"When I say I want to talk about you, I don't mean I'm actually INTERESTED in what YOU have to say for yourself," part infinity-four

This edition, a slight twist on other versions of this wank, at least for this blog: a feminist who has decided that not only is sex a -positive- thing, it's positively -mandatory.- Whether you actually want it or not.

Clarissa explains it all for us:

Asexuality

A recent post at Feministing illustrates the point I was trying to make about tolerance that sometimes turns into a parody of itself.

The post responds to a message from somebody who feels asexual and finds anybody's touch "absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit." The response that the author of the message gets to her post takes the idea of political correctnes to the extreme that is even a little scary. The main idea of the response is "Asexual people of the world, unite!" Don't worry about beinng asexual, it says. You can always get together with other asexual people, date them, and form yet another neat identity group.

This attitude does not come exclusively out of the desire to show the world how tolerant and accepting one is. It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex, which refuses to see human sexuality on terms of a physiological process. If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) "absolutely repulsive", we wouldn't be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem.

Another problem that the response to this post brings to light, is the deep-seated fear that many Americans feel towards psychology as a field of knowledge. While several people suggested that the author of the post look for hormonal causes of her asexuality, nobody mentioned that it might be helpful for her to search for psychological causes.

a) "Political correctness"=pretty much automatic fail already. Sure enough:

b) "I'm all for 'tolerance,' but when it comes to something I'm too lazy to learn about and/or still want to make fun of/wax superior over, that's going -too far.-"

c) "For instance, the very idea that people might want to have meaningful relationships without sex, and that that might be about -their happiness- and have -nothing to do with me-, rather than about forcing poor put upon me to be "tolerant" of yet another "identity group."

d) "Blah blah blah one size fits all boilerplate which certainly has something to it but still doesn't have anything to do with this person whom I don't know -here- lecturecakes blah."

e) Glad you mentioned psychology. I happen to be training in psychology. And the first thing you learn in -my- school, at least, is you meet people where they're at. I.e., you don't try to "fix" them according to -your- standards of what would make -you- happy before even learning the first thing about -that other person who isn't you.- Those would be the second and third things as well, actually.

f) Also, armchair diagnosis over the Internets, while a fun party trick (I've done it myself): really not for the sake of the actual person being "helped," you know, so much as for the gratification of the person making the diagnosis and/or third party observers. Pretty much that would be always.

So, okay, so a bunch of people argue with her, many self-ID'd asexuals. And I was -going- to go over and throw in my tuppeny, but quickly realize I actually couldn't say the whole "you are not the center of the universe! no, really! p.s. this ain't feminism (or sex positive either, for that matter)" any more clearly than a number of other commenters already.

And then, to confirm my suspicion that anything I had to say over there would be both redundant and unheard, at the very bottom:

Clarissa said...
For those who feel the need to participate without reading what was said previously, I repeat: this discussion is closed.

I'm always ready to discuss anything with calm, reasonable, and polite people (such as pretzelboy, Allison, and more recently Erbs).

Those, however, who come to repeat things that have been discussed 100 times, or those who are so enraged with the fact that somebody somewhere dared to have an opinion do not interest me as interlocutors. Coming here to scream "batshit," "SILLY" and "LEARN" in capital letters is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to engage in a discussion. I don't even want to imagine what would make people want to seek out blogs of those with differing opinions and to engage in such public fits of hysteria. Curiously, these are always the same people who scream "tolerance above all".

If there are still people who fail to understand that for me this is not about the asexual community, I can't help you.

Once again: the discussion is closed until the participants start behaving in a way I find more acceptable.

Oh, cupcake.

Putting everything else aside (woo, tone argument for the epic fail! "Cut his mike!" "I can spout ignorant offensive bullshit as though from the Papal office and then ignore any counterarguments that don't suit me if I want! IT'S JUST MY OPINION!" is that a universal BINGO card I see before me?):

Friend, if -you- can't understand how calling a post "asexuality" and then proclaiming, quite truthfully apparently, that "for me this is not about the asexual community" might just be a wee tiny bit fucked up...well, I can't help you either.

And aren't you glad you -asked- for my -help- and thinky thoughts?

--Especially wrt this, now I notice:

As to you parallel with homosexuality, I still fail to see how it applies. As I said, sexuality is a physiological process, like sleeping or eating. depriving yourself of sleep will be detrimental to your health. This is my firm belief and I have a right to it. Since gay and lesbian people do not deprive themselves of sex, there is no reason to believe that they might suffer detrimental effects of sexual deprivation.I find that trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion of sexless lives is nothing but a tactic aimed at diverting the conversation from the actual topic.

Oh where to begin.

Yes, sex is important to -most- people, and being "deprived" (i.e. "unable to obtain something you want and need, not something other people think you want and need) can seriously fuck up your emotional health and eat away the rest of your life. Been there, done that, got the scratchy hairshirt. Yes, I believe that sex-negative culture has had a lot of deleterious effects, individually and structurally. Yes, I even think Wilhelm Reich was onto something (at least some somethings).

And yet: no, actually, the individual -doesn't- need sex like sleeping or especially eating: if you don't eat, you're gonna die. As in, literally and physically, in a relatively short amount of time. This is not how sex works. That's not a "belief;" that's a fact. Unless you are some other species that I am not aware of.

And, I for one also really do not appreciate the implications of "deprive -themselves-" from what sure looks like a blandly oblivious heteronormative perspective; there's a lot to say about the ways in which internalized as well as externalized homophobia can cause "deprivation" and "detrimental effects"--see above re: unable to obtain something you want and need--but I for one sure wouldn't have found that sort of smug tone implying there was yet something -else- wrong with me remotely helpful, ever. One gets quite enough of that all around.

ETA: and yeah, as someone else noted, the whole "sex is a natural biological process" business is a wee tad 'normative itself. and annoying.

veyz. yeah, I can't actually get into all of the ways this irks right now. more later. maybe.

ETA: it crystallized a bit more:

Re the parallel with the queer umbrella sexualities and why it's a relevant parallel: most of us have direct experience with having been pathologized and disprespected for our sexuality (yes, "sexuality" includes "lack thereof," in fact) even when said sexuality is in fact none of anyone else's business, isn't harming anyone else, and in fact the people who say or imply they're lecturing us/attempting a "cure" "for our own good" clearly do -not- have our best interests in mind, but rather their own agenda.

Anyway, really, the definitive comment was made on an earlier (and equally headdesky) post at feministing some time back:

UnHingedHips said:

Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.

