Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

 
My apologies; I thought that would be approaching the line, but it's clear I've overshot it. I've edited it to be less provocative.

This also makes it easier, for me at least, to understand what you're getting at, which I was having a hard time parsing before :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this referenced a lot but what exactly is second wave feminism? From what I can tell it's mostly a reinvigoration of feminism in politics and culture but beyond that I'm not sure. Also it seems like, for whatever reason (Rush Lumbaugh) feminism has become a charged word, so I would guess second wave feminism is more of a rebranding? I feel as though most of the discussion I see in regards to feminism is, specifically, about the word feminism and it's use or one's desire to be categorized as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First wave feminism was women's suffrage (so turn of the century), second wave was women's liberation in the 60s-70s (so think porn wars, birth control, civils rights stuff) and third wave is everything from 90s onwards, which is a lot of including much more complex ideological concerns like trans women (2nd wave was notoriously transmisogynistic) and including more women of color (though womanism has always existed due to feminism being very white-centered in many parts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that those terms and time periods are necessarily simplified shorthand, connected to specific movements and places. "First wave feminism" was by no means the first time women argued for their rights and "third wave feminism" is a notoriously loose construction, since there's a ton of complexity in current feminist discourse. I think some people even argue that we're really more in a "fourth wave" right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I right in assuming the difference is just the time period, or were the movements different somehow? Certainly I imagine the specifics/goals were different, but it seems like each new wave is really just a broadening of the goals rather than a deviation from them. Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on the actual description, but I've heard a number of people reference the waves as if they were some distinct thing, i.e. First wave was suffrage, second wave was workplace equality, etc, the way that say the civil rights movement in the U.S., while ongoing, refers to a specific time period and set of goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this referenced a lot but what exactly is second wave feminism? From what I can tell it's mostly a reinvigoration of feminism in politics and culture but beyond that I'm not sure. Also it seems like, for whatever reason (Rush Lumbaugh) feminism has become a charged word, so I would guess second wave feminism is more of a rebranding? I feel as though most of the discussion I see in regards to feminism is, specifically, about the word feminism and it's use or one's desire to be categorized as such.

 

I think it's more of a differentiation. The panel talked about 'rebranding', actually; they pointed out that suffragette was a term of derision, as was 'women's libbers', so rebranding feminism takes away some of its cultural power to avoid the structural backlash that'll happen no matter what you call it. Tara Moss noted that when she performs talks about feminism, she gets few hands from her audience from people identifying as feminist, but most of the room agrees with feminism's goals. Anita Sarkeesian put forward the notion that just privately agreeing with the importance of women's rights isn't really enough. Advocacy is needed, and that appears to be the sticking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panel I went to is up on YouTube: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more of a differentiation. The panel talked about 'rebranding', actually; they pointed out that suffragette was a term of derision, as was 'women's libbers', so rebranding feminism takes away some of its cultural power to avoid the structural backlash that'll happen no matter what you call it. Tara Moss noted that when she performs talks about feminism, she gets few hands from her audience from people identifying as feminist, but most of the room agrees with feminism's goals. Anita Sarkeesian put forward the notion that just privately agreeing with the importance of women's rights isn't really enough. Advocacy is needed, and that appears to be the sticking point.

 

This seems like something that has happened before and unfortunately becomes necessary after a group gets shit on for its ideas even if plenty of people agree with them. It seems like the same thing has happened in America with more liberal people calling themselves progressive instead of liberal since that seems to have a negative connotation to a lot of people for no particular reason other than efficient messaging by conservative groups I guess?

 

For whatever reason so many people associate feminism with non-sense like man hating and I don't think it's possible to reverse that mindset at this point without just calling it something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason people do that is because there have always been specific campaigns organized by men at every juncture to discredit whatever name women adopt for themselves - but feminism in specific had campaigns against it in the 80s, spearheaded by the right wing (most notably Rush Limbaugh iirc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, someone tagged that guy in a thread and now he's responding to me on Twitter.

