feminism
19 Jan 2012
Killjoys, Wowsers And The P-rn Wars
Were the Suffragettes puritanical? Hardly. As the debate over p*rn rages, the history of feminism is being mischaracterised as the terrain of wowsers and killjoys. Helen Pringle responds to Eva Cox
Eva Cox tries to portray feminists who have concerns about what she characterises as "tasteless porn" as simply being in the grip of "current anxieties about the dominance of markets", and as linked to "puritanical" strains in the history of feminism. In the process, Cox has rewritten that history to police the boundaries of feminism so that it does not include women who have a concern with the power of images and words in pornography.
Cox also slips in a characterisation of some of the Suffragettes who campaigned for the vote as wowsers and killjoys. She laments, "Women members of the Christian Temperance Union fought for women to get the vote in the hope that women would vote to ban alcohol". In fact, those women and others knew only too well the dangers that alcoholism posed to women’s safety and equality when it was linked to male entitlement.
The Suffragettes more broadly are often portrayed along Cox’s lines as delicate creatures asking for protection from "evil masculinity". But when Christabel Pankhurst coined the slogan "Votes for Women … and Chastity for Men", it was a call for an end to sexual subordination and damage of women often caused by the spread of VD through the prostitution of women. It was not a sexually puritanical claim. There is no evidence that Suffragettes, or in fact feminists, appreciated intimacy, love or beauty any less than anyone else.
There is also no evidence that these supposed killjoys were meek creatures begging for protection from the master or the state. Take Emily Wilding Davison, who was killed on the racetrack at Epsom in a collision with the King’s horse Anmer. By that time in her brief life, Emily had amassed an impressive charge-sheet of assault, property destruction (rock throwing mostly), threats, arson, bombing attempts and so on.
Reading accounts of women like Emily Davison today, the word "terrorism" comes to mind. The women who planted bombs, etched acid into golf courses, set fire to postboxes and cut the telegraph line from London to Glasgow, called themselves that. Laura Wilson, a weaver from Halifax, told a reporter: "I went to jail a rebel, but I have come out a regular terror".
And people like Wilson were treated like terrorists. In fact, some intriguing research indicates that modern surveillance probably began in efforts to control the Suffragettes, with long-lens photography, for example, being used as a way of keeping track of them, so that they could be identified prior to their giving trouble. (I guess they liked to pose as ladies, with their enormous hats, in order that no one would see terrorists coming.) The Suffragettes of course knew what the police were up to in taking their photos, and took precautions not to be captured on film. They would move, look down, or in other ways spoil the photo. Long-lens photography was designed to circumvent such measures.
Suffragettes were not only hostile to themselves being captured as an image. In 1913, some took to damaging great works of art. They had done damage to valuable property before this time, of course, including exhibits and mummy cases in the British Museum, and attacks on stained glass windows — as well as "collateral damage" to artworks from arson attacks on private homes and other buildings.
The new phase of tactics began rather spectacularly when Mary Richardson slashed the painting known as the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery on 10 March 1913. Throughout 1913, Suffragettes attacked paintings in the Manchester Art Gallery, the Royal Academy, the National Gallery, the Royal Scottish Academy. Later, other paintings were damaged in the Doré Gallery, the Birmingham City Art Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, with the attacks only ceasing in July 1914 along with other forms of Suffragette "terror". A cartoon from the time shows ranks of policemen lined up in front of gallery paintings, making it very difficult for art lovers to see them.
It is not absolutely clear why these attacks were made. Mary Richardson said that she had damaged the Rokeby Venus as a protest against the treatment of the recently arrested Emmeline Pankhurst, whom Richardson called "the most beautiful character in modern history". Richardson added, "Justice is an element of beauty as much as colour and outline on canvas." When asked about her action 40 years later, Richardson said that she had lost her temper with men gawping at the nude in the painting all day long. Mary Wood attacked a portrait of Henry James at the Royal Academy, and said, "I have tried to destroy a valuable picture because I wish to show the public that they have no security for their property nor for their art treasures until women are given political freedom." Mary Ansell attacked a portrait of the Duke of Wellington at the Royal Academy on 12 May, claiming that she was protesting against the sexual abuse of women and girls.
