Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«68 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Eponine
Apr 2, 2007

Liberte
Egalite
Beyonce


Over in the fagoon megathread, some of the ladies were requesting a thread on feminism. So here is thread to talk about feminist theory, ask questions and share related interesting news.

Here are some things you should do:
- Check your privilege. If you need help identifying privilege, there is some concise stuff on wikipedia. The link is for male privilege, but there are lots of other kinds of privilege.
- Be respectful.
- Read on some poo poo before coming in here all ready for a fight.


Online resources (courtesy of Apple Cider):
THE MALE PRIVILEGE CHECKLIST
Slut Shaming
Not all feminists think men are all rapists
Female objectification among the geeks
Derailing for Dummies

Famous Feminist Movements from History:
First-Wave Feminists and proto-feminists
Mary Wollstonecraft introduced the radical idea that women could be equal to men if they were given an education in her seminal A Vindication on the Rights of Women
Olympe de Gouges soon after published Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen during the French Revolution, which highlighted the exclusion of women in the revolutionary document “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Male Citizen”
By the middle of the 19th century, the feminist movement was gaining momentum in the United States. In 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention took place, cementing a few women as leaders in the suffrage and women’s rights movements, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
The American Women’s Suffrage movement, which gained the vote in 1920, has remembered Susan B. Anthony well. TheTemperance Movement, which preceded the vote for women by 2 years, and is now regarded as a pretty bad decision, was headed by a lot of the same people. A really amazing resource on First-Wave Feminism in the US is No Constitutional Right To Be Ladies by Linda Kerber, which has a lot of legal information about women’s rights before Second Wave feminism.

Second Wave Feminism
Total badass Simone de Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex in 1949, but it didn’t get translated into English until 1953, not that anyone was ready for it anyway. Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in 1963, which prompted a lot of women to look at their genitals. Friedan was also crucial in the move for the legalization and protection of abortion rights and founded NARAL in the late 1960s and NOW in 1966. Friedan was admittedly uncomfortable with lesbians in the feminist movement, calling them “The Lavender Menace,” and focusing instead on issues she thought only affected heterosexual women, like abortion and childcare. Gloria Steinem was a fierce advocate of the failed Equal Rights Amendment and a founder of Ms Magazine.
In 1972, the women’s rights movement could add Title IX to their list of accomplishments, which legally prohibited discrimination based on sex in federally-funded education programs.

Riot Grrl Movement
Riot Grrl is a movement in music that ran parallel to the grunge movement and started in Washington. Bikini Kill is one of the most well-known groups, and Kathleen Hanna continues to work for women’s rights.

French Feminists and post-modern thought:
What I've always heard referred to as the "French Feminists" include Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva and Monique Wittig are contemporary feminist theorists. Cixous and Irigaray, along with Jacques Lacan the term "phallogocentrism" which is the over-whelming culture desire for the phallus (not the penis). Cixous coined the term écriture féminine. Ecriture féminine, in my opinion, is problematic because it seeks to express the feminine experience by tapping into the pre-oedipal connection between mother and child. It also puts feminine writing as diametrically opposed to "male writing," which creates an equally problematic binary, something which post-modernism seeks to trouble.

One of their English-speaking contemporaries include Judith Butler, whose seminal work Gender Trouble introduced and elaborated on the concept that gender was not biologically determined and was a complex collection of performances and seeks to disrupt commonly held notions of identity (how is the concept of "woman" socially constructed?) as well as challenge gender norms.
timeline edited 10/18 to include some stuff about Judith Butler etc

Non-Western/American feminist history lessons appreciated!

Random feminist material on the internet:
Jezebel.com- A Gawker website, so the comments are frequently better than the actual material. I like it because it’s a celebrity gossip and fashion blog for the educated crowd.
Feministing.com- Gets a little pedantic and preachy, but every once in awhile there is a truly great article
Thehairpin.com- Best article is “Ask a Queer Chick,” but I’m biased.

To get us started, since its October a.k.a. Everything Pink You Buy is for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, how do people feel about it? Here is a NYT article on it

P.S. Let me know if you want anything changed/added in the OP for factual funsies.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dreylad
Jun 19, 2001

One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously when the decay which leads its to death has already begun


I'm really glad this thread got started. Thank you for putting the time in to get it going.

The link on "Not all feminists think guys are rapists" is broken.

my l41 m4ss4cr3
Nov 1, 2008

by angerbot


Neoclassical economics teaches us that the wage rate is correlated closely with the marginal product of labour. This means that there are market imperatives to hire women that are "underpaid" and employ them at more generous salaries that would induce higher contributions to output and therefore make the entire economy more efficient. Since this does not happen, we can infer that women must simply be a fraction as productive as men. Only a minor part of this can resolve into socialization and the choice to rear children, since it is prevalent across almost all occupations and skill levels. This suggests that there is some intrinsic biological cause, such as lower intelligence.

