#“there's a marilyn frye quote for that”

[hadesoftheladies]

do you have anything to say to assuage the concerns of women who are afraid that misogyny will only get worse if women stop interacting with men?

please allow me to let marilyn frye respond:

"If these, then, are some of the ways in which separation is at the heart of our struggle, it helps to explain why separation is such a hot topic. If there is one thing women are queasy about it is actually taking power. As long as one stops just short of that, the patriarchs will for the most part take an indulgent attitude. We are afraid of what will happen to us when we really frighten them. This is not an irrational fear, It is our experience in the movement generally that the defensiveness, nastiness, violence, hostility, and irrationality of the reaction to feminism tends to correlate with the blatancy of the element of separation in the strategy or project which triggers the reaction. The separations involved in women leaving homes, marriages, and boyfriends, separations from fetuses, and the separation of lesbianism are all pretty dramatic."

it's not that separatism is easy-peasy, it's that being in a patriarchy is dangerous for women either way. sometimes feminists get beaten up for speaking out, but women also just get beaten up for being women in general. people wouldn't hate feminists if they didn't hate women, so whatever the feminists get is what women are getting. it's a lose-lose, except fighting back eventually becomes a win.

also, i mean this respectfully, but i already answered your question in the post you reblogged. if a man will get violent with you for separating, he's exactly the kind of man you must separate from (think domestic violence). the kind of men that will get angry that you're divorcing are the kind of men you must escape because remaining with them will only make it more dangerous for you, not less.

believing that women might be able to mitigate misogyny via interactions with men is not the same as saying “men are the solution to male violence.”

there's a beloved quote of radblr's by audre lorde, i believe: "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." what are the master's tools? what perpetuates patriarchy? why does it work the way it does? what keeps it strong? marriage to a man, premature/forced/pressured impregnation (as a weapon of violence and also an economic destabilizer for the woman), relationships with men (psychological and financial toll), femininity, etc. how then can these things be empowering or feminist? at best (and rarest) they are neutral, but when they exist in a patriarchal context, they are patriarchal, hence weapons wielded against women. no matter how they feel about it.

I don’t know of any solid evidence supporting the idea that interacting with men or refusing to interact with men will reliably improve women’s lives

I'm surprised that you haven't read about the studies documenting the mental and physical health benefits of not dating or marrying men. Especially because the exploitation of women in marriage has been a huge topic in feminist literature and politics for centuries! I'm surprised you haven't observed this in your own life too bc I see it every day. It's kinda common sense that interacting with your oppressors is hardly ever a health-boost, but here's a paper that talks about the nuances of marriage and cohabiting with men and why men are the ones who keep benefitting.

but i fear i may be addressing the wrong things here. one, separatism is very niche feminist discourse so not a lot of academics are competing to conduct studies on issues pertaining to it.

two, what we DO know is that marrying, befriending and catering to men in any way has not amounted to more rights for women. what we DO know is that men use sex to exploit and oppress us. what we DO know is that patriarchy is upheld by the institutions of marriage, prostitution, surrogacy, etc . . . all which entail sexual access to women, however regulated. what we DO know is that men are always disproportionately benefitting MORE from relationships with women than women with them. Etcetera, etcetera . . .

three, separatism isn't about "non-interaction." it's about divesting from patriarchy and de-centering men. that's the goal here. to stop boosting men at the expense of ourselves and our movement, which is most effectively done through disengagement on a myriad of levels.

but I’d like to know if you have any arguments against the actual position of the people who doubt the effectiveness of separatism.

scroll through my blog. i've made plenty. :)

It seems most likely to me that it’s a lot more complicated than that, and that different approaches are required for different situations, and using multiple strategies might be most effective

separatists agree with you :)

"if we separate, the men will get violent" is the new "if women aren't prostitutes, men will rape the rest of us"

men cannot be the solution to male violence if men are the problem. it's really that simple.

[lamajaoscura]

“To say that straight men are heterosexual is to say that they engage in sex (fucking exclusively with the other sex, i.e. women). All of which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honour, whom they imitate, idolise, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honour, reverence and love they desire....are those, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relationships with women, what passes for respect, is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honour is removal from the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex. Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic – it is man-loving.” -Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality

[agnesandhilda]

having some thoughts

@lesbianshadowcat on tumblr / "fragrant is my many flower'd crown" by lingua ignota / the politics of reality by marilyn frye

