welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feminism because why not make a thread for it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 276, 277, 278 ... 307, 308, 309  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10730
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan wrote:
Here is what I understand sex positive and sex negative feminism to be:
Quote:
Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day. It is a feminist tendency which aims to fight the shaming of women and a woman’s right to independence as a sexual actor. As such, its obvious enemy is sex-moralism, which it directly opposes. And its subtle enemy is compulsory sexuality, which may easily coopt it. The job of fighting sex-moralism is straightforward if not easy. The job of resisting cooption by compulsory sexuality is extremely challenging and requires sisterhood and cooperation with sex-negative feminists. Unfortunately, many sex-positive feminists conflate sex moralism with sex-negative feminism and fight them both, leaving them wide open to being coopted into the service of compulsory sexuality.

Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day. It is a feminist tendency which speaks honestly about the hard knot of sex, power and violence formed by male supremacy and which aims to liberate women from sexual violence and compulsory sex. As such, its obvious enemy is compulsory sexuality, which it opposes openly. Sex moralism appropriates some sex-negative feminist language in its abstinence and anti-sexualisation advocacy but sex-negative feminists do not support the way it uses the language to make antifeminist arguments. Sex-negative feminism’s most complex struggle is with sex-positive feminism, which does not need to be an enemy. As sex-negative feminism does not advocate shaming or controlling women, sex-positive feminism does not need to oppose it on these grounds. But when sex-positive feminism is coopted by and advocates for compulsory sexuality, sex-negative feminism must resist, as compulsory sexuality under male supremacy is compulsory violence against women.

source

That definition says they're the same thing: they both oppose sex moralism and compulsory sexuality. If you took the first three sentences from either definition they're virtually indistinguishable. The rest of the definition only differs by which negative force is likely to subvert them, where one of them is coopted by compulsory sexuality and the other by sex moralism.

So... they seem virtually indistinguishable. Except "sex-negative" sounds, uh, negative. It's kind of weird, as someone who is still learning the terminology, to have two movements that are virtually identical but whose labels place them in linguistic opposition.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, I'm still learning the terminology as well and I find it difficult to see how (unless someone were completely misinformed on one or the other) they wouldn't find themselves agreeing with and supporting aspects of both. I do think sex negative is an unfortunate label and the reason the two are often seen in opposition when they really have little difference and neither should be take as a complete philosophy but rather they should complement each other to address the weaknesses inherent in each system.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9525

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan, thanks for the article! I am trying to formulate a response to it but I have read it three times now and it appears to be bizarrely incoherent and has several points in which it says it has established a cogent position, but has not. I really don't think the author knows what they're on about because of several ... intriguing conceptualizations of the, ... I'm going to call it, whatever the author established as a 'modus of interaction between the two antifeminist and two feminist corners of thought.'

For instance, when the author gets around to defining the two, the produced result is a hazy borderless conceptualization.

But they write "Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day." and "Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day"

Sex-Negative feminism wasn't a thing for the feminist sex wars, the second wave schism; it's only really come about recently as a definition or a thing at all. Yet sex positive is 'present day' and sex negative "dates back to the women's liberation movement of the 60's and continues to the present day"

I have a cynical definition of the Sex Negative movement, to be sure, but to counter that, the author of that essay would probably have had to have created a coherent definition of what sex negative feminism is that sex positive feminism is not, and instead what I'm getting from that article so far is basically "well, we're the ones who aren't co-opted by patriarchal structures. in the same way. maybe?"

*also, as an aside, the way that essay is structured is a profound example of when solidarity protocol and intersectionality protocol have reached a vanishing point of almost satirical overuse; buried within a profound hyperabundance of trigger warnings and content notes is that whole part where it is essentially apologizing for not simultaneously making the article about white colonialism and heterocentrism in equal measure and that it becomes by default a cishet white perspective analysis, deficient in the analysis of nonwhite patriarchal sexuality concerns. I am amazed at how many hoops radfem analysis makes itself jump through sometimes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would be interested to hear your definition, cynical or not, of sex negative feminism. As I stated, I'm still trying to familiarize myself with this topic and would appreciate all the information I can get. On either or both camps in fact (I have been able to find very little written from a pro-sex negative position, which itself might say something about the movement) and with the lack of information I'm not seeing anything wrong with either position (aside from some of the statements made from the most radical members of either group). Like dogen pointed out, right now I'm of the opinion that they both have the same goals but fight the subversion of the feminist movement from different positions.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
"sex-negative" sounds, uh, negative.


that's actually the reason I started looking into all this when I first came across the term. the idea of an anti-sex feminist movement didn't strike me as the likely explanation of the name so I started looking into what it actually was.

