Feminists Oppressing Billion-Dollar Industry, news at 11

[sam]

This is kinda blogcentric so if you're not a blog reader some of it may be lost on you, but I think it's a superb commentary and something I've been thinking of lately. What kind of "feminist sex wars" are there really when the 'sides' are so completely lopsided it's more like the US invading Iraq than Trojans and Greeks fighting as equals beneath the walls of Troy? -sam

From amananta's blog Screaming into the Void


Marginalized Feminist Bloggers Oppressing Billion-Dollar International Industry, News at 11

July 19th, 2006

There are some people whom I just want to ask - ‘Did you ever hear of the phrase “I think the gentleman doth protest too much?’”

It starts with this badly-written-and-yes-you’ve-heard-this-whine-before article by someone I’ve never heard of before. Apparently Twisty Faster, in between going through major operations, has declared war on all those happy women who just want to have sex freely, but can’t because of all the times they are being “excoriated and berated” for their “sexual choices.” Funny - in the now infamous “blow job post”, Twisty doesn’t berate any women at all - she essentially says blow jobs are disgusting. Gee, it’s her blog, this is America, she’s allowed to say such a thing, right?

But little did we know, oh radical feminist bloggers - who probably make up something like 0.5% of the entire blogosphere, if that much - that merely making such a statement on our personal blog is enough to oppress women everywhere! Because we all know there’s simply no place a woman can find approval for serving men sexually, ha ha ha ha ha. No, there aren’t thousands and thousands (millions?) of websites devoted to female submission and BDSM and fantasies about rape, forced fellatio, and the like. Poor oppressed Bussel can only have her praise of be published in a widely read publication like The Village Voice, with a monthly reading list of over 2 million.

But for some reason, Bussel can only come up with one woman’s blog and two books as evidence for her assertion that sex is under siege from prudish feminist man haters. The other person she cites as an anti-sex feminist prude is an anti-feminist rabbi, which lends questionability to the rest of her research. She has plenty to say throughout the article about how bad all those sex-hating feminists are, but only two tiny quotes which don’t say anything about women being bad for liking sex. What are these other books about? I had to look them up, having not read them, to see what kind of man-hating prudery was going on there. What I found was a criticism of a sex saturated culture - something I have been hearing about America for years, and for which many foreign people despise us. I don’t see anything in any of the brief reviews I read that suggest these books attack women. Bussel doesn’t provide any such quotes either - I guess I am supposed to take her word for it.

Moving right along, Amanda at Pandagon does a snarky analysis of this truly stupid column. She points out that Bussel has little upon which to base her assertion that many feminists hate sex and want to create a politically correct way to have sex and ostracize all women who do not follow their laws. After repeatedly asking for evidence of ANYONE who has such an opinion, someone searched frantically and came up with - Witchy-woo! Congratulations Witchy-woo, you have now won the anti-sex-prude of the week award!

Except - that’s not anything like what she wrote. What she said was, “If you’re pro-pornography or pro-prostitution you are NOT a feminist.” This says not one word about how women choose to have sex for their personal enjoyment. It reveals more about the person saying this is the statement of an anti-sex prude than it does about Witchy-woo. For what it means when someone takes this statement to be criticism of how women choose to enjoy their sex life, is that the person cannot tell the difference between a commercial activity and freely chosen sex. The very definition of a prostitute is someone who has sex for MONEY, not for FUN. Add to this what most “sex positive feminists” choose to ignore about prostitution and porn, which I’ve written about before, and you suddenly get a much different picture. It isn’t feminists protesting happy women exploring their sexuality - its an outcry against horrific, overwhelming sexual abuse of women and girls so that some men can make big bucks and other men don’t ever have to worry about going more than two days without getting the kind of sex they think they deserve just for existing. Yet this was the only quote anyone could come up with showing a radical feminist trying to ruin other women’s sex lives because she is hung up and neurotic.

Then we get into the joyous fun of major hypocrisy. Like the commenter on Witchy-woo’s blog who tells her, “You have absolutely no right to say something like that.” That is very funny coming from someone who states that she is a porn supporter, since the porn supporters are always talking about free speech. Isn’t it funny how free speech only applies in their minds to porn? All critics of porn must be silenced to protect free speech! Or something.

But my favorite hypocrisy of the day is this - that all the “sex positive” crowd talk about how meeeeaaan all us radical feminists are to them, talk about this ENDLESSLY, as if we are the one force keeping them from enjoying their sex lives - with absolutely no back up to show that even radical feminists hate women who have “politically incorrect” sex. That’s right, no back up at all. No one has come up with one verified quote from one single feminist in all this brou-ha-ha that shows even one single woman feels this way. Yet Bussel claims “they see us as airheaded sluts” without reference, and a popular “sex positive” blogger, Mistresse Matisse, makes a histrionic post about how she gets attacked by “outraged feminists” and provides a link as proof - problem is, I can’t find one single comment of an outraged anti-feminist disagreeing with her rudely - in fact, the majority of the posters agree with her and give her verbal pats on the back, and the few dissenters are quite polite - hardly the treatment she says would be worthy of someone who “performed recreational vivisection on puppies and kittens”. Yet Matisse, in her several times of talking about it, only manages to specifically mention 2 occasions on which anyone was rude to her because they were a feminist and she is into S&M - and this somehow indicts an entire movement; meanwhile, Bussel has the following to say about feminists - in just one article: Calls feminists “well-intentioned prudes”, accuses us of “Holier-than-thou pronouncements of sexual superiority”, claims we don’t want to treat her “as an intelligent human being”, says we consider men “brutish horndogs”, claims that “women continue to battle each other over what we do in bed”, and that feminists are guilty of “excoriating other women and berating them”.

