"All Sex is Rape" Says Sex-Positive Academic

Happy New Year! I hope you all enjoyed the holiday season, regardless of what celebrations you did or did not participate in. I also hope that those who appreciated my posts in 2014, will continue to read my blog in 2015. We may not get flying cars in every household, but hopefully we will see more innovative feminist and radical leftist thought in the coming year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Andrea Dworkin (an influential feminist and anti-pornography activist, notable for her attempt to pass the Anti-Pornography Civil Rights Ordinance in the 1980s) is often accused of stating that “all sex is rape”, but she never actually wrote or said those words. Her accomplice Catherine McKinnon did not say such a thing either (liberals cannot seem to agree on who should be demonised as the anti-sex fanatic).  According to snopes (a website devoted to debunking urban legends), this misinterpretation originated with an article in “Playboy”. No surprises there. What might surprise some people is that mainstream feminists trust the words of the soft-core pornographic magazine (which, for obvious reasons, was biased against Dworkin) and frequently repeat the “all sex is rape” misquote.

Opponents of Andrea Dworkin claim that the statement “all sex is rape”, adequately summarises her writing, particularly “Intercourse” ( published in 1987).  In a preface to the book, Dworkin rejected this interpretation, but liberal academics still attribute it to her and other prominent anti-pornography feminists.

This post will give liberals a taste of their own medicine, by showing that the words of a sex-positive lecturer (that I had for four weeks during my first year of university) can be interpreted as “all sex is rape”. I hope to show what would happen if sexual liberalism, were subjected to the same level of criticism as anti-pornography feminism. I think the former would crumble in a second, but I will let my readers be the judge.

The "Sex-Positive" Academic

I realised that my lecturer was highly sex-positive during her second lecture, when she criticised a documentary called "Dreamworlds 3" (which came out in 2007) for supposedly being moralistic and prudish. I have seen Dreamworlds 3 and actually found it to be pretty liberal, compared to other documentaries made by the Media Education Foundation. It presents an interesting examination of the sexual objectification of women in music videos, but ends up capitulating to the pro-sex viewpoint by declaring that there is nothing inherently wrong with objectifying women, so long as this objectification is balanced by discussions of women’s thoughts, feelings, personalities, etc. I may discuss this wimpy approach to sexual objectification in another post. 

For now, the important thing to note is that even this highly qualified critique of the sexualisation of women was too much for my lecturer. In addition to stating that the documentary was too sex-negative, she denounced the Media Education Foundation, for having a “political agenda” as if that were inherently a bad thing. I guess even moderate, leftist critiques of mainstream culture are too “political” for modern universities.

Things went downhill from there. The liberal academic spent half of her fourth and final lecture discussing Adrienne Rich’s critique of compulsory heterosexuality or rather ranting about how she as a heterosexual found it offensive. She then spent the other half of the lecture describing age of consent laws as an example of the “regulation” of sexuality, which was the stated topic of the lecture. I guess age of consent laws were the only example of sex-related government regulation that she could come up with, so much for the liberal notion that “Big Government” is repressing sexuality. 

Of course, “regulation” is not a synonym for “totalitarian repression”, but she went on to say that Victoria’s age of consent laws were the most “progressive” (that was the very word she used) laws in Australia, because they were looser than laws used in other states. So while I cannot be sure that the lecturer in question endorses paedophilia, I would not trust her when it comes to creating policies related to child safety or sexual health.

In spite of all my objections to this academic’s viewpoints, I do not wish to promote a personal hatred of her, so I have not included her name in this article. However, if the lecturer in question reads this post and recognises that it is about her, then I invite her to inform me of her actual views regarding the objectification of women and paedophilia. That way I can correct any mistakes I have made. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that I am more likely to end up becoming the topic of her next rant against “sex-negative” feminism.

A Dishonest Discussion of Sexual Choice

Since this academic was clearly sex positive, how could she make the claim that all sex is rape? Allow me to explain. During her third lecture, the liberal academic stated that there was not enough evidence to conclude that homosexuality had a biological origin, nor could it be proven that it was the product of one’s social environment. She then went on to say that it was none-the-less acceptable for the gay rights movement to push the “born that way” slogan, because the slogan was successful in getting people to endorse the cause of gay rights. I, myself, believe that gays and lesbian sexual desires are just as legitimate as heterosexual one, but the issue of whether people are born with such desires does not really matter to me. 