Obsoletely Fabulous
May 6, 2008

Who are you, and why should I care?


The Buy Pink thing has always annoyed me a little bit. It seems like a lot of the companies just use it for profiteering instead of actually caring. Think Before You Pink has some examples of problems with the whole pink campaign.

Axelgear
Oct 13, 2011

If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. It happens pretty often and I will try to change my opinion if I'm presented with evidence.


I'm just amazed that there's a patriarchy tag. It doesn't seem like it'd be something that'd come up that often.

Cool thread. Rock on.

Edit:

BellumGallikku posted:

Neoclassical economics teaches us that...

Was that an attempt at defending the idea that women are somehow inferior via free market economics? That was, if nothing else, flabbergastingly novel in its approach.

Eponine
Apr 2, 2007

Liberte
Egalite
Beyonce


BellumGallikku posted:

Neoclassical economics teaches us that the wage rate is correlated closely with the marginal product of labour. This means that there are market imperatives to hire women that are "underpaid" and employ them at more generous salaries that would induce higher contributions to output and therefore make the entire economy more efficient. Since this does not happen, we can infer that women must simply be a fraction as productive as men. Only a minor part of this can resolve into socialization and the choice to rear children, since it is prevalent across almost all occupations and skill levels. This suggests that there is some intrinsic biological cause, such as lower intelligence.

Wageproject.com posted:

Why Is There A Wage Gap?

The wage gap is the result of a variety of forms of sex discrimination in the workplace, including discrimination in hiring, promotion and pay, sexual harassment, occupational segregation, bias against mothers, and other ways in which women workers and women’s work are undervalued.

Hiring, Promotion, Pay
First comes what most people think of as sex discrimination: the simple and straightforward refusal to hire, promote, or fairly pay women who are just as qualified as men.

Sexual Harassment
Few people realize that sexual harassment also constitutes wage discrimination. After long and repeated sexual harassment, women leave or lose their jobs, potential raises, promotions, opportunities, emotional stability, ability to work, and sometimes their lives.

Occupational Segregation
In 2000, two-thirds of all US working women were still crowded into twenty-one of the 500 occupational categories. And, then women’s work is consistently paid less than men’s work. Are janitors really worth more than nurses’ aides, parking lot attendants more than child care workers, construction laborers more than bookkeepers and cashiers? According to American payrolls, they are.

Taxing Motherhood
Many people believe that the wage gap exists because women choose to care for children. But do they really choose to be paid less for doing the same work they did before giving birth? Forget the mommy track: too many women find themselves shunted unwillingly onto the mommy sidetrack. Frustrated women talk about how, once they came back from maternity leave, colleagues began to treat them as unreliable and unpromotable—almost willfully overlooking any evidence of productivity

Undervaluing Women Workers
Everyday, women workers suggestions are dismissed — only to be discussed seriously when made by a man. Or when employers turn to old boy networks rather than public postings to recruit new talent. Or when interviews or screening tests prize male strengths or deeper voices, even though women’s strengths and communication styles could accomplish the job just as well.
Out of left field!

Obsoletely Fabulous posted:

The Buy Pink thing has always annoyed me a little bit. It seems like a lot of the companies just use it for profiteering instead of actually caring. Think Before You Pink has some examples of problems with the whole pink campaign.
Yeah, I find the pink-washing really disgusting. At the end of the day, things like the Cowboys wearing pink shoes does nothing but point to sociological issues like the taboo of men wearing anything pink or associated with women rather than a deadly disease. I find it particularly disgusting that while its "Breast Cancer Awareness Month," the US House of Representatives passed legislation that would literally let a woman die in childbirth rather than perform a life-saving operation.

KELNOR THE OVERWASP
Jun 30, 2005

CULTURAL IMPERIALIST.
ask me about being white and privileged in china


http://andreadworkin.com/audio/ has a big collection of Andrea Dworkin speeches, which you should listen to. Dworkin's insights include:

Serial killers such as Ted Bundy should not be viewed as lunatics since most of them are in full control of what they are doing and suffering from no delusions. They should rather be interpreted as political male-supremacist terrorists, not least because many of them pretty much say so themselves. surprise sex should be viewed as a similarly political act - even non radicals admit now that surprise sex is more about power than sex.

Pornography is not just a matter of profit and exploitation, it is anti-woman hate speech. More extreme pornography is to male-supremacist terrorism what a beheading video is to religious terrorism.

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/ has a lot of good stuff and the anti-porn resources page is especially good.

http://www.genderads.com is well worth going through if you want to stare down the throat of the beast.

Recommended reading: Pornified by Pamela Paul.

The Tao Jones
Oct 9, 2007

What's a hole doing in my TARDIS?

