...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.
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
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.
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 :)
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?
Friday, 9 March 2007
I am SO sick of...
... people (and by people I mean the media) telling me that things like The Pussy Cat Dolls are Feminism. That it's female empowerment.
(Check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/arts/television/05cats.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, and also, please, particularly check out the language used...)
Some feminists would agree that that is true. Fine. I respect their views, but I personally disagree.
People making generalisations about feminism. People telling me that The Pussy Cat Dolls = feminism. It's one brand of feminism. It's not mine. It's not every feminist's viewpoint. It completely marginalises other feminist viewpoints. Or, is absolutely ignorant.
Grr.
P.S. I'm sorry, but considering how fucking manufactured the Pussy Cat Dolls are, it's just pisstakery suggesting that it's empowerment in anyway. I'm going to avoid throwing words out such as "Raunch Culture" and going on a rant today 'cos I'm bloody exhausted.
(Check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/arts/television/05cats.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, and also, please, particularly check out the language used...)
Some feminists would agree that that is true. Fine. I respect their views, but I personally disagree.
People making generalisations about feminism. People telling me that The Pussy Cat Dolls = feminism. It's one brand of feminism. It's not mine. It's not every feminist's viewpoint. It completely marginalises other feminist viewpoints. Or, is absolutely ignorant.
Grr.
P.S. I'm sorry, but considering how fucking manufactured the Pussy Cat Dolls are, it's just pisstakery suggesting that it's empowerment in anyway. I'm going to avoid throwing words out such as "Raunch Culture" and going on a rant today 'cos I'm bloody exhausted.
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Happy International Women's Day :)
I'm proud to be a woman.
I'm proud to be a feminist.
But I'm proud to be a human.
I'd like to be a person first, before a woman.
I believe the concept of gender to be socially constructed.
I don't behave, say or think certain things, or do certain things because I have a vagina and breasts, and the whole shebang.
I behave the way I behave, say or think certain things, and do certain things because I am a person with my own characteristics, idiosyncracies, needs, desires, ambitions, history and experiences. Because I am a person in my own right.
I would like to be a person first, before a woman.
My vaginal-ownershipness doesn't, I believe, affect me as a person personally, internally. BUT it affects what the media tell others to believe about me, and even about themselves. It affects how some people behave towards me, even what they think about me, how they judge me.
Traditional social conventions - such as opening doors for women - are examples of how my vaginal-ownershipness affects the behaviour of other people towards me. Penis owner sees me approaching a door, social conventions tell him to open it for me. There's nothing inherently wrong with this course of action, on face value, and I can't be arsed right now to go into the nitty gritty of it, but the point is, that my gender here affects other people's behavioural responses, and of course it isn't personal to just me.
My gender affects what people think about me, and how they judge me, because they compare my actions and words to stereotypes. (Of course, I'm sure not everyone will, especially not if they know me well.) These thought processes are learnt through several different agencies: our dear old friend the media, and (neo) traditional views. Sometimes it comes in the forms of "jokes". This is similar to the Labelling process in education - according to interpretivist theory - whereby teachers make a quick assessment and labels a pupil, according to the teacher's own middle class views, and thus every action and word the pupil will do or say will be judged according to the label given. For example, a pupil who has been labelled as hard-working forgets their homework, teacher says "O well, make sure you give it in next lesson please", while a pupil who has been labelled as a delinquent forgets their homework, basically gets a bollocking because it's seen as laziness and a shit excuse.
And so, despite being proud of being a woman and a feminist, it would be nice to be a person first.
P.S. On a totally unrelated subject. I got my Mussolini paper results back. I got two marks off of a B, and to be quite frank I'm bloody amazed, considering I had quite the freak out! However, although it is a (flattering) reflection of my performance of the day, I feel I am a candidate of higher calibre, and so will be re-sitting. :) Wasn't half as bad as I thought it'd be!!!
I'm proud to be a feminist.
But I'm proud to be a human.
I'd like to be a person first, before a woman.
I believe the concept of gender to be socially constructed.
I don't behave, say or think certain things, or do certain things because I have a vagina and breasts, and the whole shebang.
