MAnd below in the description is the mechanism in which radical feminist anti/porn/prostitution activism is misused.
It sounds like a great idea. Encourage a client to participate in the world in a move social and political way. Connect the client with other survivors, take out the aggression built up by being abused, raped, brutalized, whatever. Perhaps it’s a good theory. But, like other attach oppressed to the political fight it is misused.
1. Someone in therapy doesn’t NOT belong on the battlefield. Not on any battlefield. To say that it is connecting them to fighting their oppression. Bullshit. It is using people in need of supportive safe environments that are empathic, constructive and ones that teach important skills such as ownership of feelings, boundaries and being able to move beyond being victimized. The term survivor is valuable but it has dangers. It is forever locking a person victimized to that horror. At some point the best therapy may lead a person to move beyond the victim/survivor time frame. To be able to put it behind them and go forward with a healthy, fulfilling life. A battlefield is not that place. No one becomes healthier in a war. Anger can be a very nourishing emotion that feeds for a long time. Anger has it’s place. But radical feminism points clients at soft targets and says go to battle. If you do you are at war, in a battle with people that don’t inherently realize the worldviews are totally different. Maggie Hays sees herself as fighting the oppression of her people under the crushing repression of porniarchy. That isn’t what’s happening. Until a year ago I had never even heard of Maggie Hays. Probably most of us haven’t. There is no porniarchy. That is a fact. Is there porn? Yes. Is some of it bad, some very bad? Yes. Is it a plot against maggie, against women, against radical feminism? No. I doubt Larry Flynt has heard of Maggie or Jill Brenneman or of Renegade Evolution. Even if he has at best I would guess we have occupied about 12 seconds of his through process. Larry Flynt is a multi millionaire who probably knows little about the radical feminist war against him. As a multi millionaire why the fuck would he even care?
Sending out people in counseling, connecting them to their oppression by fighting Renegade Evolution, Jill Brenneman, Robyn Few??? WTF? That solves nothing and leads the R/F faithful into a battle in which they don’t belong. I can only speak for myself but I am years and years into therapy, to the point where the pain and suffering in the sex industry and from a sexual assault outside the sex industry are long over. I don’t have anger, sadness, flashback, nightmares, nothing about those events anymore. I”m not a victim/survivor. I was but that time frame is over.
I did the rad fem warrior thing. I thought that the empathy that I got from my therapist at CPA was what I would find from all in radical feminism. My therapist at CPA was a trained advocate/counselor/therapist. Trained to be empathic, to help set boundaries, to live healthy. When the program folded unexpectedly, I thought I would find others who were radical feminists to be like the couneslor. They weren’t. I was suddenly a holy warrior to save women from sexual slavery and bought and sold rape and all the r/f lines. I didn’t need to be part of that shit. It delayed for a decade my emotional improvement. Kept me trapped in the victim/survivor role, the warrrior for the cause role. Fuck,,, the greatest victory was what Mary, the advocate counselor stated in the very first hour we met. My survival and health were the victory. That was the only important victory.
Radical feminism/anti porn anti prostitution feminism is often poisonous. Poisoned by autocratic, out of touch leaders like Hughes, Farley and Craft, none of whom survived shit. They are profiteers and holy warriors that stay safe in the bunker ordering the soldiers to fight and risk anything and everything. And God help the victim survivor if they don’t comply. They are cowards, they are heretics, they are apostates, they are anti victim/anti survivors, even collaborators with the evil enemy. Only the enemy doesn’t exist. At least not as viewed by those believing in the fallacy of porniarchy.
We are all fighting rape. All advocating for rights for women, for oppressed populations to be free of abuse, to have equal rights, equal opportunities. Yet the rad fem leadership types hide that fact because they want to be generals in the holy war throwing martyrs at collateral enemies, all while having their high paying jobs, high paying speaking gigs.
I could have stuck with the hypocrisy, God knows I made a lot more money for speaking gigs as a rad fem. Just shut my mouth, ignore the shit I couldn’t swallow and collect the money. But that, didn’t sit with me. The lunacy of NIkki Craft’s paranoia about me and others that blew past barriers and went into advocating death. That is fucking nuts. It is hugely distorted reality. It’s psychosis really.
Maggie Hays and her missive about porniarchy. Holy shit. If she and others really believe that faux sociology and structure making them the victims of histories worst oppressive conquest. As amusing and funny as I find Maggie’s website, it really isn’t. If it were a sociological joke it would be really funny. But people believe that shit. We wonder how someone could become a suicide bomber. What the recruiting mechanism for that is? Take someone hugely oppressed, convince them that they can be a hero and no longer being an isolated victim but instead a brave warrior who took their convictions of fighting the enemy and saving the oppressed to the point of self sacrifice and loss of life while harming or killing people peripherally or totally unrelated to the actual oppressors.
Does George Bush care about a suicide bomber that blows up anyone? Probably not. He doesn’t know the victims. They are just statistics.
Maggie’s theory is completely off. There is no war. There is conspiracy, there is no conquest. Want to fight injustice? Great do that. But framing it in some holy war context against a faux enemy that doesn’t even know it is the enemy or who the holy warriors are, using counseling clients? That is fucking abuse in itself. Maggie and many others would be far better suited if they invested their time in their own health rather than worrying about fighting a war against some enemy that doesn’t even know they exist. And for the most part doesn’t care.
Want to fight oppression of women. Then fight by ending oppression. Not by making enemies of those who are not enemies. Forget the apostasy. Forget the heresy. Just deal with the fucking real world issues like HIV prevention, educating against sexual violence. Even fighting sexual violence with shelters, with programs, with politics free counseling focused on the health of the client, not including the client in the holy war.
Maggie Hays uses radical feminism as a recruiting tool for her war. Kyle Payne used it as a way to abuse a woman. Perhaps both Maggie and Kyle were victimized in the past. Neither of them belong in the political battlefield. Nor do the people harmed by their abuses of their own ideology.
I hate to disappoint the rad fem faithful but I”ve dealth with Farley, Hughes, Craft, Raymond, and none of them give a shit about victim/survivors other than their use in the war. And take a look at the heirarchy. Are any of them, Farley, Hughes, Craft, Raymond, Chesler, Lederer, the list goes on actually taking risks? Or are they just either getting fulfillment via power, authority and money?
Connect someone just recently having been raped to political activism and fighting an oppressor. What a total bunch of shit. Do we tell a cancer patient as part of their therapy they should fight the causes of their cancer rather than focus on chemo? NO.
Radical feminist anti porn feminism is fundamentalist bullshit. It feeds on the same dynamic that has empowered Jim Jones, Osama Bin Laden, Pol Pot. Take horribly oppressed people and empower them to fight the wrong people and to risk everything in that battle while the glorious leaders bask in the benefits.
It’s total shit.
Radical feminist therapy is a set of related therapies arising from the disparity between the origin of most psychological theories and the majority of people seeking counseling being female. It focuses on societal, cultural, and political causes and solutions to issues faced in the counseling process. It openly encourages the client to participate in the world in a more social and political way.
Contents[hide] |
//<![CDATA[
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = “show”; var tocHideText = “hide”; showTocToggle(); }
//]]>
[edit] The Basic Tenets of Feminist Therapy
Feminist therapy has emerged from the recognition that much of human suffering is a result of the unequal distribution of power in society, particularly based upon gender, race and ethnicity, class, dis/ability, sexual orientation, and so forth. These power differentials have been a factor in direct injuries such as sexual assault as well as indirect ones such as limited options. A feminist approach implies a commitment to social change. The practice of feminist therapy is thus politicized in both its theoretical understanding of the causes of injury as well as in its enactment. A collaborative and respectful working relationship is therefore at the foundation of feminist therapy.[1]
Bound, Not Gagged 
Totally agreed. Having “Female Sexual Slavery” shoved at you when you’re feeling vulnerable… well, even if its analysis were correct, and I don’t think it was from the little I know of it (I didn’t go read it, gasp horror), that would NOT equip you to fight successfully. It would just be paralyzingly SCARY.
And I think that fear gets used as a manipulation tool. All the stories about how sex work and porn are absolutely, unremittingly, horrors… well, believing that that’s what sex work and porn are, and knowing the sheer numbers of men that avail themselves of one or the other or both… that makes the world look like an even sicker and more traumatizing place than it is already.
Which gives people who want power numb and fearful shock troops too dissociated to care how they get hurt in whatever bullshit line of duty the unscrupulous and totalizing APRF leader wants.
The only part of Female Sexual Slavery that I think is totally right is the chapter about Patty Hearst. Patty Hearst go so screwed by the government, by the SLA, by F Lee Bailey. But she didn’t turn into rad fem poster girl either. She went on with life, raised a family and is really insightful about actual captivity victims.
I remember so many times hearing about the pro porn pro prostitution people when I did the rad fem thing. All the paranoia about infiltration. Only to find out none of that shit was true. It was all just scare tactics or worse, it was really believed.
Those that use rape/sexual abuse victims as soldiers in this feminist war. That is total fucking shit. It is the feminist equivalent of saying you can trust me, I won’t hurt you, just be my little girl and do what I say and don’t tell anyone when I hurt you or make you do things you don’t want to, or threaten you or indoctrinate you to do self harming activities for the good of whatever.
As an activist, I don’t want anyone to be sacrificed at the altar of the sex worker rights movement. I want everyone to be as healthy and happy as possible. The ultimate life victory for our movement and for humans is the health, safety and welfare of each person. A healthy movement has healthy activists with strong boundaries, respect and diversity coming together as a network.
There is no point in engaging with you in a debate about our respective polar positions pornography and prostitution. We will never agree and that is fine.
I want to ask you, however, about the statement you made about victory for humans being the health, safety and welfare of each person. I’m wondering where this worldview fits with the group bullying recently displayed by you and your cohorts of the blogger Maggie Hays? I read blogs and writings on both sides in order to be as informed as I can on a range of perspectives. I find your recent writings on Maggie, particularly your drawing of parallels between her and a sexual offender, to be utterly contemptible and inexcuseable.
It is incredible, given the proliferation of pornography and the fact that radical feminist dissenters are lone voices in the wilderness , that pro pornography and prostitution campaigners feel the need to use any means necessary to silence the radical dissenters. I include Larry Flynt in this. If you research further you will find clear evidence of his awareness of the feminist position on his rag and the means he uses to deal with their perceived threat.
I have found no honesty in most of the critiques of anti pornography and prostitution positions in most of the “pro” sites that I subscribe to, with a few noteable exceptions. Instead it is the same tired, lazy and disingenuous mantras rolled out again and again. Use of Kyle Payne ( a man certainly not alone in seeking out a cover to enable him to access vulnerable people and place himself in a position almost above suspicion ) as a weapon to target individuals and the radical feminist movement in general is, however, a new low. I am sure that you already know this.
I have worked for 15 years with women, and men, involved in prostitution and with scores of vulnerable people where pornography has been used in their abuse or where they have been forced into pornography. I have yet to meet one person in the real world with these experiences espousing the views that you promote here. You have every right to express your opinions on these and any matters you choose, but you have crossed a very unpleasant line in recent days. If I were Ms Hays, I would be seeking legal redress.
Alison,
“Lone voices in the wilderness” ? Yet they’re able to influence government policy and spending. Pretty impressive for “lone voices.”
Yes, we are real people here. Not everyone has had positive experiences (this is discussed elsewhere on this blog), but have come to realize the dire need to change the laws because the laws are NOT on our side. We also realize the need to be able to speak for ourselves — for better or worse.
Our voices aren’t just lone, they are silenced. This blog is to help break that silence.
PS: Most people on this blog do not consider Larry Flynt to be speaking for them.
LOVE this post, Jill. Well done as usual.
Alison, on the Maggie Hays thing: I’m not sure why Jill linked their names in her recent post, especially as she goes on to say they’re nothing like one another. I didn’t like that either.
But as far as their being a smear campaign against her: I don’t interpret the several posts fisking her “I blame the porno-iarchy” (shouldn’t that be either “porniarchy” or “pornoarchy”?) as bullying. I think some people are really bothered by a few of her posts and are fisking the posts. I think that’s different from bullying, or ostracism, or other inappropriate behavior.
If you want to talk about inappropriate: what about the way that Debs and Anji just got so unceremoniously dumped from “radical feminist” ranks? What about the private emails they are getting? Why are they being cursed for interacting with the “wrong” people? Whey are they being deemed “pro-porn” when they are emphatically NOT and have said so several times, simply because they’ve made friends with us? Why is it so threatening that someone talk to or listen to us? Why is it inconceivable that someone be willing to listen to us without agreeing with us on all issues?
Why did the same things happen to Kim and Antiprincess before this? Why is it a pattern that women find themselves unceremoniously dumped out of radical feminism and seen as enemies simply for changing their minds?
What’s happening to Maggie is that some people don’t like what she has said and are taking her to task for it. No one has threatened her. No one has excommunicated her from their inner circle, as none of us agreed with her in the first place.
Allison thank you for your response.
Answers in order by paragraph
1. Perhaps you should have a conversation with me about our positions on pornography. You made the assumption that I am, to use the cliche, pro porn. I am not. Even my closest allies would indicate that at best ambivalent about porn, have discussed repeatedly how it was used in my own past as tool of victimization of me by a predator. On multiple occasions. While I don’t advocate censorship other than in cases where consent is either not present or not available, I haven’t ever been known for my endorsements of porn. It isn’t, however, every going to go away. That is in very high probability a myth. There are many important battles for feminists to fight long before one gets to porn. While I am an expatriate feminist, I strongly advocate for human, civil and labor rights of women, of sex workers, of humans. There is way too social injustice and oppression of women to place the focus on pornography. I’d rather focus on life threatening, life altering oppression and harms than making the centerpiece of my campaign videos, dvd’s, other media, in which consenting adults are participating. Simply not a priority when rape is still as prevalent, assault is still as prevalent, sexual harassment is still as prevalent, HIV is still is prevalent to name a few. Porn isn’t the cause of those. The cause of all of those other than HIV is a choice made by a perpetrator. Porn doesn’t make them do it any more than watching 24 causes people to become torturers to resolve conflict. To focus on porn does injustice to those harmed in and out of the sex industry. Bigger fish to fry.
Before you pontificate find out what my position is rather than jumping to rad fem cliche.
Paragraph 2, your statement about the comparison between Maggie and sex offender Kyle. Re-read the text. This is a direct quote of mine (BEGIN QUOTE)”Kyle Payne is a microcosm of the dangerous dynamic of radical feminism. He and Maggie Hays aren’t so far apart even though they are worlds apart and I am by no means comparing her to a sexual predator. Agree or disagree with her or her politics, even her methods, but she is not kyle and nothing like him. Their radical feminist anti porn activism websites have hit some milestones this week for very different reasons.” (END QUOTE)
I am by no means trying to silence Maggie Hays. My blog is open without moderation. She is welcome to be a guest on my talk shows on XXBN. As I have stated repeatedly and invited guests with very staunch radical feminist positions, Maggie and others of similar belief structure are more than welcome to state their views on XXBN, even with a guarantee that the show will not be opened up to listener calls, that we will agree to specific talking points and professional respectful dialogue. Maggie’s blog is closed to posts. As are most radical feminist/anti porn blogs. I am not allowed to post anything on virtually any of them, even if we fully agree in entirety on an issue because my presence would to quote anti porn feminist NIkki Craft “dirty someone in that case Andrea Dworkin “just by virtue of my presence. I’m not trying to silence anyone. If you read the archives of my personal blog, I have consistently allowed scathing criticism with out so much as moderation much less edits or censorship. I have never censored anything other than death threats, plagiarism after being notified by an actual author of a significant amount of material posted on my blog by a self described feminist that she did not write the material that she was claiming authorship of. The owner of the material, radical feminist material no less, wrote to me, verified her identity and asked it be removed due to plagiarism. That’s it. That is the extent of my censorship.
Being outspokenly critical of Maggie’s Porniarchy blog is not by any means seeking to silence her. In fact I would argue very loudly for her right to free speech and oppose those who would censor her. I don’t agree with Maggie’s blog and have been open about my sentiments of the context of the porniarchy blog being amusing, frightening and at times funny. I would be bullying if I was trying to intimidate her into anything. I’m not. Disagreement is not bullying. There certainly is both public and private open hostility about me and my views but I am not leaping to the sense that anyone is trying to bully me into silence. Even if they are. Tough shit. I”d say what I’ve said in print to their face. Maggie knows where to find me to express her disagreement. My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is Maggie is in the UK? I am in the US in North Carolina without so much as contact information for Maggie, thus I would be hard pressed to bully or silence her if I wanted to. Which I don’t. I would rather give her forum to express her views.
Given that I stated the opposite of what your accusation about the comparison between Kyle and Maggie, you may wish to re-read what I’ve said both alone and in context prior finding it contemptible and inexcusable for erroneous reasons.
Paragraph 3. Proliferation of porn? Lone dissenters in the wilderness. I was an anti porn anti prostitution rad fem for 7 years. Those opposed to porn are by no means lone dissenters. A majority of the worlds population is opposed to porn at varying levels. They may not advocate it’s end but are nonetheless not fans either. The lone voice in the wilderness speaks to what I have said about who, how and why radical feminism attracts and how it leads to the artifical sense of being a warrior against a vast conquering enemy while vastly outnumbered. For all of my supposed “pro porn” credentials, I haven’t even seen a porn flick in 20 or so years, haven’t seen porn in time frame. It’s not proliferating. It isn’t hard to avoid or ignore unless one chooses to find it either because they wish to or wish to oppose or be oppressed by it.
I am not a pro porn or pro prostitution campaigner. I don’t advocate either. Because I advocate for sex worker human, labor and civil rights does not make me pro porn/pro prostitution and certainly not a campaigner for their advancement. If you had taken the time to read what I have read you would see that I have consistently been very critical of Larry Flynt. I have no appreciation power hungry, money hungry corporate thugs and have been openly critical of him. You can save the relationship between Larry Flynt and I. Larry and I advocate very opposite views. If he had any idea who I was he would have no more use for me than radical feminists. My activism while different from radical feminism is not supportive of Larry or his views.
I haven’t seen what he has done specifically so it is hard for me to comment on your statement about him dealing with their perceived threat other than to say I doubt Larry sees either of us or our movements as threats. Money of his level buys a lot of protection from “threats”. He probably does not like or appreciate feminism or labor rights but he is embedded in the corporate power structure. Don’t kid yourself neither of us are threats to him. Whatever bullshit is is creating is for money and to appeal to a demographic. Not to silence lone voices in the wilderness. If silencing feminists were the goal he would have to do no more than use some of his wealth to bury them in legal costs. He has resources to fight that most of us don’t.
I don’t run a pro site so I am not going to speak to their intentions. Tired, disingenuous mantras fall in every position. Certainly radical feminism has it’s share of the same. Don’t kid yourself, just because you agree with a movement doesn’t make their views any less cliche or hollow.
I have been openly and strongly opposed to Kyle Payne. Even profane more than once. His actions of using radical feminism for trolling for victims is abysmal. I haven’t said anything remotely contrary to that. It is huge low. New, I don’t know, people have been using trust to do what Kyle has done for centuries. Nonetheless he is a psychic vampire who tried to live in the blood bank. Ironically it has been sex worker rights activists that have been most outspoken about Kyle. Many radical feminists have had no comment about him or have openly been critical of sex worker rights activists criticism of him or creation of awareness about him.
I have worked for 12 years with women and men involved in prostitution and with scores of vulnerable people where pornography has been used in their abuse. One however needs to be certain to hold perpetrators and not their justifications or weapons accountable. A rapist rapes as a crime of violence. His weapons be they power, be they patriarchal privilege, be they porn, are not the causes of the rape. The perps are. Violence is a choice, rape is a choice. The bullshit about porn made them do it is just their way of offsetting blame. I would advocate that you not buy into their excuses and hold them accountable, not their reasoning or excuses. Why you are choosing to fight rape and violence by launching uninformed factual misrepresentations at sex worker rights advocates of whom you clearly need to do more study, rather than at the perps themselves, is one of the huge questions I have about radical feminism, and it’s obsession with viewing other women as apostate heretics to the cause. It’s misinformed and misguided.
While I respect your right to your opinion and your right to express it. I would advocate the same that I have advocated for other vocal Jill Brenneman critics. Do your homework. You don’t know me, and instead are launching into critiques that are inapplicable and unsound and which are easy to point out that fact. Your opinions are your own. But they are that. Opinions and in the case of your addressing your concerns about me. You based your case on cliche.
If you were Ms. Hays and were seeking legal redress you would find that you have no case. Your case is built on presumption and on lack of study. Your case would be shredded. Beyond that, first amendment protects free speech. It’s a very tough case to win when someone is opposed to you but has not spoken falsely, beyond that even if they have, damage has to be proven, and there has to be a pool of money someplace to compensate for damages if proven. None of those exist here.
That you advocate Maggie attempt to use the legal system to silence me is somewhat contradictory of your statement that I am trying to silence her. I would also ask where your criticism of harsh statements directed at me by Maggie Hays is. I’d never even heard of her until I found her criticism of me. I was amused someone herself included could view me as this monolithic enemy out to oppress when I hadn’t ever even heard of my alleged oppression victims.
I”m not out to silence Maggie. I advocate strongly for her right to speak even if that right is to speak adversely about me. Ask around Alison. There are many people who know me here. I am known for being as tolerant as anyone of anyone’s right to speech and have allowed free speech that is hostile and contrary to my opinions when many even some on this blog have advised me to pull the plug on critics. Because I strongly respect the right of free speech. When freedoms start being taken away, that is the cliche slippery slope. A slope that scares the shit out of me.
respectfully and in peace
jill brenneman
Excellent response Jill, as always!!
I guess I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t comparing Maggie and Kyle to each other. I made a point to say I felt the opposite. My point is that they are microcosms of the state of the anti porn/radical feminist movement. It is a movement built on victimization/oppression, one that involves far too many people in political activism who are no where near ready to be in that place. Putting people that should be in safe environments to talk, share, seek each others strength to heal from abuse and oppression is instead used as lightning rod for political battles initiated by leaders that are outside the fray of the battle, using people that are still way too impacted by their trauma and that need to be focused on their own healing, not inflicting pain on either themselves or the movement’s supposed enemies. Battle wears down the most trained, most prepared, healthiest warrior. It is no place for mixing counseling/therapy with fighting wars. Someone just coming out of being harmed and recovering from being harmed should not be given weapons to fight, should not be given a construct in which the whole world is considered vastly conquered and occupied by heinous aggressors, the same genre of oppressors that recently harmed the individual. It is a toxic dynamic. It’s a bloodbank for psychic vampires and a catastrophic event waiting for many of it’s adherents. I’ve watched the continuing shift of that movement to the fundamentalist extremism that dominates it now. That movement is inherently exploitative and exploited as it is a virtual recruiting center for victim/survivors.
The radical feminist anti porn movement needs to look at it’s microcosms and reassess where it is and who it is as a movement. Is it a therapy/support/counseling movement for the healing of trauma victims or a political machine to fight in the political arena? That needs to be re assessed and re defined.
The world isn’t out to get radical feminists or radical feminism nor are either lone voices in the wilderness. Radical feminist anti porn/prostitution movement is currently aligned with the Bush Administration, using the strength of the huge US political machine to impose it’s will via USAID, TVPRA. That they found alliance with Bush and his fundamentalist, corrupt politicos is an astonishing statement about its current direction and state.
Outstanding post and responses, Jill…but you do know that this will fall on the usual deaf ears and simply filter through the GenderBorg Collective’s hive mind. Just the fact that you happen to exist and challenge their theories and crackpot activism in itself will qualify you as “pro-porn” and “pro-pornstitution” in their eyes…in the same way that being critical of conservatives will bring out the “dirty communist/socialist” card from zealot right-wingers.
As fpr Allison’s attempt to defend antiporn activists and radicalfeminists as victims of censorship: Really?? As Jill said, no one is out to censor you, and no one here will. All I do at my humble little blog is to expose and debunk what I see as fundamental lies and smears found in your “radical feminist” campaign against porn and prostitution and activist sex workers. It is not “silencing” or even “bullying” to speak in response to others, Allison; it’s just debate.
And Jill has repeatedly stated her position that she is NOT “pro-porn”; simply pro- sex worker autonomy and pro-harm prevention. Or…is the fact that she challenges your ideology all you need to label her as “pro-porn”??
And finally, on Kyle Payne: nice try, Allison, in your attempt to blame our side for your side being taken in by this sexual predator…but it simply won’t wash. It was your side who allow Payne into your community with open arms as an antiporn “male feminist” activist; and it was your side who allowed him full cover for his activities (and there are still some who will still defend him as a “victim” of a “pro-porn smear campaign”).
Kyle Payne, IMHO, is so much worse than even Maggie Hays in that he actually uses his philosophy as a crutch to abuse women, whereas Maggie only uses her words to slander and libel…but they both share a very common ideology and a common goal of exploiting sexual shame and sex-hatered (and male-self loathing as well) to support a reactionary social and political agenda.
This is only my opinion, and not Jill’s or BnG’s. I stand by it as much as I would stand by theirs..and respect yours, even as I disagree wholeheartedly with it.
Anthony
How Genderberg feels about my posts is irrelevant. If they don’t like them so fucking what. I couldn’t care less.
Maggie and Kyle are not remotely in the same boat. Same movement perhaps, that is the only similarity. I don’t agree with Maggie’s ideology, especially the porniarchy blog. That whole porniarchy thread was jaw dropping because I have no doubt that she and others take it dead serious. None of that makes her remotely akin to Kyle Payne. Kyle Payne is a sexual predator.
My only statement of similarity between them is given the very stringent view of this massive oppression taking place of women as described by the porniarchy worldview and the connecting of people that may not be in the best position at this time in their lives to be waging poltical wars attracted both Maggie and Kyle for hugely different reasons, but nonetheless are a huge statement about the movement. In it’s current state anti prostitution/porn rad feminism is a toxic movement.
“It is a movement built on victimization/oppression, one that involves far too many people in political activism who are no where near ready to be in that place. Putting people that should be in safe environments to talk, share, seek each others strength to heal from abuse and oppression is instead used as lightning rod for political battles initiated by leaders that are outside the fray of the battle, using people that are still way too impacted by their trauma and that need to be focused on their own healing, not inflicting pain on either themselves or the movement’s supposed enemies. Battle wears down the most trained, most prepared, healthiest warrior. It is no place for mixing counseling/therapy with fighting wars. Someone just coming out of being harmed and recovering from being harmed should not be given weapons to fight, should not be given a construct in which the whole world is considered vastly conquered and occupied by heinous aggressors, the same genre of oppressors that recently harmed the individual. It is a toxic dynamic. It’s a bloodbank for psychic vampires and a catastrophic event waiting for many of it’s adherents. I’ve watched the continuing shift of that movement to the fundamentalist extremism that dominates it now. That movement is inherently exploitative and exploited as it is a virtual recruiting center for victim/survivors.”
Okay, this makes sense to me. I wasn’t clear on what you meant in your original post. I do think that much of “radical feminism” has the sort of focus you describe. It’s all about people’s pain, about appealing to emotions and, often, pointedly disregarding science. Which would maybe be okay, if it was “We have been hurt by porn.”
But instead it’s “Porn is a menace. Anyone who doesn’t think so, or who thinks it might be more complicated than that, is deluded and therefore an enemy.”
And that… yeah, when one is thinking complexly about the realities of the world, I don’t think one comes to quite that conclusion. There are other menaces, and there are other reasons to disagree besides delusion.
And the way that hurt — and little else — is used as fuel is creepy to me too. If your political movement is on truly solid ground, you don’t need people who haven’t yet processed their pain.
Alison, i have a question for you. You throw terms like pro porn around. I was in the anti porn/anti prostitution movement. A movement that states all porn is prostitution, all prostitution bought and sold rape. Thus by that definition you are calling me and many others collaborators with rapists, sexual offenders etc. If you believe Maggie’s version, then you are calling me a collaborator with the worst conquest, oppression of women in history. Some rad/fem anti porn activists go so far as to state being pro porn is the same as being a rapist.
So before you chastise me falsely no less for equating Maggie with a sexual offender. You may want to consider the language you are using toward me and others. I don’t know anyone that supports rape or rapists. I know having been raped myself that I sure a hell don’t.
So I would strongly urge you to reconsider your language and to bear in mind that the same logic that you advise Maggie to seek legal counsel applies to others here.
Beyond that, need I remind you that Kyle was in the rad fem movement and was exposed by the alleged pro porn movement, at significant criticism by the rad fems. Where are the rad fem heirarchy types condemning their betrayer?
Perhaps they are doing something as valuable as what Craft trumpets as a great activism with pictures and all, and destroying porn magazines. Well that will teach the evil doers…………..
Personally I’d rather give condoms and save lives as a form of activism than rip up porn magazines.
I don’t throw hate speech like how rfapap activists mean pro porn at anyone. That is hate speech. Akin to calling all Muslims pro terrorist. Total shit.
I can also take very strong criticism of my positions without whining that I am being bullied into silence and stood my ground even when one of the rad fem icons inspired death threats literally to shut me out of a conference to protect other rad fem speakers from having to be seen with me.
The blame porniarchy site is what it is, it is faux sociology and hate speech. While I support the right to any speech. I sure as hell am going to be vocal about hate speech. If Maggie feels bullied into silence she needs to develop ovarian fortitude. Taking as strong, hostile and hate spewing a stance is going to draw a response from the so called apostates.
WORD. This really is a brilliant post, and I’ve been having some similar thoughts as well. There is a really unfortunate tendency to conflate activism against abuse with recovery from abuse, and when the activism-based therapy involves direct contact with survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation, it’s not a short step to losing sight of who is really being helped in the process.
I also really like your point about the problematic elements of the word “survivor”. It’s one I was wrote/talked about quite some time ago, and for similar reasons – I’ve sometimes felt that it carries connotations of victimhood-in-perpetuity. I respect the choice of other people to use it if it helps, and I use it myself in certain contexts, but I often resent the sense that there’s an obligation to choose that term as a statement of recovery.
And finally, just to be absolutely clear, I don’t see how any of this discussion can be construed as bullying. I agree with all those who have suggested that the “lone voice” claim is not only inaccurate, but also self-serving – and even if the opinion were an extremely unpopular minority one, that doesn’t imply that the argument should be held immune from criticism. Frankly, that just doesn’t make any sense.
This is a genius post – thank you for helping to solidify some thoughts that have been wandering my brain for several days now.
I went to the Hayes blog, and found this:
>>I blame the porno-iarchy for the (usual) censoring and demonizing of radical feminists in the malestream media.>>
And:
>>I blame the porno-iarchy for the pro-pornstitution ‘feminists’ being unfairly magnified by malestream media.>>
I have a question for you rad-fems who most assuredly read this blog:
Do you want us bring out the sad violin music for you? Because you think sex worker activists are getting more microphone time than you? Don’t make me laugh. All I have to do is read a copy of the New York Times to find radical feminism dripping from it’s pages. So you can save your Sob-Sister act.
You wanna talk about *objectification of women*? Take a look at this NYT article by your fellow sob-sister, Melissa Farley:
Ms. Farley must think it’s amusing to describe Ashley Dupre as a “rented organ for 10 minutes”. Now if that isn’t objectification, I don’t know what is. Ms. Dupre is NOT an organ, for ten minutes or otherwise. (Furthermore, the article is factually incorrect. Ashley Dupre was with Spitzer for TWO HOURS, not ten minutes.)
Apparently it doesn’t matter to your sob-sister Melissa Farley that Ashley Dupre might’ve actually READ that article of her being denigrated in the New York Times. How do you think Ashley would have felt after reading this article and being described like that? How would you like to be called a MOTHERFUCKING ORGAN?
So instead of blaming some “porniarchy” for denigrating women, why don’t you look in the mirror?
Here is a thought process to ponder.
When would it be good to send someone immediately from trauma, to starting treatment to Iraq or any war? If someone was just recently victimized by something hugely traumatic like sexual assault. When would appropriate therapy be for them to go from counseling to soldier firing on labor rights leaders?
That equation, straight from suffering/oppression/victimization directly to self sacrificing, non questioning, holy warrior is rad fem therapy 101. Add to that mix the xenophobic ideology of radical feminism with the world against us view of maggie hays,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
bad idea.
I want to talk more about the conflation of therapy with activism–thanks for writing this up, Jill–but for right now, quickly, in response to this,
“I agree with all those who have suggested that the “lone voice” claim is not only inaccurate, but also self-serving – and even if the opinion were an extremely unpopular minority one, that doesn’t imply that the argument should be held immune from criticism. Frankly, that just doesn’t make any sense.”
my favorite quote , or one of ’em, once again:
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ”
–Carl Sagan
“I’m wondering where this worldview fits with the group bullying recently displayed by you and your cohorts of the blogger Maggie Hays?”
Oh ffs. Who’s bullying whom, now? The woman posts long paranoid screeds on her blog; people who find themselves implicated by said rants fisk her posts in response on their own blogs, not even commenting on hers because she doesn’t -allow- comments by people who disagree; where exactly is the -bullying?-
Look, I’m sorry, but if you’re going to throw down a gauntlet you need to recognize that people are going to respond. Why is this so hard to understand? And really, what, you’re going to take on the entire Patriarchy but a couple of women who disagree with you on the Internets make you tremble and melt away by -arguing- with you? On their -own blogs?-
and btw, Jill here is saying very specifically that she does NOT conflate Maggie with Kyle wrt his predatory behavior. I never mentioned Maggie in my multiple “fuck Kyle Payne” posts and neither did any of the dozen + other people from -various- perspectives (radical feminist, liberal feminist, “sex positive”/what have you feminist, not feminist at all) who fight like wildcats over any number of issues but on this ONE thing at least were able to agree: the guy is a scumbag predator, he’s in feminist circles, he’s still dangerous, spread the word. Is that -really- so hard to understand?
The lone voice thing is passive aggressive martyr bullshit. Radical feminist anti porn activism has the backing and funding of the fucking White House which imposing this worldview worldwide.
To stand there and even say they are lone voices in the wilderness being persecuted. What a bunch of of rubbish. It is a cowards way of throwing out strong opinions then saying everyone is being mean to them in response.
