Radfem?

[Snarky]

When I learned about when I learned about the radical feminist movement in a women's history course I took (that got me very interested in feminism in the first place) radical Feminism, as in a sort of subsection of feminism that believes in an entire rebuilding of the currently inherently patriarchal system, sounded like it made sense.
I've been reading random people feminist blogs... Somewhere along the line did radical feminism become related to transphobia?

I mean, you don't seem to have to look hard, it kind of looks like the non-existence of trans people is the #1 "radfem" issue. Am I wrong here? Is this just some weird splinter group using the name?

[lillerina]

In some ways, I see Radical Feminism and radical feminism as different things. There's definitely a section of Radical Feminism which hates trans* people and sees them as threatening to the movement; I recently saw Radical Feminists behaving in a totally vile way to a trans woman in the comments of her personal blog and what I saw just floored me because I hadn't seen such behaviour before from people claiming to be feminists. On the other hand, I see myself as a radical feminist because I think that the problems in society go all the way to the roots and that kyriarchy must be dismantled in its entirety and that means radical change (radical literally meaning at the root), but I am not part of and do not wish to be part of Radical Feminism because the trans* hating viewpoint is vile to me. I'm probably a radical Queer Feminist but I'm not sure how much I really align myself with any particular subset of feminism.

With the particular example I linked, I can definitely understand wanting to limit some spaces to those living as women but MTF trans women have a perspective on male privilege and female oppression that is not accessible to FAAB women.

[Sonic#]

I've seen transphobia in Radical Feminist circles too. I think it's an overstatement to call transphobia their number one issue, but for some commentators and activists transsexuals violate the sexual identities that they've come to see as authentic, such that they treat transfolk as imposters. So it's a result (or an unresolved motivation) of their views, rather than being their number one issue. Regardless, the prejudice that results is disheartening.

Not all Radical Feminists are that way, and not all radical feminisms are the same. If a radical view is a view that's outside the mainstream, rather than any particular movement, then there are many forms of possible radicalism. Even if we take the radical more specifically, as an overturning of the present system, there are many things that could be overturned: the present system of gender politics, patriarchy, heteronormativity, cis-privilege, and so on.

As for me, I consider myself somewhat radical. To give an example, I have a lot of reservations about the division between gender and sex. First, when people divide the two, sex becomes a sort of gender by proxy, indicating a normative gender and therefore becoming gender-like. Second, sexual differences are always conceived in a discourse which privileges and overdetermines material differences. The material forms of a body already exist, but once they're conceived as binary and sexual, they get systematized, intentionally excluding any formation (like those found with intersexed individuals) which does not fit the norm. Third, many people assume that what is material or biological is also essential, such that it cannot be changed but only accepted or avoided, disguised, faked. However, such things are changeable, in the same way that gender is changeable. In mentioning change, I don't mean to imply that identity is a conscious choice which can be adjusted at will (it's not so simple, and gender or sexuality is not so easily eluded). Rather, changeability in this case points to the potential for people to see their selves and their bodies differently over time, as well as the potential to start out seeing their body differently from how we might expect.

[Aum]

The transphobia I've seen among radical feminists, I think, stems from ignorance about the nature of trans people in the first place. The common misunderstanding is that the trans person wasn't fully engaged with feminine consciousness until they became a woman anatomically; but really, they have been a woman all along, in spirit and consciousness. Anyone who has really gotten to know a trans person can see this. It seems kind of shallow to me to base what is female on physical anatomy alone because in many ways a trans woman has the potential to have observed the contrivances of male and female role behaviour in our society way more acutely than someone who is just playing out the story and identity taught to them about their born sex. They would be wonderful allies for the movement.

It's also just a tad hypocritical to say that radfem is about working to abolish gender politics, only to then turn around and say that a trans woman is not a real woman because it doesn't meet the approval of a specific definition of womanhood. It brings into question how some radical feminists even evaluate womanhood in the first place, given that there are surely so-called "butch" women in attendance who outstrip some trans women in masculinity, yet they are given priority by birth sex alone.

I just don't get it. Yeah, it's not all radical feminists, but the vocal minority who display this transphobia, I just don't understand. They seem almost like a right-wing to a liberal movement.

