe it is well put together. In fact, I think Firestone’s points would hold up, and be useful in a larger argument along this line in our current culture. I have many thoughts regarding this article, but most of them deal with expansion points so I’ll talk about some of these (as a way of reminding myself to come back an access them for my own work)

First, that Romanticism is a device which is culturally created to oppress women. I don’t disagree with this...at all, but recently I have grown interested in the role of men in such cultural devices for at times they, too, seem oppressed...their needs suppressed. This constant stimulation that the male experiences because of the hyper-sexualized society we live in is, I believe, also oppressive for the man. When a man is constantly stimulated and can only relieve himself via vanilla sex at 10pm on Tuesday and Friday nights...this is an oppression of sorts...one that can lead to even further oppression of women via violence when the man cannot suppress the desire which has been stimulated. I find the following statement by Lawrence Kramer to be helpful in thinking about this: For both men and women, to become a subject, to acquire an identity, is to assume a position of femininity in relation to a masculinity that always belongs to someone else. This other is the wielder and bearer or authority in all its forms, social, moral, and cultural; both pleasure and truth are in his charge; yet no man, and certainly no woman, can securely identify with this masculine subject-position. Instead, biological men are directed to occupy a position that is simultaneously masculine in relation to a visible, public, feminine position...The same men are directed to repress their knowledge that this doubling of polarity by the dim, ever-looming figure of the other man render their own position masculine in content but feminine in structure (5-6 After the Lovedeath Sexual Violence and the Making of Culture)

What I’m saying is that if we want to unearth the power structure between men and women and elevate women to an equal position on all levels, we must be open to examining ALL power structures and this includes taking into account ways in which men may be or are oppressed as well as women. We have to know the system...the whole system...before we can propose and institute meaningful change.

Second, there is a way in which this article can be tied into a larger theoretical dialogue/map concerning the female existential crisis and the female existential crisis is an area which I am both extremely interested in and one that I feel is not discussed often enough, theoretically, given that it is a significant issue at the source of much of what we discuss. We tend to talk around it, but not directly about or at it (my interest in this and ability to see these threads are undoubtedly owed to my degree in philosophy). The gist of the female existential crisis is that woman is incapable of self-actualization; “self-actualization” refers to the ability or inability of woman to recognize and make real her own needs, wants, and desires. I believe our existence is contingent upon our ability to self-actualize; thus, when we are incapable of making real our own needs, wants, and desires our very existence can be called into question...our being suffers. The female existential crisis addresses the issue that the only avenue to existence a woman has is through man (i.e. woman’s existence is contingent upon man’s existence). This is something that de Beauvoir discussed (in fact, it’s really the premise of her entire study), but we see it coming up here, again, in Firestone particularly when we talk about the role of eroticism in culture. A woman’s needs, wants, and desires are dictated to her by society thus promoting the idea that “I exist to be enjoyed by man,” but what this implies, of course, is that if I am not being enjoyed by man, than I do not exist. I think there is a lot of work to be done still with existential theory as it pertains to the female both in illustrating the existence of a crisis…which I believe permeates our culture and in the exploration of avenues and models both theoretical and practical which can alleviate this crisis and allow women an autonomous existence.

Lastly, as well as looking at Firestone and de Beauvoir, I wish to explore other authors who address this issue (romance, eroticism, love, the existential crisis) in an effort to create a coherent theoretical map regarding this issue. To that end, I think Madonna Kolbenschlag, Kiss Sleeping Beauty Good-Bye, has some interesting information to offer with regards to the Edenic relationship that dominates American culture, Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth I believe is worth looking at as well as Jean Kilbourne’s Deadly Persuasions and a slew of other theories that I’m sure can be unearthed via feminist anthologies (Gilbert and Gubar, for example). Although, I would welcome any suggestions on reading material.