Things are on hold here for a little bit while I recover from some nastiness in my life. It seems like everyone is going on hiatus - but it’s that time of year I suppose. Sorry I’ve been absent, I’m not feeling well and am focusing on getting better. I will try to throw up some links here soon, but the real content is on hold for a little while. Sorry!
This was posted on Feministing recently, with absolutely no mention of the racial dimensions of this billboard. When people brought it up in the comments, the vast majority of posters disagreed with them. I shouldn’t be surprised that feministing has dropped the ball on race yet again, but this seems so obvious to me that I can’t believe anyone would deny the real message this billboard is sending.
I realized these posts are going to be quite long, so I’m going to post my reviews in installments, cutting them off when they seem to be getting too long. That seems like the easiest way to do this.
The day started with Rebecca Whisnant’s paper on the challenges pro-pornography 3rd wave feminism poses for a feminist anti-pornography movement. But rather than just lament the problems with 3rd wave feminism, Whisnant uses this opportunity to articulate a clear distinction between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. She argues that viewing the difference as solely generational is a mistake. There is a fundamental difference between the 2 waves that isn’t reflected in current literature. In 3rd wave feminism, she argues, there is a reluctance to speak for other women, and thus, most of the arguments about what counts as feminist revolve around the choice of the women directly involved. Therefore, if a woman chooses to appear in pornographic material, that choice is necessarily feminist. Members of the 2nd wave believed that women shared a common condition, and as they began to uncover the political implications of their private lives, they felt very strongly that their personal decisions had much broader implications for women everywhere. Because of these divergent views about what constitutes feminist action, 2nd and 3rd wave feminists developed very different reactions to pornography. In fact, it seems like the 3rd wave arguments are less about pornography and more about personal freedom and autonomy. But those concepts are not uncomplicated. To say that something was autonomously chosen is so complex and contingent that it becomes a meaningless statement. These accounts rarely take into account the full weight of coercion, adaptive preferences, economic and social inequality, and a whole host of other factors that constrain one’s autonomy. We’ve been talking a lot in one of my classes about feminism being similar to membership in a union. In certain situations, you may be asked to give up something that is personally beneficial because your rejection of it works to the advantage of the entire group. This example was offered in our discussion of marriage, but I think fits somewhat into the pornography debate. However, this argument assumes that participation in the porn industry is beneficial to some women, and that’s a dicey claim I don’t really agree with. It can be economically beneficial, but to the extent that much participation in pornography is fueled by one’s own experiences with child sexual abuse I’m inclined to say that it isn’t beneficial. Regardless, the fact remains that the existence of pornography and the porn industry impact the lives of all women, and taking that into consideration is something that distinguishes 2nd wave feminism from 3rd wave feminism. She points to the distinction between liberal and radical feminism as another way to understand the difference, arguing that 3rd wave feminists favor liberal feminism while the second wave is radical. This is a problem, though, because a lot of the members of the 3rd wave identify as radical feminist while promoting and advocating a liberal feminist agenda (is anyone else uncomfortable about the cover of Feministing blogger Jessica Valenti’s new book, Full Frontal Feminism?).
One of Whisnant’s suggestions for trying to raise awareness about pornography in a culture that is absolutely saturated in pornographic material is to challenge the belief that commodification is linked to freedom. Feminists must promote a view of human freedom that is contrary to the commodification of everyday life. This works specifically against claims that participation in the pornography industry is liberating. Whisnant rightly challenges the idea that because something is recorded and bought and sold it is liberating. I think this also has to do with the work Gail Dines has done on the importance of imagery - that there is a pervasive belief that to be represented or recorded as an image is liberating or positive in some way.
This is an argument that had never occurred to me, and was one of the most important things I took away from Whisnant’s paper. I’ve always felt like there was something not right with the claim that pornography and sexual exhibitionism is liberating, but I couldn’t really articulate it. This makes a lot of sense to me. Why does the fact that it’s public and can be bought and sold necessarily make it liberating? In fact, that’s part of my frustration - it seems like things done for money are usually less free than things I choose to do without an eye to compensation - and furthermore, I make the rules in those situations.
There was so much more in Whisnant’s paper worth discussing, but I feel like I should probably end this now. More on the rest of the conference later.
I just wanted to say that I’m working on collecting my notes and thoughts on the Pornography and Pop Culture conference - I’ll likely have something up by this weekend. It was really inspiring and I have a lot to say, I just have to catch up on some of my homework first.
I’m getting ready to go the conference on Pornography and Pop Culture in Boston, and I mentioned that I was going there on an all-female listserv that I’m a member of. There was a small discussion of porn going on, but my letter was more of a “I’m going to be in town for this conference - I’d like to meet up with those of you who live there” kind of post (it’s a small list, and a lot of us have met up before). This is the reply someone posted:
“If you’re deadset against porn, read the study Linda Williams made. A real eye opener. I consider myself a feminist and a pro-pron. Actually I think it’s a given that I defend porn. Being anti-porn has its roots in catholic conservatism, in my opinion, a lot to do with the fact that women should not enjoy porn/sex.
