In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Sex, Lies and Feminism

Jill

The Rachel Kramer Bussel column-drama just won’t die, will it?

Rachel Kramer Bussel’s Village Voice piece about kinky, slutty sex is stirring ire in the feminist blogosphere. I agree with Pandagon that what women need sexually is a complete range of options. But my experience with women who identify as feminists is that they don’t like me slapping boys around and pegging them any more than they like women acting out rape fantasies. “False consciousness” is the term I’ve generally had assigned to me, which means “You think you know what you want, but you’re deluded. We’re going to tell you how your sexuality should look.”

Which is why, while I actively support just about everything that feminists identify as political goals, I do not call myself a feminist.


I’m not sure what kind of feminists she’s been hanging out with, but that doesn’t sound like me or most of the feminists I know. Are there a handul of feminists who will pull out the “false consciousness” card? Yeah, mostly women who subscribe to a radical feminist perspective. But as far as I can tell, the women who will tell you that you’re suffering from “false consciousness” if you enjoy submissive sex aren’t running mainstream feminist organizations. They aren’t even close to being the majority of feminist blogs. I’m certainly not one of them, and you don’t find them blogging at Feministe, or at places like Pandagon or Bitch|Lab or PunkAssBlog or Feministing, despite the fact that the feminists and feminist supports at these blogs are all coming from very different perspectives, and support different feminisms. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever read the term “false consciousness” being used seriously on a mainstream feminist blog. But then, I could very well be missing something.

I’m not going to get into this too deeply because other people have already done a better job than I could, but suffice it to say that no one (at least no one that I’ve read) is arguing that you are a bad feminist for liking whatever you like; no one that I’ve read is arguing that certain sex acts are inherently anti-feminist. No one is arguing that a feminist sexuality should look a particular way.

Here’s what, as I understand it, most people seem to be saying: Sexuality is a big part of life. Discussing sexuality, and the kind of sexual acts we enjoy, is a valid part of feminist discourse. I don’t think that most people are doubting the authentic experience of women who enjoy submissive sex, or blowjobs, or anything else. All the feminists are doing is trying to analyze what that enjoyment means, and what those sex acts mean in our current culture, if anything.

My personal view is that our sexual choices are fair game in the realm of feminist analysis. I think when we live in a society where sexuality extends far outside of the bedroom, into everything from advertising to office politics, it would be faulty on behalf of feminists to not talk about our sexual choices. I also think that it’s impossible to separate our sexual choices from a society where people are oppressed on the basis of their perceived sex (among a variety of other attributes). In my feminist worldview, I think it’s worth picking apart our individual sexual choices and asking ourselves how the pleasure we derive from those choices is influenced by a whole array of things beyond our physical reactions. That said, if we derive pleasure from how we negotiate our sexuality in an oppressive system, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can still be a pleasurable experience. It can be an experience that you continue to engage in, guilt-free. And it should be. But I think it’s worth analyzing, even if that analysis leads you to the conclusion that you like it for a reason that isn’t feminist or empowering at all. If a particular sex act is empowering, then that’s great. But it doesn’t have to be empowering to remain a valid choice. It doesn’t have to be empowering to be fun, or to get a “feminist-approved” stamp. I’m not looking to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies or their sex lives, but I also don’t think that sex is above commentary.

But that’s just me, and I certainly don’t expect every other feminist in the world to agree.

Sometimes, that analysis is taken personally — and perhaps it should be. After all, we’re discussing sexual acts that women do, and perhaps we can’t separate the sex act from the person doing it. Or maybe we can. Maybe this discussion is leaving out entire groups of people who should be included in it. Maybe we should be discussing something else. And that analysis is coming from a lot of different directions, with different feminists reaching all sorts of different conclusions, from “fuck blowjobs” to “fuck feminism,” neither of which is as simplistic as it sounds.

Anyway, I went home a little depressed last night after reading a lot of these back-and-forths, feeling like it can’t possibly be productive to attack each other and to act like we’re players on various feminist teams battling it out for who’s the most feminist, and whose feminism is the best. And when I read this Stranger thread (which is also chock full of, “But things are way worse for men!”) I felt like punching my computer screen, because, for the love of God, it isn’t a fight between the kinky girls and the dowdy, sex-hating feminists. And when I read through some of the other threads on feminist blogs that were full of “whose feminism is the most feminist?” challenges, I felt like screaming.

