How insulting. I wouldn't even be a feminist if it weren't for my grandmothers, great aunts, great grandmothers, and mother. No, I have never experienced the kind of sexism that they did, but they also made sure I was aware of the consequences of it and prepared to fight against it in my own life. They treated me from a young age as strong and independent as they were themselves. I didn't follow the path that they themselves might have wanted me to take, but they embraced that too, because they trusted me and saw me as a unique individual. The way I live my life is a testament to their (and every woman who has come before me and struggled to overcome the barriers erected against women) work.

Not to mention, isn't "demand[ing] their elders fade away so they can finish inheriting stuff and put right everything their goofy elders screwed up" what the Boomers did? And I have yet to see a person my age do the same thing.

God, I *hate* Debra Dickerson. I lost every shred of respect I had for her (and I did like her before) when she made herself out to be the Grand Arbiter of Who is Really Black. How asinine.

Dickersons' response is so bizarre, it's hard for me to believe that it's meant to be taken seriously.

But maybe I'm giving her too much credit.

You know, if young feminists are really as bad as she says, then the older feminists have failed. What's the point of creating a movement that dies with them?

And I don't see how filling a post with sexist diatribes against young women helps the feminist cause.

Damn kids.

Get of my lawn!

My "feminist awakening" was thanks to Gloria Steinem, and I acknowledge that whenever someone asks about my being a feminist.

Stereotypes and name calling seem almost to be something I signed up for when I became a young feminist - from people outside, and obviously within the movement.

I don't get it. Maybe it's some sort of idealism, but I have always been about making connections with feminists and making progress through cooperation. How sad that these people seem to be so distracted...

I read Dickenson's piece, and just couldn't help feeling that it was incredibly patronizing, and as you pointed out, hypocritical. I'm just reiterating what you are saying -- but the indulgence in distancing stereotypes that make young feminists seem like airheads and 'sluts' who need to listen to more 'experienced' advice really annoys me. I hate being painted as some idiot that has no idea about the circumstances of her own life and the politics of her body -- i think the worst thing would be to act like a robot and just uncritically follow older feminists' lead. I don't think that is what feminism is about at all -- and, as I don't think I can entirely know the experiences of women other than myself -- they can't entirely understand the reality of mine either. young doesn't equal stupid.

On "grateful acknowledgment": Gloria Steinem spoke in my neck of the woods recently and admonished the older feminists in the room to stop seeking it. She said something along the lines of "you made the choices that you did because you believed in them, not to get the martyr medal." It's a message I'd like to hear a LOT more.

But facts are facts: However free women are today is due to the unbelievable sacrifices of the suffragettes and the against-the-odds success of the 'libbers'. We'll stop saying aloud that you don't know what you're talking about if you'll stop believing that you know everything already. Deal?

Cute--we're supposed to stop "believing" we know everything, but the "OG" is only going to "stop saying aloud" that we're dumb.

Clearly there's no room for discussion if Dickinson already thinks we're irredeemable.

And isn't it interesting that these sorts of critics are almost universally obsessed with the trope of the young feminist as pole-dancer?

So because we've stood up for a woman's right to do what she wants without fear of slut-shaming and harassment that must mean that this is (secretly or publicly) what everyone in the movement is doing themselves...

Well it's really no surprise that there's intergenerational conflict between feminists when you consider how the world has changed in the last 30 years.

I was a kid when Gloria Steinem was on TV and when Roe vs. Wade happened. The fight was different then, even though the reasons for fighting haven't changed.

I think that, at the time, we were sexually objectified so bad that women ended up denying their sexuality in order to be seen as equal (just ask me about my first job after college and how many inappropriate remarks used to fly around0. So it's really no surprise that pole-dancing young feminists make them worry that the movement will lose ground.

I'm all for the reclaiming of our sexuality, on our terms. I think that's the next step because it's a different world now; but sometimes it takes people a lot of effort to recognize that when they've battled one way for so long.

I am mostly opposed to Hilary because she spent 6 years on the board of Walmart. I just can't support someone who was with an organization that is so anti-woman, anti-unions, and, well, against a bunch of other stuff I am for as well.