That’s all I’ll say cause it’s a lot like religion: a war quickly ensues. ;-)”
There are so many things that infuriate me about this post, I don’t even know where to begin. More than anything, I am upset by the suggestion that being anti-porn is necessarily linked to bodily shame. My opposition to porn has absolutely nothing to do with the way I feel about my body or whether or not I enjoy sex. My opposition to porn has to do with the way it presents women, the violence it both enacts AND provokes/encourages, and the predatory nature of the industry. MY ISSUE, to be clear, has to do with the sexual victimization of women both in the production and consumption of pornography.
Also, I feel like the nature of her post is pretty arrogant. In calling pro-pornography studies “eye-opening,” she seems to be telling me that my opinion is pretty predictable and old-fashioned, and if only I learned about the liberating power of pornography I would truly come to understand feminism. It seems to me, however, that pornography embodies a lot of themes of catholic (and christian) history: hatred of women, the appropriation of women’s wealth, humiliation of women and the destruction of women’s bodies (just to name a few). But I’m the one stuck in a catholic, patriarchal mindset?
Some mildly graphic material to follow, so please click only if you feel alright about reading it.
It seems like everything I read acknowledges that the feminist movement and the anti-racism movement aren’t going to get anywhere unless they combine in a more meaningful way. When we talked about this in my philosophy of race class, though, the professor said that this statement assumes the movements want different things to begin with. But I don’t think it’s insane to say that the feminist movement isn’t always working explicitly for the liberation of people of color or that the anti-racism movement isn’t always working explicitly for the liberation of women. And as far as I can tell, there is a lot written about how a narrow focus on the liberation of women will always fail women of color. So far, I haven’t read anything that really explores what this means. If the two movements need to combine, what would that even look like? It seems to me like it would need an entirely new name if it were truly a combined movement. And then I worry that it would need to be a name that is much broader, like “anti-oppression” which is meaningful, but loses some of the power that “feminism,” “anti-racism,” and “black power” carry. And it would surely shift priorities of both movements around. Furthermore, if we increase the scope of the movement, the magnitude of the task becomes overwhelming (as if they aren’t overwhelming enough on their own). But if we don’t, then we end up just devoting ourselves to the liberation of white women.
At this point I feel like I should take advantage of the spike in readership and ask for recommendations - who addresses these questions? I’ve read some hooks, Collins, Crenshaw, and a significant amount of standpoint theory at this point, and so far I haven’t figured out what is being proposed. What are some of the options? And if I’m missing something, where am I going wrong?
I just wanted to hop on here real fast and register my disappointment with BitchPhD for taking a job at Suicide Girls.
And while I’m registering disappointment, I’m also very disappointed with Feministing’s dismissive attitude toward feminists who oppose pornography and their endorsement of stripping and pornography as empowering. I’ve only been reading the site for a few months now, so maybe I’m wrong, but that message seems to have been conveyed more than once, along with notes of hostility toward feminists who believe otherwise.
I keep these two on my links because I read them, and generally I agree with what they’re saying. But these are big issues for me, and I do not agree with their treatment of them.
Erin and I have been talking a little lately about whether or not men can be feminists. I am pretty conflicted about this, not because I think that most men that identify as feminists actually are (frequently, the ones I meet definitely are NOT), but because I do think that there are male feminists (however few there may be) and because of my frustrations with the label “Pro-Feminist” that many men use.
First things first: Men Who Think they are Feminist but Really Aren’t:
I don’t think this idea is new to anyone who subscribes to the brand of feminism that I do. Of course, there’s the casual identification (i.e. “Hey, I’m a feminist. I love women!”). I take this about as seriously as people who want to debate pornography and use the word “research” to mean “masturbate to pornography.” News flash: that’s not what I mean when I say research, asshole.
Then there are men who really believe they are feminist, but make comments that demean women, or that subtly betray an anti-woman bias. I’m having a hard time of thinking of examples, but generally this amounts to a superficial kind of feminism. For example, someone who would never say that they discriminate against women, but then comment about a woman’s appearance in a discussion of her character. This doesn’t just mean saying someone is hot or attractive or sexy, but also, when talking about someone they don’t like or agree with, say something about her weight, makeup, perceived lack of attractiveness, etc. These descriptions don’t usually accompany retellings of disagreements with man (although I suppose they can). Also someone who tells you that they took offense to a misogynist joke being passed around the workplace, gym, etc, but when pressed, admit that he didn’t actually SAY anything about the joke being offensive. This can show an ideological commitment to feminism, but a failure to actually put one’s ass on the line. Thanks but no thanks.
2. Genuine Male Feminists
Without doing tons of research just for a blog post (I have a lot of homework that I’m putting off right now) I can name one person that I think, without a doubt, is worthy and deserving the title “Feminist” without any caveats about the fact that he’s a man. John Fucking Stoltenberg. This man is absolutely, positively feminist. He has really done a lot to divest himself of male privilege (which seems to be done by lecturing about and writing extremely controversial feminist books that actively oppose masculinity and male dominance in a deep, meaningful way). It also seems to me that he has paid dearly for it (though I’m not sure he would see it that way). His relationship with Andrea Dworkin is inspiring, and his support of and loyalty to her mission is really important. I’m not sure if he identifies as Feminist or Pro-Feminist, but either way I have no reservations calling him a feminist. His books, “Refusing to Be a Man” and “The End of Manhood” are must-reads.