I hope you see the error of your ways.

~Another Woman

ETA again: Just for the record's sake, here's one of those other commenters from over there.

Shain Neumeier said...
To both Clarissa and Anonymous 5:40 a.m.,

I think the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are not me are trying to tell me what I and people like me should be and disguising it as what we "are" and are refusing to accept, or what we should want by saying it's what any functional person would really like. It's unfair, and frankly condescending, to say about people that the puritanical patriarchy has brainwashed them into not wanting sex (I find this a bit antithetical to feminism anyways - isn't it the belief that women ARE smart and capable enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?), or that they're immature and will grow out of it. If someone happens to eventually want or at least like sex, or if the benefits of having it outweigh the costs for them at some point for whatever reason, then great. But at the point that someone is coming out as asexual, I can think of no way in which it helps anybody, you or them, to invalidate the conclusion they've come to about themselves.

As far as the argument that sex is good and even necessary for one - If I may, I'll accept, but revise, the food comparison. I would say that asexuality is a little like having an aversion to a food that most people like and/or that's very good for people. Would life be better for someone who couldn't stand the smell of bananas or the texture of salad if they could eat these foods without throwing up? Maybe. But if, as things are, they get sick if they try to eat these foods, the health benefits might not be worth the costs of trying to learn to like them. So let them use their multivitamins or whatever other compensatory measures to make up for any lost nutrients, or choose to do nothing at all. It's no one's business to tell them what they need or should want in case like this.

Likewise, maybe it's true that one gets headaches and irritability from not having sex. But you know what? I'd rather stock up on ibuprofen and get some hobbies that allow me to vent my anger in a productive way than let someone do things to my body that I'm uncomfortable with. I can imagine that someone will want to jump on me for that description of sex, but that's how I see it. I'm simply uncomfortable with invasive physical contact, as I am with a number of other sensory experiences, and sex falls under the category of invasive physical contact. I get emotional fulfillment from others through a lot of things, like watching movies, making up stories and having good debate, but sex just isn't conducive to trust or love in my mind. This is abnormal, but, as it does not interfere with my day-to-day or overall functioning, it's not by definition disordered. Such is the case with many asexuals, whether or not they're repulsed by sexual contact as I am. So who is anyone else to tell us that we should be otherwise?

If I'm unhappy or unhealthy because I'm not having sex, I'll see an actual psychologist or doctor about it, and work something out that makes me better without making me uncomfortable. All I want - and, I think, what most "aces" want - from people who are not being paid for medical advice is acceptance and the belief that we are capable enough to define ourselves as makes sense to us.

Socialism meets sex-pos

over at this Carnival of Socialism edition hosted by Boffy's blog. looks interesting...

I'm just bored of this massive asscramp by now, but I must say

big thank you to Natalia for calling out this bullshit. Ren (and again) and Trin and Dw3t-Hthr too, of course. And moving on to more interesting material, potentially, at SM-feminists.

Nothing more to say to Mr. and Mrs. Iconoclast to be, except that I presume then toasters as well as violet wands are off the registry? Damn.

ETA: I agree with this comment by Ernest Greene (over at Renegade's)

Though the social and political links between BDSM and queer cultures may have unraveled a bit, you still can't bash one without bashing the other, as both arise out of the same need to be understood as authentic and inherent definitions of sexual identities rather than as the hateful projections of those who abhor them.

Just as there are abusive relationships among gay people, there are abusive relationships among BDSM people, but no decent, rational observer builds a loathing of an entire sub-culture on the basis of a few pathological examples.

That way of thinking is common to both gay bashers and BDSM bashers, and ND and her pals demonstrate this in spades, pardon the pun.

The common struggle shared by gay and BDSM people is for the right to be who you are and love who, and how, you love without risking exactly the kind of organized opprobrium to which ND and her merry band have subjected us all day in and day out ad nauseum.

She can declare herself something other than a homophobe and her loyal acolytes can rush in to trash anyone who dares call her out for acting like one, but the song remains the same, regardless of the singer or the intended audience.

You either do or do not despise people because of their sexual orientations, regardless of how ethically those orientations are expressed. If the former, you may not be a homophobe but you're no better. If the latter, you're some kind of humanist and can fairly claim a measure of tolerance for diversity.

and then, too, of course, you don't even have to search very long among those same loyal acolytes to find overtly homophobic crap like this. Perhaps not voiced so blatantly by many, but how often challenged? I recall "faggot" (used unambiguously as a slur, yes) go (largely, if not totally-I don't remember, can't dig up the link now) unremarked upon at a Big Radfem Site at least one other time.

There's more to say, and I know I've already said about some of it, about the rather strange position Teh Gay (even the word choice here matters, is different from either "queer" or "lesbian," much less others, but I'm using it for now) has among...well. Hm.

Do I say feminism as a whole? That's a whole nother post. Do I focus on this narrow band of idiots again? I've done it before. Too often.

Just a general note, then, apply as you will: In general, lesbian is strangely positioned within radical-influenced-feminism. Often sort of romanticized and erased at the same time. Appropriated, if you will. Especially when it comes, of course, to Teh Sex.

And separately, perhaps, of course by now most good liberals/Dems/progressives (a lot of others as well, at least publicly) know you don't overtly gay bash any more than you engage in any of the other oppressions that of course no one -really- does except people wearing white sheets or committing crimes. Homophobia is bad mkay. Duh. Next?

Except...

Except for: kind of really still there, same as everything else. See: the recent femisphere implosion part XXVII over racism for just one example. See: ableism run rampant all over the fucking place. See: well, and then there's the transphobia, which I could apply some similar etiological parallels wrt gender with queer sexuality as EG is making wrt kink and queer sexuality. Have done, more or less. i.e. yes there's transphobia w/in LGB/queer as well as feminism as well as everywhere; yes, trans =! homoseckshul...and individual trans homophobes too, sure. But, as with kink in its respective way: the language, the arguments, the rationalizations, they always seem VERY familiar. Too familiar to ignore, or even not take personally. I mean even more so than in other oppressions that I don't happen to share, even though there's a good argument that there are fundamental patterns to and reasons for for all of them, and that kick in the gut feeling -should- be the same regardless.

But I digress.

Back to kink and queer sexualities, then:

What EG is talking about is what's always been at the core of why I've ID'd with "sex positive" feminism, even though by now the phrase hits my teeth the way a lot of platitudinous New Agey stuff does, for similar reasons: it's not that simple, and it's certainly not all that relentlessly cheery or feel good, fuck knows.

