Protecting women from themselves
The BBC is currently screening a short documentary series about "lefties", a nostalgic look back at the good old days of political activism. On Monday night, it was the turn of The Feminists.
Well, the loony fringes of feminism. As one woman even admitted of the 1980s, some of what went on was "fundamentalist" in nature, close to being like "a cult".
One of things that some of these brave souls 'fessed up to was the firebombing and vandalising of sex shops.
It's difficult to see what this achieved or even what they hoped to achieve. Indeed, if they'd actually really cared about their sisters, perhaps they could have spent some time working to make sure that all the equal-pay legislation that existed was actually put into practise.
But no. They preferred to tilt at windmills, à la Don Quixote.
Mind you, one can't help wondering if they'd have had such problems with the new breed of women-centred sex emporia, such as Sh!. And what about the new breed of female pornographers who are producing porn for women? Does this make them as militantly upset?
What a relief it is to know that such fanatic times are over.
Err, well not quite.
Because the sort of women who targeted sex shops have given up on that – and have now set their sights on, wait for it… other women. And they want to tell other women what sort of sexual lives they can and cannot live.
Top of the list of Bad Sex (if you're concerned about the rest of the sisterhood, that is) is kinky sex where the woman is submissive to a man. (They don’t seem to worry so much about submissive men with a Domme, or being a subbie woman to a dominant woman)
There's a human rights case going forward to Europe at present, where a man lost his job after some sanctimonious, interfering coward anonymously told his employers that he was into BDSM – with his wife and another woman.
When it came to his hearing, the employer admitted that he hadn't done anything wrong. But that didn't stop the two miserable old harridans on the panel lambasting his wife and girlfriend (who'd turned up as witnesses for him) for their behaviour. He was subsequently sacked.
This isn't a unique attitude. It's one that even gets mentioned in the film Secretary. In a surreal sequence near the end, Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is showing her boss/Master how dedicated she is to him, but a vast number of people turn up to attempt to dissuade her. Two of the dungaree-wearing brigade lambast her for what she's doing to other women.
Does this mean that women who play the submissive role in a BDSM relationship with a man aren't capable of really choosing such a role? It's going to turn them into doormats in all walks of life? Such play is going to reinforce any negative attitudes in society to women? It's going to put paid to any chances of women actually getting equal pay and so forth?
Is this what they think?
What planet are these women on? Perhaps it's the same one where a few of the sisters suggested to a major trade union that they started a campaign to get shops to stop putting sanitary products anywhere near baby products – because it was upsetting for women who couldn't have a child.
What's the difference between these sorts of women and the religious nutters who'd love to stick us all in a chador? Both want to control women and their sexuality. But that women should think that it's somehow acceptable to tell other women how they should and shouldn't have sex is amazing, since it suggests that they either don't understand the nature of sexual liberation or don't approve of the reality.
They're the women who have stopped other women calling themselves feminists – because few sane people want to be associated with such extremists.
It would have been nice to suggest that they need a damned good whipping. But on second thoughts, perhaps they'd enjoy that.
Well, the loony fringes of feminism. As one woman even admitted of the 1980s, some of what went on was "fundamentalist" in nature, close to being like "a cult".
One of things that some of these brave souls 'fessed up to was the firebombing and vandalising of sex shops.
It's difficult to see what this achieved or even what they hoped to achieve. Indeed, if they'd actually really cared about their sisters, perhaps they could have spent some time working to make sure that all the equal-pay legislation that existed was actually put into practise.
But no. They preferred to tilt at windmills, à la Don Quixote.
Mind you, one can't help wondering if they'd have had such problems with the new breed of women-centred sex emporia, such as Sh!. And what about the new breed of female pornographers who are producing porn for women? Does this make them as militantly upset?
What a relief it is to know that such fanatic times are over.
Err, well not quite.
Because the sort of women who targeted sex shops have given up on that – and have now set their sights on, wait for it… other women. And they want to tell other women what sort of sexual lives they can and cannot live.
Top of the list of Bad Sex (if you're concerned about the rest of the sisterhood, that is) is kinky sex where the woman is submissive to a man. (They don’t seem to worry so much about submissive men with a Domme, or being a subbie woman to a dominant woman)
There's a human rights case going forward to Europe at present, where a man lost his job after some sanctimonious, interfering coward anonymously told his employers that he was into BDSM – with his wife and another woman.
When it came to his hearing, the employer admitted that he hadn't done anything wrong. But that didn't stop the two miserable old harridans on the panel lambasting his wife and girlfriend (who'd turned up as witnesses for him) for their behaviour. He was subsequently sacked.
This isn't a unique attitude. It's one that even gets mentioned in the film Secretary. In a surreal sequence near the end, Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is showing her boss/Master how dedicated she is to him, but a vast number of people turn up to attempt to dissuade her. Two of the dungaree-wearing brigade lambast her for what she's doing to other women.
Does this mean that women who play the submissive role in a BDSM relationship with a man aren't capable of really choosing such a role? It's going to turn them into doormats in all walks of life? Such play is going to reinforce any negative attitudes in society to women? It's going to put paid to any chances of women actually getting equal pay and so forth?
Is this what they think?
What planet are these women on? Perhaps it's the same one where a few of the sisters suggested to a major trade union that they started a campaign to get shops to stop putting sanitary products anywhere near baby products – because it was upsetting for women who couldn't have a child.
What's the difference between these sorts of women and the religious nutters who'd love to stick us all in a chador? Both want to control women and their sexuality. But that women should think that it's somehow acceptable to tell other women how they should and shouldn't have sex is amazing, since it suggests that they either don't understand the nature of sexual liberation or don't approve of the reality.
They're the women who have stopped other women calling themselves feminists – because few sane people want to be associated with such extremists.
It would have been nice to suggest that they need a damned good whipping. But on second thoughts, perhaps they'd enjoy that.
posted by Amanda Kendal at 11:33 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home