[Snarky]

As I continued to look in to this, I'd say I found that you guys are seem very much correct in your assessments. Thanks for helping me start to figure this out- there's a whole lot to learn, about radical feminism and about feminism in general and I get the impression I'm just scratching the surface.

Since this thread has gotten started, I've read a bit more about radical feminism, and I doi have to question some more of the weirdness I've come across. Aum brings up an interesting point, the radfem movement seems to have a rather strict idea of womanhood for a group that also seems to be whole heartedly against the concept of gender. Not only in their exclusion of transwomen, they (or at least this same vocal minority) also look down upon any woman who wear make up, or dress in a certain way that them deem 'feminine'? Aparently claiming that since femininity is an invention of patriarchy, somehow everything they decide falls into that category is automatically some show of weakness? I don't really understand this at all.

Also, what is with the divide between radical feminism and other types of feminism's view on men in general? Most feminist I've encountered online seem to be of the opinion anyone who genuinely believes in equality should be a feminist. On the other hand it appears that feminists don't want any male supporters in any capacity of their movement. This seems like it's not such a great idea- wanting to bring radical change, but only giving half the population a chance to participate. I do understand the idea behind the existence of women's spaces, and can support the idea if it's inclusive to all women, but in a greater sense shouldn't feminism try to get as much support as possible?

[Sonic#]

Aum brings up an interesting point, the radfem movement seems to have a rather strict idea of womanhood for a group that also seems to be whole heartedly against the concept of gender. Not only in their exclusion of transwomen, they (or at least this same vocal minority) also look down upon any woman who wear make up, or dress in a certain way that them deem 'feminine'? Aparently claiming that since femininity is an invention of patriarchy, somehow everything they decide falls into that category is automatically some show of weakness? I don't really understand this at all.

So let me parse the question as, "Why does the Radical Feminist movement often seem to support conceptions of gender, even though they should ostensibly be against global systems of gender?" The short answer is that the group exists in a world that is still patriarchal, with people who have gendered identities formed within the patriarchy, and these terms of identity can't just be thrown out the window, since they influence how we think from birth. These terms can be twisted or shifted, but not broken; even if discourse could be formed that escaped gender, the powers that be would see it as abject, as Other, and deny it any credence at all, severely limiting the potential for widespread cultural change.* Since Radical Feminists want to carve out a space within that system and work from it, they have had to conceive themselves within those terms, taking control of the concept of femininity for themselves. From here, many Radical Feminists do good with these concepts, standing up for those who have identified as women on many important issues without overemphasizing the authenticity of a gender identity. The potential to state or assume "woman is ..." as an absolute is still there and can't not be there, because of the terms they have to use. Some come to be disappointed in women who take on the patriarchal performances of womanhood; when that turns judgmental against the women rather than the habits, it's often a case of believing that gender politics and gendered habits can be evaded, such that people are culpable for falling prey to them.

So there's the potential for both this turn to authentic womanhood and to total rejection of gender norms altogether, though most who I've known have managed quite well to negotiate these binds.

To the second question, I would only say that for many women having a space where they can talk and strategize without having to perform their gender for men is a palpable relief. It's not that they're excluding half of the population (who, in any case, are often brought into a discussion outside of these meetings), it's that they're including half of a population who ordinarily has a diminished voice in mixed-sex gatherings due to the social conditioning of both women and men.

* One strategy then, particularly in queer studies, is to point to the abject, the Other, the thing to be feared in heteronormativity itself. This demonstrates what patriarchal culture has long subsumed, and can be the start of recuperating it.

[Aum]

^ I have no issue with them excluding men. I just think excluding trans women by claiming they are not real women is wrong.

[Snarky]

Some come to be disappointed in women who take on the patriarchal performances of womanhood; when that turns judgmental against the women rather than the habits, it's often a case of believing that gender politics and gendered habits can be evaded, such that people are culpable for falling prey to them.

Yes but isn't there a huge number of... things that could be considered in this category of " the patriarchal performances of womanhood"? I just feel like peoples personal choicer aren't always 100% based on society- sometimes people just want to be themselves. And you can't expect radical feminists to all be the opposite of feminine- that would be ridiculous, right? So where do they draw the line? Is shaving not okay ever? Do they ban the color pink while their at it? In fact, long hair tends to be associated with femininity, wouldn't it be best in they were all bald? Do you see what I'm getting at here? Everyone had their own personal tastes, and to pass judgement from a feminist perspective, on say, a persons clothing, isn't far off from a sexist doing the exact same thing- both seem to have this absolute obsession with strict gender stereotypes.

