Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Postmodern Feminism -- Isn't

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 09:05 PM
Original message
Postmodern Feminism -- Isn't
Feminism, that is. At least not in my book. Here's an example from the Daily Kos "Pie Fight" thread on his site (linked to in the thread about it here in this forum). Kos had commented that The New Gilligan's Island ad on his site which is considered demeaning to women according to some because it features scantily clad women throwing pies at one another has gotten the highest click throughs in the history of his site. One response:

Even Liberals (3.71 / 21)
need a break at times. I think many of us come here so often that just sheer curiousity about this ad sorta makes us want to get out of the daily grind of a political discussion and see what this was about.

I'm a woman, a feminist, and I clicked. A Pie Fight doesn't really bother me. There was always a sexual tension in Gilligan's Island between those two girls. I only got irked because the site kept telling me to choose a format and when I did, it asked me again so it never opened.

Other than that, if two actresses wanna dress up like Mary Jane and Ginger and throw pie at each other, fine. Erotic things do not debase women in my opinion. It's a celebration of feminine sexuality, and was performed by two consenting adult women. They weren't forced to do it. We have such prude people in this country on both sides of the "aisle". If they wanna look "whorish" or "erotic" or whatever, it's up to them!

What debases women is taking away their rights to do that if they want to, or to drive, vote, or have choice over their bodies and lives. Republicans debase women far more than that skit did.

Repressing sexuality creates the freaks that are after judges in the far right, the homophobes and the intolerance of sex on TV. I would rather see that, any day of the week, than the pornography that is supposedly "news", or the wanton violence in the various series. Europe has gotten over sex and nudity on TV, so should we. If we would get OVER it, then a little bit of sexual repartee would not be regarded as "perverse".

It would be seen as it should be seen, normal and HEALTHY. We would recognize what is truly perverse, the violence.

Make Love, Not War!

Joy -- who has been in a couple of pie fights herself.

After Downing Street
My Blog
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/6/1125/10793

==========================================

This woman is seriously confused, but she didn't get there all by herself. She's spouting "the party line" that in my little bit of research comes from postmodern feminist "thought." Ugh.

Erotic things do not debase women in my opinion.
I can't agree with her characterization of this as "erotic." I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder -- there are, after all, men with foot fetishes. Does SHE find it erotic? From the description (I didn't click through), I would have found it puerile, probably, not erotic. But MEN -- as a group (which means there are likely to be exceptions) -- probably would find it erotic. Why are we -- why is SHE -- adopting what's basically a man's perspective on what is erotic? Aren't there things which both sexes could find erotic? That would be more equitable.

It's a celebration of feminine sexuality, and was performed by two consenting adult women.
Uh, not in my book. Women exposing themselves -- a little or a lot -- purely because men like to oogle them is NOT a celebration of feminine sexuality. Not even close.

I'm trying to remember which great feminist (Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworking or perhaps Catherine MacKinnon) drew such a good distinction between the non-mutuality of porn, and an erotica which would be appealing to women because of its mutuality. I thought it was a wonderful notion, but at the time (a couple of decades ago, at least), I thought it was a little light on specifics, but that's been precisely the case with women's issues and rights: It's all new territory. We have to figure it out as we go along. I imagine women have done a pretty good job of figuring it out in the interim -- I don't follow erotica, so don't know. I do know the book clubs are full of women's erotica offerings. I'm hoping they're good.

We have such prude people in this country on both sides of the "aisle". If they wanna look "whorish" or "erotic" or whatever, it's up to them!
We're not talking about prudery. There's a huge difference, and why must that be pointed out to real, self-respecting feminist, anyway? That's the kind of thing MEN like to say to try to deflect the anti-porn and anti-cheesecake discussions so they can hang onto their sexist pleasures. Prudery is: "It's is immoral." Feminism says: "This is demeaning to women. It hurts women because it degrades us as a class."

What debases women is taking away their rights to do that if they want to, or to drive, vote, or have choice over their bodies and lives. Republicans debase women far more than that skit did.
True enough, but what she's MISSING is an appreciation -- a very necessary appreciation -- that the degradation of women who parade around in scanty clothing is part and parcel of the debasing of women SHE talks about. Nor is it an either/or proposition, as if there's only ONE thing that debases women.

When people don't (or can't) take care of their personal privacy or have control over their physical bodies (and sexuality), they are in a one-down position to those who are gawking at them, esp. when that gawking gives the gawkers sexual pleasure. There is no way to argue differently about this (well, there probably is, but not successfully). By its very definition, this is degrading to the women involved. It is also degrading to ALL women, because this isn't some crazy anomaly, it happens all the time, our society is rotten with examples of it. Hell, they SELL "things" -- any things they can -- by using our bodies, as naked and provocative as possible.

Again: being in positions of sexual display is NOT being in a position of power. The GAWKERS are the ones with the power in these situations. Thus, every scantily clad or naked woman in any medium reinforces any and every male's sense of entitlement: ah, look! there's half the human race over whom I am superior, half the human race I can gawk at and oogle at will, to my heart's content. They do this willingly, so must recongize my innate superiority to display themselves in this way.

Such "thinking" needn't be conscious and indeed probably isn't. Those subconscious messages are many times more powerful anyway.

And please note: there's NOTHING about "morality" in this whole discussion (except that sexism is, of course, immoral).

Repressing sexuality creates the freaks that are after judges in the far right, the homophobes and the intolerance of sex on TV.

Actually, repressing sexuality creates people who erupt in very sexual ways they can't seem to control: James Bakker and his dalliance, Jimmy Swaggart and his prostitute(s), etc. I don't think it has all that much to do with going after judges.

I would rather see that, any day of the week, than the pornography that is supposedly "news", or the wanton violence in the various series.
Well, it doesn't work for me to use a figurative term to compare to a literal reality. IOW, calling the current news "pornography" is apt enough if you're speaking figuratively, but we're close enough in this whole discussion to the REAL pornography that the analogy fails, IMO. And, once again, it doesn't have to be "either/or" -- either we deal with REAL porn or the "pornography" which is the news. Wy not both?

Europe has gotten over sex and nudity on TV, so should we. If we would get OVER it, then a little bit of sexual repartee would not be regarded as "perverse".
I'm not personally familiar with European attitudes about sex. I do know one thing (but don't know if it applies to Europe or not): having lots and lots of talk about sex and pictures about sex and sexual activity and so forth, all without apparent prudishness, does NOT necessarily mean "healthy." It COULD be, but the sheer volume and absence of prudishness are not in and of themselves determinants.

For example, prostitution (and drugs) are legal in The Netherlands. Prostitution is NOT and does not represent healthy sexuality, period. And no amount of mature and non-prudish behavior or desensitization to the issue can make it so. So, just having lots of sexual images and other things freely available doesn't necessarily mean "healthy." It could, in fact, be quite the opposite.

