Quote of the day: IBTP archive November 9, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, bin the bunny, pornography harms, pro-sex anti-porn, quote of the day.add a comment
Take, for example, that, despite the Rollergirls’ impressive skaterly talents, the “sport” is only nominally about skating. You have already guessed what it’s actually about, but I’ll tell you anyway: sex. That’s right, sex, only not real sex, such as the kind we could all be having if Hugh Hefner hadn’t ruined it for everybody, but phony sex as defined by the horndog ideology of the pornocracy. The roller derby is an example of what you might, if you were me, call “proto-porn”—a non-penetrative, G-rated, but nevertheless two-dimensional, stereotypical, and bogus picture of female sexuality generated from an amorphous plasma of cultural misogyny. It’s kindergarten burlesque.
From this post.
Quote of the day: getting along in the Patriarchy November 6, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, quote of the day, violence against women.add a comment
This quote of the day comes from commenter Pantsuit Sally, over at I Blame the Patriarchy; it comes in response to a critique of a misogynist 1960s film titled: “How To Murder Your Wife.”
All you need to know to get along in the [Patriarchy]: infinite examples in pop culture in which the audience can sympathize with a female character’s murderer=perfectly reasonable, not misogynist; Andrea Dworkin asking men not to rape us=psycho castrating feminazi.
Can’t work out how to link to individual comments, but it appears at 9.53 am on November 5.
23rd Carnival of Radical Feminists October 31, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism.add a comment
The 23rd Carnival of Radical Feminists is up at Learning Feminism.
Statement by Members of XPALSS October 19, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, objectification/commodification, sexual exploitation, violence against women.add a comment
Statement by members of:
Ex-Prostitutes Against Legislated Sexual Servitude
As women who have been prostituted in Vancouver and in the light of these facts:
- That current discourse on prostitution would have the public believe that it is normal work that simply needs to be better regulated
- That there is currently a proposal to open a legal brothel in Vancouver
- That this proposal is said to speak for current and former prostitutes of Vancouver
- That this proposal promises to make the lives of prostituted women “safer” at best
- That none of us have ever met a prostituted woman who would not leave the “trade” if she had a real chance to do so
- That we are women who have been abused on Canadian soil, by Canadian men while all levels of our Government did nothing to intervene.
- That some members of parliament are now advocating to legalize that abuse.
We want you to know:
We are women who have been harmed by prostitution. We believe that no amount of changing the conditions or the locations in which we were prostituted could ever have significantly reduced that harm. We experience the normalizing of that harm by calling it “work” insulting at best.
It matters very little to us whether we were prostituted on the streets or in the tolerated indoor venues and escort agencies of Vancouver. Our memories are not of the locations but of the men who consistently acted as though we were not quite human. We remember the countless other men and women who daily averted their eyes. We remember the utter lack of services or options that made any sense and the blatant denial of access to any kind of help or justice. We remember the need to “dumb down” our sense of entitlement to a better life so we could bear the one we were in. And we remember too well the numbing despair that came when we finally lost faith that there existed in this world anything decent and good.
We oppose any measure that would put more power in the hands of the men who abused us by telling them that they are legally entitled to do so. This proposal does not speak for us, would not have affected our level of safety in a way that matters, and would not have spared us the harm that is inherent in prostitution.
We are not impressed with lip service proposals to make prostituted women’s lives “safer”. Safer is not good enough. We consider it a violation of our human rights that we were abandoned to years of situations that fit the definition of sexual assault under current law. But not only is this violence not recorded, not prosecuted, not punished. We are now being told that we chose it.
We believe that, where there is public and political will, lives can be changed for the better. We do not believe the lie that prostitution is inevitable. We believe it can be abolished.
As hosts of the 2010 games, we want our city, our home, to refuse to take part in the global flesh market that is sex tourism and send a message to the world that women will not be sold in Vancouver.
We believe that every sexually exploited woman represents a life wasted. We are greatly saddened for the lives of women lost in prostitution, as well as the loss of the sum of the contributions that countless women still living would have made had they not been abandoned to sexual slavery.
We urge you all to refuse to believe that prostitution is normal or that it is an equal exchange ”between two consenting adults”. We urge you to oppose any attempt to introduce a legal brothel in Vancouver.
A State of Pre-Porn October 18, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, objectification/commodification, pornography harms, quote of the day.add a comment
A brilliant quote of the day from Jill at I Blame the Patriarchy:
She grasps that, as a member of the sex class, she exists continuously in a state of pre-porn. She understands that she is only allowed to wear tank tops when she is “alone in [her] apartment.” That’s because, in public, she will be judged by Dude Nation’s occupying forces and their collaborators, all of whom have exacting (but ever-fluctuating) standards with which members of the sex class, who ceaselessly walk a fine line between virgin and whore, must comply.
McCain’s mistake is in momentarily forgetting this detail and imagining herself to enjoy fully-human status.
ARF at the Anarchist Bookfair October 14, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, activism, events.add a comment
Our sister organisation Autonomous Radical Feminists will be at this year’s Anarchist Bookfair; read all about it here.
Quote of the Day October 5, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, bin the bunny, pro-sex anti-porn, quote of the day.1 comment so far
Reclusive Leftist on Christie Hefner and Playboy (as part of an article on feminism and conflicting/complex political loyalties):
Christie Hefner makes a big deal out of identifying as a feminist: she gives money, she sits on boards, she makes noises about women’s rights. She also, of course, has spent her life profiting from the sexual exploitation of other women. Playboy magazine was always a shrine to patriarchy; under Christie Hefner’s direction it became a giant Borg ship of bunny-eared misogynistic objectification, a vast enterprise selling everything from stripper outfits for toddlers (get ‘em started young!) to hardcore porn videos. The ubiquity of the Playboy brand has been a key factor in the normalization of pornography — or perhaps I should say the pornification of normality. Margaret Atwood once observed that if aliens tried to understand human civilization from magazine covers, they would conclude that only women have bodies. That was a few decades ago. Now the aliens would conclude that not only are women the only people with bodies, but all the women are porn stars.