Also, worst of all, there's this outcry against some of my favorite things! Broad generalizations about how all porn, all fetishes, and most fun sexual acts, are, in some way sexist!

[Sonic#]

I just feel like peoples personal choicer aren't always 100% based on society- sometimes people just want to be themselves.

If I read this correctly, you believe that personal choice can be independent of societal influences. Given the layers of contact influencing how people identify and act, like caretakers, family, peers, community, nation, and media, there's always some conditioning upon our behavior. This occurs even in the desire to be ourselves, since our self - whether as woman or as a person who likes bowling or who has a desire to wear this blouse - has been influenced in ways we cannot account. That's not determinism, but rather an admission that individuals are always negotiating with influences which have shaped them into who they presently are. So you're right, personal choice isn't wholly determined by society, but it's not wholly independent of it either.

So in this case, what I described as an error was that some radical feminists attributed a lot of personal agency to particular choices, which led them to reject individuals whose actions made them culpable to patriarchal influence, rather than rejecting the actions themselves. Many radical feminists readily distinguish between individuals with certain desires and the influences upon them which may reaffirm patriarchal values, and you would do well to distinguish between them too if you want to understand. After all, I'm not here to defend the caricature of people who don't, since your original query was about what radical feminists believe.

So where do they draw the line?

You'd have to talk to individual radical feminists to see. To reduce a stance on gender politics to particular dictims about bodily conduct is terribly reductive, and obsessing over any single line of judgment (they do this but not that) is similarly reductive. Such methods of inquiry only encourage making Radical Feminists into a caricature of themselves, since rather than understanding the dynamics of gender, control, the male gaze, and so on, ideas which influence their criticisms, they are made into people who criticize others' behaviors first.

Everyone had their own personal tastes, and to pass judgement from a feminist perspective, on say, a persons clothing, isn't far off from a sexist doing the exact same thing- both seem to have this absolute obsession with strict gender stereotypes.

That's true, but I don't know many radical feminists who would pass judgment on a person for what they are wearing. Usually they critique the modes of articulation which get judged by the mainstream as slutty or shameful, oftentimes studying their complicity in related forms of culture which also encourage the degradation of women, like most (for some, all) pornography. Perhaps some like Andrea Dworkin would treat women dressing "provocatively" as complicit in their own abjection, but that's not the same as shaming a woman for appearing a certain way in public.

Also, worst of all, there's this outcry against some of my favorite things! Broad generalizations about how all porn, all fetishes, and most fun sexual acts, are, in some way sexist!

Well, that sounds like a broad generalization itself. Usually they have quite sophisticated and well-developed reasons for believing that, say, mainstream pornography tends to encourage the sexual subjugation of women, or that dom/sub cultures often end up supporting the very gender binaries that they offer to redefine. Now, I don't think that these things are irredeemable, but they do have issues that I would be foolhardy to ignore. It's certainly our privilege to enjoy them without seeing the harm they do, harm to how we think about relationships with others for example. If we don't like what privilege enables, it's up to us to find positive ways to enjoy them, to make our actual behaviors as good as possible.

[cwbyrvr]

The term "radfem" especially is linked to transphobia in my mind. It seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of trans* issues, or rather, a refusal to understand it. What strikes me as especially odd (and terrible) is how I will often see feminists who are accepting of trans* men and exclusionary towards trans* women. And I can't really grasp how some trans* guys are okay with that. I want to be clear here, I have no problem with trans* men who are feminists just I have no problem with cis feminist men, it's when trans* women are excluded that I rage a little. It's a level of biological essentialism that sickens me.

As lillerina stated, I believe there is a difference somewhat in the terminology. "Radfem" has negative/anti-trans* connotations to me, and it has leaked a little to "radical feminism," which is unfortunate.

[Snarky]

This is where I'm losing track of what you're saying, Sonic. I can't quite grasp something about your phrasing , no matter how many times I read it. Could you try to word some of this another way? Maybe it's just me, but something that I can't quite define is making this hard to read...I'm not sure what you're explaining, or what side you're coming down on, if you are... Sorry this paragraph kind of left me lost.