One oversimplified difference that was the first I encountered is that sex positive feminism says that sex is good and healthy and to say otherwise is put shame on women for their sexual activities. Sex negative feminism says sex isn't always good and healthy and that discussing the unhealthy sexual behavior of a woman who, for example, engages in sex to compensate for feelings of insecurity is not slut shaming but is trying to address one of the complicated issues of sex that affect women.
Again, super oversimplified and only addressing one difference but it may be a little clearer than that quote from before.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Echo



Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 616

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're struggling to find stuff laying out the definition, is it really a movement, and not just a label being hung on people who object when they get told that stripping is somehow empowering now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram raids schools, kidnaps girls, and suddenly the world cares



of course, we only care about the girls they kidnapped

not the boys they burned alive




_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2720
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fact that there's barely any coverage of the whole thing at all here just makes me want to give up on society. I never would've found out if not for tumblr.

I can see why the media would prefer to report the kidnappings over the slaughter - it's more news worthy. The women are (supposedly) still alive, there's a story there. The boys are dead. Yes, it is horrifying but that's how they work. This is why we don't hear anything else anymore about all the other countries that had been hit previously with disasters. I highly doubt Haiti has become so much better after it dissapeared from the news.

It is why I generally dislike media so much.
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17209
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't know that it's more newsworthy - to me, the fact that you have a terrorist group that is deliberately targeting children just because they dare to get an education that Boko Haram disapproves of is reason to unite the world to end Boko Haram...but of course that's hard to do. radical islam vs. females is now a well-known story, and the kidnapping fits into it. it's a straightforward and fixable situation - so it gives everyone the hope that there will be a happy outcome.

but yes - the media should point out that there are a lot of just horrible stories where there isn't a nice fix, that these terrorist groups are hurting all sorts of people. and maybe that will end any support these groups still have.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9525

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan wrote:
I would be interested to hear your definition, cynical or not, of sex negative feminism. As I stated, I'm still trying to familiarize myself with this topic and would appreciate all the information I can get. On either or both camps in fact (I have been able to find very little written from a pro-sex negative position, which itself might say something about the movement) and with the lack of information I'm not seeing anything wrong with either position (aside from some of the statements made from the most radical members of either group). Like dogen pointed out, right now I'm of the opinion that they both have the same goals but fight the subversion of the feminist movement from different positions.


Ok. Here's the deal, as far as I can see it, and which bears true through several re-visitations of the phenomenon.

There's an undercurrent of almost obligatory contrarianism in radical leftist movements — when something gets too 'mainstream,' even when we're talking 'too mainstream' among the community relative only to that leftist community as a whole, some people decide that it's too problematic either in message or in the sum of its community and step out of label to protest it. That's why I add caveats to when I describe myself as a radical feminist, because some people have decided that this is a label that men cannot coopt for themselves, or if they do, they're actually just a radfem solidarity allies satellite group. Or something.

Sex-Negative Feminism is an attention-getting label used by sex-positive feminists who are engaging in a bout of such contrarianism. When scrutinized, their ideology is identical to sex-positive feminism (and when it turns out not to be, they are robustly criticized for where their ideology differs from SPF, since it usually gets read as slutshaming or sex moralism)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My only problem re:... all of this, sex positive, sex negative, whatever... is when sex gets touted as ALWAYS a good thing. I'm not sure if this is something -either- group really prescribes to, when questioned, but it's one of those all-around impressions that rubs me the wrong way. Even when consent gets talked about, it's like it's okay to say no some of the time, but it always seems like... if you say no -all- of the time than you're treading into dangerous territory, either slut-shaming* or sex moralism or whatever.

I really do think that, you know, if they give it three seconds of thought most feminists would be kind of horrified by the implications, though.

So I dunno, again, I'm super on the fence about everything.

Sex is great -for some people- and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty or wrong for wanting it. But at the same time, it's pretty shitty to make people feel bad when they don't want it and they don't ever want it.

It's kind of like the "Consent is sexy!" thing that kept getting toted around. It's like no I see what you're doing but consent isn't -sexy- its -mandatory- it shouldn't -be- sexy it is literally something you can teach children by punishing them for being assholes to each other, there's nothing sexy about it nor should there be.