But Playboy is guilty of more than just being a capitalistic vampire squid. They’ve been firing on the ideological front as well. One of the most noxious things Christie Hefner did was hire Camille Paglia as Playboy’s in-house anti-feminist pundit. And make no mistake, Paglia is definitely anti-feminist; she calls herself a feminist purely as a marketing ploy, to get people to pay attention. “Oh, look! A feminist who says that patriarchy is good and women are happier being oppressed and that ‘no’ really means ‘please fuck me!’ Cool!” Paglia spent years shoveling that horseshit in the pages of Playboy, particularly her claim that second-wave feminism was puritanical and anti-sex. This is all part of the game, you understand: it’s how patriarchy fights back. Feminists say they don’t want sexuality that is warped by misogyny; patriarchalists say that means feminists don’t want sex. See the sleight of hand? Sex = misogynist sex. In the world of Playboy, there is no other kind.
Playboy has also fought the feminist revolution with its “show us yer tits” series of famous women. For decades, female entertainers have been heckled by drunks demanding that they disrobe. You could be Joni Fucking Mitchell singing “A Case of You,” but some asshole in the back will still yell “show us yer tits,” thus reminding you and everybody else that while you may think you’re a fancy-schmancy singer-songwriter who can give Dylan a run for his money, underneath the clothes you’re just a pair of tits. And that is the psychological essence of every single Playboy feature on women-in-the-news. As women have branched out and become high achievers in sports, cinema, education, law, and politics, Playboy has been there at every step of the way to yell, “show us yer tits!” Think you’re a famous director? Show us yer tits! An Olympic gold medalist? Show us yer tits! Rhodes scholar? Champion athlete? Show us yer tits! A collection of Playboy back issues is like a serial killer’s trophy room: photographic mementos of all the uppity women who’ve been reduced to masturbation fodder.
And yes, of course the famous women who’ve posed have done so willingly. That’s because they’ve been persuaded by the anti-feminist backlash that to do so is “empowering,” which is proof that there is almost nothing propaganda can’t do. No idea is too absurd, no suggestion too preposterous that a good propaganda campaign can’t make it seem perfectly logical and appealing. Look, if posing naked were empowering, then the rich men who run the world would be lining up for it. We would be awash in naked dick shots of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Barack Obama; magazines would be filled with male politicians and financiers and moguls with their bits hanging out. Softly lit, perhaps; head coyly tilted, bunny tail on the ass. Power.
Anti-porn quote of the day August 29, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, pornography harms, pro-sex anti-porn, quote of the day.add a comment
Alright, dude, we get it: widespread porn consumption among teenagers has led to an expectation among young men that sex ought to mimic porn, and hence that women ought to submit to all manner of the degrading and potentially harmful acts that mainstream porn depicts. That’s fucking terrible news, as us anti-porn feminists have been saying all along.
From Nine Deuce: This must be one of those “eye of the beholder” things. She is reading misogynist crap so you don’t have to.
One from the Spinster Aunt’s Archives August 17, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, quote of the day.add a comment
Do it, do it, do it till you’re satisfied, whatever it is. Just don’t kid yourself. You’re gettin’ off on patriarchy. Which is not to say that patriarchy-blamers can’t be all “yay, BDSM!” Because if pain and humiliation get you off, what better way to achieve it than by hanging a sign on your ass reading “I blamed the patriarchy but all I got was his stupid orgasm.”
Also, from the 20th comment in the thread, by ‘Char’:
BDSM: You get all the sexual freedom patriarchy will allow you. The question is, is that equality? And who is satisified with sex instead of freedom? As Ti-Grace Atkinson might require us to ask.
“But I do not know any feminist worthy of that name who, if forced to choose between freedom and sex, would choose sex. She’d choose freedom every time.”
Quote of the day: voilence, censorship, feminism August 10, 2009
Posted by antiplondon in Radical Feminism, pornography harms, quote of the day.add a comment

I’ve just read the brilliant essay Some reflections on violence, censorship and feminism over at redmegaera. I could quote any of it, but it’s easier for you to just go and read it.
In an interview with Free Radio Santa Cruz recorded shortly before her death in 2005 Andrea Dworkin was asked whether corporations, as legal persons, should be entitled to First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. She answered by drawing a distinction between the rights protected by the First Amendment and what she calls laissez-faire censorship. Laissez-faire censorship occurs when the organ of censorship is the market, not the state. What corporations have with regards to freedom of speech which most women do not is the money to make it real.
Pornography is a billion dollar business. As corporations such as Marriott, Time Warner and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, through its subsidiary DirecTV, earn more and more revenue by piping pornography into the bedrooms and hotel rooms of men and women all over the world we need to reassess what “censorship” really means. At a time when pornographic film stars like Jenna Jameson are increasingly upheld by the media as examples of a “healthy” and “liberated” female sexuality and when Brazilian waxing is not only seen as de rigueur but essential for maintaining one’s “personal hygiene” we need to ask what honouring women’s agency in a patriarchal society really entails. I write this because I believe that many young feminists of my generation have come to accept an increasingly impoverished definition of concepts like violence, censorship and freedom and it’s hurting our movement.
Make sure you read the comments thread too.
