Men’s role in feminism is to be quiet, listen to women, and use their privilege and positionality to call other men on their misogynistic bullshit while examining and deconstructing their own thoughts and behaviors. If one man manages to perfectly encompass this ideal, fantastic. He still has no right to use or appropriate a label meant for the women he claims to care so much about.
Within patriarchal culture, the girl who does not feel loved in her family of origin is given another chance to prove her worth when she is encouraged to seek love from males. Schoolgirl crushes, mad obsessions, compulsive longings for male attention and approval indicate that she is rightly pursuing her gendered destiny, on the road to becoming the female who can be nothing without a man. Whether she is heterosexual or homosexual, the extent to which she yearns for patriarchal approval will determine whether she is worthy to be loved. This is the emotional uncertainty that haunts the lives of all females in patriarchal culture. From the start, then, females are confused about the nature of love. Socialized in the false assumption that we will find love in the place where femaleness is deemed unworthy and consistently devalued, we learn early to pretend that love matters more than anything, when in actuality we know that what matters most, even in the wake of feminist movement, is patriarchal approval.
bell hooks, Communion
Found at the Bewilderness
Anonymous asked: why do porn stars like stoya refuse to acklowedge there’s a problem with the porn industry? why does she claim to be a feminist?
Well, Stoya’s claims to be a feminist are, in fact, correct. Like Sasha Grey, she adheres to sex-pos liberal feminism, which suits her profession and activist bent.
Whether we agree with her or not, we can’t say that she’s not representing them.
Now, I’ll be very blunt here: like Sasha Grey, she’s making a paycheque. She’s a businesswoman, and rule one in business is, “don’t piss off the people signing the pay stub”.
We don’t know her actual opinions on porn. We can’t. Maybe she means what she says wholeheartedly. Maybe she doesn’t.
But she’s not stupid, so while she’s in the industry, she’s not going to be the whistle-blower.
The problem here, though, is that like Sasha, Stoya occupies a very unique position in the industry. She’s young, slender, white … and educated. She’s literate, and markets herself (perhaps moreso than Sasha did) as an activist.
She is the quintessential “I choose my choice!” sex worker; but her privileges (and her independent sex educator platform) provides her with a bit of a buffer. Her experiences as a thin/white/educated/activist sex worker are very different from those of a woman who performs sex work (be it porn/ stripping/ cam/ stroll/ whatever) out of necessity.
That, for me, is the critical problem with performers like Stoya and Sasha. They’re held up as examples: “well STOYA likes it”, and thus, all must, when in reality, that’s like saying that Michael Bloomberg likes the economy.
Well, he would. He’s sitting on the top.
While looking for links for the post earlier this week on MPs’ call for an abolitionist approach to prostitution, I clicked on Nichi Hodgson’s profile on the Guardian.
She is a big-time idiot sex pozzer, who still sticks in my mind the most for her claim a few years back that men are oppressed when women refuse to have sex with them – Such sex positive! Much feminist! (I promise this is the only time I will do that meme!).
On men being discriminated against by feminist groups that won’t allow them voting rights, that isn’t the only example of discrimination. Another eg would be political feminists that do not have relationships with men on the basis that they are the historical ‘oppressor’, regardless of their personal position/relation to gender equality.
Read her comment in full and see if you can spot any difference between her and your common or garden MRA.
Anyway, her profile on the Guardian says: “Nichi Hodgson is [...] director of the Ethical Porn Partnership,” Oh dear, I thought, I better see what that’s about, expecting another game of ‘spot the difference’ between ‘ethical’ porn and ‘regular’ porn (beyond the tattoos and piercings), but what I found instead was this:
In eight months they (/she?) have not been able to find a single piece of ‘ethical porn’ to blog about!
The bumph on the front page is all very nice:
The EPP wants to challenge the notion all porn is exploitative. Instead, we want to collectively establish ‘best practice’ for the industry, while proving that it’s possible to advocate the health, welfare and working rights of those involved in its production, and offer consumers high-quality, original content made to certain ethical standards.
The EPP will also channel funds to anti-trafficking, anti-sexual violence and sex education initiatives, as well as taking an unequivocal stand on condemning child abuse imagery, and all non-consensual sexually explicit material, such as so-called ‘revenge porn’.
But it’s no good if you can’t find any of this so-called ‘ethical’ porn!
I like the claim that they’ll ‘channel funds’ to anti-trafficking initiatives; my guess is they have no funds at present. And hang on, I thought trafficking was made up by radical feminists? What’s going on here then, did she forget and accidentally let slip that trafficking is, in fact, real?
she “want[s] to collectively establish ‘best practice’ for the industry”, but it seems the industry doesn’t care!
Don’t worry Nichi, it will still look good on your CV!
An “egalitarian” is someone who, realizing that a scale is imbalanced because there are six pounds on one side and twelve on the other, seeks to correct the imbalance by adding six pounds to both sides.
The people who reblogged this have no idea what an egalitarian is. [...]
Here’s the thing, Sparky. When I said “egalitarian,” including the quotes, it was not in reference to people who genuinely believe in equality and – and this part is important – have given thought to what that actually entails. it was in reference to people who call themselves egalitarian, who are almost exclusively people who say things like, “Feminists and MRAs are both bad!” and, “Why are you talking about police brutality against black people? Why not police brutality against all people? You’re a racist! Let’s not see color!” It’s white boys who love to be contrarian for the sake of feeling above everyone else. Same type of eyeroll-inducing idiots who say that Democrats and Republicans are the exact same party.
Egalitarianism as a movement (using that term very loosely) is so intellectually and practically lazy that it makes armchair activism look like armed insurrection. When your movement’s only actions are pretending you see everyone equally, pretending that is the mechanism by which the rest of the world will change, and talking about how your movement is better than others in the same niche that actually dedicate effort to change, your movement is a joke.
This was a kind of grooming. These ideas primed me not to value myself as a lesbian or as a female. They showed me that there was no future in being a woman. They taught me that if I wanted to matter I would have to be an exception. I would have to add something to myself, because as is, I was lacking. When I got to college I was ripe for the ravages of queer theory. I’d heard it all before in catchy songs. Everything from genderqueer bullshit to the idea that “the only way out is through so you have to do s/m to recover from sexual abuse.”
Dominant culture on one side; supposedly “transgressive” subculture on the other. Two such disparate groups delivering the same devastating message: You Are Zero. Because they don’t agree on anything else, you seem to be the common denominator. It must be true, then. It must be true.
But it was the biggest lie. I was never the common denominator. The common denominator was outright misogyny.
The s/m concept of “vanilla” sex is sex devoid of passion. They are saying that there can be no passion without unequal power. That feels very sad and lonely to me, and destructive. The linkage of passion to dominance/subordination is the prototype of the heterosexual image of male-female relationships, one which justifies pornography. Women are supposed to love being brutalized. This is also the prototypical justification of all relationships of oppression — that the subordinate one who is “different” enjoys the inferior position.
“The appropriation of BDSM imagery is problematic”
“you have a rape culture that started by borrowing from BDSM’s imagery without reading its rules.”
I cannot believe how ridiculously stupid this is. I cannot believe that post ended up on my dash without criticism.
You really do have to laugh at how ignorant tumblr-tots are (people who, like the above quoted by Pomeranian Privilege, very obviously have no real world experience, and get all their ‘knowledge’ from other know-nothing tumblr-tots).
Rape culture is not a fashion or a ‘scene’ or a sub-culture like goths or bronies, it’s a description of patriarchy, of the status quo, of which there is no outside to get to; it’s the air we have to breath in every day.
If someone can’t understand that much, they have no business commenting at all.