I’d say it’s one of the defining characteristics of third-wave feminism, and like I said, that’s been around since approximately 1980.
That’s criticism of those specific magazines. It was post #5, and Zeriel made it clear he was not talking about all porn. I’m wondering if you are really reading the replies in this thread.
It is indeed a criticism that those specific magazines, which are female-depicting porn/erotica. Zeriel said they objectify women. So at least one poster (Zeriel) believes that at least some porn (Hustler, Penthouse, Playboy) objectifies women.
What is the specific number of feminists who belong to third-wave feminism? Are there membership cards? Obviously, there are some feminists who still take the older view, and some take the new view.
Yes, I am reading the replies on this thread, and the idea that porn is somehow an enemy of women and feminism still comes out in my reading of several posts. Also in my conversations with feminists in my own life who still have that point of view. If you are getting the message that feminist oppositiion to porn is 100% extinct, that is your reading of the situation.
In my experience, such opposition is still common among a certain number of feminists.
I don’t think I’ve seen this point made in this thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else’s idea. But it seems to me a key difference in the Iranian movement and porn is intent. The former is making a subversive political statement, while the latter serves as entertainment.
So really, there is no comparing the two at all. We could argue all day about whether porn is anti-feminist or not, but since the Iranians aren’t making porn, so what? It’s apples and oranges.
And I agree with Sarafeenah about feminism. Merely making choices while being a woman isn’t enough to be a practicing feminist. To count, choices (and the attitudes behind them) need to advance the cause of anti-sexism. Our choices aren’t made in a vacuum, anyway; they are under the influence of cultural programming.
If a society insists that a woman’s value depends on how sexually attractive she is to men, women’s choices will reflect this insistence. They will starve themselves, pump their body parts with silicon and other artificial substances, hide behind makeup and weaves, have no problems watching movies that relegate them to bubble-headed bimbos rather than well-developed characters, and spend more time looking for a husband than advancing themselves in other ways. These choices will be made without the threat of coercion, too. But does it make sense to call this feminism at work? Of course not.
Nudity, in and of itself, is not the issue.
I read the posts quite closely, thank you. In post # 17, Zeriel says (emphasis mine):
“Put another way, feminists don’t necessarily oppose pornography because the ACTRESSES are being exploited–***they tend ***(in my experience) ***to oppose it ***because of the message that typical male-gaze-centric porn can often send (“hurt me with your massive meat rod!” “drown me in cum!” “use me how you like!”)”
Note the sentence, with the present tense, in which Zeriel says that feminists (no qualification or limitation, just “feminists”) . . . .OPPOSE it (pornography) because of the message that male-centric porn can often send.
Look, Marley, we are arguing pointlessly here. I have always been aware that many many modern feminists have long ago realized that porn is not their enemy. Amen to that, I say.
But I am not ready to say that my OP is pointless because there is no longer such a thing as a feminist who thinks that pornography oppresses and harms women. That viewpoint still exists.
The poster was very clear about this: he said some porn objectifies women and some porn doesn’t. You seem to be implying that he suggested it’s possible all porn has that problem, but he expressly said it does not. So it’s a criticism of some specific magazines and not a blanket opposition to porn because all porn objectifies women. From what I can tell, that’s seen as an outdated criticism.
I have no doubt that there are. But since third-wave feminism dates back around 30 years and the pro-porn feminist stance seems to me to be widespread in popular culture, I think you’re either criticizing a much smaller proportion of feminists than you think you are, or you’re fighting a battle that was won a long time ago.
If you have any specific statistics on how many feminists fall into the two categories I will be happy to admit I was wrong.
So far I haven’t been able to find anything.
Technically speaking, if you find ANY specific statistics on how many fall into the two groups, I would have to admit I was wrong, even if stats show that feminists who are perfectly ok with porn and do not view it as a enemy of feminism are only 10% of all feminists.
You will probably accuse me of moving the goalposts, but logically, I would have to start by actually setting them somewhere specific.
So how about this? All I have ever maintained is that the anti-porn position is a significantly widespread opinion among feminists. Enough to justify my OP.
Just to draw a number out of the air, I would say any opinion held by 25% or more of a group is a widespread opinion, even if it is a minority opinion. If you can show me that more than 75% of feminists have no problem with porn and do not view it as demeaning of women, I will admit that I was mistakenly fighting a battle that has already been won.
By the way, I note from the Wikipedia article about Third Wave Feminism, that “… many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited.”
Okay, fair enough, Marley. But “many” is not very specific. My rule of thumb is, if many do, many don’t. So even among the third wave feminists, there is apparently a significant school of thought that still opposes porn.
I agree with you that many have dropped their opposition, but I don’t agree from what I have seen so far, that my OP was fighting a battle already won against a viewpoint that has essentially disappeared.
Yes, “[feminists] tend (in my experience) to” is absolutely free of qualifiers or limitations, like “in my experience” or “tend to”.