There are no inherent inequalities of power involved in sexual relationships between two men or between two women, nor do such relationships necessary involve causing physical pain/harm. Therefore there is no need to abolish homosexuality and thus no need to uncover its cause, but I refuse to lie for the sake of the “sexual liberation” gospel. If academics openly admit that they do not care about honesty and present the whole notion of truth as oppressive and totalitarian, how can I believe a word they say?

Despite her acknowledgment that the genetic explanation of homosexuality has not been proven, the lecturer endorsed the claim that being gay is not a choice and spent a good deal of time trying to convince some conservative in her head to agree with her. The lecturer began this internal argument by stating that people do not choose their sexual desires. I think this is true in the short term, individual sense, but not necessary true in the broader sense. I will address this issue more in the next section of this post.

The lecturer discussed the “conservative” claim that it is possible for people to decide whether or not to act on their sexual desires, even if they cannot control the desires themselves. She argued that if a person felt a preference for gay/lesbian sexual activities over heterosexual activities or vice versa, then they could not make a “real choice” between those two options. While this claim was made in relation to gay rights, sex-positives often argue that other “subversive” sexualities, such as BDSM, are morally interchangeable with gay/lesbian sexuality. In any case, my lecturer’s approach to sexual choice implied that few, if any, sexual activities are genuinely chosen (since few people are equally attracted to all sexual options presented to them) or to put it another way, “all sex is rape”.

The Implications of this Viewpoint

In fact any denial of the claim that people can choose whether or not to initiate or participate in sexual acts implies that all sex is forced upon people. Ironically, this way of thinking is often used to justify rape. The view that men are incapable of controlling their desire for sex is prominent throughout the culture. We are encouraged to believe that once a man is aroused, he will either have sex with the person who caused this arousal (whether the person wants to have sex with him or not) or go crazy. 

Self-proclaimed “sex-positives” reinforce this view by arguing that men and women must “express” (which I assume means “act on”) every sexual urge they get and never let their brains get in the way. According to sex liberals, people who fail to blindly obey their genitals will go insane, become depressed, go on a savage raping spree, commits acts of violence or die from suicide, due to their lack of “sexual health/acceptance”. It all sounds pretty coercive to me. I dare liberals to prove that humans have some innate tendency to go insane if they do not act on every sexual desire they experience and that such craziness (when it does occur) is not the fault of a society obsessed with sex.

Liberals talk about sex as if it were some god-like force that exists independent of human society. They say it has been “repressed” by human society for thousands of years and must be satiated in order to prevent destruction from being inflicted upon the human race. Being ruled by a “sex spirit” (real or figurative) does not sound at all liberating to me. Real liberty means being encouraged to think rationally about the ways in which people have sex. Real liberty means having sex in ways that are consistent with one’s moral and political values. Real liberty means being able to say no, without being told that horrible suffering will inevitably result from such a no. 

An Alternative View of Sexuality

In reality, sexuality is not an eternal spirit. It is a product of human society and it has the potential to be far more egalitarian, loving and pro-human than it is now. Individuals cannot instantly turn sexual desires on or off, but I believe it is possible for humanity as a whole to choose a better sexuality by changing the society. 

Capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, religion, the school system and the traditional family all encourage some people to be dominant while others submit to them. Thus it should not be surprising to radicals that dominance and submission dynamics have crept into sex (in the form of BDSM, rape fantasies, paedophilia, etc.) If capitalism were overthrown, a socialist society, in which industries were managed democratically by those who worked in them, could create a new culture, one that glamorised equality, love, assertiveness and kindness, instead of dominance, submission, violence and mindless hedonism. Of course the masses would have to be convinced of the need for this cultural transformation, which is part of the reason why this blog exists.

