| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
A Brief History and Impact of the Feminist Sex Wars (Revised) | |
<
< | -- By AndreaRuedas - 14 June 2024 | >
> | -- By AndreaRuedas - 12 July 2024 | | | Introduction | |
<
< | Social movements in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century were based in a struggle for liberation, civil rights, and human rights. Anti-war and anti-imperialism organizing, as well as racial organizing for civil rights, dominated the Left’s image and politics which positioned feminism in the shadows of its male dominated counterparts. During this time period, feminism shifted from its suffrage based political platform to become a movement based in the dismantling of the patriarchy and socio-political equality of the genders. In the 1960s, sex and violence emerged as popular subjects among feminist activists and scholars that turned into a decades long debate between theorists. This debate became known as the feminist sex wars in which participating parties were unjustly simplified into two sides: anti-porn theorists and sex positive theorists. The sex wars became known for asking the question: is sex liberating or perpetuating oppression?
The sex wars, in which feminist scholars debated the origin and implications of sex (primarily heterosexual sex), marked an important moment in feminist social movements. From that point forward, articulations for the equality of women and the end of patriarchal structures were embedded with theory discussing either sex positivity or sex negativity - especially in cases that involved gender-based violence or sex trafficking (see Russo & Pirlott, 2006).
What is “Feminism?”
The origins of feminism continue to be contested, partially because of academic insistence to focus exclusively on movements using the word “feminist” without regard for prior organizing with similar goals and different language usage, but it is undeniable that throughout time women have collectively organized for their rights (see an example of “feminist” organizing that did not use the word in Finlayson (2016) Chapter 5). | >
> | In the 1960s, sex and violence emerged as popular subjects among feminist activists and scholars that turned into a decades long debate between theorists. This debate became known as the feminist sex wars in which participating parties were unjustly simplified into two sides: anti-porn theorists and sex positive theorists. The sex wars became known for asking the question: is sex liberating or perpetuating oppression? From that point forward, articulations for the equality of women and the end of patriarchal structures were embedded with theory discussing either sex theory - especially in cases that involved gender-based violence or sex trafficking (see Russo & Pirlott, 2006). | | | | |
<
< | In the United States, modern feminism is said to have begun with abolitionists calling for the end of chattel slavery (along with its highly gendered violence) and with suffragists demanding women’s right to vote during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Rendall, 1985). With the attainment of the legal right to vote for white women in 1920, second-wave feminism at the beginning of 1960s focused on the slogan “The personal is political” to attract attention to issues of the private domain like reproductive healthcare, economic dependence, and gendered violence. Radical second wave feminists brought forth claims of sex work, pornography, and sexuality being mediums for violence on women’s bodies and psyches due to them being tools of “social construct[s] of male power” (MacKinnon, 1989, 316). Liberal feminists countered with the liberation found in sexual agency from virginity myths, coerced sex, and repression of women’s sexuality. The term sex positivity was created in response (Willis 1981;1993). From this debate emerged the sex wars: a decades long feminist argument about the roots and impact of sex on women. | >
> | What did “Feminism” mean during the sex wars? | | | | |
<
< | In the mid 1990s, third-wave feminism moved away from the heated sexuality arguments among feminists and demanded an intersectional feminism - one that recognized the impact of multiple axes of oppression on women, especially women of color who faced racism, poverty, and misogyny (Crenshaw, 1989). Although women of color had been writing on topics of feminism for years before, (see Sojourner Truth’s (1851) Ain’t I a Woman , Audre Lorde’s (1984) The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House and Angela Davis’ (1981) The Approaching Obsolescence of Housework: A Working-Class Perspective), mainstream feminism attempted to re-do theory and practice so as to intentionally consider, include, and highlight the narratives of women who were not white, cis, heterosexual, middle class, and able-bodied. As such, the theory of intersectionality permeated the feminist movement (as well as many other academic and organizing fields) and post-structuralist interpretations of femininity and agency marked the third wave (Snyder-Hall, 2010).