These women were of course criticised on various grounds for their actions, very familiar again today. They were criticised for being vulgar, and unaware or careless of aesthetic merit and beauty, as well as for sexual prudery and wowserism. Emmeline Pankhurst however said that the damage in fact improved the Rokeby Venus, arguing that the damaged picture would be for ever "a sign and a memorial of women’s determination to be free".
These courageous women knew very well the power of images, knew how images and speech do things. It is by no means self-evident that sound aesthetic judgment should exclude justice from the relevant qualities of appreciation. Our case today against pornography, like the campaign of the Suffragettes, is not tied to its offensiveness or a distaste for the human body. It is a question about the evil of subordination, not the evil of men (as Cox seems to believe).
In order to police the name of feminism, Eva Cox prattles on about the insignificance of "tasteless porn and crappy T-shirts", and whether opponents meet what she calls "basic feminist criteria", or what Leslie Cannold has pompously called "credentials". But the imaginativeness and the daring of the Suffragettes and their tactics continue to inspire me, and ain’t I a feminist?
On one occasion when Emily Davison was sent to prison, the lawyers noted, "it was substantially admitted that the plaintiff went into prison with the avowed intention of breaking every rule of that institution, and she did in fact do so from the time she went. She did so in a way that gave the most trouble and anxiety to those who had to deal with her." I like to honour when feminists gave trouble and anxiety to all who had to deal with them, not the safe version of feminism stamped and approved by Eva Cox.
This piece draws on a longer talk presented to an evening discussion at the House of Lords sponsored by Baroness Gould of Potternewton and WWAFE and OBJECT on 15 June 2011, on "The Politics of Sexualisation: Women, Girls & Activism".
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 2:34PM
Helen paits a picture of whole people with strong views that seems a more accurate picture of what constiuted a feminist back in the day. No doubt they were not always switched on to the effects on them and of them in the broader social context, I am sure for example that many were involved in less than equal relationships with men.
What a shame that women now have to be %100 feminist or not. The responses to the Eva Cox article show a deep disregard for the contingencies of everyday life, of immersion in the society we critique.
It may easily be said that Cox, Reist and Pringle are all feminists, just as Muslims, Christians and Jews all have many more philosophical similarities than differences.
It is interesting to see these differences played out (I for one cannot see how a belief in a male God could be compatible with feminism, but then I am neither a believer nor a woman). What I can’t understand is how any one person could assume the right to ‘de-register’ another as a ‘real’ feminist.
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 4:05PM
G’day Doggie - how’s it hangin’? I like your post “the contingencies of everyday life, of immersion in the society we critique.” This applies to how we interpret the past based on contemporary circimstances, values, conditions etc too doesn’t it.
I find the history of women’s liberation, feminist movement very intersting so this article is nice from that standpoint.
But these discussions become about political ideologies, philosophies and personal interpretations AND about the past. Why are you writers who are the EXPERTS (well more expert, educated about all this than me anyway) forgetting about our current society at large - there are wars, women’s liberation movements, injustice against women occurring all over the world as we speak and write - you are only talking about the PAST, about semantics and by doing so weaken and belittle the battles for justice. You are cutting off your nose despite your face - isn’t feminism first about addressing patrirachy but also about freedom, libration from domineering, stereotying, restrictive, oppressive/exploitative norms, values, expectations etc about women? You don’t really seem to be achieving this when you bicker and nitpick…
This gets annoying for the everyday, grassroots woman out there. It can also make your fav topics, passions etc irrelevant to other women and impotent to women in places like Afganistan where REAL stuff is happening and needing attention, debate, and female fighting spirit…
Posted Thursday, 19 January 12 at 4:33PM
How broad can the feminist movement get? Does everyone who calls themselves feminist really be considered a feminist? Someone like Christina Hoff Sommers of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute calls herself an “equity feminist” but spends most of her time attacking other feminists.
