Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Feminism Is a Failure, and Other Myths

By Jennifer Baumgardner, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2005.


A new book blames women and feminism for the lack of positive sexual female role models. But women aren't the problem.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Every few years, feminism gets kicked up to marquee status under the rubric of having failed, like a stain-remover that just didn't do what it promised.

The media story goes like this: since feminism didn't provide equality, happiness or the perfect date, women are fleeing the feminist "lifestyle" in droves, taking their husbands' names, kvetching about catching a man, or rushing to show their breasts in a Girl Gone Wild video.

You hear about feminism's futility from obvious antifeminists such as Ann Coulter, but you also hear it, more provocatively, from women who aren't raving misogynists, such as Maureen Dowd, whose book of ambivalent observations on the liberated single girl's life has launched some heated conversations. And most poignantly, you hear the feminism-is-a-failure mantra from New York Magazine writer Ariel Levy, in her new polemic, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, in which she argues that today's women have, in their thongs and stripper-wannabe antics, disappointed feminism.

Full disclosure: Levy refers to me in the book, and dismissively. Still, I was sympathetic, especially at first, to her and Dowd's feminist critiques. I can certainly relate to the fumblings of women as they negotiate their lives and relationships. Feminism has brought much coherence to my life, but in the complicated and often-awkward world of sex and desire, it has proved less useful. If pressed, I'd venture that at least half of my sexual experiences make me cringe when I think about them today. Taking top honors is the many times I made out with female friends in bars when I was in my early 20s, a rite of passage Levy much disdains throughout the book. I'm embarrassed about the kiss-around-the-circles, but if I didn't have those moments, I'm not sure I ever would have found my way to the real long-term relationship I have today. If all my sexual behavior had to be evolved and reciprocal and totally revolutionary before I had it, I'd never have had sex.

Still, Levy accurately points out the continued confusion around feminism and sex. Much as I fought it, though, there was a certain dissonance in my attempt to be a good, actualized feminist and my desire to still get the love and sexual attention I wanted. In college, I partied weekly at the same frats I would denounce in class as the center of date rape and misogyny.

Levy swings hardest at this conflict in her book, arguing that the daughters of feminism's second wave are eager to prove how beyond sexism they are, "making sex objects of other women -- and of themselves." These women, according to Levy, "think they are being brave... and funny" but Levy thinks "the joke is on them."

The book opens with a Girls Gone Wild video shoot, which is every bit as awful as you'd imagine. The formula for this reality video cash cow is to station a film crew at spring break locales where the alcohol is plentiful and the girls young, then egg the women on to show their breasts or thong-clad buns or to make out with female friends.

Levy then lists her compendium of raunch: female Olympic athletes posing nude for Playboy, the rise in breast implants and "vaginoplasty," and a spate of porn star memoirs including Jenna Jameson's How to Make Love Like a Porn Star. Levy argues that women embracing raunch means women accepting misogyny -- a premise that is powerful and, in a way, true. But in exposing the permeation of porn in responsible society, she squashes all public displays of female sexuality into the box marked "objectification."

Female-run "Cake" parties are written off as cheesy fake lesbian performances for men in suits. Female-to-male transexuals are portrayed as wildly emulating the most crass and immature high school guys. She finds some depressing examples -- teen girls using the Internet to post photos of themselves fellating a Swiffer. And while Dowd's assumption is that feminism just isn't sexy, Levy's message seems to be that sex and sexiness can't be used by women -- only against them.

Levy is actually taking a strong stance in an old debate for feminists -- and her side is what was once called the anti-porn side. One famed example of this debate: On April 24, 1982, Barnard's Center for Research on Women hosted a sexuality conference that soon became infamous within the women's movement.

The radical feminist movement (the women that brought us the word "sexism," protests of Miss America, and changed the culture rapidly between 1968 and 1975) had succumbed to several splits (black-white, gay-straight, etc) and purges (Gloria Steinem accused of being in the CIA; any good public speaker accused of seeking "male privilege").

A new burning issue had emerged -- porn -- and feminist thinkers like Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller had created an organization to oppose it: Women Against Pornography. At the conference, women who believed the anti-porn feminists were censoring sexual freedom clashed with the women who believed we will never know what free female sexuality is as long as there is a base trade in women's flesh. Carol Vance, one of the initiators of the conference, wrote, "As individuals, our personal experience with and attitudes toward sexuality were diverse, but we all felt that this sort of feminist sexual politics was problematic: first because sexuality confronted women with opportunities for pleasure as well as potential for danger."

The battles at this conference -- which by all accounts devolved -- set the stage for transgenderism, pro-sex feminism, and ongoing fights around whether women can be participants in public sexuality without being victims of it. But Levy doesn't refer to this decades-old conflict. Instead she writes as if there was once a good, clear feminism, and now there is an army of women who wax every hair on their nether regions and take cardio-striptease classes.

Levy writes: "Imagine how Susan Brownmiller must have felt. She had become engaged in the women's liberation movement when it was a unified, sure-footed quest for change, and suddenly she was in a maze of contradictions."

Not exactly true. Brownmiller entered as a writer when the movement was dominated by activists and generated much controversy herself; she was accused of trying to rip off the movement for personal gain. Part of the reason it appeared unified to her is that several of the earliest leaders (notably Shulamith Firestone, the author of The Dialectic of Sex and founder of several radical feminist groups) abandoned the movement when latecomers like Brownmiller joined and challenged some of the hegemony.

Unlike Susan Faludi or Naomi Wolf, who critique the way society has dealt with feminism, Levy places most of her blame on women, especially young women. Levy is particularly critical of Cake founders Emily Kramer and Melinda Gallagher, who host women-only parties in attempt to create a space for women to "explore, express and define sexuality for themselves." Levy writes: "If the whole point is change and redefinition, then I wonder why the Cake imagery is so utterly of a piece with every other bimbo pictorial I've seen in my life." Levy uses the same imagery on her cover -- without any ironic flourish -- which leads me to believe that she may suffer from the same conflicts she is so troubled by in others.

While Dowd's book has some feminists of my acquaintance furious ("I don't recognize the world she is describing at all," a 35-year-old editor at the Washington Post told me), Levy's is more dangerous. Intentional or not, Levy contributes to that mean finger, pointed only at girls, that says "You think you are being sexy, you think you're cool and powerful, but you're not. You're a slut and people are making fun of you."