Today, we are living in the fourth wave which has been labeled as a “post-feminist” movement that consists of non-organized micro-movements that depend on digital platforms to serve as mediums (and replacements) for organizing, consciousness raising groups, and academia (Ortner, 2014). While increased access to the internet and social media platforms has encouraged visibility of feminist concerns and actions, it has also allowed for the spread of anti-feminist stereotypes that has contributed to women disassociating themselves from the label “feminist” (Zucker, 2004). However research suggests that even when women do not self-label as feminists, women continue to support and engage with ideology and action that support women’s socio-political equality (Duncan, 2010). | >
> | With the attainment of the legal right to vote for white women in 1920, second-wave feminism at the beginning of 1960s focused on the slogan “The personal is political” to attract attention to issues of the private domain like reproductive healthcare, economic dependence, and gendered violence. Radical second wave feminists brought forth claims of sex work, pornography, and sexuality being mediums for violence on women’s bodies and psyches due to them being tools of “social construct[s] of male power” (MacKinnon, 1989, 316). Liberal feminists countered with the liberation found in sexual agency from virginity myths, coerced sex, and repression of women’s sexuality. The term sex positivity was created in response (Willis 1981;1993). From this debate emerged the sex wars: a decades long feminist argument about the roots and impact of sex on women. | | | Radicals Feminists vs. Liberal Feminists
The binary division in the theoretical backgrounds of radical and liberal feminism led to that sex negative or sex positive interpretations of sexuality that permeated the sex wars. Radical feminist theory, a feminism whose focus is to dismantle patriarchal institutions and systems as well as gender roles, argued that sex as it existed in this society could not be liberating (Douglas, 1990). Porn, sex work, and individual heteronormative intercourse only existed through the male gaze, in which the pleasure of women was not and had never been the focus - hence, neither could contribute to the sexual or whole liberation of women (MacKinnon, 1989). Some theorists declared porn and rape as equivalent because women actors did not hold any agency during the filming, scenes were considered violent, and women were objectified and commodified (Dworkin, 2006). | |
<
< | Liberal feminists on the other hand, were preoccupied with the liberation of women through legal and social systems in which women would be able to make truly autonomous decisions (Ferguson, 1984). Agency was a defining aspect of liberal feminism. As such, women’s sexuality was not seen as a hindrance to the movement but as an asset because it symbolized the destruction of patriarchal sexual socialization that was based on slut shaming and misogyny - as long as said sexuality derived from a woman’s agency (Carol, 2001). Sex workers and porn artists emerged to counter the claims made by radical feminists - they argued that sex work and pornography was empowering and liberating to them as women (Glick, 2000). Through sex work and porn, women were able to appreciate their bodies, their pleasure in sex, and learned to balance power dynamics with their partners (Nestle 1983).
Where do the camps part ways? Where do they meet?
In “Talking Sex”, a conversation between Deidre English, Amber Hollibaugh, and Gayle Rubin (1982), sex-positivity is discussed in response to the perceived need for women’s allowance in pleasure and sexuality. Gayle Rubin discusses how her interest and writing on women’s sexuality emerged out of the gaps in marxism which permeated much of the left’s social movement’s during the early sixties, a view she repeats in her interview with Judith Butler that emphasizes how anti-sex radical feminism perpetuated the exclusion of women’s autonomy from conversation about gender and sex (Rubin & Butler, 1994). As such, Rubin (1982) considers it crucial for all women, regardless of sexual orientation, to develop and practice feminist theories that both critically analyze the historical oppressive nature of sex and facilitate the sexual liberation of women from that history. While Amber Hollibaugh echoes Rubin, she inserts the perspective of a lesbian, poor, ex-sex worker who does not believe in the making of women’s sexuality taboo nor the creation of a feminist hierarchy that labels some women as “better” feminists than others due to their sexual differences (1982). Instead, Hollibaugh in collaboration with Cherrie Moraga (1983), encourage the exploration of sexual fantasies and desires, especially those that are seen as playing into male domination and “bad” desires from a sex negative perspective, in order to allow for the development and analysis of women’s pleasure and sexuality. English (1982) resonates with the sentiment that feminist movements have used the historical violence of sex against women who find pleasure in their sexuality and fantasies, but pushes back to Rubin and Hollibaugh’s critiques of the anti-porn movement by reiterating the violence that is indeed found and perpetuated in some pornograghy and heterosexuality. Her liberal approach to feminism, focusing on women’s rights through a historical legal-social approach, is also found in her writings against housework authored with Barbara Ehrenreich in which they deem housework as as a product of capitalism (English & Ehrenreich, 1975). The collaborations among the authors above demonstrate that feminist theory has always included both liberal and radical theory and that neither has always existed in isolation. These collaborations acknowledged the violent historical origins and implications of sex for women and the need for feminism to remain critical of power dynamics in a male dominated practice. Simultaneously, it addressed how women are indeed pleasured by sex, including those types of sex that are considered ‘deviant’, and theory along with practice must allow for this self exploration and sexual understanding if it is to recognize women’s agency.