It would be seen as it should be seen, normal and HEALTHY. We would recognize what is truly perverse, the violence.
I dunno. Call me a prude after all. I just wouldn't find it "normal and healthy" for myself to don skimpy clothes and parade and cavort around mostly if not entirely for the pleasure of men I don't even know. :shrug:

OMG -- I just had a flashback. I flashed back to my childhood, and an uncle I despised anyway who was married to a woman who had a MUCH younger sister. The flashback involved watching the younger sister and my uncle flirt, she dashing around the yard, giggling, etc. I was pretty young, and while I didn't understand it, it made me acutely uncomfortable. I knew there was something not right going on. Looking back I can identify that it was incestuous, and she was definitely too young to be acting that way and too young to get his attentions in that way. Ick. I hope he didn't molest her; I wouldn't put it past him. Shudder.

Another mantra from the postmodernists re what I consider the sexual exploitation of women is that women are and should be "free" to express themselves sexually (and "celebrate their sexuality" ) -- you guessed it, by becoming prostitutes and other sex workers. Nevermind that most sex industry workers were sexually abused as children -- that's how they got where they are, broken people. Used and abused and wounded enough to fill the market for sex industry workers -- and patrons, of course.

I am far from anti-sex or a prude; I am, however, anti-sexual exploitation of women.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Did I tell you how much I am glad you're here?
You have a real knack at peeling back the layers of disguises and shining a light on the misogyny underneath.
We need to hear this.
We need to understand it if we are to fight it.
We may not like fighting and we may get exhausted but what will happen if we give up?
I will force myself to look at this.
Everyday.
I will not let it consume me.
But I will not let it go when I see it either.

Thank you Eloriel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Eloriel, may I just tell you, thank you?
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 10:43 PM by BlueIris
Your post raises so many issues for me, which I would love to address further when my brain isn't totally fried; I can't stand the term "postmodern feminist," or any definition I ever have heard of it. Maybe someone will explain that concept to me someday in a way I find appealing, but it hasn't happened yet. Then again, my definition of feminist is incredibly...er, simple. Some have called it simplistic, but I don't like those people. It's just that I want the feminist tent I'm a part of to be a big one; I want all of the people from all of the many corridors of feminism to feel welcome in it...and I want that to include people calling themselves postmodern feminists but...but...it's hard for me to accept everything about what they consider to be feminist ideals, and feminist-friendly/respecting ways of living. I guess we can continue to find ways to avoid each other in the tent.

Also, there's that problem I have with the idea that some of its patrons picked the term postmodern feminist--so much that it stuck. It's a tad too close to the phrase "postfeminist" and--I can't even go there tonight. Maybe someone is brave enough to start a discussion covering her/his memories of the evolution of the post or antifeminist movements, but it isn't me.

Incidentally, if anyone cares why my brain is fried: This afternoon, I had to go scoop up a jacket I'd been oogling at Nordstrom's for weeks and stumbled into a war protest. It involved my first post-election encounter with a rabid pro-war Republican and was very disheartening. I really thought we were starting to get through to some of those people in my little corner of the world. If that guy was any indicator: Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. About your encounter,
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I would not have handled it very well, had I been in your shoes.

But, then again, I do love Nordstrom's, is it a nice jacket?::P
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Sure is a nice jacket. I desperately needed something in a pastel.
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 11:08 PM by BlueIris
I'm still in denial that it's summer. I've been wearing my black/dark tan outerwear as if it is still midwinter. Oh, sorry, maybe I should have specified that it's a springy/summery raincoat. I'm kind of fashion-challenged. It was the only one in it's (grey-white) shade available in a S/P size. So, now I can stop feeling like a vagrant who's confused about what season it is. Also, great price.

About my encounter--it was strange (and frightening). Probably a good thing I had time to do some well-thought-out shopping, all at awesome sales, before that transpired. I go through this thing where I can't, can't can't talk to another angry Republican or other intolerant individual, (I have a long rant about that, but I think it's a topic for another forum) but then find myself inexplicably inspired to at least face some of them. The war is one of those issues that can still do that to me. Finding that protest was weird, too, as was my spontaneous decision to participate in it. I mostly stopped to lend moral support to the protestors, they looked a little tired. And after the election/election challenge/filibuster protests I had decided to try to lend my energies out to only the most deserving causes and then, only in planned, pre-arranged increments of time. But, there they were, and when they told me, "the crowd in our city is becoming so much more receptive to hearing our concerns, even the direct critcisms of Bush," I thought, well, maybe I'll hold a sign for a few minutes. Then he showed up. First person on the street I've encountered who feels comfortable saying "next, we should invade Syria." I really thought that idea was still consigned to the rantings of the crazy people on the airwaves and my apparently deluded impression was that no one was getting on board with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. God reality sucks.
I live in a red state.
I see anti-abortion billboards with fetus pictures on them every day on my way to work.
People put them IN THEIR YARDS.
People get violent here over football games, I could never put political bumper-stickers on my car.
If they find out I'm an atheist, they're liable to burn a cross in my yard, with me on it.
I'll never see an anti-war protest except in the news.
Thank you for joining them, really. Hearing it from you makes me feel like I was there too.

You can see why DU is my only link to sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I am so sorry to hear about your life in that hell.
Um, sorry. I'm sure that not all of your state is "hell." There are probably some other sane people out there who support the ideas you do...well, maybe not. I'm just saying, it's not like I'm judging all of your neighbors or anything...but, thankfully, the closest thing I've gotten to your experience was my blue state thinking it wanted to get more purple or go reddish between 2002 and mid-2003. Then, people started to shake their heads and say, "wait, this isn't the direction we want to go." But the interim was horrifying for me. I'd go utterly insane if I had to live in a perpetual 2002 24-7. Best of luck. Things will get better eventually. We're here for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks.
It's really rough for me, I'm from Vermont, you know, home of the traitors and homo-lovers?
This is temporary, if I could, I'd jump on the first boxcar headed north.
I'll move back sometime this year, I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This is what I've been missing!!!
This group thing, this thread.
Do you see it?

We start out talking about misogyny, then the need for fighting for our cause, then spring jackets, then on to anti-war protests, then it's anti-abortion signs...

We are so all over the place with our thoughts and emotions and it's cool! There's nothing wrong with that! We get it! We don't get dizzy! (although I can certainly understand why some men do)

I feel like I'm home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I have no problem accepting the post-anything
So long as they accept that just because they're cool with strip clubs, or find cheesecake images of women 'empowering', doesn't mean that other feminists have to. Though I really think that whole thing is a fake media hype pitting women against each other. Post-feminists vs. Old School feminists in a catfight!! :eyes:


Sorry about your Nordy's jacket bliss being dampened by that war-nut. I can't imagine how someone can be so hateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. You touched on so many key things in that
The way that objection to exploitation is equated with prudery. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And how a woman's sexuality is inextricably linked with her appearance and willingness to display her body. Men are sexual agents and women are sexual objects, goes the paradigm. Like they bestow our sexuality upon us. It's such a shame to see a woman espousing that as in the post you quoted. Celebrating their sexuality...Please. They are paid actresses playing a role. Who knows anything about the actual women in the ad? The important thing is that they "look" the part.

