From an article by Glosswitch published on the New Statesman.
“The underlying thought behind sex-positive feminism is conservative and unimaginative, fearing a sexless void should patriarchy ever vacate the space it currently fills. And yet the truth is, those who question objectification aren’t afraid of fucking. They are not the swooning, pearl-clutching prudes dreamed up by misogynists and sex positive feminists alike. They’re just taking sex positivity one step further, by recognising that no one’s choices are made in a vacuum but that everyone needs to be respected as an autonomous sexual being. That includes you, but it includes me too, and it also includes billions of others. This is where things get complicated. It’s not all about you. It’s not all about me, either. We need a world which accommodates our differences but to create this requires a fundamental change in the whole context of sexual choices.
Let us be clear: feminism is out to screw patriarchy. It’s not there to be wheedling and apologetic. It’s not there to teach women to cope with life as subordinates. It’s not there to promote a chirpy, can-do response to a cat-call, a hand on the arse, a tongue down the throat, an unwanted grope or a rape. And if you’re thinking “all this sounds a bit judgmental,” I do understand. I know words like “patriarchy” and “male dominance” make people feel uncomfortable (I’d call it “feminismphobia” if it wasn’t time we stopped pathologising dissent). I know some women have a deep-rooted fear of how feminism could change their sexual landscape. To support something which is ultimately for everyone – but not specifically for you – is difficult, but feminism is not about misusing words (empowerment, choice, freedom) to cover up the things we don’t want to see. We’re here to knock down the entire edifice, not repaint the walls.”
Boom! Boom! – Shots Fired.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
10 comments
September 23, 2014 at 5:38 am
Reneta Scian
Question: Is there a way to be sex positive (AKA empowering women to choose or not choose sex as they see fit) without that sex positivity catering to the patriarchy. I’m not super up on this “Sex Positive Feminism” this particular post entails. Could someone point me in that direction? Also, I am personally “anti anything that gives the patriarchy more access or control over women’s bodies” just to be clear.
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 6:07 am
Reneta Scian
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/
I agree with this post. So, I guess, I’m in the “not-quite-sex-positive camp” too… Because, while I advocate for people to do what feels right for them, whether that be sex, no sex, or any other variety of sex or time in their life they choose it, et cetera, I feel it’s right to be highly critical of how those acts feed in, are affected by, and reflected by our culture. I, in fact, know sex positive women who enjoy things often coded in the status quo, regardless of whether it’s a man doing those acts or not. But I still recognize that those decisions don’t occur in a vacuum, and recognize the problem inherent in participating in that.
I knew I’d seen something on this out there, so I went to one place I know I read quite a bit from. I think we need to be critical about sex positivity, or we are just “doing the work of the patriarchy”. Though, that piece doesn’t speak much of the matters as the EF article.
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 8:21 am
Notes To Ponder
Lets cut to the chase. Feminism (in my humble opinion ) sprang from inequality and control of women. Fair enough – utter bullshit, but here’s the problem (one of them anyway) Clever women need to understand men think with their dicks. Because of male “wiring” this fact is irrefutable. Somewhere along the way, inequality, oppression, bat shit male notions of sexual entitlement became a feminist issue. Without question, the issue of sexuality lays at the heart of the matter – I grow impatient with women who blither on about sexual objectification.
Instead of wasting precious energy on the obvious, why not seize the obvious to an advantage? Men and women are as equal as they are different. Personally, i see this as vital to survival of our civilization.
If more women “chilled” on rabid feminist rhetoric, unruffled feathers long enough to grasp that knowledge is power – the simple fact of what makes men tick would pave the road for us. It isn’t rocket science, we can’t change it – we can use it to our advantage.
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 8:58 am
The Arbourist
@Reneta
Well said. :)
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 9:18 am
The Arbourist
@NtP
Are there anyone other irrefutable biological facts that also happen to justify the status-quo? I’m curious because the correlation between ‘irrefutable biological facts’ and the status-quo can seem rather high at times.
Wouldn’t this be a logical step as these qualities have been identified as particularly toxic to women in society. Feminists having identified these qualities and how they are embedded in our society are trying to change these systemic problems.