Another prominent topic during this era applies liberal and radical feminist theory to queer sex, specifically in lesbian relationships among the binary divide of femme and butch. A femme is a feminized lesbian who throughout history has only been visible next to a butch - a masculinized lesbian (Harris & Crocker, 2014). This monolithic binary, that understands femme and butch simply on the aesthetic level has contributed to the difficulty “butches and femmes [face] to make their voices heard in lesbian histories” (Harris & Crocker, 2). Joan Nestle, Madeline Davis, and Amber Hollibaugh write about the alienation of femmes and fetishization of butches, in which femmes were seen as aspiring to patriarchal expectations for women and butches as the supreme lesbians who rejected femininity and opted for masculinity (1992). Yet, the authors denounce sex-negative theorists who created a hierarchy of lesbianism while at the same time eliminating butch and femme voices from feminism for middle-class white women because of the gendered power relations in femme-butch sexuality (Nestle, Davis, & Hollibaugh, 1992). Nestle and Davis, both self-identified queer sex-radicals, defy the anti-porn camp due to their un-nuanced approach to lesbian sexuality that does not see or understand the negotiation of power and gender roles between femmes and butches, a contradiction to the “patriarchal aspirations” both are supposed to have (1992). Susie Bright and Shar Rednour further counter the unbalanced power argument in the sexual relationships between femmes and butches by reminding everyone the gender of femmes and butches: women (1994). Despite their differences in aesthetic presentation, which appear to adhere male dominated sexual politics, Bright and Rednour insist the power dynamics in lesbian relationships (regardless of similarity in aesthetic presentations to heterosexual relationships) are not based on men’s power and violence (1994).
Although sex positive scholars interpreted radical feminists’ focus on sexuality as a one-dimensional and reductionist view that resulted in restrictionary behavior among feminists, it is important to remember that radical feminism is primarily concerned with sexual violence, not sex itself. Feminist legal theorist, Catherine MacKinnon, and feminist scholar, Andrea Dworkin, created the first feminist anti-pornography legislation in the United States, which was passed in 1983 throughout several cities but was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (1985). As opposed to previous obscenity law that allowed for criminal charges and which was based on moral legal arguments, Mackinnon and Dworkin’ (1985) bill focused on seeking civil legal remedies for those who were impacted by the creation and distribution of pornography and categorized pornography as a women’s civil rights violation which allowed for the law to be used an action tool against the creation of pornography benefitting both participants and recipients. MacKinnon and Dworkin (1988) were successful by categorizing pornography as sex-based discrimination on the grounds that its disproportionately sought women to be victims of sexual violence, included trafficking or coercion as part of its recruiting process, and the link between on-screen pornographic violence and domestic violence. Feminist legal theorists, Mary Eberts and A.F. Bayesky (1984), also used legal approaches to secure sex-based equality rights under the Canadian Constitution Charter for Rights and Freedoms in which pornography was also interpreted as promoting sex-based discrimination and violence. Claiming pornography is a civil rights violation resulted in domestic and international policymaking for gender parity which extended beyond anti-porn legislation to domestic violence, human trafficking, and femicide. | >
> | Liberal feminists on the other hand, were preoccupied with the liberation of women through legal and social systems in which women would be able to make truly autonomous decisions (Ferguson, 1984). Agency was a defining aspect of liberal feminism. As such, women’s sexuality was not seen as a hindrance to the movement but as an asset because it symbolized the destruction of patriarchal sexual socialization that was based on slut shaming and misogyny - as long as said sexuality derived from a woman’s agency (Queen, 2001). Sex workers and porn artists emerged to counter the claims made by radical feminists - they argued that sex work and pornography was empowering and liberating to them as women (Glick, 2000). | | | | |
<