Feminism has given me a powerful lens with which to view the world. What I needed as a young woman, and what I think women need now, are not more critics shaking their fingers, but more models and examples of the free, powerful sexuality that Levy says she advocates.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jennifer Baumgardner is the co-author of "Grassroots: A Field Guide to Feminist Activism" and "Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future." This article is part of her exclusive monthly series of articles for AlterNet on gender, culture and reproductive rights.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sadly this is also part of the rightwing agenda
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 16, 2005 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not the article, it is good, but all the sexual acting out as in Girls Gone Wild. I really cannot think of anything to say, except this is a really sad comment about what happened to women's lib. Respecting oneself, a healthy attitude about sexual pleasure and being happy with oneself and ones body, somehow seems to be lost. I am not real sure how young women are supposed to learn those things these days? The Right wants to do away with sex and sexual satisfaction; but most of those husbands are out there on the make one way or another. Sin sells books, movies and tv shows. Self contentment seems to be way down list for things that girls want in their lives. I thought we had out grown a big bust size is needed to be a sexy woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ok. Here are some "facets" for you! Posted by: MartianBachelor
Any Movement Aimed @ Challenging Societal Norms Will Be Somewhat Confused
Posted by: decembrist on Nov 16, 2005 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is because there's always the question of how you interact within the society at large you're trying to change or influence. Confusion should be something that spurs the movement on, not something that discourages and sends people packing.

Movements are diversified within themselves... isn't this a sign of health, of a beating heart? Too often its construed as dissolution and debilitation. The fact that Republicans toe the party line like regimented soldiers is going to bring them headaches - in fact it already has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The final frontier
Posted by: SBK on Nov 16, 2005 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men will let us into the office (at a reduced wage), we can play sports (not so bad for girls), but as soon as we take hold of sexuality, it’s a problem. History is all about controlling our sexuality. My favorite part is that men can always count on traitorous women to sling the "slut" comment for them. They never need to do it themselves; we have always been our own worst enemies. The wild girl is a natural outgrowth and stage of abandonment that too will pass and mellow. Now that sexuality is allowed out of the closet, it’s natural that there will be thong exposing shenanigans. It's only for now and it’s part of the process. What we must worry about are these older women who see fit to call all of it trashy. Yes, there are some nasty examples out there, but the opposite side of going wild is corsets and missionary positions. I'll take the ever present mid-rif and tanktop if it means I get lingerie parties too. Our attention should be more on balance and constructive outlets for sexuality. Next steps are sex trafficking and helping teens love their bodies not beating each other up for low-cut tops and smooching our friends!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» women's sexuality Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: The final frontier Posted by: ShaSpirit
not sluts, but...
Posted by: ankhet on Nov 16, 2005 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"You think you are being sexy, you think you're cool and powerful, but you're not. You're a slut and people are making fun of you."

You really ought to rephrase this - it should read: "You're a FOOL and people are making fun of you."

Is it really "liberation" to adopt the show-me-your-tits approach to sexual expression? As long as some women are willing to look to (male fantasy based) swimsuit calendars, porn, strippers, Spring-Break "reality", and guests of Howard Stern as examples of sexual self-actualization, they are going to be laughed at -by men. Women must learn to set their own terms. Respect and sex are not contradictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...yep, you have got it right! Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» anket's got a point Posted by: T.S.
» RE: not sluts, but... Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: not sluts, but... Posted by: drmeow
» RE: not sluts, but rape victims Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: not sluts, but... Posted by: Lauramendez
Mae West was a feminist slut
Posted by: zincb on Nov 16, 2005 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't one be a slut and a feminist? They aren't mutually exclusive.

This issue may be more about our entire culture's inability to deal with sex (a.k.a. fornication!). Half the US female population lives a repressed Sunday-school, Leave It To Beaver delusion of "traditional" family values. Rather than risk being awoken from this dream of personal purity, they try to force everyone in their mold.

The result of this Stepford-style repression is the same as it was in the 60's -- complete rejection of all these BS expectations, and a sexual pendulum that swings exessively in the other direction.

Take a look at most european countries -- women have fun sex, can talk openly & unembarassedly about it (without being called a slut) and then they move on with the rest of their life. It's not such a big deal, if it's not labeled "immoral".

Perhaps the "new" feminism is embracing a new idea -- that our personal sexual activities do not define who we are.

It works for men-- President Clinton was a slut while in office, but it didn't make him an ineffective person. President "W" Bush is a teetotalling celibate, but can't much else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mae West was a feminist slut Posted by: BlueTigress
» judging sluthood Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: judging sluthood Posted by: MartianBachelor
There should be men in the feminist formula
Posted by: Riverside on Nov 16, 2005 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of inviting a deluge of abuse, I maintain that the feminist movement needs to actively recruit men to the cause. This is the opposite strategy than the current advesarial one that pits women against men in a variety of ways.

Additionally, men need to take a very pro-active role in support of women's rights. I do not mean lip service, I mean honest, hard working support.

Why?

Sexual independence is vital to our future longevity on this planet and any others to come. At the same time, empowerment must evolve into a mutal objective in which both sexes benefit. I am not talking about jobs, I am talking about a whole new interrelationship that puts the good elements of both sexes to work for all of us. Yes, men need to have the benefit of the intuitive and compassionate thought cycle of women. It is irreplaceable and vital to all humankind. Women could use the dream mode of the really brilliant and creative male. Whoa, I am not saying there are not brilliant and very creative women. I have had the honor and sheer joy of working with and for a whole bunch of them. I can tell you, really great things were accomplished. The great feeling from those mutual accomplishments lives within me to this day.