In the meantime, we have to hold people accountable for sexual behaviours that hurt people or involve power inequalities. If free will is real (I might share my thoughts on this issue in another post), then people do make choices regarding sex, the same way they make choices about what to eat, drink and watch. Public education campaigns and changes to the cultural environment can help people make the right choices in these areas, in spite of any unhealthy desires they may have (e.g. desires for cigarettes and junk food). The idea that sexuality is beyond human control is false and dangerous. It also creates a contradiction while liberal feminist dogma, since the very people who preach it also love to brag about their “sexual choices”, especially when such choices involve danger or degradation.

Conclusion

While my lecturer did not really believe that "all sex is rape", I hope I have convinced you that her approach to sex does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. I assume that it survives within academia only because it has the power of the sex industry and other highly sexualised, capitalist enterprises (e.g. the media and the beauty industry) behind it. These industries have the power to keep opposing progressive views out of mainstream culture and most Western universities. No idea that can only sustain itself via such means deserves to be seen as legitimate. 

As for the “all sex is rape” quote, I do not want to hear any more liberals attributing it to radical feminists. It is unfair to do so when radical feminists rarely have the chance to respond. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that, with the right spin, this sentiment could just as easily be attached to them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you are wondering, the academic in question never ran any of my tutorials or marked any of my papers or at least if she did, I do not know about it. My problems with her are strictly political, not personal.

What Type of Feminist (or Pro-Feminist) Are You? - Part 2

My blog has been linked to by another blog called "feminist resources", but I cannot access it. If you are the creator of "feminist resources", please give my access to your blog, so I can see how people are responding to my posts. I am glad to see that my blog is getting more attention (even if some of it comes from people who hate it).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction 

This second quiz determines whether somebody is a moderate feminist or a radical feminist. Some of you may be wondering why I did not include “black feminism”, “socialist feminism” and “anarchist feminism” in my feminism sorting system. I will explain why in the conclusion of this post. I assure you that by leaving them out, I am not attempting to suggest that these types of feminism are invalid.

I think most revolutionary leftists and anti-racism activists know what they are without needing to be told by a quiz, but if you really want a quiz to tell you such things, you will find plenty. I know of no quiz that adequately addresses the divisions in which exist within modern feminism. If you think you have encountered such a quiz, let me know. 

Quiz Instructions

Only take this quiz if you have already taken the first quiz and were not deemed to be a liberal feminist. This second quiz works the same way as the first one. Write down whether you agree or disagree with the statements below, then use the answer key to calculate your score. Once again, some of the statements are more extreme than others. Not all statements deemed to be “radical” represent all radical feminists, nor do all of them represent my views. An automated version of this quiz is available here.

Quiz Questions (Statements)

1. Violent masculinity is the problem, not masculinity itself. Thus the solution is to promote a new, healthier kind of masculinity to men. This approach to masculinity enables us to challenge male dominance without threatening men’s sense of identity. 

2. The use of high heels and restrictive clothing may not be as harmful as breast implants and other forms of cosmetic surgery, but they can still cause pain and damage to women’s bodies. Thus such practices are not consistent with feminist ideals and we should aim to abolish them. 

3. When promoting our political viewpoints to the public, it is acceptable to phrase our beliefs using language that our political opponents may be sympathetic to (e.g. by claiming that allowing gay couples to adopt children promotes “family values” or that opposing pornography is a form of “sex positivity”).

4. Not everyone is obligated to get married or be part of nuclear family, but equality between men and women can be achieved without challenging these institutions. 

5. Labelling toys as “boy toys” or “girl toys” promotes discrimination. This needs to end, but re-labelling alone will not stop the promotion of harmful traits such as aggression and violence (which are currently promoted through “boy toys”, such as toy guns) or shallowness and a need to please others (which are promoted through “girl toys”.) We need to create different kinds of toys altogether. 

6. The feminist movement should only change its positions when given good reason to believe that its positions are incorrect or inconsistent with feminist principles. Positions should not be changed in order to make the movement more popular, socially acceptable or appealing to men. 

7. Modern day western society is patriarchal (male dominated), as are most other societies around the world. A truly non-patriarchal society would need to have an economic and political system which is totally different to that which currently exists in the West. It would also need a vastly different culture.

