mmm savor the sarcasm

pro-porn/pro-sex feminists are considered radicals. anti-porn feminists are considered the traditional feminists. the "radical feminists" during the 20s weren't suffragettes, they were the ones handing out condoms and teaching about birth control.

...but this lady is just a wingnut.

[Edited on Apr 11, 2006 1:29PM]

I don't know what terms were in use during the 20's, but it has been several decades and you expect terms to be revised in that time. These days, people like Andrea Dworkin and the subject of the news post would be considered radical feminists.

I have a problem with who's doing the 'considering' in this case. My experience both in academia and in the real world has suggested that the paternalistic worldview that people like Jeffreys hold is extremely radical in both venues- most 'feminists' (in both the academic and colloquial sense) that I've known or read think that her feminist ideas have more to do with dictating other people's behavior, not helping to bring about social and poltical equality for women. In fact, for the better part of the last generation, she's been one of the lesser-known 'man-hating feminazi' scapegoats.

Jeffreys' anti-porn sentiments are conservative in a historical view, but really, that hasn't exactly been the dominant viewpoint of mainstream feminism since the late '80s. Besides which, even the most anti-porn of feminists have rarely been on the side of out-and-out violence against people who don't agree with their views (like the bizarre attack on the lesbian SM club Chain Reaction that Roz Kaveney talks about here). If she's not truly 'radical' in the historical sense, then she's at least violently reactionary in a way that is very divorced from a more conservative view of feminism.

Some people's thought process just astounds me. I have tattoos and piercings, yet I am straight, never sexually or physically abused. So what exactly is the basis for her ideology? Maybe she just feels that self-aggrandisement is the solution to her woes...who knows? Better yet, get a life you washed up academia bitch! We here at SG and elsewhere take pride in our ink and piercings, so if you don't like it, fuck off! We're not forcing you to look, are we? Nobody's holding a gun to your head, but MAYBE you should consider it and thin the herd!

all this coming from a woman who gave up dick to make a statement. Worry about yourself lady! It sounds like she's way over compensating, just because your parents flipped when you got your ear double pierced doesn't mean it's all wrong. Not EVERYTHING has some deep seeded emotional twist. Its all scapegoating instead of taking true responsibility for being. I love SG

First: Read what adjunct wrote.

Then note that Radical Feminist is (usually) a specific labelling of a particular kind of feminist, a major part of the so-called second wave of feminist from the 1960s and 1970s.

See Wikipedia entry and also this listing -- Jeffreys probably fits into the "separatist" camp too, noting her stated adoption of lesbianism on political grounds.

Wingnut she may be, but she's also a very classic example of the articulation of what feminism used to be in large part.

Feminism has moved on, kinda sorta, but actually not all that far IMHO.

so my belly button piercing means I'm in an oppresive relationship with a dominant male, the lip piercing means I was analy raped by my father and the ear pericings mean i was just wanting to self harm myself?
If I ever meet her, Ill tell her my tattoos mean "fuck you"

What she said.

Political lesbian? Ye gods and tiny fishes, qu'est ce que le point?
Crazy crazy feminist lady..

the scars on my wrists are because of abuse etc, not the bits of metal and ink that decorate me (or will decorate me very soon in terms of ink!)

They are beautiful! So there.

Whoa! Um, I got tattooed and pierced for my own personal reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abuse or trauma. In fact, I've never been traumatized sexually and have never been abused. I think body art is beautiful and I know everyone on this site would agree with me on that one.

Also, while I do think most porn is bullshit and that women are really taken advantage of in a lot of ways, but so are men. I personally enjoy being an exhibitionist and if women, or ANYONE, for that matter, enjoy it, they should indulge.

On the subject of, oh, what did she call it? Political lesbianism? What the fuck? Man-hating isn't going to make the world better, it's not going to "further the movement", and it's not really going to accomplish anything but pissing off the nice, rational, caring, loving men that are out there and have no intent of hurting women in any way to begin with.

"Heterosexuality is more opressive that the apartheid." Um...I'd feel REALLY FUCKING OPRESSED if I was forced to be with a woman. I'm part of the ilk that is, um, straight? Sure, ladies is gorgeous, but I don't want to be in a relastionship with one. And that's not patriarchy talking, that's my own personal feelings that I've always had. Heterosexuality and homosexuality both are equally naturally occurring and should both equally be respected.

This woman is OBVIOUSLY not a feminist in the sense that feminism is supposed to promote equality and peace between the sexes. Sure, men have done some fucked up things, but so have women.

In short, quit your bitching and repressing and admit that you have a gigantic pole up your ass. How's that for mutilation?

that made me think of how i should have mentioned what was "radical" in the 20s, is more common now. example: birth comtrol. my point being that radicals can often be on the right track for progress.

yea, reactionary- that's the term i was looking for. sheila jeffreys is a reactionary feminist.

I have one major problem with feminists of her genre. If I say anything that is anyway not in agreement with her statements, I am automatically a sexist. I am not, I swear.