The Pitters' Place

Most of her arguments seem to go against everything I've learned about feminism.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/

I think she might have issues.

I'd say she's a member of the Andrea Dworkin school of feminism. She even claims that intercourse isn't natural. She should hook up with Mutha.

I'm also reminded of the blogger that performed a character assassination of Joss Whedon(who is by no means perfect) over Firefly.

Which one was that? I've read a lot of feminist critiques of Firefly but I wouldn't really describe any of them as character assassinations.

Whitey wrote:I'm also reminded of the blogger that performed a character assassination of Joss Whedon(who is by no means perfect) over Firefly.

It can only have been this one: http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

WRT the blog... radfems gonna radfem. I find very view points of alliance with most radfems I encounter. I'm not saying they don't *have* valid points, just that I find the general veins of sex-negativity and trans-exclusion and, y'know, raging extremism to be a total turn-off. With what you linked to, for example, I have zero problem with someone looking at how sex can manifest or be treated culturally as an act of violence or dominance but that is about five bajillion miles away from 'PIV is always rape, no backsies'. Please also note the transphobia in assuming that PIV equals 'male penetrating female' when not everyone with a penis identifies as male and not everyone with a vagina identifies as female.

aels wrote:

Whitey wrote:I'm also reminded of the blogger that performed a character assassination of Joss Whedon(who is by no means perfect) over Firefly.

It can only have been this one: http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

That's the one, yeah.

aels wrote:WRT the blog... radfems gonna radfem. I find very view points of alliance with most radfems I encounter. I'm not saying they don't *have* valid points, just that I find the general veins of sex-negativity and trans-exclusion and, y'know, raging extremism to be a total turn-off. With what you linked to, for example, I have zero problem with someone looking at how sex can manifest or be treated culturally as an act of violence or dominance but that is about five bajillion miles away from 'PIV is always rape, no backsies'. Please also note the transphobia in assuming that PIV equals 'male penetrating female' when not everyone with a penis identifies as male and not everyone with a vagina identifies as female.

Yeah, there might be the vague notion of valid points in there but they're taken to a ludicrous extreme. Implying that women can't ever want penetrative sex without having been conditioned by men their whole lives to want it....doesn't make sense. Also saying that it isn't necessary for reproduction...Maybe now we can use alternative methods but for most of time I'm pretty sure it's exactly how babies are made, should a couple want one.

I didn't even think of the transphobic side to it either. Good point.

Oh yeah, that one. From what I remember I thought it made some pretty good points if you're willing to look past all the rage and hyperbole. Firefly is seriously, seriously fucked up, y'all.

About radical feminism, well, I find the position of radical feminism to be much closer in line with my views than, uh, "regular" feminism, minus the transphobia, even if I don't really like most radical feminists I've encountered as people. My understanding of "sex-negativity" is simply that sex as a whole should not be removed from systemic criticism or divorced from ethical or political considerations simply because it's sex. That doesn't seem too bad of a position to me, as I think analyzing problems from a systemic or structural point of view is a lot more efficient than individualizing (and therefore in my view trivializing) them and treating them as if they're in an isolated bubble, separate from any kind of social, cultural, political, or historical context or influence... which in my view is what most self-described sex-positive feminists attempt to do when discussing things like consent, pornography, etc. A perfect example is that Jezebel article about Saartjie Baartman I linked to a while back.

My opinion: Both the author linked in the OP as well as the blogger ranting against Firefly are thought fascists. Meaning: They don't accept differing opinions.
The following quotes are telling.

From the article linked in the OP:

radical wind wrote:as a radfem I've always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise?

From the anti-Firefly rant:

allecto wrote:I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedon's work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist. I am really quite shocked by how readily Joss is accepted as a feminist, and that his works are widely considered to be feminist. I decided to start re-watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and also to watch Firefly and the movie Serenity.

I have to say that now that I have subjected myself to the horror that is Firefly, I really am beyond worried about how much men hate us, given that this was written by a man who calls himself a feminist.

I find much of Joss Whedon's work to be heavily influenced by pornography, and pornographic humour. While I would argue that there are some aspects of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer that are feminist and progressive, there is much that isn't and I find it highly problematic that there are many very woman-hating messages contained within a show that purports itself as feminism. But Firefly takes misogyny to a new level of terrifying. I am really, really worried that women can call the man who made this show a feminist.

(emphasis by me)

In my opinion there's no discussion possible with people who are so narrow-minded or threatened that they don't accept differing opinions. So the best way to deal with those thought fascists is to ignore them.
This is of course only possible if they only use a blog as a means to convey their opinion; and not an AK47...

^ lol "thought fascists"

Maybe "thought fascism" is the wrong expression. What I mean is "someone who tries to dictate what other people should think".

Maybe "thought police" would be a better expression. But Internet SRAs usually do not have the means of enforcing their thought policing; unlike the organization from George Orwell's novel "1984". So maybe this is a bit over the top as well.

So I guess I will continue calling them "thought fascists". Unless someone comes up with a better expression.

While the ultimate conclusion she draws is absurdly sweeping and absolute, I think the seemingly absurd points she makes to get to the conclusion are worth considering.

I've had trouble in the past(and still do sometimes) reconciling some values of sex-positive feminism with some of the realities of the patriarchal power structures...on the macro scale.