So much more could be said. One summary is that it is a whole new chemistry and the feminist movement is a very important catalyst for all of us. Go for it. I for one am with you all the way. Please let me tag along.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No one is stopping you ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» And tag along behind you shall... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Banish the S word
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 16, 2005 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the general media howling about how feminism has failed is pure right wing propoganda. Feminism is very much alive despite all the virulent attacks upon it. Quite frankly, what an individual woman does with her own sexuality is no one else's business. It is interesting that the Slut word comes up so frequently in these articles. Sexual behaviors that would be considered "just a phase" or "boys will be boys" for a man are cause for serious social censorship for a woman -especially a young one - and get unwarrented, endless discussion. Slut is a word used to denigrate and keep women in a subserviant position. It is very rare to hear of a man being termed a man-slut or a man-whore, although it does happen. It is unfortunate that women themselves are the worst offenders when it comes to the use of this type of social bullying. How sad that after all these years we still are this pathologically afraid of women being openly and unapologetically sexual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Banish the S word Posted by: MartianBachelor
Labels,labels,labels...
Posted by: radicalmum on Nov 16, 2005 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a 42 year old former goth, punk, hippy, stripper, biker chick - who also worked on "The Hill", I believe it's time to get rie of all labels including feminist. I have gone through many fazes in my life but have always grown beyond them. We were taught in the 70's and 80's that nothing was ever extreme enough. You had to experience it all. None of it was real or had real meaning. Just a rite of passage to go through to prove you were a truly "liberated" woman. What's liberated about doing something just because everyone else does?
As the mother of 3, 2 of whom are daughters, I am teaching them true feminism. Self-respect and the freedom to follow their own path, not someone else's pre-conceived doctorine. To be women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Labels,labels,labels... Posted by: oldman52
sour grapes?
Posted by: T.S. on Nov 16, 2005 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of the book is Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, which means you can expect to read about women's role in promoting raunch culture. If the book were about raunch culture in general, or feminist responses exclusive of general women's, or pornography's negative effects, it would probably not be titled Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

This main thesis makes about as much sense as complaining that a baking cookbook focuses too much on cakes, cookies and pastries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, not buying into it
Posted by: sweetlou on Nov 16, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line for me, a man with a now 20 year old daughter who has reached some level of maturity relatively unscathed, is that the “raunch culture=female liberation” paradigm – ultimately – is selfish and immature. If young ladies want to make out with other girls, show their boobs to strangers and have sex with multiple partners with no strings attached, more power to them. But please don’t try to justify it as picking up the torch of feminism. If it really is feminism, please explain to me what sort of philosophy encourages 14 year old girls to wear lingerie for outerwear and dirty dance with shirtless young men in the high school gym. I’m not a prude – far from it – it’s just that find these justifications for sexually charged behavior as empty, childish and damaging as the lame and juvenile justifications offered by men in defense of strip clubs, Hooters, Playboy magazine, and girls gone wild. In a true equality of the sexes, women, just like men, should hold themselves responsible for their actions and their impact on the following generations. At present, it seems that feminism has been hijacked by nihilism. It is my earnest hope that all of these passionate defenders of “raunch as liberation” feel equally comfortable watching their own daughters go through it. I know I didn’t. Quite the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry, not buying into it Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Sorry, not buying into it Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Sorry, not buying into it Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Sorry, not buying into it Posted by: sweetlou
Girls will be girls -- unfortunately -- but sexist labels are not the right response
Posted by: janvdb on Nov 16, 2005 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, "girls gone wild" shouldn't be doing that, but what about those boys on "Jackass?" Where's your big book decrying that?

Let's label those boys with something that will stigmatize them for the rest of their lives, OK -- like "compulsively violent" or "potentially criminally destructive" or something that others can drag out and beat them over the head with when seeking unfair advantage over them in 15 years.

I'm far more upset about abuse in dating relationships, women who would give a baby to a man who won't support it or her to "prove their love," women who allow guilt over abortion to coerce them into unwanted motherhood, human trafficking, women who don't pursue "baby-daddies" for child support and just shoulder the burden alone, honor killing, the rash of French gang rapes that led up to the car burnings, domestic violence, slutbashing and other ACTUAL oppression of women.

Not to mention a rate of birth of 6.9 children per woman in Afghanistan.

Sure, it would be nice if girls weren't flaunting their haunches in Miami -- I find just as stupid and irritating as anyone and besides, I'm jealous and intimidated -- but if it weren't for people watching these shows, the cameras wouldn't be there, would they?

The entire business of calling women "sluts" for any reason whatsoever is far more damaging for women and feminists than letting a few misguidedly overly-sexual girls off. They'll outgrow it once they figure out that they aren't getting what they wanted out of all that sexuality -- because men are just not nice enough to make it a self-beneficial situation. Covering yourself up and keeping men at bay just WORKS better. Because so many men aren't nice.

They'll figure it out. Unless some sexist pig or sow has condemned them to a lifetime of abuse by instilling guilt in them, making them question and hate themselves or spreading gossip which opens them up to future abuse based on their past behavior.

Their PUBLIC behavior certainly isn't doing women or feminism any favors, but attacking them is doing women and feminism even MORE damage.

Women's private behavior is, simply, PRIVATE and no one should say one word. So, Levy, do we all agree that adult women have an absolute right to privacy? Or are you ready to stand up and admit to all that you are just a tool of the right-wing afterall?

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why they go wild Posted by: Michaelmammal
» RE: Girls will be nekkid girls Posted by: MartianBachelor
Disagreeing
Posted by: Anne on Nov 16, 2005 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When did "feminism" become something primarily about sexuality instead of social and economic equality?

No, I don't think we've achieved full sexual equality but I also think it's not the sort of critical issues we should be focusing on today. (Nor does anything I read here suggest any of you are on the right track to fixing the problem.)

Whatever feminism is, it isn't about het women having the freedom to make out with other het women publicly. If you're sexually attracted to other women, you're bi (or lesbian), and making out with your lover publicly (or privately) is a GLBT issue, not, strictly speaking, a "feminism" issue.

Also? If you're het, sitting in a bar, surrounded by men, and kissing your girlfriends? Sounds to me like you want to demonstrate your sexual freedom and courage without actually taking any risks. Otherwise, you'd be approaching and maybe kissing a guy.

Feminism isn't some la-la-land thing that exists in a bubble in society. You can't create some isolated kind of "equality" that works without men. They're part of this society too, you know.

Feminism is a matter of redefining how women act in and interact with society. Shutting men out means you're trying to create some kind of "zone" of equality and that's really just not good enough for actual feminists.

So don't dismiss the "older women" who don't like your behavior.

Consider that we might see, as you don't, that what you're doing is merely acting out without moving forward.

