...since it has come to my attention that there was a roadside protest staged by anti-abortion campaigners near where I live.
With pro-lifers/anti-abortionists, I just don't understand how they can't just keep this belief to themselves, and just exercise it by, well, not having abortions, if they are women.
Seriously.
If you're pro-life, fine; that's your opinion. Whatev.
But, I really don't agree with trying to restrict the rights of women to choose, and to have abortions. There's a myriad of reasons why women abort, and it is completely up to the individual woman whether she is to keep the baby or not. Babies have an astronomical affect upon a woman's life. Really, I don't think I can actually think of anything else with a bigger impact. And the impact is considerably larger on a woman's life than on a man's. Not just for the gestation period, or during the birth and any physical effects of the birth, but on areas of life such as career.
There was a picture in the local paper of one of the protesters with her placard, which read: "Abortion hurts women and kills children".
Firstly, if abortions were illegal, they wouldn't be stopped. And they would hurt more women even more so, possibly killing them. Secondly, killing children? Entirely subjective, and emotive use of language. Sure, some people do believe it is a child from conception, and if that's the way they see it, then yes, they would believe abortion is killing a child. In which case, they don't have to abort. However, medically, the bloody thing isn't even a foetus 'til around 20 weeks. So, I guess, when it comes to the so-called "killing children" issue, it all depends on whether you subscribe to a more Catholic-esque view, or a medical one.
I'm really pissed off that I'd found out about this protest after the event, because I wish I could've stood on the other side of the road holding up my own pro-choice placard.
P.S. To those who are pro-choice, you can show you are the pro-choice majority here.
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Saturday, 28 April 2007
PorNOgraphy
T'other day I was minding my own business, attempting to do an exam practice for German in one of the school cafeterias in one of my frees, when my English teacher approached me, praising my English coursework. Apparently, it's been much the subject of discussion in the English department, and so they're gonna give it an A. Which is good.
But, how is that relevant here?
Well, t'is an anti-pornography speech. I'm very proud of this piece, and my English teacher said it was well-written (although at first, she was quite shocked by it, because I'm pretty damn blunt), but you may notice that the writing style is a tad bit different to how I ordinarily write on my posts.
I've been a bit wary about posting it, because I don't want to ruffle any feathers exactly, partly because with normal exam stress - and some other more personal shit - I really can't be arsed to deal with any bullshit.
There was originally a paragraph near the beginning about pro-pornography feminists, and my belief that, despite the anti/pro pornography divide, I believe that being anti or pro pornography doesn't make you a better feminist, it just makes you a different one. But my English teacher made me cut that paragraph out because it helped contribute to going over the word limit. The thing with pornography and feminism, is that it is such a cause of division and strife. It creates a huge divide; even if in every other respect Feminist A (anti pornography) and Feminist B (pro pornography) pretty much agree on feminist issues, the whole pornography thing can be a real bone of contention, and cause of hostility. Personally, I really hate that. The way I see it, is that by defining themselves as feminists, even pro-pornography feminists, they are saying they care, they give a crap about women. And so, sure, there are a few issues I won't agree with them on, but I still believe in a sense of sisterhood. Is that just naivety on my part? I've come to realise that in many cases, it is naivety, since it seems many anti and pro pornography feminists just cannot get past this core difference, despite other core similarities.
This piece, yeah it does reflect my views. After all, I am an anti-pornography feminist. However, I realise that this is something of a ...dodgy subject, given the divide. By no stretch of the imagination do I want to inflame any further divisions, or anything like that. Some of you may know, and I hope the previous paragraph highlighted this, that for all I care about about the issues I am concerned about, and for however strongly I believe in my views, I realise that others feel the same about theirs, but may have different perspectives or opinions, and that some of these issues are very close to people's hearts, and that, I do not encourage, and I do not personally reject other feminists whose views differ from mine. I accept these variations in feminism, and I embrace those who hold these different views, as I embrace those with similar views.You may also realise, as I have already mentioned, that the writing style of this piece is somewhat different to my usual style, this is largely because the audience of this piece is supposed to be anti-pornography (radical) feminists, whereas this blog - although, it was initially pretty damn self-indulgent, and I was convinced hardly anyone would read it but meh - has an undefined and flexible audience.
However, because I'm really bored, I think I will post it. Unfortunately, the few graphological features it did have - such as certain words being underlined, emboldened, or italicised, for emphasis - have largely been lost from copying it from my documents to pasting it on here. I've tried to put some of 'em back in, but I guess it's not really that big a deal.
PorNOgraphy
Pornography. It is an issue, which has been divisive and hotly debated amongst feminists for about 30 years. It is sad, but the divisions caused by the pornography debate between the second wave feminists of the seventies undermined their fight, this weakness helping to allow the reactionaries of the New Right and the MRAs to re-claim some ground, certainly some centre-ground, in the Backlash eighties. On the one-hand, there were the fiercely revolutionary anti-pornography Rad-Fems – Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Mackinnon, Susan Brownmiller and others – on the other, there were the so-called “sex-positive” feminists, whom we will go back to later. But that is about the extent of our history lesson today.
I am here today to talk to you about pornography. Maybe it’s because I’m young, maybe I’m naïve, maybe I’m idealistic, but pornography is something I would like well rid of; this would be no mean feat.
Let’s look at some cool, hard – economic – facts first: the porn industry produces about 11,000 new hardcore films a year, and is worth about $60billion worldwide annually. Estimates of the annual revenues of the pornography industry in the United States alone start at $10billion; that’s more than that of the Hollywood Box Office in 2003, which was $9.5 billion. It is fair enough to say that pornography is nothing small. It is also extensive. It’s not just dirty videos that you buy from a blacked out shop anymore; it’s on the Internet and in magazines too. Soft-core pornography is normalised. We’re conditioned to expect it. Seeing a scantily clad young woman grinding against a pole, or simulating orgasm is an everyday sight. It’s on before the watershed on television. On some music channels, that is all there is. “Girls Gone Wild” is a major franchise across the pond. A giant woman pouts seductively at you from a billboard, maybe naked, maybe in her underwear. There are no restrictions on the accessibility or visibility of “Lads Mags”; you walk into newsagents and you get tits right in your face (but it’s OK: the nipples are covered). Sex sells, baby. And the porn, music and film industries are large and profitable enough to justify that claim.
We already know that our culture is becoming more and more accepting of pornography. Soft-core pornography is now mainstream; even more explicit, hard-core pornography is becoming acceptable. It is an established fact that porn consumption is immensely common. The belief that “there is a porno-isation of the culture” is a legitimate one: “raunch culture” is accepted, that is, lascivious behaviour, and implanted, scantily-clad women – sometimes resembling strippers – are not uncommon and are no longer frowned upon as they once would have been. It’s not a sexualisation of our culture, because “raunch culture” is emulating pornography, and sex-workers such as strippers and lap-dancers.
So, porn is everywhere. But that doesn’t make it wrong by nature. But, I believe, we should be concerned about it, as feminists. Pornography is something, which alternatively breaks my heart and angers me.
Pornography breaks my heart because my sisters are humiliated. They are laughed at, scorned, called “whore”, “slut”. Men ejaculate in their faces. It breaks my heart because my sisters are in pain. That expressions of pain are visible on their faces – if even for an instant – as penises are thrust in their mouths. It breaks my heart because many of my sisters do not have a choice. The freedom of choice for porn stars is mainly an illusion. Although some are completely voluntary, there are many others who are not there through free choice. After all, as Michael Kimmel puts it, “How many working-class women would choose to be pornographic film stars, or prostitutes, if they could just as easily become Supreme Court justices?” Because many of them are in desperate circumstances, trying to feed drug addictions, or homeless – and while this isn’t pornography’s fault, it is unfair for them to be exploited – and a considerable percentage have experienced childhood sexual abuse. This leads to vulnerability and insecurity. Pornography exploits this. Many porn stars are troubled, and are re-living previous abuse, re-enacting it in pornography (indeed it is possible that their abusers learnt how to abuse by watching pornography initially). But it is all they know. It breaks my heart because pornography represents to me – and is often documentation of – heartless misogyny. Pornography is a reminder that we are second-class citizens because we lack a penis; it is a reminder that our society – despite claiming to be tolerant, equal and free – is patriarchal.
Does this break your heart too?
Pornography angers me because it is misogynistic. Pornographers hold disgustingly misogynistic views, and these views are often reflected in their films. They claim that "Women were born with three holes for one purpose: To cram a cock deep inside every cuddly cavity!” Women are “cock sockets.” It angers me because magazines such as Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse find issues such as rape funny: they publish cartoons trivialising rape and showing it in a humourous light. Because magazines such as Hustler print sickening opinions, and their attitudes towards women are puerile and dangerous saying that "There are those who say illogic is the native tongue of anything with tits” Apparently we “speak not from the heart but from the gash.” Apparently, “The one sure-fire way to stop those feminine lips from driving you crazy is to put something between them--like your cock, for instance." It angers me, because despite being represented as “just a bit of fun”, Lads Mags are also contemptuous towards women. Because they are so incredibly visible everywhere, and reproduce similar views towards rape as magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse – claiming that "A lot of women fantasise about …rape… It’s a myth that women want soft stuff” – they reinforce dangerous, misogynistic attitudes towards rape victims, which perpetuate the victim-responsibility myth, when ALL the time it is 100% the rapist’s responsibility. It angers me because – whether a magazine, film, or whatever medium used – pornography represents women as sexualised, often submissive or even passive, objects to be fucked. It angers me because pornography tells people that women like it rough. They all like to be hit, they all like to be anally penetrated, they all like to gag on erections, they all like to be brutalised, they all like force to be exerted. The rapist’s defence “But she liked it rough” is the pornographer’s defence. It angers me because pornography is often trivialised in its significance, although research has found that “the relationship between particularly sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression...is much stronger statistically than the relationship between smoking and lung cancer." Andrea Dworkin noted in “Letters from a War Zone” that the numbers of throat-rapes increased after the release of “Deep Throat”. Although pornography ruins relationships, and is increasingly cited in divorces. Although rapes and murders are sometimes copied from scenes in pornography. Although pornography is viewed before some sexual assaults, or rapes, or murders to steel the nerves of the perpetrators, to “rev” him up. It is still “just a bit of fun”.It angers me because, despite the pain and hurt that is expressed on the faces, and in the voices, of women in many porn films, men still consume pornography and use it to facilitate their masturbation. They are either turned on further by viewing a woman’s pain, or women’s pain is neutral to them. I don’t know which is worse, do you? It angers me because my sisters are de-humanized. They are three holes and two hands. Cunts, anuses, mouths, hands. They are not women, or people. They are simply a sexual organ on legs. For pornography to work, women cannot be human. Their humanity is taken from them. It angers me because, at the end of the day, it is unnecessary. Do men really need to jerk off over graphic celluloid images? Do men really need to have their fantasies dictated to them by porn barons?