I behave the way I behave, say or think certain things, and do certain things because I am a person with my own characteristics, idiosyncracies, needs, desires, ambitions, history and experiences. Because I am a person in my own right.
I would like to be a person first, before a woman.
My vaginal-ownershipness doesn't, I believe, affect me as a person personally, internally. BUT it affects what the media tell others to believe about me, and even about themselves. It affects how some people behave towards me, even what they think about me, how they judge me.
Traditional social conventions - such as opening doors for women - are examples of how my vaginal-ownershipness affects the behaviour of other people towards me. Penis owner sees me approaching a door, social conventions tell him to open it for me. There's nothing inherently wrong with this course of action, on face value, and I can't be arsed right now to go into the nitty gritty of it, but the point is, that my gender here affects other people's behavioural responses, and of course it isn't personal to just me.
My gender affects what people think about me, and how they judge me, because they compare my actions and words to stereotypes. (Of course, I'm sure not everyone will, especially not if they know me well.) These thought processes are learnt through several different agencies: our dear old friend the media, and (neo) traditional views. Sometimes it comes in the forms of "jokes". This is similar to the Labelling process in education - according to interpretivist theory - whereby teachers make a quick assessment and labels a pupil, according to the teacher's own middle class views, and thus every action and word the pupil will do or say will be judged according to the label given. For example, a pupil who has been labelled as hard-working forgets their homework, teacher says "O well, make sure you give it in next lesson please", while a pupil who has been labelled as a delinquent forgets their homework, basically gets a bollocking because it's seen as laziness and a shit excuse.
And so, despite being proud of being a woman and a feminist, it would be nice to be a person first.
P.S. On a totally unrelated subject. I got my Mussolini paper results back. I got two marks off of a B, and to be quite frank I'm bloody amazed, considering I had quite the freak out! However, although it is a (flattering) reflection of my performance of the day, I feel I am a candidate of higher calibre, and so will be re-sitting. :) Wasn't half as bad as I thought it'd be!!!
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Amy's Non-Valentines Day, and as a result, her largely Non-valentines related blogpost
(I hate Val-day, and no, it's not because I "don't have anyone"...)
Today, on Non-Valentines Day, I went into Bedford, Town of Dreams with my best friend Lissa.
We had some coffee at Bar Citrus, where I am almost a regular, bought some hair dye for me (rrred!) 'cos I felt like I wanted to temporarily change me hair colour to something crazy. Took some obscenely myspace pictures as we walked down the embankment. Bla bla bla.
But we also stopped in the Mars Shop, so Lissa could buy the latest issue of "More" magazine. I went in with her. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about the horrors of Lads Mags.
But not for long.
I mean, bloody hell, I was in the shop for two seconds, I turned around to look at the mag shelves, and right on my fooking eye level, there were a pair of breasts. And by a pair of breasts, I mean the o-so-artistic cover of Zoo Magazine. Grrr. Next door, was Nuts.
OK, so the nipples were covered, by how is that any better? It suggests that a woman's nipples are something obscene, something dirty, something to be embarrassed about and not be shown publicly. Whereas, pictures of topless men, it's all nipples-a-go-go. Because, of course, a man's nipples are perfectly socially acceptable.
Believe me, I am not a fan of Lads Mags.
I couldn't just stand there in that shop and not do anything, y'know what I mean? I'm sure there are many women, feminists, who cannot just simply stand in a shop and not do or say something about Lads Mags and their visibility.
And so, I said something. To be honest, I cannot quite remember what I said. There were two blokes and a woman working there. I asked if the Lads Mags could go up on the top shelf, and be covered, or something to that effect. I was told the mags were supposed to be on that second shelf legally. They could sell it to a two-year-old if they wanted. There was no age restriction.
It's not that I thought that my informal complaint would do anything, I just knew I couldn't just stand there silently and not voice my displeasure. And to be quite frank, I personally feel the employees could have been a bit politer and respectful towards me; I got the feeling they thought I was being ridiculous. They were virtually smirking. This angered me. They could've just said apologetically that it was the way things were. But no, it's all smirk-smirk-smirk.
I know there are no legal restrictions for the visibility and distribution of Lads Mags, but surely a customer has a right to complain and get taken seriously, at least to their face? It's rude and unprofessional for one thing to ridicule a customer.
