Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

A porn star or "teen pop go go dancer" can absolutely be feminist. I'm not sure what the problem is there.

Those sites may not have much to do with men's rights, but if you see people talking about MRAs on the internet they probably do mean sites like that. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that's probably what the Giant Bomb commenter was talking about, which is how this conversation started in the first place.

I didn't ask you, I asked Susan B Anthony; let her answer before you pipe in. That is just rude.

Well, Susan B. Anthony doesn't have internet access, so I'm asking you if you think those sorts of women can't be feminists while she's waiting for the Comcast guy.

Demyx wrote:

I'm saying that's probably what the Giant Bomb commenter was talking about, which is how this conversation started in the first place.

Since it was in a thread about the issues women face in an industry, I'd say almost certainly.

The irony that the one cited, legit-seeming male issue would be best addressed by elevating women in the workplace should be lost on no one.

Incidentally, feminism is a school of thought, and as a school of thought, it doesn't exactly have Rules like a karate class. I sometimes say I have an existentialist view, doesn't mean I'm congruent with Camus. It's silly and bizarre to think that way.

KingGorilla wrote:

I do however think that the fact that vasectomy was not part of the ACA family planning mandate stinks of gender bias.

I can't speak to that. As a Canadian, my vasectomy was covered by our wonderful health care system. However, I have to ask where that gender bias would be from... I mean surely not putting vasectomies on a family planning mandate being an issue of gender bias would suggest that somehow it's not covered because it's for men? Does that sound likely, given that it is almost CERTAIN that the people involved in deciding if it should be covered are mostly men? Or perhaps it's for purely financial reasons.. (i.e. the cost benefit analysis indicated that any bad press from it would not be enough to offset the savings from it not being covered?)

Edited: All men to mostly men.. although it's likely to be all men.

Eh, vasectomy not being part of it sounds more like oversight than anything else. A single example isn't really evidence of bias.

Demyx wrote:

Well, Susan B. Anthony doesn't have internet access, so I'm asking you if you think those sorts of women can't be feminists while she's waiting for the Comcast guy.

Of course they CAN be feminists but how many people would take them seriously? And since every single feminist doesn't look at situations the same way, I'm sure there would be a few of them that might scoff at a porn star standing up for the rights of women. Porn stars (men and women) do what some people would consider incredibly degrading "work". I myself would have a hard time (taking both men and women in the porn industry) because I don't believe that their job speaks well for the rights of women or men. Personal opinion of course.

Good thing being a feminist isn't really about what other people think of you.

The list of official feminists will be determined by a government committee...of men.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Eh, vasectomy not being part of it sounds more like oversight than anything else. A single example isn't really evidence of bias.

Actually, this makes more sense as a feminist issue. Surgical birth control is far and away the most reliable, and vasectomy is much lower-risk than tubal ligation. (Or other forms of contraception like hormones or IUDs.) To bias people away from it as a form of birth control does practical harm to women who are driven to riskier and less reliable techniques. And IMO the reason is rooted in patriarchal attitudes toward masculinity, not The Woman keeping The Man down.

Similarly, prejudicial treatment of mothers in custody cases is rooted in notions like mother-as-nurturer and man-as-breadwinner that are fundamentally patriarchal.

I think KG is right that men do sometimes get raw deals in our society. But the source of those raw deals is the Patriarchy, and the advocates of true "men's rights" in that sense...are feminists.

The Conformist wrote:

Of course they CAN be feminists but how many people would take them seriously? And since every single feminist doesn't look at situations the same way, I'm sure there would be a few of them that might scoff at a porn star standing up for the rights of women. Porn stars (men and women) do what some people would consider incredibly degrading "work". I myself would have a hard time (taking both men and women in the porn industry) because I don't believe that their job speaks well for the rights of women or men. Personal opinion of course.

I would take them seriously.

Yes, there are some feminists who would not, but that doesn't mean that the porn star isn't a feminist.