To wit:

At the end of the day, despite the "pornsick" culture some people like to rabbit about, how TERRIBLE, all this deviancy and degeneracy...fact is, "normative" sex, and the punishment for transgressors thereof, is an axis of oppression of its own.

Over and beyond, or more accurately I suppose intersecting with, the piece about transgressing what's considered proper for one's assigned gender/sex.

I mean, they're hard to disentangle altogether. For damn sure, you can have homophobia/het priv operating within a kinky context. Ditto plain' ol sexism. Never even mind racism, classism, ableism, etc. etc.

But. Sex negativity, then, which is a phrase I -do- still keep, even if adopting its natural converse gives me wincey feelings, because it is an entirely valid concept, and no, it is not limited to, nor originated with, any kind of feminism. Is in fact anti-feminist at its core, I would say, which is the other reason I've been so involved in the Endless Wars.

It's a strand, at least, in itself. Winds itself through homophobia and sexism and everything else as well, even as those things wend themselves through the sex-negativity.

But that's why the arguments feel so familiar. Because they ARE.

And while you might hairsplit about, o well some of my best friends are yadda yadda, I don't care what they do in bed as long as they don't do THAT, or--gosh, this bit wasn't at -all- familiar--*talk about it at work.* (which naturally none of us pervs can help doing, -flaunting it.-)

...doesn't matter. Shoe fits, ND and co. Wear it well. And if you don't like it, consider changing your behavior. At least to the point of shutting up and listening for a while.

It's certainly the least one could ask considering all you're demanding from other people who have more on their plates without the added burden of your assholery.

ETA again: via trin, yeah, people really should read this post. This one too, for that matter.

Deep fucking thinky thoughts on recent online events

such as they are, and such as I have energy for. (I know you will be thrilled to read them, because they are from Me, and as all such things are inherently, endlessly fascinating):


She's got a point there, kids, srsly, who was supposed to give a shit in the first place?, gorgeous, ohmyfuckingGOD, shut UP, can't deal with the meta/irony today, sorry, other extremely deep, abstract and difficult thinky thoughts you should read, sums it up, pop-psych "I'm Okay-I'm Okay, What Is This "You" Concept That You Speak Of? language gets over/misused too, unfortunately, especially when it's employed as yet another defense wrt systemic problems like racism, sorry this shit never seems to fucking end, and word, word, word, word, word and -snerk-, word, word, fail, ETA and an accurate observation of still more epic fail.

Elsewhere:

absotively, sorry, I can't even read this shit, speaking of "torture", kthx buh bye then.



-returns to studying for RL exams/papers n shit more or less-

ETA: And yet, you're still talking. Like, A LOT (hint: "we're sorry, we fucked up, shutting up and listening now" and then -doing it- would've been better, rly, and yes, it's been done before, many times, among other things it's called "Hugo Schwyzer," and if that doesn't strike fear into your heart then yeah nothing more to say here)

Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha....

Erm, I meant to say, of course, THAT'S NOT FUNNY. frownie.

TRUE Lesbian Feminism, Part 1
Let me tell you about lesbianism.

We used to talk a lot about lesbianism as a political movement - back in the old days when lesbianism and feminism went together, and one heard the phrase "lesbian feminism."

Today, we hear more about lesbian sadomasochism, lesbians having babies, and everything lesbians need to know about sex - what has fashionably come to be called the "politics of desire."

In this series of entries, I want to talk about lesbianism as a political movement, but before doing that it is necessary to address lesbianism as a lifestyle - what has for many come to be a sexual preference without a feminist politics. That is what this particular entry will be about.

For one thing, this lesbian lifestyle is preoccupied with sex.
...



Current location: UMass Amherst, Massachussetts
Current mood: like a true, asexual lesbian
Current music: Bitch & Animal
Entry tags: bringing my politics to the bedroom, eat food not vagina!, fucking is patriarchal, jesus why won't u lesbos do what i say?, keep your theories on my body, lesbianism is a political statement, my lack of sex is so radical, political lesbianism, queerness is cutting-edge theory, real lesbians don't fuck, sex = most lethal tool of the patriarchy, straight "lesbians", stuffing my politics in yr vagina

Only blankety shopping days till the next War on Christmas.

...but I thought I'd just get the jump for once.

See, SnowdropExplodes has a follow-up on the cartoon business from last week, trying to explain one last time why some people were having their "racism!" buttons pushed by it (hint, it's not always black and white, yeah?) by digging up some good ol' Der Sturmer cartoons.

Anyhoo, not to bash one's head against that particular brick wall any more, so meanwhile: I was at the source he got some of the images from, Caricatures from "Der Stuermer," 1928-1932, I saw this one at the top of the page and thought, well now, here's something that speaks to the Bill O'Reilly in us all, isn't there:

link (can't upload the photo, but you'll see what I mean)

Title: "German Christmas"

Caption: The German Christmas angel has her hands tied by the swindling world bank Jews. Meanwhile, the department store Jew, behind the mask of Christmas cheer, is doing a booming business. (December 1928)

Explanation: The angel is bound by bands named taxes, credit stops, Dawes tribute and Lugano. The Jew is selling beauty creams and pornographic books.

Note that last one. There's a lot of that theme there, too: porn as sinister corrupting force. Hey, who knows: maybe the "porno-iarchy" is really just one more part of the Zionist International Conspiracy after all; hell, most everything is, isn't it?

"We did it, signed, Morty"

--Lenny Bruce on the Crucifixion

:facepalm: Okay. What's Wrong With This Picture?

-siiiiiiiiiiigh-

Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.

But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.

Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.

Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:

Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?



I'll be over here.

ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?



ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.


ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.

The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.

And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:

So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?

Because, see, many of the people now going,

"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."

i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?

are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.

Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.

But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...

And, finally, this? Sums it up.

Okay, you want a "solution?" Here:

This was in response to a comment over at this thread:

student:

...Look, I don’t have as much control over what happens in Africa (though believe me, I’m doing as much as I can and we can speak about it privately if you’d like), as I do over what happens to the women around me. I know I have control over what I wear. I know that I can engage fellow English-speakers with computers on the Internet in a conversation about how we can help each other. Maybe this idea of a sisterhood turns you off.

(me speaking) “Now: the great thing about "my body my choice" is that it also means I don't get to tell YOU what to do with your body or choice.”