It is probably fruitless and a diversion from important issues facing women to continually debate the definition of the term. However, if someone calls themselves a feminist then campaigns to restrict abortion, works for people like Brian Harradine or publicly attacks organisations like the National Organisation of Women then it may be hard their self-identity seriously.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:41AM
The feminist ‘movement’ is so fragmented right now that collective action seems impossible. Maybe we romaticise the past however it seems to me that the suffragettes had great focus and committment, were strong intelligent women who fought hard for something they believed in and achieved an enormous amount.
The bullying, sniping and lack of concern for each other is the greatest problem facing feminism right now and allows the patriarchy to get on with the job of sidelining women, paying for sex and exploiting women through porn and prostitution.
Some prominent feminists like Leslie Cannold and Eva Cox inadvertantly join forces with the patriarchy on many fronts and thus form a more united group than those who self identify as feminists. How has this happened?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 9:05AM
Hi Mumsie, hope you had a good festy season.
You are correct of course about the ease with which we talk about the history of feminism in the west before hearing about contemorary feminist activism in countries where the original issues are still rife, being widespread and systematic sexual and physical abuse, denial of political power and denial of economic opportunity on the basis of gender.
While I agree that these issues still have resonance for many Western women I suggest that none of these would suggest they are in the same boat as their counterparts in some other societies.
As with all movements it is easier to define the need when the need is so obvious and arises from a shared experience. Women in the west have choices that othert women don’t have. They can reject feminism outright or adopt whatever view of feminism they like. The heavy lifting, as you might say, has been done.
In this way it might be said that feminism has entered the nostalgic phase, where endless discussions about who is a ‘real’ feminist replace real action, because the real action has passed us by.
Thence Afirstwaver can say Cox has inadvertantly joined foprces with the patriarchy, while Cox may say that Reist has done the same by aligning herself with the incredibly patriarchal Christian faith.
There are thousands of these played out ‘isms’ for us to amuse ourselves, but let’s not kid ourselves that we are playing the main game.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 9:22AM
That Eva Cox ‘laments, “Women members of the Christian Temperance Union fought for women to get the vote in the hope that women would vote to ban alcohol”’ hardly warrants the generalisation that Cox perceives all Suffragettes to be meek killjoys. Were all Suffragettes members of the Christian Temperance Union? No. Emily Davison, the subject of most of this article, wasn’t a member.
There’s also no justification for ‘The Suffragettes more broadly are often portrayed along Cox’s lines as delicate creatures asking for protection from “evil masculinity”.’
And yet Cox is accused of “prattling”.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 10:29AM
Thank you for your comments! Just as a general comment on this topic, I am not sure that disagreement among feminists (or women, or anyone else for that matter) is such a bad thing. And I don’t think that the fact that we disagree on some or many things means that feminists are split or fragmented. Isn’t it in general “a good thing” that there is diversity? In my opinion, there is quite a high level of rhetorical inflation on the internet (but other forums as well) such that expressing a criticism or a disagreement often gets characterised as an attack, or intimidation, or bullying etc. In saying this, I am not denying at all that attacks, intimidation and bullying do exist, and that they often have a vile gendered tone (eg the Kyle S approach to public reasoning, or criticising a woman by saying she should be “butt banged with a coffee cup”). And I am by no means a free speech absolutist (just as an example of my perspective, I found the judgment in Eatock v Bolt both fair and illuminating), as those who know me are very well aware. But reasoned criticisms can be very passionately expressed, publicly, without constituting bullying, and without signifying that feminism is fragmented or spent.
Rhiannon, perhaps I wasn’t clear, or clear enough. Part of my argument was that Suffragette or women’s groups that are characterised as wowsers frequently had an underlying analysis of women’s subordination. The phrase “evil masculinity” is from Eva’s article, it is not my invention (ie “However, politics has changed over the past hundred years — and I hoped we had overcome the particularly limited view that the role of women, as God’s police, was to keep evil masculinity on the straight and narrow”). Helen
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 11:56AM
I have never met a woman who didn’t act like Margaret Thatcher on frequent occasions.
I have never met a woman who was ever wrong.
I have never met a woman who could apologize without using the word ‘but’.