The Dickerson post looks as if it was written in the heat of the moment. At least I hope there would be things in it she would write in a different tone if she had been calmer.

This pole-dancing trope that is going around is a total falsity and fabricated by the MSM. It is out there because it sends the women's movement into a fragmentary mess. Which is what some want. Why would Dickerson fall for that crap?

And she shouldn't dismiss very real reasons why some younger women will not for Clinton. I'll give my reason. A year ago I wrote to Clinton, other NY reps and DOJ protesting the use of mercenaries in Iraq and also my concern for all the rape allegations and human trafficking by these groups. No one wrote back to me about it. Not even Clinton. But guess when Clinton got back to me? Just a few weeks ago when her campaign was starting to falter.

I'm sorry, I can't support a person who triangulates that way.

Not championing D.D., her piece, or her stances on race or young feminists in general.

But I'd like to point out that this idea of the "pole dancer" cuts both ways--yes, it can be slut-shaming, as Mr. Sean adroitly points out, to hold up pole-dancers and body/sex-comfortable women as negatives.

But, look at the context of the statement, which is linked to lower-case "girls gone wild." I believe there is a very good argument to be mad for the fact that much of what passes for "sexually liberated women" these days is actually a fairly heteronormative appeal to...dare I bring up this old warhorse, The Male Gaze? For which there still exists this idea that women must fulfill its expectations, whether that mean going wild at Mardi Gras for the cameras or doing a little pole dance shimmy? Note also that there is no indication to my mind that women doing these things largely for male attention ARE indeed any more "in touch" or comfortable with their body or sexuality.

(Now, a sexy pole dance for one's partner? sure. A pro pole dancer who signed up for the gig consciously to reap the $ rewards? Not my personal choice, but okay, let's talk, fine.)

I hate to quote the Tyra Banks talk show, but it's on late at night when I stay up working. Here's what Tyra had to say about young women making out and making sexual overtures to each other in nightclubs: "Is this stuff you do ladies on your own, because it arouses you to be with another woman? [answer: it was always half-drunk, at a nightclub, with males watching]. Do you think that maybe the fact there are guys there, hooting and hollering [paraphrase] and egging you on because it fits THEIR fantasy is something that plays into it?" And then, Ms. Banks ended by bringing out "Out" lesbian and bi women who had plenty to say to the pole-dancing nightclub-sapphos.

Banks' ultimate point was one I really stand behind--that sexual pleasure with any gender, exhibitionism, exotic dancing, etc.--are delightful if facets of one's sexual expression, for the purpose of one's own and one's partner's(s')pleasure. But doing these things because a girls gone wild-Lohanized-Hiltonized culture (one that is expert in transforming the sexuality of women into consumerist products and brands) is not feminist, not (inherently, if at all) body-positive, and not sexually progressive.

Wow. Dickerson's piece is so demeaning I'm having a hard time believing it came from somebody who claims to be a feminist. Ultimately I think there are people from both generations in the movement who are capitalizing way too much on the media's reductionist "cat-fight" take on the Hilary issue, amongst other things. However, while other feminists (of all ages) have written interesting articles about this issue, the vast majority have managed to do so respectfully. But I feel like Dickerson didn't care about being respectful (hence the degrading terms such as "honey" and "missy", which, by the way, nobody but men have called me in a demeaning way). Her article was really irresponsible in that way, and all I can say is that we should not get dragged into the kind of counter-productive, inane argument that Dickerson would have us participate in.

I am opposed to Barack Obama because he has succeeded at the expense of a woman. I read his autobiography, and he admits that his wife made many more sacrifices than he did in order to facilitate his career. Women, for the most part, do not have that luxury. In addition, he has not demonstrated a sincere interest in homosexual and women's rights. Hillary was responsible for getting the abortion pill legalized and wants to codify Roe v. Wade. Hillary wrote the ENDA (employment non-discrimination act) guaranteeing rights to same-sex partners. Yes, she was on the board of Wal-Mart, but Obama is endorsed by some pretty sexist people, including Farrakhan, and has been in business with slum lords. (Both candidates are ultimately politicians-you know). He is very focused on racism issues- which is great- but I think that since women make up the majority of the population in this country- sexism should be the most important issue. I am tired of being the underrepresented majority.

I'm so over these debates. Courtney acts civilized and tries to raise discourse. And this Debra Dickerson person drags it right back down again. Fuck her and fuck Linda Hirshman and fuck any other so-called feminist who wants to dismiss my concerns and my viewpoint and wants me to constantly grovel at their feet. Great, you did a lot for me. But you left a lot of racist, homophobic, elitist, unhelpful bullshit for me to clean up too.

We do know things they didn't know. That's called progress. I hope the next generation will understand things we don't understand. I really do. And I hope where we failed as a movement, they'll make up for it. And I don't care if they acknowledge my contribution or they think they know everything. I don't care. Because this isn't about personal accolades. It's about real women's lives and improving them. Never would I dream of belittling, reducing, and outright mocking the experiences and concerns of other women. And if Debra Dickerson has no problem with doing that, I have no problem telling her where she can stick her fucked up version of feminism.

Okra, I don't think anyone disagrees with you. What I disagree with is the idea that young feminists are doing these things without a second thought. I've known feminists who were strippers and I've known non-feminists who were strippers, but guess which ones actually were empowered by their work? I won't deny that there are women who do all those things without thinking about it, but they are not typically feminists.

Holy crap! I just got into this with my mom last night! She says, "So you are angrier and smarter than everyone, eh? I see a lot of young women today and I just don't get where they're at. They want to be feminist sex kittens? It just doesn't work that way. Sex and the City. I don't get it. Boobs, make up, shoes, clothes, they're all so important? They don't need men to be objectified,-- they've objectified themselves, and isn't it glamorous?"

This coming from the woman who took me to my first pro-choice rallies. Super.

I think the two biggest flashpoints between the generations are power and sexuality.

With regard to power--because of the wonderful work the older generations have done (and are still doing) and because of our own work, we are more free to assert ourselves in powerful ways.

Take a survey. How many of you have cussed out a man for behaving in a threatening, sexist, or inappropriate manner? How many women twenty years ago would feel free to do that? How many of you have challenged sexism or refused to go along with even petty slights, when our foremothers had to tolerate it in order to keep their already precarious hold on the corporate world? How many of us went through math and science classes in high school that were evenly split by gender, while women like my mother were the only women in their AP Physics classes? How many of us have realized the power in telling people about all the ways we are physically dominated and intimidated? When I realized how few of my male friends and relatives knew what it was like to be a woman, I started telling them about the groping, the catcalling, the threats, the stalking. My mom occassionally shares stories like these with me, but only after prodding, and although she has told my father about them, I am sure she has not told her own. How about sports? My baby sister wrestled (behind my parents' backs). Three of the four of us girls studied martial arts. My brothers did not.

With regard to sexuality, we have lost so much of the shame (many) older women feel about sex. For some of my friends, it means that they are happy having multiple partners, that they are as safe as they can be with their choices re: contraception, and for others of us, it means we feel free to say no to sex, that sex is something we should only have if/when we want it, not when he wants it because it is somehow expected. That is tremendous freedom! And speaking as someone who had a "sexual dysfunction" that I have worked through---I love Sex and the City! It helped me start joking and making snarky comments about sex with my friends, it was the jumping off place for many conversations with my friends, and this 'casual attitude' towards discussing sex was what made it easier for me and other friends with sexual dysfunction to start talking about it, sharing information, and getting support.

So boo.

Also, isn't it kind of unfair for her to compare feminist older women with frivolous younger women? Trust me, I could write a glorious hit piece against older women for being sexist, vain, and shallow if I just left out all the feminist women I knew.

Where is this idea that all older feminists are in lockstep Clinton support coming from? My mother was born 2 months before WWII, is a lifelong feminist, and was supporting Obama before I'd made up my mind. Ditto for my aunt who is in her eraly 40s.

For years and years, only the likes of Phyllis Schlafly called Clinton a "feminist", because her commitment to feminism is indeed so well concealed that only right-wing nutjobs who favour legalising marital rape can see it. Could it possibly be that feminists who oppose her oppose her for feminist reasons, and not because of "mommy issues"?

And what's with this notion that everyone either supports Clinton or Obama? What planet do these people live on?

No president since 1980 has had more than app. 30% of the electorate voting for him, for the same reason that that will probably be true agtain this year: 40% of the population have already figured out that their interests aren't on the table at all, and never will be.

Could it be, then, that some of us oppose Clinton AND Obama AND McCain or whatever other disgusting prick the GOP might come up with? That we aren't fooled by the fact that Obama has campaign signs with CHANGE written on them, or by the fact that both of them mouth the word "withdrawal" whenever Iraq comes up while meaning "permanent occupation"?

So maybe, just maybe, it's not so much a generational issue as the ability to recognise a lack of fresh things on the menu.

"the ability to recognise a lack of fresh things on the menu"

Elise, in 2000 there were plenty of people with the with this "ability." Under the assumption that there were no differences between Gush and Bore (they were so clever!), they voted for Ralph Nader. Look at where that got us!! Why do you think there are so many former Nader supporters and progressives who are opposing his run now?

I'm not naive enough to think that politicians can fix everything with the wave of a wand, but I also don't see any wisdom in that level of cynicism.

waxghost, thank you for the clarification. You are right that D.D. used the term "feminists" and that that changes the tenor of the charge.

On the other hand, I've read quite a few articles since Clinton's run by Morgan/Hirschman-generation writers, and some of them do make a point about the larger culture of "young women." My points can be seen as a response to that.

And, really, so many young (early 20s--early 30s) women consciously and loudly reject the title "feminist" that I almost would suggest it may be helpful to think in terms of young women in general when discussing the current culture.

Very, very sad to me to hear young women say "GOD, no, I'm not a feminist. Are you kidding me?" I used to say things like that to but that was back in my undergrad days, when I identified so strongly with the anti-colonial and People of Color movements that I felt (wrongly) they were mutually exclusive with feminism.

The question is: for young women without this specific perspective, what is THEIR reason for treating this word like an epithet?

Okra--EXACTLY. Thank you so much for saying that.

waxghost, thank you for the clarification. You are right that D.D. used the term "feminists" and that that changes the tenor of the charge.

On the other hand, I've read quite a few articles since Clinton's run by Morgan/Hirschman-generation writers, and some of them do make a point about the larger culture of "young women." My points can be seen as a response to that.

And, really, so many young (early 20s--early 30s) women consciously and loudly reject the title "feminist" that I almost would suggest it may be helpful to think in terms of young women in general when discussing the current culture.

Very, very sad to me to hear other young women say "GOD, no, I'm not a feminist. Are you kidding me?"

I used to say things like that, too, but that was back in my undergrad days, when I identified so strongly with the anti-colonialism and People of Color movements that I felt (wrongly) they were mutually exclusive with feminism.

The question is: for young women without this specific perspective, what is THEIR reason for treating this word like an epithet?

PLEASE forgive my typos..they were truly typos and not misspellings.

Thanks, heller, and BTW, I am in my late 20s.

I am just barely 30, and there was a time in my teens and early 20's when I was adamant that I was NOT A FEMINIST. I had been convinced by anti-feminists that feminists hate men, and I like some men very much. I also thought that feminists were anti-children,so angry, and that feminist thinking was very selfish. Now that I am a mother of two daughters I am realizing that feminism is about taking care of ourselves, our mothers, sister, and daughters, and that patriarchy hurts everyone, including men. (I am not saying that feminism is OK because it benefits men, but that feminism is not about hate.) Oh, and feminists are angry because there are so many things to be angry about.

OKRA-I so agree with your point of view. I wish there was a way to contact people on this site. I think I could learn a lot from you. I am not sure if this is allowed here, but if you would like to, please email me at oberlanderh@hotmail.com

Lotus,
I'm grateful to witness compassion in your comment. hear here!

Rationalthinker,
I agree and hope it's ok to share your comment with others.

Okra,
I know so many who feel they cannot choose feminism and continue to fight racism. It boggles the mind until we delve into cause and hear of experiences at classes within primarily "white" universities where exclusion felt by anyone who could be seen as "other" was common.