*I'm kind of on the fence about the term slut-shaming, too, because it basically calls a giant group of people sluts whether they're okay with it or not. Even when the implication is that they -shouldn't- be shamed for their behavior, its... still a pretty gross term with some nasty connotations to just slap onto a large group of people that may or may not appreciate it.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10425
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just saw this, it seemed relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/porn-stereotypes_n_5129137.html

Why These 3 Women Chose To Go Into Porn --
And How The World Treats Them Because Of It


Quote:
When Belle Knox, a 19-year-old Duke University freshman, was “outed” as a porn star in February, the conversation spread far beyond Duke’s campus. A flurry of tabloid reporting placed Knox at the center of a media firestorm, where she was the subject of fascination, scorn, public shaming and threats.

Eloquent, educated, entrepreneurial and willing to speak her mind, Knox published public replies to her detractors, but even those replies were met with skepticism and scorn. Apparently, prurient concern for porn stars -- well-meaning as it may seem -- rarely includes listening when an actual sex worker speaks or writes about her experiences.

To move the conversation about women in porn beyond slut-shaming and stereotypes, two porn stars and one former porn star spoke to the Huffington Post about their careers, the porn industry and the public’s misconceptions about what it's like to get paid to have sex.

_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9525

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
My only problem re:... all of this, sex positive, sex negative, whatever... is when sex gets touted as ALWAYS a good thing. I'm not sure if this is something -either- group really prescribes to, when questioned, but it's one of those all-around impressions that rubs me the wrong way. Even when consent gets talked about, it's like it's okay to say no some of the time, but it always seems like... if you say no -all- of the time than you're treading into dangerous territory, either slut-shaming* or sex moralism or whatever.

I really do think that, you know, if they give it three seconds of thought most feminists would be kind of horrified by the implications, though.

So I dunno, again, I'm super on the fence about everything.

Sex is great -for some people- and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty or wrong for wanting it. But at the same time, it's pretty shitty to make people feel bad when they don't want it and they don't ever want it.

It's kind of like the "Consent is sexy!" thing that kept getting toted around. It's like no I see what you're doing but consent isn't -sexy- its -mandatory- it shouldn't -be- sexy it is literally something you can teach children by punishing them for being assholes to each other, there's nothing sexy about it nor should there be.

*I'm kind of on the fence about the term slut-shaming, too, because it basically calls a giant group of people sluts whether they're okay with it or not. Even when the implication is that they -shouldn't- be shamed for their behavior, its... still a pretty gross term with some nasty connotations to just slap onto a large group of people that may or may not appreciate it.


yeah and this is what the sex-negative feminism 'movement' commentary will to some degree achieve, because it's largely based around a pre-eminent concern about the current wave of feminism and sex-related radical activism. It's not too hard to find commentary by feminists which touts sex and sexuality as a virtue in a way which indirectly or directly shames people who are comfortable not having sex or who don't WANT a sexual identity, and who in so doing have gone over from SPF to making sex and open sexuality a societal obligation for "liberated" women, and the lack of such becomes treated like a flaw or shortcoming.

I am individually SPF (because its counterpart in feminism, APF, is just dead wrong and I can't support it at all) so I don't mind being openly judgmental of people who only have half of the idea of SPF right and end up getting a hell of a lot wrong through ignorance. I straight up say that if a person can't concisely explain why an asexual or a person abstaining from sex until marriage should be equally welcome and validated in a sex positive space as, say, a polyamorous triad or a sex worker would be — if you can't explain why all of these people should have a space where they could legitimately consider themselves an equally defended progressive part of the movement, you don't understand sex positivism and you're inadvertently peddling a sexuality showmanship obligatory-sexuality nightmare.

SPF is about the validity of consensual sexual activities to be free from moral control or shame; the most important part of validating consensual sexual activities is to validate the nonobligatory component of consent — when people abstain from sex and don't want and/or need it for themselves. When they don't need a sexualized component to their image or self-image. When they definitely don't need society viewing them to have an insufficiency or a deficit of ANYTHING because they either don't want or need sex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That's why I didn't want to prescribe what I don't like to any one movement, because I am pretty sure a lot of the things I don't like aren't actually officially a part of either of them... just the unfortunate results of some people missing the goals posts, so to speak.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9525

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foregoing labeling entirely is an entirely approvable move. The LGBT community has some ... broad tendencies towards factionalism and perpetual drama over labels and groups and identities, so not wanting to saddle yourself with a label? all the better

like myself I have to accept as fact that most every time I clarify my ideological stance as sex-positive feminism to any group or space within identity politics circles (which are already sort of drowning in perpetual psychodrama) I will immediately have to confront accusation by association that I'm promoting compulsory sexuality, but it's at least a fight I chose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 276, 277, 278 ... 307, 308, 309  Next
Page 277 of 309

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group