Consider that we understand the concept of "acting out" (we were "acting out" before your mother and father even met) in terms of redefining societal norms but that maybe we don't see any incredible value in turning sexuality into a public free-for-all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feminism about sex Posted by: BlueTigress
Not a Failure, just needs more ground
Posted by: Playmaker on Nov 16, 2005 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Often cited Foucault, acknowledges systemic powers as affecting and determining how we view ourselves, our bodies and other members in society amongst the sexes. It is understandable and cheered that many feminists make attempt to change these interwoven and often confusing societal views by revealing positive identities to provoke the systems to change. To an extent this has become accomplished but not fully and the movement is realizing a glass ceiling.

Human sexuality is a complex issue and there are many varieties and parodies to it which will always be in a state of change as public image changes. Positive image, in my opinion, comes from cross-gender relations in every possible situation in and outside of sexually. Those videos show me awkwardness for both men and women and thus a dismissal of what is appropriate into an escape of acting, an out-of-body experience. They are staged events and all participants are most likely told what to do so they can sell the video. Men appear to be in a state of confusion over sexual does and don’ts – often because their sexuality is not addressed at all and left to determine gray areas on their own. With conflicting images and relations at every turn they often turn one way or the other and often to extremes. By observing gender relations, many men do not know where the line is between sexual women and the intelligent women partly because they do not know if they themselves have a line. They do. This is also an example of victimization of systemic power; the Great Masculine Renunciation, which has taken much of the human out of men, the lack of color, sexual variation, expression, etc and placed it squarely, as an idolized form, on the shoulders of women.

Both sexes are victims to this ideology and both sadly suffer in different ways. Feminist discourse, and I would hope that men enter this discourse more, should be redefining the audience to include men more constructively. So often men do not know what is discussed and what views need rethought that these old views echo in unpredicted ways, as with the producers of Girls Gone Wild or I. Lewis Libby’s, The Apprentice. To close I would like to state that it is not just the positive roles of women that need attention but the positive roles of both sexes and all genders that need enlightening to effectively undue the sexual disillusionment and reach for a positive future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unmentioned because unmentionable?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 16, 2005 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) More women than men are sex workers because a) Men have all the money? b) Men have all the fun? c) Daddy wanted his little girl to be a little boy?
2) Narcissism is a First World disease because a) Our model is royalty? b) Masturbation is more fun than making love? c) We let capitalist advertisers tell us who we are?
3) No one knows how to make love last because a) Sex is so much easier? b) Love is true only if it is easy? c) Life is supposed to be easy?
4) None of the above?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Because there is no INTIMACY Posted by: eastcoker
Andrea Dworkin
Posted by: BlueTigress on Nov 16, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm still amused that Andrea Dworkin helped craft the Canadian obscenity statute and was upset when some of her fiction was banned in Canada because it was 'obscene' under the law she helped write.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Andrea Dworkin Posted by: rebeccasw
Commodification
Posted by: DrC on Nov 16, 2005 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was an interesting essay, and as a male who has always defined feminism for my students as the movement to achieve for women the same level of autonomy that men have in society, I don't see an intrinsic/necessary opposition to a feminism that includes social/economic liberation and sexual liberation (two sides of the same coin, in a sense). But the question I'd like to see explored further is the role of capitalism in where we draw the lines between acceptable and unhealthy sexuality. Few self-identified feminists would dispute the importance of women being able to define themselves as sexual beings as they wish, but it seems that the sort of sexuality that is being problematized most ("Girls Gone Wild", an industry of "erotic" clothing, posing nude in magazines, working as strippers) are those expressions of sexuality that are inextricable from the commodification of sex.

Historically, the people who have profited from such commodification have been men. While that is slowly changing, is it worth asking whether we should celebrate women sharing in the wealth of selling the commodity of other women's sexuality any more than when a man profits from it? In a sense, "feminist sexuality" ceases to be counter-cultural when it co-opts the primary vehicle of American culture for its expression: capitalism. Perhaps autonomy in American culture requires that it be practiced within the constraints of capitalism, but it seems like a legitimate distinction to draw between a woman or girl learning to take control of her sexual happiness and fulfillment and a woman or girl or woman bringing her sexuality to the service of fulfilling largely depersonalized, male driven fantasies....or, conversely, constructing her own sexual identity from the raw material of that male driven fantasy world as it has been mass produced on television, magazines, and the silver screen. Maybe its naive to think that the two scenarios (control of her own sexual happiness vs. constructing sexual identity vis a vis capitalist culture) can be separated so neatly. But I'd be curious to hear any thoughts on the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Commodification Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Commodification Posted by: opivy
» RE: Commodification Posted by: Sojourner
» Hail Eris. All hail Discordia. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Commodification Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Commodification Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Commodification Posted by: decembrist
Sleeping with the enemy...
Posted by: skeffer on Nov 16, 2005 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am what you may think of as the enemy, being a middle aged (41) man with a young attractive wife (24) who is comfortable in my financial and emotional support. Is it any wonder her generation became de-politicised around feminist politics when they feel they are constantly attacked by older angry and clearly unhappy woman? Especially if they dare to enjoy dressing up and having a good time, which includes attracting and having sex with men? But here's the news for anyone still reading; my wife and her friends understand the politics of feminism. They understand the philosphical debate, they are educated and sharp. They just don't see that it's rhetoric is valid to their generation, and they are bored with being shouted down and laughed at if they dare try to explain this to their professors. YOU (I'm addressing the feminist intelligentsia here) must ask yourselves why. Well here's my opinion. You have failed to let it evolve naturally. Instead choosing to desperatly constrain it in the 70's 80's polemic that I hear over and over and always by the same tired old hack's. When Andrea Dworkin died my wife read the obits in the magazines with the accompanying life photos and said, "You know it's a real shame no-one would help her with her food addiction." And there was no sarcasm in her words. Fat clearly isn't a feminist issue if it's the armour of an un-reconstructed addict who can't move out of denial. Perhaps what modern feminism needs is for the older generation of women writers to stop riffing on the themes which once heralded them such glory, even if that means getting a normal job ond moving out of the limelight they have became so used to. Feminism cannot move forward with the stifling philosophical constraints handed down and rigourosly enforced by its dowager aunts. How can the young women of today be expected to embrace and evolve feminism (I assume thats what you would want) when they read lines like ths quote from the above piece, "You think you are being sexy, you think you're cool and powerful, but you're not. You're a slut and people are making fun of you." For goodness sake, is that the best you have to offer on the subject after all these years? Actually lady, people are making fun of you! And they quite like the word slut too. Its how alot of young people self-describe their sexuallity (male and female). Its gone beyond the socially acceptable LesGayBi or straight thing of yesterday. But thats another subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sleeping with the enemy... Posted by: decembrist
Detachment
Posted by: eastcoker on Nov 16, 2005 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a missing piece of this puzzle. What about women who have been there done that even and now desire celibacy. And when I say been there done that I mean it all: promiscuity monogamy marriage childbirth and it is all boring. What about women who desire to be single for the sake of being single. Do they not get a voice?