[aeide-thea]

ugh

saw a post with a quote that basically tidily summed up the rebuttal i'd half-started drafting to someone's post about how homosociality in tolkien ~queers amatonormativity~ [spoiler: on the contrary, male homosociality has been engaged in a three-way handshake with both misogynist heterosexuality and amatonormativity for literal millennia, and far from undermining them, more typically serves as essential reinforcement], so i was like, great, now i don't have to actually write that essay, i can just reblog this instead and tag it #tolkien! :)

but then, like a conscientious idiot, i went and dutifully looked up the book it was from, because i think it's irresponsible to cite excerpts whose context you aren't familiar with; and very predictably it turned out to be by a r*dfem and to make all sorts of claims abt so-called 'phallocratic culture' that i dislike, both as a trans person and ally myself and also as a logical thinker who can tell perfectly well from, you know, lived experience of our society that having a penis doesn't in fact confer ready social acceptance, never mind dominance, on people who don't otherwise look or act the part of a Proper Man, because ultimately what we reflexively defer to is a particular vibe, produced by a combination of physique and affect and other things besides, which may imply the presence of a penis but neither actually reveals nor necessitates one…

so like. ugh. probably i'm gonna have to write my own essay after all. :/

[keepyourfeetwarm]

It is my being a woman that reduces the power of my anger to a proof of my insanity. - Marilyn Frye

[pigeonmoony]

"it is my being a woman that reduces the power of my anger to a proof of my insanity" Marilyn Frye

[mappingthemoon]

“Another general thing that can safely be said about the resources provided by marginality is that marginality opens the possibility of seeing structures of the dominant culture which are invisible from within it. It is a peculiar blessing both of gay men and of lesbians that in many ways we are both Citizen and Exile, member of the family and stranger. Most of us were raised straight; many have been straight, and many of us can and do pass as straight much of the time. Most of us know that straight world from the inside and, if we only will, from its outer edge. We can look at it with the accuracy and depth provided by binocular vision. With the knowledge available to us from our different perches at the margins of things, we can base our inventions of ourselves, inventions of what a woman is and of what a man is, on a really remarkable understanding of humans and human society as they have been constructed and misconstructed before. If only we will. The will is a most necessary element.

[...]

“For the benefits of marginality to be reaped, marginality must in some sense be chosen. Even if, in one's own individual history, one experiences one's patterns of desire as given and not chosen, one may deny, resist, tolerate or embrace them. One can choose a way of life which is devoted to changing them, disguising oneself or escaping the consequences of difference, or a way of life which takes on one's difference as integral to one's stance and location in the world. If one takes the route of denial and avoidance, one cannot take difference as a resource. One cannot see what is to be seen from one's particular vantage point or know what can be known to a body so located if one is preoccupied with wishing one were not there, denying the peculiarity of one's position, disowning oneself. “The power available to those who choose, who decide in favor of deviance from heterosexual norms, can be very great. The choosing, the deciding, challenges doctrines of genetic determinism which obscure the fact that heterosexuality is part of a politics. The choosing challenges the value placed on heterosexual normalcy. And the choosing places the choosing agent in a position to create and explore a different vision.”

--Marilyn Frye, from “Lesbian Feminism and the Gay Rights Movement: Another View of Male Supremacy, Another Separatism,” published by Crossings Press, 1983. (Note this was published nearly 40 years ago; I feel the sentiment applies beyond just “gay men and lesbians” as stated above.)

[donnapalude]

coming from this post with thoughts.

without getting into how silver comes to develop his new role of pirate king, harboring previously unseen hyper-masculine traits, there is certainly something to say about silver's relationship with madi having only an appearance of equality, while actually being a pretty clear-cut case of benevolent sexism. especially with the triangulation that flint adds, that marilyn frye quote always comes to mind:

"all or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. the people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire…those are, overwhelmingly, other men."

silver loves madi in his own way, but in the construction of his new identity she clearly becomes an accessory more than an inspiration. his model or benchmark for everything he becomes, whether by imitation or opposition, always remains flint. and this is not a statement about superior love, i just find it a very typically sexist process. this is very evident in his speech to flint about power:

"to be both liked and feared all at once is an entirely different state of being...in which, i believe, at this moment, i exist alone."

the speech is placed at the end of s3, but there's nothing indicating he changes his mind later on. and the only point of comparison that exists for him is clearly flint. because if he bothered to look a little to the side, he would see that madi is most certainly both liked and feared by her own people and certainly better than him. she demonstrates this very explictly during the incident with mr. dobbs in 308. silver prides himself in the fact that mr. dobbs wants to repair silver's disappointment at all costs, but madi's men never disappoint her in the first place. there may be disagreements we don't see among them, but there's real unity and belief there, not only a momentary patchwork of guilt, obligation, appreciation and intimidation. and the simple reason for this is that her care for them and their cause and for doing whatever necessary for it is genuine and they trust it. but this lesson coming from her, he does not imagine to learn it. not only does he not see she is a better leader, he eliminates her entirely from the equation by not even admitting she is at least on par with him. he says "i exist alone".

