I'M OF NO GENDER

AN OPINION

BY FANNY MALINEN

Fanny Malinen is a student activist. She has been active in the Occupy movement since its start in October 2011.

Being an activist can be frustrating. All too often movements that are supposed to be progressive end up reproducing existing privileges. This may either be because a focus on greater aims - such as overcoming the deeply unequal structures of capitalism - obscures our vision from everyday challenges or because, sadly, that there is a certain trade-off between efficiency and democracy. 

One of the great challenges in horizontal movements is to recognise power structures whilst aiming at their elimination. Mirroring the liberal capitalist illusion of a neutral ‘market citizen’, pretending that everyone is equal and has a voice, is obviously a fallacy that only serves to reinforce privilege. It should not come as a surprise that when everyone is given a space to speak, it is often white men who feel the most confident to use that space. One of the great challenges of overcoming privilege is how to make privileged people recognise this.

Feminist – mainstream feminist, that is – responses however have rarely left me much more satisfied. For me, discussing female participation in a women’s caucus is unsatisfactory, because it by nature excludes some groups from the conversation. 

I don’t really identify with my gender. Every time someone calls me a woman I feel they must have gotten something wrong. I’m definitely not a man either – if the gender binary was more flexible, who knows how I’d identify. But currently the fact that I happen to live in a female body means that the rest of the world places me in the ‘woman’ category and therefore expects me to meet certain attributes – and that makes feminism an issue for me.

This is obviously not to say that self-identifying women should not have a space to discuss issues that concern them – whether simply for sharing experiences or as a springboard for a wider treatment of those issues. The problem is that many feminist women – or men – just don’t get that mainstream feminism is not the right kind of feminism for everyone.

There is an experience I assume most women have come across if they are anything like confident in speaking in public. I call it the ‘being the woman on the panel’ experience. Most times I have been asked to speak on a panel or an interview, the notion has been there: it would be good to have a female voice. But here it comes: I am not a female voice. I am my own voice and reducing me to one aspect of my being is far from empowering. 

Again, of course, we need representation and equality, but the way to address this has to be to ask the fundamental questions behind inequality. What is it that gives rise to patriarchy and makes it so difficult to overcome even in a setting that greatly values participation and democracy? This of course goes for any type of privilege and any type of socially constructed artificial categories.  

This is why I cannot see feminism without challenging the prevalent understanding of gender as absolute and binary. 

Dividing us is what the current capitalist system is doing very well to ensure its survival: it fits us all in boxes that have different interests but the common aim to buy our way to happiness. Only by stepping out of those boxes and seeing the nuanced and layered characters of privilege and power can we start working towards greater equality and democracy. 

NORMEMBER

A CAMPAIGN

WHY I DON'T BELIEVE IN FEMINIST PORN

A COMMENT

BY TOVE LYSSARIDES 

 I believe that feminist porn will not get a proper chance to break with mainstream porn as long as we live in a patriarchal society. Therefore, creating so-called new norms in porn does not imply liberation. We must talk about other utopias and strive towards them. Instead of being stuck in the framework of porn, we should explore other ways of visualising attraction between human beings. We must talk about love and passion instead of penetrations and orgasms. 

 I mean, it’s not a bad thing to pay attention to what turns women on; I do think it’s important as well. The problem occurs when we find out that women’s sexuality might be just as misogynistic as men’s. For example: what if we find out that violence turns women on? Would that still be considered feminist porn? Not according to my ideas about feminism. 

 We must also ask ourselves whether feminist porn actually is successful in challenging our conceptions of how to have sex. Are we already so destroyed by our male-dominated and sexist society that we cannot think outside the box when it comes to deciding what’s sexy and what’s not? I believe this might be the case with feminist porn. Moreover, how are we to make sure that homosexuality, dark skin, body hair etcetera don’t become fetishes in feminist porn, too? What if anti-feminists start watching feminist porn?

 Pornography regards sex as nothing more than bodies in interaction - bodies acting in front of a camera in a way that supposedly should turn the viewer on. As a rule of thumb I think it's problematic to pay people for having sex, no matter how great the salary is or how good the working conditions are. Yes, I know that happy sex workers exist but as a radical feminist I still don’t think prostitution should be legalised or promoted because it has major consequences for women’s general position in society. The same thing goes with porn-actors. I urge women who wish to explore sexuality and the female body to find other spaces and frameworks than that of porn – for example feminist performance art. 