As I left, my anger caused me to shout out something about living in a patriarchy. I can't remember exactly what I said. The woman replied something in a smirking tone.
My friend was then very embarrassed about the whole situation. I felt saddened by it. But, my feminism felt alive inside me in a way which I hadn't felt before. It felt vindicated, it was a feeling of being a second-class citizen, of being ignored and ridiculed for a simple request.
I don't think being concerned about Lads Mags is something to be ridiculed. I don't think that Lads Mags are just "harmless fun". I think their very popularity is a sad indictment of our patriarchal society; that magazines which are often derogatory about women, which constantly sexualise and objectify women can be so popular, and allowed such visibility and to be sold to anyone is - bloody irresponsible - saddening, and is further proof that British society, which prides itself on it's tolerance and equality, is still a society where women are second-class citizens.
(Linkage to some other posts and articles about Lads Mags: http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-it-right-for-my-boyfriend-to-look.html
http://www.object.org.uk/index1.html
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2004/02/nuts_and_zoo_we from a male p.o.v)
Today, on Non-Valentines Day, I went into Bedford, Town of Dreams with my best friend Lissa.
We had some coffee at Bar Citrus, where I am almost a regular, bought some hair dye for me (rrred!) 'cos I felt like I wanted to temporarily change me hair colour to something crazy. Took some obscenely myspace pictures as we walked down the embankment. Bla bla bla.
But we also stopped in the Mars Shop, so Lissa could buy the latest issue of "More" magazine. I went in with her. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about the horrors of Lads Mags.
But not for long.
I mean, bloody hell, I was in the shop for two seconds, I turned around to look at the mag shelves, and right on my fooking eye level, there were a pair of breasts. And by a pair of breasts, I mean the o-so-artistic cover of Zoo Magazine. Grrr. Next door, was Nuts.
OK, so the nipples were covered, by how is that any better? It suggests that a woman's nipples are something obscene, something dirty, something to be embarrassed about and not be shown publicly. Whereas, pictures of topless men, it's all nipples-a-go-go. Because, of course, a man's nipples are perfectly socially acceptable.
Believe me, I am not a fan of Lads Mags.
I couldn't just stand there in that shop and not do anything, y'know what I mean? I'm sure there are many women, feminists, who cannot just simply stand in a shop and not do or say something about Lads Mags and their visibility.
And so, I said something. To be honest, I cannot quite remember what I said. There were two blokes and a woman working there. I asked if the Lads Mags could go up on the top shelf, and be covered, or something to that effect. I was told the mags were supposed to be on that second shelf legally. They could sell it to a two-year-old if they wanted. There was no age restriction.
It's not that I thought that my informal complaint would do anything, I just knew I couldn't just stand there silently and not voice my displeasure. And to be quite frank, I personally feel the employees could have been a bit politer and respectful towards me; I got the feeling they thought I was being ridiculous. They were virtually smirking. This angered me. They could've just said apologetically that it was the way things were. But no, it's all smirk-smirk-smirk.
I know there are no legal restrictions for the visibility and distribution of Lads Mags, but surely a customer has a right to complain and get taken seriously, at least to their face? It's rude and unprofessional for one thing to ridicule a customer.
As I left, my anger caused me to shout out something about living in a patriarchy. I can't remember exactly what I said. The woman replied something in a smirking tone.
My friend was then very embarrassed about the whole situation. I felt saddened by it. But, my feminism felt alive inside me in a way which I hadn't felt before. It felt vindicated, it was a feeling of being a second-class citizen, of being ignored and ridiculed for a simple request.
I don't think being concerned about Lads Mags is something to be ridiculed. I don't think that Lads Mags are just "harmless fun". I think their very popularity is a sad indictment of our patriarchal society; that magazines which are often derogatory about women, which constantly sexualise and objectify women can be so popular, and allowed such visibility and to be sold to anyone is - bloody irresponsible - saddening, and is further proof that British society, which prides itself on it's tolerance and equality, is still a society where women are second-class citizens.