I very recently happened across one of my favorite works dealing with this subject, E. C. Stanton's "The Declaration of Sentiments".

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp

A pretty good insight into the heinous poo poo that has been perpetrated against women, and the vile remnants of it that persist to this day.

Amarkov
Jun 21, 2010


KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

Pornography is not just a matter of profit and exploitation, it is anti-woman hate speech. More extreme pornography is to male-supremacist terrorism what a beheading video is to religious terrorism.

Before I start here, I intend everything in this post as an honest question.

How does a feminist condemnation of pornography work? At least in my country, women voluntarily choose to do porn, and there seems to be no reason to believe that the same would not happen in the absence of patriarchy. (After all, there are male porn stars too.) So as long as nonconsensual acts are not depicted, I don't understand the reasoning behind it being harmful.

Hardboiled Kid
Jul 27, 2001

This is my club avatar!


KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

http://www.genderads.com is well worth going through if you want to stare down the throat of the beast.


The dreamworlds documentary should be a good addition to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z6n...feature=related

Axelgear
Oct 13, 2011

If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. It happens pretty often and I will try to change my opinion if I'm presented with evidence.


KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

surprise sex should be viewed as a similarly political act - even non radicals admit now that surprise sex is more about power than sex.

Call me opening a can of worms here, but how exactly is it necessarily a political act? If someone's goal is self-indulgence, that doesn't strike me as something I'd call political, but maybe that's just an inelegance in language.

KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

Pornography is not just a matter of profit and exploitation, it is anti-woman hate speech. More extreme pornography is to male-supremacist terrorism what a beheading video is to religious terrorism.

And this, too, just seems a little odd to me. While I have no doubt that some men fixate on pornography for unhealthy reasons, the vast majority of people are just using it as a fantasy aid. Comparing a consenting woman who enjoys dressing in tight spandex and getting spanked on camera (or at least enjoys getting paid to do it) so that a group of men can pleasure themselves with the horrific and inhuman actions like the murder of Nick Burg seems not just to be inaccurate but downright distasteful.

Erethizon_dorsatum
Nov 14, 2009


The Tao Jones posted:

I very recently happened across one of my favorite works dealing with this subject, E. C. Stanton's "The Declaration of Sentiments".

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp

A pretty good insight into the heinous poo poo that has been perpetrated against women, and the vile remnants of it that persist to this day.

For more horrible things, a depressing yet imformative book is "Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice." I couldn't put it down. I will warn you though, it made me feel waves of impotent outrage

http://www.amazon.com/Misogyny-Worl...18822843&sr=8-1

Obsoletely Fabulous
May 6, 2008

Who are you, and why should I care?


Amarkov posted:

Before I start here, I intend everything in this post as an honest question.

How does a feminist condemnation of pornography work? At least in my country, women voluntarily choose to do porn, and there seems to be no reason to believe that the same would not happen in the absence of patriarchy. (After all, there are male porn stars too.) So as long as nonconsensual acts are not depicted, I don't understand the reasoning behind it being harmful.

Many consensual acts can be degrading to women, things like facials/bukkake, without being imitations of surprise sex. You can also argue that pornography furthers the sexual objectification of women.

Eponine
Apr 2, 2007

Liberte
Egalite
Beyonce


KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

http://www.genderads.com is well worth going through if you want to stare down the throat of the beast.

I prefer Sociological Images to that site. There isn't as much content, but there's more commentary and it doesn't look like it was designed in 1997.

I think it should be noted that not all feminists are anti-porn feminists and there is a big movement within the porn industry to include feminist porn. People like Andrea Dworkin and One Angry Girl are a vocal minority that address the camera (and other public spectacles) as male gaze without reclaiming porn as a medium for female empowerment.

Recommended reading: "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey.

KELNOR THE OVERWASP
Jun 30, 2005

CULTURAL IMPERIALIST.
ask me about being white and privileged in china


Amarkov posted:

Before I start here, I intend everything in this post as an honest question.

How does a feminist condemnation of pornography work? At least in my country, women voluntarily choose to do porn, and there seems to be no reason to believe that the same would not happen in the absence of patriarchy. (After all, there are male porn stars too.) So as long as nonconsensual acts are not depicted, I don't understand the reasoning behind it being harmful.

I'm off out so will not give a long answer straight away, however I can suggest having a good read through this page: http://www.oneangrygirl.net/myth1.html

Summary - many "performers" are in fact coerced, many have severe emotional problems due to childhood sexual abuse which they are then re-enacting. Of those to whom none of this applies, almost all end up doing this out of poverty rather than actually wanting to.

In any case:

Sarah-Katherine Lewis posted:

When your best choice is taking off your clothes and sticking toys in your stinkyhole for money, I think there's a real problem with the labor system.

