I suppose I’m a bit premature to write the first post. I’m yet to start the course, or have the project approved. That said, I can’t myself. As someone interested in pornography, both its form and culture, it’s hard not to find myself talking about pornography or viewing it! Anyways, welcome!
______________
So, my first post is derived from a conversation I had with my sister today about cyberporn and feminism. First, my sister would say she’s a socialist feminist and, to her credit, she does realise the world beyond gender. Second, she’s ‘pro-porn’, or what academics/activists call a ‘pro-sex feminist’. This term, however, is problematic. But not doubt I’ll come to that later in this project.
Now, my views on feminism are perhaps anti-feminist insofar as I don’t agree with the ideologies and discourses I’ve been introduced to throughout my studies. In high school we learnt how men were triangles and women were circles. That is to say, men are hard, pointy and can break things. Women, on the other hand, are soft, enclose and ever-ending. At university, especially in a course on popular culture and gender, I found myself, again, at odds with the ideology and discourse of feminism. Here men were merely perpetrators of violence, or were completely absent from discussion. And that the metrosexual is the (postmodern) way forward. Two points I disagree with. So, I always find myself resistant towards feminism because I feel as if I have to defend men, even though I know women have valid points about social, political and economic inequalities. And, it should be said, these shouldn’t be downplayed or not acknowledged.
Needless to say, when my sister stated she found my language shocking. A man who grew up with two women as parental figures (mother and sister), and with a sister who is a socialist pro-sex feminist, that I have the views I do. But I’m not against feminism. If I have to pinpoint my problem it’s the white, imperial, neoliberal feminist universal dogma. For example, the US feminists that supported military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan in order to liberate women. Yet my sister had the impression that I was anti-women and had extreme views that could (are) considered offensive. Her response, especially as I enter the critical domains of pornography and cyberporn where feminist critiques (male, female, pro- and anti-) are present, was to consider what I saying and how I was saying it. So instead of saying ‘stupid feminist’ or ‘I don’t like feminism’ (terms I do say), I should take a step back and realise that it’s not simply an academic and, thus, objective issue. I should be more sensitive.
Okay. I don’t disagree.
However, this is where I differ to my sister. I believe that radical acts are needed. Social interventions. Violence. How can we change (bad) ideologies and discourses without creating a rupture, one that tears all that we hold dear? In these times we are forced to take a stand, no matter what that stand is. At present, we live in what Alain Badiou calls the ‘atonal world’ or what Slavoj Zizek calls the liberal multiculturalist democracy. Are we too scared to cause offence? I don’t want to upset people, or be insensitive. But I do wish to challenge, if not challenge the core, of an ideological mind set. Criticising or dismissing feminism is not an act of insensitivity or hatred. Instead, in this rupture, discussion has happened. In this moment, two genders are talking. Yet as my sister stated, and rightly so, it’s like neither gender wants to give up their struggle, their difference or their gendered identity.
So, when I say I hate feminists or feminism, I mean I hate the ideology and discourse. Perhaps I need to also reconsider that this is a rather academic point; that not everyone may understand the difference between a subjectivity and body that is equally as important as any gender, and the ideology and discourse that promotes a singular, universal female subject. And the male subject. This is perhaps why I prefer the literature from feminists of colour, those that write from two or three perspectives; those informed by two or more social positions and not just their feminine experience. So, I say I’m pro-women. I’m pro-equality. I realise there are inequalities. I realise there are changes to be made. But I remain anti-feminist until it changes, until it becomes and humanist ideology that transgresses gender in-itself.
I’ll finish on a concept from African American scholar Barbra Christian: the ‘oppression derby’. We shouldn’t be trying to compare oppression, quantify them, or create legitimate and illegitimate traumas. We are all affected, in different ways and to different extents, by a similar socio-economic system. However, I differ in how we, collectively, regardless of your gender, ethnicity, sexuality, economic status, body type, or whatever, can change the situation.
But should I be more sensitive? I don’t know… Is sensitivity a pre-requisite to study pornography? Whatever the answers, I will attempt to be more explicit, which is perhaps more so the problem than my argument in-itself.
CV
______________
I should also mention that my statements like ‘I hate feminism’ or ‘I don’t like ‘X’ scholar because she’s a typical second waver’ reflect an uncensored statement for my audience. My sister. If I was speaking to an unknown person, I’d have a different argument that is more constructed. That said, I also realise that if my sister only hears these uncensored comments she takes them with the full forced they are presented in. Although I do believe in a certain symbolic violence of language to create ruptures for change, I also conclude that constantly hearing them are also problematic for issues that aren’t purely ideological.
Tags: anti-feminism, cyberporn, debate, feminism, pro-sex feminism