3. Pro-Feminist vs Feminist
I am a little nervous about men who identify as pro-feminist because it seems that, rather than a nod to women’s specialized knowledge of patriarchy and male dominance, it functions as a way of distancing oneself from the feminist movement. “Pro-Feminist” seems to be both an association with a movement and a dissociation from the movement (on the grounds that “feminist” is not always a positive term). So if I’m pro-feminist and not feminist, i’m saying that I support their main ideas but don’t necessarily participate in the movement. I know that some people don’t view the term this way, but I’ve always been a little uneasy about that identification. I think some of this also comes from the women I’ve met who identify as pro-feminist or who agree with feminism but avoid using the term feminist.
I think that prizing women’s place in the movement is positive and important, but at the same time, there are many women who identify as feminist whose ideals think make them pretty un-feminist. “Feminists for Life” for example, “Sex-Positive” and “Pro-Pornography” feminists as well. While many feminists disagree with their stance, we don’t take issue with the use of the word “feminist” in the same way that we take issue with it in men. That is, when I say that “Feminists for Life” isn’t particularly feminist, I’m not saying that they can’t be feminist because they lack certain experiential knowledge that is required for that identification. I’m saying that because their arguments and beliefs don’t align with important feminist values, they can’t be properly understood as feminist.
I have run out of things to say about this. In short, I don’t think it’s fair to restrict the word “feminist” to women, but I don’t think that where we are right now warrants the word being applied to more than a handful of men.
I will be in Boston for a conference March 22 - 27 (the conference is just from the 23 - 25). It’s called Pornography and Pop Culture: Reframing Theory, Re-thinking Activism, and one of my old professors from UD will be there as well. I’m not presenting or anything, I just thought it would be really interesting to go. Also, they are work-shopping a new pornography education slideshow - and everyone will receive a copy of the slideshow and the script that goes with it so they can be pornography educators in their communities.
Here’s some general information about the conference, and here is an agenda.
It’s also free if anyone else wants to go - and it looks like they provide housing if you need it.
I’m really excited to go, both because I think the conference will be really interesting and I get to stay with one of my close friends and see Boston again. Although, if I’m to be completely honest, I have a lot of anxiety about going back to Boston. I miss it so much, and it’s constantly on my mind, but some really awful things happened there, too. And being back in the apartment I lived in and back in the neighborhood is likely to be a little upsetting. And I know it will make being in Lansing so much worse and even less tolerable.
Though the conference is a ways off yet, I’ve been thinking about it a lot and am very excited about it - and of course I’m sure I’ll have a ton of things to talk about afterwards.
ALSO I made my spring break plans - 3 days in Kansas City (I WILL be seeing Kara this time) and 5 days in NYC with my brother. And while I’m there I might get to see Tom Stoppard’s Coast of Utopia - but that’s still up in the air. I really really really hope it works out, though.
EDIT: Just as a note of things to come - I’m trying to put together some thoughts on standpoint theory. But that’s been kind of difficult, as I’m never really sure what to say about it. But in any case, I haven’t forgotten about this blog. I’m just thinking a lot.
The other day I was sitting in the grad lounge at school using the computer and there was a travel mug of coffee or something sitting next to the computer. A grad student had just left, and he came back in for his coffee mug. I was sitting at the computer and I felt very bad for not having tracked him down and returned his mug. So as he reached for his mug I said “I’m sorry.” After he walked out it struck me as absolutely ridiculous that I apologized for this - and since then I’ve decided to keep an apology journal. Actually, it’ll be more of a list - I just want to keep track of how often I apologize and the kinds of things I apologize for.
unrelated apology story:
My senior year I had grant money to study with a brilliant professor in Baltimore for 2 weeks. I was very intimidated by the whole situation, and as a result I acted like an awkward moron for the entire 2 weeks. He told me a number of times that I apologize too much and that I should stop apologizing (and I, of course, would respond by apologizing and then feel like an idiot). One night I had to call him and leave a message about changing the time of our meeting the next day. Halfway through the message I apologized for something - probably for not being able to meet with him at the scheduled time - and something came over me - and I thought it would be really funny to cut own apology off by shouting “NO. STOP APOLOGIZING! I’M DONE APOLOGIZING!” After I shouted this I immediately hung up the phone. After that, I realized that the message I had left sounded COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY BATSHIT INSANE. I was so embarrassed that I thought about calling back and trying to figure out his voicemail code so I could delete the message. The next day I was horrified to see him, but thankfully he didn’t say anything like “good god you’re a lunatic.” I would not be surprised if that voicemail was forwarded to a few people. I am still embarrassed by this. However, after all that, it’s still only the 2nd most embarrassing voicemail of my life. The 1st involves me whispering my fears of alien abduction into an answering machine for a daytime television talk show.