Engaging in degrading work doesn't mean your opinion suddenly does not matter. If you think porn is degrading to everybody, that's a valid opinion, but the primary reason why porn is considered anti-feminist or misogynistic is because people make it that way.

Some women actually enjoy making porn. Some female porn stars see that a lot of mainstream porn is misogynistic and aim to make porn that isn't, porn where women are treated respectfully, porn that is not just a man's fantasy but also a woman's. That is not the way a lot of women would choose to be feminist, but it's still valid.

Gay porn might even be the most feminist porn of all, on multiple levels.

... I don't even know if I'm joking anymore.

I only watch gay porn.

clover wrote:

Good thing being a feminist isn't really about what other people think of you.

So many +1s I've run out.

Also, what's degrading about porn other than the society that looks down its nose at it? It would be staggeringly hypocritical of me to criticise anyone who appeared in porn. I say Yay for all those people who provide a service to us all.

Also, more broadly, lets not marginalise the voices of those whose lives we find distasteful (for whatever reason)

Ooops double post

The Conformist wrote:

Of course they CAN be feminists but how many people would take them seriously? And since every single feminist doesn't look at situations the same way, I'm sure there would be a few of them that might scoff at a garbage collector standing up for the rights of women. Garbage collectors (men and women) do what some people would consider incredibly degrading "work". Personal opinion of course.

I can see where such an ad might not sit right with you, but thankfully PETA doesn't speak for all animal rights folks any more than the NRA does for all gun owners, or NOW or Planned Parenthood does for all feminists.

The Conformist wrote:

I could be wrong, but never in the history of porn watching has a man or woman watched a porn video and thought to themselves "I really respect that woman/man's intelligence in choosing such a productive and dignified carrer". Not saying that the men and women in the port industry aren't intelligent, just that the choice may not be the wisest if you are going to speak out on feminism.

You know what's interesting, though? I think (and I literally mean think, I can't be certain and am not pretending I am) you and many others have seen porn with both a man and a woman. And, on reflection of what choices have brought those people to doing porn, probably thought of things like lack of self-respect, desperation, parental issues, etc in the case of the woman. In the case of the man, on the other hand, I imagine it's "he's just kinda... doing porn. Cuz he's a dude." Not that you would think highly of the guy, just probably not associate so many reasons as to why the guy in the porn is a damaged human being.

So there is something to be said for people who think they're fighting that paradigm. If they're effective or not is a whole other matter, though.

The Conformist wrote:

fighting for the right (in my opinion) as a man or woman to be treated with respect, dignity and equality and then waking up in the morning and shooting a porn that has you hog tied to a inflatable purple dinosour while taking one up the kiester is a tad (hypocritical)different than running a morning garbage route in slacks.

They're just jobs. As long as the people involved are engaging in the gamut of professional possibilities where everyone concedes to the activities performed, why would there be a difference? What makes that hypocritical?

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because some of you may consider sex as a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us. Is it selectively degrading for women to engage in sex, but not for men?

LarryC wrote:

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because sex is a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us.

I was just going to make a post like this.

There's nothing undignified or worthy of disrespect about consensual, safe sex, no matter how kinky.

LarryC wrote:

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because some of you may consider sex as a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us.

I think the basic notion is that you're taking something private and/or sacred (depending on your view) and making it public for cheap attention to an end of degrading the act itself. While that certainly can't apply to every case, I believe that's the general complaint by people on one level or another.

LarryC wrote:

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because sex is a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us.

I could be totally wrong about this, but maybe getting paid for doing sex on camera is what makes it degrading? As in, maybe you're taking a wonderful gift and turning it around for profit? Shot in the dark on my part here.

P.S.
This isn't the time or the place for it, Larry, but man...you continue to surprise me. My respect for you has levelled up.

American culture has very Puritan roots too, so there is a lot of cultural shame, idealization, and forbidden-fruit-ness attached to bodies, sex, and all things related.