Does this anger you too?
I believe that as feminists, we SHOULD be heart-broken and angered by pornography. We SHOULD care about our sisters. I do not believe pornography to be empowering, or liberating. And I think the claim that pro-pornography feminists are “sex-positive” is ridiculous: pornography is not the same as sex. It is certainly not equal sex: the woman is usually in submission, and there is not often mutual pleasure. Pornography does not reflect the realities of relationships or even the personal preferences of the actors and actresses. Because that is what pornography is. Acting. It is not liberating, in my view, to be “acting” sexuality. It is not a genuine expression. It is going through the motions. It is a distorted, one-dimensional view on sex and sexuality and is packaged for marketing. It is not liberating or empowering to be a porn star, female porn stars do NOT call the shots: many are bullied by their agents, and sometimes by their co-stars, too. Regan Starr, star of “Rough Sex 2” got the shit kicked out of her. She was told before the video - and they said this very proudly, mind you - that in this line most of the girls start crying because they're hurting so bad . . . She couldn't breathe. She was being hit and choked. She was really upset, and they didn't stop. They kept filming. You can hear her say, 'Turn the fucking camera off,' and they kept going. That doesn’t sound to me like she’s calling the shots.
Does she sound empowered to you?Although I realise that there are some porn stars who have a more positive experience of the pornography and are working voluntarily, this doesn’t make pornography, as a whole, acceptable. After all, pornography is the complete objectification and symbolic annihilation of women. After all, pornography teaches people that women like to be fucked, and if they don’t it’s because they really want a bit of force first. After all, pornography is propaganda; anti-woman propaganda. Telling people lies about women. Pornography tells men the lie that women are sub-ordinate, that women are objects to fuck, to penetrate, to masturbate over, women are not people, and this message is consistently reproduced through the sexual imagery, and the bigoted, contemptuous attitudes. Pornography is the patriarchy’s mouthpiece. It tells men that women are second-class citizens, that their purpose is to pleasure men, and to be fucked. And to hell with a woman’s personality, idiosyncrasies, quirks, history, dreams, aspirations, preferences.
Pornography is restricting and limiting. It presents sex as hollow, shallow, cold fucking. It is cocks and pussies. Anyone who buys into pornography buys into a narrow-minded, limiting concept of sex, into a stereotypical view of men, women and sex and they buy into the same old, same old routines. There is nothing new or revolutionary about pornography, although the more hardcore films are only escalating the violence, misogyny and male gratification. And, quite frankly, anyone who buys into pornography has little or no imagination.
Pornography is, to my mind, an overtly sexual, explicit, distorted reflection of patriarchy. In pornography, women are symbolically annihilated, de-humanized and overly sexualised. They are objects. They are three holes and two hands. People have told me there’s no point in me engaging in anti-pornography activism. It’s a multi-billion-dollar industry. There’s nothing I can do. I don’t believe that. I may be one individual, but I’m not the only person who feels how I feel. I would like to smash pornography; I would like to smash patriarchy. In my mind, the two go hand-in-hand. If I had a hammer, I’d smash pornography, I’d smash patriarchy. I believe I’ve found that hammer: feminism.
But an out-right ban on pornography would be ridiculous, and unfeasible. The important thing is to address the demand for it. To educate people about the realities of pornography would be a more practical and possible line of action than an out-right ban. To hammer away at the pornography coffin.
And, so sisters, I believe we SHOULD join together. We SHOULD feel moved to do something about pornography. We SHOULD “grrrlcot” shops which sell pornographic magazines and Lads Mags and complain to our High Street Retailers and even our MPs about the visibility and accessibility of Lads Mags at least. We SHOULD tell our male friends, relatives and lovers and any other porn-consumers we know that porn DOES harm women, and it harms the porn consumers, and even their loved ones. We SHOULD campaign for better education about the realities of pornography. We SHOULD campaign for the opening up of new opportunities for porn stars, and other sex workers, particularly the more vulnerable ones. It is all too easy to give into pornography, buy into raunch culture, claim it is “just a bit of fun” and that it does no harm. But you’d only be lying to yourself, I’m afraid.
But, how is that relevant here?
Well, t'is an anti-pornography speech. I'm very proud of this piece, and my English teacher said it was well-written (although at first, she was quite shocked by it, because I'm pretty damn blunt), but you may notice that the writing style is a tad bit different to how I ordinarily write on my posts.
I've been a bit wary about posting it, because I don't want to ruffle any feathers exactly, partly because with normal exam stress - and some other more personal shit - I really can't be arsed to deal with any bullshit.
There was originally a paragraph near the beginning about pro-pornography feminists, and my belief that, despite the anti/pro pornography divide, I believe that being anti or pro pornography doesn't make you a better feminist, it just makes you a different one. But my English teacher made me cut that paragraph out because it helped contribute to going over the word limit. The thing with pornography and feminism, is that it is such a cause of division and strife. It creates a huge divide; even if in every other respect Feminist A (anti pornography) and Feminist B (pro pornography) pretty much agree on feminist issues, the whole pornography thing can be a real bone of contention, and cause of hostility. Personally, I really hate that. The way I see it, is that by defining themselves as feminists, even pro-pornography feminists, they are saying they care, they give a crap about women. And so, sure, there are a few issues I won't agree with them on, but I still believe in a sense of sisterhood. Is that just naivety on my part? I've come to realise that in many cases, it is naivety, since it seems many anti and pro pornography feminists just cannot get past this core difference, despite other core similarities.
This piece, yeah it does reflect my views. After all, I am an anti-pornography feminist. However, I realise that this is something of a ...dodgy subject, given the divide. By no stretch of the imagination do I want to inflame any further divisions, or anything like that. Some of you may know, and I hope the previous paragraph highlighted this, that for all I care about about the issues I am concerned about, and for however strongly I believe in my views, I realise that others feel the same about theirs, but may have different perspectives or opinions, and that some of these issues are very close to people's hearts, and that, I do not encourage, and I do not personally reject other feminists whose views differ from mine. I accept these variations in feminism, and I embrace those who hold these different views, as I embrace those with similar views.You may also realise, as I have already mentioned, that the writing style of this piece is somewhat different to my usual style, this is largely because the audience of this piece is supposed to be anti-pornography (radical) feminists, whereas this blog - although, it was initially pretty damn self-indulgent, and I was convinced hardly anyone would read it but meh - has an undefined and flexible audience.
However, because I'm really bored, I think I will post it. Unfortunately, the few graphological features it did have - such as certain words being underlined, emboldened, or italicised, for emphasis - have largely been lost from copying it from my documents to pasting it on here. I've tried to put some of 'em back in, but I guess it's not really that big a deal.
PorNOgraphy
Pornography. It is an issue, which has been divisive and hotly debated amongst feminists for about 30 years. It is sad, but the divisions caused by the pornography debate between the second wave feminists of the seventies undermined their fight, this weakness helping to allow the reactionaries of the New Right and the MRAs to re-claim some ground, certainly some centre-ground, in the Backlash eighties. On the one-hand, there were the fiercely revolutionary anti-pornography Rad-Fems – Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Mackinnon, Susan Brownmiller and others – on the other, there were the so-called “sex-positive” feminists, whom we will go back to later. But that is about the extent of our history lesson today.
I am here today to talk to you about pornography. Maybe it’s because I’m young, maybe I’m naïve, maybe I’m idealistic, but pornography is something I would like well rid of; this would be no mean feat.
Let’s look at some cool, hard – economic – facts first: the porn industry produces about 11,000 new hardcore films a year, and is worth about $60billion worldwide annually. Estimates of the annual revenues of the pornography industry in the United States alone start at $10billion; that’s more than that of the Hollywood Box Office in 2003, which was $9.5 billion. It is fair enough to say that pornography is nothing small. It is also extensive. It’s not just dirty videos that you buy from a blacked out shop anymore; it’s on the Internet and in magazines too. Soft-core pornography is normalised. We’re conditioned to expect it. Seeing a scantily clad young woman grinding against a pole, or simulating orgasm is an everyday sight. It’s on before the watershed on television. On some music channels, that is all there is. “Girls Gone Wild” is a major franchise across the pond. A giant woman pouts seductively at you from a billboard, maybe naked, maybe in her underwear. There are no restrictions on the accessibility or visibility of “Lads Mags”; you walk into newsagents and you get tits right in your face (but it’s OK: the nipples are covered). Sex sells, baby. And the porn, music and film industries are large and profitable enough to justify that claim.
We already know that our culture is becoming more and more accepting of pornography. Soft-core pornography is now mainstream; even more explicit, hard-core pornography is becoming acceptable. It is an established fact that porn consumption is immensely common. The belief that “there is a porno-isation of the culture” is a legitimate one: “raunch culture” is accepted, that is, lascivious behaviour, and implanted, scantily-clad women – sometimes resembling strippers – are not uncommon and are no longer frowned upon as they once would have been. It’s not a sexualisation of our culture, because “raunch culture” is emulating pornography, and sex-workers such as strippers and lap-dancers.
So, porn is everywhere. But that doesn’t make it wrong by nature. But, I believe, we should be concerned about it, as feminists. Pornography is something, which alternatively breaks my heart and angers me.
Pornography breaks my heart because my sisters are humiliated. They are laughed at, scorned, called “whore”, “slut”. Men ejaculate in their faces. It breaks my heart because my sisters are in pain. That expressions of pain are visible on their faces – if even for an instant – as penises are thrust in their mouths. It breaks my heart because many of my sisters do not have a choice. The freedom of choice for porn stars is mainly an illusion. Although some are completely voluntary, there are many others who are not there through free choice. After all, as Michael Kimmel puts it, “How many working-class women would choose to be pornographic film stars, or prostitutes, if they could just as easily become Supreme Court justices?” Because many of them are in desperate circumstances, trying to feed drug addictions, or homeless – and while this isn’t pornography’s fault, it is unfair for them to be exploited – and a considerable percentage have experienced childhood sexual abuse. This leads to vulnerability and insecurity. Pornography exploits this. Many porn stars are troubled, and are re-living previous abuse, re-enacting it in pornography (indeed it is possible that their abusers learnt how to abuse by watching pornography initially). But it is all they know. It breaks my heart because pornography represents to me – and is often documentation of – heartless misogyny. Pornography is a reminder that we are second-class citizens because we lack a penis; it is a reminder that our society – despite claiming to be tolerant, equal and free – is patriarchal.