< | In the Politics of Killing Women, Radford and Russell (1992), discuss the globe wide practice of femicide defined by them as the killing of women by men “because they are women” which is theorized to be the result of the patriarchy, women’s low position on powered hierarchies, victim blaming, and residual violence from pornography (an impact that MacKinnon and Dworkin discuss in their works and try to counteract through the judicial system). Stanko and Radford (1991) continue to elaborate on the tie between violence against women and institutional responses concluding that current models of crime control are contradictory. The discourse on public safety, especially that of women staying aware of their surroundings, not trusting or engaging with strangers, not leaving the house after certain times, etc., does not address the root cause of violence - men - and it creates further isolation from the outside word making women vulnerable to the violence public crime control mechanisms so attempt to end (Stanko & Radford, 1991). But unlike ungendered forms of violence, sex-based violence does not usually fit the binary language of legal systems - good or bad, legal or illegal - partly because of the insistence to label violence on women as “domestic violence” which falls into the trap of dividing personal experiences into either the public and private sphere (Stanko & Radford, 1991).Within public and private sphere ideology exists the widespread practice of nuancing sexual violence beyond recognition of what it is, violence. This is done through victim blaming or excusing on behalf of women themselves, their abusers, and institutions who claim the abuse experience is simply too complicated to reach a verdict - a response that is often also heard in the discussion of what constitutes “real” rape (Stanko & Radford, 1991). | >
> | Where do the camps part ways? Where do they meet? | | | | |
<
< | Where We Stand Now | >
> | In “Talking Sex”, a conversation between Deidre English, Amber Hollibaugh, and Gayle Rubin (1982), sex-positivity is discussed in response to the perceived need for women’s allowance in pleasure and sexuality. Gayle Rubin considers it crucial for all women, regardless of sexual orientation, to develop and practice feminist theories that both critically analyze the historical oppressive nature of sex and facilitate the sexual liberation of women from that history. Hollibaugh in collaboration with Cherrie Moraga (1983), encourages the exploration of sexual fantasies and desires, especially those that are seen as playing into male domination and “bad” desires from a sex negative perspective, in order to allow for the development and analysis of women’s pleasure and sexuality. English (1982) resonates with the sentiment that feminist movements have used the historical violence of sex against women who find pleasure in their sexuality and fantasies, but pushes back to Rubin and Hollibaugh’s critiques of the anti-porn movement by reiterating the violence that is indeed found and perpetuated in some pornograghy and heterosexuality. | | | | |
<
< | Popular academia and the media portrayed the feminist sex wars as a dichotomous debate and omitted its many nuances. The sensationalism created the stereotype of the “man-hating, angry feminist” and overshadowed feminism’s multiple triumphs for women’s socio-political authority. As a result, feminism lost political strength and social support as many would-be feminists distanced and disidentified from the movement. | >
> | Although sex positive scholars interpreted radical feminists’ focus on sexuality as a one-dimensional and reductionist view that resulted in restrictionary behavior among feminists, it is important to remember that radical feminism is primarily concerned with sexual violence, not sex itself. Feminist legal theorist, Catherine MacKinnon, and feminist scholar, Andrea Dworkin, created the first feminist anti-pornography legislation in the United States, which was passed in 1983 throughout several cities but was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (1985). As opposed to previous obscenity law that allowed for criminal charges and which was based on moral legal arguments, Mackinnon and Dworkin’ (1985) bill focused on seeking civil legal remedies for those who were impacted by the creation and distribution of pornography and categorized pornography as a women’s civil rights violation which allowed for the law to be used an action tool against the creation of pornography benefitting both participants and recipients. | | | | |
<
< | Despite the bad press, the sex wars should be recognized for their catalytic contribution to the birth and boom of the many feminist fields that exist today, as well as their contributions to new models for sexual agency which emphasized reciprocity and consent. Whereas the history of feminism began with suffrage and abolition, modern feminism considers everything from intersectionality to environmentalism. This expansion happened when second-wave feminists were pushed to critically consider and include not only their own experiences in relation to sex but also the lives of women across the globe who are impacted daily by politics affecting their agency, mobility, and security. | >
> | The collaborations among the authors above demonstrate that feminist theory has always included both liberal and radical theory and that neither exists in isolation. These collaborations acknowledged the violent historical origins and implications of sex for women and the need for feminism to remain critical of power dynamics in a male dominated practice. Simultaneously, it addressed how women are indeed pleasured by sex and theory, along with practice, must allow for this self exploration and sexual understanding if it is to recognize women’s agency. | | | | |
>
> | Where We Stand Now | | | | |
<
< |
Andrea, this is more than 2,500 words, that's 2.5 times the word limit. You need to make a revised draft of not more than 1,000 words to have met the requirement. I cannot comment on a draft that is flagrantly overlong.
