Why are radical feminists opposed to pornography?

[John Jones]

What makes a feminist radical?

Self-identifying as feminist makes them sexist by definition.

Whether they are sexists or radical sexists makes little difference to me.

I'm opposed to sexists of either sex. It's simple, really.

 

[Taarkin]

Feminism is sexism.
Masculism is sexism.

Any questions?

"Is that actually true?"

 

[John Jones]

"Is that actually true?"

Maybe you think different?

 

[WildCat]

What makes a feminist radical?

Here is a hint: If you spell the word "women" w-o-m-y-n, you are a radical feminist.

If stringing together the letters m-e-n in that order des not offend you, you are not a radical feminist.

 

[Taarkin]

Maybe you think different?

Yes, unless you're using nonstandard definitions.

 

[slingblade]

Self-identifying as feminist makes them sexist by definition.

Whether they are sexists or radical sexists makes little difference to me.

I'm opposed to sexists of either sex. It's simple, really.

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."

"Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles."

So....no.

In point of fact, equating feminism with sexism is sexist.

 

[Jaxe]

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal gaining political, economic, and social rights and equal more opportunities for women."

ftfy

Whether you're a radical or not is really just a matter of how far you're willing to take things... In some cases for some feminists (i suppose a majority of the ones who call themselves feminists) the goal really is equality, although mostly (imo) it's missdirected, and sometimes even directly harmful, cause usually they are basing their assumptions on woo invented by the radicals. (Good intentions paving roads and all that)

 

[jiggeryqua]

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."

Equality 'for women' is sexist (and nonsensical). Equality for women and men, gender equality, equality for people regardless of gender - that's equality.

 

[Taarkin]

Men are already equal to men, so it is quite sensible for feminists to support equality "for women".

 

[Jaxe]

Men are already equal to men, so it is quite sensible for feminists to support equality "for women".

So it's because women aren't equal to women?

 

[dafydd]

ftfy

Whether you're a radical or not is really just a matter of how far you're willing to take things... In some cases for some feminists (i suppose a majority of the ones who call themselves feminists) the goal really is equality, although mostly (imo) it's missdirected, and sometimes even directly harmful, cause usually they are basing their assumptions on woo invented by the radicals. (Good intentions paving roads and all that)

I remember radical feminists in the 1970's demanding that 'herstory' should be taught alongside history. They didn't know that history comes form the word histoire,a story. They also objected to the word manufacture on the grounds that women made things too. Once again they were ignorant of the fact that the man in manufacture means hand.

 

[slingblade]

Apparently, some of you young whippersnappers weren't around when women didn't have the same social, economic, and political rights and advantages that men enjoyed.

Kids these days.

 

[Taarkin]

So it's because women aren't equal to women?

Women are not equal in status to men. One solution is to increase the status of women (ie defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities "for women").

 

[dafydd]

Women should be obscene and not heard (a joke)

 

[BobTheCoward]

Feminism is sexism.
Masculism is sexism.

Any questions?

That is wrong, well, in the case of some sects of radical feminism, that is wrong.

In radical feminism, the idea is that perceived gender characteristics are a creation of the patriarchy. By abolishing the patriarchy, the idea of gender roles end.

If we take sexism as defined as, "the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender/sex that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas" (which I think is a good definition), then radical feminism is the exact opposite of sexism.

 

[Taarkin]

Equality 'for women' is sexist (and nonsensical). Equality for women and men, gender equality, equality for people regardless of gender - that's equality.

"All children should be equally well-fed. This child is hungry, so I'll fetch some food for him". Is that statement nonsensical?

"People of all races should have the same voting rights. African-Americans are denied voting rights, so I'll campaign for their right to vote". Is that statement racist?

 

[jiggeryqua]

"All children should be equally well-fed. This child is hungry, so I'll fetch some food for him". Is that statement nonsensical?

"People of all races should have the same voting rights. African-Americans are denied voting rights, so I'll campaign for their right to vote". Is that statement racist?

I don't know, I'm uninterested in exploring your unrelated questions. Go start your own thread. Whether your points are nonsensical, or racist, has no bearing on whether a call for 'equality' for one side of the equation makes any sense.

Men are already equal to men, so it is quite sensible for feminists to support equality "for women".

That you consider men to be the baseline, the benchmark, probably makes some kind of 'sense' to you. It sounds sexist to me. How much equality do you want? Do you campaign for more female fascist dictators? After all, that field has largely been the preserve of men in the past. Are you one of those sexists who fondly imagine women wouldn't be fascist dictators because they're inherently better than men?

Of course women should have the vote - they're people too. In the UK, at least, we sorted that one out long ago. That said, when 'women' got the vote it was still only certain classes of women. Certain classes of men were still denied the vote. Equality for people, Taarkin. What's your objection to that?

Slingblade, I do remember when men and women had different rights and roles. It was yesterday, and will be tomorrow. I remember considerably further back than yesterday too, I was brought up in the heady days of radical feminism in an area of concentrated academic/political radicalism. I was commonly called a radical feminist (though not by many radical feminists, who would argue that a man can't be). More often, these days, I'm referred to as a misogynist - the interesting thing being that my position hasn't changed: equality regardless of gender.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Women are not equal in status to men. One solution is to increase the status of women (ie defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities "for women").

You want it to be broadly acceptable to physically attack women? Outrageous!

Of course, one other solution to inequality is to improve the status of men.

I can't speak for your experience, but I was taught not to hit women. Most men I know are taught the same, from about the same age they're taught not to touch their own faeces. We retain both lessons with a similar strength - I have been tested to the limit on the former, and ended up doing damage to myself rather than to the woman assaulting me.

Who teaches men those lessons, Taarkin? And why isn't the lesson "don't hit anybody"?

 

[Sherman Bay]

The word "exploit" is often used negatively. If I have a skill, and you pay me to use that skill, that's "exploiting" my skill. But that's not a bad thing; in fact, it's what all jobs do.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Women are not equal in status to men. One solution is to increase the status of women (ie defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities "for women").

That's good as far as it goes.

However, it becomes a problem when increasing political and social power for women becomes a goal in and of itself, divorced from the issue of equality with men.

Additionally, it becomes a problem when increasing political and social power in areas where men have reduced status (primarily in child-related matters such as parenting, child-care professions, and grade-school education) is seen as inherently contrary to feminism.

Intelligent feminists realize that reducing gender preferences in all areas, even those that traditionally favor women, supports the goal of gender equality, and often support it. Gender feminists just see it as an attack on a female power base, and often oppose it.

As for pornography. As I understand it, a lot of mainstream pornography is extremely sexist in its approach and execution. To the extent that those who watch pornography are encouraged to devalue women by the relationships between men and women portrayed therein, it's reasonable for feminists to oppose it.

Then again, a lot of mainstream action films suffer exactly the same problem, and could fall under exactly the same criticism. To the extent that porn is really just mirroring the same sexist depictions of women found elsewhere in film, it certainly should not be singled out as though its explicit sexuality was somehow also inherently anti-woman.