8. Mild beauty practices (e.g. putting on make-up, wearing fancy clothing) are not necessarily oppressive or deserving of political/feminist critique. So long as the women performing them feel good about their natural bodies and do not feel pressured into performing them, such beauty practices are consistent with feminist ideals.

9. Men can support feminism, but since they are the dominant group within patriarchy they cannot be considered part of the feminist movement any more than capitalists can belong to union.

10. Our notions of what a “man” or “woman” is should not be based on genitalia or what society says. People have the power to decide for themselves whether they are men, women or something else.

11. Western medicine is a patriarchal establishment that causes more harm than good and cannot be reformed, but should be abolished in favour of more traditional, female-centred healthcare. 

12. The only problem with society’s current beauty standards is that they are too rigid. A broader definition of beauty (one which includes non-white women and women who are not super thin and busty) is the solution to female body image issues. 

13. Gender identity is an innate aspect of all human beings. Attempts at abolishing categories such as “man”, “woman”, “masculine” and “feminine” will either not work or will cause great harm (e.g. it will create a dull, grey world in which there is no individuality.) 

14. The general public should not be intimidated by feminism, for its ideals match the dominant ideals of western society. Negative feelings towards feminism are a result of misunderstandings and poor communication on the part of the movement (e.g. excessive anger, incorrect use of language, etc).

15. In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon traditional patriarchal religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and adopt either an outlook which is free of superstitious/supernatural beliefs or adhere to spiritual belief systems which are more pro-female.) 

16. Feminists should oppose any practice that promotes the belief that a woman’s physical appearance is more important than her inner qualities, including beauty pageants, fashion shows, the use of make-up and the promotion of dolls that stress the importance of looking pretty (e.g. Barbie dolls and Bratz dolls.) 

17. It is natural for there to be variations in human genitalia, but the sex roles which are imposed onto people, based on the kind of genitalia they have, are not natural. It is possible and desirable to create a world in which such roles, which are sometimes referred to as “gender roles”, do not exist. 

18. The abortion rights movement should acknowledge that most abortions are morally complex or potentially harmful. Failure to make this acknowledgement will result in women becoming alienated from pro-choice activism. 

19. Feminists are under no obligation to be respectful towards dominant institutions and ideas. All beliefs, traditions and art (no matter how revered they may be within a particular culture) should be open to political critique.

20. Criticising extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and face lifts) is okay, but women who reject beauty practices altogether (e.g. by going out in public without putting on makeup or shaving their legs) and encourage other women to do the same, are going too far. 

Answer Key

1. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5

2. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

3. Agree: -6 ------- Disagree: +4

4. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5

5. Agree: +7 ------- Disagree: -4

6. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

7. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

8. Agree: -5 -------- Disagree: +5

9. Agree: +6 -------- Disagree: -4

10. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5

11. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

12. Agree: -4 ------- Disagree: +5

13. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5

14. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

15. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4

16. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4

17. Agree: +4 ------- Disagree: -6

18. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

19. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

20. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

From -100 to -21: Moderate Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Anita Sarkeesian, Jackson Katz, Ariel Levy
Related Concepts: Social Democracy, Media Criticism, Opposition to Sexual Objectification.

You are a moderate feminist. I came up with the term "moderate feminist" myself, so you probably do not know of anyone who uses the label. I use the term to describe feminists who are neither liberal nor radical. Moderate feminists are not liberal feminists because they oppose pornography, prostitution, extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and genital surgery) and the spread of soft core pornographic images throughout the culture. They cannot be considered radical feminists, because they promote "healthy" masculinity and femininity, instead of calling for gender to be abolished. While they are usually critical of capitalism, they believe that it should be reformed, rather than abolished and would prefer to avoid angering those with power.

Your moderate feminist ideas do pose a challenge to the status quo. Thus, I consider them to be a genuine form of feminism. In universities, liberal academics sometimes denounce moderate feminists as "sex-negative" and "prudish", but your ideas are not viciously despised in the way that radical feminist ideas are and students are at least allowed to consider them. If students are lucky, a moderate feminist text may even appear on their reading lists.

From -20 to +20: Borderline

This borderline category works the same way as the one in the first quiz. If you get this score, take some time to think about your views, then come back and do the quiz again. After you have done this, it may be clearer whether you are a moderate or a radical feminist or it may not be. It is okay to not be certain.
-

From +21 to +100: Radical (or Pro-Radical) Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Lierre Keith, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen
Related Concepts: Gender Abolition, Sex Criticism, Radical Anti-Capitalism, Radical Environmentalism.

You are a radical feminist (or a supporter of radical feminism). Like moderate feminists, radical feminists oppose pornography, prostitution, sadomasochism (often euphemistically referred to as "BDSM"), extreme beauty practices and highly sexualised depictions of women within the culture. Unlike moderate feminists, radical feminists are gender abolitionists. They recognise that the concepts of "masculinity' and "femininity" do not have to exist and that they encourage men to behave in a dominate manner, while encouraging women to submit to such dominance. They often oppose other systems which are considered foundational to modern society, such as capitalism and traditional religion.

Your beliefs pose a serious threat to those with power (especially those who run the sex industry and the beauty industry) and are likely to get you in trouble at university. Radical feminists are rarely mentioned by academics. When they are it is only so that they can be attacked as "sex-negative", man-hating lunatics. The good news is that I am on your side. I got a 70 on this quiz. Feel free to get in touch with me (via comments or messages.)
-

Conclusion

The reason I did not include “black feminism” or “socialist feminism” in my quizzes is because such labels do not actually reveal whether somebody is a liberal, radical or moderate feminist. For example, one can believe that a socialist revolution should be brought about partially so that women can be liberated through “feminist pornography” which is produced by “empowered sex workers” in a democratically managed sex industry (yeah, right), in which case that person would be a socialist who supports liberal feminism. One may also believe that a socialist revolution should put an end to the sex industry and create a world in which sexual acts are never motivated by a need for money or a sense that one has some of kind of duty to provide others with sexual pleasure. Such a person would be a socialist who promoted moderate or radical feminism. In a previous post, I argued that liberalism is not truly compatible with opposition to racism and capitalism. Nevertheless, I recognise that some non-white women and socialists do in fact embrace liberal feminism.

I am a socialist myself. I also support anti-racism activism, both for its own sake and because I recognise that, in most of the world, the participation of non-whites is needed to carry out a popular socialist revolution. According to this second quiz, I am more radical than moderate. I believe that gender has to be abolished in order for women to be liberated and I think a socialist revolution could enable this. My score was not 100%, so my ideas are not completely in line with radical feminism, but they are more radical than moderate. I guess you could call me a revolutionary socialist who supports radical feminism or you can call a totalitarian, prudish, hateful monster. It is up to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you enjoyed my quizzes. Let me know what result you get and whether it was what you expected. Feel free to try and guess which “radical” statements I disagreed with. As always, constructive criticism is welcome.

Why Mainstream Feminism is Corporate Feminism

I have deleted the link to the liberals’ hate list (originally located on my last post) after a woman featured on the list stated that the link should not be shared. My blog is not very popular at the moment so I doubt I was generating much views for the hateful (how ironic) liberals, but I wish to respect the wishes of women targeted by the site. Feel free to share links to my blog on friendly sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction 

This post will add to the economics-related arguments I made in the last post. The term “mainstream feminism” in the title is merely another way of saying “liberal feminism”, since the tenants of liberal feminism are more in line with the status quo than those of radical feminism. The use of the word “corporate” in place of “bourgeois” was also a way of avoiding repetition.

Thus this article can be thought of as the conclusion to a three part discussion of how race and class are related to feminism, which began with this article. The current article will mostly focus on how liberal feminism favours those with more wealth and excludes women who have not managed to pull themselves up by their bra straps.

1. It is Opposed to “Classism” rather than Class Divisions

While radical leftists argue for the abolition of all class divisions and all power inequalities, liberal feminists advocate for an end to “classism”. In a previous post I stated that the term does not adequately describe why capitalism is harmful or oppressive. I also said that I would include a critique of the term “classism” in a future post. Well, here it is.

If I understand liberish correctly, the term “classism” refers to prejudices which are based on economic class. The first problem with this term is that, when defined in such a way, it implies that the oppressed masses are not allowed to have negative feelings towards the wealthy capitalists who rule over them, but I am going to be charitable and assume that “classism” refers mostly to the snobbish attitudes of rich people towards poor people. Even so, the term is a weak critique of capitalism, because it assumes that social disapproval is the worst problem faced by poor people. The term fails to condemn poverty itself. In fact liberals often assume that labelling a particular group as “exploited” or “victims” is itself a form of prejudice (they apply this reasoning to prostituted women, women who conform to femininity and people with disabilities.) Thus ideologies which advocate for the abolition of classes (e.g. socialism, communism and anarchism) would have to be deemed “classist” by liberals.

The term “classism” implies that poverty is yet another “empowering choice” that people make and that we should stop disapproving of those who make it. In reality, poverty is rarely a choice and even if it were it is still generally harmful to people’s physical and emotional wellbeing. Furthermore, the division of society into classes creates a sitution in which workers and poor people have to subordinate themselves to governments and corporations and have  little control over what is produced within their society and how it is distributed. Thus they are unable to make decisions about how energy is produced, what kind of food is available to them, what conditions people should labour under and whether or not children should be taught that boys ought to be violent and dominating, while girls ought to be submissive and obsess over their physical appearances.

Those who truly value liberty, equality and democracy and want the problems discussed above to be solved should favour an end to class divisions, not just an end to “classism”. This is not to say that poor and working class people do not experience prejudice, nor do I wish to imply that hateful feelings towards such people are not a problem. What I oppose is the notion that prejudice is the only problem that lower class people face and the assumption that class divisions are just a natural part of how the world is and yet another neutral identity that people should embrace and feel pride in, rather than a brutal hierarchy which needs to be abolished.

2. It Promotes Expensive Means of “Empowerment” 

Liberal feminists believe that “empowerment” (as they call it) mostly comes, not from banding together to form a political movement which takes to the street and demands change, but from consuming products that radical feminists have been criticising since the 1960s, including make-up, high heels and even breast implants, along with other forms of plastic surgery. This liberal path to empowerment is not one which poorer women can follow, unless they go into debt or forego spending money on more important things (like food, rent and healthcare.)

Breast implants alone cost between 10,000 – 15,000 Australian dollars and that’s not even including the costs of regular checkups or any corrective surgeries which may be needed if the original surgery goes wrong. One could buy a new car with that amount of money or pay for half of a university degree (at least until Tony Abbot’s policies raise the price of tertiary education to multiple times its current cost) or buy between 200 and 300 copies of the latest radical feminist literature. Any of those options would be a better use of one’s money, yes, even the last one.

The economic cost of make-up and fancy clothes may seem trivial by comparison. However, since fashions are constantly changing and make-up is used regularly, the total cost of such prettification accumulates over time. Throughout their lives, most women will spend thousands of dollars on such methods of prettification. The only women that are actually empowered by such practices, and the viewpoints that justify their use, are those few who are part of the capitalist class and profit from the sale of these products. Most women do not gain more social or political power by consuming such products and thus are not truly empowered by them.

The type of “sexual liberation” and “sexual subversion” advocated by liberals can also be expensive. In my view, a genuinely subversive sexuality would be one which challenges the belief that sexiness consists of one person dominating another. Instead the liberal version of “sexual subversion” reinforces this belief through the use of whips, chains and nipple torture devices. Obviously, these objects are not naturally part of either male or female bodies. They must be manufactured and are thus a source of profit for businesses. If there ever was a time when BDSM was a threat to capitalism, it is long over. Now companies that sell BDSM equipment are generating additional profit due to the success of Fifty Shades of Grey and the growing popularity of BDSM practices.
-
Within walking distance of my home, sits a BDSM sex shop named after an aristocrat (that tells me more than I need to know about which class the BDSM community admires.) I will not reveal the actual name of the shop or the website I used to learn about its products lest I generate more publicity and hence income for it. I will tell you that a whip from that place will cost you 80 dollars (in US money.) A complete set of restraints costs 160 dollars. The “deluxe” set costs 245 dollars. Dressing up like a sexualised Hitler costs 450 dollar. Showing complete disrespect for survivors of the Holocaust and their families is probably priceless in the owners’ minds. 

In case you think the Nazi costumes and the rib crushing corsets (which cost even more than the Hitler costume) are optional, BDSM events usually have dress codes which mandate that attendants turn up in BDSM-related outfits. One is not required to dress like a fascist, but turn up wearing ordinary clothes with two digit price tags and they will kick you out for being too “vanilla-looking.” They might as well stick a “no Jews or poor people allowed” sign above the doors to their events.

3. It Celebrates the Rich and Successful

When trying to determine whether a piece of media is “feminist” or not, liberals look for “strong female characters” or strong real-life individuals who overcome social barriers to become successful. They believe that individual success stories, whether real or fictional, will inspire other individuals who watch them to live out their own American Dreams. This notion of female empowerment is clearly very capitalistic and in line with the dominant narratives about how the goal of the individual should be to advance their own status in a hierarchical world. The individual empowerment narrative is used to defend hierarchial orders by asserting that they pose no real harm and that anyone can overcome them, unless of course they are “weak” or “not inspired enough”.  

Among the women who are celebrated by liberal feminists for being “inspiring” are celebrities who have the superficial appearance of being empowered, such as Pink, Lilly Allen, Katy Perry and most of all Beyoncé. To my knowledge none of these women have sung about the need for women to form a movement to fight oppression and Katy Perry has explicitly distanced herself from feminism in her interviews (which does not really bother me because women who know nothing about feminism have no right to claim they represent it) and continues to have little understanding of what it means.

These “empowered” female celebrities sing about their personal success and not about the need for women as a group to fight against oppressive social structures. Songs such as “Stupid Girls” by Pink and “Hard out Here” by Lilly Allen attack less empowered women for supposedly being stupid, the former even goes so far as to mock women suffering from eating disorders. Then you have the song “Independent Women” by Beyoncé, which does not explicitly attack anyone, but which implies that women who are strong, independent and, most of all, rich, belong to some superior breed of women and that women who are not making their own money (and lots of it) do not. In fact the importance of an individual becoming rich or powerful or both, is a common theme in these supposedly “feminist” songs and liberals who claim they are “anti-capitalist” eat it right up.

The celebration of rich, successful individuals is taken to extremes in the case of “empowered sex workers”. Like the celebrities discussed above, these “sex workers” (as they call themselves) brag about how wealthy they are and how much expensive and totally unnecessary junk they can afford to buy. They assume, without question, that wealth, consumerism and prettiness should be the centre of a woman’s existence. Thus they reinforce all kinds of nasty stereotypes about prostituted women and women in general. 

Unlike strong female celebrities, self-proclaimed "sex workers" do not even try to argue that they earned their money through their own efforts. They blatantly claim that they are being paid excessive amounts of money to have orgasms and be physically attractive. These women do not represent the majority of women in prostitution and I doubt they are even representing their own experiences in their entirety. They use their own success to justify the exploitation of other prostituted women throughout both the first and third world and perpetuate an industry that harms these "weak" women. Self-proclaimed "sex workers" speak as if such women barely exist and are mostly an invention of "oppressive" sex negatives. Their contempt for the "non-empowered" is clear.

Conclusion

The reason I am complaining about the way in which liberal feminism excludes poor people and celebrates the rich is not because I want in. Rather, the fact that they came up with their brand of “empowerment” without taking into account the fact that not everybody can afford to follow it constitutes further evidence that the liberal feminist ideology does not truly represent the interests of the oppressed of the world, regardless of the intentions of its proponents.

If liberals really want to stand up for the oppressed of the world they need to recognise that not everyone chooses to be in the situation that they are in economically or in terms of work and not everybody “likes it”. They also need to recognise the difference between an inner sense of “identity” and a social role imposed onto people as part of a hierarchical system. So long as they continue to push the paradoxical view that being dominated economically, socially or sexually can somehow be a form of freedom and individuality, they cannot claim to be fighting for a better, more egalitarian world. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That concludes my critique of liberal feminism’s approach to race and class issues. Such themes will be discussed again in the future, but for now I would like to address other issues, such as how to distinguish liberal feminists from true radicals.