And the fallacious idea that you can't fight against the Bushco war propaganda machine AND the denigration of women in popular culture at the same time. Why not? Hey, I'm able to multi-task, why can't they?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. "Celebrating their sexuality"
"Celebrating" my a$$. These women are exploiting their own sexuality (and ours) to make a buck. It's not healthy sexuality, it's juvenile, capitlist greed.

Eloriel's OP has a number of excellent points not the least of which is if a woman has any concerns at all about pornography, she is labelled a prude and summarily dismissed. Any concern at all and the dialog is over. There are a lot of gray areas to be discussed but it's all neatly wrapped up in "it's all good or your voice doesn't matter because you have sexual problems".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chicaloca Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
51. actresses
They are paid actresses playing a role.

Exactly! It's their freakin' JOB! I'm sure they don't wake up every morning and think, "gee, I can't WAIT to express my sexuality today!" (They're probably actually thinking, "gee, I can't wait until I'm old enough to retire from this stinking job so I can actually eat more than two Cheerios a day!") I love how people romanticize things they have no idea about. It's like people who romanticize poverty or living in the ghetto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. I respectfully disagree

Perhaps I am looking at it from a different perspective. I do agree with some of the points you make but not in the situations you apply them to.

In countries that oppress females in society, the common denominator is covering the body and keeping them out of sight. Female sexuality is seen as evil and some cultures even disfigure the females so they can never enjoy.

The ancient greeks and others had a system where young boys would engage in sex acts with older males. This was thought to protect them from the power females would have over them.

Anyway, my 2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ripley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why are you being so extreme?
Which feminist said she wanted to cover up the entire female body in American culture?

What the hell does ancient greek pedophilia have to do with the topic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I didn't think I was being extreme.

I was referring to the fact that women's sexuality and nudity are often attacked by the oppressors. As far as pedophilia--I didn't even bring that up except to say young males(not children)being immunized against what the ancients felt was the negative power of women.

I was just giving my perspective and a few historical observations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ripley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You said young boys. Boys are children.
That is pedophilia.

Again, what does that have to do with sexism on Gilligan's Island and a high-profile liberal male blogger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. "women's sexuality and nudity are often attacked by the oppressors"
It's also often exploited and used by the oppressors. Guess it depends on who's doing the oppressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Ah yes...women's "power"
The meme we all know so well. Uh huh, yeah right. Young, thin, "hot" looking women can get a strong reaction from males in their midst, particularly when said women are nude or nearly-nude. A few of them even make buckets of money doing it. Therefore, women RUN THE WORLD!! Or so I hear from guys all the time. Yep. What are we, like 95% percent of CEOs? Or how about that House and Senate? Woo hoo! We sure are taking those babies over, ain't we? Not to mention every other upper echelon of power in the public or private sector. It's a regular estrogen-fest in those places, ain't it?

Nope, not that I've noticed. And yes, hideously oppressive cultures like the Taliban force women to cover their bodies. But less oppressive Western cultures practically require women to expose their bodies. Well certain women anyway. Those who don't fit the criteria (young, thin, hot) are admonished to cover up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. Sexuality is only one aspect of a human being.
Did you ever consider that one of the reasons those countries who openly oppress women in their society by covering their bodies and keeping them out of sight is because they can ONLY view the female body as something innately sexual?

It's virtually impossible for them to consider a woman's breasts as simply the upper portion of a human torso, her hair as a simple natural covering of every human head, her thighs and calves as the muscles of the leg necessary for any human motility, and her eyes, ears, nose, and mouth fundamental sensory organs needed to function as a whole human being.

It's that they cannot separate the female body from it's visual sexuality and their women citizens are seen as mere vessels of reproductivity and sexual gratification.

Very similar to what exists over here, I might add! The common denominator is how one looks upon the female body.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
39. Logical fallacy
Edited on Sun Jun-12-05 11:48 AM by Eloriel
In countries that oppress females in society, the common denominator is covering the body and keeping them out of sight. Female sexuality is seen as evil and some cultures even disfigure the females so they can never enjoy.

Well, I would say the common denominator is hatred of women, and using ANYthing about women and their physical being and sexuality as ways to further oppress them. After all, it's one's sexual aspects which are most definitive in differentiating men from women.

You seem to be thinking that it is this "covering the body" (and all the rest that goes with it) that causes the wider represssion. In reality, that's just a symptom of the misogyny.

It doesn't follow that removing the dress restrictions and going in the full other direction changes anything. In fact, the other direction -- exploiting our sexuality -- is just another way to repress women and make us unequal.

What we need is something which is respectful of women and their sexuality; neither of these extremes are.

I share the confusion of some of the others over the Greek pedophilia reference. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Covering is not the cause...
it is the result of the fear of women, most notably their sexuality. Since most are religious cultures(patriarchal)they blame Eve..yada yada. The greek reference was just noting a historical way some approached it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kalibex Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
47. Oh?
"In countries that oppress females in society, the common denominator is covering the body and keeping them out of sight."

I do believe Fatema Mernissi would rather disagree with that analysis.

She wrote:

'It was during my unsuccessful attempt to buy a cotton skirt in an American department store that I was told my hips were too large to fit into a size 6. That distressing experience made me realize how the image of beauty in the West can hurt and humiliate a woman as much as the veil does when enforced by the state police in extremist nations such as Iran, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. Yes, that day I stumbled onto one of the keys to the enigma of passive beauty in Western harem fantasies. The elegant saleslady in the American store looked at me without moving from her desk and said that she had no skirt my size. "In this whole big store, there is no skirt for me?" I said. "You are joking." I felt very suspicious and thought that she just might be too tired to help me. I could understand that. But then the saleswoman added a condescending judgment, which sounded to me like Imam fatwa. It left no room for discussion:

'"You are too big!" she said.

'"I am too big compared to what?" I asked, looking at her intently, because I realized that I was facing a critical cultural gap here.

'"Compared to a size 6," came the saleslady's reply.

'Her voice had a clear-cut edge to it that is typical of those who enforce religious laws. "Size 4 and 6 are the norm," she went on, encouraged by my bewildered look. "Deviant sizes such as the one you need can be bought in special stores."


'That was the first time I had ever heard such nonsense about my size. In the Moroccan streets, men's flattering comments regarding my particularly generous hips have for decades led me to believe that the entire planet shared their convictions. It is true that with advancing age, I have been hearing fewer and fewer flattering comments when walking around in the medina, and sometimes the silence around me in the bazaars is deafening. But since my face has never met with the local beauty standards, and I have often had to defend myself against remarks such as zirafa (giraffe), because of my long neck, I learned long ago not to rely too much on the outside world for my sense of self-worth. In fact, paradoxically, as I discovered when I went to Rabat as a student, it was the self-reliance that I had developed to protect myself against "beauty blackmail" that made me attractive to others. My male fellow students could not believe that I did not give a damn about what they thought about my body. "You know, my dear," I would say in response to one of them, "all I need to survive is bread, olives, and sardines. That you think my neck is too long is your problem, not mine."