Does this break your heart too?
Pornography angers me because it is misogynistic. Pornographers hold disgustingly misogynistic views, and these views are often reflected in their films. They claim that "Women were born with three holes for one purpose: To cram a cock deep inside every cuddly cavity!” Women are “cock sockets.” It angers me because magazines such as Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse find issues such as rape funny: they publish cartoons trivialising rape and showing it in a humourous light. Because magazines such as Hustler print sickening opinions, and their attitudes towards women are puerile and dangerous saying that "There are those who say illogic is the native tongue of anything with tits” Apparently we “speak not from the heart but from the gash.” Apparently, “The one sure-fire way to stop those feminine lips from driving you crazy is to put something between them--like your cock, for instance." It angers me, because despite being represented as “just a bit of fun”, Lads Mags are also contemptuous towards women. Because they are so incredibly visible everywhere, and reproduce similar views towards rape as magazines like Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse – claiming that "A lot of women fantasise about …rape… It’s a myth that women want soft stuff” – they reinforce dangerous, misogynistic attitudes towards rape victims, which perpetuate the victim-responsibility myth, when ALL the time it is 100% the rapist’s responsibility. It angers me because – whether a magazine, film, or whatever medium used – pornography represents women as sexualised, often submissive or even passive, objects to be fucked. It angers me because pornography tells people that women like it rough. They all like to be hit, they all like to be anally penetrated, they all like to gag on erections, they all like to be brutalised, they all like force to be exerted. The rapist’s defence “But she liked it rough” is the pornographer’s defence. It angers me because pornography is often trivialised in its significance, although research has found that “the relationship between particularly sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression...is much stronger statistically than the relationship between smoking and lung cancer." Andrea Dworkin noted in “Letters from a War Zone” that the numbers of throat-rapes increased after the release of “Deep Throat”. Although pornography ruins relationships, and is increasingly cited in divorces. Although rapes and murders are sometimes copied from scenes in pornography. Although pornography is viewed before some sexual assaults, or rapes, or murders to steel the nerves of the perpetrators, to “rev” him up. It is still “just a bit of fun”.It angers me because, despite the pain and hurt that is expressed on the faces, and in the voices, of women in many porn films, men still consume pornography and use it to facilitate their masturbation. They are either turned on further by viewing a woman’s pain, or women’s pain is neutral to them. I don’t know which is worse, do you? It angers me because my sisters are de-humanized. They are three holes and two hands. Cunts, anuses, mouths, hands. They are not women, or people. They are simply a sexual organ on legs. For pornography to work, women cannot be human. Their humanity is taken from them. It angers me because, at the end of the day, it is unnecessary. Do men really need to jerk off over graphic celluloid images? Do men really need to have their fantasies dictated to them by porn barons?
Does this anger you too?
I believe that as feminists, we SHOULD be heart-broken and angered by pornography. We SHOULD care about our sisters. I do not believe pornography to be empowering, or liberating. And I think the claim that pro-pornography feminists are “sex-positive” is ridiculous: pornography is not the same as sex. It is certainly not equal sex: the woman is usually in submission, and there is not often mutual pleasure. Pornography does not reflect the realities of relationships or even the personal preferences of the actors and actresses. Because that is what pornography is. Acting. It is not liberating, in my view, to be “acting” sexuality. It is not a genuine expression. It is going through the motions. It is a distorted, one-dimensional view on sex and sexuality and is packaged for marketing. It is not liberating or empowering to be a porn star, female porn stars do NOT call the shots: many are bullied by their agents, and sometimes by their co-stars, too. Regan Starr, star of “Rough Sex 2” got the shit kicked out of her. She was told before the video - and they said this very proudly, mind you - that in this line most of the girls start crying because they're hurting so bad . . . She couldn't breathe. She was being hit and choked. She was really upset, and they didn't stop. They kept filming. You can hear her say, 'Turn the fucking camera off,' and they kept going. That doesn’t sound to me like she’s calling the shots.
Does she sound empowered to you?Although I realise that there are some porn stars who have a more positive experience of the pornography and are working voluntarily, this doesn’t make pornography, as a whole, acceptable. After all, pornography is the complete objectification and symbolic annihilation of women. After all, pornography teaches people that women like to be fucked, and if they don’t it’s because they really want a bit of force first. After all, pornography is propaganda; anti-woman propaganda. Telling people lies about women. Pornography tells men the lie that women are sub-ordinate, that women are objects to fuck, to penetrate, to masturbate over, women are not people, and this message is consistently reproduced through the sexual imagery, and the bigoted, contemptuous attitudes. Pornography is the patriarchy’s mouthpiece. It tells men that women are second-class citizens, that their purpose is to pleasure men, and to be fucked. And to hell with a woman’s personality, idiosyncrasies, quirks, history, dreams, aspirations, preferences.
Pornography is restricting and limiting. It presents sex as hollow, shallow, cold fucking. It is cocks and pussies. Anyone who buys into pornography buys into a narrow-minded, limiting concept of sex, into a stereotypical view of men, women and sex and they buy into the same old, same old routines. There is nothing new or revolutionary about pornography, although the more hardcore films are only escalating the violence, misogyny and male gratification. And, quite frankly, anyone who buys into pornography has little or no imagination.
Pornography is, to my mind, an overtly sexual, explicit, distorted reflection of patriarchy. In pornography, women are symbolically annihilated, de-humanized and overly sexualised. They are objects. They are three holes and two hands. People have told me there’s no point in me engaging in anti-pornography activism. It’s a multi-billion-dollar industry. There’s nothing I can do. I don’t believe that. I may be one individual, but I’m not the only person who feels how I feel. I would like to smash pornography; I would like to smash patriarchy. In my mind, the two go hand-in-hand. If I had a hammer, I’d smash pornography, I’d smash patriarchy. I believe I’ve found that hammer: feminism.
But an out-right ban on pornography would be ridiculous, and unfeasible. The important thing is to address the demand for it. To educate people about the realities of pornography would be a more practical and possible line of action than an out-right ban. To hammer away at the pornography coffin.
And, so sisters, I believe we SHOULD join together. We SHOULD feel moved to do something about pornography. We SHOULD “grrrlcot” shops which sell pornographic magazines and Lads Mags and complain to our High Street Retailers and even our MPs about the visibility and accessibility of Lads Mags at least. We SHOULD tell our male friends, relatives and lovers and any other porn-consumers we know that porn DOES harm women, and it harms the porn consumers, and even their loved ones. We SHOULD campaign for better education about the realities of pornography. We SHOULD campaign for the opening up of new opportunities for porn stars, and other sex workers, particularly the more vulnerable ones. It is all too easy to give into pornography, buy into raunch culture, claim it is “just a bit of fun” and that it does no harm. But you’d only be lying to yourself, I’m afraid.
Taking a break from my "revision"...
...because, I'm crap with revision, and have thus far been busy this weekend, and have decided that tomorry is "revision day". Yes, indeedy.
Anyhoo, it's good to see that the Guardian's women section are doing something positive, with an advice column from the goddess that is Beth Ditto.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2066814,00.html
I find it really refreshing that someone like Beth Ditto is doing an advice column in a women's section. It's about time there was something different other than handbags, shoes, and make-up. Oh, and slimming.
Despite all the faults in the media, particularly with newspaper journalism, I still want to be a journalist. Partly so I can do my damndest to right these faults. :)
Anyhoo, it's good to see that the Guardian's women section are doing something positive, with an advice column from the goddess that is Beth Ditto.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2066814,00.html
I find it really refreshing that someone like Beth Ditto is doing an advice column in a women's section. It's about time there was something different other than handbags, shoes, and make-up. Oh, and slimming.
Despite all the faults in the media, particularly with newspaper journalism, I still want to be a journalist. Partly so I can do my damndest to right these faults. :)
Monday, 23 April 2007
Hibernation now...
...On May 11th, I will be starting study leave. I think my first AS exam (which I have a feeling may be History) is on the 15th.
I have exams until 6th June (two History exams, one of which is a Mussolini paper re-take).
I haven't exactly started revision yet.
I am kinda shitting myself about my exams. I've never been really much of a revision kinda student, but I learned from my history exam in January that I really need to sort that out.
And so, 'cos I am terrible at procrastinating, and this blog is one of my favourite methods of procrastination, I have decided to hibernate until, like, the 6th June. (That said, I may check on here every now and then, but I will most probably not post, unless I get too tempted.)
So yeah, Amy will be hibernating for about a month or so.
Happy blogging y'all. :)
I have exams until 6th June (two History exams, one of which is a Mussolini paper re-take).
I haven't exactly started revision yet.
I am kinda shitting myself about my exams. I've never been really much of a revision kinda student, but I learned from my history exam in January that I really need to sort that out.
And so, 'cos I am terrible at procrastinating, and this blog is one of my favourite methods of procrastination, I have decided to hibernate until, like, the 6th June. (That said, I may check on here every now and then, but I will most probably not post, unless I get too tempted.)
So yeah, Amy will be hibernating for about a month or so.
Happy blogging y'all. :)
Just some things I feel compelled to write about...
...Before I go on hibernation...
Firstly.
Just some ways in which the media restrict women and whatnot
"Just look at how women are presented in the media. It's not just about stereotypes.
1) Women have been allocated a limited range of roles
2) Women are less visible in the media than men (After all, in a patriarchal society, they're inferior)
3) Women have been presented as ideals - Ferguson's "cult of femininity" still exists -
4) Women have been selected to appeal to men etc etc
Female issues are marginalised by the media. To use Tuchman's words, women are "symbolically annihilated" by the media.
If there wasn't a patriarchy, why would women be presented like this by the media, which, by the way, I personally believe is an incredibly powerful institution.
I personally believe that traditional images are deliberately transmitted by male-dominated media to keep women in a narrow range or roles, thus reproducing patriarchy."
(This can also double up as a bit of sociology revision, how fun!)