 

 

Weeeeeeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going to analyze the links you gave him! Sounds like a win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good news:

http://singletrackworld.com/2015/03/british-downhill-series-offers-equal-prize-money-for-women/

 

A lot of bike events offer smaller prizes for women, make women race shorter distances, give almost no coverage, and take the attitude that "More women should race if they want equal prizes/coverage/etc." rather than "We could do something to address this". Helps that the UK currently has some excellent role models in Manon Carpenter and Rachel Atherton too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, someone tagged that guy in a thread and now he's responding to me on Twitter.

 

 

Weeeeeeee

 

I hate when people pull this shit, and it's ALWAYS when you're criticizing men with large audiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... his argument consists of putting different parts of the text next to each other and then presenting his own inability to wrap his head around these words as a fault? It takes considerable effort to pretend these are anywhere near irreconcilable: I imagine the reason the post has that title even though the author points out she does no speak for all women is that it includes multiple other accounts of "what women want" via the work of these artists.

 

Gotta love it too when these intellectual giants quote lore as the reason for something as if it was an immutable fact of life and not something somebody came up with to prop up a fantasy. "It has to be skin-tight because it goes under her combat armor!" Give me a real reason dude, not a fictional one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That goofy article makes me want to actually have an intelligent discussion of male sexual desire. There's a trend I've noticed among ostensibly progressive, straight men where their progressivism makes them feel guilty for the kind of sex that their straightness causes them to want. I'm talking about oral sex or any other act that could potentially be seen as demeaning to the woman in the situation. I've had countless personal conversations and read numerous articles with the idea that men internalize feminism to mean that they should feel guilty for wanting their partner to give them a blow job. That guilt, while it comes from a well-intentioned place, feels incredibly insulting to the women involved. It's a case of men wanting to protect women and thereby removing any agency from their independent choices.

 

Anyone have thoughts about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is somewhat confusing. Politeness in bed is in general a big turn off for women (or not I don't know, don't kill me). But I am not any good at it, I try not to add too much guilt to my plate.

 

I would think there's way more to feel guilty about in the department of sexual deviance so maybe super progressive men shouldn't worry about being respectful to women constantly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argobot, that reminds me of that whole "all hetero sex is rape in a patriarchal society" thing. That theory removes all agency from women and doesn't really go well with modern sex positive feminism. Im generally 100% a-ok with hetero sex in consenting relationships in terms of power balance, but I've had similar thoughts about hetero bdsm relationships where the man is the dominant partner. I just have a gut initial reaction of skepticism/"that dude reads as an asshole to me". It seems like a very squicky subject for a lot of people, but I think its pretty interesting.

There isn't really one answer beyond consent I guess. Everyone is different, which is why communication is super key in relationships, especially with regards to sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems like an extreme extension of the same kind of logic that some people use to condemn kink.  Like, "You can't do X because it's demeaning to a woman."  Yeah, but if that's exactly the kind of sex the woman wants to be having, then it's not really anyone else's place to be telling her that she shouldn't be having it. 
 
If I had to try and talk down a guy from that stance, I'd probably suggest he try out some roleplay.  With the right toys, there's no reason he can't give his girlfriend a "blowjob" and see what it is like from the giver's perspective.  That shouldn't be a necessary step, but it might be a useful one for some guys.  If he freaked out about the idea of blowing his gf, then it would open up a bigger conversation about his views on sex and sexuality.

 

Edited to add:

 

but I've had similar thoughts about hetero bdsm relationships where the man is the dominant partner. I just have a gut initial reaction of skepticism/"that dude reads as an asshole to me".