'In any case, when it comes to beauty and compliments, nothing is too serious or definite in the medina, where everything can be negotiated. But things seemed to be different in that American department store. In fact, I have to confess that I lost my usual self-confidence in the New York environment. Not that I am always sure of myself, but I don't walk around the Moroccan streets or down the university corridors wondering what people are thinking about me. Of course, when I hear a compliment, my ego expands like a cheese soufflé, but on the whole, I don't expect to hear much from others. Some mornings, I feel ugly because I am sick or tired; others, I feel wonderful because it is sunny out or I have written a good paragraph. But suddenly, in that peaceful American store that I entered triumphantly, as a sovereign costumer ready to spend money, I felt savagely attacked. My hips, until then the sign of a relaxed and uninhibited maturity, were suddenly being condemned as a deformity.

'"And who decides the norm?" I asked the saleslady, in an attempt to regain some self-confidence by challenging the established rules. I never let others evaluate me, if only because I remember my childhood too well. In ancient Fez, which valued round-faced plump adolescents, I was repeatedly told that I was too tall, too skinny, my cheekbones were too high, my eyes were too slanted. My mother often complained that I would never find a husband and urged me to study and learn all that I could, from storytelling to embroidery, in order to survive. But I often retorted that since "Allah had created me the way I am, how could he be so wrong, Mother?" That would silence the poor woman for a while, because if she contradicted me, she would be attacking God himself. And this tactic of glorifying my strange looks as a divine gift not only helped me to survive in my stuffy city, but also caused me to start believing the story myself. I became almost self-confident. I say almost, because I realized early on that self-confidence is not a tangible and stable thing like a silver bracelet that never changes over the years. Self-confidence is like a tiny fragile light, which goes on and off. You have to replenish it constantly.

'"And who says that everyone must be a size 6?" I joked to the saleslady that day, deliberately neglecting to mention size 4, which is the size of my 12-year-old niece.

'At that point, the saleslady suddenly gave me and anxious look. "The norm is everywhere, my dear," she said. "It's all over, in the magazines, on television, in the ads. You can't escape it. There is Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Gianna Versace, Giorgio Armani, Mario Valentino, Salvatore Ferragamo, Christian Dior, Yves Saint-Laurent, Christian Lacroix, and Jean-Paul Gaultier. Big department stores go by the norm." She paused and then concluded, "If they sold size 14 or 16, which is probably what you need, they would go bankrupt."

'She stopped for a minute and then stared at me, intrigued. "Where on earth do you come from? I am sorry I can't help you. Really, I am." And she looked it too. She seemed, all of a sudden, interested, and brushed off another woman who was seeking her attention with a cutting, "Get someone else to help you, I'm busy." Only then did I notice that she was probably my age, in her late fifties. But unlike me, she had the thin body of an adolescent girl. Her knee-length, navy-blue, Chanel dress had a white silk collar reminiscent of the subdued elegance of aristocratic French Catholic schoolgirls at the turn of the century. A pearl-studded belt emphasized the slimness of her waist. With her meticulously styled short hair and sophisticated makeup, she looked half my age at first glance.

'"I come from a country where there is no size for women's clothes," I told her. "I buy my own material and the neighborhood seamstress or craftsman makes me the silk or leather skirt I want. They just take my measurements each time I see them. Neither the seamstress nor I know exactly what size my new skirt is. No one cares about my size in Morocco as long as I pay taxes on time. Actually, I don't know what my size is, to tell you the truth."

'The saleswoman laughed merrily and said that I should advertise my country as a paradise for stressed working women. "You mean you don't watch your weight?" she inquired, with a tinge of disbelief in her voice. And then, after a brief moment of silence, she added in a lower register, as if talking to herself: "Many women working in highly paid fashion-related jobs could lose their positions if they didn't keep to a strict diet."

'Her words sounded so simple, but the threat they implied was so cruel that I realized for the first time that maybe "size 6" is a more violent restriction imposed on women than is the Muslim veil. Quickly I said goodbye so as not to make any more demands on the saleslady's time or involve her in any more unwelcome, confidential exchanges about age-discriminatory salary cuts. A surveillance camera was probably watching us both.

'Yes, I thought as I wandered off, I have finally found the answer to my harem enigma. Unlike the Muslim man, who uses space to establish male domination by excluding women from the public arena, the Western man manipulates time and light. He declares that in order to be beautiful, a woman must look fourteen years old. If she dares to look fifty, or worse, sixty, she is beyond the pale. By putting the spotlight on the female child and framing her as the ideal of beauty, he condemns the mature woman to invisibility. In fact, the modern Western man enforces Immanuel Kant's nineteenth-century theories: To be beautiful, women have to appear childish and brainless. When a woman looks mature and self-assertive, or allows her hips to expand, she is condemned as ugly. Thus, the walls of the European harem separate youthful beauty from ugly maturity.

'These Western attitudes, I thought, are even more dangerous and cunning than the Muslim ones because the weapon used against women is time. Time is less visible, more fluid than space. The Western man uses images and spotlights to freeze female beauty within an idealized childhood, and forces women to perceive aging—that normal unfolding of years—as a shameful devaluation. "Here I am, transformed into a dinosaur," I caught myself saying aloud as I went up and down the rows of skirt in the store, hoping to prove the saleslady wrong—to no avail. This Western time-defined veil is even crazier than the space-defined one enforced by the Ayatollahs.'

-from Scheherazade Goes West by Fatima Mernissi
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. American women don't talk like that...
well maybe snobby uptown boutique types...but that is not exactly representative of the average department store.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kalibex Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Doesn't matter if it's not what you'd hear explicitly everywhere....
...is it or is it not the implicit message that's been being pushed upon us by the industries that stand to benefit from such a standard...?

-B
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
17. Interesting post.
I don't consider myself a postmodern feminist (too nebulous a term IMO), but I do consider myself a sex-positive feminist and I come more from the Susie Bright/Betty Dodson school of feminism than the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine McKinnon school.

I find myself agreeing in theory with what the Kos poster said (especially WRT how sexual repression has on society as a whole), but at the same time I am ambivalent about the whole Pie Fight thing. Those women were clearly exploiting themselves for male attention, and engaging in a personal pet peeve of mine, the whole "sexy lesbian" straight male fantasy. I am very openminded about sex and fantasies (hell, I write erotica of just about every gender configuration), but the "sexy lesbian" fantasy is troubling to me because it's yet another way the patriarchy has co-opted women's bodies for its sexual gratification; it dehumanizes lesbians, and especially bisexual women, and turns us into little more than exotic fuck toys for men. I have had to tell too many straight male potential partners that I was a human being, not a sex toy to act out their threesome fantasies with.