I have never met a woman whose memory about my flaws was ever faulty…
Sorry! Perhaps I meant ‘feminist’ not ‘woman’. Now you’ve got me all confused, a common female trick.
Blasted women/feminists!
Happy New Year. Love and kisses.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 1:01PM
@David If you have something to say about the topic say it. If not please resist the urge to comment.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 1:28PM
@lisa If you are not smart enough to understand the pertinence of David’s impertinence, please resist the urge to reply.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 1:30PM
eva cox
I did not assume that all early feminists were wowsers, but now we have seen that women will note vote as a bloc on almost anything. This raises the wider issues of the difference between a viewpoint that sees women as a category to be protected and saved, or one that acknowledges our capacities for good and evil are similar to men’s but with more limited outlets in many cases. I think the experiences of the last century and last 40 years suggest we so some rethinking about defining feminism(s).
I’ve suggested some ways of doing it!
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 1:48PM
@lisa sounds like she is the only woman on earth or does she need a medal or a chest to pin it on?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 2:42PM
I’m trying to think of tasteful prawn. Having difficulty. Ok, there’s SBS art films, but I don’t regard them as prawn, just films that use sex to get their point across.
@Lisa, aren’t you giving a perfect example of what you’re warning against, though?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 2:55PM
G’day DG! DG and aussiegreg - sometimes if you have to explain it, it isn’t worth explaining! You made me laugh and I know what you mean!
Just remember - if it has a vagina it can’t be wrong and all will go well for you, nod and say “yes dear”! I tell my kids all the time that I both know everything AND am never wrong! Of course they just roll their eyes - but I have a “spanker” and spank them if they disagree (don’t worry - it’s just a flyswat) and we all laugh, make a bit of fun at our mistakes and weaknesses this way…
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:27PM
DrD hehe mumsie!!
You raise some interesting points! Wouldn’t it be interesting to track and record the development of women’s liberation movements in these countires and see how they develop over time, if they also begin this above disagreement that we see in the West now or if they would go off on some other tangent?!! We live in a much more individualistic society than some of these countries who have a stronger social connectedness through either religion or culture. This might have some influence. Does our more individualistic tendencies trigger fragmentation to the point of pointlessness?
Also - in the West - what real action, as you put it, IS still important? I don’t know!? Perhaps that’s the purpose -to maintain or create some sort of point and purpose?
About your phrase “not the main game” - yes I feel that way too - though I don’t consider myself aligning to feminist movements (I’d prefer to just chip away at the system in my own little way) it would be interesting to know what feminists belive ARE their game, if they see a main game?
About xmas - well why I delude and continually torture myself I know not!!
And I had a thought - love the “puleeze” you wrote somewhere…had forgotten about that! It would be a good comeback for generation Y’s “whatever” don’t you think?!!
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 3:36PM
meski - tasteful prawn, hmmmm - even though I’ve made some comment about prawn in eva’s article discussions - another angle is the whole sexual revolution/liberation angle isn’t it? How people enjoy that side of life, their bodies and their relationships is personal and preferences vary so much - I don’t mind it, in particular situations it can make life interesting and fun. So it’s more the way it is invading everyday life that bugs me I suppose.
Once my eldest son (who was about 10 at the time) googled water pistols and a massive penis shaped water pistol came up on the screen and well….wasn’t really something I wanted him seeing, not prawnographic but still - the whole sexual side of many things doesn’t need the high profile it gets does it?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 4:55PM
Well if I’m water boarded into making a choice I think I’ll take Cox’s attitude over Pringle’s. There’s no favouritism here, I’ve been insulted by Pringle as well.
But really, I think I’ll just go away and put out my own eyes so I don’t have to read anymore of this first world feminist one-upwomanship.
Jennifer Wilson
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:22PM
Jennifer, I tried to Google ’ first world feminist one-upwomanship.’
Smoke came out of my computer and a voice came from somewhere, an admonishing voice that said clearly and officiously: “Are you over 18? Have your parent’s approved of your salacious use of the internet? Please enroll in a Sunday School of your choice. The Police will check in a few days to ensure you have!”
