The endless shielding of femininity from criticism is getting really boring and it’s obvious that the people who keep waxing lyrical about being ~badass feminine feminists are getting desperate to maintain their delusions of idiotic fake bullshit “empowerment.” There’s an ongoing stream of posts stating that wearing makeup, shaving your legs, and liking pink dresses doesn’t mean you aren’t a true feminist. That you can be both feminine and a strong, smart, or successful woman. That being a traditionally feminine woman doesn’t mean you don’t deserve respect.
Now, all of these things are true. If you’re into being feminine, good for you, do what you want. But why do you need reassurance, in feminist spaces of all places, that it’s okay to be feminine? When you turn on the television, there are countless ads telling you that the cosmetics you use make you look young and pretty. When you watch movies and tv shows, you see stories that consistently drive home the idea that for women, feminine beauty is the key to success (and success is often measured by the ability to land a man). When you went to school, you learned that good girls are quiet, polite, well-mannered, and undemanding. While growing up and interacting with peers, you learned that partaking in beauty and fashion rituals is a rite of passage into womanhood. All around you, everywhere you go, all kinds of people talk about how nasty girls are when they don’t shave, how “manly” unfeminine women are, how it’s such a “turn-off” when women speak and act in ways that are associated with and more acceptable for men.
The support and promotion of femininity is a backlash against a totally preconceived set of social beliefs and attitudes that doesn’t exist. Gender non-conforming women do not dominate the feminist movement nor the world at large, they are not widely praised and rewarded for their nonconformity, and their voices and experiences are routinely ignored. There is no similar amount of support for unfeminine girls and women, especially butch lesbians, who go through their lives being told that “real women” are thin, attractive, feminine, and pleasing to men. In fact femininity is so often conflated with womanhood that gender non-conforming women are frequently accused of misogyny (or even of being men!) for rejecting femininity and beauty standards.
Not all feel-good, encouraging messages need to be given the same amount of emphasis and importance. Gender-conforming women don’t need to be coddled and consoled and reassured that they’re still good, acceptable women/feminists because everyone already tells them that everywhere, all the time! Feminism needs to start supporting gender non-conforming girls and women and spreading the message that NOT being feminine doesn’t make you ugly or disgusting or less of a woman.
Use your brain. Do an experiment. Stop shaving, wearing makeup, buying expensive/unnecessary accessories, wearing uncomfortable clothes/shoes, smiling when you’re not really pleased, hiding what you really think, and being flirtatious or accommodating or in any other way appealing to men for a period of time. Sounds terrible right? That’s because you know that people–especially men–perceive and treat you differently when you don’t do what they want/expect you to do.
On a last note, this “weaponised femininity” bullshit needs to be thrown in the trash where it belongs. Your gender conformity does not give you the power to take down a patriarchal system that enforces gender and punishes nonconformity. You can stop assuaging men’s fears about women rejecting their assigned gender with your promises to conform to it and assuring yourself that you’re not one of those ugly, stern, uptight, “masculine” feminists. Stop acting as if you’re being victimised by hordes of gender non-conforming women just because someone said that your lipstick and high heels aren’t intimidating to men. Stop being an idiot.
Patriarchy is a caste system which takes humans who are born biologically male or female and turns them into the social classes called men and women. Male people are made into men by socialization into masculinity, which is defined by a psychology based on emotional numbness and a dichotomy of self and other. This is also the psychology required by soldiers, which is why we don’t think you can be a peace activist without being a feminist.
Female socialization in patriarchy is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims. Femininity is a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission.
We see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. Patriarchy is a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power, and we want to see it dismantled so that the category of gender no longer exists. This is also our position on race and class. The categories are not natural: they only exist because hierarchical systems of power create them. We want a world of justice and equality, where the material conditions that currently create race, class, and gender have been forever overcome.
QotD: “Maybe consider not referring to an abusive, misogynistic, violent industry as a synonym for enjoyment”
it’d be cool if buzzfeed and others would stop referring to anything that’s appealing or aesthetically pleasing as “porn”. Like, a high res photo of a chocolate chip cookie? Food porn. A box that fits well into another box? organizational porn. A well stocked library? book porn. Maybe consider not referring to an abusive, misogynistic, violent industry as a synonym for enjoyment.
The fantasy of porn is not fully depicted, it is not identical with the ‘content’ of representation, it is to be completed by the active subject, the viewer-hero of the representation.
The pleasure is more fully realizable under the sole control of the subject, through the total objectification of the ‘object’
Kappeler, S. 1986, “Subjects, Objects and Equal Opportunities”, The Pornography of Representation, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.48-60 (digital edition)
As a socialist and women’s rights activist who continues to be perplexed, gob-smacked and horrified by the seemingly growing orthodoxy in left and feminist circles that Ekman entitles, “the story of the sex worker”, by which she means a sanitising of the sex industry and a justification for men buying sex, I felt a gushing sense of relief and also gratitude to the author while reading this enormously accessible, sharp and erudite book that looks at both the questions of prostitution and surrogacy.