Well, that sounds like a broad generalization itself.

This part makes sense- yeah, I actually now wished I'm rephrased that and elaborated on what I meant.

Usually they have quite sophisticated and well-developed reasons for believing that, say, mainstream pornography tends to encourage the sexual subjugation of women,

I've never watched a soccer game in my life- thus I cannot come up with any sophisticated well developed reasons to ban it.
But I kid!
For porn, I do understand it can be problematic sometimes, but porn is an huge category, saying porn is sexist and it should not exist of is like saying movies are sexist and should not exist. I get sour when I hear groups, both christian and feminist, that seem to believe that somehow across the board, all pornography is bad. I feel like those who critisize it, have not watched nearly as much porn as me. I feel I am an expert on this subject. yes, some porn is weird and rape-y, or demeaning in several ways, and the porn industry suffers from some major issues.If we rally against something like porn, not only will it be fruitless, and take away a favored hobby of mine- but it denies us the chance to actually solve something by looking at the individual problems within it that can be tackled. Not all porn is bad, some suffer less from these problems, some seem entirely guilt free- Hell, there's a such thing as feminist porn!

or that dom/sub cultures often end up supporting the very gender binaries that they offer to redefine

Whats the cliche notion that we all say when talking about homosexuality? What other people do in their bedrooms is none of our business? I don't even see an argument here! If a woman wants to be bound and gagged and called depraved things- while in a consensual adult relationship, it's nobodies goddamn business to say they are somehow supporting patriarchy. Plenty of people got kinks and weird fetishes, and stuff they keep in the darkest corners of their mind! Nothing to shame people over!

Radfem comes off as extremely of sex negative when they try to dictate what is or isn't a proper turn-on.

[lillerina]

Sex between unequals can be difficult to differentiate from rape. There's definitely an argument to be made that most sex portrayed in porn is rape. I think that the vast majority of porn is incredibly misogynist.

Usually they have quite sophisticated and well-developed reasons for believing that, say, mainstream pornography tends to encourage the sexual subjugation of women,

I've never watched a soccer game in my life- thus I cannot come up with any sophisticated well developed reasons to ban it.
But I kid!

You seem to be fond of this method of challenging someone's authority on something. Why do you assume that people who dislike mainstream porn have never seen any? And, okay, you say you've watched a lot of porn, but have you studied it or has it been fap material? Have you thought deeply about why some things are portrayed and the message that those things send? I've found that most porn is very phallocentric, that there are acts depicted which are presented as degrading to women where there is no male equivalent (talking about hetero porn), that a large subset of porn has these scenarios where someone is coaxed into having sex on camera despite their reluctance. While I appreciate that this last is merely acting, coaxing someone who doesn't want it into having sex is rape.

But if we merely say, "Hey, but porn is fun, I like porn, don't take my porn away!" we miss the chance to examine what the norms portrayed in porn do to our society. You see enough videos of people relentlessly wearing down someone's resistance until they give in and have sex, you're going to think it's normal to have to nag, bully and cajole someone until they give in and have sex with you. Next thing you know, congratulations, you're a rapist, and you probably have no idea that you are.

I'm in favour of changing these things through criticism and the creation of other, better art, rather than outright banning. I think that freedom of speech is worth protecting. But I think that the majority of porn is vile misogynist rape-apologising propaganda and freedom of speech also covers my right to talk about that.

Also, Snarky, I'm sure you're aware that "But I like porn" isn't a good argument as to why porn isn't misogynist or problematic, and "If you ban porn you take away my hobby" isn't a good reason as to why porn shouldn't be banned. There are better reasons out there which I'd love to see you argue, but these two arguments aren't worth anything.

[Ama]

Oh. Pornography. It's been a while since we've discussed that here. Well, that's a tricky subject. On the one hand I would have to agree that there is a significant quantity of porn that displays sex in a very similar fashion to rape. Although I personally have run across far, far more erotica along that vein than video examples. On the other hand I have always attempted to avoid those videos and as a result I haven't run across them terribly often. Most of what I have run across has been displayed as a consensual and enjoyable act between all participants. So I would find it difficult personally to take issue with those aspects, although obviously anything that looks otherwise I would personally take issue with. I would have to struggle to decide just how much issue though. While I personally find it repulsive, I know that there are a good number of men and women both who enjoy the rape fantasy or fancy the idea of "seduction". So it is still difficult for me to completely condemn outright. But given that porn is largely intended for men rather than women, I think that perhaps you are right, and there is a certain air of misogyny to them.