Jennifer, you have got me into a lot of trouble. Please don’t write about dirty things anymore!
Please.
P.S. What type of ship is a one-upwoman ship?
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:30PM
@ David Grayling Are you related to A C Grayling? Jennifer
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:33PM
Disagreement between feminists is fine but it is not fine when we attempt to silence each other through personal attacks. This is not fine.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:36PM
@ Eva Cox
I’ve asked you this twice now on the article to which Pringle is referring. Did you read my blog on Melinda Tankard Reist that has caused her to threaten me with defamation before writing that article, and in it dismissing my concerns about religion and feminism as “nit picking?”
I will probably keep on asking these questions whenever I have the opportunity until you answer because I am tenacious, and I have strong feelings about people writing articles based on other people’s articles if they haven’t actually read them.
Jennifer Wilson.
Posted Friday, 20 January 12 at 5:46PM
@ Afirstwaver
You observe that some feminists like Cannold and Cox “inadvertently” join forces with the patriarchy.
Do you mean they don’t know what they are doing? Or they aren’t sufficiently aware of what they are doing? Jennifer
Posted Saturday, 21 January 12 at 12:11PM
I say inadvertently because I am not suggesting that they deliberately plan to join forces with the patriarchy.
But they do join forces on a range of issues and do so currently on the issue of pornography. This leaves feminists with possibly? more traditional feminist views facing both strong but opposing feminist voices in harmony with strong patriarchal interests.
The word feminist becomes somewhat meaningless when there is more agreement between men who consume porn, make porn, make money out of porn, are involved in the commodification of women’s bodies etc and some prominent feminist groups than there is within feminism as a whole.
I think it alienates women from the feminist movement and frankly makes us look silly. It is easy to say that disagreemnt is a good thing and that there are many different feminist views but there is so little agreement and so much bickering right now that I can’t see what feminism stands for exactly beyond reproductive rights although maybe that is no longer a given either.
I am uncomfortable seeing men on the internet cheering on the pro porn feminists.
Posted Saturday, 21 January 12 at 1:03PM
afirstwaver - yes I would agree with you from someone on the outside looking in and wondering how the hell we still help women have lives that are safe, productive, expressing their individual talents, interests and needs, with greater personal awareness, and political, economic and social/community participation…
ps why do some of you only seem to talk and answer questins from other feminists or selected posts rather than everyone’s interests such as mine on the other fem article?
Posted Saturday, 21 January 12 at 8:08PM
@fightmumma,
ahh not sure what you mean. Maybe your views are reasonable and you are not battling for supremacy..or something like that!!
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 12:54AM
afirstwaver - hehe!!
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 4:45PM
fighmumma,
re: ps why do some of you only seem to talk and answer questins from other feminists or selected posts rather than everyone’s interests such as mine on the other fem article?
I’m not sure if this comment refers to me, but there are all sorts of reasons that people don’t reply to comments etc. Sometimes it’s as simple as cooking the dinner and then feeling stuffed for the day. I know you are asking a slightly different question ie not why don’t they reply, but why don’t they reply to particular posts –– and it’s actually not all that helpful to say, well there are all sorts of reasons for that too. But there are. One of my reasons is that I prefer meditative rambling conversations long into the night with friends rather than swapping or scoring points with strangers (the latter has its attractions too, but they are not great).
But my point in writing this is: why don’t you write something longer? Strikes me you have things to say and not necessarily just in reaction to people. I’m always happy to look over people’s stuff and give what help I can (although I am obsessive about grammar and spelling, even if I slip up a bit). I’m sure other people would be happy to do so as well. HP
Posted Sunday, 22 January 12 at 5:02PM
hpringle - me write something longer - haha - have you seen some of my posts?! Usually I fear that I write too much rather than not enough!!
Well I’m largely uneducated on this topic so I wanted these few women who seem to set themselves up as knowing something to respond to my thoughts on what they have put forward so that I develop my ideas - but you are right - people only contribute so far into these sites - usually just to “put out there” what they think and not to actually enter into discussions or develop thoughts/ideas further…which IMHO is rather pointless…more interesting to have the debates, interaction, dialogue.
And yes - the pointscoring seems to be a favourite too - I’ll have to adjust my expectations accordingly won’t I!!?
I enjoyed your information on feminism, I am currently intrigued with Mary Wollstonecraft who I came across through reading a book on anarchy - she was married to William Godwin - now they would have had some interesting discussions arounnd the dinnertable!!
Posted Wednesday, 25 January 12 at 3:18PM
I am not really up on all this but as a father of 3 girls I have a point of view, I changed my attitude to this feminist cause when my girls were growing up , I could see things more from a womens point of view because I loved them so much and wanted the best for them ,we would not be having these conversations if women had equal physical strength , it’s a basic opinion but believe me I think I am right , my daughters are all very well educated UNi and in 2 cases do better financially than their partners , emotionally the sexes are different , but I think women do very well in the intelligence area in comparison , extremely well I would say, I guess this is a simplistic slant on things , but If a drunken husband came home and went to beat up a wife who was as strong and could hit back as hard it would be a different story ,AYE???? what if she was better and cleverer ,my God heaven forbid !!
Posted Wednesday, 25 January 12 at 3:51PM
bobbeeart- thanks for your post - it adds practical life to this topic which gets dominated by academic types who only live in ideologyland, not connecting their ideas with their world to aid relevancy.
I had the opposite experience of having 2 sons and seeing how all these fanatical feminists seem to think it would be great if men and boys were beaten down into submission and had less success and power.
I’ll tell you a strange story though - I did exprience domestic violence (mostly verbal abuse and pushing but it was escalating) and I never thought it would happen to me! I phoned a domestic violence helpline to talk to someone about my relationship and the telephone counsellor said “that’s domestic violence” - ie I had to have someone highlight to me what was actually happening to me. I don’t know how these situations become like that but it was an awakening to realise what he was doing and his attitude to me. Now I am studying community welfare/counselling at uni, so I’m sure I will learn more about this.
But then I learnt bxing/kickboxing, so I could cause an impressive amount of damage even on a man. But a few years back I was still sexually abused by a “friend.” This is even though I had strength, skills and a new found assertiveness/confidence.
So I think it has to do with more than just physical strength…for example, in gay relationships a male partner can still be abusive towards his male partner and the same for two women in a lesbian relationship, one can abuse the other even though they have the same amount of testosterone…
Posted Wednesday, 25 January 12 at 7:48PM
Yes Mumma I agree , someone can be submissive in an equal situation simply because of the personality of that person and a lack of confidence in ones ability to cope , I understand where you are coming from , maybe I should just say Ladies Unite !!
Posted Wednesday, 25 January 12 at 8:26PM
it is nice to know that some men consider these issues too! ta!
Posted Sunday, 29 January 12 at 5:15PM
eva cox
Your a great person and a beacon of hope.
It greaves me personaly that some people seam to think, that everything we are is because of men and then women arrived on this planet about 500 years ago and couldn’t escape the torture and abuse on this planet because their spaceship broke down. A bit like Superman and Supergirl in the comix.
Now, just so the rest, not you Eva or fighmumma get it, you are all of the Human species. One is a nut the other is a bolt, we screw together and are supposed to do something useful, (hold the fabric of society together) most don’t, wouldn’t know how to.
Most sex is only 3.5 to ten minutes of grunting, groaning and entrapment, free sex, or just a drunken fling, so what do we expect.
When men and women can agree on what purpose they serve and served to create this mess, the human race as a whole might just be able to find a way to live in peace, instead we keep screwing each other Physicaly and mentaly. Now cut the crap, opposites attract, man could not do without women and women couldn’t do without men, the problem arrises when women out number men and women start to compete or the other way around. Wars mostly removed men, putting women in the competition faze. Competition, not good, in all cases, all of the time.
There is no way I could live without women on this planet, but on the other hand I would not want to be out number by them either, when times are realy tough. Women have proven themselves more then capable.
Hobart Womens Prison in early days, very brutal, no sisters there.
The answer, trust NO-ONE until they have proven themselves trustworthy.