Sigh, I’m not telling anyone what to do. I wish you weren’t so confrontational in your post. Yes indeed, your body, your choice. And if you only want to care about your body and your choice, that’s ok too. But let’s not act like our bodies and the choices we make with them don’t affect others. Never in any post have I said, “cover up them titties u hoebag!” I’m not saying that I don’t personally engage in all these feminizing beautifying behaviors. I’m just saying I’m ambivalent about the repercussions of a “post-feminist” society in which women are still valued primarily as physically beautiful beings and women just choose to go along with it. Far from empowering, I find it depressing. But neither do I have a solution.

O.K. then. On the "sisterhood" and "doing what one can within one's limits" tips, here's my attempt at a "solution."

Rather than going into endless cycles of self/other critique about what is and isn't properly feminist, patriarchal, empowering, etc., simply:

Have other womens' backs.

Because even if -you- really aren't saying "cover up those tits" to some other woman who did nothing to bring it on, guess what? Someone else out there is. Sometimes even online. In the street, at the workplace, in your family, among your friends.

And you know what you do? When someone else sneers at some other woman and says she looks like a tramp, or a fat slob, why doesn't she shave/not shave/cover up/take it off/lose some weight/eat a cheeseburger/relax that "unprofessional" hair/put on some makeup/scrub off that paint and then maybe she'll get a man/stop getting all that male attention/have better self esteem (!)/whatever else is unwanted that she's supposedly -bringing on herself-.

You say:

"Well, I think she looks great. And even if I didn't, so the hell what? What the hell business is it of yours? Who asked you? (if one wishes to be combative) You're no spring onion yourself. And besides, what does this have to do with (her experience of assault/her leadership ability/her position on campaign finance reform/the brilliant novel she wrote/her research in nuclear physics/anything else)? No, I said: it's not cute and I'm not amused, and I won't hear this."

Bonus points when you say it to a man, even. Yes! I've done it! Selfish, unsisterly me. Lots of times.

And if you really -don't- think so and so is awesome or looks good? If the problem is maybe not even so much your own guilt at your supposed privilege or indoctrination or whatever it is as that actually that you secretly agree with the sneerer?

Ah. Well. Now we come to the "examination" part.

And you know, you don't have to change your mind, obviously; but, well, I do think this little exercise of Sarah's is a nice one as well:

...I used to pass judgments on people all the time. The way I broke myself of it? I started saying “That person’s AWESOME” instead of “weird/trashy/whatever” judgment I was about to pass. It made me stop and think, yeah, that person is awesome.

And you know what I've found? Ultimately, this sort of thing tends to mean a lot more to -the actual other people- than endless rounds of navelgazing and beating myself up for yet -another- way in which I fail to measure up, or R Doin It Rong. Or even changing my sparklewhatsit for a hairshirt. Because, see, wearing a hairshirt doesn't actually help anyone else. If you want to help other women? Help other women. Listen to what THEY need and want, and take it from there. Nine times out of ten? Simple nonjudgmental support is a great damn gift all by itself.

It's really not that complicated, I don't think.

Kickass, I didn't realize getting a root canal was a feminist act

Someone of whom I've never before heard posting at somewhere I've heard entirely too much of, but you can go there via here or here or here, here, or here, anyway:

ashley Jul 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm


the defining characteristic of feminism is that it's not fun and it
costs dearly in social acceptance.


when guys approve, it's a great guage of whether or not something is
feminist at all.


who doesn't like to dance around naked? we should all be able to do it
without any rules or judgment or without having invited physical
assault on ourselves.

...you know, fuck it, fisking much less serious attention would be redundant in more ways than one, so very briefly:


1) I dunno who's supposed to "having invited physical assault on ourselves," but

2) did you know that being kicked or stepped on with spike heels hurts -a lot-? It's true.

3) y'know, Harlan Ellison and Woody Allen ceased to be amusing long since, too, for similar reasons (same old spiel gets boring, misogynist dickhead actually not all that charming at the end of the day, angry rebel schtick somehow less convincing when coming from an obviously really comfortable person, oh yeah, and the misogyny really does kind of get old)

4) indeed, dancing around naked (or however) without judgment or rules would be nice. here's an idea: be the change you seek.

5) so! how 'bout that Project Runway?


I'll blog about something substantial when y'know I have the mental energy to write about something that takes more effort than a good fart.

ETA: Jesus fucking Christ. Seriously? Seriously?

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.

and, currently, in moderation, this:

RenEv Jul 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical...

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.

***

[RE again]...And yeah, seeing the truth of the history of my nose mutilated, distorted and used like that was triggering in a way for me. In that enraged crying sort of way. Getting the shit kicked out of you by a single abusive female asshole being used to fuel Gin’s little personal hate on for me and stripping when, gee, guess what, stripping and the money it provides and whatnot helped me get OUT of that situation, that fucking sucks. It’s wrong, it’s abusive, it’s oppressive, and it’s silencing...

Ginmar, if you're "not going to trust anything RE says," maybe at minimum you should stop trying to speak FOR her, especially when it's about her own damn experiences, hm? Particularly experiences of broken bones? Seriously, don't bother: just fuck off. Your shit is not wanted here, or pretty much anywhere.

.

Getting off on power exchange is BadWrong, let me tell you it.

Yeah, it's That Time again, apparently. I'm sort of going off a general overview of the thread, any number of previous threads which sounded a -lot- like this one, and the understanding that I agree with RE's rant here, and have taken pretty much that tone in previous go-rounds. Because for whatever reason (the heat, maybe, or the sheer number of times I feel like all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again), I'm not even feeling Ze Rage this time. So, I thought I'd take advantage of my relative, well, it ain't Zen, but it's something, and say a little something. Again.

I'll just say that I am -very- suspicious whenever anyone starts to hold forth about how they -used- to like act X, but now, praise Jesus/Dworkin/Nicolosi/Cthulhu, I have SEEN the LIGHT! and my sexuality has -totally changed,- and -yours can and SHOULD, too- (is the implicit and/or even explicit addedendum).

First of all, I don't think sexuality works like that: yes, it can be malleable and change over the years, but ime and in everything I've come to understand, it is -not- particularly amenable to change because one -wills- it so, because one's newfound political/religious/otherwise ideological -belief- decrees that it -must- be so in order for one to be a whole and good person. You don't get rid of the shadow by stuffing it down.

Secondly, in my experience...people like this, often enough, especially when it comes to kink, are...rather selective, quite possibly not consciously, when it comes to deciding what does and doesn't now qualify as the Bad Bad Thing.

f'r instance: w/in feminism, to take one example I recall seeing a while back: the idea that BDSM is a Bad Bad Thing, meaning a) leather and whips b) particularly, maledom/femsub anything, including any sort of non-implement-including getting off on penetration; -but- c) donning a strap-on and doing one's male partner and getting enjoyment -specifically- out of "whoo, I'm penetrating -him-, what a rush!- is totally fine and not at all suggestive of power!sex; it's just, you know, this...thing I happen to like." O.K.

