| your ideas intrigue me and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter |
[Mar. 28th, 2008|02:01 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  Catty | ] |
Friendsfriends points me to some interesting shit sometimes. Today's "oh my god someone GETS it" link is courtesy of ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) zorrorojo. I would like to subtitle it "Why 'boobies!' annoys the fuck out of me."
Sexy feminism creates two groups of women, but, oddly enough, neither group is for women. I allude to the “sex-positive” group and the “anti-sex” group. The first benefits the status quo. It reassures women who fear the burden of true liberation that femininity is a legitimate identity. The second is the fictitious enemy of the first — a stand-in for the real oppressor — and functions as the dark, hairy background against which the glowing orgasmic accomplishments of the sexy feminists may glitter in the light of life’s dudely disco ball. Of course there is no real group of anti-sexites; this is a fabrication that allows sexy feminists to indulge in patriarchy-appeasing misogyny on feminist blogs.
Choice bits from other entries:
I’ve said it before and I’ll again: patriarchy isn’t some vague intellectual conceit invented by radical feminists to pass the time in between trips to the Birkenstock store. It’s an actual humanitarian crisis, and it has actual consequences, even for you, even if you say it doesn’t.
Of many the specious arguments against the Twistifesto, there is one which is most commonly posed by a certain species of “sex-positive” feminist. These well-meaning but misguided gals complain that the eradicate-prostitution position is patronizing because it presumes that women are “incapable,” as Caitlain puts it, of making decisions pertaining to the disposition of our own body parts. I am happy to report that the eradicate-prostitution position does nothing of the sort. No sane radical feminist could possibly support the assertion that women are “incapable” of making decisions; we are merely prevented by an oppressive social order from exercising our capability to its fullest extent.
I can never decide if I'm a liberal feminist or a radical one, but I usually end up going with the former simply because I don't think it's possible to completely tear down society and build it back up again. In any case, all this stuff is food for thought and serves as a distraction from the emotional trauma I'm inflicting on fictional characters. |
|
|