Genderberg wasn't supposed to host a Carnival of Radical Feminists, but I made my trap and walked into it.
months ago I emailed Heart (aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff) for permission to put a call for future
hosts on the forum with the hope that some blogging members who are
radical feminists would volunteer; not all are radfems. Her reply
unmistakably identified the next open slot as Genderberg's and my inner
stepchild cracked a wry smile at the realization Heart had
misunderstood (or did she? hmm) my intention. She was thrilled with the
idea and then I was stuck.
The pulse-quickening risk of
pushing into unknown internet territories to explore for material was
mostly pleasant. The same will not be said for sifting through the
official carnival entries, but offenders were usually apparent.
the carnival host concept solidified in my noggin, my second thought
was that I wanted to see my favorite essay on prostitution in the next
edition. The problem was that the essay didn't live anywhere online,
only in the book Not for Sale.
I am thrilled to announce author De Clarke has sent me an electronic
version to share, because I have read hundreds of essays on
prostitution and this one stands out for its singular round-up of
crisscrossing issues delivered in mellifluous prose. The addendum on
Abu Ghraib is not only eerily relevant today but a spectacular
explanation for why men make and use pornography.
"Prostitution for everyone: Feminism, globalisation, and the 'sex' industry'" by D.A. Clarke
http://genderberg.com/docs/Prostitution ... ifinal.pdf
the prevailing Market-worship mocks and devalues any suggestion of
altruism; if women fortunate enough to have escaped sexual exploitation
in their own lives demonstrate concern and caring for prostituted
women, they are dismissed as naive, unrealistic idealists and (of
course) 'ideologues.' The 'sexual liberation' pseudo-progressive
ideology then serves to cast women who object to exploitation,
profiteering, coercion and other routine practises of the sex industry
as 'crypto-conservatives,' 'neo-Victorians,' 'anti-sex,' and so forth.
Should either of those barriers fail to discourage the feminist social
critic, the neoliberal dogma is trotted out to prove that, for example,
the woman eating dog food on the floor of Stern's studio is exactly
where she wants to be. Any woman who expresses disgust at the men who
enacted and enjoyed this ritual of humiliation is actually an anti-feminist:
she is denying the agency and choice exercised by this 'liberated'
female, the 'good sport' who is 'tough enough to take it' and needs no
sympathy or interference from well-meaning nannies. Just as, of course,
the poor are quite capable of pulling themselves up by their own
bootstraps and need no insulting assistance from the smothering hands
of Big Government."
Here's what else me and contributors (thank you!) culled together for your reading pleasure.
did the Nazis take pictures and meticulously document the atrocities
committed in the camps? Why did a generation of white hunters take
pictures of themselves standing on wild animals they had shot? Why do
hunters hang trophy heads on their walls? Why did white people take
pictures of lynchings and make them into postcards that were then
collected and traded? Why did GIs in Vietnam collect ears and other
more private body parts from their victims? Why did ‘Indian fighters’
and bounty hunters in the old American West collect body parts from
dead Indians? And – lastly – why do men make documentary pornography?"