So who is really fighting the “sex wars” - a small handful of little-read feminist bloggers who dare say abusing women is wrong? Or a billion dollar porn and prostitution industry which enslaves women and girls around the globe, does its best to squash any dissent, can get a well-placed article in a widely circulated paper any time they like and insult the sexuality of all who oppose them; and that industry’s supporters, who apparently spend their days looking for little corners of the blogosphere for a feminist with an unpopular opinion to shout down? It’s funny that the “sex positive” crowd feels they are the ones who are oppressed, since starting a “sex positive” blog means you are almost guaranteed lots of approval, readership, and praise - yet the handful of blogs made by women who stand up for women and stick to their principles get so burned out by the constant nastiness directed their way that I’ve known three alone who stopped posting or changed their name within the last three months because they could no longer deal with the steady barrage of hate mail and even threats. That’s awfully one-sided for a “war”.

In a world filled with porn mags, porn movies, porn ads on almost every “progressive” or “liberal” news site, an internet filled with porn, bulk email folders overflowing with woman-denigrating porn, why is the large BDSM and “sex radical” community so threatened by what a few women say? (couldn’t possibly be that we hit a nerve, eh?) And why does the free speech argument that is used to excuse the existence of porn (which is often not “speech”, but the photographic evidence of criminal abuse against women and children) suddenly stop applying when a feminist criticizes porn?

[annared]

Superb sam *clap*

My anti pornistution ethos is so strong, I would compare it to trying to persuade a vegetarian that it was ok just to eat one leg of the animal.It could still sorta hop, if you know what i mean.
Sorry these discussions send me slightly loopy

[CoolAunt]

Well, I'm obviously a few days behind the scutterbutt but I'm catching up quickly.

Great article, Sam.

Hmmmm...Has pornstitution and sex become the same thing and nobody told me? I can be anti-pornstitution and continue fucking when I want to, simply because I want to, right? Just razzin' you. It is interesting how the pro-porn feminists have equated pornstitution to sex, just as the patriarchy had done, thousands of years ago (or a long time ago, anyway. )

[delphyne]

I said it on the other thread but I'm not at war with "sex positive" feminists. The fight is with the people (men) who exploit women's bodies sexually and there can't be a truce in that war, only victory.

That's been part of the problem with this issue - anti-pornstitution feminists are fighting patriarchal men, and the "sex-positive" feminists keep trying to trip us up. They really do need to get out of the way.

I haven't seen one "sex positive" feminist complain about the blatant sexism in porn, the fact that 13 years old is the average age of entry into prostitution, the massive sexual exploitation of girls and women in the developing world including imperialistic sex tourism (even though it's us rad fems who are supposed to be the racist imperialists). Not a peep, not a murmur, not a *word* against men. That's what this argument is really about, the fact that they will not criticise men, it's just not going to happen for them.

I know I keep referring to LiveJournal Feminist, but this is a classic example of how "sex positive" feminists react to a story about women being raped in the name of prostitution by British men. Because "sex positivism" rules OK there they don't have to make any concessions (even pretend ones) to the other side -
http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/2360609.html

It makes me laugh my head off that the only people they can see as "imperialists' are western feminists - the legions of sex tourists, the US army bases on foreign soil with soldiers who need access to fuck the female populace completely pass them by, but then again noticing real imperialism would involve criticising men.

[sam]

Boosted for Tracy Clark-Flory's obsequious definitions of "war" and "porn" and the journalistic integrity displayed by her refusal to name the Stop Porn Culture conference or provide a link.

http://www.salon .com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/03/pro_porn_feminists/index.html

Also boosted for some woman calling herself "Violet Blue", a true rebel who has gone flame red over the enormous threat one feminist conference poses to the multibillion dollar industry that is her bread and butter.

http://ourpornourselves .org/

Hat tip to Feministing's event section.

[delphyne]

If I wonder whether you have to wear those oblong hipster glasses frames be a self-proclaimed female porn supporter, is that shallow?

There's always someone feeling oppressed by that conference, poor things.