 To me it’s deeply worrying that societal norms on sex and sexuality have nothing to do with emotions and affections. Feminists should know that the present-day representation of sexuality is a social construct largely produced by a patriarchal society. We should therefore aim to challenge this. Focusing on what turns women on does not change the patriarchal understanding of ‘sexuality’. Therefore it does not make sense to call this ‘feminist porn’ – it is like promoting ‘feminist prostitution’. We must challenge the entire framework constructed by an anti-feminist society. 

EMMA HARVEY

A SERIES OF PAINTINGS

Emma Harvey is a London based artist with a focus on sexuality and the female body. Earlier this year she curated the exhibition 'Yeastie Girls' which re-visited the ethos of 'Riot Grrrl’.

'5'  2013

Oil on canvas, 

24 x 30"

Courtesy of the Artist

'11'  2013

Oil on canvas, 

24 x 30"

Courtesy of the Artist

‘10'  2013

Oil on canvas, 

24 x 30"

Courtesy of the Artist

THE FEMINIST PORN AWARDS

AN INTERVIEW

KATIE OíREILLY-BOYLES & CARLYLE JANSEN

“The answer to bad porn isn’t no porn... It’s to try and make better porn!”

 The idea of porn isn’t inherently sexist, but the majority of the porn available tends to perpetuate and mirror society’s sexist attitudes. The ‘Good for Her! Feminist Porn Awards’, a Canadian organisation founded eight years ago, decided to take a stand.

 The subjugation of women has been around for thousands of years, and we won’t blame the modern, easy-to-access, mass-produced, commercial porn market – this only being a few decades old - for that. But is porn only capable of providing another platform for sexism? Or can it be transformed and included in the struggle for gender and sexual equality? The Feminist Porn Awards (FPA) believes that it can. 

 The subject of pornography is generally one that needs to be properly discussed. It’s not just part of a counter-culture that we can place in a corner of society and say “well, that’s porn, let them just carry on in their way, and let mainstream culture carry on as normal”; it affects more of us than we think. Porn is always present, as the following figures show:

Every second, over 28,000 internet users are watching porn

12% of all websites on the internet are pornographic

35% of internet downloads are pornographic

The average age at which a child first sees porn is 11 years old 

Porn sites get more visits than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter combined

 But my concern is not with how much porn we watch. My concern is how we incorporate the world of porn into a post-patriarchal paradigm and allow it to live alongside feminist, queer, and general egalitarian principles. The founders of the FPA are of the view that this is definitely possible, and in 2006 they decided that “it’s not enough to criticize adult films for not adequately representing the diversity of women’s, trans folk's- and in many cases, men’s - sexuality.”

 Rather than deciding to treat feminism and porn as a mutually exclusive dichotomy, the FPA encourages more progressive porn by awarding the makers of porn that meets certain criteria. Such porn would display acts and stories which are gratifying and ‘sexy’ for women and transgender people watching, making a change from the vast majority of porn made for men’s eyes only. Such videos achieve this by featuring real female orgasms, avoiding non-consensual or rape scenarios, and starring people who are a variety of different ethnicities, sexualities, genders, shapes, and sizes.

 I interviewed Carlyle Jansen, one of the founders of the ‘Good for Her! Feminist Porn Awards’ to hear some of her thoughts on the idea of Feminist porn and what her organisation does to help its development. 

◦◦◦

KOB:How did the mainstream porn industry specifically influence you to start the Feminist Porn Awards?

 CJ: The mainstream porn industry portrays a very narrow view of sexuality. It does not include much diversity of desires, ages, races, bodies, gender expressions or abilities. Those folks who are trans, people of colour, of different abilities, sizes and ages are often fetishised and stereotypes are usually perpetuated. The pleasure is often unrealistic in terms of what women in particular enjoy and how they orgasm. The awards were started because we finally had a greater selection of films that we felt good about offering our customers and wanted to create an event to celebrate, recognise and endorse those who were making porn that reflected feminist values.

KOB: What are the main differences between the porn you encourage & reward, and the porn that should perhaps be avoided?

