Sunday, April 08, 2007

It will all make perfect sense shortly; just hold still for a moment

...yeah, i don't know. i'd been trying to get off this particular merry-go-round, but this is really something. Via Renegade Evolution, part of a communication Jill Brenneman received:

It is the anti-porn feminism who maintain non-rigid sex roles. In fact, any deviation from anti-porn feminism’s non-rigid sex roles toward patriarchal sex roles is a direction toward the most extreme rigidity. Anti-porn feminism is to non-rigidity what patriarchy is to rigidity. Any deviation away from anti-porn feminism is a move away from true sexual liberation, toward sexual repression/oppression. The disagreement in which you speak about is really a disagreement between anti-porn feminists and so-called pro-porn feminists. The disagreement is amongst those who claim to be feminists, but are really sex liberals who really are not feminists, but people who have co-opted feminism. These “pro-porn” feminists really subscribe to traditional patriarchal standards of female sexuality. Amongst true feminists, there is no substantial disagreement. The so-called pro-porn feminists are really the lackeys and apologists of the patriarchy.


(more)

I have to confess, I still don't quite get it; admittedly I am dense. Maybe if she drew a chart or something? It kind of reminds me of the word problems I was having to do for the GRE's. Lemme get my scratch paper:

anti-porn feminism:non-rigidity | patriarchy:rigidity

(true sexual liberation=anti-porn feminism)=!(sexual oppression=repression)

...no, wait.

pro-porn feminism=!true feminism

true feminism=true sexual liberation=anti-porn feminism

true feminism=true sexual liberation=anti-porn feminism

truefeminism=truesexual liberation=anti-porn feminism

feminism=sexual liberation=anti-porn feminism

feminism=sexual liberation=anti-porn feminism

sexual liberation=anti-porn

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!

...but wait. where does the direction to and from rigidity come in? is that algebra? geometry? formal logic? fuck, I can't remember. and we haven't even gotten to the "co-option" yet, that's probably fucking advanced calculus, whatever it is that uses imaginary numbers/feminists or something. damn. I almost had it. What is the correct formula? What time does the train get into the station, and what happens if it isn't rigid enough? Does it just get to the station late on account of going toward non-rigid means the trains don't run on time, or is it actually going someplace else altogether? Is the station patriarchal? Is the solution simply going off the rails? Is there a dining car? I'm hungry. Say, anyone want to go for a drink?...

24 comments:

Nanette said...

See? This is why I prefer planes. Train schedules have been confusing generations of children, who then grow up and miss the boat!

louisa said...

Sometimes it feels like the anti-porn movement is more about feeling self-righteous than actually listening to the voices of female sex workers, kinky women, etc.

Trinity said...

Louisa, I don't think they really understand that kinky women exist.

Alon Levy said...

I think geometry is the one that studies rigidity... algebra is more like fire: it looks enchanting, but if you touch it, you get burned.

Donna said...

It's very simple. Never let the patriarchy tell you what to do. Instead you must let the matriarchy tell you what to do. You must never decide what to do for yourself! No need to confuse yourself with geometry or algebra. It's simple addition and subtraction. you + matriarchy, or you - patriarchy. Both = sexually liberated real feminist woman.

nexy said...

" Amongst true feminists, there is no substantial disagreement."

fortunately, i am not a "true feminist", or apparently even a feminist at all. i'm one of those mutilated non-woman things that all real "true feminists" consider non-human.

while i have had some contact with non-real "true feminists", and they have informed me that i am in fact a real woman, the real "true feminists" assure me i am not. so, you know, who would *you* believe?

Sage said...

When a non-rigid train comes into the station, it melts, and all the non-real feminists turn to dust.

And I'll have that drink now, dammit.

Sorry for the patriarchy, everybody. I didn't mean for that to happen.

Rootietoot said...

Bah. I'll do whatever I damn well please and no whdyacallit Feminitrain is gonna change that. Besides, I failed geometry. How come the term "circle jerk" keeps coming to mind?

Blackamazon said...

THAT JSUT DOESNT MAKE SENSE!

fastlad said...

What happens when an unstoppable true feminist meets an immoveable rigid feminist? Huh?

That quote filled me with the same anxiety and nameless dread that advanced calculus used to in high school.

If pro-porn + kinkiness = untrue feminism then does anti-porn + rigidity = liberation?

Or, if, uh, um um, ergh bla stop it stop it she’s staring at me! Mommy she’s staring at me!

Fuck it, I'm off for a Guinness.

Chuckie K said...

I must confess that my sense of decorum prevents me from exploring the question, how do you make a patriarch rigid?
Although feminists whaling on each other does seem a likely method.

So I confine my remarks to the sytlistic observation that 'lackey' strongly suggests literary instruction from the Stalin Correspondence School of Writing.

Lucy said...

That cannot be real, unless someone was really fried when she wrote it. Is that like 5-martini logic?

Cassandra Says said...

I am an adult, dammit, therefore I will refrain from commenting on how unfortunate the choice to use the word "rigid" was in this case.
You know, there are political movement, and then there are cults. I'm thinking that anyone who would write that is more likely to belong to group B than group A.
Also, the idea that these particular individuals are representative of non-rigid thinking...I wonder if they are familiar with the word "irony"?

belledame222 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
belledame222 said...

Irony is a tool of the patriarchy. As are metaphors, synecdoche, conjunctions, ejaculations, contractions, retractions, tractors, reactors, actors, greasepaint, grease stains, Olivia Newton John, pease porridge hot, cold, OR in the pot nine days old, cock-a-leekie soup, spotted dick, sticky toffee pudding, all flavors of salt water taffy with the possible exception of whelk, sea sponges, mops, vacuums, leaf blowers, lightbulbs, radishes, pointed sticks, all writing implements but especially erasable pens, arts and crafts, flubs and gaffes, photographs of giraffes, and watercress; and a few other things.

Eli said...

I got about halfway through, and then that protective circuitbreaker kicked in, just like with the crazy Maoists.

Trinity said...

Damn. I like my pointy sticks.

AJ said...

Any "non-rigid roles" that "any deviation away from" is so harmful to sound like pretty rigid roles to me. Can anybody say "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"?

Anonymous said...

...but wait. where does the direction to and from rigidity come in?

ah, i bet i know; you were treating the quantities as scalars when you should have been working with vectors! no wonder your equations didn't seem to work out!

Cassandra Says said...

Hey, don't be hating on my people's national soup.
Is humor in general also a tool of the patriarchy? And if pens are tools of the patriarchy, what are we supposed to use to write about how evil porn in?

belledame222 said...

fingerpaint with menstrual blood.

prettylady said...

What?

FoolishOwl said...

I was usually irritated when my therapist cautioned me against "intellectualizing," but sometimes, I can see the problem.

free adult dating said...

women admit to having sex just for pleasure and adventure at a higher rate than in previous years ...
http://www.adultsexdating-net.com