To quote the article:“Let us be clear: feminism is out to screw patriarchy.”
This would be all find an dandy if one half of the difference didn’t mean a subordinate position in society. Correcting the societal structures that propagate this imbalance – much of second wave theory and praxis – is what feminism is about.
Could you name any successful social movement that decided just to chill out?
I find it fascinating how a solution to the inherent misogyny in our culture is just chill out and be reasonable about the whole thing.
What is problematic about that is being fucking reasonable and fucking polite is about effective as letting a cat do your taxes. Power and the status-quo it represents never willingly relinquishes power.
I am not convinced that there are biological inevitabilities that cannot be overcome.
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 11:41 am
Reneta Scian
Is Notes actually being serious? Because the “Wiring” argument really sounds a bit like rape apologetics to me. Also, it rings hollow as well, considering women with high testosterone don’t rape, or “think with their clitorises” to coin a phrase. Hell, not even intersexed women who have mixed sexual development do that (considering if there was “wiring” that would be the one thing to do it). Sounds like status quo apologetics, and it also rings hollow because evidence indicates that Notes’ statements aren’t actually true. Not every society in the world right now has the level of acculturated misogyny as ours does.
Ironically, in societies with less misogyny, there is less rape (due to less objectification), less benevolent sexism (because you don’t need men to protect you when society isn’t openly hostile to you), and less gender inequality. We have living experiments of how society “could look”, and every reason to believe that more can still be done.
Also, “Wiring” is a bullshite answer, and erases ace and demisexual men, or any man in general who just doesn’t center their universe around who they are going to fuck. Moreover, it’s actually insulting and harmful to men to tell them that all they’ll ever be is slaves to their libidos, not to mention being an utter fallacy. Also, it kind of erases trans* experiences as well, because nothing defies that notion as much as someone who experiences gender or sexuality entirely outside of the status quo. This “status quo” they’re advocating for is exactly why my “feathers are ruffled”…
Because there is nothing empowering about the current model of self worth on the basis of being sex objects for men, systems where men act, and women are acted upon. Moreover, lesbians would still be at a disadvantage. There is nothing empowering about telling men they’re slaves to their anatomy, which also enslaves women to theirs. Worse yet, those mentalities contribute to rape culture. It ignores experiences of gender and sexual minorities because of the status quo, and as a result erases or minimizes people who can’t reasonably participate it that system. That’s exact what such a system advocates for. And, I’m sorry but I have every reason to have my feathers ruffled over that shit, because that system is utter bullshite.
Also, there is tonnes of other sciences and evidence that refutes that position, and more piles up everyday. There is just no logical reason to accept Notes’ position, and tonnes of reasons and evidence to reject it as patently wrong. The above reasons and others is exactly the reason feminism exists, and people who have the attitudes Notes’ ascribes are the exact kind of reasons why we’re pissed off. Look, I’m fine with being a “sexual agent”, but I’m a fucking person, not something for the objectification by men. I’m not even attracted to men, so where does that line of thinking ever add up? Plus, plenty of people have pointed out where playing into sexual objectification actually negatively impacts women, their sex life, and there well-being.
So… Sorry Notes, I don’t give a shite if you don’t like me blithering on about objectification. The fact that it bothers you is the exact reason feminists (including myself) need to keep doing.
LikeLike
September 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Bex vanKoot
I don’t get this quote at all. “They’re just taking sex positivity one step further, by recognising that no one’s choices are made in a vacuum but that everyone needs to be respected as an autonomous sexual being.”
How is that “a step further” than sex-positivity? That is EXACTLY what sex-positive feminism is for me and all the women I know who so identify.
LikeLike
September 24, 2014 at 9:18 am
VR Kaine
“This would be all find an dandy if one half of the difference didn’t mean a subordinate position in society.”
I think this speaks in such general terms that it’s pointless. A “subordinate position in society”? The fact that there IS a difference between men and women means that one group’s going to be advantaged and another will be disadvantaged, naturally, depending on the situation. Reducing the gap on those advantages/disadvantages in particular situations is one thing but saying that one is always subordinate or disadvantaged is another. It makes anyone look like nothing but a whiny wimp, no matter how right they are.