 CJ: The porn that we encourage is made under ethical working conditions, where performers

are respected, empowered and offered choice in terms of safer sex options and sexual activities, and are paid a fair wage. Feminist porn seeks to offer positive images that empower and reflect the diversity of those who watch it.

KOB: How do you believe feminist porn helps the struggle for gender & sexual equality and for equal rights?

 CJ: We are all regularly and deeply influenced by imagery. Mainstream porn (and much other daily media) perpetuates many misogynist, racist, transphobic, ableist, ageist and homophobic attitudes.  Feminist porn that showcases more diversity with respect, pleasure and consent for all performers is a powerful tool for changing attitudes. For many, to see one’s desires finally represented or to see ‘others’ in a positive light can be game-changing; equality and respect on screen can be transformational for everyone. 

KOB: What would you say to people who believe that there can be no such thing as ‘feminist’ porn?

 CJ: There are many definitions of feminism, and some believe that porn inherently cannot be feminist because it necessarily exploits (female) bodies. We need to listen to the performers who choose this work because it is empowering, satisfying for them. Those voices are ignored or patronised, essentially robbing them of social agency to make healthy, informed choices for themselves. Some feminists argue that society is inherently racist and misogynist with few alternative opportunities for women, therefore these people cannot make informed choices. We need to respect that performers can appreciate these societal inequalities and still choose this type of work.

KOB: Do you believe/hope that the idea of feminist porn will catch on and end up constituting the main body of pornography?

 CJ: Of course, we would love the mainstream to embrace ethical working conditions, respect for performers and more diversity on screen. While there has not been a total shift, the mainstream industry has definitely adopted some limited changes such as diversity of who is on film (more people of colour in positive portrayals) and desires (more romantic films with attention to genuine pleasure). The more we talk about and purchase feminist porn, the more the mainstream believe that alternative portrayals of sexuality have a ‘market’, the driving force behind change. We can hope that the ethics of Feminist Porn will become more the norm in the mainstream as those voices continue to speak louder.

WHY IS FEMINISM A DIRTY WORD?

AN OPINION 

BY LOUISE PERRY

 This september, in an interview with Red magazine, David Cameron refused to label himself a feminist. Yes, of course he said, "men and women should be treated equally", but going so far as to use the big ‘F’ was a step too far. Perhaps the focus groups had baulked at it, or maybe gender studies wasn't a central part of Eton’s curriculum, but whatever the reason, the Prime Minister's hostility towards the label is not unusual. Though the instant reaction of anyone identifying as a feminist is exasperation verging on fury, it is perhaps worth asking whether this matters. If the prime minister, and the 85% of women who refused to label themselves as 'feminists' in a 2012 ‘Netmums’ survey, still believe in gender equality (whatever they label it as), then surely the label used doesn't make a difference. Perhaps the issue is how we define the word 'feminist'. If the majority thought it was purely 'a person who advocates gender equality', the statistics might look different.

Feminism as a concept is arguably comparable to nationalism, in that both ideologies have become associated with their most extreme elements. Even the most anti-EU Tory would be wary of labeling themselves 'nationalist', although they might happily support nationalism's central precept - national independence. 

 The definition of feminism is by no means uncontested, and the drive to invent new words to describe feminism's most basic principles has been growing clamorously. Influential filmmaker Joss Whedon gave a speech at a ‘Make Equality Reality’ event last month, in which he called for a new alternative to the word 'sexist'; he proposes 'genderist', which he thinks helps to contextualise feminism. 

Part of his objection to the word 'feminist' is  simply the sound of it - to Whedon, it's 

"tonally... like watching a time-lapse video of fresh bread in an oven being burned" - an original, if not compelling, point. The issue is the suffix '-ist', which implies that gender equality is something that must be imposed, something unnatural. No one is born an '-ist'. While Whedon is clearly theoretically all for the basic ideas behind feminism, in that he does clearly advocate gender equality, there is something about the rebranding movement that makes me queasy. While not alone in publicly denying her feminism, girl-powerful         Geri Halliwell wins the prize for the most depressing celebrity quote, with "for me feminism is bra-burning lesbianism. It's very unglamorous. I'd like to see it rebranded. We need to see a celebration of our femininity and softness." Perhaps this is what Whedon is groping towards as well - 'sexism' is an ugly word with ugly associations, while 'genderism' is prettier, softer and more accessible. What is being described is no different and no less ugly, but a new word makes all the difference. 