Another point...I am ambivalent about sex work; in a perfect world, it would be legal, safe and regulated, and no woman would ever feel forced to make that choice (whether because of poverty, or because she was kidnapped by traffickers, or because she was sexually abused and is acting out because of it). This isn't a perfect world, though. I think that, regardless of how you might feel about it, we need to refrain from judging sex workers and offer them support if they want or need it, and help them if they express a desire to get out of it. I honestly think a lot of our problems come from the fact that somewhere along the line, priestesses were turned into prostitutes. Merlin Stone went into this in When God Was a Woman, I think.

At any rate, what really made me angry about the Kos incident was the fact that this dialogue couldn't even be had; that it was just a given that the ad was not to be taken seriously. I hate that kind of paternalistic attitude, and I am so very grateful to those of you who did the work to get this group together. It feels so good just to be able to talk about these sorts of issues without constantly having to defend our need to do so.

Above all else, I think feminists need to respect each other and try to understand where other views are coming from. I suspect I might disagree with what seems to be the prevailing view on porn among DU feminists, judging from posts on the subject, but I completely understand why you feel this way and you have some very valid points. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the old school feminists who came before my generation and I think it's beyond a mistake to dismiss those views as mere prudery. This pitting of feminists against each other is divide and conquer bullshit, and we shouldn't be playing into it. Reasonable people can disagree; that's where dialogue comes in.

Have I mentioned yet how much I love this group?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Wow so much excellent stuff I don't know where to begin
And I don't have much time but I have to say your statement that what bothered you was "the fact that this dialogue couldn't even be had" is the reason I believe why most of us got involved in trying to create this group.

And this one "the whole "sexy lesbian" straight male fantasy" - so in agreement with you there. I believe that this is the reason that lesbianism on television isn't meeting the same resistance as a male gay relationship. It's "every guy's fantasy" in prime time. And yes, absolutely "and turns us into little more than exotic fuck toys for men." :puke:

Have I mentioned how much I love this group? I'm going to learn a lot here. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. It's awesome, isn't it?
I feel smarter just standing around in here, LOL. :hi:

Don't get me started on Sweeps Lesbianism. It used to be weddings and babies they threw at us for ratings, now it's two random female characters getting it on for the cameras. Sigh. As someone else said on another thread, I sure miss Willow and Tara on Buffy. :(

Amen about that resistance factor...seems like female homo/bisexuality is only tolerated if it's traditionally pretty women prancing around for straight male titilation, and male homo/bisexuality is only tolerated if the characters are freakin' eunuchs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Thanks, Chovexani
glad to see another sex-positive feminist here. Judging sexual norms from television isn't possible anymore than judging work norms is: the way we see sexuality presented on TV is just as realistic as the way we see people's normal employment presented. How often do you see a character on TV actually engaging in any kind of actual work that looks like what YOU do on a daily basis in your job? Pretty much never. TV's depictions of ANYTHING are basically exaggerated.

That being said, the whole idea that they'd do this whole Gilligan's Island Ginger thing just makes me roll my eyes. Pathetic. I have no problem with the idea that men want to look at attractive women - or the reverse - or with women taking employment that takes advantage of that fact. What I do have a problem with is the image that's being forced down everyone's throat that there's only one type of physical beauty, and it's always young and thin and perfectly fit. In truth, I know many men and women who are attracted to a much broader range of types. I hate this whole objectification of women that forces us to think we're unattractive if we're not a 5'8", 22-year-old who weighs 115 pounds. It's ridiculous. It's juvenile.

The "hot bi babes" fantasy done solely for a male's gratification is a pet peeve of mine, to the point where I won't so much as kiss another woman in front of a man (I'm bisexual). Sorry guys, your crappy porn ruined that for you. Basically, while I'm extremely sex-positive and see nothing wrong with admiring attractive bodies of either gender, there's certain things that make me uncomfortable, just because they've been used to define women in a certain way.

Once we get past (if we ever do) the fear of women as fully equal human beings, then perhaps we can engage in adult sexuality and enjoyment of same without all the baggage. But right now, there's still too many people who see women as mammary glands and genitalia for me to be comfortable with this kind of silliness.

And I agree, I think the porn issue has been used by those who'd like to divide and conquer among the feminist community. We should be able to agree to disagree on that issue, I think, and concentrate on the larger societal problem of WHY women are objectified, not THAT they're objectified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Stated perfectly
by you and Luka.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. Thank you thank you thank you
You put into words something I have been struggling to say for ages!!!!

"Basically, while I'm extremely sex-positive and see nothing wrong with admiring attractive bodies of either gender, there's certain things that make me uncomfortable, just because they've been used to define women in a certain way.

Once we get past (if we ever do) the fear of women as fully equal human beings, then perhaps we can engage in adult sexuality and enjoyment of same without all the baggage. But right now, there's still too many people who see women as mammary glands and genitalia for me to be comfortable with this kind of silliness."


That's an extremely difficult point to get across. I think people like to be deliberately obtuse about it. Thanks again, I'm going to co-opt this, if you don't mind. :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Hey Chovexani. Thanks for the great post.
Excellent, truly excellent take on things. I can see where there could be a place for legitimate, for lack of a better word, sex work in a society that was freer from inequality and exploitation. Indeed, there are already people who work as sexual surrogates in the therapeutic community to help people deal with serious sexual dysfunction issues. I think in a better world, there would be a place for erotic films and art that really celebrated the beauty and sexuality of people in all their forms. Most porn I've seen does little more than reinforce prevailing sexual scripts and gender roles, even the fetish or gender-bending variety.

As to welcoming differing views from feminists, absolutely. The problem has been when people come in pretending to be feminist but seeking to undermine our discussion and forcing us to defend basic concepts. And we're not stupid, so we see right through them and call them on it. Then some of them disingenously claim to be victimized and posts get deleted and threads that started as productive discussions turn into flamefests. That was the basis for starting this group. And I cannot thank those who took the initiative to do it enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Flamefests
It's why I kinda stayed off the other board. The rampant thread-jacking by people that didn't really want to discuss the issues, and just wanted to push their own agendas? So fucking lame. Kudos to those of you with the patience to call them out on their BS, 'cause I just couldn't do it. Just reading those threads made my blood boil. All that Fire in my chart, hehe. ;) I'm glad something good came out of it all, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
43. What is "sex-positive" to you?
Edited on Sun Jun-12-05 01:20 PM by Eloriel
First, an aside: Excuse the rant (and don't take it personally), but Sigh. And why does nearly every criticism of pornography as anti-women has to be characterized as ALSO/therefore anti-sex, which is the underlying premise of a claim that, someone is sex-positive by contrast? (It's really the "prudery" defense again, isn't it?) Hell, *I'm* sex-positive -- tho anti-sexual exploitation, and that's NOT in any way a contradiction.