also relevant, the most important moments of bonding for them come from silver being vulnerable with her and taking her on as a tether to save himself from flint's darkness. it is important to note that, while i am sure madi had a mutual exchange in mind (and maybe silver also did in theory) we never really see the opposite unfolding. which is probably also due to the insulting lack of interest from the authors in developing her character. but if we must take the text at face value, this makes the particular form of reliance silver has on her not entirely benign. still marilyn frye:

"in their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal."

the positioning of him and flint as individuals possessing some shared darkness within them that she cannot comprehend and from which she must be protected, while also performing the role of guiding light, is most certainly both paternalism and a pedestal. there's no sense there of madi possibly having her own demons. and the unloading on her of the emotional labour necessary to make him and flint work together is also a very typically gendered assignation. partly because it indicates this is perceived as her natural feminine duty. partly because the willingness to show defenselessness only before a woman is also not necessarily a neutral choice. it still belies a worldview that places men's opinions as the defining judgement on one's identity. it's not only a matter of trust. silver is infinitely more scared of flint thinking him weak than madi doing so, because flint's opinion would actually be a devaluation, whether so intended or not.

this obviously culminates in silver removing madi's agency by deciding for her how the rest of her life is going to go. and while it's true he also does this to flint, it remains crucial that the only way he can see this working in relation to him is to treat him as an equally formidable opponent that he must defeat. while, in his mind, madi can be quietly stowed away when required. the outcome is really not entirely different from the image rogers has of knitting-eleanor.

[hauntedlovewasteland]

Hi I hope you dont mind me commenting on your list but number 6 reminded me of this:

"To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking exclusively with the other sex, i.e., women). All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire… those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex. Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving."

- Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory.

And I don't have a lot of experiences to fully get what you mean so could you elaborate on number 1?

That's it, I hope I'm not bothering

When I say gay man have it easier I mean just that. In a patriarchal society men will always have it easier even if they are gay simply because they are men. On top of that gay men do not get harassed by straight/bisexual women to try and turn them “straight” the way that gay women do. It’s normal for straight men to think they can turn lesbians and use violence to try and do so where you rarely ever see that happen to gay men by straight/bi women (specifically the violence part. I know some women try this but it’s not even close to how often men do this)

We don’t see straight women going alone to gay clubs to find gay men and try and change them, we see that from straight men going to lesbian clubs/bars and trying to pick up women.

There’s also the fact that most women make less than men, so when you think of that gay men will statistically make more money in their lifetime than a women would. (I can say this is real because the first job I ever got I had already started passing as a man and the boss started me off at a higher pay than she would for the women that worked there. I know this because I worked with my niece at this job and when I told her how much I made she said “yeah that’s not even what I started at, our boss tends to favor the guys who work here and start them at a higher pay” if I remember correctly I started out making like 10-15 cents more than what my niece did when she had started at the same job. (My niece helped me get the job for clarification, she’s older than me)

There’s also the societal idea that cismen are the more desirable so society tends to understand why a gay man would be gay unlike how it is with gay women.

Also love that quote! 6 was my own thoughts/experiences on top of knowing the quote you gave! Also no I don’t mind you commenting! I enjoy it lol.

[agnesandhilda]

almost all my emotionally important relationships irl are with women and I can't tell if it's because I'm a feminist a dyke or because I have truly horrible luck with men

[femsolid]

"The parasitism of males on females is, as I see it, demonstrated by the panic, rage and hysteria generated in so many of them by the thought of being abandoned by women. But it is demonstrated in a way that is perhaps more generally persuasive by both literary and sociological evidence. Males tend in shockingly significant numbers and in alarming degree to fall into mental illness, petty crime, alcoholism, physical infirmity, chronic unemployment, drug addiction and neurosis when deprived of the care and companionship of a female mate, or keeper. (While on the other hand, women without male mates are significantly healthier and happier than women with male mates.) Men are drained and depleted by their living by themselves and with and among other men, and are revived and refreshed, re-created, by going home and being served dinner, changing to clean clothes, having sex with the wife; or by dropping by the apartment of a woman friend to be served coffee or a drink and stroked in one way or another; or by picking up a prostitute for a quicky or for a dip in favorite sexual escape fantasies; or by raping refugees from their wars (foreign and domestic). The ministrations of women, be they willing or unwilling, free or paid for, are what restore in men the strength, will and confidence to go on with what they call living. And as documented in Millett’s Sexual Politics and many other feminist analyses of masculist literature, the theme of men getting high off beating, raping or killing women (or merely bullying them) is common. These interactions with women, or rather, these actions upon women, make men feel good, walk tall, feel refreshed, invigorated."