If we soften feminism by changing the language, are we likely to beckon more non-believers over to the cause? The 2012 ‘Netmums’ survey reaffirmed what commentators have been saying for some time: the younger the women, the less likely they are to call themselves feminists. If this is nothing more than a reaction against second-wave mothers and grandmothers, rather than a true backlash against feminist ideals, Geri Halliwell's 'rebrand' may be worth a try. Bridget Christie, comedian and the media's go-to voice of funny feminism, targets this attempt to create a 'feminism brand' in her standup. The Beyoncé school of lightweight feminism may be laudable if it encourages young women to embrace gender equality, but is it perhaps no more than a cynical marketing attempt to tap into the 'feminist' demographic?

Yes, Christie was asked by big-brand magazines to write about her views on feminism, but only

so long as she chose Lena Dunham as her feminist icon - because Lena Dunham shifts more magazines than Malala Yousafzai, apparently. 

 And here, maybe, is the central point: the language we use to talk about gender equality doesn't matter as long as we're honest about the ideals behind it, but all too often the honesty isn't there. 'Feminism', as a label, may be slapped onto magazines as a way of increasing sales, or it may be rejected by vast swathes of women as alienating and irrelevant, because no one agrees on what it means anymore. In the end, of course, it's just a word, but it's a word that represents a huge history of thought, struggle and, most importantly, female misery in the face of inequity. In my opinion, that's what we should be talking about, not faffing around with semantics. 

OVERTURE

AN INTRODUCTION

BY BJORK GRUE LIDIN

 One hundred years ago hysteria referred to a medical condition in women caused by disturbances of the uterus. This may appear as a long gone era, and indeed feminists have put up a brave fight since then. 2013 itself seemed like a year that broke from a history of gender inequality: Beyoncé Knowles and John Legend came out as proud feminists; gang rape in India sparked outrange that led to the passing of a new Criminal Law (Amendment) Act; Malala Yousafzai held ‘groundbreaking speeches’; and ‘women’s choice’ became a buzz-phrase. But as we all know too well, hysteria as a cultural construction remains, and when we scratch the surface of Beyonce-feminism, Indian-upper-caste-feminism, Malala-confirming-that-the-East-is–a-dangerous-place-feminism, and liberal-choice-feminism it becomes all terribly clear that we do not live in an equal world free from patriarchies and empires. It becomes obvious that feminism is in fact multiple feminisms, but the single current conquering all others is one, which may be less about degendering hysteria and more about reproducing it as a phenomenon that marginalises the feminine subject.     

 It is for this reason that the publication of HYSTERIA does not strive to ‘sell’ a coherent, all-embracing feminism, since that would lead to the appropriation of the currently conquering feminism and thereby to blindness to the injustices that feminists are here to address. HYSTERIA calls for challenging feminist perspectives that are committed to transform rather than reproduce, to disagree rather than agree and to contradict rather than consent. As contributors of this issue point out, there is no single flesh-and-blood misogynistic monster out there for feminists to fight. Fortunately or unfortunately. The monster is everywhere – in all of us. No safe spaces exist and in that sense ‘trigger warning’ is the most appropriate label to mark our time. This makes HYSTERIA a necessary initiative since the only way to transform all of us – the structures within us and outside of us - is through debates, radical feminist debates that is.  

 The theme of this first issue thus came to be ‘Backlash’. It serves as an introduction to important feminist discussions and demonstrates that the real axis of evil is the one between structure and agency. In other words, should we focus on ‘the only game in town’, namely capitalism, patriarchy and empire or should we rather critically analyze the players making the rules for that game. In this issue Katie Auchterlonie shows us how Sheryl Sandberg assumably works to improve gender equality whereas Katie Pitts and Zara Powell argue that we must direct our attention to structures hindering such improvements. In that same vein, Tove Lyssarides asserts that feminist porn is merely a new patriarchal construction while Katie O’Reilly-Boyles believes that feminist porn initiatives are steps in the right direction.      

 I urge all readers of this publication to get their hands dirty and stir up internal and external spaces with some radical feminisms. Read on. Trigger warning.