'the f word', or 'the longest blog in the world'

It's funny how things come in waves. I won't hear about something for months then all in a week, it's the hot topic; spurred on by a news item or social happening, suddenly wherever I go we're all speaking with the same focus.

Since the NRL incident, women and sexual assault have been bashing their way through opinion pieces and coffee tables. But I have noticed a relative silence on the matter among my social circles (in person rather than online), as if we have assumed we hold the same position, we are the same brand of Feminist, we know where we stand. That little tidbit of sensation has all but exited the mainstream now, but it and the subsequent furor have rekindled my thoughts around Women and Feminism.

Things comes in waves and yesterday I could not avoid Feminism and its waves. At work, through my searches of disability blogs I came across an online battle between "radical feminist" (for want of another term) bloggers and sex worker bloggers. The contention was over bags made by and for sex workers at an Australian convention that said "Sheila is not my sister." Outraged, the women who say "prostituted" rather than "worker" had made a "Sheila is my sister" logo for their blogs and had then waxed lyrical over the "attacks" made by these "privileged, non-representative" sex workers against their "hero" Sheila Jeffreys.

Now I don't want to blog on about Sheila because what struck me in these comment wars was not about her views, but about the bloggers' inability to hear each other and their references to the alleged waves of feminism that have flowed in and over society in the past century or so.

Apparently, feminism has had three waves and apparently these waves hold values that are mutually exclusive.

You can be a second-wave anti-porn anti-prostitution warrior OR you can be a third-wave pole-dancing ignorant "mind-dazed" (an actual quote!) slacker.

You can be a rigid, out-dated, radical anti-sex Sheila wannabe OR you can be an enlightened, sex-positive, queer-friendly, sex-work activist.

You can't like porn and be a feminist.
You can't have an opinion on sex work unless you are a sex worker.
If you believe in sex worker rights you are supporting the patriarchy.
If you are anti-porn you are anti-sex.
If you engage in BDSM you are a victim.
If you are a sex worker you have a history of sexual abuse.

I couldn't believe the barrage of simplistic conclusions that absolutely disallowed complexity of thought or varying views or debate. And! When one person's comments were deemed too challenging to the view of the original blog, they started to be blocked!

I commented here and there, tried to point out that perhaps there was a middle ground. Perhaps Sheila-ites should listen to the sex workers they were supposedly saving. Perhaps there was a place for some porn, especially when it is female-made, queer or demonstrates safe sex practices...

Now, I am aware that I am demonstrating a bias towards the sex-positive, sex-worker rights side of this debate and I make no apology, nor do I wish to hide this. As a rule, I adhere with a lot of what this "wave" of feminism has to say.

The problem here is that then I am labelled third-wave, not allowed to use the word "radical" to describe myself and, according to some, am aligned with the "I can wear a short skirt if I want to" camp. Incidentally, I can and do wear a short skirt most weekends, but I digress.

Back to Tuesday:
I left the blogs and headed out for a beverage or two (non-alcoholic: see health plan).

I came across a group of friends sitting, primarily silently while two wonderful women waxed lyrical on what was wrong with the world. With the system. With the patriarchy. With the fact that even in Newtown - our supposed "pocket" - one of them could be assaulted in a park, then asked by the cops afterwards "Is that what you were wearing?"

These women are (perhaps including but not limited to) queer, sex-positive, kinky, radical, angry, intelligent, witty, bright and engaged. They have become my community in the past few years and represent a diverse range of views. And they debate!

When the conversation steered to a t-shirt worn by a man one of them knew, someone spoke up in opposition to the party line that had been drawn in the past minutes. The offending garment had said "Dead Girls Can't Say No." (It says something about my dark sense of humour that I stated that if a girl was wearing that I would think it sassy, confrontational and ironic...) One reaction was that the shirt was woman-hatred, plain and simple. Another advocated that necrophilia was the problem and that the shirt would be just as bad if it said "Dead people..." When will it stop being about women's rights and start being about people's rights?

GAME ON.

Never tell a Feminist that Feminism isn't needed anymore unless you want to see her face go purple. I won't transcribe the rest of the debate, but it was fiery and I imagine continued on after I skipped off to go see a movie (Synechdoche, New York, which incidentally I have a lot to say about - largely on the role played by women!)

But these Tuesday adventures made me sad. It made me sad that my angriest, most clever and passionate Feminist friends are debating these issues with each other but not always being heard in the wider community. Feminists are battling against each other online, but not face to face where a little more compassion may be allowed for and where comments can't be "blocked" with the click of a button. I was sad because I am tired of fighting and fighting and fighting and would rather leave the office than speak out when co-workers gather round a computer to violently denounce pictures of women at an award show as "fat," "ugly," "a tranny," "a grandma" and so on... (but that's another story)

I am not part of a wave. I see Feminism as a continuum with space for the views of everyone (yes, even Sheila Jeffreys though I think much of her work ridiculous). I don't want to fight with other women about Feminism, but I am not going to be silent when people say she was asking for it or think that, in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence, we haven't got a struggle anymore.

It was quite a Tuesday all round, and I haven't even told you about the meat tray I sat beside for an hour.

...

my mates clare and matty

You know I didn't want to write about the recent explosion of football/rape/feminism/consent/other-relevant-key-words madness. I thought that, firstly, most of my friends and readers would agree with me (so I'd be preaching to the converted) and secondly, that many wonderful people had expressed similar views more eloquently than I.

However, I have noticed recently that a few of my faceborg friends have joined "I Support Matthew Johns" groups and the foul taste that fact left in my mouth has spurred a rant.

You see, I am going to go out and say that I am not that interested in this particular case. Whether or not "Clare" gave consent, whether or not the people who play whatever sport they play thought she gave consent...to all this I say whatever.

Because, you see, I think a big problem in the media attention this has received is the individualising and emotive reportage. We join groups supporting "Matthew" or "Clare" as if these people are our family members and require our love and attention. Debate rages as to his/their and her intentions and feelings and so on as if this is the only time ever that men and women have engaged in a sex act with unclear consent or committed acts that the general public consider morally problematic (e.g. group sex, infidelity). As if by knowing exactly what went on that night and why, we'll KNOW how to fix all of societies "gender problems."

So, in light of all the to-ing and fro-ing about these particular individuals, I am just going to go out and make some sweeping generalisations that I believe to always be true! Most of what I say is directed at the idiots who thought it appropriate to join groups supporting men who would invite their mates back to their room to fuck their date, but there are some truths in there for the 'feminists' who make problematic assumptions of their own!

The following statements have nothing to do with what happened in Christchurch, they are in no particular order, and I have made them into a list because I hope it will make me concise:

1. Police do not have to charge a person with rape in order for it to have been rape. Police make mistakes. People can be afraid to speak out. Money and fame are powerful. Our justice system is severely flawed. As is New Zealand's I imagine.
2. Rape is not the only unethical sex act a perpetrator can perform. Just because something wasn't rape doesn't mean it wasn't wrong or harmful.
3. Sex and Consent are never the responsibility of only one party. It is the responsibility of BOTH parties to negotiate sex.
4. Some women enjoy and consent to group sex, submission and other sex practices YOU may not agree with or find hot. This does not make them a helpless victim or a whore (incidently, there is nothing wrong with being a whore so stop using it as an insult).
5. Consenting to sex acts does not mean merely allowing them to happen or even saying "yes" when they are suggested. It means agreeing to do them with someone you trust or feel confident to stand up to. If you feel uncomfortable during or after the fact and don't feel like you can speak out, you are not consenting.
6. Not only footballers treat women like objects. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if the percentage of footballers who do is equal to the percentage of the general population. This is a whole-society-problem, not an elite-sports-problem.
7. Supporting a victim does not mean that you do not feel for the family of the perpetrator.
8. Enjoying group sex does not make you gay. Being gay makes you gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay.
9. People who have experienced trauma should not be believed / disbelieved based on at what point they spoke out / how they spoke out. Sometimes victims of abuse takes years to talk about it. Sometimes they talk about it jokingly or boastingly to cope. Sometimes they never talk about it.
10. YOU are never an expert on another person's life, experiences and sexuality. Discuss society, discuss sexuality, discuss notions of fame and power, ideas about masculinity and femininity, sexism and feminism - discuss them as much as you can because they are important and understanding them is essential. DO NOT TALK SHIT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AS IF YOU KNOW THEM WHEN YOU DON'T.

and if you are going to write about things please, god, please learn some basic grammar and spelling*

* not intended to be racist or ableist. am referring to people who think "da" is an appropriate replacement for "the"and "l8er" is an appropriate replacement for "later." It hurts my eyes and brain and heart.

The End.

p.s. this is, alack, neither eloquent nor as well expressed as it should be. rage and bewilderment do that to a girl.

...