|
pro-sex feminism, libertarianism, and Wendy McElroy
On LeftLibertarian, some sorting out of the distinctions between pro-sex feminism and Wendy McElroy's ifeminist approach.
My inightful thoughts are more fun because you can watch them meander in the most curious directions. And this was accomplished without any use of drugs. Amazing, isn't it?
* * *
[....]
Actually, 'sex-positive feminism' usually refers not to McElroy's 'individualist feminism' but to a strain of feminist theory indigenous to the Womens' Movement. Sex-positive feminism evolved in the 1990s as a response to a Dworkin-style feminism that had become increasingly powerful in the movement since the beginning of the second wave- to the point where anti-porn attitudes came to be seen (as essential to and even definitive of feminism. Sex-positive theorists like Ellen Willis, Pat (now Patrick) Califia, Annie Sprinkle, and Susie Bright developed pro-sex feminism in opposition to this trend. Many of these writers were involved in sex work, BDSM, butch/femme roles, or were bisexual or transgendered- all populations which Dworkinite feminism often tried to marginalise within the womens' community. Particularly nasty writers include Shiela Jeffreys and Janice Raymond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond
Right now in San Francisco 'radical feminism' (I do hate the fact that Dworkinites have taken the term, since I consider *myself8 radical) is definitely losing ground to the pro-sex variety. This is a good thing, and I think outside of academia the current feminist movement could be very friendly to the right kind of libertarianism. On the minus side, pro-sex feminism can be rather blase and cavalier towards patriarchy itself- there's too much privileged pseudo-Bohemianism in the pro-sex feminist movement. There is especially a reluctance to criticise the serious injustices of the sex industry out of fear it will feed hostility to prostitution or pornography as such. This legitimises Dworkinite smears that we 'speak for the pimps' or whatever.
I think pro-sex feminist writers have a lot to offer libertarianism, but they shouldn't be confused with the McElroy/Paglia perspective. The difference is that pro-sex feminists do believe (at least in principle) that our society is patriarchal and that women are oppressed, while seeing sexual repression as part of and parellel to this oppression. Writers like McElroy, by constrast, come from outside of feminist history and don't share its historical concerns. In my opinion libertarians like Roderick Long and Charles Johnson (see below) are authentic feminists, but I don't feel comfortable applying the word to McElroy.
And speaking of Wendy McElroy, I've very mixed feeling about her. On one side I do appreciate her scholarship, breadth of knowledge, and early work on 19th century feminism and individualism anarchism. But I also sense there was a point in her development where she reacted against actually existing radical feminism to the point of effectively defending the existing system. And even at her best I feel she cared less authentically about feminism than rephrasing libertarian principles in terms of feminist issues. She seldom deals with womens' issues seriously and spends most of her time attacking other(?) feminists instead of coming up with non-statist ways to fight patriarchy. And of late her writing has becoming increasingly defensive, hostile, and class-complacent. 'Tis unfortunate as she was once a briliant writer.
McElroy is good on sex work, and her contributions to sex worker rights are still remembered and honoured by many sex workers- even tho' most sex workers are in my experience more feminist than she is now. She's actually referenced on the Sex Workers Outreach Project website- which I confess makes me a little more uncomfortable, as I would like to see SWOP take a cleatly feminist stance.
Roderick Long has a good discussion of the problems with individualist feminism at:
http://praxeology.net/unblog03-04.htm#18
http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#02
He also co-wrote with Charles Johnson a powerful essay on the relation between libertarianism and feminism which you can read here:
http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/
Unfortunately I must say I cannot feel happy with the tone of their comments on sex work, which at least mildly paints sex work as victimistion in the manner of Andrea Dworkin. I admire Long's writings immensely and like most of Johnson's work (and have even said good things about Dworkin myself in the past), but in a context where radical feminists are among our deadliest enemies I here must draw a line. Personally, I love my work with a passion, as I can assure you do many of my sisters and brothers. Much expolitation, thanks to crimilinalisation and patriarchy, occurs *within* sex work. But a treatment of sex work itself as exploitation is a patronising attitude to a profession I call the beautiful world. And frankly, with all the forces of social stigma and political oppression arrayed against us, we just don't need this from our friends. Nothing has done so much as this article to convince me that one drop of Andrea Dworkin even in a libertarian is, as far as sex workers are concerned, a lethal poison.
That said, on every other point it is a brilliant piece. Go read it!
\
|