I mean seriously, sometimes sex just gets boring. And sometimes sex is a drug. A woman can shoot up a man the same way she can shoot up heroin. A woman can eat a man for dinner the same way she can eat a steak. Some men feel pursued by women.

I guess what I am trying to say is this discussion is missing a big piece of the picture and that is intimacy . Without true intimacy nothing satisifies and without satisfaction no 'relationship' will last.

I would like to see more of a focus on healthy selves before all this talk of sexuality. It certainly is not good leadership for the next generation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Detachment Posted by: realmuzik
» Intimacy Posted by: eastcoker
» I got me a job Posted by: eastcoker
Read about Femmenism
Posted by: realmuzik on Nov 17, 2005 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to this unfortunately ongoing debate, I recommend a brilliant article by Lisa Jervis (One of the founders/editors of the always brilliant--BITCH: Feminist Response To Pop Culture, which, by the way, features an interview with Ariel Levy in the current issue) on how Feminism focuses too much on women and not enough on men. Those of you who feel that men are not included in feminism enough should find this piece especially interesting. Read it at http://www.lipmagazine.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ead about Femmenism Posted by: delphyne
Female sexuality appears to mean keeping men happy
Posted by: delphyne on Nov 17, 2005 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cake is run by a man and fronted by his girlfriend and his sister. It's female run in the same way Playboy is female run because Hefner's daughter holds an executive position in his organisation.

The interesting thing about these discussions is the incredibly limited view of female sexuality that always seems to manifest itself. It consists of women being ogled at, groped or sexually used in various settings by the male population. Girls Gone Wild, stripping, prostitution, pornography - these aren't examples of female sexuality, they are examples of men's exploitation of women's sexuality.

Levy's book made some excellent points (she also didn't call any women "sluts" - a nasty slander, Amy) none of which have been addressed by this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism defined
Posted by: beetruetoyou on Nov 17, 2005 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Webster's ..."a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to those of men."

Such a simple concept. How did it become so damn complicated?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism is Fine
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 17, 2005 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue here everyone, is like many progressive social movements, feminism is trying to find its place. When it comes to sexuality, is it really any wonder many women are trying to define it in their own terms? Yes, Girls Gone Wild is totally trashy, and we all know that it caters to overhormonal straight male tastes (though I'm quite curious as to why Ms. Levy kept silent when it was revealed by of all people Snoop Dogg, that the GGW videos intentionally discriminate against women of color), but does that mean that all forms of female sexual expression are suspect? What about the rise in women-centered erotica - created by women FOR women? What about female slash fiction writers? What about women of colour and fat women (yes, I used the dreaded 'f-word') who are beginning to demand representation as sexual beings? Should we all go back to that time when women were told by their mothers to "lie back and think of England"? Keep in mind that it has been less thn thirty years since women could even get a credit card in their own name, and even in this day and age, we as women are still mapping the unfamiliar landscape of what it is we want and need. Will we make mistakes, of course. However, the alternative is far worse - being relegated to nothing more than sperm-recepticles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: linden
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: linden
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: linden
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: Lauramendez
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Feminism is Fine Posted by: YogiBear
Feminist Spirituality has been my touchstone
Posted by: Shakti on Nov 17, 2005 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the last 25 years or so, I keep coming back to symbols, archetypes, images, stories from feminist spirituality ("the goddess") to orient myself vis a vis my quest for empowerment, freedom, and fulfillment as a woman.

I realized a long time ago that my idea of "feminism" wasn't to make myself over into a man-woman, rejecting my femininity in order to gain power in the world. I also realized that there is a way to be fully empowered and sexy, even if we hardly ever see examples of this. Just because the patriarchy has reduced the omnipotence of Aphrodite to a blow-up doll, doesn't mean I have to buy that. I think men are mostly terrified of empowered female sexuality and much of the "sex-is-dirty" and "sexy women are dumb victims" and "money-buys-sex" values we have stems from patriarchal attempts to control female sexuality (the real means of [re]production).

I would like my daughter to come of age in a world where she doesn't have to get married to have sex and be "good," where she can have children and not be married if she wants, where she doesn't need a man to feel okay about herself or safe in the world. I want my daughter to be able to express herself as Artemis-the-virgin or Aphrodite-the-lover, or Demeter-the-mother, or Hera-the-queen, or Athena-the-warrior ... to have all these facets of womanhood available to her ... to be wholly empowered to express her nature as appropriate.

Feminist spirituality is a wonderful way to begin to explore how the feminine expressed itself in other (ancient) cultures. Our own modern Western society is very impoverished in this regard (virgin, mother, whore) ... we need to take back positive views of all these dimensions of womanhood. To me, that is what empowerment is all about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

feminism and young women
Posted by: sharonpb on Nov 18, 2005 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sure feminism hasn't produced every gain we had hoped for, though much of the failure I ascribe to men not willing to change, rather than to women. but if the movement has at least given young women the vocabulary and courage to demand control over their sexuality, then we have at least paritally succeeded. i will never forget an incident in high school where a boy who was being initiated into a fraternity was obviously told to go grab my breasts while i was standing with friends and then run off. ha ha...big joke..i was totally shamed and too embarrassed to discuss it with anyone--and i considered myself a feminist then--totally alone in my suburban world. Imagine a world where then men are shamed for their behavior and not the women!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: feminism and young women Posted by: Lauramendez
finally an answer?
Posted by: T.S. on Nov 18, 2005 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While you're here Melinda, maybe you can finally answer the question Levy asked about how do you explain what CAKE is doing as any different from what men make women do sexually elsewhere.