Ekman puts both prostitution and surrogacy in the context of patriarchal capitalism; both of the hugely profitable sex and surrogacy industries commodify women’s bodies (the majority of the time it’s women in prostitution, in all cases with surrogacy) such that, as opposed to selling her labour or a service, women are forced to sell a part of themselves because there is no Cartesian dualism between the body and mind that are of course, inextricably linked. This means, Ekman contends, that the women often need to create a ‘split self’ for survival, such is the alienation this ‘reification’ causes. Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish left activist and academic who cites feminist and Marxist influences on her thinking.
In Being and Being Bought, Ekman demolishes the argument that prostitution is a job like any other, perpetuated by some lefts, feminists and academics whose pro-prostitution stance sanitises the sex industry. Ekman rails against the post-modern, abstract, theorising that views prostitution as either; (a) just a normal job (b) a sign of a powerful entrepenuer business woman (c) a form of rebellion against the status quo; all of which ignore the reality that women and girls in prostitution have a death rate forty times higher than average, and that, according to the widest ever international research done on prostitution, 89% wished to leave it.
Why is this view postmodern? It’s postmodern as it fits eerily slickly into a neo-liberal paradigm in which there are no victims of inequality, class division, sexism, racism, privatisation, the accumulation of wealth by a tiny elite, etc. There is no oppression. In the case of prosititution there are just individuals expressing themselves sexually. To question this or make a value judgement is to be an anti-sex prude. Except this is not reality. Class inequality and sexism do exist. Victims of oppression do exist.
Ekman describes Prostitution at its most basic level in this way; “Money may get the buyer ‘consent’ and even fake appreciation during the act, but it only highlights the fact that the other party has sex even though s/he does not really want to… If there were mutual desire, there wouldn’t be any payment – and we all know it. Prostitution is therefore an enemy of sexual liberation, of lust, and of free will.” Those who obscure this fact, often do so while yelling about turning those in prostitution into victims, and therefore taking away their agency. As Ekman articulates clearly, being a victim is not a character trait. It simply denotes someone who is victimised by someone or something. Workers in the public sector can be victims of austerity, and also through collective action, agents in fighting it. Women in abusive relationships are victims of their partner’s violence and abuse and can also be unionised workers, anti-austerity campaigners and/or actively seeking assistance to get out of the abusive relationship.
Ekman writes that “the neoliberal order hates victims”, that “if there are no victims, there can be no perpetrators. The unmentionables, the men, are completely exonerated…” and she sardonically declares that “It is worse than any other physical or psychological violation to speak of her as subjugated – only then does she become a victim.”.
How is this postmodern argument constructed? Firstly, by purporting to come via the mouths of prostitutes/sex workers themselves. Ekman carefully lays bare the revision of history that has been perpetrated in Sweden by those who have tried to claim that those who campaigned for the criminalising of the buyers of sex, and to decriminalise the selling of sex, did so while ignoring prostitutes. Ekman explains that the Malmo project of the 1970s, progressive research into the sex industry that was an inspiration to the later social movement against the industry, precisely listened to prostitutes, and recorded their experiences, as well as those of the ‘johns’.
Just like the reality that Ekman delineates regarding many of the so-called sex workers’ unions, the truth is that many of those claiming to be listening to sex workers, are in fact didactic ideologues who, whatever their motivation, are working in the interests of the sex industry. For example, Laura Agustin, author of Sex on the Margins, who was invited to speak at the Dublin Anarchist Bookfair organised by the WSM in Spring 2013, goes so far in the denial of victims as she listens to the sex workers, that she actually either denies or justifies sex trafficking. Ekman quotes her as follows:
“The relationship involving women who live inside sex establishments and rarely leave until they are moved to another place without being consulted receives the media’s usual attention, it being taken for granted that this represents a total loss of freedom. In many cases, however, migrant workers prefer this situation, for any number of reasons: if they don’t leave the premises they don’t spend money; if they don’t have working papers, they feel safer inside in a controlled sitution; if someone else does the work of finding new venues and making arrangements, they don’t have to do it…”
Incidentally, the talk she gave at the WSM organised event was billed as a Q&A session, and when I attended and tried to make some points in opposition to Agustin (after speaker after speaker from the floor heaped gushing praise on her) and ask a question, I was shouted down by Agustin and the chairperson as was unable to finish my point. This incredible sanitising of the sex industry sinks into other murky waters in the quest to deny the existence of victims of prostitution. Ekman also gives examples of queer theorists, who, in their neoliberal, individualistic blindness, actually claim that men from the global North who are sex tourists in the global South are rebelliously transgressing sexual norms, as opposed to engaging in a sexist, racist act as they use their relative power and wealth to use a poor woman, man or child.
Heather Montgomery, an anthopologist who researched the sex industry in Thailand, was similarly hesitant about making any value judgement about men who buy young children for sex, for fear of oppressing the children. “The children that I knew”, says Montgomery, “did have a ‘sense of decision and control’… The search for victims of child abuse sometimes obscures the acknowledgement of children’s agency.”. Montgomery even goes so far as to say, while acknowledging the bruises, the drug abuse, and the STDs that many of these children suffered, she felt that it wasn’t possible to apply Western models of psychology to these children, and therefore raised a question mark over whether this abuse affected them negatively.