I've had trouble in the past(and still do sometimes) reconciling some values of sex-positive feminism with some of the realities of the patriarchal power structures...on the macro scale.

Same. So much of what's expected of female sexuality - beauty standards, how women should dress, the idea of being 'sexy', sex acts women are expected to be into - is shaped by the patriarchy and men's needs, and it's impossible to completely divorce the two and honestly say that for instance a woman who chooses to wear skimpy clothing is doing so out of her own desire for empowerment and pride for her body, rather than because it's what society has taught her an attractive woman should dress like.

I've also seen men support 'sex-positivity' for the sole reason that they think it means more women will agree to have sex with them, or else be seen as slut-shaming. Sex-positivity has ended up pressuring otherwise unwilling women into sex on the basis that doing so is female liberation. There has also been lots of sex-positive writing that's just been insensitive to rape survivors and others who have gone through sexual trauma including gender dysphoria, with the whole concept of "sex is awesome! and if you don't think so it's because you've been brainwashed to be ashamed of your sexuality and your body" etc. Or of women who have been hurt by prostitution because they were forced into it, and who really don't want to celebrate sex work, not because they are ashamed of their sexuality but because it's a subject of pain for them.

Regarding the view that all PIV sex is rape, though, it's also really relevant that many of the writers are lesbians. So, to them, any PIV sex they have had (or felt pressured to have by society) were probably not completely consensual. The problem being that they then project that on everybody else. I've seen radfem essays about how heterosexuality is inherently misogynist and involves women subjecting themselves to the patriarchy, and that any self-respecting woman should therefore be a lesbian. Then they actively shame straight women and make them guilty for being attracted to men, and while I can understand a lot of it is reacting against the 'compulsory heterosexuality' of society, it still ends up condemning women for their natural sexual orientation and insisting they pursue sex and relationships they're not actually interested in, and that's messed up.

One of my lesbian friends mentioned how sometimes girls would hit on her, and then upon further dialogue it turns out they're not actually attracted to her, or even attracted to women, but just wish to have sex with her for political, overthrow-the-patriarchy reasons. She gets pretty offended by that.

For some reason while reading that blog I kept fearing this was going to happen to me:

http://i.imgur.com/wb9DePD.gif (probably nsfw)

...for some reason...

Why would you even want to respond to it? Or the Firefly blog? There are people out there who don't have shit for brains, talk to them instead!

@anakin, I think that is all very true and from my perspective the blog in the OP is suffering from a fairly blatant case of projection... like it's pretty clear she doesn't enjoy heterosexual sex at all and she's simply projecting that on to everyone else and assuming all other women don't enjoy it either. I think any attempt to persuade her that straight women actually enjoy sex would simply be perceived as justifying the patriarchy if it was coming from a man, or simply an attempt to ingratiate herself into the male power structure if it was coming from a woman. From our POV the blog is very mock-able but reading it from the perspective of someone who thinks women don't actually enjoy sex it makes quite a bit more sense.

I think this is inversely similar to the projection that many homosexual homophobes display in their pronouncements that if gay marriage is culturally accepted, everyone will simply be gay and traditional marriage will be destroyed. For years I haven't been able to pin the logical foundation to this belief, but it makes perfect sense if you consider it a case of projection. Homophobes fighting and repressing homosexual urges naturally tend to think that their experience is a human universal - that everyone is going through the same internal battle they are and that it takes quite a bit of willpower to keep those urges down. They legitimately don't think heterosexuality is even a thing. So from their perspective, legalizing gay marriage would naturally lead to the collapse of traditional marriage, as people wouldn't feel the need to repress their natural urges anymore and keep up the facade.

Cassius Clay wrote:While the ultimate conclusion she draws is absurdly sweeping and absolute, I think the seemingly absurd points she makes to get to the conclusion are worth considering.

Maybe they are; but if someone makes absolutist statements like "how can anyone possibly not agree" or "I am shocked that anyone can have this point of view", then that's a display of narrow-mindedness, which makes discussions difficult. Especially if a large portion of humanity (the majority, in fact) does not agree with the presented view point.

And therefore, I believe that the absolutist bloggers, which I called "thought fascists" in a previous post, are best left ignored.
But if some more open-minded person were to make points like these, presenting them as opinions, not as facts, then a discussion might be possible and fruitful.

I don't understand how she thinks that intercourse is unnatural. It's very hard to take her seriously when she makes such terribly wrong statements.

Monk wrote:I don't understand how she thinks that intercourse is unnatural.

It's because she's a fucking idiot. [/thread]

Obviously a bull dyke.

I think this is inversely similar to the projection that many homosexual homophobes display in their pronouncements that if gay marriage is culturally accepted, everyone will simply be gay and traditional marriage will be destroyed.

Oh yes, those people. Or the local variant I've heard, where if we cease to make homosexuality illegal, everyone would turn gay and humanity would die out in a generation. It's a surprisingly common belief, with people talking about how the government is trying to increase the birth rate (it's one of the lowest in the world), and thus it's in our country's best interest that we continue to criminalise homosexuality so that people will make more babies and we don't need to let more nasty job-stealing immigrants in. idk, places with legalised homosexuality and even gay marriage seem to be reproducing perfectly fine.

Also, doesn't a lot of this have more to do with language? Couldn't one just substitute "penetrate" with "envelop" and the entire dynamic changes? Or am I naive to think that?