Certainly most porn is very phallocentric, as makes sense given that the significant majority of porn is made by men for men. Although there are certain things that are less so. I can't agree with you that there are *no* degrading acts depicted in porn in which men are on the receiving end, because I'm pretty sure anything I've seen done to women I've seen done to men as well. Certainly though such acts are much less represented than their opposite number, given again that the majority of watchers are male and generally prefer to see women on the receiving end.

Other than on those points I do agree fully with you, though!

[Snarky]

lillerina, did you read my entire post? I never said porn was perfect! I said we should discuss it's problems, I agree with you. There's a lot of problematic porn. I'm not sure I'd say "most" or "a majority" of it, but definitely a whole lot.

Why do you assume that people who dislike mainstream porn have never seen any?

I know that's a pretty large assumption, but I get the impression they've maybe seen one, possibly while searching specifically to find something horrible and misogynistic to support their arguments. i get this impression when across the board all porn is talked about at if it's the lowest of weird rape fetish porn. Maybe I'm wrong.

And, okay, you say you've watched a lot of porn, but have you studied it or has it been fap material?

Can't I do both? But yeah, mostly the second one.

that there are acts depicted which are presented as degrading to women where there is no male equivalent

I agree with Anna, if you look around- you can find ANYTHING you would see a woman doing being done by a man. There's just less of it because of this gender imbalance in the industry.

a large subset of porn has these scenarios where someone is coaxed into having sex on camera despite their reluctance. While I appreciate that this last is merely acting, coaxing someone who doesn't want it into having sex is rape.

Oh yes, in my studies I've come across this. Brazzers is one of the more guilty parties- when it comes to anything involving babysitters or a casting couch scenario, this seems to come up frequently. I agree, as a porn fan I wish there was less of it myself, but I suppose I don't see it that often because, like Anna, I avoid these kinds of videos, so what I see tends to be stuff that you'd probably consider less problematic.

Also, Snarky, I'm sure you're aware that "But I like porn" isn't a good argument as to why porn isn't misogynist or problematic, and "If you ban porn you take away my hobby" isn't a good reason as to why porn shouldn't be banned. There are better reasons out there which I'd love to see you argue, but these two arguments aren't worth anything.

Again, I get the impression you only skimmed what I wrote. I am very well aware of this.. This wasn't my main argument. I was admitting porn could be misogynist or problematic. Also, my argument against banning it was that it would be more plausible, and ultimately more helpful, to work towards fixing the individual problems to get better porn.

I think Anna bring up an interesting point though here...

While I personally find it repulsive, I know that there are a good number of men and women both who enjoy the rape fantasy or fancy the idea of "seduction". So it is still difficult for me to completely condemn outright

Yeah, this is where issues get more complicated. As I've stated earlier, I don't think it's right to condemn peoples kinks and fetishes, but at the same time I want to see porn become less misogynistic.

[Sonic#]

I'd like to critique this line of argument:

that there are acts depicted which are presented as degrading to women where there is no male equivalent

I agree with Anna, if you look around- you can find ANYTHING you would see a woman doing being done by a man. There's just less of it because of this gender imbalance in the industry.

The gender imbalance is something not to be lightly glossed over, especially when taken as an imbalance in gender dynamics: there are far fewer outfits or actors interested in acts which twist the conventional phallocentric imagery of heterosexual porn. Also, there's a presumption here which I find problematic: that the gender of the bodies involved is the only factor in the misogyny of an act. It's the presumption that, if the same act which humiliates a woman is done towards a man, then it can't be misogynist.

It can. There are other factors to attend to, like how the act itself is described, and the effects of conventions in porn.

To the former, pornography often uses feminizing and demeaning language (construing the two as similar things) to describe a woman's experience. When men are put in a position typically held by a woman, he is accordingly both feminized and demeaned as well. Let's take "pegging" as an illustration. (Full disclosure; for my examples, I'm working through information on Wikipedia.) It's treated as a reversal of roles, touted for its unusual effect of turning a man into a recipient of the discomfort he normally gives. Take this, the description of a Babes Ballin' Boys video: (spoiler for vulgarity and possible triggers)

"If you ever wondered what it would be like to have a woman fuck you for a change then you need to see this video! Five horny guys get ass-banged with large dildos and thick strap-on cocks by five sexy women. This is the real deal! We are sure it will make your butt pucker!"

The last sentence readily admits that the act should lead to discomfort. Large, thick,

ass-banged

, "ballin,' " "for a change": all depict the man as the usual giver and the woman as the recipient of a painful act here rendered on feminized (and perhaps not fully willing) guys. Titles of other series either confirm the emphasis on recipient pain (Men in Pain) or find a way to objectify the women involved anyway (Boss Bitches). So it often doesn't matter whether one or both genders perform a particular role in an act - it's still turned into both femininity and pain, which then get regularized through description. Rape-apologizing, vile, misogynistic - yes, yes, yes.

Second, what I hoped to illustrate through what I just said was a convention of porn, the tendency to turn acts done by women into acts of objectification and humiliation. When they're not always done by women, they're conventionally done by women, seen as womanly acts in contrast to the "ballin'" masculine actions. These conventions influence the reception of even porn which attempts to be more positive in its portrayals, as it works with the same vocabulary of camera angles, angles which have been used to communicate objectification, in order to entertain. Places of artistic or sex-positive erotica, like FemJoy, run into this tendency, with bodily gestures that imply receptivity, openness, and submissiveness, among other traits. These places may be relatively tame in what they depict, but the images still represent and impart motifs which depict happy women as those who make themselves beautiful and provoke desire. So they do some things right, but they can also be criticized and improved.

Whats the cliche notion that we all say when talking about homosexuality? What other people do in their bedrooms is none of our business? I don't even see an argument here! If a woman wants to be bound and gagged and called depraved things- while in a consensual adult relationship, it's nobodies goddamn business to say they are somehow supporting patriarchy. Plenty of people got kinks and weird fetishes, and stuff they keep in the darkest corners of their mind! Nothing to shame people over!

It's nobody's business to prevent a consenting relationship, but it can be someone's business to critique the masculism within a subculture. It's not terribly fruitful to turn every critique of a culture or a genre into a critique of the individuals participating within it.

[lillerina]

What I meant by degrading acts done to women with no male equivalent is that in hetero porn there are things that men do to women that are frequently explicitly presented as a victory over her, as him besting her and putting her in her place, while there are very few acts done by women to men with the same presentation. And yes, I agree with Sonic, when a man experiences something that we code as a feminine act, it's seen as degrading even if the act wouldn't be seen as degrading for a woman to do it, because we see women as less than men and so for a man to take the place of a woman is degrading in and of itself.

[edit the sad parts]

Totes agree with Sonic's post. Also, it is AMA, kay, not Anna.

[Ama]

Totes agree with Sonic's post. Also, it is AMA, kay, not Anna.

Yes, thank you for that edit! I believe he made that mistake elsewhere before as well, and I'll admit it does actually bother me a fair bit, probably more than it should :/

Also I have to almost completely agree with everything from lilly and sonic's last posts. However, it also strikes me that this really isn't a porn-centric thing... it is my perception that our society as a whole has very similar viewpoints to what dynamics and misogyny are apparent when you look at porn. For example, shaming people by referring to them by feminizing and demeaning language is basically completely pervasive throughout society. So much so that I have clear and precise memories of members of this forum using them without batting an eyelash. I am not by any means going to argue that this makes it okay in porn, because it doesn't. But I do think it is worth pointing out that in this case it seems porn is somewhat of a commentary on society as a whole. Perhaps it could be argued though that to an extent pornography exacerbates the situation. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, but I think that really they feed each other. Because there are people who *want* to feel that shame, and that's part of the excitement they are looking for from their sexual encounters (again both men and women). And the highly gendered bedroom talk again seems very pervasive to me in all media. I feel like I'm going around in circles now so let's see if I can get past that

Oh, here's a go. I think one possibility for there being so few degrading acts that women do to men that aren't direct rip offs of acts that men perform on women, is simply that because porn is willing to perform basically any act on any person, the only limitations are limitations of anatomy... and men and women don't have *that* different of a surface anatomy. One of the very few things I can think of that women do to men in porn and not vice versa is trampling... or at least I've never run into it and a quick google search gets only a few stray male on female trampling results, none of which involve porn sites.

[Snarky]

Yes, thank you for that edit! I believe he made that mistake elsewhere before as well, and I'll admit it does actually bother me a fair bit, probably more than it should :/

Oh! I'm really sorry about that! I have very poor eyesight, and I'm prone to misread things like that sometimes.

Again, some great points all around. I especially see where Ama is coming from with her "chicken and egg" bit. The problems in porn seem like a reflection of reality. this can make it an easy target to blame- you can't conclusively say that porn doesn't cause people to emulate it's behavior, but at the same time it could easily be the other way around. It's hard to tell. Either way, I feel if porn can change, it could actually be an amazing force for good. Think about it. I don't believe the core of pornography is something terribly sexist, it's simply another modern amenity that many people, male and female (and etc) enjoy. With some change porn could reinforce ideas about sex positivity, safe sex, sex education, respect and healthy relationships.

I would only disagree with Sonic's grievances when it gets to the camera angle stuff. I don't feel porn is that deeply ingrained in misogyny, that sort of like a hipster-y abstract complaint that, even were it true, is not even close to the big important issues already brought up. I'm guessing anyone with a camera on a porn set is simply trying to get the best shot possible, with most nasty-part visibility and so on. Also, I think it denies that there is such a thing as porn that isn't at all bad. I'd bring up sites like Liandra Dahl's as excellent examples of this.

[Sonic#]

I don't feel porn is that deeply ingrained in misogyny, that sort of sorts like a hipster-y abstract complaint that, even were it true, is not even close to the big important issues already brought up.

That's a rather ad hominem reply. There's also a whole discussion to be had about how abstraction has been maligned as untrue or irrelevant when it should actually imply deriving concepts from concrete things in concert with other concepts. When it should actually imply, in other words, how we identify problems to solve in the first place.

So you want to keep your misogyny and your porn separate. That runs contrary to what feminists from at least Laura Mulvey onward have said about cinema:

[My analysis of cinema] takes as its starting-point the way film reflects, reveals, and even plays on the straight, socially established interpretation of sexual difference which controls images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle ... Psychoanalytic theory is thus appropriated here as a political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form.

I probably mentioned the concept of the "male gaze" before, of men and especially women being seen by men or through men's eyes. She is turned into a spectacle, to be admired, and in turn made to desire to be seen. This is intrinsic to mainstream cinema, apparent in every scene where the camera admiringly pauses over Black Widow's curves or when, with Ariel's face taken away, there is nothing for Sebastian to do but look. Individually, the effect is small, but because it happens so often, it reflects (and helps to control) how we see the sexed body. So male gaze is central to so many "big important issues" - rape culture, exploitation, unequal treatment in the workplace, discrimination against people not fitting a gender ideal.

So with that in mind, let's consider what this means;

I'm guessing anyone with a camera on a porn set is simply trying to get the best shot possible, with most nasty-part visibility and so on.

This is not simple. This is central. The "best shot" is a term relative to culture, determined by the patriarchal framing device of an assumed heterosexual white cismale audience. This audience privileges certain parts as "nasty," and filmmakers deploy various strategies to display (and as a consequence gender) one or both bodies. Typical strategies: keep a woman's body and face facing the camera, pay inordinate attention to penetrative acts, cant the camera vertically downward to render a woman diminutive, make the phallus look as large as possible. Because we don't work with all of our cultural assumptions unfolded and in the open, the filmmakers probably aren't aware that the "best shot" has these ideas implicit in them, but there they are. They need to be unfolded in order to be critiqued, and critiqued so that new and less problematic forms of pornographic display can be developed.

Individual examples to the contrary are great. Liandra Dahl appears to do good work. Her brand of pornography seems to celebrate the bodily autonomy, the ability to choose freely and take joy in choice, of every participant. That's fine, but it's also extraneous to a discussion of camera angles, in which the feminized subject is made susceptible to the advances of a penetrative, harsh masculine subject. Given how ingrained the logic of male gaze is in the medium, I think that we can say that a some porn might do "good work" (in whatever sex positive spin you want to put on it) , but no porn is free from criticism, in much the same way that no book, no movie, and no work of art is free from criticism. All of it can improve, and needs to improve through the synthesis of criticism and creation. I'd love for work to be Liandra Dahl-problematic instead of traditional porn-problematic, and these critiques, whether by Radical Feminists, by workers within the industry, or by others, can perhaps shift the paradigm. I suggest you read some books by Radical Feminists to think about these things further. It will do more good than a quick (and easily dismissed) discussion on a web forum, and give you practice in substantively disagreeing with some formidable thinkers.

[androkguz]

Just how mysoginist is porn?
This discussion inspired me for a moment to do some research, watch a ton of porn selected by some method that would produce a good study group of "mainstream porn", then count the frequency of misogynist Tropes vs non-misogynist (feminist?) tropes used.
That would require predefining what those tropes would be, and what makes certain porn "mainstream". It would also require me to watch too much porn and the last time I dug too deep in the world of unusual porn I came across the most disturbing (and megamysogynist) site has ever plagued my nightmares.
So yeah, it inspired me, but only for a moment. I don't think I would make the experiment, but maybe I could postulate it so that someone with the time and initiative collects the data.

[Aum]

This should probably be split since we're not taking about radfem anymore, but..,!

Every feminist critique I have read about straight porn also exists in gay porn, despite there being no women involved, such as male gaze, the camera angles, and overpowerment. A good example that is a more recent development is porn where "straight guys go gay", and it is usually in a situation where the man being objectified is debilitated in some way (i.e. being drunk and less apt to give full consent) or they are in a situation where they need help (money, a ride somewhere, a favour is being asked, etc.). As a result, a sub-culture has been created that is inhabited by gay men who are only into the pursuit of straight men, often through manipulation. In the portrayals, the straight men often say they have girlfriends. In North America, one of the most common vectors for women to contract HIV is from their male partners who are simultaneously having sex with other men. At the same time, making the straight guy the centre piece is conveying that heterosexual men are more desirable (vs. putting another gay guy in the role), which in turn debases men who identify as gay. Not only that, it makes gay men look like meddling creeps who don't respect orientation or partnership boundaries. So, not only does this kind of porn degrade women without them even being there, it doubly degrades gay men. Thank you patriarchy!

At the same time, I've also noticed that there is not much lesbian porn made for lesbians, which is a sign of the patriarchy's dominance over this type of media. I think this issue can be expanded upon and more generalized to say that porn revolves around how the patriarchy wants men to relate to sex, regardless if the male viewers start off feeling that way about it or not.

I believe porn is highly conditioning to the psyches of young men, especially those that do not have sexually normative queues in their real world life, or dialogue about it with their guardians and peers. In the case of gay porn, you also have male identity being conflated with male pursuit, and it's reflected in the mainstream gay world where so many guys have body dysmorphia and spend half their week at the gym trying to match the sexually desirable imagery seen in porn; and then, if they achieve it, having the sense of entitlement to disregard sexual partners like their role models do in porn. Gay men are especially susceptible to this influence because their sexual maturity is often delayed due to not having homo-normative role models in adolescence, so their adult sexuality becomes a sort of delayed adolescence with all of the influences of the porn world impacting them.

I write all this to demonstrate that the tactics used to portray women in porn are also being applied to men in different genres, and that it still all relates back to the cisgendered heteronormative gaze.

Sonic, you mention Liandra Dahl, who I think is cool. There is a growing audience who wants porn that has a humanistic plot so that the eventual sexual acts have more dimensions added. A lot of porn (straight or gay) from the 70's and 80's, while still debasing, usually had a plotline leading up to the sexual acts. In today's porn, they often don't even have that, or it's the same manufactured setting repeating over and over again until whole sub-genres are formed, which leads me to the conclusion that porn is degenerating and not getting better. However, this decline has sparked the opposite movement, where people want to see substance.

A sub-topic of this that I find interesting to discuss is whether or not there is a fundamental difference between what men and women want to see in porn? Are the majority of porn viewers men because the content is currently made for men (i.e. no female storylines, etc.), or because men are just more into porn than women are?

[ashy222]

I think radical feminist differ in the way that they voice there opinions and don't take "no" for an answer. It has to be there way or the highway, from the way I see it.