If you think I was saying all feminists are opposed to all porn, then you are not reading my posts. Some feminists tend to oppose some porn that is specifically anti-feminist/misogynist.
This will be my last post in this thread, although I have to commend you for making it all the way to post 86 before you got back onto your hobby horse.
Equality isn’t just about rights, though…it’s about opportunity and power. Like it or not, our actions DO reflect on all women. Denying that is just denying reality. Companies aren’t “allowed” by law to discriminate against us and if they were, sure, we’d all scream bloody blue murder. Does that mean that this kind of discrimination doesn’t happen? Do you think that women never get passed over for promotion or not hired at all because companies think women cost too much money with maternity leaves or missing work because of their children (because *everyone knows * women take more time off then men, you know)? Discrimination is subtle and it affects every one of us.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Which, if it’s to be coherent and rational, means empowering women. Empowering women means allowing them to make any choice they see fit to make as an autonomous being. Therefore women making autonomous choices promotes feminism. Trying to castigate women for making their own choices is anti-feminism. Claiming that the behavior of an individual woman somehow reflects on all women isn’t just anti-feminist, it’s sexist.
Complaining that autonomous women are making choices you don’t like and are therefore “[hurting] the chance for other women to make their own choices” and thus “AT BEST neutral and at worst anti” is incoherent nonsense. Then feminism is no longer about empowerment, but control.
[/quote]
I think I’m being more coherent than I usually am, actually. I’m not castigating anyone, and I haven’t complained that people are making choices I, personally, don’t like. I’m talking about what promotes the rights, power, and opportunity of women at large. I think there’s a very clear and important difference between a FEELING of empowerment and actually BEING empowered. Individual women making choices that make them feel empowered actually means zero about whether they really empowered or whether women in general are empowered. You want to talk about nonsense…the idea that we can become empowered by something that actually gives us no power at all is pretty nonsensical.
This would amount to banning porn: Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance - Wikipedia
Considering that not appealing to the sensibilities of women in a magazine aimed at straight men (to borrow from Zeriel) is enough to constitute objectification for many feminists, then even something as mild as Playboy would end up being run out of business by the lawsuits if nonsense like that were actually taken seriously.
The conception of subordination, objectification, commodification and dehumanization espoused by feminists like Dworkin, MacKinnon or Zeriel is so broad that anything that’s less romantic than they personally like would be considered objectionnable and subject to such (thankfully set aside) ordinances.
This.
I wasn’t saying that you said every feminist, just that you did not qualify as to numbers.
Look, people, I do not care a rat’s ass if you said it was all feminists or not. I don’t care a rat’s ass if the feminists who are opposed to porn are 20% of feminists, 40%, 80% or 90%.
I don’t care if they think that all porn is bad, 20% is bad, or 90% or 100% is bad.
I have wasted all the time I am going to waste on this nit-picking.
I was simply talking about the opinion that exists among feminists that porn is anti-female, and wondering what people who believe this would make of Iranian women using nude pictures of women to fight patrirachy and repression.
Get out of may face with the numbers game, fer Chrissake!
Based on your example it appears that your premise is that naked=porn.
Thanks Valteron for the interesting thread.
Did anyone see the movie- The Imperialists are still Alive- with Elodie Bouchez? She played an artist from Middle East and posed nude for her own photograph wearing a hijab covering her face.
I agree with the posters who said that the culture, within which the art is presented, is a major part of the statement.
Valteron made me remember when feminists had the attitude that porn made the female participant a naked little sex victim, in a sexually exploitive culture, but I agree that this attitude is mainly from the past.
Primitive nudity is still on the planet, as of yet, and still probably being clothed by missionaries as we speak, but is an example of non commodity, non exploitive nakedness. IMO, after that is lost, I cannot imagine that it returns.
Finally this example of the Arab and Iranian women, naked, as a statement from within a puritanical culture where, from what we learn, a woman’s body is required to be covered for modesty and safety, and also primarily belongs to the husband.
The meaning may be feminist, or a statement of freedom; but what excites me most is that it comes from the brave, empowered artist- it makes me think of the Mapplethorp photographs.
As an active third-wave feminist, and one who would fall on the “pro-porn” side of the debate, I have to disagree with Marley23 that this is the standard position of feminism at this time. I think it’s probably fair to say that the proportion of self-described feminists who are anti-porn is lower now than during second-wave feminism but it remains an extremely divisive issue. And feminists who follow the school of radical feminism are still pretty much 100% opposed, and they still account for a fairly significant chunk of feminism, or least of feminist activism.
I don’t think there are any reliable statistics on this, but I would estimate from my own personal circle of feminist activists that probably around three-quarters are anti-porn.
Been done lots of times. Here’s one for-instance from a few years back.
Shouldn’t that be “unfuck them” if they’re to be denied sex? 
Other than that cavil, you’re spot on, as usual.
Are you talking to me? (No I am not doing a bad movie imitation:D.) It is not clear from your message which example you mean. But if you are referring to my concepts of porn, nudity, eroticism etc. I would be pleased to start up a discussion on this matter.