Pipe Dreamer
Sep 2, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Axelgear posted:

Call me opening a can of worms here, but how exactly is it necessarily a political act? If someone's goal is self-indulgence, that doesn't strike me as something I'd call political, but maybe that's just an inelegance in language.


And this, too, just seems a little odd to me. While I have no doubt that some men fixate on pornography for unhealthy reasons, the vast majority of people are just using it as a fantasy aid. Comparing a consenting woman who enjoys dressing in tight spandex and getting spanked on camera (or at least enjoys getting paid to do it) so that a group of men can pleasure themselves with the horrific and inhuman actions like the murder of Nick Burg seems not just to be inaccurate but downright distasteful.

They aren’t comparing watching porn to killing Nick Berg, they’re comparing it to an Islamist getting his jollies watching a video of Nick Berg being executed.

Axelgear
Oct 13, 2011

If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. It happens pretty often and I will try to change my opinion if I'm presented with evidence.


Obsoletely Fabulous posted:

Many consensual acts can be degrading to women, things like facials/bukkake, without being imitations of surprise sex. You can also argue that pornography furthers the sexual objectification of women.

Calling such acts degrading seems to be more a matter of opinion than anything there, though. You'll find some people who consider it degrading, and some who consider even vanilla sex to be degrading, and you'll find some who don't know the meaning of the word.

Talking about the objectification of women, on the other hand, I can understand, and I'm willing to listen to an argument for that and look at any data that might be provided on the subject.

Edit:

Pipe Dreamer posted:

They aren’t comparing watching porn to killing Nick Berg, they’re comparing it to an Islamist getting his jollies watching a video of Nick Berg being executed.

If we're extending the comparison here, we're talking about making it as much as watching which would, indeed, be comparing porn producers with murderers. Even if we aren't, however, the comparison is still apples and oranges and immensely distasteful. If we were talking about surprise sex/snuff porn here, we would definitely have something to compare, but this was a broad label.

Kiwi Ghost Chips
Feb 19, 2011

Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!



What are some good 101 level books on feminism?

McGiygas
Sep 25, 2010

by T. Mascis


I'm glad this thread got made! About the pink thing, my mom's a breast cancer survivor who hates the whole "hurr boobies" movement that's going on.

Really, I want less FIND A CURE (for boobies)!!! and more organizations like Foundation Mimi that focus on helping people with cancer by providing help beyond a few cents towards research. Really, the director of Foundation Mimi says it better:

Myriam Uilens de Schooten posted:

...Because of this experience my conviction has grown that cancer must be fought not only on the medical front, but on all fronts. Using this principle I want to ensure that all those who have to face this disease receive support, help and comfort.

Syphilitic Monarch
Oct 9, 2007

My passion for ignorance is exceeded only by the fervor of my shitty posting. Ask me about the inferior cultures of non-whites!

PS: You're welcome for your free white education Indians, stop complaining about a handful of rapes, Jesus.

Is radical feminism the only true feminism? It seems to be the only ideology that approaches women's problems from a solely woman-centric perspective. Like nationalists pragmatically pursuing what's best for their own nation-state, radfems pragmatically pursue what's best for women, whether that be abortion rights or anti-pornography laws. The same can't really be said for liberal feminism or socialist feminism. Liberal feminism is just liberals talking about women; socialist feminism is just socialists talking about women. Their solutions are predictably liberal or socialist, and while they may overlap with something a radfem may support, feminist liberals and socialists are merely dressing-up their male ideologies for a female audience.

Shakespearean Beef
Jul 12, 2008


Nibiru posted:

What are some good 101 level books on feminism?

Bell Hooks - Feminism Is For Everyone is really good. In fact read everything Bell Hooks wrote. She owns

Vinterstum
Jul 30, 2003



Syphilitic Monarch posted:

Is radical feminism the only true feminism? It seems to be the only ideology that approaches women's problems from a solely woman-centric perspective. Like nationalists pragmatically pursuing what's best for their own nation-state, radfems pragmatically pursue what's best for women, whether that be abortion rights or anti-pornography laws. The same can't really be said for liberal feminism or socialist feminism. Liberal feminism is just liberals talking about women; socialist feminism is just socialists talking about women. Their solutions are predictably liberal or socialist, and while they may overlap with something a radfem may support, feminist liberals and socialists are merely dressing-up their male ideologies for a female audience.

It sounds like you're saying socialist and liberal ideologies are male ideologies. How does gender even fit into this?

EDIT: Added emphasis.

Jack Gladney
Aug 20, 2006

I fucking hate wheatcakes!

KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

http://andreadworkin.com/audio/ has a big collection of Andrea Dworkin speeches, which you should listen to. Dworkin's insights include:

Serial killers such as Ted Bundy should not be viewed as lunatics since most of them are in full control of what they are doing and suffering from no delusions. They should rather be interpreted as political male-supremacist terrorists, not least because many of them pretty much say so themselves. surprise sex should be viewed as a similarly political act - even non radicals admit now that surprise sex is more about power than sex.