[StuartM]

It's always depressing to read the comments people leave on these sorts of articles and the complete inability of anyone to understand the real issues involved. It also seems as if almost the entire US feminist movement (apart from a dwindling number of rad fems) aren't any better and have completely bought into a de-politicised individual choice agenda. Even among those who identify as socialists or anarchists there appears to be a complete failure to distinguish between people's own self-determined sexualities and those which are imposed on them by the patriarchal capitalist porn industry. The porn industry therefore becomes synonymous with sexual freedom and radical feminists are seen as evil dictators who are trying to tell people how to have sex (as if that isn't what the sex industry does from the minute we're born). Trying to debate with these people is like trying to speak to a brick wall and of course gets you immediately denounced as an anti-sex, religious fundamentalist, man-hating prude. Who knows what the answer is but until people start challenging the market, the exclusive focus on individual choice and the lack of any understanding that patriarchal structures even exist I don't know how we're going to get anywhere.

[delphyne]

I'd just like to know where the choice mantra got drummed into them. Obviously there's the eighties neocon agenda it comes from originally, but how it made the leap to so many women becoming so sure that feminism is all about their "choices" is beyond me. You see it everywhere, even though it's not like feminism has ever been much of a topic of consideration. Yet people thousands of miles from each other, different ages, from all different kinds of backgrounds are all perfectly certain that all feminism comes down to is choices, particularly of course, anti-feminist choices.

[bluecoat28]

There's always someone feeling oppressed by that conference, poor things.

lol

[sam]

There's always someone feeling oppressed by that conference, poor things.

Not just this conference, every attempt to gather and share data we make. Two years ago I was planning a public forum when a pro-industry woman whined to local media about how we had no pro-prostitution speakers. A co-organizer sent an email inviting her to our meetings, but she ignored it and instead chose to protest our forum with some friends. They stood at the door handing the 300 attendees fliers that defended johns, and inside they made a ruckus about the freedoms of the "street economy."

Then there's this from an article about Elena Kagan:
http://www.politico .com/news/stories/0610/39034.html

A 1993 conference at the University of Chicago Law School on the subject of pornography and hate crimes wasn’t your typical legal seminar.

The gathering of nearly 700 lawyers, scholars and activists sometimes seemed more like a revival meeting for anti-pornography forces than an academic symposium, journalists observed. Protesters beset the event, complaining that it was one-sided and threatened to trample free speech.

Amid that tumult, future Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, then a junior Chicago law professor, gave a well-received, relatively-subdued presentation that would become one of her first and few published law review articles. During a panel discussion, Kagan presented the group with what she portrayed as promising legal strategies to combat the scourge of pornography.

[delphyne]

I think free speech actually stands for rape when people like that are using it. It's their right to rape and enjoy watching rape that's getting them so exercised.

[delphyne]

It's a pretty obvious response but if anti-porn people agreed to allow pro-porn proponents into our conferences or on to our blogs, does that mean that in all porn, there will also have to be a section with someone making anti-pornography arguments?

Because it's porn that has trampled our free speech. Apart from direct violence it is one of the greatest silencing tools out there.

[sam]

I've read that when porn is shown to mixed rooms of women and men, the men get more vocal and the women less.

One minute of Andrea Dworkin before every porn scene would change the world.

[fullhumanity]

It's always depressing to read the comments people leave on these sorts of articles and the complete inability of anyone to understand the real issues involved. It also seems as if almost the entire US feminist movement (apart from a dwindling number of rad fems) aren't any better and have completely bought into a de-politicised individual choice agenda. Even among those who identify as socialists or anarchists there appears to be a complete failure to distinguish between people's own self-determined sexualities and those which are imposed on them by the patriarchal capitalist porn industry. The porn industry therefore becomes synonymous with sexual freedom and radical feminists are seen as evil dictators who are trying to tell people how to have sex (as if that isn't what the sex industry does from the minute we're born). Trying to debate with these people is like trying to speak to a brick wall and of course gets you immediately denounced as an anti-sex, religious fundamentalist, man-hating prude. Who knows what the answer is but until people start challenging the market, the exclusive focus on individual choice and the lack of any understanding that patriarchal structures even exist I don't know how we're going to get anywhere.

Thank you SturarM,you said it all so disturbingly well and true! And pornography does teach people their sexist woman-hating,male dominated male supremacy sick harmful distorted definition and version of sex and then if people are rightfully outraged and against this definition,because pornography is the only popular dominant definition of sexuality,they wrongly think we are against sexuality in general.There is no equal eroctic alternatives in a sexist gender dived,gender stereotyped,woman-hating male supremacy society and pornography is mostly the reasons why! It also makes sense that in a patrirachy the sexist gender inequality,male dominance,female submission,female subordination,version of sex would be the popular dominant one,and not an equal one!

[fullhumanity]

It's a pretty obvious response but if anti-porn people agreed to allow pro-porn proponents into our conferences or on to our blogs, does that mean that in all porn, there will also have to be a section with someone making anti-pornography arguments?

Because it's porn that has trampled our free speech. Apart from direct violence it is one of the greatest silencing tools out there.

THat is so true and pro-porn people are sickos,they should really be honest about what being pro-porn means,pro-porn= and really means,pro sexualized -sexist inequality,pro-sexualized woman-hatred,pro-male dominance and female submission and subordination,pro-sexualizing dehumanization and objectification of women for men,pro-harm to women and children,pro-sick distortions of women,men and sexuality,and even male violence!