Stripping naked in front of lots of people, faux-lesbian folling around in front of watching men, making pornography- these are all what CAKE promotes and they are all also what mainstream male heterosexual have been getting from women the past few years. What's different about these same actions when your orchestrate them as opposed to when a woman producer of Girls Gone Wild orchestrates them?

It is the million dollar question and I have yet to see it answered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am the girl you are all condemning.
Posted by: oddtiming on Nov 18, 2005 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are not helping. You are hurting the cause you champion.

I am 23 years old. I am a sexually extroverted and promiscuous young woman. I lost my virginity only after I went to college, I was not pressured into it, nor did I have any feelings of regret afterwards. I found sex fun. really fun. I was 18 and full or hormones. I had, in the next year or so, a whole bloody lot of sex. What else do you expect?! I never belittled my friends who did not feel comfortable having sex without a serious loving committed relationship, nor did anyone who belittled me (or called me a slut) for my sexual practices remain my friend for very long. When I have sex it is because I want sex. When I have nasty raunchy kinky sex, it is because I like nasty raunchy kinky sex. It is not because I am seeking approval or comfort or power or possessions.

I do not deny that there are women -many women- who do view sex and sexuality (at least on some level) as a means to those things, but condemning all women who flaunt their sexuality will only push the ones who ARE confident and passionate and EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT FOR WOMEN away from defining themselves as feminists. The last thing you want is to push my generation away. There is more work to be done, and you need the young women to be passionate enough to keep fighting when you are gone. For goodness sake, please don't alienate my generation. I have a hard enough time convincing my friends that defining oneself as a feminist is a good thing...please don't make it harder for me!

If you want to create positive change, do NOT just condemn young women who flash their breasts, or make out with their female friends for fun, or have, frankly, lots and lots of sex. Encourage women to feel good about themselves (whatever their sexual tatses may be), encourage young women to follow their dreams, to never let someone dismiss or demean them because they are female, to KNOW that they deserve equal social, economic, political, and sexual footing as men, and that they should fight back when these rights are challenged.

Just as young women should not feel pressured to "act like a porn star", young women who feel most comfortable having that kind of sex should not feel pressured to claim otherwise.

Please, we appreciate all that you have done for us. Do not inspire resentment for you in us by criticizing us when we actually enjoy the freedoms you gave us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

17yearoldmale
Posted by: unity on Nov 19, 2005 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in reference to the feminism column posted,where it says women are not to blame,i would have to agree. the concept of feminism is very respectable.it may seem unorthodox for a male (myself) to be saying this but i strongly believe that women need to understand that they are respected greatly, not only by the gay-male side but also by straight males such as myself. i tend to find that males my age have already developed the crude and disrespectful characteristics they adopt when referring to women i.e. "she'd be a nice screw" or "without knowing her "shes a ho". it's not right and definately should be abolished. im not saying that there should be a law against it im saying that there should be more community awareness tactics carried out by the feminist societies i.e. advertisemets (TV). my reasons for expressing such an opinion is due to the fact that in todays society, teenagers (14-18) committing sexual crimes on girls the same age is on the rise, and i believe it is due to them being un educated on what feminism is really about, and that is the fairer sex deserves more than what is being given..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

feminism...a good concept
Posted by: unity on Nov 19, 2005 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
im a 17 year old bloke and in reference to the feminism column posted,where it says women are not to blame,i would have to agree. the concept of feminism is very respectable.it may seem unorthodox for a male (myself) to be saying this but i strongly believe that women need to understand that they are respected greatly, not only by the gay-male side but also by straight males such as myself. i tend to find that males my age have already developed the crude and disrespectful characteristics they adopt when referring to women i.e. "she'd be a nice screw" or without knowing her "shes a ho". it's not right and definately should be abolished. im not saying that there should be a law against it im saying that there should be more community awareness tactics carried out by the feminist societies i.e. advertisemets (TV). my reasons for expressing such an opinion is due to the fact that in todays society, teenagers (14-18) committing sexual crimes on girls the same age is on the rise, and i believe it is due to them being un educated on what feminism is really about, and that is the fairer sex deserves more than what is being given..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Femininist since 1974 and not jaded
Posted by: lambchops on Nov 19, 2005 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think of myself as a femininist even though I married young and had children. I reared my 5 daughters to think of themselves just as men think of their selves and my 6 sons to treat women with the respect that they treat their male friends. If a man thinks that he is a stud for being sexually active, a woman has every right to think of herself as being a healthy functioning woman when she is sexually active. There is no shame in being what you are. The thing is that I notice that many high profile femininists appear to be trying to be everything and yet ending up being nothing in their platform on femininism. You cannot be a "nice" woman so that others see you as a "good" person. What other people think of a woman's behavior today is so 1950s and antifemininist, not to mention that it is impossible to control what others think about a woman. A woman secure in herself is not concerned when called trashy names. I noticed that when my daughters shared about another girl calling them "bitch," they laughed and said, "yes, I am a BITCH and I am proud of it, so what of it?" I do not feel dismayed nor disappointed by what women are doing to grow in their femininism. I feel proud. If we want equality, then we have it. But we cannot be fearful of the little idosyncracies that pop up or pop out because some women really know how to revel in our freedoms. Femininism is not dead, is not fading away, is not dying out, and has not been perverted. What has been happening to Femininism is that it is evolving and growing like a germinated acorn; becoming part and parcel of every woman and girl. What femininist women in leadership positions could do if they wanted to is to find concrete ways to help women to come together to share, care, and to form and develop grassroots programs that bring girls and women together. A political pulling together will naturally follow, but a social cohesion forged on mutal interests is what is needed now. Many things were accomplished by women in coffee clatches and silver teas for many years. I saw my own mother and the women she met with in her community do some very fantastic things back in the 60s. This is going to be a beautiful, strong, and powerful oak tree. But it still needs a lot of care and work. We women can do this. If we can give birth, rear children, deal with a plethora of other things, then we can do this task too. I know we can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An answer to the million dollar question...
Posted by: Mgallagher73 on Nov 21, 2005 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CAKE produces entertainment, content, information and education for women by women. We do not do this for men. On the contrary, we represent thousands of women who garner very powerful, pleasurable experiences with expressing our sexuality and moreover have a distinct need to do so to further our sexual evolutions.

