Open Thread: can there be feminist porn?

The organisers of Canada’s Third Annual Feminist Porn Awards (Toronto, April 4th and 5th 2008) think so.

In 2006 we decided that it’s not enough to criticize adult films for not adequately representing women’s – and in many cases, men’s – sexuality. So we decided to do something about it. As porn star and performance artist Annie Sprinkle famously said, “The answer to bad porn isn’t no porn…it’s to try and make better porn!” Good For Her couldn’t agree more. We believe the world is inundated with cheesy, cliché, degrading, no-budget, patronizing and stupid porn. But we also believe that erotic fantasy is powerful, and that women and marginalized communities deserve to put their dreams and desires on film, too. As feminists and sex-positive people, we want to showcase and honour those who are creating erotic media with a feminist sensibility.

It doesn’t take long for anyone reading about feminism to realise that there’s a lot of disagreement amongst the feminisms regarding porn, porn vs erotica and the larger picture of the sex industries generally. These tend to get summarised as “anti-pornography” and “sex-positive” stances, both of which terms are overly simplistic. “Sex-positive” especially casts opponents as “sex-negative”, when it is more true to say that they are “sex-industry-negative” or even better “sex-exploitation-negative”.

So, when I received this email about the Feminist Porn Awards I thought it was a good kick-off for an open thread on feminism and porn. Have at it. (ducks and runs)

Update: For a good collection of posts from advocates of the anti-prostitution/pornography feminisms, try the Third Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution

Feminism Friday: When women who advocate for women’s rights reject the label “feminist”

2nd May 2008: This post has been updated in light of the recent flare-ups in the rounds of discussion about how mainstream feminism remains inadequate in engaging with matters of race. See footnote.

There are many critics who view “feminism” (and the progressive movement generally) as focussing too much on the West, and too much on the experience and goals of the white middle-class, to the detriment of the experiences and goals of non-white women, poorer women and non-Western women.

It’s hard to deny that the most public faces and voices of the feminist movement – popularisers and academic theorists – have been and remain mostly white, middle-class Western women.

[link no longer valid]¹brownfemipower describes how she first realised this as a student:

But Andy started class off with something different. She asked us to tell her everything we knew about feminism. We told her all about Seneca Falls and Susan B. Anthoney and Gloria Steinem–and some of us even told her about NOW or Feminist Majority or bell hooks or Alice Walker. One person mentioned Adrienne Rich.

She asked us what we knew about “the waves” of feminism. At least half of the class raised their hands.

Then she asked us what we thought women of color were doing during all the ‘waves’.

All of the hands went down and we all just stared at each other. One person finally said, “Well, we said Alice Walker,” to which Andy replied, What do you know about Alice Walker?

Everybody replied “The Color Purple” and then we lapsed back into silence.

Then the big question came. “Why do you only know about white women?”

Now, I’ll admit, at that point, I was feeling very very defensive. Most of the women in the class were women of color–I think there were a total of three white women in the class if I remember right. Every other person was either black, native or Latina. But in spite of this diverse class dynamic, I could tell most of us were feeling pretty defensive. We’d just been shown in the period of about 10 minutes how much we’d been completely bought into a particular definition of “feminism”–and even more so, we’d just been exposed to our vast ignorance of our own histories.

So, does this mean that the feminist movement is defined by these white, middle-class public faces? If that is the movement’s history and current “branding”, must it continue to be?

In which the moderator apologises for dropping the ball

I have been distracted over the holiday break, and this has meant that over the last month or so I have allowed some commenters through whom I would normally have cut off at the pass. The tone of the blog has suffered badly as a result. Those commentors are aggressive and are discouraging other voices, and that is not what this blog is about, although I suppose it is an object lesson on how easily a few disruptive commentors can ruin a discussion. Such disruptive comments also violated the comments policy as soon as the wolves threw off their sheep-cloaks, and their later comments should not have been approved. It just encouraged the others (such as the liar in moderation right now who I am not going to approve), and I should have known better.

This blog is meant to be a place for explaining the basics of various feminisms, and for constructive debate with people who wish to engage in good faith. I’m no longer willing to entertain commentors who merely want to harangue feminists about how we’ve got it all wrong and just want to rule over men. They are stealing our oxygen, their woman-hating is palpable and they are boring besides.

So, although dissenting commentors spouting oft-debunked MRA cliches will continue to provide us fodder for future FAQs from the moderation queue, they will no longer be allowed free rein on comments threads. I’m about to go back and disemvowel and delete as necessary.

Sorry about the interruption to normal services.

P.S. Dissenting commentors who can engage in discussion without resorting to disruptive behaviours such as stereotyping and imputing motives based on perceived affiliations, or posting excessively frequent or excessively long comments, or other vexatious behaviours,  are still welcome.

FAQ: why do some people talk of "feminisms"?

Most recently updated 17 March 2007

Because, as was said back on the What is a feminist? and Why are there so many fights between feminists? posts, Feminism is not a monolith.

From the soc.feminism Terminologies FAQ compiled in 1993 by Cindy Tittle Moore, here is a following non-exhaustive list of feminisms (read fuller descriptions at the given link to clarify concepts). Asterisked notes are mine. Some of the following groups are very small compared to the major strands of modern feminism:

Feminisms
Amazon Feminism
Anarcho-Feminism
Cultural Feminism
Erotic Feminism
Eco-Feminism
‘Feminazi’ **
Feminism and Women of Color
Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism
Lesbianism *
Liberal Feminism
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Material Feminism
Moderate Feminism
‘pop-feminism’ **
Radical Feminism
Separatists

* Just as not all feminists are lesbians, not all lesbians are feminists. It’s a “correlation, not causation” thing, and not an easily distinguished movement as such either.
** Essentially media inventions rather than meaningful classifications.

There are important new movements not included in the list above, particularly the Radical Women of Colour movement and the many non-Western national/ethnic feminist movements, which have all been caught up in the single classification “Feminism and Women of Colour” above.

FAQ: Why are there so many fights between feminists?

Quoting from Sage’s FAQ:

1. Why do feminists all disagree? Feminism isn’t a movement, it’s an argument!

We all want to raise the status of women to the level of men, to feel safe and respected, and to have a fair and equal chance for all our opinions to be heard. Since the movement is all about choice and the ability to make our own decision that affect us, then it’s necessarily going to be a group fraught with differences. We’re all making our own choices. That’s the commonality. Trying to actively be allowed these choices is the movement. Butting heads along the way from time to time is the reality.

Different feminists work within differing feminist constructs, and have different priorities regarding activism in the following three main (overlapping) arenas:

1. Work and Family
2. Sexuality and Health
3. Social Justice

Often the tactics of a feminist working primarily in one arena can seem to be in conflict with the tactics of a feminist working in primarily in another arena. The ultimate goal of an end to oppression and inequality is rarely in conflict, merely the plan for how best to focus resources and actions to achieve these goals.

FAQ: What is feminism?

Introductory Essays

• Feminism in the United States: A Short Illustrated History from about.com
• International Women’s Day: a brief history from the UN

Classic Quote

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute…”

–Rebecca West, The Clarion, 11/14/13

• Sarah Bunting: Yes You Are
• Clover Patch’s FAQ
• Sage (Persephone’s Box): Feminism 101
• Karen Healey (Girls Read Comics (And They’re Pissed)): I’m not doing this twice

Classic quote:

“The reason racism is a feminist issue is easily explained by the inherent definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, physically challenged women, lesbians, old women –as well as white economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.”

–Barbara Smith, 1979