I had never really thought about it before, but it is true that pretty much all serial killers are serial rapists who escalate to killing their victims after raping them. So the gratification they get out of killing people is sexual gratification that is enabled by not being able to appreciate the subjective experience of another person (because then they would not kill or surprise sex in the first place). So it's kind of like any attitude that alienates us from understanding what another person's life is actually like is almost sort of encouraging us to be sociopaths, and maybe there are way more sociopaths in the world than we think in light of how common misogynistic frat dude masculinity is in America today.

Mechanical mandible
Aug 4, 2007

by Ralp


Nibiru posted:

What are some good 101 level books on feminism?
Though more of a textbook I found The gender knot by Allan Johnson to be quite good.

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!


KELNOR THE OVERWASP posted:

http://andreadworkin.com/audio/ has a big collection of Andrea Dworkin speeches, which you should listen to. Dworkin's insights include:

Serial killers such as Ted Bundy should not be viewed as lunatics since most of them are in full control of what they are doing and suffering from no delusions. They should rather be interpreted as political male-supremacist terrorists, not least because many of them pretty much say so themselves. surprise sex should be viewed as a similarly political act - even non radicals admit now that surprise sex is more about power than sex.

Pornography is not just a matter of profit and exploitation, it is anti-woman hate speech. More extreme pornography is to male-supremacist terrorism what a beheading video is to religious terrorism.

The only way this line of thinking remotely works is if you have an extremely facile understanding of terrorism. As a corollary to "they hate us for our freedom" sure, then it makes sense, but trying to work the comparison with a realistic assessment of the origins, motivations, and power relations that generate "terrorism" just makes it fall apart in a mess of counter-factuals and cognitive dissonance. And that is just approaching the comparison from the terrorism side, the body of work on positive pornography and the like would probably also have bearing here.

Amarkov
Jun 21, 2010


Vinterstum posted:

It sounds like you're saying socialist and liberal ideologies are male ideologies. How does gender even fit into this?

The point is that socialist and liberal ideologies aren't specifically pro-female; the only thing I don't get is treating that as though it's somehow unexpected. Like, communists don't go around being shocked that the Democratic party is not proposing the abolishment of capitalism, even though they're both "liberal organizations".

Eponine
Apr 2, 2007

Liberte
Egalite
Beyonce


Axelgear posted:

Calling such acts degrading seems to be more a matter of opinion than anything there, though. You'll find some people who consider it degrading, and some who consider even vanilla sex to be degrading, and you'll find some who don't know the meaning of the word.

Talking about the objectification of women, on the other hand, I can understand, and I'm willing to listen to an argument for that and look at any data that might be provided on the subject.

I went to a conference once where a woman presented on the differences between mainstream lesbian porn (i.e. two straight girls with acrylic nails) and "amateur" lesbian porn (two actual queer women, usually produced by a small independent company like Pink and White Productions). She was viciously attacked during her presentation by people who might have included me for a comment to the effect of "who enjoys that?!" about the mainstream lesbian porn when a woman's thong was pulled up, creating an obviously uncomfortable situation for said woman.

There are porn stars regular loving people who are into things like surprise sex fantasies and facials; however, unethically produced porn (porn produced by human traffickers), or porn where the woman is clearly not enjoying the situation are not empowering situations.

Anti-porn feminists, which, I will reiterate since it seems like there is some confusion, do not make up the majority of feminists and represent a minority that sees pornography as an objectification of women and a way for men to enforce power. I don't want to argue against objectification too much, especially as it relates to attraction, because I don't want it to be confused with being unequivocally bad. I would argue that sexual objectification in a relationship is something that is even desirable: feeling sexy or sexual, seeing one's own body and physical attributes as separate from their personality during some sexual acts. But feminists would say that women are constantly objectified against their will and some anti-porn feminists would argue that the prevalence of pornography further enables men to objectify women as sexual objects first.

McGiygas posted:

Really, I want less FIND A CURE (for boobies)!!! and more organizations like Foundation Mimi that focus on helping people with cancer by providing help beyond a few cents towards research. Really, the director of Foundation Mimi says it better:

That's a great foundation. The "Save the Tatas" tagline, which I think is partly what you're getting at, is particularly disgusting, especially since it implies "Save the Tatas, as that is probably the only worthy part of a woman anyways."

