Is this feminism?

[username299]

I've just read about a 23 year old who comes from a wealthy background and plans to sleep with 1,000 men in 24 hrs.

In the article*, she calls herself a feminist and says she feels empowered.

I don't understand why this woman wants to do this. I can obviously understand the financial aspect but she talks about the event taking place in a warehouse with men coming in one door and leaving out the other.

I'm obviously behind the times because when I was that age, women didn't aspire to live stream themselves having sex with countless men.

I'm wondering what the hell has happened for women to choose to do this and think it's empowering. These women have the support of their families which I also don't understand.

*Daily Heil

In turn, I'll ask you how a woman who chooses to partake in an industry that has such a negative impact on other women's lives, can be a feminist.

I don't know the woman, so I have no idea what feminist stuff she does. Do you think that women who are religious can't be feminist?

As you said, heels are gendered (sexed) footwear, only women wear them really, and the fact they often cause long term damage is my point. It doesn't matter whether not all women wear them, generally ONLY women wear them and they can cause damage to the body.

Heels change the weight distribution putting excessive weight on the balls of the feet, this can cause misalignment of the knees, hips and lower back.
They can lead to tightness of the calf and actually change the way women run even if they are in trainers. There have been studies on this.
Footwear that causes these sorts of problems and more and are only the expected footwear or one sex is the issue. Can you not see this point? If heels were an intrinsic choice and not the influenced choice then it would not be only women wearing them. You have not made the decision to wear them without a huge influence from our society.

Anything, that only one sex does, which also happens to be harmful like foot binding or elongating the neck with rings or running around in extreme footwear like heels is not an intrinsic choice, it's a choice swayed by societal expectations.

A better example might be why did so many women wear corsets so tight they fainted? Surely you can see the link?

@ARealitycheck

If the definition of feminism is basically a woman can do what a man can with no inpediment, Then what in this case is not feminist about it?

I wouldn't accept that as the definition of feminism.

Feminism (for me anyway) means taking part in actions and behaviours which improve the lives of women in general (not only the life of the woman concerned). A woman having sex with 1,000 men to enrich herself is not doing much to support the cause of women in general. Being able to do exactly what men do and not being judged on different standards is one element of it. But the action she is taking doesn't have a feminist output in my view.

That's not to say she shouldn't be allowed to do it. She should absolutely be allowed if its what she wants (and she is). But that doesn't make it a feminist action.

This is exactly it, it's not a like for like to say feminism is women have the autonomy to copy male behaviour, it's just not the same thing for both sex's.
Equity not equality

Well not all of them, but some as I said certainly did. I was there, been working since the 80s. It’s not a “misogynist trope” unless you reword it to say “all working girls” which isn’t what I said.

Students having sex work on the side was when my Nan was there, my mum was there, when I was there, when my younger siblings went, and even when my daughters were there- so 1940s to today. Some brag about the money they made doing it…just like today. It just wasn’t as widely published in the past as the internet either wasn’t around or it was pre social media. Lads mags & videographers still actively recruit on campuses, paying students £££ for topless photos. It’s been accepted for longer than you think. Again, I lived it.

I don’t understand the need to create revisionist history. This isn’t new.

”Pandering to the patriarchy” indeed, would that include slavish obedience to the whore/madonna construct of the patriarchy? As the rampant condemnation of all sex work seems to me to be toeing the patriarchal line that tells women to aspire to the Madonna ideal.

Historically taking a husband's name was a symbol that a woman was accepting ownership by her husband. Until fairly recently a married woman was quite literally owned by her husband.

The surname change at marriage wasn’t a symbol of being “owned” in most places, cultures or times. It’s been argued to be that by first wave feminists who tried to conflate the status of women with slaves- but unfortunately marital naming conventions have nothing historically to do with women’s rights or lack of rights in a society.

“Coverture is a legal formation that held that no female person had a legal identity,” explains Allgor. “A female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she was married, by her husband’s.” Under coverture, a husband and wife became “one” under marriage. “It sounds romantic, but the ‘one’ was the husband,” Allgor continues. “She becomes, and this is the phrase, ‘legally dead.’ So it’s not that women take the last names of their husbands, which is how we think of it—it’s that they become part of [the husband’s] body. She does not exist in law, only the husband does.”

It's a common misogynist trope to say that women get promotions or advance in their career because they're sleeping with the boss. Like I said, this is still common today and was part of Trump's criticism of Harris; that she slept her way into her career.

You're not the only person who's 'lived it' and women engaging in sex work has never been mainstream at university. Most women I knew who worked got jobs behind bars or in retail, they weren't selling sex. They certainly weren't telling people if they were.

I don't understand the need to create a revisionist history either, it comes across as bizarre.

You're using the feminist as prude trope. Not very original but commonly used. Apparently if you disagree with the exploitation and objectification of women, you're anti sex and want all women in a convent.

Although men love you arguing their case, they really don't need the help.

Yes thank you. The law applied regardless of name change or not.

Forget Trump and Harris. The misogynist trope is to assume all or most women did it. The truth is some women did and still do it.

If you mean by “mainstream” that most women didn’t do it, I haven’t argued anything contrary to that either. Some women did it and it has always been acceptable to society that some women did it. Usually the lower class or ethnic minority women.

Unlike “prude trope” the whore/madonna complex as a tool of the patriarchy is much better researched and established. Yours sounds like you got it off tumblr or buzzfeed.

This has nothing to do with what men want, but the really the problems with modern middle class feminism that is still rooted in patriarchal Victorian “family values”.

To add, I’m not in favour of sex work. I am relating how it’s always been acceptable to society in one form or another for some women to do it.

In addition, the question as to whether sex work is feminist or not is more complex than saying is that what a whore would do or the Madonna? Because Madonna is the ideal and feminism is pushing for women to pursue the correct ideal according to middle class feminism.

Forget evidence of the misogyny you're espousing? Seems very convenient.

Patriarchal structures are all about what benefits men and what men want. I'm surprised that hasn't occurred to you.

You seem to be under the illusion that it's anti sex not to agree with exploitation. Data is easily available on why many women are forced into sex work and it's not because of a love of sex.

Sex work is riddled with violence and abuse and is detrimental to mental health. It's not a safe environment for women to work in and if it's 'Victorian' to want to keep women safe and support them to leave, then I'm happily Victorian.

I'm not sure how seriously to take someone who thinks sex work has nothing to do with what men want.

Forget evidence of the misogyny you're espousing? Seems very convenient.
The fact some women do engage in sex work to advance their own interests is fact. It is also fact that it is misogyny to claim that most or all women do it. My saying “forget Harris and Trump” is because I am not arguing that misogyny doesn’t exist it is you that are arguing that no women has ever engaged in sex work to advance her own interests. That the very idea is all a misogynistic trope- as in made up.

Patriarchal structures are all about what benefits men and what men want. I'm surprised that hasn't occurred to you.
Yes I am quite aware of this thank you. What you seem to be missing is that sex isn’t just what men want, and generally they don’t want to have to pay for it so in that sense free love/promiscuity is more patriarchal than sex work imho. You are over-simplifying the question of sex work and its place in feminism. It isn’t so cut and dry as all sex work is not feminist. You lack nuance and depth in your views.

You seem to be under the illusion that it's anti sex not to agree with exploitation
You are assuming this and trotting out some sort of straw man argument. Of course I don’t agree with exploitation but the question of who is exploiting whom isn’t uni-directional and universal when it comes to sex work.

Sex work is riddled with violence and abuse and is detrimental to mental health
As is a lot of life as a woman. Ever heard of domestic abuse? And how statistically the #1 most dangerous place for a woman is in her own home with her /husband/partner/boyfriend? Risk of violence & abuse isn’t what makes a choice feminist or not feminist.

I'm not sure how seriously to take someone who thinks sex work has nothing to do with what men want.
I didn’t say sex work has nothing to do with what men want, I said that “this has nothing to do with what men want” the this in my sentence refers back to determining whether a particular choice is feminist or not feminist. To consider that properly, you have to also look at what women want. Feminism isn’t as simple as just do the opposite of what men want, even if it is also not what you as a woman want.

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice

The fact some women do engage in sex work to advance their own interests is fact. It is also fact that it is misogyny to claim that most or all women do it. My saying “forget Harris and Trump” is because I am not arguing that misogyny doesn’t exist it is you that are arguing that no women has ever engaged in sex work to advance her own interests. That the very idea is all a misogynistic trope- as in made up.

You're evidently confused. The misogynist trope I was referring to was you saying that women had sex with their bosses in order to further their careers. I said that you reminded me of articles in The Sun who were always going on about working girls sleeping their way to the top.

What you seem to be missing is that sex isn’t just what men want, and generally they don’t want to have to pay for it so in that sense free love/promiscuity is more patriarchal than sex work imho.

Again you're confused. There's a difference between having sex for pleasure and having sex for payment, the difference being freedom of choice.

A sex worker does not get to choose who she has sex with and has little choice over what she does with a client. Rape is common in the industry as is coercion.

There's little choice in having sex because of poverty or drug addiction. There's little choice in being trafficked and there's little choice in domestic abuse.

A woman who chooses who she has sex with, has control over what she does and it's nothing like the experience of a sex worker. Many of whom suffer PTSD and dissociation.

My argument was sex work is about what men want as it's driven by men. The sex industry has little to do with the desires of women and is one way. It's rarely a mutually fulfilling transaction. I very much doubt that the woman being penetrated by 1,000 men is going to gain any pleasure from the experience.

Pimps, brothel owners, pornographers, traffickers, the people that run the sex industry are predominantly men. They don't run it for the benefit of women.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that having sex freely is more patriarchal than selling sex. You can't get more patriarchal than the commodification of women's bodies for the use of men.

You are over-simplifying the question of sex work and its place in feminism. It isn’t so cut and dry as all sex work is not feminist. You lack nuance and depth in your views.

You tell me I lack depth but don't back up your argument. You haven't given any kind of explanation for why sex work is feminist.

You are assuming this and trotting out some sort of straw man argument. Of course I don’t agree with exploitation but the question of who is exploiting whom isn’t uni-directional and universal when it comes to sex work.

That old chestnut. Most recently, there's been a rise in women moving into sex work because of benefit cuts and austerity. Desperate women trying to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children are powerless.

Approximately 95% of street sex workers are drug addicts. Around 65% of sex workers have been raped or survived child sexual abuse. Afghanistani women are selling sex to avoid starvation, I could go on.

You believe this is feminism and they're exploiting men. That it's a free choice and one in the eye for the patriarchy.

You say you're not in favour of the exploitation of women yet are twisting yourself into knots to justify it.

As is a lot of life as a woman. Ever heard of domestic abuse? And how statistically the #1 most dangerous place for a woman is in her own home with her /husband/partner/boyfriend? Risk of violence & abuse isn’t what makes a choice feminist or not feminist.

Sex work is renowned for how dangerous it is, yet you seem to be trying to minimise it. Sex workers are murdered, raped and beaten frequently. They receive little help from the authorities and are dismissed. They're in danger from pimps as well as clients. Many sex workers are coerced by boyfriends.

I didn’t say sex work has nothing to do with what men want, I said that “this has nothing to do with what men want” the this in my sentence refers back to determining whether a particular choice is feminist or not feminist.

Capitulating to the patriarchy, objectifying women's bodies, commodifying women's bodies, performing sexually for men are not feminist choices. They're not choices at all if you have no other option.

To consider that properly, you have to also look at what women want. Feminism isn’t as simple as just do the opposite of what men want, even if it is also not what you as a woman want.

Women don't want to be sexually exploited and objectified. They want to be treated like human beings with dignity and respect. They want to have freedom of choice.

Marginalised women end up in sex work, not well off women with options. It's all very well arguing for their exploitation but don't pretend it's feminism.

I haven't reduced feminism to 'doing the opposite of men'. You seem to be making stuff up.