The Conformist wrote:

In my opinion it would seem you wouldn't have enough respect for yourself, let alone to fight for it for an entire sex. But if after all that, if you can wake up and look yourself in the mirror and still see a person with plenty of dignity, then by all means fight for what you believe in, just don't expect to sway many opinions.

Seems like as good a place as any to post this.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because some of you may consider sex as a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us.

I think the basic notion is that you're taking something private and/or sacred (depending on your view) and making it public for cheap attention to an end of degrading the act itself. While that certainly can't apply to every case, I believe that's the general complaint by people on one level or another.

Amoebic wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I have to ask, since this has bugged me for a while:

What's so undignified about capturing yourself on film and then selling it? Is it because sex is a degrading act? I've always been taught that it was a beautiful activity, and one of the most blessings God has given to us.

I could be totally wrong about this, but maybe getting paid for doing sex on camera is what makes it degrading? As in, maybe you're taking a wonderful gift and turning it around for profit? Shot in the dark on my part here.

P.S.
This isn't the time or the place for it, Larry, but man...you continue to surprise me. My respect for you has levelled up.

This might be derailing the thread too much, but what's the difference between this and romances in movies? Why is sex the only part of love that's considered 100% private and/or shouldn't be used for profit?

I'm not saying either of your are saying that's the case, but that's what gets me about these kinds of arguments. I think in the end it comes down to what clover said.

pgroce wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

In my opinion it would seem you wouldn't have enough respect for yourself, let alone to fight for it for an entire sex. But if after all that, if you can wake up and look yourself in the mirror and still see a person with plenty of dignity, then by all means fight for what you believe in, just don't expect to sway many opinions.

Seems like as good a place as any to post this.

Heh, seeing where the conversation was going, I thought "I wonder if anyone saw that study..."

SixteenBlue wrote:

This might be derailing the thread too much, but what's the difference between this and romances in movies? Why is sex the only part of love that's considered 100% private and/or shouldn't be used for profit?

I'm not saying either of your are saying that's the case, but that's what gets me about these kinds of arguments. I think in the end it comes down to what clover said.

I will go even further.

Why is sex segregated into its own class of body functions that others aren't, particularly if sex is performed for reasons of pleasure?

There are other body functions that provide pleasure, such as gourmet dining and the drinking of alcohol. There are entire shows and cable channels dedicated to those pleasurable activities and people can't wait to see judges stuff their mouths with tasty delights in order to determine who the next greatest chef is. Those are profitable industries/shows.

Yet, when you talk about making a profit from the filming of sex, far too many people cower.

Quite frankly, I would prefer seeing an orifice getting filled in a sex movie rather than on a show about cooking.

Yeah, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with porn, sex work or stripping.

However, thanks to the crazy prudishness around sex the respective industries are forced into the fringes of society. This means that the lack of visibility makes them festering pits of crime and abuse.

Bloo_Driver:

I think the basic notion is that you're taking something private and/or sacred (depending on your view) and making it public for cheap attention to an end of degrading the act itself. While that certainly can't apply to every case, I believe that's the general complaint by people on one level or another.

Seems inconsistent. The transfiguration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is televised all the time, and that strikes me as a teeny bit more sacred than sex.

Amoebic:

I could be totally wrong about this, but maybe getting paid for doing sex on camera is what makes it degrading? As in, maybe you're taking a wonderful gift and turning it around for profit? Shot in the dark on my part here.

You got me. It's always puzzled me. I find eating more fun sometimes, and I'll be the happiest man alive if I could sell myself eating pasta. I'll even moan like I like it! 'Cause, really, I am a pasta whore. I like it like that! Give me that al dente like you mean it, baby.

The related point is actually the part that's on the thread's topic squarely - why are the women considered degraded, but the men aren't? Or are they? I'm not really super familiar with how porn creators are viewed in the US.