- Some Reflections on Separatism and Power, Marilyn Frye

[ciaervo1]

“There is so much pressure on women to be heterosexual, and this pressure is both so pervasive and so completely denied, that I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”

- Marilyn Frye

[thesaturnianwife]

"𝚃𝚘 𝚜𝚊𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚑𝚎𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚎𝚡𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚊𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚎𝚗𝚐𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚒𝚗 𝚜𝚎𝚡 (𝚏𝚞𝚌𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚎𝚡𝚌𝚕𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚎𝚡 𝚒.𝚎. 𝚠𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗). 𝙰𝚕𝚕 𝚘𝚏 𝚠𝚑𝚒𝚌𝚑 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚕𝚘𝚟𝚎, 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚎 𝚎𝚡𝚌𝚕𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚖𝚎𝚗. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚍𝚖𝚒𝚛𝚎, 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝, 𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛𝚎, 𝚛𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚎, 𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚘𝚞𝚛, 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚎, 𝚒𝚍𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚖 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚑𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚝𝚘, 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚗, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝, 𝚊𝚍𝚖𝚒𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚐𝚗𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚘𝚞𝚛, 𝚛𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚕𝚘𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚛𝚎...𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎, 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚕𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚢, 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚖𝚎𝚗. 𝙸𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚑𝚒𝚙𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚠𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗, 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝 𝚒𝚜 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚜, 𝚐𝚎𝚗𝚎𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚘𝚛 𝚙𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚖; 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚒𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚟𝚊𝚕 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚕. 𝙵𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚠𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚎𝚡. 𝙷𝚎𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚎𝚡𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚎 𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚘𝚖𝚘𝚎𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚌 - 𝚒𝚝 𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚊𝚗-𝚕𝚘𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐."

𝙼𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚕𝚢𝚗 𝙵𝚛𝚢𝚎 // 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢.

[lesbianchemicalplant]

I don't feel a need to defend Paris Is Burning or Livingston as a director, but the attitude here toward black drag queens as Imitating White Womanhood is straightforward transmisogyny. this is the standard cisfeminist perspective on drag as misogynist male mockery of women: "casual and cynical mockery of women, for whom femininity is a trapping of oppression"

that Marilyn Frye is a radfem btw. In that same essay collection hooks quoted, The Politics Of Reality, she also describes trans women as "actual robots" "constructed" to replace cis women "to serve as stagehands", and literally cites Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire:

these are just the awesome sort of things cisfeminists were up to at the time. which could mean nothing

right after writing on about how we need to love and nurture men more bell hooks victimblames and insults several women. very fitting.

[modern-heresy]

On Rape Culture

In its analysis of the patriarchal system in which we live, a key site of men’s oppression of women—a key method of control and domination — is sexuality. In the words of feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye: “For females to be subordinated and subjugated to males on a global scale … billions of female individuals, virtually all who see life on this planet, must be reduced to a more-or-less willing toleration of subordination and servitude to men. The primary sites of this reduction are the sites of heterosexual relation and encounter — courtship and marriage-arrangement, romance, sexual liaisons, fucking, marriage, prostitution, the normative family, incest and child sexual assault. It is on this terrain of heterosexual connection that girls and women are habituated to abuse, insult, degradation, that girls are reduced to women — to wives, to whores, to mistresses, to sex slaves, to clerical workers and textile workers, to the mothers of men’s children.” That is not to suggest that every man treats every woman as a sex slave. Rather, it is to suggest that in this patriarchy in which we live, men generally are trained through a variety of cultural institutions to view sex as the acquisition of pleasure by the taking of women. Men are trained to see sex as a sphere in which they are naturally dominant and women are naturally passive. Women are objectified and women’s sexuality is commodified. Sex is sexy because men are dominant and women are subordinate; power is eroticized. The predictable result of this state of affairs is a world in which violence, sexualized violence, sexual violence, and violence-by-sex is so common that it must be considered to be normal—that is, an expression of the sexual norms of the culture, not violations of the norms. That doesn’t mean the culture openly endorses rape, but it does endorse a vision of masculinity that makes rape inviting. -Robert Jensen

[clehame]

As has often been documented, most men claim, indeed insist, that there is no essential connection between sex (that is, fucking) and love, affection, emotional connection, admiration, honor or any of the other passions of desire and attachment. To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking) exclusively with (or upon or to) the other sex, i.e., women. All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire... those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex. Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving.

Marilyn Frye, from Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory

This quote has been playing over and over in my head recently, but it was originally posted on a radfem blog, so I decided to instead post it here (with the first line added).