| >
> | Despite the bad press, the sex wars should be recognized for their catalytic contribution to the birth and boom of the many feminist fields that exist today, as well as their contributions to new models for sexual agency which emphasized reciprocity and consent. Modern feminism considers everything from intersectionality to environmentalism. This expansion happened when second-wave feminists were pushed to critically consider and include not only their own experiences in relation to sex but also the lives of women across the globe who are impacted daily by politics affecting their agency, mobility, and security. | | |
Works Cited | |
<
< | Atcheson, M. Elizabeth, Mary A. Eberts, and Beth Symes. Women and legal action: precedents, resources and strategies for the future. Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1984.
Bright, Susie, and Shar Rednour. "The Joys of Butch." Dagger: On Butch Women. Ed. Lily Burana, Roxxie, and Linnea Due. San Francisco: Cleis P (1994): 134-48.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics [1989]." Feminist legal theory. Routledge, 2018. 57-80.
Davis, Madeline, Amber Hollibaugh, and Joan Nestle. "The femme tapes." The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader (1992): 254-267. | | | Douglas, Carol Anne. Love and politics: Radical feminist and lesbian theories. San Francisco: ism press, 1990. | |
<
< | Duncan, L. E. Women's relationship to feminism: Effects of generation and feminist self‐labeling. Psychology of Women Quarterly, (2010) 34(4), 498-507. | | | Dworkin, Andrea. Intercourse. Basic Books (AZ), 2006.
Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. The reasons why: Essays on the new civil rights law recognizing pornography as sex discrimination. Women Against Pornography, 1985. | | | Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. The reasons why: Essays on the new civil rights law recognizing pornography as sex discrimination. Women Against Pornography, 1985. | |
<
< | | | | Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. Pornography and civil rights: A new day for women's equality. Organizing Against Pornography, 1988. | |
<
< | Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. The manufacture of housework. na, 1975. | | | English, Deirdre, et al. “Talking Sex: A Conversation on Sexuality and Feminism.” Feminist Review, no. 11, 1982, pp. 40–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1394826.
Ferguson, Ann. "Sex war: The debate between radical and libertarian feminists." Signs: journal of women in culture and society 10.1 (1984): 106-112. | |
<
< | Finlayson, Lorna. “ Chapter 2 ‘Feminist Theory, Feminist Practice’. An introduction to feminism. Cambridge University Press, 2016. | | | Glick, Elisa. "Sex positive: Feminism, queer theory, and the politics of transgression." Feminist review 64.1 (2000): 19-45. | |
<
< | Harris, Laura, and Elizabeth Crocker. Femme: Feminists, lesbians and bad girls. Routledge, 2014. | | | Hollibaugh, Amber, and Cherrie Moraga. "What we’re rollin’around in bed with: Sexual silences in feminism." Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (1983): 404-414.
MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: ‘Pleasure under Patriarchy.” Ethics, vol. 99, no. 2, 1989, pp. 314–346. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2381437. | |
<
< | Nestle, Joan. "My mother liked to fuck." Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (1983): 468-70.
Ortner, S. B. Too soon for post-feminism: The ongoing life of patriarchy in neoliberal America. History and Anthropology, (2014) 25(4), 530-549. | | | Queen, Carol. "Sex radical politics, sex-positive feminist thought, and whore stigma." Identity politics in the women’s movement (2001): 92-102. | |
<
< | Radford, Jill, and Elizabeth Stanko. "Violence against women and children: The contradictions of crime control under patriarchy." The politics of crime control (1991): 186-202.
Radford, Jill, and Diana EH Russell. Femicide: The politics of woman killing. Twayne Pub, 1992.
Rendall, Jane. The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780-1860. Macmillan International Higher Education, 1985.
Rubin, Gayle, and Judith Butler. "Sexual traffic." A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6.2 (1994).
Russo, N. F., & Pirlott, A. Gender‐based violence. Annals of the new york academy of sciences, (2006) 1087(1), 178-205 | | | Willis, Ellen. "Feminism, moralism, and pornography." NYL Sch. L. Rev. 38 (1993): 351.
Willis, Ellen. "Lust Horizons: Is the women’s movement pro-sex." Village Voice 26 (1981): 36-37. | |
<
< | Zucker, A. N. Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say,“I'm not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, (2004) 28(4), 423-435.f | | | |
|