(Linkage to some other posts and articles about Lads Mags: http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-it-right-for-my-boyfriend-to-look.html
http://www.object.org.uk/index1.html
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2004/02/nuts_and_zoo_we from a male p.o.v)
Monday, 1 January 2007
Feminism & That Spice Girls Thing On Sky One
(At least from my point of view!)
Loved, loved, loved that they had Ariel Levy on! :) Made Amy happy! :)
Because, her book - Female Chauvinist Pigs - was the first piece of feminist work I'd ever read.
I must admit I was a Spice fan; I was about 7 or 8 years old when they emerged. I think it was the first CD I ever got, I remember getting it for Christmas. I even saw 'em at Earls Court, although that said, I was beginning to become less enamoured with them. I liked the whole "Girl Power" thing, though. I liked the idea for years after, even though it was still pretty much as basic. I liked the idea of girls having power. I don't remember ever being too sure what that "power" was for, but it, and the fact that each Spice Girl had her own individual identity - gave me a strong sense of individualism, free choice for myself, and all women, sisterhood, and an unwillingness to conform (Despite the fact that the Spice Girls were manufactured- ah! Irony!) which I still have today.
Yes, there were many flaws in the Spice Girls; lack of genuine talent (although bloody good marketing skills!), they didn't really express any deep, intellectual ideas, and their brand of feminism - ie "Girl Power" - was basic and "first base", and some people would argue it wasn't even feminism; too hollow, perhaps. But, the truth is, it did give thousands, millions of young girls a simple glimpse into feminism, into being liberated women - and whether or not they interpreted that later into just being a "ladette" or to delve a little deeper - surely this re-branding of feminism does have some positivies: feminism had had such negative connotations (and true, the stereotypes do still exist, sadly), the Spice brand of "Girl Power" was at least represented in a bright, positive, colourful way - as perhaps suitable for something which is, admittedly, somewhat shallow.
But, the "Girl Power" message seemed to cover the following areas of feminism:
1) Sisterhood/Female Solidarity
2) Women speaking up. And loud.
3) Women having fun together.
There wasn't any mention (as far as I'm aware) of more serious issues feminists are concerned about: rape, battery, the pornstitution, trafficking, women being objectified/represented as sex objects/valued only by their sexuality, ie how well they can gratify a man's sexual desires, equality in the workforce, abortion etc. This could possibly be because the target audience was pre-teen.
Maybe the pre-teen audience was why they were called the "Spice Girls" not the "Spice Women". To appeal to young girls, not to infantilise them and therefore then undermine make their messages of "Girl Power". Again, is the lexical choice of "Girl" to appeal to young girls, or even because "Woman Power" isn't as catchy, or to infantilise/demean the message? And, of course, how seriously can a manufactured pop act of 5 young women in crop tops, mini skirts and platform boots be taken as a threat to the patriarchy? Heck, one of them is called "Baby Spice"! It's a bit of fun, light entertainment. Sure the young girls seem to be lapping up the "Girl Power" notion, but hey, give it a few years, and their hormones will be telling them differently, surely! And we'll push more bland boybands on them to dream and sigh about, more girl bands all in the same uniform, preferably something quite sexually explicit.
I'm not going to say that the Spice Girls changed my life. They were, however, a small (admittedly shallow and basic) step into an interest in feminism. Admittedly, when I was younger, I had very confused ideas about feminism and what it was. I mean, I used to think they did burn their bras, although that seemed exciting to me. Now I correct people on this myth. I'm admittedly new to feminism on a level where I can understand it, thanks largely to Ariel Levy for really getting me started and re-igniting the same passion for "Girl Power" as the Spice Girls. But, realistically, the Spice Girls were more a light entertaining bunch of girls whose songs I knew and danced along with all the moves. They were marketed in an incredibily novel, original, exciting way - they each had "personalities" - and their constant cries for "Girl Power" set them apart. But, they're only first base feminism. Real feminism is a lot more empowering, interesting, exciting and real.
Loved, loved, loved that they had Ariel Levy on! :) Made Amy happy! :)
Because, her book - Female Chauvinist Pigs - was the first piece of feminist work I'd ever read.
I must admit I was a Spice fan; I was about 7 or 8 years old when they emerged. I think it was the first CD I ever got, I remember getting it for Christmas. I even saw 'em at Earls Court, although that said, I was beginning to become less enamoured with them. I liked the whole "Girl Power" thing, though. I liked the idea for years after, even though it was still pretty much as basic. I liked the idea of girls having power. I don't remember ever being too sure what that "power" was for, but it, and the fact that each Spice Girl had her own individual identity - gave me a strong sense of individualism, free choice for myself, and all women, sisterhood, and an unwillingness to conform (Despite the fact that the Spice Girls were manufactured- ah! Irony!) which I still have today.
Yes, there were many flaws in the Spice Girls; lack of genuine talent (although bloody good marketing skills!), they didn't really express any deep, intellectual ideas, and their brand of feminism - ie "Girl Power" - was basic and "first base", and some people would argue it wasn't even feminism; too hollow, perhaps. But, the truth is, it did give thousands, millions of young girls a simple glimpse into feminism, into being liberated women - and whether or not they interpreted that later into just being a "ladette" or to delve a little deeper - surely this re-branding of feminism does have some positivies: feminism had had such negative connotations (and true, the stereotypes do still exist, sadly), the Spice brand of "Girl Power" was at least represented in a bright, positive, colourful way - as perhaps suitable for something which is, admittedly, somewhat shallow.
But, the "Girl Power" message seemed to cover the following areas of feminism:
1) Sisterhood/Female Solidarity
2) Women speaking up. And loud.
3) Women having fun together.
There wasn't any mention (as far as I'm aware) of more serious issues feminists are concerned about: rape, battery, the pornstitution, trafficking, women being objectified/represented as sex objects/valued only by their sexuality, ie how well they can gratify a man's sexual desires, equality in the workforce, abortion etc. This could possibly be because the target audience was pre-teen.
Maybe the pre-teen audience was why they were called the "Spice Girls" not the "Spice Women". To appeal to young girls, not to infantilise them and therefore then undermine make their messages of "Girl Power". Again, is the lexical choice of "Girl" to appeal to young girls, or even because "Woman Power" isn't as catchy, or to infantilise/demean the message? And, of course, how seriously can a manufactured pop act of 5 young women in crop tops, mini skirts and platform boots be taken as a threat to the patriarchy? Heck, one of them is called "Baby Spice"! It's a bit of fun, light entertainment. Sure the young girls seem to be lapping up the "Girl Power" notion, but hey, give it a few years, and their hormones will be telling them differently, surely! And we'll push more bland boybands on them to dream and sigh about, more girl bands all in the same uniform, preferably something quite sexually explicit.
I'm not going to say that the Spice Girls changed my life. They were, however, a small (admittedly shallow and basic) step into an interest in feminism. Admittedly, when I was younger, I had very confused ideas about feminism and what it was. I mean, I used to think they did burn their bras, although that seemed exciting to me. Now I correct people on this myth. I'm admittedly new to feminism on a level where I can understand it, thanks largely to Ariel Levy for really getting me started and re-igniting the same passion for "Girl Power" as the Spice Girls. But, realistically, the Spice Girls were more a light entertaining bunch of girls whose songs I knew and danced along with all the moves. They were marketed in an incredibily novel, original, exciting way - they each had "personalities" - and their constant cries for "Girl Power" set them apart. But, they're only first base feminism. Real feminism is a lot more empowering, interesting, exciting and real.
Saturday, 30 December 2006
Amy's First Angry Rant
Looking on Object, the news section ["New Year - New 'No Go Zones' (21.12.06)"] I notice this:
"Pubs, Bars & Student Unions - Bikini Babes
FRONT and other lad's mags have launched 'bikini babe' competitions across UK pubs, bars and even student unions (Loughborough). Female pub goers compete in FRONT bikinis, judged by the male onlookers.
Questions to competitiors include :- 'spit or swallow?'- 'do you take it up the arse?'"
Now, I'm going to have to give myself a few minutes to compose myself before I can articulate anything about this "bikini babe" thing.
Ok. Here goes.
Although there were other cases of disgusting objectification of women mentioned in the article (including a topless carwash & diner in Coventry), this one particularly annoyed me.