As it happens, personally, I am turned on by certain kinds of femtop!malebottom much more than I am the reverse; always have, since long before I read any theory or even knew what the terms meant. I don't doubt that my kinks, such as they are, were formed in the same long-ago not-really-consciously-articulate cauldron that all my other erotic general themes were formed, more or less; and that sure, these particular let's say bents at least may well have at least partly to do with stuff I was unconsciously picking up about social messages about what was or wasn't taboo. But that doesn't make me a better feminist, or mean that if for whatever reason I decided tomorrow that you know, I really shouldn't get off on this stuff, I should stop enjoying thus and so and learn to enjoy this other thing, it would be any more successful than when I was trying to be a good little heterosexual, because -that's- what I thought I was -supposed- to be -then.-

Because, see, if there's one thing sexuality doesn't generally do, it's lie down and act like it's "supposed to." Regardless of where the directive is coming from. It's deeper and quirkier and more complicated than that. It's not that one (o the overused term) "examine" what it all MEANS, dear, but ultimately: it will not lie down and fit into your Procrustean bed. It needs, like the rest of the squidgier bits of the unconscious, to be taken on its own terms. Fuck, that's what "examination" -is-, it seems to me. The theory is shaped by What Is Found There, not the other way around. And, well, One Size Does Not Fit All.

And at the end of the day, also, frankly, again, what she said.

x-posted at SM Feminists

So, if I'm understanding this correctly: "Go Fug Yourself" is therefore a radical feminist publication

(image via Feministe)

amirite? Y/N?

I mean, granted, I'm a well-known "anti-feminist troll" as well as being a tad thick, so clearly the fact that I'm still having trouble distinguishing this sort of thing from the time-honored gossip rag tradition of snarking at female celebrities because they're "too" femme and/or sexual is my own problem, but, you know. Just thought I'd put it out there.

I'd also ask about how exactly one makes "mens' balls jingle," but, well, maybe it's one of those things where if you have to ask, maybe best...not.

Well, personally,

In answer to this question,

While I’m here, can I ask: why are there next to no “sexy” images of men on sex positive* sites, or sites focusing on porn for women etc? ...

Well, you see--

(reads on)

Not all women are attracted to women…

...o, I see, never mind! It wasn't addressed to me anyway! Well, what else is new.

You know, I like you, Laura, but I have to say the urge to snark is strong with me tonight. Because, you see,

Not all women are attracted to women…

I would have had -no idea,- you know. I mean, from reading sex pos sites, or feminist sites in general, or, well, the entire world, basically. Because if there's one thing I was always confident about, it was that having -sexual- desires for women was totally okay. Why else would a non-heterosexual have been attracted to something called "sex positive" in the first place, if not...

-calms down- Okay, okay, okay. Okay. I know it wasn't ill-meant. I'm in a Mood, and that's probably another post. Let's just move on.

Just seems to me that there’s a bit of the same old woman = sex idea going on here, and while the presentation of the woman and the context in which she is presented may be different from the mainstream, I wonder how radical this kind of approach is if the focus is still on women as the sexually stimulating object or subject.

I may be misunderstanding something here, but "object OR subject"--okay, if -neither- is acceptable, then basically we're talking female-authored m/m slash, amirite?

Which I'm actually fond of myself. F'r instance, along with any number of overwhelmingly female fanfen and smut enthusiasts of varying orientations, I wouldn't kick either of these (canonical) scenes out of bed:





...not to mention any number of considerably filthier fan-inspired um creations of various sorts which I shan't post here; suffice it to say that there's a plethora of "female-gazed" written fiction, anime, photo manipulations or fanvids re-contexting for "subtext," for example:









as I understand it though, there are those who find this insufficiently radical too; go try to please people.

Mostly, though, I'm fairly certain that the only reason there's extremely little porn in the sense of "original film with live actors" catering to these demographics is, simply because, well, women tend not to own the means of production, and it's a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to draw, photoshop, or write something than to make an entire original film, much less produce and publicize it on the scale of "mainstream" porn.

Best way to start changing that, it seems to moi, is to figure out, own and name one's desires, then see what one can do about seeing/experiencing them made flesh. Which, one may not be able to do right away given the limited palette of available models, at least the ones that are -overtly- defined and marketed as "porn;" still, well, as you can see here, and as most non-hetero and/or kinky folk know, one can and does find one's inspiration from all sorts of material. Or, for that matter, in the available "mainstream" material, because, you know, in most media, one reads one's own narrative into whatever it is, and yeah, even "bad" or formulaic or sexist/stereotyped porn is not an exception.

But first of all, ime, it helps to not shut oneself down with a "oh, shit, I'm Doin It Rong AGAIN; quick, to the Critiquemobile" but rather, "hey, I'm not seeing what I want here; what DO I want, anyway? Specifically, and without censorship:"

ETA: in response to this, via Lina's:

(Laura Woodhouse emailed me her comment cos she's not got a Blogger account and she's v. busy this morning.)

Laura here - I just want to make it clear that I have no problem whatsoever with "men fucking women onscreen" or sex where the woman isn't on top - I like it, ffs. It'd be nice if people could not assume that because someone thinks x they must also think y and z. Belle - I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough that my post obviously wasn't directed at lesbian women.

Laura--I'm sorry for snarking too, but you see, I -did- read that it wasn't aimed at lesbian women and that's precisely what irritated me. I'm sure it wasn't intentional? that you were merely trying to say that it's a given that the sex-positive lesbian/bi/queer sites would have images of women? And that as a straight woman, you don't see yourself or anything that tempts you in what you've seen of "sex positive" culture/sites/etc. And, you know, I do sympathize. The straight female gaze(s) is not exactly catered to either, at least compared to the straight male gaze. I agree.

Thing is, though, when you write it as Not all women are attracted to women, it pushes buttons that were already kind of hard pushed by what -I- perceive to be erasure of lesbian sexuality both within mainstream erotica/imagery and from "radical" feminists who insist that anything that smacks of femme or bisexuality or anything that isn't Clear Eyed Lesbian (tm) Approved isn't -real- lesbianism.

and, of course, the perception that "sex positive" is overwhelmingly heteronormative...along with, well, everything else.