I find myself agreeing in theory with what the Kos poster said (especially WRT how sexual repression has on society as a whole),
Sexual repression is a big and very ugly problem, but I don't think the Kos poster's diagnosis of sexual repression as the cause of whatever she cited (I forget now) was in any way valid. Sexual repression causes SEXUAL acting out -- as I said in my OP. I'm against sexual repression (100% in favor of HEALTHY sexuality), but being against sexual repression doesn't mean I'm FOR the sexual exploitation of women -- those are NOT opposites but rather different manifestations of the same sick attitudes in this society about sex and sexuality.

Another point...I am ambivalent about sex work; in a perfect world, it would be legal, safe and regulated, and no woman would ever feel forced to make that choice (whether because of poverty, or because she was kidnapped by traffickers, or because she was sexually abused and is acting out because of it).

Raise your sights, dearie!! In MY version of a perfect world, sex workers wouldn't even be "necessary." People would be healthy enough that all sex would be healthy (and not dependent on dominating or manipulating one another in some way, or on risky or kinky behavior or elicit conditions for something to be "sexy," and so forth and so on.) In my version, sex would be healthy, a normal part of life, NOT repressed in any way, and very available by and between caring, loving, mutually respectful adults.

This isn't a perfect world, though. I think that, regardless of how you might feel about it, we need to refrain from judging sex workers and offer them support if they want or need it, and help them if they express a desire to get out of it.

Did you see anyone judging sex workers? I missed it if you did. MY "judgment" is about the system that produces them. I personally have enormous compassion for those who find themselves in that industry -- esp. prostitutes, and probably exotic dancers, but also all the others -- mayabe even those producing it (when I get REALLY charitable and analytic about it).

I honestly think a lot of our problems come from the fact that somewhere along the line, priestesses were turned into prostitutes. Merlin Stone went into this in When God Was a Woman, I think.

You know, I don't recall every reading Stone's book in its entirety, but I do remember reading something somewhere (maybe even Stone's book) to the effect that in ancient Rome(?), Egypt(?) some Temple Priestesses were Sacred Sex workers (don't remember the exact term used). I've thought about that alot off and on in the intervening years. It's difficult to imagine such a thing, isnt' it, which I think is a key indicator of just how degraded our culture's view of sex and sexuality really is: we have trouble imagining "good" porn (erotica, in my term), and we have trouble imagining sacred sex workers, or even the notion of sexual healing.

And yet, in my heart, I KNOW that sex ought to at least include a sacred component. I know that. I know it party because this culture defiles, profanes and degrades EVERYthing sacred, everything good, and there's no question our view of sex is defiled, profaned and degraded. I know it also because it's a natural part of being human and I believe that everything "God gave us," so to speak, is important, good and necessary part of being human, and therefore sacred, tho some things (such as our egos) may need to be healed or, conversely, can become corrupted or dysfunctional in one or more ways.

Anyway, this whole discussion reminds me of when 2nd Wave Feminism got going: we knew we wanted to be free and have equal rights and opportunities, but we didn't know how to "be" -- there were no role models. The Gloria Steinems and record-breaking women entrants into each and every field BECAME role models, but even then there were still a lot of "now what?" to contend with.* IOW: IS THERE AN AUTHENTIC FEMININE and if so, what is it, what does it look like, how does it feel and behave? We STILL haven't fully discovered it, IMO, but this whole area of discussion we're having is definitely another area where we get to define it for ourselves, and apparently are having some trouble doing so because, again, there are no (or few) examples out there to draw on. We'll have to blaze these trails, and no one's going to do it for us.

*I'd like to say more about this: At first, all we had to draw on were men counterparts. So, many women did try to act like men in the business world and other venues. Some women were ACCUSED of trying to act like men simply because they stopped acting like mice and doormats. Women went back to research the old goddesses and other myths and legends I think primarily BECAUSE there were no role models for full personhood for women, and we needed data!! LOL -- BOY, did we need data. In the intervening years I have come to understand that there ARE significant differences between men (as a class) and women, and that those differences are to be celebrated AND given equal weight in our society. I believe it would be a far, far different world if we were able to achieve that. I know in my heart that a just world where women have true parity would be one where men, too, are far better off (tho they would have lost their innate, natural-born advantages OVER women) -- because we don't often see the AUTHENTIC MALE exhibited either. There is enormous corruption of that archetype as well in our society, and that needs to end as well.

Edited to add: I think one little example of my claim that we need to sort this out for OURselves as women and feminists is in the piss-poor definition of erotica given at this link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=erotica

This is the most elaborate of the 5 definitions, and all share the bolded part:
n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire (syn: pornography, porno, porn, smut)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. The porn issue can be a very prickly (pun intended) one
I have difficulty articulating my thoughts on the porn issue. I'm an occasional viewer of porn, and have been involved in it otherwise as well. I think my problem with most porn is that it's LAME. It's GARBAGE. And it isn't erotic. It's the same handful of juvenile male fantasies over and over.

So where does the porn *I* like fit in there, the porn that's almost all directed by, acted in, written by, and intended for, women? Where does Susie Bright fit in there, where does Candida Royalle? Where do you put the "couples" videos that don't have gynecological closeups, that don't do "money shots" (gross!), that have actual scripts, people who at least try to pretend they know how to act, and something other than the same lame handful of 12-year-old-boy jerkoff material? Where do they fit in a feminist perspective?

Where does lesbian porn, made by women for women, fit? Gay porn, with no women involved? The all-too-rare bisexual porn (I mean real bisexual porn, not that lame chicks rubbing each other crap - bisexual porn that involves MEN actually enjoying touching each other too)?

There's one segment of one of the Candida Royalle videos (she tries to use real partners in her videos whenever possible) that is a lesbian couple having sex. Neither of the women are particularly traditionally attractive - they're both quite ordinary looking - but the sex is quite obviously real, not faked for the cameras. One of the women is a redhead, and being a redhead myself, I know you can fake a lot of things, but not that whole-body redhead flush at orgasm. It's one of the most erotic things I've ever seen on film. Where does that fit? It wouldn't get most traditionalist guys off, because it clearly isn't being done for their benefit - the women don't have those scary dragon-lady fingernails, they aren't 18 years old and hardbodies with giant tits, and they're not posing so the camera can get closeups of their bladders.

Where is the line between empowering eroticism and exploitative porn?

I don't have the answer, I'm posing the question. I know where the line is for ME. Where is it for YOU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. IMO the most important post in this thread
Maybe what you like isn't porn but erotica? This is the point I was trying to make in my OP where I mention erotica -- that there IS a place for "sex-positive" visual timulation, for want of a better word, that IS still feminist, that respects women not just in our personhood but also our tastes and preferences, our variety and diversity.

I have difficulty articulating my thoughts on the porn issue. I'm an occasional viewer of porn, and have been involved in it otherwise as well. I think my problem with most porn is that it's LAME. It's GARBAGE. And it isn't erotic. It's the same handful of juvenile male fantasies over and over.

Yes, the mutuality is missing. It's primarily for MEN, and as you point out, pretty damned juvenile men at that. (I'm always amused but appalled at the inevitable representations of intercourse as some race, the harder and faster the better. Uh, I don't THINK so. Not for most women.)