The idea of getting women to compete against each other to be crowned the hottest and most desirable according to male objectives is just sick. Making each contestant wear skimpy bikinis while surrounded by fully clothed, possibly drunk males, is just degrading. Is this at all necessary? No. But, of course, there's no rhyme or reason to it, just male leeriness and objectificaton of women to put them in a submissive, passive position to maintain the patriarchy by treating them as sexual objects & therefore keeping them down as second-class citizens. I mean, for fucks sake! Even the questions asked are nothing to do with the woman's personality, intelligence or any ability. Well, any ability other than making a guy cum. And, of course, the questions are about intimate, usually private interactions, and really the questioners have no right to know. The questions are all about what a woman would do to enhance a man's sexual pleasure, not about what she'd want, because it's all about the man's sexual gratification. There's nothing equal about that. There's nothing right about it at all.
And, let's face it. Girls will do this. Even if they're bloody inebriated or not fully willing - ie forced into it by (male) pressure - they'll do it. And why? Because popular culture manipulates and tells women to act in certain ways, to dress and look certain ways, most of which are geared up to fuel male lust and to gratify the sexual demands of men. Of course, not all womyn accept this. But many do, to varying degrees, of course, and it will be some of these girls who will participate in these activities, much like the girls who participate in the disgusting Girls Gone Wild franchise in America. I would go on about the vicious circle which these girls often find themselves, but I think I will just say, instead, that all this hurts women and their position in society, but it's bloody great for the patriarchy, and of course, great for the male spectators, who get to have something live in the flesh rather than a celluloid pornstar to wank over later.
There's a phrase going round in my head, which I read about in Andrea Dworkin's 'Heartbreak: Political Memoirs of A Feminist Militant", where she says she was too poor to afford a badge with one of her favourite Feminist slogans. The slogan?:
Don't suck. Bite.
"Pubs, Bars & Student Unions - Bikini Babes
FRONT and other lad's mags have launched 'bikini babe' competitions across UK pubs, bars and even student unions (Loughborough). Female pub goers compete in FRONT bikinis, judged by the male onlookers.
Questions to competitiors include :- 'spit or swallow?'- 'do you take it up the arse?'"
Now, I'm going to have to give myself a few minutes to compose myself before I can articulate anything about this "bikini babe" thing.
Ok. Here goes.
Although there were other cases of disgusting objectification of women mentioned in the article (including a topless carwash & diner in Coventry), this one particularly annoyed me.
The idea of getting women to compete against each other to be crowned the hottest and most desirable according to male objectives is just sick. Making each contestant wear skimpy bikinis while surrounded by fully clothed, possibly drunk males, is just degrading. Is this at all necessary? No. But, of course, there's no rhyme or reason to it, just male leeriness and objectificaton of women to put them in a submissive, passive position to maintain the patriarchy by treating them as sexual objects & therefore keeping them down as second-class citizens. I mean, for fucks sake! Even the questions asked are nothing to do with the woman's personality, intelligence or any ability. Well, any ability other than making a guy cum. And, of course, the questions are about intimate, usually private interactions, and really the questioners have no right to know. The questions are all about what a woman would do to enhance a man's sexual pleasure, not about what she'd want, because it's all about the man's sexual gratification. There's nothing equal about that. There's nothing right about it at all.
And, let's face it. Girls will do this. Even if they're bloody inebriated or not fully willing - ie forced into it by (male) pressure - they'll do it. And why? Because popular culture manipulates and tells women to act in certain ways, to dress and look certain ways, most of which are geared up to fuel male lust and to gratify the sexual demands of men. Of course, not all womyn accept this. But many do, to varying degrees, of course, and it will be some of these girls who will participate in these activities, much like the girls who participate in the disgusting Girls Gone Wild franchise in America. I would go on about the vicious circle which these girls often find themselves, but I think I will just say, instead, that all this hurts women and their position in society, but it's bloody great for the patriarchy, and of course, great for the male spectators, who get to have something live in the flesh rather than a celluloid pornstar to wank over later.
There's a phrase going round in my head, which I read about in Andrea Dworkin's 'Heartbreak: Political Memoirs of A Feminist Militant", where she says she was too poor to afford a badge with one of her favourite Feminist slogans. The slogan?:
Don't suck. Bite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