Syphilitic Monarch posted:

Is radical feminism the only true feminism? It seems to be the only ideology that approaches women's problems from a solely woman-centric perspective. Like nationalists pragmatically pursuing what's best for their own nation-state, radfems pragmatically pursue what's best for women, whether that be abortion rights or anti-pornography laws. The same can't really be said for liberal feminism or socialist feminism. Liberal feminism is just liberals talking about women; socialist feminism is just socialists talking about women. Their solutions are predictably liberal or socialist, and while they may overlap with something a radfem may support, feminist liberals and socialists are merely dressing-up their male ideologies for a female audience.

I would seriously ask you if you are actually aware of the tenants of the feminisms that you are talking about. Third Wave feminism argues that there is no true feminist movement but seeks to include all feminisms.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009



Thanks for starting up the thread! I'll be watching (and hopefully contributing!) with great interest.

Blind Melon
Jan 3, 2006
I like fire, you can have some too.

What a positive inclusive and empowering thread title. I will be watching this thread with interest.

LtSmash
Dec 18, 2005

Will we next create false gods to rule over us? How proud we have become, and how blind.

-Sister Miriam Godwinson,
"We Must Dissent"



Eponine posted:

I think it should be noted that not all feminists are anti-porn feminists and there is a big movement within the porn industry to include feminist porn. People like Andrea Dworkin and One Angry Girl are a vocal minority that address the camera (and other public spectacles) as male gaze without reclaiming porn as a medium for female empowerment.

Do you have any feminist critiques of anti-porn feminism? And does anyone know how anti-porn feminists view gay porn?

quote:

Call me opening a can of worms here, but how exactly is it necessarily a political act? If someone's goal is self-indulgence, that doesn't strike me as something I'd call political, but maybe that's just an inelegance in language.
Well raping someone isn't a self-indulgence like eating a whole tub of ice cream. Some cases of surprise sex may be, say two falling down drunk people where consent or lack there of isn't clear (of course she didn't say no doesn't justify poo poo), the vast majority of surprise sex is about men expressing dominance over women. To a rapist a woman should not be allowed to say no.

In Jim Crow south some attacks on black people could have had non-racial motivation, but the vast majority of them were similarly expressing dominance over blacks. Just as the continual systemic violence against blacks was political and kept all blacks in a low grade state of terror, continual systemic violence against women is political and keeps them in a low grade state of terror.

It may not be political in the sense of a political party but it is the ideological idea that no matter what a woman does or how much she accomplishes she is still subordinate to men. Have you ever heard someone suggest that a woman in a position of power they disagree with should be shown a good time by a man and that would put her right? Or less subtly she should have some sense hosed (raped) into her. Acquaintance surprise sex is the same thing writ small. A girl is there for the man's enjoyment. He wants sex she doesn't, but she doesn't matter because women should be subordination to men and he can force her. Its still motivated by the idea and the end result is systemic terror of the victim group.

edit: Oh yeah thanks for the thread. I hope it doesn't leave me in the dust too quickly.

Syphilitic Monarch
Oct 9, 2007

My passion for ignorance is exceeded only by the fervor of my shitty posting. Ask me about the inferior cultures of non-whites!

PS: You're welcome for your free white education Indians, stop complaining about a handful of rapes, Jesus.

Vinterstum posted:

It sounds like you're saying socialist and liberal ideologies are male ideologies. How does gender even fit into this?
From what I understand, liberal feminism and socialist feminism each claim to be strands of feminism that can be distinguished from radical feminism. They are not simply socialists and liberals who also happen to be feminists, and thus agree with the methodology and recommendations of radfems, but socialists and liberals who believe that socialism or liberalism are better solutions to women's oppression than radical feminism. The socialist or liberal feminist has an altogether different set of answers to why women are oppressed, and what should be done about it, than the radical feminist.

Liberal feminism might draw on arguments for women's bodily autonomy when it claims to be a strand of feminism - something like Locke's self-ownership but applied to women. On that basis it could support an individual woman's (and only the woman's) right to terminate her own pregnancy. However, the liberal feminist would have difficulty using the same argument for individual autonomy to stop pornography, or against privacy rights that protect domestic abusers. These so-called liberal feminists would have to give up many of their core liberal ideas to argue along the same lines as radfems.

Sabaka
Aug 12, 2005



The Male Privilege Checklist is a good read. I may have missed it, but I would add to it that men generally suffer less consequences for aging.

It may be because I'm living in small shithole southern town, but the kind of casual disregard for women I hear in conversations with only men present is staggering. It's hard to know what to do when stuck in a culture so positively saturated with indifference and hate. If I didn't socialize I would go insane, and the only people around are terrible, so I have terrible friends. I am probably part of the problem.

edit: Not to imply that it's anyone's responsibility but mine to be a decent human being. I just don't know how to approach a problem so ingrained in everyone around me.

Sir Quetzal
Jul 13, 2010


Eponine posted:

That's a great foundation. The "Save the Tatas" tagline, which I think is partly what you're getting at, is particularly disgusting, especially since it implies "Save the Tatas, as that is probably the only worthy part of a woman anyways."

Up here in Canada, we're seeing a campaign based around the slogan "I <3 Boobies" with accompanying bracelets in various colours. Thank you for putting words to why it bothers me so much! My mother had breast cancer for 11 years before dying and let me tell you, her breasts were the least of her concerns throughout the process! As, y'know, happens when you're likely to loving die from something.

I would also like to support Eponine is saying that anti-pornography and sex worker feminism is in the minority and also on the decline. I may have a biased sampling due to mostly being in radical queer spaces but I know many wonderfully feminist sex workers who love what they do and freely choose to do it. Not to say that no pornography is exploitive but that not ALL pornography is.

Also, thank you for that link on cosplaying and feminism. I'm in the process of trying to educate my nerdier cismale friends and it's a loving headache. I can't even get through 10 seconds of a game trailer without seeing something horribly sexist and they just keep justifying it. Every time. And then tell me to shut up so they can watch the random rear end shots in peace. Even the better ones will casually mention "look at those legs" when standing at a bus stop and get frustrated when I respond "you mean the legs attached to that woman?"

Erethizon_dorsatum
Nov 14, 2009


Sabaka posted:

The Male Privilege Checklist is a good read. I may have missed it, but I would add to it that men generally suffer less consequences for aging.

It may be because I'm living in small shithole southern town, but the kind of casual disregard for women I hear in conversations with only men present is staggering. It's hard to know what to do when stuck in a culture so positively saturated with indifference and hate. If I didn't socialize I would go insane, and the only people around are terrible, so I have terrible friends. I am probably part of the problem.

Can you give some examples of things you've heard? Like is it "heh Sally Smith's looking a little long in the tooth these days" or worse things? Have you ever tried speaking up? I don't blame you if you did, it's hard enough to argue with one sexist, let alone a group of them.

Wampa Stompa
Aug 15, 2008

I literally have no idea what I just saw in there!


I just started reading up on feminism about a year and a half ago, and I'm really glad this thread is here. I didn't really believe in gender inequality (I'm a dude, surprise, surprise) until I started reading about it in D&D, so good on you folks for spreading knowledge. For every ignorant rear end in a top hat who dismisses all of this out of hand, there's someone who gets a wake-up call.

Anyway, something that's really always puzzled me has been the idea of language and art as belonging to a certain sex. I guess the best example I can think of is Alicia Ostriker's Stealing the Language, in which she argues that the languages and high artistic works of western civilization are inherently masculine and need to be forcefully appropriated by women in order to express themselves (I've only read a handful of chapters from the book, so please correct me if I'm being inaccurate). A few times Ostriker mentions a hypothetical, separate female language and artistic canon that might have existed if not for the patriarchal domination of society. It seems to me that beyond a few topics exclusive to a certain sex (childbirth, menstruation, etc.), art and language would be largely the same between the sexes in a truly equal society. I can understand the argument about language to some extent (grammatical constructions, especially in the romance languages, tend to be male dominated, although not irreparably, in my opinion), but people who espouse this line of thinking seem to be buying into the notion of some fundamental difference in character or intellect between men and women. Personally, I think that's just buying into the same sorts of myth and "bio-truths" that helped create gender inequalities to begin with. Granted, most of my experience with feminist theory is pretty outdated (I've only ever studied stuff from before the 90s), so I'm curious what current thoughts on the issue are. Do many modern feminist thinkers believe in some sort of fundamental, biological difference between the minds of men and women?

Eponine
Apr 2, 2007

Liberte
Egalite
Beyonce


LtSmash posted:

Do you have any feminist critiques of anti-porn feminism? And does anyone know how anti-porn feminists view gay porn?

The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a pretty reliable resource. Other than the collective eyeball roll in a room of feminists, when you mention Andrea Dworkin, the author of that particular article makes some good points about how anti-porn feminists legitimize their stance by making porn some sort of monolithic entity.

Natalie Purcell posted:

Pornography is not a static or singular cultural object. Yet, since the dawn of the sex wars, many anti-pornography feminists have tried to circumscribe the definition of pornography and to cast it as something diametrically opposed to non-degrading “erotica.” Consider Diana Russell’s definition of pornography as “material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior” (Russell 1993a: 48) . Dworkin’s and MacKinnon’s definition is even more succinct: for them, pornography is “the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women” (Dworkin 2000a: 29) . But to create such a strict ahistorical definition of pornography is to turn a blind eye to non-heterosexual pornographies and to the efforts of feminists like Candida Royalle who have appropriated the term and worked to change the meaning and substance of the pornographic. Moreover, because so many anti-pornography feminists built their critiques into their definitions of pornography, any challenge to those definitions could (and did) become a near-devastating blow to their critiques.

[...]