We have a progressive philosophy - one that is not a derivitive or perversion of male sexuality, but defined and evolved from women's needs and desires. While this includes what goes on behind closed doors, within relationships and our personal feeling about our bodies, fantasies and orgasm, some of those desires also need a public forum to be played out including exhibitionism, voyeurism, performance and oh my gosh can you believe it, making out with other women and watching some of the few good porn flicks out there.

We reject the old conservative argument that women need to be protected, hidden away from the evil male gaze, and a public forum that is fraught with only consumerism and anti woman sentiment. We think there is quite a lot more going on with the program. In fact we know so.

CAKE has been asking women for over five years - "What do YOU want sexually?" We are part of the solution to what has not existed for women thus far, namely a female sexual culture to call our own. We have done so by doing the following:

Our website - CAKE - and newsletter (30K subscribers) promotes a progressive agenda of choice and reproductive rights and explores diverse issues such as sexual pleasure, relationships, sexual health, body image, among hundreds of other topics having to do with female sexuality. There are over 1500 female CAKE members who make up a community of progressive, likeminded women. We have produced over 70 events in NYC and London all of which have distinct themes and purposes, including workshops on sexual health, demonstrations, all women events. CAKE events are female directed, focused and controlled. The women at the events are NOT performing for the men in the room or playing into some male-directed stereotype. Rather the women in the room are there expressing and exploring their own desires. They come to CAKE because there are shockingly still few options for women to proactively express their sexuality in public. In addition, CAKE just published our first book - A Piece of CAKE, (more in next post...too long for this one...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An answer to the million dollar question...cont.
Posted by: Mgallagher73 on Nov 21, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CAKE is ever evolving and we are out there trying to develop new ideas and a fresh perspective on female sexual culture one that is NOT a perversion of male sexuality. We are taking the next logical step to promote sexual equality and filling a void with a progressive, proactive and yes public agenda that comes directly from women themselves.

Thanks for asking!

Melinda
Founder, CAKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

basic data
Posted by: DeAnander on Nov 21, 2005 2:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to understand the feminist critique of the "sex" industry (which in this writer's humble opinion has about as much to do with real sex as McDonalds has to do with real food), it's first necessary to understand the material conditions of that industry, the class and race dynamics it obeys and perpetuates, the demographics of its labour force.

I recommend Not For Sale, an international feminist anthology, for multinational and cross cultural perspectives and a critique that makes it very clear that "those strident/bitter/repressed feminists are anti-sex" is a smokescreen ... as specious and distracting as "those Luddites want us to starve" when hurled by Monsanto and their flaks at environmentalists who oppose GMO, or "those tree huggers want you to freeze in the dark," at critics of the fossil fuel industry. the sex industry is brute capitalism, folks -- much of it is owned by the same ultra rich elite of republicans who leverage the Bible-thumping populist Right to increase their political power. Murdoch owns a big chunk of porn output, for example.

we know how these elites treat labour, indigenous peoples, natural resources. in many/most cases the women and kids of the international sex trade are seen as all three -- a natural resource to be cash cropped and exported, racial inferiors to be used up as expendable slave labour, proletarians to be squeezed for fat profits higher up the chain.

cake parties and pseudo-lesbian smooching in bars are the entertainments of the spoilt Western elite with free time and discretionary cash on its hands, and to the extent that they are voluntarily engaged in and no one gets raped or tortured or killed, who cares if college brats and bored suburban office workers want to act out and grab a little faux feelgood rebellion. but to generalise from these amusements of the affluent to a defence of porn and prostitution worldwide, as some try to do do, is as specious as generalising from Karzai's shaky hold on Kabul to a claim that "peace has been restored to Afghanistan and women are now free."

the essential skill for intellectual survival under capitalism is learning to recognise a sales pitch when we hear one, and to figure out who's really benefitting. it isn't always the guy or gal delivering the pitch -- as evidenced by all those flag waving true believers voting for a regime that takes away their jobs and uses up their kids as cannon fodder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: basic data Posted by: rychousmama
second verse, same as the first
Posted by: T.S. on Nov 21, 2005 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You didn't answer the question, you went off on a tangent without explaining how the displayed women at your public events differ from mainstream presentations of women's sexuality as existing mostly for public consumption.

“We do not do this for men.”

But men are gawkers at your biggest events and the women wind up naked and wiggling all over each other while men mostly stand around watching. What’s so “feminist” about promoting girl-girl public orgies in a culture where that’s the #1 fratboy fantasy and the title of at least 10,000 porn titles?

“need a public forum to be played out including exhibitionism, voyeurism, performance and oh my gosh can you believe it, making out with other women and watching some of the few good porn flicks out there.”

You consider this NOT mimicking male-defined sexuality? Fake lesbianism and public sex performances are the very definition of male-defined female sexuality, so how are you subverting this when women gazed upon is what’s drilled into women’s consciousness as what it means for a woman to be sexy?

“The women at the events are NOT performing for the men in the room or playing into some male-directed stereotype.

Sure they are, and if you don’t see that you’re in denial. Have you read the description in Levy’s book, or the Bitch magazine article where the journalist says that this is exactly what the CAKE event she went to devolved into, more of the same old same old lookee at the nekkid girls? If you don’t see it it’s only because you don’t want to.

“CAKE is ever evolving and we are out there trying to develop new ideas and a fresh perspective on female sexual culture one that is NOT a perversion of male sexuality.”

Looks to me, and to a lot of other people, that you’re failing. Second wavers had women in groups looking at their genitals and trying to get them in touch with their inner sexual sacredness, which doesn’t make for a very sexy cocktail party but does make for an informative, woman-centered educational activity.

