“The choice which radical feminists defend is substantive. We ask what is the actual content or meaning of a choice which grows out of a context of powerlessness. Do such choices as surrogacy foster the empowerment of women as a class and create a better world for women? What kind of choices do women have when subordination, poverty, and degrading work are the options available ‘to most’? The point is not to deny that women are capable of choosing within contexts of powerlessness, but to question how much real power these "choices" have. To paraphrase Marx and apply his words here, women make their own choices, but they often do not make them just as they please. They do not make them under conditions they create but under conditions and constraints that they are often powerless to change. When Marx uttered these thoughts, he was acclaimed for his political insight. When radical feminists say the same, they are blamed for being condescending to women.”—
Janice G. Raymond - “Sexual and Reproductive Liberalism”
I am a positive person but I get really tired of aggressive optimism. If someone’s sad, let them be sad. All emotions have purpose. Sadness isn’t destructive if not prolonged. Sadness isn’t unproductive, as it offers awareness. Telling someone to “cheer up” or “be happy” is so ineffective and patronizing. The last thing a sad person needs is for someone to judge their feelings as pointless and unappealing. Welcome sadness, just don’t let it consume you.
Actually, the road to hell is not paved with good intentions. its unpaved. thats because the devil is a libertarian and believes that paving roads is not the publics responsibility and so far no third parties have had any interest in paving the roads anyway because the minimal unpaved approach helps enhance hells spooky ambiance.
“Choice feminism hopes to defuse … criticisms by representing feminism as a nonthreatening, capacious movement that welcomes all supporters - however discordant their views -, while demanding only the thinnest of political commitments. In other words, choice feminism’s political function is to try to make feminism seem appealing to the broadest constituency possible.”—
its impossible to change a society, or a normalized oppression, by making sure everyone is comfortable. rejecting social norms is NOT comfortable. choice feminism doesnt challenge or change anything, it remarkets a revolution into an aesthetic with no commitment or standard
“In general then, women do the lowest work of the society whatever that lowest work is perceived to be; and when women are the primary workers in a field, the field itself takes on the females’ low status. Therefore, it is false to think that the inferior status of women will dissolve when women do productive labor or enter freely into high status professions. When women enter any field in great numbers, the status of the field itself is lowered. The men who are in it leave it; the men looking for work will not enter it. When men leave a field, they take its prestige with them; when men enter a field, they bring prestige to it. In this way, the subordination of women to men is perpetuated even when women work for a wage and no matter what work women do.”—Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone (via seebster)
Many women are finding themselves in a vicious cycle that could, and often times does, include low self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, sexual assault and/or harassment, and an overall feeling of discontent as a result of a desire to emulate a visual standard that is near impossible to achieve. Some partners are reading women’s [behavioral] modeling as an urge or desire to be treated or used as the object the media portrays them as. The result is an unpredictable dance between a woman and her environment that yo yo’s between temporary contentment when attention is achieved, to severe depression after it is taken away. Women are then coerced to repeat the cycle by seeking out new forms of approval. Meanwhile, to achieve the title of sexy or desirable, intimate relations continue to lose meaning, resulting in high-risk behavior. Also, there is the sad reality that some of these women will fall victim to assault, harassment, and/or stalking, which will no doubt serve as a detrimental obstacle in achieving contentment.
Despite the physical, cognitive, emotional, and spiritual obstacles in the quest to achieve idealized beauty, women continue to chase it. While any woman stuck in the spider’s web has different reasoning for prescribing to these “ideals,” it seems quite consistent that the failure to obtain American beauty standards often leads to great body dissatisfaction and a probable inability to find peace. To combat sexism and objectification, society must reshape its patriarchal framework and move towards more egalitarian standards. However, with the media consistently flashing the “ideal” around every corner the likelihood of self-acceptance and a less judgmental society seems near impossible. Therefore, working towards a society where women can walk safely down the street without fear of assault, or can look in the mirror without negative mental and physical consequences begins internally and hopefully effects the external environment.
when men post jokes where the object of derision is women or feminine coded traits be upset, be obstinate, stand in the way of men’s subjugation of women, liberation cannot succeed when boys still have the power to humiliate women for the simple crime of existing as women
The “Invisible Men project” (the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/) was recently part of an exhibition in Glasgow. The whole exhibition was objected to by those claiming to have an interest in “choice” and “freedom”. The “Invisible Men” project was particularly targeted for condemnation. It uses reviews on “Punternet” to reveal what men really think about women. This revelation is dangerous to those who have a multi-million dollar investment in the illusion of “choice” and “freedom” for women. Unsurprisingly, there was a backlash against the exhibition.
The sex industry lobbyists, and their friends, those bastions of anti-censorship, tried to prevent the exhibition from taking place. I am going to focus on the methods and language used in a petition started by them. It is a microcosm of what is happening everywhere there is feminist, and radical feminist, resistance to male supremacy. That, and the conditioning women experience to protect men above each other and ourselves, is a more powerful silencing weapon than a specially-built prison for feminist agitators.
The title is: “Remove the whorephobic “Invisible Men” exhibit which dehumanizes sex workers”
The most noticeable part of the petition is the use of “whorephobia” (sic) as an actual word which has meaning. It attempts to reframe feminist objections to women being used as disposable male commodities as some kind of deep-seated fear of other women. Every woman is caught up in the sex industry; in the idea that women exist for men’s pleasure/entertainment, and can be bought and sold for our bodies. Our very society is built on that foundation. There is no “them” and “us”. All women need to be invested in destroying a society where this is legitimized in order to free our class. Many radical feminists are survivors of the sex industry and speak out about that experience. All women experience the dehumanization described in the Punternet “reviews” because the words are not only directed towards individual women but towards women as a class. What makes the “Invisible Men” project powerful is having it laid out, in men’s own words; the truth for all to see.
Women who are prostituted are, of course, discriminated against and stigmatized, on top of the inhumane experience of being treated like a product to be reviewed, judged (and found wanting) by the male class. The fact that prostituted women are stigmatized within wider society is used to silence ex-prostituted women, radical feminists, and others, about abuse within prostitution. If we’re presented as “whorephobics”, who merely have a deep-seated fear of prostituted women, and of the “freedom” and “choice” “sex” itself brings, then we become the problem and not the men who abuse and buy women.
If your image of women’s *~empowerment~* consists of “look hot enough to intimidate people and/or turn them on enough that they’re willing to do stuff for you,” then nice work, you’re made empowerment into a Hot Girls Only Club, and women who aren’t conventionally attractive can all just accept their lives as unempowered peasants with insufficiently winged eyeliner
I don’t think feminism stands to gain anything by pretending that it’s easy to be a feminist. When I see or hear things like “80% of the world is feminist, a feminist is anyone who believes women should be equal,” I’m not comforted. I don’t see what the movement has to gain…