Screen shot 2013-03-07 at 8.50.33 PM

What is postfeminism? Allegedly it is the space where we can move past feminism, where feminism no longer holds appeal to women and where it can even be harmful to women. As Melissa Gira Grant writes: 

The patriarchy’s figured out a way to outsource hatred of prostitution. They’re just going to have women do it for them.

Grant, who  is a former sex worker (to be specific: not a pimp/madam) claims that patriarchy, an amorphous “they” not rooted in material reality, has outsourced the oppression of women to women themselves. This is an argument made by many who claim that women are the ones who cut other women in other parts of the world, who participate in forcing early marriage or abuse other women in the family. Then Grant gets more specific:

I wouldn’t advocate for a feminism that’s buttoned-up and divorced of the messiness of our real lives. Your feelings are your feelings, but you’re not going to litigate your feelings about my body. The feminist ethics that I signed up for were respect for my bodily autonomy, that my experience is my experience, and that I’m an expert in my own life.

What is postfeminism? It is a desire for control over one’s destiny. It is the hope that someday, no one will call you any names or discriminate against you based on your sex. Yet, when this individual oppression ends – the oppression against prostitutes, against trans women, against my right to choose, against me, will this have achieved female liberation?

The postfeminism of today is deeply rooted in neoliberal atomization. A single female’s experiences are just as valid as any other female’s experience. A wealthy white woman who “makes the choice” to become a prostitute – her choice is equally valid as the poor woman of color who “makes the choice” to become a prostitute. Postfeminism promises the liberation of individual women, but not females. These individuals are fighting against “patriarchy”, a concept that is not individualized or even rooted in material manifestations. Rather, it is as amorphous as its own concept: a male slapping a woman, a man cat-calling a woman, or a man who makes a sexist remark at work is patriarchy rearing its ugly head from the aether. Yet a culture of objectification, where women are plastered up like slabs of meat for sale in phone booths, where women dance for money, where women continue to make $.70 on the dollar; this is not considered a war against women. After all – a woman may now make the individual “choice” to engage in these acts, in these careers, may make the individual “choice” not to bear children to get ahead in business. Acts of violence against my body are crimes against women – but larger systems of oppression suddenly become more complex, more bogged down in uncertainty as we must learn to understand that these systems are made up of individuals who have the capacity to make “choices”. 

It astounds me that leftists who might otherwise deride the idea of free choice under a capitalist system make all sorts of room for women like Grant to write privileged accounts of the system of oppression called the “sex trade”. Broader women’s movements such as the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network  might feel as though an abolitionist stance on prostitution is right and good, but, as Grant would say, they are “privileged” in that their voices are louder than hers – the voice that enjoys prostitution believes that sex work is feminist work. Indeed, the other voices aren’t heard as loudly as the abolitionists “because they’re working”. This amorphous group of women who are pleased as punch to be working as sexual objects for sale are quiet, a silent majority cowed into silence by angry groups of feminist women who claim that 90% of women want out of prostitution.

If the voice of a “queer woman who dates women in her non-sex-work life and has sex with men for work” is not heard as much as the loud majority of feminists who want an end to prostitution, this is because women who “choose” sex work, who come at it from a political perspective of “empowerment” are in the extreme minority. But the individual reigns supreme over the masses in postfeminism just as it does in neoliberalism. When a woman demands her “right to choose”, she is demanding her right. She is situating feminism in a sphere where she does not feel fettered by her sex, where she personally has the ability to pursue whatever she wants. If she is a stripper and a man touches her inappropriately, this is a battle in the war against male domination – but the very institution that shapes his thinking is not in and of itself oppressive. Male domination is boiled down to the individual, becomes a question of one human exerting his will over another’s in an unfair way. It is no longer about systems of oppression, cultures of abuse, or industries of suffering. We are boiled down once again to our individual experiences.

A single person cannot change the world because change is the prerogative of the people. There is no such thing as a mass movement of individuals – they might all be walking in the same direction, but they are checking their smartphones and turning off onto a side street the moment they are required to check their egos at the door.

Melissa Gira Grant’s views are not just dangerous because they blame women themselves for their own oppression –  either as angry sex-negative feminists or individuals who just make “bad choices”. They are dangerous because they shift the blame away from male violence and domination and continue to trump the experiences of a privileged few over the many. Why won’t these leftist blogs and magazines run a counter article to this kind of perspective? Anything else would be hypocritical. Perhaps it is simply not what leftist men want to hear: that their individual enjoyment is not the purpose of female liberation.

7 responses to “postfeminism

  1. Pingback: Postfeminism | Feminist Current

  2. Thank you! This is great. The last line says i all. There are so many layers of hypocrisy in the leftist –and “socialist/marxist”??!!– showcasing of this trope of the “feminist war against women/sex-workers” that it’s beyond hypocrisy- and one more mechanism (like post feminism) of women’s subordination and/or surely anti-feminism to date.

  3. Pingback: Why doesn’t anyone talk about unionizing arms manufacturers? On the idea of sex worker unions ‹ Feminist Current

  4. I have a slightly different take. Where you see neoliberal postfeminism, I see postmodernism in the sense that the notion that social relations are grounded in objective reality is dismissed and replaced with the idea that everyone’s subjective experience/viewpoint is equally true and valid. Probably you are right that the origins of this are in the rise of neoliberalism from the 70s onwards since postmodernism arose in the 90s or thereabouts.

    I also take a different view of why leftists/Marxists aren’t fighting this trend or, worse yet, are adopting its viewpoint uncritically. Male privilege/chauvinism is a part of it, but I think many are afraid to be “on the same side” of an issue with out-and-out reactionaries and fundamentalists who really are at war with all wings of feminism and women’s liberation, who really do want to take away a woman’s control over her own body and life, who want to do all they can to make sure no woman lives a life outside the 1950s-esque Leave It to Beaver model. This same logic — “I’m against whatever my enemy is for and for whatever my enemy is against” — is what propelled the U.S. left to side with a husband with a documented historu of abuse as he tried (and succeeded) in starving his wife by removing the feeding tube from Terry Schiavo lest the left “side with” George W. Bush and the pro-lifers. This kind of thing betrays a serious lack of confidence in one’s own positions and a total failure to come up with an independent standpoint that serve as a compass to guide people through messy webs of tangled alliances and interests that any serious politics necessarily involves.

    This faulty method of orientation begins with the question, “where does my enemy stand?” rather than “what are the issues, where do I stand, and why?”

  5. Pingback: The Weaponized Naked Girl | m a n y f e s t o

  6. Pingback: The Weaponized Naked Girl | Wrong Kind of Green | the NGOs & conservation groups that are bargaining away our future

  7. “Perhaps it is simply not what leftist women want to hear: that their individual enjoyment is not the purpose of female liberation.”

    Corrected this for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s