I hope one day you evolve past mimicking and move into real groundbreaking stuff, but I don’t have much optimism that CAKE is going to redefine what it means to be a sexy woman, not the way you’re going about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pass the popcorn
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 22, 2005 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At 39, married, with two kids that could use like ten sets of me and their mom instead of just us, I can only stand in the middle of all this discourse with my eyeballs buggin. I'm from the real gen-X bunch (those b. bet. 1965-1971) and I am continually astounded at older generations' obsessions with blaming all their inner angst on anyone under 30 and the younger generations' blissful and vexing simultaneous contempt and desperation for the elders' approval, and my own generations utter pleasure in pretending to be above it all while rolling around in it. I'm still stunned daily at how sexually repressed and emotionally illiterate American culture is, how utterly whacked out (aw, go ahead, puns are fun) it is with our ridiculous obsessions about virginity (what are we in the ancient world still?) girls/boys have cooties, sex is secret, women are this, men are that, size matters/doesn't matter, quantity matters, quality matters, who's doin' who, which gender is best, worst, yada yada... 99% of all of our cultural praxis around sex and gender construction is total crap based on more total crap. Coul dit be time to scrap it and start over? There's a lot to be said for emotional maturity and a whole lot of fearless exploring. Feminism at its core is all about hearing, valuing and empowering the Other and seeing Other as Us. I'm willing to let others decide for themselves what that means but in the meantime, I'm thanking the gods for Jennifer Baumgardner. Every piece she writes I see the goddess coming out. I hope my daughter grows up to be like her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pass the popcorn Posted by: YogiBear
deja vu all over again
Posted by: DeAnander on Nov 22, 2005 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“CAKE is ever evolving and we are out there trying to develop new ideas and a fresh perspective on female sexual culture one that is NOT a perversion of male sexuality.”

and what I hear in my cynical old ears [this surely dates me]:

You've come a long way baby,
to get where you've got to today!
You've got your own cigarette [porno/cakeparty/SUV] now baby --
You've come a long long way.

uh huh. doesn't seem like a 'perversion' so much as a perfect xerox copy. intelprop lawsuits have been filed over less accurate replication.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

call it what it is
Posted by: art2 on Nov 22, 2005 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cake is simply a form of prostitution where women take their clothes off, act sexy, and extract a financial reward from men. It is a perfect metaphor for today's sullied entertainment industry. To call it "empowerment" is to trivialize the very word. It is more like acquiescing to male heterosexual fantasy on the model of straight porn movies.

As for my moral position on it, if these silly women want to engage in phony lesbian acts for the voyeuristic pleasure of inadequate heterosexual men, that's fine with me. Just don't dignify what you do by tying your sail to the "empowerment" mast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Are All The Naked GUYS??
Posted by: katya on Nov 24, 2005 7:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems Baumgardner (and many other feminists) lack the ability to think of any alternative beyond the current two sides of the feminist sex debate. Either you're "pro-sex" (aka, "Pro Women Flashing For A Webcam And Embodying Whatever Fantasies Men Want Them To") or "anti-porn" (aka, "Pro Censoring All Forms Of Public Sexual Expression Because Women Cearly Don't Have Any Agency.") This is bull caca. Women shouldn't have to choose Bunnywear & Burquas. Both choices say squat about what female sexuality actually IS, and more about what men want it to be.

For the record, I don't believe that Levy WAS endorsing an anti-porn perspective. I believe that she was simply using 'raunch culture' as a term to describe the way female sexuality in this culture has become so reactive, ie, less about a woman's own orgasm than about the orgasm of the guys who jerk off to her when she poses for them in "Swank." And I'm with Levy on that one! I'd rather give myself an orgasm with a vibrator than induce arousal by dressing up as stripper and dancing naked for a bunch of dickheads I don't even know. Yet the "pro-sex" camp would argue that the latter is a sign of female empowerment & liberation.

But hang on a minute... where are the men who pose for US? If CAKE parties etc. are a sign of female sexual liberation, then where the hell are all the beautiful, physically fit boys lying around naked for MY pleasure? Why aren't hot young guys tongue-kissing each other in bars (or at the MTV Music Awards?) Why aren't Submissive Slave-boys writing articles for mens' magazines about how great it is to be dominated, the way Sub-females do for 'Cosmo'? Why do teenage girls adore the Playboy-bunny logo, while teenage boys barely touch it? Why isn't thong underwear sold to teen guys the way it is to teen girls? And finally...when I say that I'm disappointed with the current sex entertainment industry, and that watching naked men makes me feel really horny, why do men (and women!) simply assume I'm joking?

While I acknowledge that this comment has a heterosexual bias, this is a point that had to be raised. Guys: Off with your clothes!

REAL female sexual liberation will occur when I am free to wear an ugly pair of tracksuit pants and an old shirt, and watch a bunch of pretty boys in assless leather chaps swing 'round a pole for ME.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where Are All The Naked GUYS?? Posted by: MartianBachelor
Sloppy On The Facts
Posted by: Guillaume on Nov 24, 2005 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe that the author of this article called Susan Brownmiller a latecomer to the women's movement!
Brownmiller started writing feminist pieces in 1969 and was certainly an activist. (She organized the Ladies Home Journal sit-in in March 1970.) In 1975, she published her landmark book Against Our Will.

Apparently there was a lot of jealousy in those days over who got published and who didn't, and who got on TV and who didn't, but there is no reason to perpetuate those negative emotions today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism vs Biology
Posted by: Benonymous on Nov 24, 2005 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife is a college educated interpreter/translator. I am an engineer. We discussed the situation we were in when she was pregnant with our first child. Due to our circumstances, no immediate family or trusted friends. We lacked a "support" network. The only choice for us was for me to keep working and she would take up the role of child rearing and home management. We struggled with the concept sometimes and regretted our choice but ultimately we and only we have raised our kids. Not a string of disinterested third party childcare workers. Even with both incomes, a nanny would've been out of the question.
Female biology must be taken into account also. Sometimes against their will, women yearn to have babies. I remember hearing a highly educated woman in a forum discussion describe how she had a desire "stronger than anything I have ever experienced" to have a child. Feminism can't beat thousands of years of genetic programming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jennifer Baumgardner responds to "sloppy on the facts"
Posted by: jenniferbaumgardner on Nov 29, 2005 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wanted to respond to the comment that I am sloppy on the facts by referring to Susan Brownmiller as a latecomer to the movement. I didn't say that she was a latecomer; I said she was perceived that way by the radical activists who founded the New York City groups in 1968. I get my impressions from several histories of that era, including Daring to Be Bad (Alice Echols) and Brownmiller's own book, In Our Time, in which she refers to herself as not being there at the beginning (a quote that Ariel Levy references).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about power.
Posted by: blingnet88 on Mar 16, 2006 10:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as power and the need to control are taken out of our relationships, then I expect everything will be fine. But this is a problem because the need to absolutely control is such a basic reflex of our civilized culture. Everything from "how was your day?" ("everything was out of control") to "how is the war going?" ("we have control of the situation")

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement