Are there any forms of consensual behavior that would 'disqualify' someone from being a feminist?

[willkeaveney62417]

Are there any forms of consensual behavior that would 'disqualify' someone from being a feminist?

The OP's question seems quite clear to me- basically are there actions which women willingly do which are detrimental to womenkind as a whole and perpetuate sexism?

At one extreme there is Julie Bindel going on about how just sleeping with a man is collusion or the notion that actually wearing make up/shaving legs (as you can't possibly be doing that just to please yourself) are colluding with the "patriarchy"

Personally I think that women who are not compelled by direst financial need or trafficking but actually choose to be prostitutes, lap dancers, porn stars, Page 3 girls, darts walk on girls or other "empowering" activities are colluding with sexism and oppression. So yes, I would say all of these are incompatible with being a feminist.

OP Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

(considers changing name to HystericallyEmpowered)

You'd have to make up your own mind on what activities, if any, you think are incompatible with being a feminist and which are damaging to women as a whole.

For me the ones I listed in the third paragraph are. The ones in the second paragraph aren't. I don't particularly care if any one thinks that list is right or wrong but that's my take on it.

The world would be a better place if all of the things in the third paragraph didn't happen. I would like them to be unacceptable in the way slavery, child chimney sweeps, smoking indoors and hopefully performing circus animals are beyond the pale.

I find the fretting over should I or should I not wear make-up or pink, should I be furious if any one calls me "lass", will my daughter's brain melt if I let her watch Frozen tiresome.

@buffy I have already been accused of dictating, stating my opinion would be too foward. I want to learn about you.

Why didn't you take the opportunity to talk about why think there cannot be any other kind of feminism and why the term degradation is anti-feminist?
@ebear You are not stopping me from leaving.
@buffy
@Teeste Why do you think so?
@briar
@still Thanks for moving the thread forward.

Can we be manipulated into believing we are empowering ourselves?

". You'd think close knit communities would evolve beyond these things. I"

LOL.

What do you think OP?

thanks for your input stilllostatthestation

@chopper im not here to teach you

Neither is anyone here to teach you. I want to know your opinions on the questions you are raising. Or do you think you're conducting a seminar?

Oh shit I made OP do a sad face by being too empowered.

So what are you here for?

Askbasil - I haven't actually read "Wifework", although I know it is generally recommended here. The title always put me off (heteronormative) . AIBU?
OP, I'm getting the impression that English isn't your first language, so I apologise if I've been needlessly snide about your language usage. But if you are posting here in good faith and are seriously interested in feminism, you would benefit far more from actually reading some of the books on my list than from badgering complete strangers on the internet to engage with you, when you haven't volunteered a single opinion, observation or thought of your own. That is why you are not getting anywhere here: your attitude means you come across as lazy, hostile, and intellectually dishonest. And if you can't be bothered to read anything, then at the very least sit down and take the time to formulate some ideas of your own before you post here again.

Will

My understanding of Still's position, though I have no doubt she will correct me if I'm wrong, is that punters, pimps and prostitutes should all be criminalised and fined or jailed if convicted, with some leniency for prostitutes in dire personal circumstances.

Is that your position?

Swan

It is about the additional domestic work women typically assume after marrying a man.

I think it may touch on same sex relationships for contrast.

Thank you Yonic, put that way it does sound heteronormative as fuck. But I suppose I'd better read it myself instead of asking strangers on an internet forum to précis it for me (irony, OP, I'm being ironic. I'm doing irony. Geddit? Irony. )

You've missed all the commentary among feminists and also in the BDSM community about it not actually being consenting, then

About the opinion it wasn't consenting?

Sorry, indeed I did. I don't often visit the feminism board, or feminist websites. And I don't know where I could find the bdsm community to ask them. Is there a board for that on here?

My take on the book was it was consenting, but that Anna thought (as woman often do) she could change him, but then got in over her head. But then I never really enjoyed the book (awful writing ruined the interesting plot) enough to really think much about except if he hadn't been a millionaire she probably would have run a mile. And that Mrs.Robinson needed a good slap. I much prefer 50 shades of red white and blue (really funny parady set in Northern Ireland).

Hello irony, my old friend!

The author reflects on her own marriage then begins research on how others find it. It's broadly about people in heterosexual relationships. But the patriarchal differential in same sex relationships should be smaller anyway so her focus seems sensible..?

yonic my position is that the "happy hookers" , the Page 3 Girls, the empowered lap dancers, the darts walk on girls and the porn stars do as much to perpetuate sexism and turning women's bodies into commodities as the punters using/viewing them.

Maybe you can mentally square the circle that only the men should bear any responsibility. I can't.

Do you think the book sounds heternormative uglyswan? It's about the role that falls upon women in heterosexual relationships. Important to talk about haven't read it yet

Thanks for clarifying, Still.

Which parties (pimps punters prostitutes) in the equation do you think should be viewed as committing crimes, if any?

Personally I would feel that forced marriage, supporting or coercing fgm, supporting the concept of "honour killing" are all utterly anti-feminist. I could not believe anybody who said they were feminist and said they supported any of those practises.
I'm sure there are others.

yonic why are you fixating on a point I didn't actually mention in this thread whilst ignoring the points I did make?

To answer your question - in the UK being a pimp is already illegal as it should be. Being a punter isn't apart from kerb -crawling. I would criminalise being a punter.

So far as the providers of the service any woman who is trafficked, held illegally or underage (which for legitimate sex work is 18)is not consenting. So far as those who are not in that position I said in the prostitution and the Greens thread that yes I would criminalise their activities although possibly by means of admonishments/ low level fines. And only if we could reach a state where we had moved to a position that prostitution was as unacceptable as the other things I mentioned.

Whilst I have been replying to your question I see museummum has made a post I agree with entirely.

Do you have any thoughts on this?