1) Women have been allocated a limited range of roles (in the media)
Social roles for women. There ain't that many of them in the media. Men, however, perform a myriad, the full range even, of social and occupational roles. Women are often found in domestic settings (stereotypical of what?!), as busy housewives, contented mothers, eager consumers, and so on. True, there are some examples where women are more than this. But very often, these women are also mothers/wives/whatever, or desire to be these things. Sexual and romantic roles are also included in this list. Because what more could a woman want in her life, other than to fulfil a sexual, romantic or domestic role? (Yes, yes, I know, many women do want this, but I'm just exploring the possibility that a woman could possibily want more, like, for example, maybe, just maybe, a career, or something?!)
Even when women are in high-status occupational roles - doctors, lawyers - they are often shown as having problems with their "unusual" circumstances. They are portrayed as unfulfilled (with motherhood often being offered as a solution to this), unattractive, unstable, having problems with relationships. Successful working mothers are shown as irresponsible, even as bad mothers emotionally neglecting their children. Men are rarely shown in such a light.
Examples of these successful women? Take Lynette from Desperate Housewives - she felt guilty when she got back into a career, Parker (her youngest son) even created an imaginary Mary Poppins like friend to fill the void left o so cruelly by his mother, to represent the disturbing change in his life - or, Elliot from Scrubs. Neurotic as hell, increasingly so as she gets more successful. (That said, I do love both programmes.)
2) Visibility
In 1990, 89% of voice-overs for television commercials were male, because apparently male voices are more representative of authority, while women were the main stars of only 14% of mid-evening TV progs in the 1990s. Few women stars in Hollywood are seen by the major studios as being able to carry a film by themselves, although women are slowly moving into lead roles in traditionally masculine areas such as science fiction.
However, what is more important, in my mind, is that female issues are marginalised by the media. By marginalised, I mean they are not seen as part of the mainstream, despite the fact that women make up about 50% of the population. They are seen as "other". Yes, most newspapers have "women's pages", which focus on women as a special group with special needs. Now, I can see why some anti-feminists will get all hot and bothered and say "See! See! Women are given special treatment! Wah!" However, most of these pages tend to concentrate on beauty and slimming. Beauty and slimming?! Because all women are that shallow, the only thing they'll be interested in reading about is about beauty and slimming. If you ask me, it smacks of trivialising women and their interests.
In fact, Tuchman called this "symbolic annihilation", meaning the way in which women in the media are absent, condemned (for example, the constant insinuation that women shouldn't wear short skirts, lest they be raped), or trivialised.
And, of course, women are also absent from the top jobs in the media. The majority of media owners are men, as are the higher position holders within media empires. Simple as.
3) Women have been presented as ideals
"Cult of Femininity". Ferguson conducted a content analysis of women's magazines from between 1949 and 1974 and 1979 and 1980, where she found that these magazines promted an ideal where excellence is achieved through caring for others, the family, marriage, and appearance. Modern female mags, especially those with a teenage audience, are supposedly moving away from these stereotypes, although - and I've noticed this from my own personal reading, and just looking at female magazines on shelves - magazines do still tend to focus on, as Ferguson put it, "him, home and looking good (for him)". Although, as Winship did note, women's mags do also tackle problems such as DV and child abuse sometimes.
And haven't you noticed that physical looks, sex appeal and youth seem to be necessary attributes for women to be successful in TV and film? Most women on the box and the silver screen seem to be under 30, or at least look like they are. However, the same is not true for men. There's a much greater range of men in the media.
Wolf pointed out that the media, especially advertising, present a particular physical image as the "normal" or "ideal" body image for women to have, even though this may image may be unattainable for most women. I mean, we're human, we come in many beautiful shapes and sizes.
4) Sex appeal
This seems to be, to be pretty simplistic. Women are often presented as sexual objects to be enjoyed by men. One word: pornography. Another example: page 3 girls. Film-makers often employ a "male gaze", essentially "eyeing up" the female characters. They do this all the time in Scrubs.
***
A tad bit about make-up
For those of you who may not have noticed, in this photo I am wearing some (pretty bright, obvious and unnatural looking) eye make up, and a touch of lippie (and I also don't look that sober either, but that's neither here nor there).
Now, t'other day, I was explaining to one of my friends why I chose not to shave my legs and whatnot. She pointed out that wearing make-up wasn't natural either. Which is true, of course.
Firstly.
Just some ways in which the media restrict women and whatnot
"Just look at how women are presented in the media. It's not just about stereotypes.
1) Women have been allocated a limited range of roles
2) Women are less visible in the media than men (After all, in a patriarchal society, they're inferior)
3) Women have been presented as ideals - Ferguson's "cult of femininity" still exists -
4) Women have been selected to appeal to men etc etc
Female issues are marginalised by the media. To use Tuchman's words, women are "symbolically annihilated" by the media.
If there wasn't a patriarchy, why would women be presented like this by the media, which, by the way, I personally believe is an incredibly powerful institution.
I personally believe that traditional images are deliberately transmitted by male-dominated media to keep women in a narrow range or roles, thus reproducing patriarchy."
(This can also double up as a bit of sociology revision, how fun!)
1) Women have been allocated a limited range of roles (in the media)
Social roles for women. There ain't that many of them in the media. Men, however, perform a myriad, the full range even, of social and occupational roles. Women are often found in domestic settings (stereotypical of what?!), as busy housewives, contented mothers, eager consumers, and so on. True, there are some examples where women are more than this. But very often, these women are also mothers/wives/whatever, or desire to be these things. Sexual and romantic roles are also included in this list. Because what more could a woman want in her life, other than to fulfil a sexual, romantic or domestic role? (Yes, yes, I know, many women do want this, but I'm just exploring the possibility that a woman could possibily want more, like, for example, maybe, just maybe, a career, or something?!)
Even when women are in high-status occupational roles - doctors, lawyers - they are often shown as having problems with their "unusual" circumstances. They are portrayed as unfulfilled (with motherhood often being offered as a solution to this), unattractive, unstable, having problems with relationships. Successful working mothers are shown as irresponsible, even as bad mothers emotionally neglecting their children. Men are rarely shown in such a light.
Examples of these successful women? Take Lynette from Desperate Housewives - she felt guilty when she got back into a career, Parker (her youngest son) even created an imaginary Mary Poppins like friend to fill the void left o so cruelly by his mother, to represent the disturbing change in his life - or, Elliot from Scrubs. Neurotic as hell, increasingly so as she gets more successful. (That said, I do love both programmes.)
2) Visibility
In 1990, 89% of voice-overs for television commercials were male, because apparently male voices are more representative of authority, while women were the main stars of only 14% of mid-evening TV progs in the 1990s. Few women stars in Hollywood are seen by the major studios as being able to carry a film by themselves, although women are slowly moving into lead roles in traditionally masculine areas such as science fiction.
However, what is more important, in my mind, is that female issues are marginalised by the media. By marginalised, I mean they are not seen as part of the mainstream, despite the fact that women make up about 50% of the population. They are seen as "other". Yes, most newspapers have "women's pages", which focus on women as a special group with special needs. Now, I can see why some anti-feminists will get all hot and bothered and say "See! See! Women are given special treatment! Wah!" However, most of these pages tend to concentrate on beauty and slimming. Beauty and slimming?! Because all women are that shallow, the only thing they'll be interested in reading about is about beauty and slimming. If you ask me, it smacks of trivialising women and their interests.
In fact, Tuchman called this "symbolic annihilation", meaning the way in which women in the media are absent, condemned (for example, the constant insinuation that women shouldn't wear short skirts, lest they be raped), or trivialised.
And, of course, women are also absent from the top jobs in the media. The majority of media owners are men, as are the higher position holders within media empires. Simple as.
3) Women have been presented as ideals
"Cult of Femininity". Ferguson conducted a content analysis of women's magazines from between 1949 and 1974 and 1979 and 1980, where she found that these magazines promted an ideal where excellence is achieved through caring for others, the family, marriage, and appearance. Modern female mags, especially those with a teenage audience, are supposedly moving away from these stereotypes, although - and I've noticed this from my own personal reading, and just looking at female magazines on shelves - magazines do still tend to focus on, as Ferguson put it, "him, home and looking good (for him)". Although, as Winship did note, women's mags do also tackle problems such as DV and child abuse sometimes.
And haven't you noticed that physical looks, sex appeal and youth seem to be necessary attributes for women to be successful in TV and film? Most women on the box and the silver screen seem to be under 30, or at least look like they are. However, the same is not true for men. There's a much greater range of men in the media.
Wolf pointed out that the media, especially advertising, present a particular physical image as the "normal" or "ideal" body image for women to have, even though this may image may be unattainable for most women. I mean, we're human, we come in many beautiful shapes and sizes.
4) Sex appeal
This seems to be, to be pretty simplistic. Women are often presented as sexual objects to be enjoyed by men. One word: pornography. Another example: page 3 girls. Film-makers often employ a "male gaze", essentially "eyeing up" the female characters. They do this all the time in Scrubs.
***
A tad bit about make-up
Now, t'other day, I was explaining to one of my friends why I chose not to shave my legs and whatnot. She pointed out that wearing make-up wasn't natural either. Which is true, of course.
However - and maybe the photo doesn't demonstrate this clearly enough - the way I personally use make-up, it pretty much never looks natural. It's not supposed to. Let's get some things straight about my make-up.
- It's not supposed to benefit my features, or to improve them. I do not need to.
- I've been complimented on both my make-upped face, and on my naked face.
- I don't feel I need to wear make-up. I do often leave the house with a nudey face (shocked my cousin once though; she found that concept hard to grasp).
- For me, it is fun, and a touch of personal expression (like, I guess, my hairy legs are also a touch of personal expression.)
- I make no apologies for my make-up.
The way I see it, on a personal level, is that I have a large, bright personality, and I use bright colours and make-up to reflect this as an aesthetic.
Also, make-up is different for each woman (or, even, man). Whereas, you're either hairy or hairless, with make-up, you can be:
- Nudey-faced
- Make-upped, but nudey-faced-looking
- Crazy-looking-make-upped
- Subtly make-upped.
- A combination of all the above.
With make-up, there's not so much pressure. It's not the same as with shaving or other forms of hair removal. There's more an individual choice factor, which is important to me.
With my make-up, there are no pretences. Clearly, I do not naturally have sparkly green eyelids. Clearly, my lips are not naturally that Courtney-Love-style-red. It's part of my style, as I choose to wear it. And, I can take as long or as little time as I damn well please, if I do choose to put on make-up.
Seriously, I'll compare how I see make-up and FBH issues in wider society.
Although, that said, I do feel a tad bit concerned, when girls and women feel like they can't leave the house without make-up on. Partly because I know what it's like to have incredibly shit self-esteem, and at some points I actually hated my reflection in the mirror. Sometimes, even with make-up on.
I just don't personally see FBH removal and make-up on quite the same page. One can be quite liberating and expressive and fun, one can be a pain in the arse, amongst other things.
So, just how much of a feminist issue is make-up?
If you're a socialist feminist, I can understand that you wouldn't necessarily be that happy clappy about make-up.
I applaud feminists who refuse to wear make-up, because if they feel that strongly about it, then, great. But I guess I see make-up as more an optional thing, rather than a ritual I must do daily. As Susan Brownmiller said - in the prologue to "Femininity" - "Enormous pleasure can be extracted from feminine pursuits as a creative outlet or purely as relaxation, indulgence for the sake of fun..." and make-up is pretty much the one and only feminine indulgence I enjoy, and, well, indulge in. Partly because, it's not exactly a necessity.
As feminists, and as women, I believe we have the right to express ourselves in whichever way we please. Aesthetically, yes, I do apply make-up to express myself, and I do have hairy legs, too.
Sunday, 22 April 2007
O my Goddess!!!
Recently, I've well and truly fallen in love with Ani Difranco :D
She's amazing. I just love her lyrics.
And, over here, in comedy corner... (to make this an even more pointless post yay)
The thing is, a lot of the comedy I love features penis-owners. But, ya gotta love classics such as Blackadder, Only Fools and Horses, and films such as Life Of Brian and The Holy Grail. My favourite comedian is Bill Bailey. I like to watch the Best of the Comedy Store on paramount, but they hardly ever feature female comedians. Women feature less often in comedy - especially as innovators - than positive, alternative, even feminist-ic women do in the music industry. Although, ya gotta love Dawn French, especially in Vicar of Dibley, and Ronnie Ancona is a brilliant impressionist. Etc.
But, here's a bit of Bl'adders, cos I feel like it :)
She's amazing. I just love her lyrics.
And, over here, in comedy corner... (to make this an even more pointless post yay)
The thing is, a lot of the comedy I love features penis-owners. But, ya gotta love classics such as Blackadder, Only Fools and Horses, and films such as Life Of Brian and The Holy Grail. My favourite comedian is Bill Bailey. I like to watch the Best of the Comedy Store on paramount, but they hardly ever feature female comedians. Women feature less often in comedy - especially as innovators - than positive, alternative, even feminist-ic women do in the music industry. Although, ya gotta love Dawn French, especially in Vicar of Dibley, and Ronnie Ancona is a brilliant impressionist. Etc.
But, here's a bit of Bl'adders, cos I feel like it :)
Ren tagged me! (How exciting!)
Ah, a bit of fun :)
A- Available or Single? Urm, is this a word preference, or about my "status"?...But, to shortly answer - I'm not currently in any form of romantic relationship.
B- Best Friend. The best ones: Lissa, Faith, Kay, Tal.
C- Cake or Pie. Caaaaaake :)
D- Drink of Choice. Blates coffee
E- Essential Item. Ivaldo the iPod
F- Favorite Color. Purpular
G- Gummi Bears or Worms. Urm, I'd say worms.
H- Hometown. The town of Dreams.
I- Indulgence. I did indulge myself in buying CDs from Fopp, til the whole Deep Throat thing.
J- January or February. Neither.
K- Kids. Not a big fan. Unless they're quiet and not totally hooked up on sugar.
L- Life is incomplete without… coffee (sad, but true), mates, and music
M- Marriage Date. :
N- Number of Siblings? Ein Bruder
O- Oranges or Apples? Apfelsaft! :) And I guess I prefer apples in solid-fruit-form too
P- Phobias/Fears. Many things, many of which are stupid.
Q- Favorite Quote. Urm, can't think of one at the moment; I'm not really a quote-y person, although I can reel out quite a few from the Life of Brian.
R- Reasons to smile. I have many reasons to smile, and lots of things make me smile.
S- Season. Autumn. I love the leaves and the smell of the air, and the rain, and my bopday :)
T- Tag Three. Laura, Martin, Lizzie.
U- Unknown Fact About Me.
V – Vegetarian or Oppressor of Animals. Oppressor of Animals?! LOL. Meat eater all the way, the bloodier the better (when it comes to steak at least, not so good with chicken!!!)
W- Worst Habit. Hmm...bad habits I have? My coffee drinking is staining my teeth, not so good. I have a habit of apologising too much, that's a tad bit annoying. Can't really think of any really. Ooo, wait, my habit of procrastinating. Bit of a bugger.
X – X-rays or Ultrasounds. I've only had Xrays, I believe
Y- Your Favorite Foods. So many to choose from! Mexicano cheese, which I miss (!), schokolade/chocolat/chocolate, Indian food
Z- Zodiac. SCORPIO :D
A- Available or Single? Urm, is this a word preference, or about my "status"?...But, to shortly answer - I'm not currently in any form of romantic relationship.
B- Best Friend. The best ones: Lissa, Faith, Kay, Tal.
C- Cake or Pie. Caaaaaake :)
D- Drink of Choice. Blates coffee
E- Essential Item. Ivaldo the iPod
F- Favorite Color. Purpular
G- Gummi Bears or Worms. Urm, I'd say worms.
H- Hometown. The town of Dreams.
I- Indulgence. I did indulge myself in buying CDs from Fopp, til the whole Deep Throat thing.
J- January or February. Neither.
K- Kids. Not a big fan. Unless they're quiet and not totally hooked up on sugar.
L- Life is incomplete without… coffee (sad, but true), mates, and music
M- Marriage Date. :
N- Number of Siblings? Ein Bruder
O- Oranges or Apples? Apfelsaft! :) And I guess I prefer apples in solid-fruit-form too
P- Phobias/Fears. Many things, many of which are stupid.
Q- Favorite Quote. Urm, can't think of one at the moment; I'm not really a quote-y person, although I can reel out quite a few from the Life of Brian.
R- Reasons to smile. I have many reasons to smile, and lots of things make me smile.
S- Season. Autumn. I love the leaves and the smell of the air, and the rain, and my bopday :)
T- Tag Three. Laura, Martin, Lizzie.
U- Unknown Fact About Me.
V – Vegetarian or Oppressor of Animals. Oppressor of Animals?! LOL. Meat eater all the way, the bloodier the better (when it comes to steak at least, not so good with chicken!!!)
W- Worst Habit. Hmm...bad habits I have? My coffee drinking is staining my teeth, not so good. I have a habit of apologising too much, that's a tad bit annoying. Can't really think of any really. Ooo, wait, my habit of procrastinating. Bit of a bugger.
X – X-rays or Ultrasounds. I've only had Xrays, I believe
Y- Your Favorite Foods. So many to choose from! Mexicano cheese, which I miss (!), schokolade/chocolat/chocolate, Indian food
Z- Zodiac. SCORPIO :D
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Feminism
feminism
noun {U}
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:
- She had a lifelong commitment to feminism.
feminist
noun {C}
a person who believes in feminism, often being involved in activities that are intended to achieve change:
- All her life she was an ardent feminist.
- a radical feminist
feminist
adjective
- the feminist movement
- feminist issues/literature
There is often a lot of - how shall I put it? - aggro, about the words "feminist" and "feminism", because they mean different things to different people, or groups of people.
Above is the simplest way to describe it really. Of course, it doesn't particularly take into account the various strands of feminism, but that is besides the point.
I know that some people do actually believe that feminism is about trying to achieve female supremacy, or that feminists are man-haters. Maybe for some, it is; maybe some are.
However, just speaking for myself here, my feminism is, put in the simplest possible way, my belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. I care about people, men and women, but particularly women. Until I feel that women really, genuinely, are equal (and this means socially, not just legally), I will continue to prioritise women in my concerns.
To delve a little deeper, I guess I do, in most respects, identify with radical feminism, in that I look for possible explanations about the current social system, and I see that it is hierarchical according to gender, and that males are superior in this system. This social gender class system, my friends, is called Patriarchy.
The Patriarchy - this system - is the dominant ideology, that of the (white, middle class) male default.
Patriarchy affects everyone, male and female, partly through the socialisation processes into the norms and values of our gender roles, otherwise known as "femininity" and "masculinity", the traits each gender is expected to adhere to. (And yes, I do believe that gender is socially constructed.) I sometimes see "femininity" and "masculinity" as twin pillars holding up the Patriarchy, which is partly why I would like to get rid of these concepts, so that there is no longer a patriarchy, and thus, no hierarchy based on gender.
This doesn't mean I don't like being a (young) woman, or female, because that is my sex, not my gender.
As for other feminists? I don't believe that being pro/anti porn makes you a better feminist. OK, so I tend to read mainly anti-porn blogs, and feminist anti-porn theory and whatnot, but that's partly because that's my own personal leaning, and partly because it's more prevalent, especially in the blogosphere. However, I am also interested in hearing from the other side of the debate.
I don't particularly like the whole "more feminist than thou" attitude. It makes me really sad reading blogs where feminists are arguing in this fashion. I like sisterhood, OK?! Sisterhood Is Powerful! It's always interesting to hear other feminist perspectives, and feminism is pretty damn diverse, with a large and wonderful range of feminists. I'm interested in feminism, in the theories and concepts and the writers. This blog isn't an Idiot's Guide to Feminism.
Feminism is fucking important to me. I think about it a lot. I see so many aspects of my life, pretty much everything, from a feminist perspective. Feminism, at its best, exhilerates me.
noun {U}
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:
- She had a lifelong commitment to feminism.
feminist
noun {C}
a person who believes in feminism, often being involved in activities that are intended to achieve change:
- All her life she was an ardent feminist.
- a radical feminist
feminist
adjective
- the feminist movement
- feminist issues/literature
There is often a lot of - how shall I put it? - aggro, about the words "feminist" and "feminism", because they mean different things to different people, or groups of people.
Above is the simplest way to describe it really. Of course, it doesn't particularly take into account the various strands of feminism, but that is besides the point.
I know that some people do actually believe that feminism is about trying to achieve female supremacy, or that feminists are man-haters. Maybe for some, it is; maybe some are.
However, just speaking for myself here, my feminism is, put in the simplest possible way, my belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way. I care about people, men and women, but particularly women. Until I feel that women really, genuinely, are equal (and this means socially, not just legally), I will continue to prioritise women in my concerns.
To delve a little deeper, I guess I do, in most respects, identify with radical feminism, in that I look for possible explanations about the current social system, and I see that it is hierarchical according to gender, and that males are superior in this system. This social gender class system, my friends, is called Patriarchy.
The Patriarchy - this system - is the dominant ideology, that of the (white, middle class) male default.
Patriarchy affects everyone, male and female, partly through the socialisation processes into the norms and values of our gender roles, otherwise known as "femininity" and "masculinity", the traits each gender is expected to adhere to. (And yes, I do believe that gender is socially constructed.) I sometimes see "femininity" and "masculinity" as twin pillars holding up the Patriarchy, which is partly why I would like to get rid of these concepts, so that there is no longer a patriarchy, and thus, no hierarchy based on gender.
This doesn't mean I don't like being a (young) woman, or female, because that is my sex, not my gender.
As for other feminists? I don't believe that being pro/anti porn makes you a better feminist. OK, so I tend to read mainly anti-porn blogs, and feminist anti-porn theory and whatnot, but that's partly because that's my own personal leaning, and partly because it's more prevalent, especially in the blogosphere. However, I am also interested in hearing from the other side of the debate.
I don't particularly like the whole "more feminist than thou" attitude. It makes me really sad reading blogs where feminists are arguing in this fashion. I like sisterhood, OK?! Sisterhood Is Powerful! It's always interesting to hear other feminist perspectives, and feminism is pretty damn diverse, with a large and wonderful range of feminists. I'm interested in feminism, in the theories and concepts and the writers. This blog isn't an Idiot's Guide to Feminism.
Feminism is fucking important to me. I think about it a lot. I see so many aspects of my life, pretty much everything, from a feminist perspective. Feminism, at its best, exhilerates me.
SAY IT OUT LOUD, I'M FEMINIST AND I'M PROUD.
P.S. Some other posts about patriarchy and whatnot which really made me think.
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/14/some-notes-on-revolution/
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/we-each-pick-our-battles/
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/im-a-radical-feminist/
P.P.S Male Entitlement/ Male Privilege Checklist can be found here
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/14/some-notes-on-revolution/
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/we-each-pick-our-battles/
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/im-a-radical-feminist/
P.P.S Male Entitlement/ Male Privilege Checklist can be found here
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Just a bit of Q & A (edited)
In an earlier post, someone commented me asking these three questions:
"Why is todays society so focused on sexuality in the media?
Why do so many young women seek to replicate this ideal of sexuality?
But more importantly: Is this a problem?"
For this particular blog entry, I will seek to offer my own personal perspective and opinion on at least the latter two questions, but briefly. I'm sure there will be more to come on the matter at some point.
Now, to begin. The first feminist book I ever read was "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women & The Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy, and I most heartily recommend it, for those interested in feminism and contemporary culture. This book really got me into feminism. So, if you have read this book, you should be able to see where I'm coming from.
Sexuality In The Media
Sexuality is covered a lot in the media. But, for the most part, it's the same old thing. It's a raunchy, plastic sexuality, often emulating sex-workers. Just look at music videos, women are gyrating against poles, their lithe bodies are barely covered, and are often glistening with baby oil or something. The Sun has its infamous Page 3 girls, and other tabloid papers contain plenty of sexualised pictures of women. Even in movies, for example the Charlies Angels films, the stars are dressed, as Ariel Levy puts it, "in alternating soft-porn styles - as massage parlour geishas, dominatrixes, yodeling Heidis in alpine bustiers". And three words: Girls Gone Wild. So, yes, there's a lot of sexuality in the media.
But, how genuine is this sexuality? As I have described it, it all seems pretty one-dimensional to me. And much of it seems to me to be the objectification of women, and seems to be geared towards men's pleasure.
But why does the media focus on sexuality in this way? I don't know, and as yet I don't have any real theory on it, I'm afraid. But here's one possible, tentative idea.
Ariel Levy says,
"Passion isn't the point. The glossy, overheated thumping of sexuality in our culture is less about connection than consumption. Hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it."
This could be a chicken-or-egg thing here, but I have to wonder, is the media's focus on this brand of sexuality reflecting what the audience wants, or whether it's helping to stir it up.
It's true that today's obsession with "hotness" and sexuality is profitable and lucrative to many people. From plastic surgeons, to celebrities, to those working within newspapers and magazines, and the advertising industry. Maybe this is why there is a focus on sexuality in the media.
But, to be more specific about the question ("Why is todays society so focused on sexuality in the media?"), here's one possible explanation: the media make this new raunch sexuality thing look pretty damn good. Most people like feeling attractive, and they are told this ideal of sexuality will make them hot. And, it is thrust in our faces a lot of the time, and so today's society focuses a lot on it.
Why do so many young women seek to replicate this ideal of sexuality?
Maybe it's a case of group mentality? Maybe it's simply media manipulation. Personally, I think it's a myriad of reasons.
This new raunch culture style of sexuality (arguably, it can be called a "porno-isation" of our culture) is presented by the media as glossy, fun, sexy. We're told it's "Empowering and liberating." This appeals to women, many of whom do believe this to be empowering and liberating, however whether this is or not is entirely subjective and arguable.
But more importantly: Is this a problem?
Now, do not get me wrong, I would like to state very clearly: I am not an anti-sex prude.
If this is the genuine expression of an individual's sexuality, if this is what makes them feel free and happy, and if they are completely comfortable with this sexuality, and there are some women with which this is the case, then great, it's not a problem. However, I am doubtful as to whether this is the case for the majority.
However, I personally feel that if we are truly liberated about our sexuality, surely it shouldn't be dictated to us or hammered into our conscience by the media. Our expressions of our sexuality should be purely our own, provided that it isn't harmful to anyone. Renev recently posted about women's sexuality, and how the patriarchy tries to control it. I personally believe that the promotion of this new so-called "raunch culture" by the media, is another way of controlling female sexuality. How so? By promoting one single ideal of sexuality, women are not being actively encouraged to develop, or discover, their own individual sexuality, they are not bieng encouraged to look inwardly. And, let's face it, the current ideal of raunch culture sexuality is very plastic, pornified, and largely revolves around the objectification of women. It often appears to me, to be more about the same old stereotypes, and less about individual exploration, or celebration.
In fact, recently a report from the American Psychological Association on the sexualizing of women and girls, stated that there is no doubt that "that the proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls’ self-image and healthy development."
This is a problem. Self-image is so, so important, and yet the image and ideal we are promoting and constantly pushing onto women and girls is harmful to their self-image.
"Why is todays society so focused on sexuality in the media?
Why do so many young women seek to replicate this ideal of sexuality?
But more importantly: Is this a problem?"
For this particular blog entry, I will seek to offer my own personal perspective and opinion on at least the latter two questions, but briefly. I'm sure there will be more to come on the matter at some point.
Now, to begin. The first feminist book I ever read was "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women & The Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy, and I most heartily recommend it, for those interested in feminism and contemporary culture. This book really got me into feminism. So, if you have read this book, you should be able to see where I'm coming from.
Sexuality In The Media
Sexuality is covered a lot in the media. But, for the most part, it's the same old thing. It's a raunchy, plastic sexuality, often emulating sex-workers. Just look at music videos, women are gyrating against poles, their lithe bodies are barely covered, and are often glistening with baby oil or something. The Sun has its infamous Page 3 girls, and other tabloid papers contain plenty of sexualised pictures of women. Even in movies, for example the Charlies Angels films, the stars are dressed, as Ariel Levy puts it, "in alternating soft-porn styles - as massage parlour geishas, dominatrixes, yodeling Heidis in alpine bustiers". And three words: Girls Gone Wild. So, yes, there's a lot of sexuality in the media.
But, how genuine is this sexuality? As I have described it, it all seems pretty one-dimensional to me. And much of it seems to me to be the objectification of women, and seems to be geared towards men's pleasure.
But why does the media focus on sexuality in this way? I don't know, and as yet I don't have any real theory on it, I'm afraid. But here's one possible, tentative idea.
Ariel Levy says,
"Passion isn't the point. The glossy, overheated thumping of sexuality in our culture is less about connection than consumption. Hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it."
This could be a chicken-or-egg thing here, but I have to wonder, is the media's focus on this brand of sexuality reflecting what the audience wants, or whether it's helping to stir it up.
It's true that today's obsession with "hotness" and sexuality is profitable and lucrative to many people. From plastic surgeons, to celebrities, to those working within newspapers and magazines, and the advertising industry. Maybe this is why there is a focus on sexuality in the media.
But, to be more specific about the question ("Why is todays society so focused on sexuality in the media?"), here's one possible explanation: the media make this new raunch sexuality thing look pretty damn good. Most people like feeling attractive, and they are told this ideal of sexuality will make them hot. And, it is thrust in our faces a lot of the time, and so today's society focuses a lot on it.
Why do so many young women seek to replicate this ideal of sexuality?
Maybe it's a case of group mentality? Maybe it's simply media manipulation. Personally, I think it's a myriad of reasons.
This new raunch culture style of sexuality (arguably, it can be called a "porno-isation" of our culture) is presented by the media as glossy, fun, sexy. We're told it's "Empowering and liberating." This appeals to women, many of whom do believe this to be empowering and liberating, however whether this is or not is entirely subjective and arguable.
But more importantly: Is this a problem?
Now, do not get me wrong, I would like to state very clearly: I am not an anti-sex prude.
If this is the genuine expression of an individual's sexuality, if this is what makes them feel free and happy, and if they are completely comfortable with this sexuality, and there are some women with which this is the case, then great, it's not a problem. However, I am doubtful as to whether this is the case for the majority.
However, I personally feel that if we are truly liberated about our sexuality, surely it shouldn't be dictated to us or hammered into our conscience by the media. Our expressions of our sexuality should be purely our own, provided that it isn't harmful to anyone. Renev recently posted about women's sexuality, and how the patriarchy tries to control it. I personally believe that the promotion of this new so-called "raunch culture" by the media, is another way of controlling female sexuality. How so? By promoting one single ideal of sexuality, women are not being actively encouraged to develop, or discover, their own individual sexuality, they are not bieng encouraged to look inwardly. And, let's face it, the current ideal of raunch culture sexuality is very plastic, pornified, and largely revolves around the objectification of women. It often appears to me, to be more about the same old stereotypes, and less about individual exploration, or celebration.
In fact, recently a report from the American Psychological Association on the sexualizing of women and girls, stated that there is no doubt that "that the proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls’ self-image and healthy development."
This is a problem. Self-image is so, so important, and yet the image and ideal we are promoting and constantly pushing onto women and girls is harmful to their self-image.