So where does the porn *I* like fit in there, the porn that's almost all directed by, acted in, written by, and intended for, women? Where does Susie Bright fit in there, where does Candida Royalle? Where do you put the "couples" videos that don't have gynecological closeups, that don't do "money shots" (gross!), that have actual scripts, people who at least try to pretend they know how to act, and something other than the same lame handful of 12-year-old-boy jerkoff material? Where do they fit in a feminist perspective?

Personally, I think they probably fit quite nicely in a feminist perspective under the conditions you describe. And if I understand it correctly, I'd call it erotica, not porn.

Where does lesbian porn, made by women for women, fit? Gay porn, with no women involved? The all-too-rare bisexual porn (I mean real bisexual porn, not that lame chicks rubbing each other crap - bisexual porn that involves MEN actually enjoying touching each other too)?

There's one segment of one of the Candida Royalle videos (she tries to use real partners in her videos whenever possible) that is a lesbian couple having sex. Neither of the women are particularly traditionally attractive - they're both quite ordinary looking - but the sex is quite obviously real, not faked for the cameras. One of the women is a redhead, and being a redhead myself, I know you can fake a lot of things, but not that whole-body redhead flush at orgasm. It's one of the most erotic things I've ever seen on film. Where does that fit? It wouldn't get most traditionalist guys off, because it clearly isn't being done for their benefit - the women don't have those scary dragon-lady fingernails, they aren't 18 years old and hardbodies with giant tits, and they're not posing so the camera can get closeups of their bladders.

Where is the line between empowering eroticism and exploitative porn?

I think you've probably described it pretty well (which is why I quoted the entirety of what you'd written), at least as a very good start. I have to say: I'm not personally that interested in porn or erotica, but if I were, what you've described would be a million times better than anything called "porn" that I happen to know of (which isn't all that much). I also think that you have the beginning of an awesome article here (not for DU but somewhere else), should that interest you. I really do. It would definitely be the kind of article I would enjoy reading, and pondering at length.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. "Where is the line between empowering eroticism and exploitative porn?"
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 09:15 AM by lukasahero
This probably should be the start of a new thread but I am following up on this post because of a post you (Eloriel) made elsewhere about the need for a distinction between porn and erotica. Is there an accepted understanding of the difference? Is that part of the problem we have in talking about the issue?

I use the word porn to describe a rather broad spectrum of things because I am unfamiliar with any other terms or classifications. Therefore, I, what now sounds erroneously, call the online broadcast of rape of a 4 year old girl the same thing I call two consenting actors having sex. For purposes of debate, I need a distinction because the two things are vastly different and should be addressed differently in my opinion, not to mention all the shades of grey in between.

There's also the whole rape porn thing (actually a sub-genre of which I was totally and blissfully unaware until recently). I understand that a criminal subculture exists where the rapes are real and know (or rather hope) that this is being aggressively pursued and the violators punished.

But I also understand (now thanks to the education I received here in fact - see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=1407&mesg_id=1500&page=) that there is a small part of the culture where two actors are willing participants acting out a rape as a "sexual fantasy". I have a much harder time with this because I understand that rape is not about sex, it is about power and therefore find the whole "healthy sexual fantasy" line of thought pretty horrifying.

Is there some consensus on what the distinctions are? And is there a way to better utilize and disseminate whatever distinctions are accepted so people have better language tools available to them when discussing the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. my opinion is...
Pornography is visual stimulation using a sex act while erotica is more about stimulating the mind/emotions. Art--although visual--is erotica in most cases. Strippers, exotic dancers are erotica entertainment.

I argue with some over the bodice ripper novels considered "erotica" that were so popular years ago--(handsome pirate raping young girl who then falls in love with him)as being more destructive than Penthouse or Playboy. Same with the soap operas(Luke raping Laura)

Taming of the Shrew messages are a BIG PROBLEM and are not erotic.

As you mention, some porn is criminal and not subject to opinion but only the LAW.(when there is no consent, children, violence)

Prostitution is also lumped in with porn in most discussions and is a different issue with two sides. Drugging underage runaways and forcing them into prostitution is unacceptable and a crime.

The crimes mentioned above affect males and females.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
24. That's *not postmodern* feminism. It's third wave
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 03:57 PM by tishaLA
I teach postmodern feminism (and second wave, third world, third wave, etc) in a university classroom. I have a deep deep respect for postmodern feminism, but not necessrily third wave.

It's important that we see the difference. Contemporaneous schools of thought are NOT all the same.

ETA: I'm actually shocked that someone could disparage a very serious movement like postmodern feminism like this, apparently without understanding any of its actual content. I would think feminists might want to investigate these things before denigrating an important school of thought founded at the intersections of postmodern philosophy and feminist princilples. But apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Confusion about terms
I think that's what a lot of it boils down to. Hell, I'm just a college dropout, and never took Women's Studies per se (though I did have a class on People, Power & Politics that was taught by a feminist and we did get into some of the history of the movements), but I try to read up on various schools of thought. And *I* get confused sometimes. It also doesn't help that there is some disagreement about terminology. Language is very important, and can obscure the issue if people aren't operating from similar notions about what a certain word means.

I agree with you though, I think people really need to read first before they make sweeping judgments about various ideologies. However, I don't think that's a problem unique to feminism; so many people in American society feel the need to start talking out of their asses on a subject without really knowing anything about it. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, you see it on DU all the time.

I'm always reading and learning from others. It's the only way meaningful discussion can happen. How can you possibly be for or against something if you don't know anything about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I wrote a long post about it
And I'm posting it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
38. Looks can be deceiving, I guess
ETA: I'm actually shocked that someone could disparage a very serious movement like postmodern feminism like this, apparently without understanding any of its actual content. I would think feminists might want to investigate these things before denigrating an important school of thought founded at the intersections of postmodern philosophy and feminist princilples. But apparently not.

Did you think I made it up, pulled it out of my hat -- or my ass? I even actually mentioned "research" in my OP. Did you think I was lying about that, or fabricating somehow?

The research I mentioned came about some months ago when someone claimed that postmodern feminism supported a "sex-positive" approach that is IMO merely a camouflage for the same ole sexual exploitation of women, but this time including a way to con young women into going along with it, and smiling while she does so.

Totally aghast at such a claim about my beloved feminism, I spent quite a lot of hours researching on the internet, and what I found confirmed that that was indeed one of the tenets of postmodern feminism. However, I also spent some time doing some research on other "schools" and did find a lot of very disheartening confusion -- and therefore misrepresentation -- about those forms I was more familiar with, so if you claim that this is NOT a postmodern feminist tenet, then I accept what you say.

I'm not sure, though, even including your other post, that you've made your case. Nothing I saw in your thread on the subject conclusively ruled it out and in fact, some of what I read led me to think it would not and perhaps COULD not be ruled out. Even the links I found on a new google search this morning did not conclusively rule it out, altho I have to say that none of today's 1st page search results confirmed my original (apparently erroneous) claim. :shrug:



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. I don't know how you found "tenets"
of postmodern feminism because virtually everyone who studies postmodernism seriously--those in the academy--will tell you that postmodernism is really anti-foundational and instead is about a critique of the foundationalism (what you call tenets) of modernism. It critiques, as I said in my other post, modern conceptions of ontology, narrative, historicism, etc.--all forms of transcendence. It is of course impossible to boil this down, as I also said, on a message board, when it is something one can study for years because it is a whole body of knowledge.

In this sense, it is incorrect to say that postmodern feminism "supports" one thing or another. Some postmodern feminists say one thing about sex while others say something else entirely, just as some feminists in the second wave shared an overt commitment to anti-racist politics and others didn't. What postmodern feminists share is critique founded at the intersections of feminism and postmodern philosophy. I suggested various texts written by real postmodern feminists (i.e., not those who might call themselves postmodern feminists on the internet) in the post on my other thread, including Judith Butler's Gender Trouble (about the contingent foundations of the feminism's subject), Linda Nicholson's edited text, Feminism/Postmodernism, and others. I should have included some great texts like Donna Haraway's "Simeons, Cyborgs, and Women," Some of Nancy Flax, and much of Gayle Rubin's work on sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Good point. Substitute "characteristics"
In this sense, it is incorrect to say that postmodern feminism "supports" one thing or another.

Almost sounds like you can make it mean whatever you want. Damn glad I haven't spent any more time trying to figure it out than I have.

Thanks for your input, Tisha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Actually, you can't make it say whatever you want
It's a mode of philosophical critique, really, and it'd be just as hard to say "postmodern feminism says X about Y" than it would be to say "existentialism says X about Y." And of course postmodern feminism is not a speaking subject that can say something, at any rate; as I have said, it is a mode of investigation and critique, not a dogma.

I'm just using a shorthand though. I recommend Butler, Cixous, Nicholson, etc. if you really want to understand the concepts. It is certainly worth the time spent trying to figure it out. But maybe I just say that because of my pro-academe bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Gayle Rubin is one courageous woman...
Last year the right wing ranted about her(and misrepresented her) endlessly. I believe it was around the Kinsey controversy if you can call it that.

I am not familiar with a few of the other names/works you mentioned so thanks for the leads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Why are you doing this?
Have you read the responses to this thread? No one here is trying to take your porn away from you. Perhaps, if you were really interested in a pro-women agenda, you might have found something positive in the responses to contribute to the discussion. Instead, you feel the need to take a woman with an opinion different than you to task for her opinions.

This was a healthy productive discussion and it will not be allowed to degrade to a flame-fest because you want to shut it down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Oh darn, what'd I miss? ;-)
Seriously, thanks mods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I will bite...
Way too many generalizations in the post and in your question to answer specifically. But there is no mass movement to end all Porn.(except on the religious right)

For the most part(I am generalizing)feminists as an organized movement support the first amendment and a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and her choice of a career. However, feminists are individuals and will have individual opinions.

Porn can mean many things to many different people. Some lump erotica, adult movies, bodice ripper literature and even nude art under the porn umbrella which I am sure everyone thinks is ridiculous. Snuff films, rape films, homemade porn(without the partner's consent)are the dark side of the industry but in my opinion are criminal and not specifically feminist issues but legal ones.

It is better to focus on our common goals rather than what divides us as individuals.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Why are you asking questions about men?
The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. OK, I finally got around to watching that clip
Had it been a simple pie fight, no problem. However, there was too much slow motion stroking with close camera shots to be dismissed as a pie fight. It was tacky and juvenile, the sort of thing to appeal to juvenile males.

I guess that's why both hardcore feminists and far right fruit loops are getting so outraged by it. It's just plain tacky.

I have no idea what it's advertising, but I'll avoid whatever it is, just like I avoided Wisk because none of their actresses ever told the male to wipe that dirty look off his face and consider washing his neck once in a while.

I'm sure there are enough teenaged males out there to support them. They won't miss me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Thanks for the report
Now think again of Kos's objections to the objections. Oooooo, infuriates me all over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chicaloca Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
53. I HATE this type of thinking about sex
(And I also hate the lack of grammtical sense this person makes.)

We have such prude people in this country on both sides of the "aisle". If they wanna look "whorish" or "erotic" or whatever, it's up to them!

So basically, we should let sexual conservatives set the terms of our debates. Because they're prudes, we should react by not being prudes (but only when it comes to women's bodies, of course). That's the goddamn problem with postmodern feminism -- it's all a big reaction to conservatism. You can't really believe in something when you're only trying to prove that you're "cool".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
56. Thanks, Eloriel
You know, as a Japanese studies person, I constantly hear American men go on and on about how "Asians have a much healthier attitude towards sex than we do."

I attended a Japanese women's college, where they seemed to be no middle ground between the sheltered young virgins who giggled at the thought of kissing a man and the jaded adventurers who had series of one-night stands in the discos of Roppongi. I also attended mixed Japanese-Westerner parties, where earnest young Japanese men in their mid twenties asked seriously what it meant to flirt, how one asked a woman for a date, and what one did on a date. These experiences left me with an impression of a nation of uptight and confused people.

Then I realized that what the American men were talking about was the extensive and in-your-face sex industry. They were talking about a fantasy world where hostess clubs, strip joints, thinly disguised brothels, comic books, TV shows, and "love hotels" catered to every sexual taste--but only for men, and especially for men whose emotional level was stuck at 15. (An egregious example of the 15-year-old boy mentality was a comic strip in which some office workers tricked the young secretary they lusted after into sitting on the Xerox machine so they could get a photocopy of her crotch.)

This is not "a healthy attitude towards sex." In more recent years, non-professionals have been playing into this whole scheme, including high school girls who will engage in free-lance prostitution with older men for money to buy luxury goods. (The parents must be in deep denial if they don't wonder where their daughter got the money to buy a digital video camera.)

So, yeah, I don't think the "let it all hang out" attitude is feminist or liberating, either. It's falling for new male line. Instead of "put out, and I'll love you," it's "put out, and I'll think you're liberated."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Wow - certainly summed up my thoughts on the issue
Hi Lydia, thanks for the background insight. You've just given me some substance to use whenever I hear that crappy a$$ argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chicaloca Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. and they also think...
that Asian women are "submissive" and willing to do whatever the man wants in bed. Apparently, though, they haven't met the woman who made this site: http://www.bigbadchinesemama.com/

I remember she used to disguise her front page as an actual Asian mail-order bride Web site, and then when you clicked on some nice little graphic that said "Enter here" it took you to that hilarious picture of her looking really pissed off with a bag of Cheeto's. But the flame mails she got (and probably still gets) from men who felt "deceived" by that intro page were un-be-fucking-lievable. They honestly tried to tell her, an Asian-American woman, that the "nature" of Asian women is softer, more pliable and more submissive than that of other women, and she's going against nature by not being like that. :eyes: As I always say, it's amazing how well racism and misogyny complement each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC