Some thoughts on "Reclaiming the F-Word"

Reclaiming the F-Word is the book that came out in June, written by Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune of The F-Word Blog. This is not really by way of being a book review as such, just some general musings on the one hand, and a couple of specific points on the other.

The basic premise of the book, as given in the prologue, was that:

Our aim in this book is to provide a whistle-stop tour of activity in the UK today and further afield

...

In order to help us represent feminism fairly, over the course of a year we surveyed as many self-identified feminists in the UK as we could... We asked feminists about themselves, how they came to feminism, what issues were important to them and what activism they undertook.

...

Nearly 1,300 feminists replied, from across Britain, aged from 15 to 81. We believe it is the largest survey of feminists that has been undertaken in recent years. Whilst all surveys have their limitations, now we have evidence of what a large group of UK feminists think and want.

(NB At least part of my interest in reading the book was that I got an email saying they wanted to use my comments from my response to the survey about gender balance in work and home being important to men as well as women!)

So the general thoughts first. The survey and documentation in the book itself of current UK feminism at the grassroots level is invaluable and this book should become standard reading in future generations for courses studying politics, social sciences, gender studies, modern history, etc. With a vast number of references in each chapter, it forms a documentation of what is going on at the moment, and as such seems like it will be an amazing resource and contemporary source for people who in the future want to study what was going on in the first decade or so of the 21st century. In general the authors kept away from taking sides, analysing and ordering the data collected rather than putting their own points of view. The point of view that drives the book is simply to say "look, feminism in the UK is alive and well and kicking hard!"

Specific points: I wanted to mention in particular the book's treatment of sex-positive feminist issues: kink and the various forms of sex work (stripping, porn, prostitution).

On prostitution, the balanced approach of the book was maintained admirably. Recognising that, "Ask feminists what they think of prostitution and you'll encounter widely divergent views," the authors summarise the views of both the anti-prostitution and the decriminalisation camps, and even documenting the activism of a few of the organisations working for sex workers' rights.

However, on kink, porn and stripping the authors appear to allow their own views to colour the discussion of where feminism is at. Admittedly, the term "stripping" is only used once, and referenced in terms of women feeling "empowered" by doing so - the passage is part of a discussion of representing men and women as being equally desirable. This makes it seem like sex-positive views are represented. But the main discussion is about "raunch culture", in which the argument is presented, "Objectification keeps reinventing itself as empowerment." It is only in this sense that stripping and similar things are debated. The sex-positive feminist analysis of "empowerment" in this context is never really addressed.

On kink, there is even less mention. It seems that kinky feminists did not raise their heads above the parapet in responding to the survey (I can't remember if I wrote about kink in my response - I think I focussed on other issues because I thought they were bigger and more important in the context). However, it is apparent that some anti-kink feminists did make their views known. The only reference to kink is in a passage quoted from one person's response (Although the "KinkForAll" un-conference is mentioned in the activism section of the chapter, it is referenced in respect to its role in promoting positive sex education; there is no actual reference to kink itself in that passage). The section heading is "the right to say no", and in fact the person being quoted had a valid point that the authors wanted to highlight, about how women, and teenage girls especially, are pressured to be sexual even when they don't want to be.

The passage quoted in the book talks about how sex is seen as a chore for women, and terms the problem "compulsory sexuality". I have no quarrel with this formulation; it is, indeed, an issue that sex-positive and kinky feminists also identify and address.

The problem comes with this part:

Everyone admits that sexual interactions are more like going to work than having fun. Then you can open a contemporary feminist journal and find articles on sadomasochism, pornography, gender roles, etc. They are all about work as well - working through oppressive power dynamics with sadomasochism ... Nobody is talking about why you can't seem to get away from the sex. Apparently, it's compulsory.

[emphasis mine]

This characterisation of kink, and of SM in particular (when the real target appears to be the D/s element of BDSM, but never mind), goes unchallenged. It is irrelevant to the main point being made and could have been edited out. It leaves the impression that this characterisation of kink is uncontested within feminism, and that just ain't so. Indeed, one of the great things about kink is that it is precisely "having fun". Does it involve work? Well, yes - in the same way that playing a game of football (*ahem* "soccer" for the USAians reading!) involves work. But the point is that, even when it looks like a chore, we wouldn't do it if it wasn't fun (or designed to enhance fun)!

[NB The writer of the comment also made transphobic statements (apparently, "complicating gender roles" is "working through patriarchy", although it's not clear why that would be, when patriarchy is what delineates clear and divisive gender roles in the first place?) - and that also went unchallenged by the authors. I edited out those bits because that wasn't my main point here.]

While the introduction acknowledges that within feminism there is "heated debate" over pornography, this debate does not seem to be represented fairly within the book. The main discussion of porn as it is is under the heading "how we learn about sex". Quite apart from the references to "The Sex Education Show vs Pornography", which I criticised heavily when it was shown on Channel 4, the "debate" is presented solely in terms of what feminists are "concerned" about. As it happens, most of these points are concerns shared by the anti-porn and the pro-porn sides of the debate: porn shouldn't be the way young people learn about sex; working conditions for porn performers; and the tendency of porn to present "being penetrated" as a "submissive" role. Other points, I take issue with (for example, the claim that viewers get to see only penetrative sex as pleasurable to women is just false - most mainstream porn I've seen involves cunnilingus at least as a form of foreplay, and many porn movies demonstrate other forms of external stimulation). But the real feminist debate, which is about how to deal with these issues, is not covered.

What bothers me most, however, is that the authors appear to bring their own viewpoints into the mix here, whereas in general they have simply documented the debates and views of feminists. They argue, for instance, that "Porn is not 'free speech', as its advocates claim; it's the depiction of real sex acts. It is impossible for viewers to know whether what is being shown is genuinely consensual, simple acting, or real pain and violence." (Leaving aside that BDSM porn can be both "real pain and violence" and "genuinely consensual", and might include elements of acting as well, to set the scene). I will not rehearse again the arguments that counter this anti-porn viewpoint; my point here is to say that the pro-porn feminist viewpoint isn't represented - the documentation is apparently biassed. While the text says "many feminists feel" or similar weasel words, when the views of the other feminists aren't given, it gives the impression that the only feminist position is to be anti-porn.

I know that there are kinky British feminists - I read their blogs, I've even met one or two in person! I don't know why the chapter on "sexual freedom and choice" doesn't talk about kink!

I know that there are British feminists who argue in favour of sexual display work (e.g. pole-dancing, stripping, etc). The debate should once again be about working conditions and rights, not about whether women should do it or not (and there is a clear debate to be had there, since in the UK in some pole-dancing/stripping clubs, the workers can end up being out of pocket on an evening's work, instead of having earned any money).

I know that there are British feminists who are pro-porn, or at least anti-anti-porn (Feminists Against Censorship even gets referenced in "Reclaiming the F-Word"!) so why the unbalanced presentation of the views?

These things are important, because without full debate, we get sexist laws pretending to be feminist, that target the women who work in sex work (or who enjoy kink) instead of helping them.