About our elders:
Perhaps at 42 I am now an elder also? Not all elders share DD's views. Those who do still deserve to be heard by. In the case I am confronted by feminist views that do not completely align with mine, I hope my response is respectful and compassionate. Becoming angry and stereotyping (older or younger) rarely resolves an issue such as this.

I'm a middle aged feminist who knows that pole dancing can be incredibly liberating financially as well as sexually....not to mention a decent and amusing form of exercise.

heard from not by..

and decent as in a good work out.

Wow. I feel like the only person on here whose mother wasn't a feminist (my mother was/is openly opposed to feminism/ rolls eyes and gets angry every time I talk about feminism). Until about one year ago, I had ever only met one woman who openly stated she was a feminist (the school counselor where I was raised). She got a lot of crap for it, up to and including losing her job, but she was a big role model for me. Most of what I've learned about feminism has been on sites like this online. I feel like I must've missed something, though, having had no real personal interaction with other women who've embraced feminism.

Wow. I feel like the only person on here whose mother wasn't a feminist (my mother was/is openly opposed to feminism/ rolls eyes and gets angry every time I talk about feminism). Until about one year ago, I had ever only met one woman who openly stated she was a feminist (the school counselor where I was raised). She got a lot of crap for it, up to and including losing her job, but she was a big role model for me. Most of what I've learned about feminism has been on sites like this online. I feel like I must've missed something, though, having had no real personal interaction with other women who've embraced feminism.

Wow. I feel like the only person on here whose mother wasn't a feminist (my mother was/is openly opposed to feminism/ rolls eyes and gets angry every time I talk about feminism). Until about one year ago, I had ever only met one woman who openly stated she was a feminist (the school counselor where I was raised). She got a lot of crap for it, up to and including losing her job, but she was a big role model for me. Most of what I've learned about feminism has been on sites like this online. I feel like I must've missed something, though, having had no real personal interaction with other women who've embraced feminism.

I wonder what Susan B. Anthony would hav thought about burning bras ...

Elise, in 2000 there were plenty of people with the with this "ability." Under the assumption that there were no differences between Gush and Bore (they were so clever!), they voted for Ralph Nader. Look at where that got us!! Why do you think there are so many former Nader supporters and progressives who are opposing his run now?

The fact is that the number of Nader voters was so insignificant that it did not determine the result of the Bush/Gore contest, especially when one takes into account the uncounted Florida votes. Nader blaming is popular, as is acting as if the votes that (legitimately, not through manipulation) went to other candidates were somehow Gore's by right, until they were usurped. Those people's votes would likely have gone to no one at all, if Nader hadn't been an option.

Furthermore, there is nothing "cynical" about recognising facts. One such fact is that the Democrats and the GOP both are well to the right of mainstream opinion, the minute we expand the definition of "mainstream" to include the population.

Another such fact is that there is no anti-war candidate amongst the frontrunners. Nor is there a pro-universal health care candidate. Both Obama and Clinton have come out against the one option with overwhelming popular support, and are essentially proposing different ways to subsidise the private insurance industry. Nor is there a pro-labour candidate, apart from some quickly-forgotten lip service. Instead, as always, we have a contest between a few pre-selected representatives of the elite who share the priorities of about 1-10% of this country's population.

If this were truly an issue-driven election, would the debates be padded with inanities such as "which of you loves America more?"

Politics and Hillary Clinton aside, I have to say, if the ultimate goal of the "feminist movement" was to give women the freedom to opt in to unequal gender relations, then I feel the "movement" was for nought. I am a feminist *precisely* because I reject the traditional male hierarchy that reduces women to sex objects. There is nothing in that statement that says I hate men.

It makes me sad and angry that young women would ever find activities like pole dancing something they wanted to learn how to do. The feminist movement *failed* to instill a sense of pride and respect in women if, 30 years later, the "daughters" are happily learning how to gyrate on a pole in front of their boyfriends and their male colleagues.

Someone please explain to me the mindset of the "new feminists".