 

My experience in kink communities is that the ratio of decent human being to asshole is better than your average singles bar, in large part because the assholes don't get invited to the good parties/groups.  But it wouldn't surprise me if the solo practitioners skewed the opposite way, for the same reason (see Ghomeshi)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that exact issue as a dude. I feel incredibly uncomfortable with the entire idea of receiving oral sex even if it's the desire of and initiated by my partner. There's really not a good cultural point of contact for it if you're trying not to be an asshole, and all I can think about is how horribly it's used in basically all media, and just don't want to even unknowingly be a part of it. I don't know of a good way to get around that, and I don't think just accepting that sexuality is sometimes weird and seemingly socially degrading is the right answer. Or maybe it is and I don't understand the other side of receiving heterosexual oral sex. Forgoing a personally sensitive sexual act seems like a small price to pay for not feeling like a creep though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To push back a little (on my own post, even), where does the women's desire for that kind of sex come from? Is it influenced by the way society depicts women and sexuality? And if that's the case, doesn't that make it open for criticism? I read an essay about a very explicit porn company, where the entire premise is bringing a woman to a public space, like a bar, and having the bystanders, who are just members of the public and not porn actors, humiliate the woman in these incredibly degrading ways. Calling her names, groping, bondage, etc. Even though the woman consented to be in this video and even admitted to getting pleasure out of it, a part of me really objected to what I was reading and made me question why a woman would want to be treated that way and if any comes from the way that society in general degrades women and makes them feel worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To push back a little (on my own post, even), where does the women's desire for that kind of sex come from? Is it influenced by the way society depicts women and sexuality? And if that's the case, doesn't that make it open for criticism? I read an essay about a very explicit porn company, where the entire premise is bringing a woman to a public space, like a bar, and having the bystanders, who are just members of the public and not porn actors, humiliate the woman in these incredibly degrading ways. Calling her names, groping, bondage, etc. Even though the woman consented to be in this video and even admitted to getting pleasure out of it, a part of me really objected to what I was reading and made me question why a woman would want to be treated that way and if any comes from the way that society in general degrades women and makes them feel worthless.

I would guess that this is due to the way specifically oral sex is viewed in popular culture. Typically reference to oral sex is an insult, or a way to show dominance over another. I think because of this oral sex isn't seen as a mutual interaction. Also, do we have a thread for sex stuff? We probably should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I've generally been exposed to more sex positive, kink friendly feminism, so the advice I got is closer to "do whatever funky things you want to do to each other's bodies, so long as you discuss it and agree to it" which, alongside notions of enthusiastic consent (basically the idea that agreeing to sex should be less about the absence of negative answers and more about showing excitement for the things that you do want to happen) are really fulfilling concepts to implement into your personal life, just purely on a level of having better sex. It's kind of problematic to advertise feminism as sexy, of course (because why would it have to be in order to win people over? Isn't fixing discrimination enough?), but also, it absolutely is. Like, hot damn!

 

So i don't know that these misguided notions of chivalry aren't something modern feminism is already adressing, at least from personal experience. There's definitely still a lot of that stuff around, too I guess, the kinds of feminism that say all porn is bad, and all sex work is bad (and maybe all sex is bad, actually), but there's a lot of pushback against that too.

 

 

To push back a little (on my own post, even), where does the women's desire for that kind of sex come from?

 

I don't know where the desire comes from in any one individual of course, but I think part of this conversation plays into a common misconception about power dynamics in kink, namely that submission is about weakness and dominance about strength. In a lot of ways, it's actually the submissive that's in control of this kind of play, not the dominant partner. They hold all the cards, they determine how far any of this will go. In a sense, it's not about being hurt, or humiliated, or whatever else you're into: it's about allowing yourself to be hurt and humiliated and whatever else. It's about being strong enough to allow yourself to be vulnerable, and secure enough in your own personality that you can take a break from being that person for a while.

 

I mean, you absolutely do get subs who are using this to treat some kind of emotional baggage and doms who think it's a place where they get to be an asshole without consequences, but in the safe and consensual kind of play, it all works differently than you might expect from the surface level expression of power. Which is just an act, never forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×