ยป Death of the Sex-positive Feminist
If a burqa-clad young Muslim woman tells you that only being seen by her husband makes her feel sexy, you don’t believe her. You say she’s been brainwashed by her cultural upbringing. She has Stockholm Syndrome.
Why would you think any differently if a young Canadian woman says that dressing as a slut is “celebrating her sexuality”?
Poststructural literary analysis is based on the “death of the author”. It doesn’t matter what the author claims or thinks they’re writing about: what matters is how people interpret it. Authors do not have a priviledged position with respect to their own work. If someone writes a novel that’s obviously about young Hitler but claims that’s not what it’s about, who cares what the author says?
So when I “read the text” that is a woman’s slutty Halloween costume, I don’t care what she claims she’s doing. In fact, I’m less likely to believe her analysis: she’s too close to the material to read it critically. She has too many incentives to convince me that she’s not being oppressed. I also don’t care what people who benefit from a slutty world say.
Sex-positive feminism may be possible, but it needs to be backed in theory. It’s not enough to just say “I’m sex-positive and I’m a feminist!”
Poststructural literary analysis is bullshit*. I don’t believe in sex-positive feminists exist either, but that’s because I’m fucked up, not because they are. There’s a certain point past which you have to take people at their word, or outright deny their ability to act as autonomous agents. The illusion of free will and consciousness is enough for me — the alternative is as useful and fun to think about as solipsism.
Demanding people justify their existence to you using a rational theory is terribly modern. If the subtext isn’t clear I’m using the version of “modern” that rhymes with “nonsense”. The video in my next post talks about the value of people who don’t exist. I’m more inclined to stray that way.
But yeah, good point about Stockholm Syndrome and the reverse for women in our culture — that’s totally what I assume, and valid generalization. Plus, two white guys discussing it is hopelessly patriarchal, or something. Everything is the worst.
* No, not really.
Jack
2 Nov 09 at 11:42 pm
I deny their ability to act as autonomous agents.
Modernism is pro-observation, anti-theory. Postmodernism is far from the death of theory. I’m not demanding that people form consistent wholes, but any particular cultural game they’re playing must be internally consistent.
Another analogy: Do you believe the oil executive when he says he’s just trying to help the people of Nigeria get the most value for their oil? Why would you dispute his authorship but not others?
Jared
3 Nov 09 at 10:53 am
Don’t you have just as much stake in this as she does? After all, the patriarchy confers a lot of benefits to you, not the least being the idea that young women don’t dress for themselves, they wear skimpy outfits to vie for your attention.
Kyla
3 Nov 09 at 11:05 am
@Kyla: Definitely, which is why you shouldn’t believe me if I argue in favour of the patriarchy. If I argue against it, you still shouldn’t trust me because it’s probably a trap.
Jared
3 Nov 09 at 11:36 am
I thought women wore skimpy outfits on Hallowe’en to scare all the gynophobes?
Jack
3 Nov 09 at 10:37 pm