On the other side, anti-pornography activists accuse sex-positive or sex-radical feminists of supporting all forms of sexual expression regardless of their impact on the individuals involved. In fact, sex-radical feminists draw their own lines and many support freedom of sexual expression only among consenting adults. What these examples illustrate is a tendency to consolidate the views of the opposing camp into a single extremist position, which can then be dismissed as unserious at best or outrageous at worst.

[...]

The other side [anti-porn feminism] hasn’t done much better. Instead of, for instance, admitting the challenges posed by data correlating exposure to violent pornography with propensity toward sexual violence, most have simply dismissed the data as the bogus product of biased research. Personal testimonies in particular are ignored or scoffed at, when they are some of the best data we have yet on the psychosocial effects of pornography.

Emphasis mine.

Re: gay (male, I assume) porn, I think that many feminists would agree that most gay male porn puts one person in a position of power (the penetrator) and one in what might be considered a "female" position of relative powerlessness (the penetratee). Foucault's theories of power in sexual relationships tap into that perceived relationship, in fact turning it upside down.

Wampa Stompa posted:

Anyway, something that's really always puzzled me has been the idea of language and art as belonging to a certain sex. I guess the best example I can think of is Alicia Ostriker's Stealing the Language, in which she argues that the languages and high artistic works of western civilization are inherently masculine and need to be forcefully appropriated by women in order to express themselves (I've only read a handful of chapters from the book, so please correct me if I'm being inaccurate).

In English, which doesn't have an official "neuter," the male serves as the default. Example: "A good student keeps his personal space clean" referring to all students, regardless of gender.

Wampa Stompa posted:

Do many modern feminist thinkers believe in some sort of fundamental, biological difference between the minds of men and women?

I think most post-modern feminists would argue that biological determinism of sex is as meaningless as dividing a society based on who has attached earlobes or hanging earlobe, especially when you considered transfeminism.

angerbot
Mar 23, 2004


plob


Sabaka posted:

The Male Privilege Checklist is a good read. I may have missed it, but I would add to it that men generally suffer less consequences for aging.

It is also heteronormative as gently caress.

shots shots shots
Sep 6, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Wampa Stompa posted:


Anyway, something that's really always puzzled me has been the idea of language and art as belonging to a certain sex. I guess the best example I can think of is Alicia Ostriker's Stealing the Language, in which she argues that the languages and high artistic works of western civilization are inherently masculine and need to be forcefully appropriated by women in order to express themselves (I've only read a handful of chapters from the book, so please correct me if I'm being inaccurate). A few times Ostriker mentions a hypothetical, separate female language and artistic canon that might have existed if not for the patriarchal domination of society. It seems to me that beyond a few topics exclusive to a certain sex (childbirth, menstruation, etc.), art and language would be largely the same between the sexes in a truly equal society. I can understand the argument about language to some extent (grammatical constructions, especially in the romance languages, tend to be male dominated, although not irreparably, in my opinion), but people who espouse this line of thinking seem to be buying into the notion of some fundamental difference in character or intellect between men and women. Personally, I think that's just buying into the same sorts of myth and "bio-truths" that helped create gender inequalities to begin with. Granted, most of my experience with feminist theory is pretty outdated (I've only ever studied stuff from before the 90s), so I'm curious what current thoughts on the issue are. Do many modern feminist thinkers believe in some sort of fundamental, biological difference between the minds of men and women?

I don't see anything in feminism that would be at odds with the idea that men and women see the world differently. It could be biology, or a million other things.

Syphilitic Monarch
Oct 9, 2007

My passion for ignorance is exceeded only by the fervor of my shitty posting. Ask me about the inferior cultures of non-whites!

PS: You're welcome for your free white education Indians, stop complaining about a handful of rapes, Jesus.

Eponine posted:

I would seriously ask you if you are actually aware of the tenants of the feminisms that you are talking about. Third Wave feminism argues that there is no true feminist movement but seeks to include all feminisms.

What are 'all feminisms'? Something is either feminist or it isn't. There can be debates between feminists on various issues, but they can only disagree over what is best for women qua women. Some things will never be a part of feminism, queer theory for instance. Feminism needs to be essentialist about women, or it can no longer justifiably call itself a women's ideology.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pick
Jul 19, 2009



Sir Quetzal posted:

I would also like to support Eponine is saying that anti-pornography and sex worker feminism is in the minority and also on the decline. I may have a biased sampling due to mostly being in radical queer spaces but I know many wonderfully feminist sex workers who love what they do and freely choose to do it. Not to say that no pornography is exploitive but that not ALL pornography is.

There's a sex shop here in Minneapolis which only sells "ethically made" pornography. I haven't asked them yet exactly what the parameters are for that, but judging from their selection, it seems like a move in the right direction!

  • Post
  • Reply
«68 »