Monday, 16 April 2007
For any anti-porn fems...
who want to "Considerably strengthen plans to make it a criminal offence to possess violent pornography or any images, in any media, which advocate, or risk causing, violent, and/or sexual, assaults on children or women," here, have a link and sign, sign sign.
Just a suggestion :)
Just a suggestion :)
Ich bin gegen Faschismus
Warum?
Einfach, weil das Leben schöner ohne Nazis ist.
My partner on the German exchange, and many of her friends, were active Anti-Facs. This means they were against Nazism and Fascism. I was really interested in the Anti-Fac politics, because I wasn't that aware of the prevalence of neo-Nazism in Germany at the moment. I'd heard rumblings, sure, but I hadn't really considered that it would be such a huge concern to people amongst my age group, or that there would actually be an active anti-fac movement.
While I was over there, there was a Nazi demo in a nearby town (Lübeck). Supposedly, 4000 Nazis were going to attend, but only 250 turned up. Which amused my partner's Anti-Fac friends who did turn up to demo against the demo, some of whom were hit by policemen. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Nazis are still very much in the minority in Germany. And, I don't know whether they believe in all the Nazi beliefs, or whether they're just latching onto the far-right symbolism and the racist points of Nazism.
Germany is a wonderful, wonderful country. I fell in love with it the first time I went on an exchange and visited Germany in year 10. Even though after this year, I won't be learning German anymore, I still hope to live in Deutschland at some point. It is a pity that there are all these stupid Nazi stereotypes still, but it is fairly understandable I guess, given the Nazi atrocities. Although, it has to be said, that countries which were actually occupied during World War Two aren't as obsessed with stereotyping in the same way as we are.
However, the realities are that the British particularly like to use Nazi stereotypes in reference to contemporary Germany, and that there is unfortunately a bit of neo-Nazism going on in the Bundesrepublik. Even though Germany has tried so hard to move on from all that.
Another reality is that we in Britain have some lovely little Fascists in our own garden. Y'know, the BNP.
Now, personally, I don't believe that everyone who votes for the BNP are actual Fascists, or evil. I personally believe that there are a lot of hard-working people out there, who read the tabloids and freak the hell out about all those moral panics about immigrants and ra-dee-ra-dee-ra, and that the BNP exploit this fear. It's what's happening in Germany, and, I imagine, pretty much every other Western democratic country with a similar "immigrant problem" (ahem). The tabloids almost had me fooled. It's like in that Kaiser Chiefs song.
Likewise, not everyone who voted for the Nazis (who, by the way, never got a majority in elections) were evil, or Fascists. But they didn't even necessarily vote for the Nazis for the anti-Semitism. It was simply bread and work which was high on their agenda.
However, the BNP are, quite simply put, fuckwits.
And I, for one, am personally "gegen Faschismus", to use a German phrase (cos sometimes, the German feels better than the English). Being in Germany inspired me to be more Anti-Fac. We can't just pretend that the BNP don't exist, and it doesn't matter if they're a minority. It is important to be vigilant against Fascism. To be consciously aware.
P.S. Please excuse the shit German. There is a reason why I'm dropping it after this year ;)
Einfach, weil das Leben schöner ohne Nazis ist.
My partner on the German exchange, and many of her friends, were active Anti-Facs. This means they were against Nazism and Fascism. I was really interested in the Anti-Fac politics, because I wasn't that aware of the prevalence of neo-Nazism in Germany at the moment. I'd heard rumblings, sure, but I hadn't really considered that it would be such a huge concern to people amongst my age group, or that there would actually be an active anti-fac movement.
While I was over there, there was a Nazi demo in a nearby town (Lübeck). Supposedly, 4000 Nazis were going to attend, but only 250 turned up. Which amused my partner's Anti-Fac friends who did turn up to demo against the demo, some of whom were hit by policemen. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Nazis are still very much in the minority in Germany. And, I don't know whether they believe in all the Nazi beliefs, or whether they're just latching onto the far-right symbolism and the racist points of Nazism.
Germany is a wonderful, wonderful country. I fell in love with it the first time I went on an exchange and visited Germany in year 10. Even though after this year, I won't be learning German anymore, I still hope to live in Deutschland at some point. It is a pity that there are all these stupid Nazi stereotypes still, but it is fairly understandable I guess, given the Nazi atrocities. Although, it has to be said, that countries which were actually occupied during World War Two aren't as obsessed with stereotyping in the same way as we are.
However, the realities are that the British particularly like to use Nazi stereotypes in reference to contemporary Germany, and that there is unfortunately a bit of neo-Nazism going on in the Bundesrepublik. Even though Germany has tried so hard to move on from all that.
Another reality is that we in Britain have some lovely little Fascists in our own garden. Y'know, the BNP.
Now, personally, I don't believe that everyone who votes for the BNP are actual Fascists, or evil. I personally believe that there are a lot of hard-working people out there, who read the tabloids and freak the hell out about all those moral panics about immigrants and ra-dee-ra-dee-ra, and that the BNP exploit this fear. It's what's happening in Germany, and, I imagine, pretty much every other Western democratic country with a similar "immigrant problem" (ahem). The tabloids almost had me fooled. It's like in that Kaiser Chiefs song.
Likewise, not everyone who voted for the Nazis (who, by the way, never got a majority in elections) were evil, or Fascists. But they didn't even necessarily vote for the Nazis for the anti-Semitism. It was simply bread and work which was high on their agenda.
However, the BNP are, quite simply put, fuckwits.
And I, for one, am personally "gegen Faschismus", to use a German phrase (cos sometimes, the German feels better than the English). Being in Germany inspired me to be more Anti-Fac. We can't just pretend that the BNP don't exist, and it doesn't matter if they're a minority. It is important to be vigilant against Fascism. To be consciously aware.
P.S. Please excuse the shit German. There is a reason why I'm dropping it after this year ;)
P.S.
I think it would be really cool if other bloggers who appreciate alternative/strong female artists and bands, etc, if they were to celebrate some of their favourites too :)
Because women aren't often found in the mainstream music industry unless they're half naked, or sexualised in some ways. (Although there are always some positive twists to this tale. See t'other links) And they're hardly given enough coverage in alternative music press, unless in a stereotypical way (see the first Fword link).
And so, it is always good to remember that there are some AMAZING female artists out there, and to shout out about them! :)
There are some great articles on the F word about females (and sexism) in the music industry:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2006/09/kerrang
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2006/07/dont_cha_wish_pop_was_more_empowering
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2007/02/sex_and_the_music_video
And some more positive articles about the mainstream music industry:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2003/09/christina_aguil
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2006/05/the_spice_girls_1
(and my own personal post about the Spice Girls, not to toot my own horn, but it is relevent to this topic y'see)
Now, really, back to work for Amy :)
Because women aren't often found in the mainstream music industry unless they're half naked, or sexualised in some ways. (Although there are always some positive twists to this tale. See t'other links) And they're hardly given enough coverage in alternative music press, unless in a stereotypical way (see the first Fword link).
And so, it is always good to remember that there are some AMAZING female artists out there, and to shout out about them! :)
There are some great articles on the F word about females (and sexism) in the music industry:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2006/09/kerrang
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2006/07/dont_cha_wish_pop_was_more_empowering
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2007/02/sex_and_the_music_video
And some more positive articles about the mainstream music industry:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2003/09/christina_aguil
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2006/05/the_spice_girls_1
(and my own personal post about the Spice Girls, not to toot my own horn, but it is relevent to this topic y'see)
Now, really, back to work for Amy :)
In more celebration of
the wonderful and vibrant women in the music industry who rock!
No Doubt - Just A Girl
(Vintage) Madonna
Tori Amos
Now, before I get too carried away, I must get on with my work :)
Although organising my history notes is quite depressing, since it's all about Fascism and Nazism.
There's a part of me wishing that I'd started revising sooner, but my notes are in such a mess, and I decided not to take my "Hitler's Domestic Policies" book with me to Germany. ;)
Who don't give a fuck
Who are different and alternative
Who are, in their own way, brilliant role models
Whose music cheers me up, makes me sing and dance (admittedly badly) and makes me proud to be a woman! :D
Solo artists, female bands, bands led by women...
Bjork
Who are different and alternative
Who are, in their own way, brilliant role models
Whose music cheers me up, makes me sing and dance (admittedly badly) and makes me proud to be a woman! :D
Solo artists, female bands, bands led by women...
Bjork
Dresden Dolls
No Doubt - Just A Girl
(Vintage) Madonna
Tori Amos
Now, before I get too carried away, I must get on with my work :)
Although organising my history notes is quite depressing, since it's all about Fascism and Nazism.
There's a part of me wishing that I'd started revising sooner, but my notes are in such a mess, and I decided not to take my "Hitler's Domestic Policies" book with me to Germany. ;)
Sunday, 15 April 2007
In celebration of...
...some of the wonderful female solo artists and female (led) bands who cheer me up, make me dance and sing, and just generally fucking rock my socks off.
Skunk Anansie
Hole
PJ Harvey
The Gossip
Siouxsie And The Banshees
(More to come, another day)
Skunk Anansie
Hole
PJ Harvey
The Gossip
Siouxsie And The Banshees
(More to come, another day)
Saturday, 14 April 2007
THIS...
IS A GREAT BIG
FUCK YOU
TO ALL THOSE FUCKING WANKERS
FUCK YOU
TO ALL THOSE FUCKING WANKERS
WHO ABUSED THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
I tried to be fair, I let through a fuck load of comments. Even though the grammar was generally bad, the arguments pathetic, and eventually REALLY off topic.
BUT
You can't say that I didn't warn ya.
I personally believe that the right to freedom of speech comes with a RESPONSIBILITY. And most of you fuckwits just pissed all over that.
So fuck you.
You can be all like "O my god what a fascist why do all these femcunts censor us even though were too fucking smallminded prejudiced puerile and vile to even see that its a tad bit fucked up to go on someones blog and just post downright rude harsh and fucked up comments and not use fucking grammar correctly even though thats because were just stupid hahahahaha"
But guess what?
I really don't give a fuck.
Don't get me wrong, I actually hate having to censor.
But
I will not, I repeat, will NOT tolerate any more of THAT fucking bullshit.
There's being liberal, and then there's being taken for a ride.
And I will NOT be taken for a ride.
So
Fuck y'all.
Don't like it?
You can try and comment about it.
But your comment won't be published.
:P
Really, you can just fuck off.
You have yourselves to blame.
So, just to re-iterate, to get the point clear:
You have yourselves to blame.
So, just to re-iterate, to get the point clear:
FUCK YOU.
Friday, 13 April 2007
More about leg-shaving
After my previous post, I have been thinking a bit more of leg-shaving and whatnot.
I've read most of Femininity by Susan Brownmiller (I'm on the penultimate chapter).
And, now, I am going to muse about why women are expected to shave religiously, lest they be lepracised from the heteropatriarchal society for being too hairy.
Could it be simply be that the patriarchy hates women's bodies?
That seems too simple to me. There are other factors, after all.
Could it be just another constraint and form of control, under the pretext of femininity? In my mind, femininity is the socially constructed model of control over women, guidelines we must adher to. For femininity is all about contraints, all about compromises, all about submissiveness, all about accepting second class citizenship, and taking it all gracefully, sweetly.
Femininity ensures that we women are too wrapped up in the little, irrelevent and insignificant things in life, it ensures that we are vain and narcissistic, while men, being the *insert heavy sarcasm here* superior beings, are go-getters; they don't worry about insignificant, trivial things.
I mean, really. The beauty rituals of femininity. How fucking long do they take? How much time and energy, and money do they take? And we're victims of our self-esteem a lot of the time, if we adhere strictly to the rules of femininity. Even the most "confident" of women, if they're sticking to the rules of femininity, how bloody happy with themselves are they, truly? No, it is to the patriarchy's advantage that women are bound to Femininity, and that they ritualistically shave their legs, and revert their bodies to childhood.
Because, women and girls are just SO uncomfortable in their own skin. They really are. THAT'S why they shave. Because patriarchal ideology is so deep, so entrenched in their pysche, that is why they shave.
It's time consuming, but they shave. It can hurt, but they shave.
Because, the patriarchy hates women's bodies. And so, women hate their bodies. Sure they may be proud of their breasts, or their stomachs, or legs or whatever. But, as they shave, they are not rejoicing in their womanliness, they are conforming to femininity.
It takes guts to stand up to femininity. It's so entrenched in our pysche. It's hard making that decision to step outside the mainstream and not shave.
Some girls and women genuinely feel comfortable being hairless. But, I have to wonder, is that because that patriarchal ideology is so deeply entrenched? I think so.
But does any of this benefit the patriarchy?
Yes, I think it does.
Until women are free to CHOOSE to FEEL however the fuck they want, without fear of being stigmatised, without patriarchal pressure, we are still NOT liberated.
I believe that simple everyday rituals, such as female body hair removal, are indicative of an unequal society. It reflects of the compromises women have to make, what they have to do to conform. It smacks of the patriarchy's hatred of women's bodies.
Leg shaving is reflective of an unequal society. Because, the way we view male/female body hair is unequal, and it is gendered.
Biologically, both sexes produce body hair.
According to gender rules, body hair is only acceptable on one gender.
Some girls argue that they shave because bodyhair is unnecessary. We don't need it anymore.
Well, if that is true for girls, what use does it have for males?
I've read most of Femininity by Susan Brownmiller (I'm on the penultimate chapter).
And, now, I am going to muse about why women are expected to shave religiously, lest they be lepracised from the heteropatriarchal society for being too hairy.
Could it be simply be that the patriarchy hates women's bodies?
That seems too simple to me. There are other factors, after all.
Could it be just another constraint and form of control, under the pretext of femininity? In my mind, femininity is the socially constructed model of control over women, guidelines we must adher to. For femininity is all about contraints, all about compromises, all about submissiveness, all about accepting second class citizenship, and taking it all gracefully, sweetly.
Femininity ensures that we women are too wrapped up in the little, irrelevent and insignificant things in life, it ensures that we are vain and narcissistic, while men, being the *insert heavy sarcasm here* superior beings, are go-getters; they don't worry about insignificant, trivial things.
I mean, really. The beauty rituals of femininity. How fucking long do they take? How much time and energy, and money do they take? And we're victims of our self-esteem a lot of the time, if we adhere strictly to the rules of femininity. Even the most "confident" of women, if they're sticking to the rules of femininity, how bloody happy with themselves are they, truly? No, it is to the patriarchy's advantage that women are bound to Femininity, and that they ritualistically shave their legs, and revert their bodies to childhood.
Because, women and girls are just SO uncomfortable in their own skin. They really are. THAT'S why they shave. Because patriarchal ideology is so deep, so entrenched in their pysche, that is why they shave.
It's time consuming, but they shave. It can hurt, but they shave.
Because, the patriarchy hates women's bodies. And so, women hate their bodies. Sure they may be proud of their breasts, or their stomachs, or legs or whatever. But, as they shave, they are not rejoicing in their womanliness, they are conforming to femininity.
It takes guts to stand up to femininity. It's so entrenched in our pysche. It's hard making that decision to step outside the mainstream and not shave.
Some girls and women genuinely feel comfortable being hairless. But, I have to wonder, is that because that patriarchal ideology is so deeply entrenched? I think so.
But does any of this benefit the patriarchy?
Yes, I think it does.
Until women are free to CHOOSE to FEEL however the fuck they want, without fear of being stigmatised, without patriarchal pressure, we are still NOT liberated.
I believe that simple everyday rituals, such as female body hair removal, are indicative of an unequal society. It reflects of the compromises women have to make, what they have to do to conform. It smacks of the patriarchy's hatred of women's bodies.
Leg shaving is reflective of an unequal society. Because, the way we view male/female body hair is unequal, and it is gendered.
Biologically, both sexes produce body hair.
According to gender rules, body hair is only acceptable on one gender.
Some girls argue that they shave because bodyhair is unnecessary. We don't need it anymore.
Well, if that is true for girls, what use does it have for males?
Saturday, 7 April 2007
A rant about leg shaving
I'm back from Hamburg now, and so here's a new post...
Over in Hamburg, it came into conversation with my friend Paul, that I hadn't shaved my legs, or applied any other hair removal method to my legs, since November. Paul seemed shocked, and I detected a hint of disgust and sneering in his voice when he asked if it was part of a "feminist protest".
My refusal to shave is partly due to laziness on my part, and partly due to my resentment of patriarchal pressure to de-nude my legs, and to go against their natural perogative to grow hair. If I am to shave again, it will bloody well be on MY terms, and FUCK whatever anyone else thinks about the hairy state of my legs.
He went on: "But don't you prefer the feel of freshly shaved legs".
I replied: "Actually I like the feel when they're hairy."
(It's true, I do. I like stroking them. I was, in fact, admiring the hair for quite a while yesterday.)
I wish I could have been a bit more articulate, but often, I think of the best things to say too late after the matter.
So, Paul - and other males who may think to ask women who don't shave if they prefer the feeling of shaved legs and whatnot - Don't YOU prefer to feel your legs after they've just shaved?
No - you don't shave your legs?
But, it feels so nice to have shaved legs!
Why don't you shave YOUR legs?
You know what it is, don't you? It's called double standards.
Yes, yes, yes, I know, I know, men often shave their faces, and some men are beginning shave, even wax other areas. Well good for bloody you, mate.
Women are expected to shave/wax/whatever their underarms, their mons, their legs, and any other area where it is deemed socially unacceptable to have hair there.
For fuck's sake, it is WOMANLY to have hair there. Sure, it's not FEMININE, but femininity is socially constructed, as is masculinity.
Body hair is NATURAL.
And why is it that society hates female body hair so much? It's just as natural as male body hair, which is often seen as a sign of virility, and manliness. It's seen as disgusting, revolting, repulsive for a woman to have body hair.
That's called double standards, you fuckers.
I love my body. I love my stretch marks along my hips from when they widened (haven't got pregnant and given birth, I swear! :P), I love my belly - yes, it's a belly, not a toned, slim stomach - I love my body hair, especially on my legs. My body is in pretty much a natural state. Sure, every so often I might use a touch of hair removal cream on my armpits (which is pretty ineffectual to be honest but meh), but, other than that, there are NO hair removal processes going on.
You know, a few weeks ago, I was going out with some mates, and I was going to wear a dress. I considered shaving my hair off, but I actually couldn't go through with it. I'm damn proud of my leg hair. Maybe I will one day shave, but it will be on MY terms, like I said.
Over in Hamburg, it came into conversation with my friend Paul, that I hadn't shaved my legs, or applied any other hair removal method to my legs, since November. Paul seemed shocked, and I detected a hint of disgust and sneering in his voice when he asked if it was part of a "feminist protest".
My refusal to shave is partly due to laziness on my part, and partly due to my resentment of patriarchal pressure to de-nude my legs, and to go against their natural perogative to grow hair. If I am to shave again, it will bloody well be on MY terms, and FUCK whatever anyone else thinks about the hairy state of my legs.
He went on: "But don't you prefer the feel of freshly shaved legs".
I replied: "Actually I like the feel when they're hairy."
(It's true, I do. I like stroking them. I was, in fact, admiring the hair for quite a while yesterday.)
I wish I could have been a bit more articulate, but often, I think of the best things to say too late after the matter.
So, Paul - and other males who may think to ask women who don't shave if they prefer the feeling of shaved legs and whatnot - Don't YOU prefer to feel your legs after they've just shaved?
No - you don't shave your legs?
But, it feels so nice to have shaved legs!
Why don't you shave YOUR legs?
You know what it is, don't you? It's called double standards.
Yes, yes, yes, I know, I know, men often shave their faces, and some men are beginning shave, even wax other areas. Well good for bloody you, mate.
Women are expected to shave/wax/whatever their underarms, their mons, their legs, and any other area where it is deemed socially unacceptable to have hair there.
For fuck's sake, it is WOMANLY to have hair there. Sure, it's not FEMININE, but femininity is socially constructed, as is masculinity.
Body hair is NATURAL.
And why is it that society hates female body hair so much? It's just as natural as male body hair, which is often seen as a sign of virility, and manliness. It's seen as disgusting, revolting, repulsive for a woman to have body hair.
That's called double standards, you fuckers.
I love my body. I love my stretch marks along my hips from when they widened (haven't got pregnant and given birth, I swear! :P), I love my belly - yes, it's a belly, not a toned, slim stomach - I love my body hair, especially on my legs. My body is in pretty much a natural state. Sure, every so often I might use a touch of hair removal cream on my armpits (which is pretty ineffectual to be honest but meh), but, other than that, there are NO hair removal processes going on.
You know, a few weeks ago, I was going out with some mates, and I was going to wear a dress. I considered shaving my hair off, but I actually couldn't go through with it. I'm damn proud of my leg hair. Maybe I will one day shave, but it will be on MY terms, like I said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