Angryyoungwoman, I haven't known a lot of openly feminist women either. In fact, all the women I would cite as influences that made me a feminist never actually used the word (though one or two may have if I had specifically asked); it was in their actions and example, though, so when I finally found out what a feminist really was, I knew I was one. :) But I am still trying to find some strong, preferably feminist women to hang out with myself, so you're not alone.

alikatze, I believe that a woman can pole-dance and still be completely empowered/smart/strong/etc. By suggesting that she can't, you're denying her humanity as well. What is it about taking one's clothes off (or wearing short skirts, according to Dickerson) that negates a woman's humanity? And why is sex work assumed to be inherently demeaning by the very women who don't want us to be judged solely by our bodies? That is the same attitude that allows the patriarchy to pretend that women (whether scantily clad or not) are mere sex objects with no minds of their own.

Elise, the reason so many Nader supporters have denounced him in this and the last election cycle is because we found out the hard way that there is a very real and discernible difference between George Bush and Al Gore.

I agree with you that the level of discourse surrounding this election (and especially the last debate) has been shameful. However, I think that a large part of that has been because there are few policy differences between Clinton and Obama. Beyond that, I’m not sure I follow your points about both parties being out of touch with “the mainstream.� Even if I accept that they are (I sort of do, though I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than that), that doesn’t mean it’s valid to equate the two. I think this, “They’re all scum!� approach is too simplistic. Looking at healthcare for instance, there are many ways to achieve universal healthcare. Quite a few of the countries that have universal healthcare have done so with private insurers. If you actually look at the candidate’s policy proposals there are big differences between Obama/Clinton and McCain. I happen to like Clinton’s plan better, but both are vastly superior to McCain’s. I am sick to death of this election, and I think it will only get worse. I want to check out too, but there is just too much at stake.

Angryyoungwoman, my mom isn't a feminist either. In fact she laughed when she caught me reading Feministing on my laptop one day.

Dickerson, and MANY others, make the mistake of conflating "young women" and "young feminists."
It's not young feminists who aim to be in GGW, etc. In fact, I'd say those women would run screaming from the feminist label.

waxghost, wow, i am "denying [a woman] her humanity" because i find a young woman's desire to perpetuate male-dominated sex fantasies (via acts like pole-dancing), to be sad and upsetting?! that's really a stretch.

i have absolutely *no clue* how perpetuating the stereotype of women as sex toys for men is humanity affirming -- care to explain that one?? given your response to what i wrote, i would say there is an even larger generational disconnect than i previously thought.

Alikatze,

I happen to really like belly dancing. I've never done it in front of men, (except my fiance, who was reading a message board on the computer and who I made promise not to laugh b/c in the early stages of belly-dancing, the coordination ain't so great---at least for me) but I enjoy it tremendously because it is a wonderful workout that improves my partner dance skills and because it is sensual. I would probably never show off the more advanced or exotic belly dance moves, even at a club, but that is because I choose to express my sexuality in private. Not all women do. There are exhibitionists, there are women who feel it is important not to be ashamed of their bodies, and there are sex workers. I think all of them are entitled to just as much respect as I am.

That doesn't mean that when we engage in sexualized behavior we shouldn't interrogate it to determine whether we are upholding/subverting the dominant paradigm, and how we feel about that, and whether we are engaging in the behavior because we want to, or because we want others to want us.

Who cares about short skirts---wearing skirts at all in this culture is a gendered expression. So is wearing makeup, heels, styling one's hair, wearing it long, wearing engagement rings for women but not for men---I could go on and on. As feminists, we should consider why we are making these choices, whether we are imposing our conformist views on others, etc.

But I am completely against a maginot line of feminism---meaning, if you cross this line you are not a feminist. (With regard to sexual expression, that is.) Remember what happened with the Maginot line? The french mounted a bunch of guns in cement to protect their borders, the Germans overran the lines, and turned the guns on the retreating French. Ooopsies. What I mean is, we shouldn't create hard and fast qualifications for personal expression that others can use against us.

Ack, that Maginot line story I heard was just a urban legend!

But the analogy holds with what actually happened, which was that the Germans flanked the line, and took it, overrunning parts of it, and later used it to defend against the liberating American forces.

So, the enemy using our own lines in the sand against us, in short.

Ismone, thanks for your post. However, I see one issue with what you talk about: you are doing belly dancing for exercise; what other young women are doing - pole dancing, for instance - is to provide sexual gratification to men. Of course, I have no issue with what you do; to be honest, if women want to pole dance for men, fine, let them, but please don't tell me that feminism is in there somewhere because it's just not.

I don't see how standing firm about taking pride in yourself and rising above oppressive attitudes is at all related to the Maginot Line.

The maginot line applies because we are drawing a line (on this side, feminist, on that side, not) that non-feminists can use to criticize women who are in a double-bind already.

Even if women are pole-dancing, like I said, as exhibitionists, or as their job, or because they want male attention, I don't think that makes them not feminists or somehow worthy of derision. It makes the act not feminist, if it is not undertaken based on feminist reasons, but it doesn't make the act anti-feminist.

In other words what I take issue with your stance is that women who pole dance/dance naked (whether men are present or not) are failing to "ris[e] above oppressive attitudes." Do we have to keep our clothes on to be respected? Do we have to eschew expressions of sexuality? Exhibitionism?

And some women do pole-dancing for exercise. If it makes them happy, whatever.

What do you think about sex workers? Are they anti-feminist? Is sex work problematic? If so, should we place the blame (or more of the blame) if there is any to be had, on the workers or the consumers? (Shame on those people nationwide working for less than minimum wage! How could they!)

I think if feminism is required to be all inclusive (and happy about it!) of women who freely choose to be nothing more than sex objects to men, then feminism as a movement is over. Movements *are* lines in the sand, people, otherwise they wouldn't be movements!

If you can't clearly define what you are fighting against, then you aren't fighting.

alikatze, if you can step away for a second from what you perceived as me insulting you (and I don't blame you for that, since I would be pretty insulted by it too. I just hoped that it wouldn't derail what I was trying to say), I did actually attempt to explain what I meant. Basically, your critique seems to stop at her physicality and not evaluate the whole woman. I don't really know how else to say it.

"I think if feminism is required to be all inclusive (and happy about it!) of women who freely choose to be nothing more than sex objects to men, then feminism as a movement is over."

If anyone here were arguing that women who choose to pole-dance were choosing to be 'nothing more than sex objects to men' then this criticism would hold. However, simply because someone chooses, in one aspect of their life (whether personal or professional or some mix thereof) to engage in an activity that might be characterized as 'non-feminist' does not mean that we should characterize that person, or even that act as 'anti-feminist.'

I would further suggest that far more harm than good would come from creating a litmus test for what is and is not a good or true feminist. If we were to exclude anyone who, either out of deference to a patriarchal socio-economic structure or thanks to the ambiguities of the human sexual psyche, took part in or perpetuated some 'male dominated' sexual fantasy, the ranks would be thin indeed.

"Movements *are* lines in the sand, people, otherwise they wouldn't be movements!

If you can't clearly define what you are fighting against, then you aren't fighting."

Maybe. But feminism is far more than a movement. It is also a philosophical and ethical system that has come to privilege a plurality of views over certain master narratives.

But even if we limit our discussion to feminism as a political movement, I'm unconvinced that the militaristic metaphors suggested by a 'line in the sand' or the idea that we need to define our enemies are either the most appropriate or even useful ones.

If real change is the goal then 1)Inclusivity is likely to bring speedier results than exclusivity. As the old song goes 'If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." 2)As theorists like Gayatri Spivak have suggested, provisional coalitions of those with like material and ideological interests [that is needs] are more likely to achieve results than permanent associations of the like-minded.

Alikatze,

Without meaning to, I think you are reducing women to their sexual expression.

I don't think that sexual expression, even if it usually or probably is pandering to male fantasy, strips a woman of her value.

In fact, it seriously pisses me off when men speak disrespectfully of sex workers. Some of my friends have been sex workers, for a time.

And you didn't answer my question--if we are condemning sex work, who is "worse" the buyer or the seller? Should we feminists usher out those who sell stereotyped sexual performances, or those who buy them, or those who think a woman's sexual expression makes her less human.

I think you can guess which groups I want gone.