Personally I don't always find what I love within the "sex positive" communities/sphere either, and I am hoping to broaden the range when it's my turn to host the Carnival. And, I mean, yeah, there are some points to be made about the standard tropes of mainstream and even let's call it mainstream-alt porn/erotica, wherein female bisexuality within a certain range of body types and acts and personas and so on is acceptable, even sometimes de rigeur; but male bisexuality or homosexuality is considered a whole separate genre. Not to mention, yes, there's still more taboo on objectifying the male body than the female one, although I'd submit that the past years' worth of advertising has broken that down quite a bit. I do find it impossible to completely separate standard sexism and sex negativity from heteronormativity; I still think I'm part of this conversation though, see.

but...well, again, this is a longer post. Maybe several longer posts.

What a -radical- idea, yes.

From Lina at Uncool:

Cos, right - here's a radical thing - if you get raped, it's the man's fault. A man fucks you without your consent - that's not porn's fault, that's not your top's fault, that's not your skirt's fault, that's not a prostitute's fault. It's the man's fault. Cos he's a scumbag. And some men are scumbags and some men will do that to you and they deserve to have their fucking bollocks cut off. And he can blame your top, your skirt, the porn, his bitch mam, that prostitute or whatever, but the fact is, you've probably walked past a million men wearing your skirt and top and those men who've looked at you and thought, "Wow!" watch porn, have dreadful mothers, live in a society where prostitution actually happens and think that that top you're wearing makes you look like Mz Berlin or Darenzia or Marilyn Monroe or whoever floats your boat. But they aren't raping you. So why did the other fucker?

Why? Why? Why? -Why- do I do this to myself?

I mean, it's not like there isn't -enough- stupid and hateful in the world that I need to go seeking out even -more- of it, right? There is absolutely no reason on Maud's green earth why I -need- to be reading fundamentalists of any sort, let alone a rare conglomeration of fundies of both the right-wing Christian type AND (a few of) the purportedly radical feminist type, all united and dovetailing in the hatred of teh Ultimate Ev0l, teh pr0n; and -beyond- that, there is -certainly- no reason to click on what I know will be a small tetchy clump of the Lyndon LaRouchites of the feminist-or-whatever-everyone's-calling-themselves-this-week...clump...but...um...

Listen, can someone help wean me off onto a healthier habit, like, I don't know, slamming my fingers in car doors, or huffing nail polish remover?

Meanwhile, I -am- sorry, but MISERY LOVES COMPANY, DAMMIT:

exhibit #1:

I used to think men cared about women, and they would protect us if
necc. All that went right out the window, breaking me at my very core/
soul. If a man can use any woman he can use all women. There's no good
and bad uses of women. I don't want to be used in the so called good
way - as wife and fako partner, any more than I want to be used in the
bad way of p wh. It's ALL BAD!!! Using anyone is BAD!!!! There's no
good way to use someone. Yet there men are, celebrating the abuse of
women. I used to think the USA had a strong military full of strong
manly men dedicated to protecting us from external forces...

We're left feeling sooo alone in the world when we discover those who
vowed to love and honor us, have only been using us, while they also
contribute to destroying us. There's no connection between how they
treat other women, and how their fellow men treat us. They like to see
men sexualizing their OBJECTS.

...And I don't buy the BS about women do it because they like it and
they want too. If a woman likes it and wants to then she is mentally,
emotionally, and spiritually retarded, just like I was when I was also
under the influence of these man-made lies. To me it's like taking
advantage of the handicapped in our society, in soul torturous ways,
and calling that ENTERTAINMENT for MEN. That's soo messed up, in soo
many ways, it's no wonder we can't wrap our hearts and souls around
it. It's insanity, and sane people don't do it.

[another poster]
The other night there was an episode of 'Intervention' on,which I made my h watch. It was a lady who was addicted to heroin and she prostituted to get the money.

At 1st my h was angry,"I never saw a prostitute what does this have to do with me?"
I told him that that's what these womyn in p*rn movies are,they are prostituted once in the movie,and then over and over visually for sick men.

My h admitted to me that he separated these womyn in the movies from womyn in real life,because they were "sluts and they wanted to be there" :-X (I still can't believe my h said this..How can he be this man..and the one I thought I knew?)
Maybe some do think they want to be there,but if so,it's that they have been brain washed into thinking that's all their is for them.

I have seen interviews with these womyn,I have read books..I have seen these shows/documentaries,and I even knew a lady from my childhood who out of drug addiction finally resorted to prostitution,They didn't want to be there. They had no choice,or thought they had none. They had no voice and knew that that was the one thing they could always sell.

These womyn are addicts,they would do anything for their drugs. These womyn are womyn who have been abused all their life and feel as though they have nothing else to offer but their sexuality,as they've seen it's all anyone wants from them. They continue to be abused each time they do these acts.
These womyn are real ppl,they are not some mere object to be used,abused,and then used again.

I am so angry and resentful,that I am with someone who is a secret abuser of womyn,. It doesn't matter if it was visually...
That he lied,that he had everyone fooled...I could rant on this forever.

It makes me sad,angry and sick to think this is all the progress that has been made throughout human history? They went from walking hunched over,pulling us by the hair into a cave,to walking upright..only to be hunched over the computer victimizing us again,only visually.

At 1st..I was angry at God..I thought why did God let this happen to me? I am a good person,I try to live a respectable moral life.

Then a calm came over me,and I realized it wasn't Gods doing. God gave us free will so we can make the right choices,and find our way back to him. P*rn imo is truly evil,it is truly the work of "the devil" and of mans weakness for lust.

I think some of these men can save themselves,if they really see the problem as a whole. It's not just p*rn,it's not just mb. It's how womyn are seen and valued in their minds,how our role in society is placed. They have to place value on every womyn,no mater how "lowly" she might be...or they might not ever win this.

Two books I thought I might mention,if you're feeling mad as hell and don't mind getting madder:

'Against our will' -by Susan Brownmiller
and
'Who Cooked the Last Supper: The Women's History of the World'-by Rosalind Miles

on another thread:

I'm not coming at you with a machete nor am I trying to drive you off
the boards in any way. I am simply pointing out the error in your ways
when you encourage porn addicts to look up to someone for recovery
when that same person would tell the PA's on here they don't have a
porn addiction, and the SO's that they are insecure and porning for
men is a normal and healthy activity..

[sig quote]

..."Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"

and then, from the main pages of that same site:

Overcoming temptation is easier with an Accountability Partner.
That's why Covenant Eyes is effective. It is NOT a filter -- but it
does restore your freedom to choose.

Fully endorsed by: "Promise Keepers Men of Integrity"; Steve Hewitt,
editor and President, "Christian Computing Magazine"; by "Focus on the
Family"; and by No-porn.com.

Benefits and Features:

* Tracks every web visit and sends an e-mailed report to the
accountability partner(s) of your choice.
* Removes the secrecy of using the Internet. Reports can be sent
every seven, 14 or 28 days.

"I'm not religious, so I was pleased to find out that using this
doesn't require religion. It is just common sense."

o noez, doesn't require religion, it's only endorsed by FOCUS ON THE
FAMILY and PROMISE KEEPERS. i can totally understand why some "radical feminists" (hi, one angry girl! you've been cited in there!) would be sympatico here! I mean, they're only using software that's a-ok with frigging FOCUS ON THE FAMILY and PROMISE KEEPERS. Absolutely! Certainly much better allies than, o I don't know, female sex workers who don't happen to agree with you about whether their job is so terrible that they need to stop and repent forthwith, but DO agree with you wrt reproductive rights, gay rights, whether or not it really -is- a woman's -only- rightful place to sit at home by her husband's side and raise kids...

you stupid, stupid fucks.

and yeah, -nice- with the eye and the whole thing, not at all
Handmaid's Tale.***

Please, do tell me another one about how the ONLY reason I could -possibly- be more concerned about rabid anti-porn/kink/etc/etc/etc "feminists" than, I don't know, Playboy, or "raunch culture," or the harm my queer pro-domme friends who make indie pr0n are causing to anxious straight womyn who can't keep their husbands at home, is because I luuuuuurrrves the porn so very, very much.

NOT because o i don't know not only does it SOUND like right wing fundamentalism a lot of the time, not only is it -possible- that right-wing fundamentalists use this shit to further their own agenda (that no-porn board has literally hundreds of thousands of postings, apparently tens of thousands of regulars if you buy their "survey" numbers, or did), but in -some- cases we are in fact talking about -the very same people.- That's a lie! That never happens! And, y'all (y'all know who you are) are SO RIGHT to be so much more willing to work/engage with these people than someone like this.

I'll skip the bit with the terribly earnest young man who's convinced he must be entirely chaste because he has a homosexual orientation -and- is a Christian, but -for some reason- just can't stop looking at Those Pictures or thinking Those Thoughts, can anyone help? or indeed the guy who's convinced he's an "addict" because he still jerks off once a week, and the very helpful woman who may or may not be a "feminist," it's a bit ambiguous from her login and other posts, who suggests imagining his dead grandmother looking on every time he starts to lapse, hey, whatever works, right?

just, by way of transition to the next Place What Makes My Brain Hurt, one last, thiswas also rather choice, I thought:

Even if they are looking at straight men having sex, they are mb to
other men having sex. And whether they are consciously aware of it or
not, it's a perversion, and their subconcious is soaking it all up no
matter what they think. I often wonder if my h is gay, even when it's
not shemales, because I can't tell what he's looking at the girls or
the guys. And often the so called girls, are really men, made up to
look like women, so often times they are wanking to men while thinking
they are women, but their soul sees them as the me they are regardless
imo. It's only a small step from there to shemales imo. It really
doesn't matter what kind of p it is though, because it is all messed
up, and they get messed up no matter what kind they are using from the
tamer type to the grosser type. Using p makes them pornosexuals, and
totally ruins their natural hetrosexuality no matter what the images.

Had enough of that? Okay! Moving on. And in fact, this has gotten SO long and unwieldy that it's now TWO posts o'rantiness, continue here.

***

Sometimes the movie she showed would be an old porno film, from the seventies or eighties. Women kneeling, sucking penises or guns, women tied up or chained or with dog collars around their necks, women hanging from trees, or upside-down, naked, with their legs held apart, women being raped, beaten up, killed...

Consider the alternatives, said Aunt Lydia. You see what things used to be like? That was what they thought of women, then. Her voice trembled with indignation.

Moira said later that it wasn't real, it was done with models, but it was hard to tell.

Sometimes, though, the movie would be what Aunt Lydia called an Unwoman documentary. Imagine, said Aunt Lydia, wasting their time like that, when they should have been doing something useful. Back then, the Unwomen were always wasting time. They were encouraged to do it. The government gave them money to do that very thing. Mind you, some of their ideas were sound enough, she went on, with the smug authority of one who is in a safe position to judge. We would have to condone some of their ideas, even today. Only some, mind you, she said, coyly, raising her index finger, waggling it at us. But they were Godless, and that can make all the difference, don't you agree?

and

Lilies used to be a movie theater, before. Students went there a lot: every spring they had a Humphrey Bogart festival, with Lauren Bacall or Katherine Hepburn, women on their own, making up their minds. They worse blouses with buttons down the front that suggested the possibilities of the word undone. These women could be undone; or not. They seemed to be able to choose. We seemed to be able to choose, then. We were a society dying, said Aunt Lydia, of too much choice.

...Women were not protected then.

I remember the rules, rules that were not spelled out but that every woman knew: Don't open your door to a stranger, even if he says he is the police. Make him slide his ID under the door. Don't stop on the road to help a motorist pretending to be in trouble...

Now we walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles.

There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, you had freedom to. Now you have freedom from. Don't underrate it.

--Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale

as per the latest shitstorm:

y'know, this thing.

All I have to say is, both the OP and many of the responses put me in mind of nothing so much as this:



1) omg, "boobs!" without shame!
2) omg, what a boob! shame!
3) OMFG EXPLOSION THE LIKES OF WHICH WE HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE THE BLOWJOB WARS!

sigh.

To whom it may concern

Just a repost of a comment at Natalia's, because it got rather long and it seemed worth a post of its own. You can read over there for context, or glean from what follows. This is addressed to feminists who take the let's call it abolitionist position wrt sex work/prostitution:

Seriously, let me ask you this. I assume you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to reproduction? (If I’m wrong, ignore what follows). Okay. Putting aside the irony of “choice” being an acceptable feminist concept when it comes to reproductive rights but not when it comes to sexuality (for pay or otherwise) (or even personal adornment and modification, depending on who you ask, but that’s another argument, maybe)

…putting that aside, do you, you know, -like- abortion? I mean, are you like, “yay!abortion!” Are you gleefully advocating that women just go out and have abortions for shits and giggles? Do you claim that “choice” means the -correct- choice is always to get an abortion? Is the “abortion industry” a heartless sinister machine to which you’ve pledged your allegiance in exchange for a mess of pottage and your immortal soul?