Here is my thought process on the lone voice in the wilderness concept. If the people saying it actually believe it, then they need look no farther than the white house, TVPRA or their heroines Farley, Hughes, Lederer and SAGE. with their TVPRA money, their alliances with the police, the government. And they can whine that tune about being lone voices in the wilderness all the want. When I was an anti twice in 6 months I was invited to the White House 3 times in six months to DC. If they found me three times they can find all these other lost babes in the woods. Who aren’t lost, aren’t alone and are just playing the martyr.
“If I were Ms Hays, I would be seeking legal redress.”
…Are you high?
Lets call it the ‘badical feminism’ and bad fem for short.
to me there is nothing radical about them. those haters are just instruments for the same old oppressive systems.
Ironic that someone pissing about a misunderstood reference between Maggie and Kyle Pain throws a term pro porn which via the rad fem description via maggie hays is colluding with history’s worst patriarchal oppression of women. Essentially she might as well call us Pro Taliban plus.
Thus as someone who has been raped, I really take offense to being called pro rapist and then a few lines down having the threat of legal action to silence my right of free speech for critiquing a blog that says that I as a SWR advocate am trying to intimidate maggie into silence. If Maggie believes so strongly in her position, why would she be intimidated by disagreement? She doesn’t allow posts on her blog from those who disagree with her. Now people that support her want blather about getting attorneys to cease commentary on our blogs?
WTF………..
Wh
[…] Radical feminist therapy « Bound, Not Gagged “Want to fight oppression of women. Then fight by ending oppression. Not by making enemies of those who are not enemies. Forget the apostasy. Forget the heresy. Just deal with the fucking real world issues like HIV prevention, educating against sexual violence.” […]
OMG, Amber what are you thinking? Place pragmatic problems like HIV prevention, educating against sexual abuse over the war on porn? If you were a rad fem you would no longer be a rad fem as such talk is pure blasphemy.
[…] and sex work, and how horrible they are, they aren’t having real conversations about this. They’re not taking into account what kind of activism sex workers need, and sex worker voices aren’t really welcome in terms of activism dealing with sex work or […]
uh-oh, here we go again.
You’ve spoken about rad fems before. You’ve described them (to me, in our little on-line ding-dong a while back) as PRO porn/prostitution. What gives?
A seriies of repeated assertions (‘it’s bullshit. Crap. ‘)
is hardly a rebuttal.
I’m against the legalisation of prostitution for a very simple reason: it will create (as it does everywhere) an underclass, contract real economic opportunities for women (who’s got the collateral worldwide? That’s right, the guys), and normalise sex-as-transaction. That means progressive degradation – both in terms of price (more hookers means cheaper hookers) and quality (more sadists, brutalists etc. looking for progessively more transgressive ‘kicks.’) Number matter. Really.
The decriminalisation of porn resulted in an explosion of truly vicious stuff – gang bangs and double-sodomy (remember Lara Roxx?) are now the norm – not the exception. (U. S. pornographers travelling to Cambodia for young girls to gang-rape on camera? Why not? They’ve survived Kissinger’s carpet-bombing, Pol Pot’s bloody genocide, they’d welcome these guys with open arms…)
I’ve wondered variously if this site is a front for a reactionary group (never underestimate the Right’s enthusiasm for the hooker/breeder dichotomy), or simply a forum for ‘useful idiots’ doing the job for them. Because no woman with any grasp of basic economics will ever say ‘yes’ to legalised prostitution.
And, another thing….just what constitutes ‘sexual abuse?’ Who wind up being prosecuted for what happened to Lara Roxx?
How many nameless women on the net have been raped, and are being downloaded in the guise of legit porn? How does the wanker know? Does he care?
How old are they? Who knows?
Are gang-bangs ok as long as they involve ‘consent?’ Again, how do you know? And, if you have a legit industry (as in California) does the black economy somehow magically vanish? Nope. The net is awash with porn, yet child pornography has INCREASED. Why? Because habituation demands progressively more. For pornographic sex, the trigger is control and transgression (‘rape’ is the third most common word used to google porn.) Habitutaion requries more transgression to get the same ‘high.’ And these guys often have kids, daughters themselves.
How do you police on-line porn…exactly?) How much tax-payer’s money (from women who are not rich) do you want to keep you, and others like you, safe from your personal ‘choices’? Why not be adult and take the consequences of your risks? Unless there not really choices at all?
Freedfromideology writes “I’ve wondered variously if this site is a front for a reactionary group (never underestimate the Right’s enthusiasm for the hooker/breeder dichotomy), or simply a forum for ‘useful idiots’ doing the job for them.”
Jill writes: Well, you keep investigating the right wing connection Freedfromideology.
Referring to sex workers who advocate for our rights as “useful idiots” is extremely condescending and ignorant. We’re strong, intelligent, socially conscious people, not idiots. This is nothing more than a silencing tactic.
Frankly, Ms. Ideology, you’ll have more success finding a link between the right-wing and radical feminism:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/16135/BLI/nation/index.htm
http://tinyurl.com/cccrh6
So in essence, the term “useful idiot” applies to your side of the isle better.
But don’t worry, Ideology, that means your still useful.