This is the path that the neo-liberal denial of victims takes you, all wrapped up in a ‘we speak for sex-workers and you just want to rescue them’, bow. This is common currency. In a recent edition of Rabble, a relatively popular Irish left-wing magazine, an article entitled “Saving in the name of scrub”, penned by Katie Garrett was billed as sex-workers speaking out. Prostitution was treated with such levity that apparently “some people might personally find the notion of paying, or being paid for, the ride a wee bit icky”, and Rachel Moran, a survivor of prostitution whose book, Paid For was a bestseller at the time of writing, was unsurprisingly not asked to contribute to this serious expose of the sex industry.
Often lefts justify their sanitising of the sex industry on the grounds that if prostitutes / sex workers organise in trade unions then the worst exploitation can be diminished, and therefore that the key demand that the Left should make is for unionisation of prostitutes / sex workers. Ekman gives a whole host of examples that illustrate the problematic nature of making this a central demand, as many organisations that claim to be sex workers’ trade unions are nothing of the sort – either they have such a tiny membership that they are entirely insignificant – such as the Dutch ‘de Rode Draad’ that according to Ekman’s research has about 100 members, a fraction of those engaged in prostitution in Holland, and has never engaged itself in any industrial dispute – or else they openly have bosses / pimps either in the union or supporting it. The IUSW in Britain, claims to be a sex workers’ union. However, of its 150 members, at least one prominent one is Douglas Fox who is co-owner of one of Britain’s largest escort companies.
Incidentally the Dutch Brothel Owners’ Association has a link to ‘de Rode Draad’ on its website. Organisations that contain bosses are not unions. Ekman also gives chilling examples of the way in which some such organisations, if they fundamentally don’t oppose the sex industry, end up accepting and negotiating, instead of fighting against and opposing all the worst aspects of this vile industry. For example, she cites a South African sex worker organisation that advises prostitutes / sex workers to toss a shoe under the client’s bed in order to have an excuse to check for weapons.
Ekman is also unimpressed with large state and EU funding for a number of organisations that she deems as ‘pro-prostitution’, that sprang up in the 1990s, with the development of a HIV/AIDs epidemic. Organisations like COYOTE and TAMPEP, Ekman contends, focus almost solely on teaching prostitutes about condom use and have no facilities to aid anyone in prostitution to get out of it, if they so wish. For Ekman, it’s an example of how the so-called ‘harm reduction’ approach is often more inclined towards reducing the harm for potential clients of the industry, and therefore an assist to the sex industry moguls, more than a charitable assist for prostitutes. One Austrialian state-sponsored ‘harm reduction’ brochure advises prostitutes to “always act like you enjoy it”, and the Australian sex worker organisation, the Scarlet Alliance, similarly advises prostitutes to continue to seek to arouse a man if he is getting aggressive as the best way to avoid being attacked, because bruises “can force you into having time off work, in turn losing more money”.
The classic trap for any revolutionary is always, “What’s your alternative?” But even if you could provide the interrogator with a blueprint, this does not mean he would use it: in most cases he is not sincere in wanting to know. In fact this is a common offensive, a technique to reflect revolutionary anger and turn it against itself. Moreover, the oppressed have no job to convince all people. All they need know is that the present system is destroying them.
My feminism is not a refuge for men who had patriarchy backfire on them.
Blackvulva (original post not found)
QotD: “When fear and despair produce acquiescence and acquiescence is taken to mean consent, consent is not a meaningful concept”
When fear and despair produce acquiescence and acquiescence is taken to mean consent, consent is not a meaningful concept.
It’s not only the ‘dead eye’ shit that they enjoyed, it was because expressing any other emotion basically just made it difficult for them. I cried and I made it ‘difficult for them’, I showed anything positive and I was ‘mocking them’, both things that would ultimately make it worse for me.
There were a few occasions where I was expected to and encouraged to show any kind of emotion was during BDSM scenes when they clearly wanted me to cry and scream out and show pain, even if I’d been explicitly told not to, because at the end of the day, me showing emotion during BDSM scenes after being commanded not to gave them an excuse to ‘punish’ me further.
The other occasion was when they needed me to be… more involved. When they wanted me to be a ‘slut’ and a ‘whore’ and ‘enjoy’ it. I had to go from ‘sexy’, ‘come hither’ eyes to ‘dead eyes’ quite a lot. Which honestly wasn’t that hard. I got good enough faking it to get through the first part of scenes and zoning out and glazing over and becoming so dissociated whilst they were actually raping me happened so naturally that I pretty much always achieved ‘dead eyes’.
I haven’t really thought about this before, but it is really fucked up.
I think what’s even more fucked up is how it just really didn’t take me long to learn exactly what they wanted. I could tell within a minute or so of being with a client what it is that they needed and wanted to be able to get off or what was expected from various scenes.