Correcting the societal structures that propagate this imbalance – much of second wave theory and praxis – is what feminism is about.
Bingo. I think this specificity has to be repeated lest your cause will fail. The “branch”(?) of feminism NTP seems to be referring to can’t seem to distinguish between having contempt for the societal structures or just men in general, giving guys like Thunderf00t and MRA’s all their fodder.
“Could you name any successful social movement that decided just to chill out?”
Another generality. Among other things, any social movement has to make noise and “move” to be effective. I can’t speak for NTP (and don’t want to), but the point I think NTP’s trying to make is towards the top-end “extremist” part of the movement, at least as far as their rhetoric is concerned. Did the Black Panthers gain any real ground over, say, MLK with their words or their actions being so extreme? Not that I can see, and worse, their words ended up doing more to help fuel the equally moronic KKK than help their own cause.
Look at some of the other tactics the extremists are using. Aas MLK trying to assimilate and say that most white people are black in the same way feminists are trying to say that most men are feminists? Black Panthers were basically saying all white people were racists, Feminists are quick to generalize that all men are rapists. MLK took a different approach, and he’s the one revered by the ‘enemy’. On the other hand, Huey Newton is a name hardly anyone recognizes.
It’s one thing to try and whitewash all advantages that are there only because of societal bullshit, and another thing to whitewash all advantages trying to push that we’re all the same when we’re not which is really the “other side” trying to gain an advantage by force. Personally, of course, I agree with the prior but overall this is where I think the feminist message gets convoluted, lost on many, and rejected by most when it finally settles on a point – they’re pulling a lot of the “Black Panther” shit and most people – even a lot of women – aren’t buying it except on the fringe in dark, extremely liberal corners.
“Angry black man”, “Angry white man”, “Angry woman”, “Angry corporatist” – angry anything – even your rehetoric – “fucking reasonable” and “fucking polite” (awww, muffin!) Who listens to that for too long? Over time it always turns people off and makes them tune out, even if the message is 100% right. Maybe that’s what NTP is trying to get at, and why the people far-left liberals hate are still winning.
LikeLike
September 24, 2014 at 11:11 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
Hi Vern,
I chose that to portray it in the most general way possible to avoid the getting derailed on explaining the historical position of women in society and how that women being exploited is the null hypothesis until otherwise disproved.
Because society should get on the whole difference thing because one side will never grab all the best stuff and leave the small remainder for the other side. I’m not debating that small differences exist, just how they are used to unjustly demarcate roles in society.
Man, you still really don’t like the idea of Shrodinger’s Rapist do you?
I’m not aware of any Black Panther shit that Feminists are actively supporting. The BP’s were at the tip of the spear combating the racism their communities experienced everyday. Their organization was effective enough to warrant the FBI’s initiative COINTELLPRO to infiltrate and subvert their organization- feminism isn’t even close to that level of coherence and threat to the government.
I’m not really concerned about who or who isn’t listening to my responses – Being appropriate, quiet and subdued is fucking number #1, #2 and #3 on behaviour that is expected of women. You do not subvert the dominant paradigm by playing by the rules. That doesn’t work.
I’d get tired of hearing how the society that I live in favour me and benefits me too. If I didn’t give a damn about living in a just society I *would* tune it out – I’m interested in networking and talking with the people who do give a damn, and working on establishing a critical mass that will drag the people who don’t give damn along for the ride whether they like it or not.
]
I’m not sure how you are defining “winning” as must of the 3rd wave fun-feminism is about doing empowerful stuff that revolves around satisfying the norms of society. That is being co-opted and by no stretch of the definition “winning”.
LikeLike
September 24, 2014 at 11:16 am
The Arbourist
@Bex vanKoot
Glosswitch, has a very specific definition of sex positive feminism that she establishes in the article before the quoted material here. I suggest you follow the link to get more context as to exactly what she is talking about.
LikeLike