But despite the very real frustrations, I think this has been good for us (or at least, it’s been good for me). I feel like I’ve learned a lot. I’ll read McBoing, or Amanda, or PunkassMarc and I’ll think, “Right on!” And then I’ll read Bitch|Lab or piny or Amber and it’ll stop me in my tracks because, damn, they’re right about a lot of things, too. Of course there are bits and piece that I take issue with, and I’m not sure I can say that any other feminist blogger speaks for me — but they sure have some good things to say, and they teach me a lot.

I know everyone is frustrated. I get particularly frustrated every time someone refers to another feminist blogger as a “feminist” in scare-quotes, or labels people like Amanda “radfems” when as far as I know, Amanda did not take that label herself. I know some people want to see an end to the sex wars. I know some people think that those who want to see an end to the sex wars are being unrealistic. So I’ll try not to fan the flames, and I also won’t wave the white flag. Instead I’ll just issue a thank-you to the various feminists and pro-feminists who have taken the time to explain their views so patiently. I find myself diagreeing quite a bit, but I also find myself learning a lot.

34 thoughts on Sex, Lies and Feminism

  1. Are there a handul of feminists who will pull out the “false consciousness” card? Yeah, mostly women who subscribe to a radical feminist perspective.

    Think you could name some names, instead of making derogatory but unsubstantiated assertions? Surely you are better than this.

  2. Was that derogatory? Many radical feminists (and Marxist feminists) believe that false consciousness exists, and will use that belief to challenge the experience of other women. From what I can tell, the idea of false consciousness came out of Marxism, and was adopted by some radical feminists as part of their own framework and feminist perspective.

    If I’m wrong, please just say so.

  3. You know full well that accusing radical feminists of “pulling out the “false consciousness” card”” is derogatory, as surely you intended the allusion to the accusation of “pulling out the race card” which is hardly a compliment in the political discourse.

    I’d like to know what you mean, and who precisely you accuse of doing this. A few examples at least?

  4. Well said, Jill.

    Sometimes, lost in all of the crossfire is the idea that the blogosphere is actually a pretty amazing feminist teaching tool. Sometimes people seem to get _really upset_ when another blogger doesn’t already hold their same view, but it seems like engaging them, even if you dont change their minds, can create a discussion so many people see and learn from that even a person’s mistakes (like mine yesterday, possibly) create interesting opportunities to challenge and tweak one’s own assertions.

  5. Here’s one essay about feminism and Marxism.

    And no, I did not intend the allusion to “pulling out the race card” at all, although in hindsight I should have at least noticed it. Do I consider it derogatory? No, I don’t. I disagree to an extent with the notion of false consciousness (that discussion is too long to have here), and I especially take issue with the way that many Western feminists use it against women from other cultural backgrounds. But I don’t think it’s derogatory to point out that it’s used.

    My assertion that there are a handful of feminists who will pull out the false consciousness card, and that many of these feminists identify as radical, is from my experience feminist thought, feminist legal theory and taking gender studies courses. Most of my experience with feminists using the “false consciousness” argument relates to my studies of feminism, Islam and the Middle East. One example is this essay (which is quite good) by a self-defined radical feminist:

    “Strangest of all however was the spectacle of young women in the streets of Paris and Cairo and other cities demonstrating against the French government’s announcement in defence of their right to wear the veil, and of God’s divine commandments in defence of this symbol of their servitude. This is a signal example of how ‘false consciousness’ makes women enemies of their freedom, enemies of themselves, an example of how they are used in the political game being played by the Islamic fundamentalist movement in its bid for power.”

    And before you say that I haven’t pointed to any radfem bloggers who have said this, I’ll point out that I explicitly wrote that I hadn’t seen anyone in the blogosphere making the “false consciousness” or the “you’re a bad feminist” argument. See:

    In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever read the term “false consciousness” being used seriously on a mainstream feminist blog. But then, I could very well be missing something.

    I’m not going to get into this too deeply because other people have already done a better job than I could, but suffice it to say that no one (at least no one that I’ve read) is arguing that you are a bad feminist for liking whatever you like; no one that I’ve read is arguing that certain sex acts are inherently anti-feminist. No one is arguing that a feminist sexuality should look a particular way.

    So when I wrote, “Are there a handul of feminists who will pull out the “false consciousness” card? Yeah, mostly women who subscribe to a radical feminist perspective” (note the conditional “will”), I was just trying to recognize the fact that there are self-identified feminists who will tell other women that they are suffering from false consciousness, and that from my experience these feminists come from the radical and Marxist camps (I should have included Marxist in the post). I was not saying that all the radical feminists out there were burnin’ up the internet with accusations of false consciousness against Rachel Kramer Bussel.

  6. I hate the term “false consciousness.” It’s always so patronizing, I think.

    Other than that – good post. The internet is an amazing space for discussion and debate, and I love just reading through threads – it’s more educational than any textbook or class discussion could be.

  7. Pingback: Les Faits de la Fiction » This week in review

  8. I disagree to an extent with the notion of false consciousness (that discussion is too long to have here), and I especially take issue with the way that many Western feminists use it against women from other cultural backgrounds.

    The discussion would undoubtedly be far too long and I may regret fanning these flames, but one could argue (in the purest Marxist sense) that even if we use the claim of “false consciousness” against women from other cultural backgrounds, we ourselves are operating within a false consciousness and our sense of agency in making that ideological assumption is inherently flawed. We think we’re outside of ideology… but you can never be outside of ideology. Even the previous statement which seems self-aware and appropriately meta-theoretical only exists within a Marxist and Althusserian ideology which I personally subscribe to.

    Of course, it’s interesting to use it as an argument against women in non-industrialized nations where the systems of labor and capital are unlike those which frame the Marxist notion of false consciousness. Unless we are going to take the radical feminist approach that capitalism is simply a tool of the patriarchy – and thus false consciousness is a tool of the patriarchy as well. Then we can have false consciousness outside of a capitalistic setting if we can assume a dominant patriarchy in whichever culture we’re talking about, but that leaves out too much of Marx’s original theoretical framework to be a valid application of Marxist false consciousness.

    I don’t know, there are a lot of issues with Marx, but I think the bigger problem is actually with the Marxists. A lot of people who call themselves Marxists have probably barely read the Communist Manifesto let alone cracked the spine of Capital.

  9. Many of the textbooks used by NYU Social Work and other social-issues-oriented classes, at least in my time there, leaned very strongly toward the false consciousness card. Quoting a lot of famous feminists out of context to prove that marriage is bad, heterosexuality is oppressive, etc. There were people in my classes who were as liberal as they come, who still got offended by many of the chosen readings (which the professors didn’t seem to have read in advance of assigning them). This wasn’t the professors’ or the school’s opinion, just readings that weren’t carefully chosen.

  10. The fact that a thoughtful, conciliatory post such as this one could bring as its first response an attack on phrasing rather than content confirms to me something I have suspected for a couple weeks: This subject is now officially useless.

    You know, in my straight white male opinion.

  11. Your rejection of the false consciousness argument stems from your own experience. In your peer group, it may not have any currency, but is it really fair to say that another writer may not have encountered this argument? You don’t know what blogs she reads, or who she talks to in the real world, or corresponds with. At least I don’t think you do – your article didn’t give any indication that you were addressing a close acquaintance.

  12. Chris, if you think that this thread shows the futility of getting a conversation out of this topic, take a look over at Alas.

  14. Think you could name some names, instead of making derogatory but unsubstantiated assertions? Surely you are better than this.

    If I wrote a post about how Chris Clarke forces women to have sex with him, and then Chris responded with, “How dare you call me a rapist?!” it would be intellectually dishonest of me to respond in turn, “What are you talking about? I didn’t call you a rapist! Find me a cite! Show me where I used the word ‘rapist!'” Because a rapist, after all, is someone who forces women to have sex with him, and someone who forces women to have sex with him is a rapist.

    False consciousness is a corollary to internalized hatred/bigotry. It’s when the oppressed group starts to agree with the oppressor that x practice is beneficial, pleasant, enjoyable, or even edifying when it is in fact painful, degrading, burdensome, or tedious. That oppression is a blast. That we must defend oppression at all costs. You know that scene at the end of 1984, when the protagonist decides that he does in fact love Big Brother? That’s false consciousness in a nutshell.

    So when someone argues that women are convincing themselves that blowjobs are awesome when they aren’t, and that pain and humiliation are trivial when they aren’t, because the patriarchy pressures them to define their sexuality and sexual gratification in terms of male pleasure, they are alleging false consciousness. When Twisty makes that idea the thesis of not one, nor two, but three posts directly relating to the blowjob debatecle, she’s making an argument about false consciousness. If you have a problem with people using that phrase, take it up with Merriam-Webster, but don’t go whining to Jill. I’m getting tired of people acting like “false consciousness” is actually defined as “roasting Romanian orphans over a barbecue pit.” It’s a perfectly fair term to use in this context.

  15. I’m working on figuring it out from a Marxist perspective, but my sense is that “false consciousness” gets badly misused frequently. The most frequent form of abuse is the idea that people don’t wake up until some intellectual comes along and gives them a good shake, which in its extreme form ends up some Stalinist notion of the Party as subject and workers as objects. I prefer to think in terms of “mixed consciousness,” how people have conflicting ideas in their heads, and how in struggle they come to recognize their real interests.

  16. I’m getting tired of people acting like “false consciousness” is actually defined as “roasting Romanian orphans over a barbecue pit.” It’s a perfectly fair term to use in this context

    Am I crazy, or was the offensive and derogatory phrase being called out actually “pulling out the ____ card”? Accusing someone of “making a false consciousness argument” isn’t derogatory or even an accusation; accusing them of pulling out a (race, sexism, false consciousness etc.) card always is, because it’s an accusation of disingenuousness. It’s saying you don’t bring up the argument because you really believe in it, you whip out the card because (the accuser claims) you think it’ll shut up the opposition. Isn’t that the perceived insinuation people objected to here?

    But anyway, I find it interesting that many people, most of the feminist bloggers I know of, who would reject the “false consciousness” argument as patronizing and too problematic to use, have no problem pointing out examples of “internalized misogyny.” Which seems to me like pretty much the same thing, as far as presumptuousness goes, it’s just a more acceptable phrase. But it’s still a claim to know someone’s inner motivations for working against what you assert to be their own interests. And it’s often accurate and useful.

  17. Jill explained her use of that phrase, and Betsyr responded thusly:

    I’d like to know what you mean, and who precisely you accuse of doing this. A few examples at least?

    Which seems to me like pretty much the same thing, as far as presumptuousness goes, it’s just a more acceptable phrase. But it’s still a claim to know someone’s inner motivations for working against what you assert to be their own interests. And it’s often accurate and useful.

    I’ve often seen “internalized [whatever]” used to refer to reflexive self doubt. It’s internalized homophobia when it doesn’t occur to my aunt to refer to her partner as a spouse. “False consciousness” seems to be more impervious to consideration; it’d be my aunt arguing that of course her partner isn’t her spouse, that’s just stupid, they’re dykes and dykes don’t form loving committed relationships.

  18. I genuinely hate the false consciousness argument. I’m going to throw out a yellow card (ha) on that one because it tells the recipient that he or she doesn’t know what the fuck he or she believes in and can’t act with independent agency. That’s one assumption I’m completely unwilling to make on the internet.

  19. Plus, I’m not just talking about Betsyr. The phrase–and I mean “false consciousness,” not “-card,” was also objected to over on Mean Feminist, and I’d bet money that there are other examples I just don’t have specific memory of right now.

  20. If I wrote a post about how Chris Clarke forces women to have sex with him, and then Chris responded with, “How dare you call me a rapist?!” it would be intellectually dishonest of me to respond in turn, “What are you talking about? I didn’t call you a rapist! Find me a cite! Show me where I used the word ‘rapist!’” Because a rapist, after all, is someone who forces women to have sex with him, and someone who forces women to have sex with him is a rapist.

    ExFuckingScuse me?

  21. The best analogy I can make right now for false consciousness is that of consumer choice: e.g. We can choose to drink Coke or Pepsi, but is this really a choice when both are merely products of the same capitalist oligarchy?

    Now, maybe when you start applying this to certain aspects of feminist theory it doesn’t hold up, but I don’t think the argument can be dismissed completely when read in a purely Marxian sense.

  22. ExFuckingScuse me?

    It was totally hypothetical, and I only made the analogy in a space where no one could possibly think you capable of any such thing. Still, it was injudicious. Sorry to have offended you.

  23. All I know is, I dropped by Alas to say, “How about we save our nastiness for people beating up prostitutes, and at least treat each other with politeness when we disagree?” and immediately had “Well, you’re just actually asking my end to shut up and not talk, and don’t actually want people to be polite, and actually mean you want us to be nice to rapists, and how dare you accuse us of not engaging people’s actual arguments?”

    That’s sort of a false consciousness argument right there. I mean, here I thought I wanted us to have a reasoned debate and for everyone to dial back abusive language and argument strategies, but what I really wanted was to enable the sex industry and stifle feminist dissent.
    Maybe it was that same internalized misogyny that makes me want to be a housewife in pearls while I serve as a secret agent for the patriarchy.

    Anyway, the point is, thanks for the level head, Jill, as per usual.

  24. I got that it was hypothetical, and a reductio ad absurdum to boot.

    But this is palpably not “a space where no one could possibly think [me] capable of any such thing.”

    Yeah, it was a minor point and a gratuitous thing and how nice to know that my existence is available to you for minor, casual, gratuitous hypotheticals about rape. It’s lucky that I’m there to be an example of something, or a metaphor for something, instead of, say, an actual person who not incidentally has been raped.

  27. Pingback: In which a fight breaks out, causing everyone to denounce everyone else for being militant lesbian trotskyists at PunkAssBlog.com

  28. As I just noted in my blog, another blogger did actually just recently say in so many words “you are NOT a feminist” (if you aren’t anti-‘pornstitution’).

    Consider the source and take with a heaping of salt, sure; but it’s not exactly a terrific rallying cry if one wants to get more people behind the feminist flag, is it? I’m not surprised that some people do end up saying things like “okay, I can’t/won’t call myself a feminist.” Not when there are clearly still people who are happy to inform them that they can’t be in the club unless they pay xyz specific dues.

  30. As per the analysis business…

    well, I’ve been saying this and saying this in so many ways in so many places, no doubt, but in a nutshell:

    there’s a fine line between analysis and sitting in judgment/slagging.

    and particularly when it comes to sexual shit, you know…

    not to rehash the original thread that erm blew up all of this, but: there are ways and ways if you want to talk about I don’t know the cultural meaning of sexact X. at any rate i am pretty sure that “ewwww ICKY” not only is not one of those ways, but in fact is severely detrimental to any sort of constructive analysis *or* consciousness raising.

    why? Because what ‘sex-negative” means to me, at least, is that raising that most if not all of us have gotten to one degree or another, at some point in our lives. It works something like this:

    “Hey, when I go like this, (body part) does this! Hey, look, isn’t this neat!”

    (enter authority figure and/or mocking peers and:)

    SQUASH

    “Hey, I just realized I really like blahblah!’

    SQUASH

    “Hey, can I tell you about this dream I had the other night?”

    SQUASH

    “This is how I feel when…”

    SQUASH

    …and so on and so on.

    I submit that what happened in the BJ wars, to a large extent, was a recreation, more or less, of that basic transaction. It is: not helpful. Not for personal growth, not for genuine dialogue, not for any sort of organic political consciousness raising. It is however a terrific power move, as are all shaming techniques.

  31. I don’t use the phrase “false consciousness” because I’m not sure I know what it means. I prefer “inauthentic preference,” which I believe is pretty much what it says on the tin. Whatever one calls it, though, it seems to me that saying (directly or indirectly) that someone exhibits it is a prolix way to call them a liar, with the added benefit that you can pity them or talk about how defensive the are when they deny it.

Comments are currently closed.