Ridiculous, right? Well, funny thing, because this is pretty much how a lot of let’s say non-nuanced pro-lifers see the pro-choice folks.

And, I gotta say it, I’m sure this will go over like a lead balloon, but my hand to Maud: the non-nuanced anti-pornstitution position? Can sound an awful lot like this. The demonization, the “you’re with us or agin’ us,” the positioning of the women in question as either poor brainwashed victims in need of saving or else carpetbagging sellouts who are in cahoots with the Enemy…

yeah, I’m probably talking to the wind again, but hey, my fingers needed the exercise, I guess.

Yes, you're right, asshole, I'm Memorex. We all are. Now sit your ass down.

oh, three guesses. Specifically, the woman RE has linked to, there (follow the trail of breadcrumbs, not throwing the extra link her way).

'Spread'emism' (spread-them-ism), as radical feminist S.M. Berg (creator of Genderberg.com) so wonderfully put it, is "the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography".

'Spread'emism' is how all the pro-pornography and pro-prostitution so-called "feminism" should be named...

...Tell me, pro-pornstitution "feminists", do you seriously think this is feminism what you're doing? Real feminism?

Well, Renegade answers the woman's various points pretty damn thoroughly, as do a number of the commenters.

-snip-

RE:

...What is the plan, anyway? You know, a lot of us are taking hits for saying “The sex industry? It’s not going anywhere, so let’s work for harm reduction and getting those who want out the help they need, and leave those who want in alone…” So yeah…what is the Amazing, Super Secret Plan to Rid the World of the Sex Industry? We’re dying (figuratively and literally) to know. In the mean time, what with all the talk of not allowing it to be normalized, without ever accepting it as work, without ever giving sex workers any sort of legal status and voice…well, women are being abused, raped, killed, dehumanized, and marginalized...

And yep, I am biased. I am a woman whom has chosen, of my own free will, to make my living in the sex biz…without having been raped, sexually abused, beat up by a man or a junkie. Please, do not attempt to save me from myself! I freakin’ cheer every time I hear of some sort of normalization, the real deal, and not the Hollywood drama y’all seem to take as such, because then it means in some legal sense, well hell, we almost get to be treated like humans! And until I hear this grand plan, that’s what I’m concerned with. That’s where my loyalty, money, and voice go. I will stand with those working to help sexworkers, in the here and now, rather than pretend that the abolitionist plan will not have scores and scores of victims, won’t lead to more cases like this, won’t become Big Sister is ruling my body rather than Big Brother. I am all for making a difference, right now. Choice and right of Domain over ones body goes beyond abortion after all.

(tee fucking hee)

from commenter thene:

*raises hand* Pro-porny who hates porn and never watches it, right here.

...From the post you linked:

"The first failure of pro-pornstitution "feminism" is that it totally capitulates to patriarchy. [...] Many women are socially trained to conform to cultural instruments of sexual brainwashing"

-going along with the long-standing hate that our dear Christian patriarchs have for sex workers *is* capitulating to patriarchy and it is sexual brainwashing.

"Women are commonly trained to please men in this culture. Thus, it is no wonder that among women who are interested in feminism, some will choose a type of 'feminism' that doesn't bother men or does not look like a real threat to men, because these women want to be appreciated by men in what they do."

Yeah, just like that. The sex industry is liek 95% geared towards men and what they like to watch and do, so wasting this many black pixels on describing in detail how awful it is, while all the while there is no plan and the industry is expanding all the time, is hardly 'threatening to men'. It's more like putting them in the middle of your feminism and showing them that your life still revolves around them, really.

from dw3t-hthr:

So long as a whore is subhuman, abuseable, ignorable, discardable, women can be kept in line by the threat of converting them into whores. That's what I see as the essential dividing line, the essential -- if the feminists will forgive an outsider making the comment -- feminist issue here.

One can't fix that problem by abolishing whoredom, even if there were a magic wand that made it possible to do so. That still means that the category is forbidden, and anyone who crosses into it becomes an unperson, a nonentity.

The only thing that can touch that threat, that can unravel it and undo it and make it something without teeth, is normalisation, is treating sex work like work, making sure that its abuses are controllable (which cannot be done under a prohibition standpoint, to send a postcard from Obviousville here), to treat sex workers like people.

*******

What I have to add, myself, is nothing new for anyone who's been following along here; but apparently repetition is important, so here we go again.

1) if cutesy endearments like "spead-em'ism" and shit like this is real feminism, why does it sound so suspiciously similar to the toxic bilge that comes out of your average reactionary fucked-up misogynist?


2) if "pro-pornstitution feminism" is public enemy number one, then clearly this stuff is...well, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here, of course. And I mean, it's not like "real feminists" ever ally with the authoritarian, patriarchal State and/or the Religious Right in the pursuit of "pornstitution."

3) oh goodie, nothing i love more than hetnormativity.
It just never gets old.

And really, we all NEED sexual shaming; wasn't that a song or something? It's so FEMINIST. Especially those of us who're queer, not that this matters in the all-important Battle Against Men, which is of course defined by angry straight women. And it's not like there's any intersection between transhate and whore-bashing, not to mention good old fashioned sex panic, classism, racism, ableism, etc., etc., etc. etc.

4) Finally, in answer to the burning question of whether I call all this "feminism."

Supporting women regardless of whether or not I "approve" of their "choices." Not trying to police other peoples' most intimate selves. Not putting -my- ideas of how things -should- be over what actually -is.- Yes, I call that feminist. More important, however, I call it human. Because when it comes right down to it, the actual people are more important than the fucking label.

On edit, a coda:

That last goes, by the way, for everybody. I've heard people (mostly women) I respect on both sides of the aisle expressing a wish for people who haven't been there or done that to kindly step off. I can't really argue with that, actually, and no, I understand that this isn't just a fun academic exericise. People who are adamant that they're sex workers, that they'd rather be doing what they do than something else, I'll call them "sex workers." People who do not want any such term applied to themselves, who are clear that they found the experience degrading and abusive and harmful, I will use the term "prostituted woman" or whatever they prefer. Questions of policy aside, really, really trying not to define anyone else's experience here, wouldn't even if I did have a similar tale to tell.

I'm just tired of seeing that happen to other people I care about.

all i have to say at this point

is this:



Well, no, that's not totally true; I have a couple of comments down at the end of this post at RE's. If it's saying anything new to anyone who has ears to hear, well, Maud speed and Maud bless.

meanwhile, well, the Great Work continues, don't she.

"and life goes on."