In time-honoured fashion, I’m going to open with a quotation from the Oxford English Dictionary: “Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of sexual equality.” This exemplifies the problematic attitude held by most feminists (and non-feminists) – that women’s liberation from patriarchy* can be achieved in isolation from other sex-and-gender-based struggles such as the fight against transphobia. This stems from a one-dimensional understanding of patriarchy, whereby patriarchy is seen as synonymous with the privileging of males over females.

Such an understanding leads to a tactic of ‘normalisation’, by which I mean that oppressed groups are defended on the basis that they are similar to the privileged groups, and the aim of liberation is to ensure similar treatment of the oppressed groups to the privileged groups. In other words, gay marriage is justified on the grounds that really, homosexuals have stable monogamous relationships like all respectable people, contrary to the stereotype of promiscuity. This is all well and good for those who do, but it undermines and marginalises those groups (whatever their sexuality) who do choose to be non-monogamous.

The privileging of males over females is certainly one aspect of patriarchy, but there are many others: the assumption that there are exactly two clearly-defined sexes, transphobia, the social construction and enforcement of gender roles as we know them based on sex, the social construction and enforcement of exactly three clearly-defined sexualities, biphobia, heteronormativity and homophobia, etc. Patriarchy is a complex system in which various sex-and-gender-based assumptions and prejudices are maintained; sex, gender and sexuality are all presented to us through the prism of patriarchy, with its artificial dividing lines and incentives. To envisage feminism as a fight for equal rights for males and females requires the framework of patriarchy in the first place, such as the denial of the validity of intersex existence, and the artificial synonymy of sex and gender.

We need to overcome this simplistic feminism which denies the links between transphobia and biphobia, for instance. The underlying logic of patriarchy is this: create a dichotomy, enforce roles upon each side of this dichotomy, marginalise and oppress those who fall outside of the dichotomy or do not play the assigned role. Transpeople and bisexuals blur the dichotomy and roles, thereby undermining traditional attitudes; this is part of the reason why they are misunderstood, feared, and oppressed. We need to broaden our understanding of the effects of patriarchy.

Feminist men or ‘pro-feminist’ men?

This means recognising that men are victims of patriarchy too; men are socialised and forced into a gender role just like women. They suffer from this just like women; a man who fails to meet the standards of masculinity promoted by our culture is marginalised too. Rather than argue over who is more oppressed, it is time to shape our feminism into an all-encompassing movement with members who identify as all genders and none, all sexes, all sexualities. The oppression we all suffer in common ought to unify all forward-thinkers much more strongly than any imposed divisions can segregate us. And let’s be clear – just making pleasant noises or including throwaway rhetoric about ‘harmful masculinities’ is not going to speak to men or motivate them to consider themselves a part of this movement and act correspondingly. We need a feminist practice which ‘empowers’ and encourages men to take an active role alongside women, rather than feeling excluded or relegated to the status of “pro-feminist man”, etc. Just as we expect men to welcome women into movements they dominate, we ought to expect women to welcome men into the movement(s) they dominate.

Long-term and short-term goals

Feminism ought to be a comprehensive and collective fight against every means through which patriarchy artificially divides, controls and oppresses us. To do this, we need to have short term intra-patriarchal goals which will ‘clip the wings’ of the system which oppresses us, and the long-term goal of destroying the underlying logic of patriarchy – these should both be fought for simultaneously, as we can and should fight against the ground assumptions of patriarchy at the same time as fighting for ‘concessions’ within its own logic. What I mean by this is that we should, for instance, support ‘gay rights’ at the same time as challenging the assumptions that the very identity is founded upon: that there are two sexes, that there are three sexual orientations, and so on.

The ‘queer’ movement and others have already begun the work of challenging the logic of patriarchy; people are already stepping outside of the gender binary, identifying as neither man nor woman, or as both. People have begun to identify as straight while engaged in same-sex relationships, or to refuse to let gender have any bearing on their desires, going beyond simple bisexuality and making a statement through their refusal to choose one of the three sexualities patriarchy offers them. Some people are identifying as fetishists or masochists above and beyond any orientation towards sex or gender – someone who says “I don’t care what sex organs you have or whether you wear skirts or trousers, as long as you whip me” has begun to fight patriarchy in a much more effective and comprehensive manner than that of traditional ‘women’s liberation’ feminism.

This is the only way that the feminist movement can make something worthwhile of its fight, the only way it can show its sophisticated understanding of the nature of the system that we all live under. Our understanding – of the methods of operation of the different forms of oppression and exploitation that we face, and the way they relate to each other – is one of our greatest weapons. This, alongside collective solidarity and mutual respect (which means compassion, valuing each other as individuals, and allowing each other our autonomy) will bring us victory and our freedom. That way we can achieve a society in which sex, whatever remains of ‘gender’, and sexuality are as irrelevant as eye colour.

*I’m only talking here about patriarchy as it exists in the cultural West. There may be ‘other patriarchies’ which do not share exactly the same features in cultures which have different traditions and philosophies, but for the moment let’s put that to one side. Not everything I identify as a feature of modern Western patriarchy is essential to make something ‘a patriarchy’, nor are they all capable of existing only within a patriarchy, but they are all things that I think ought to be challenged.

There are two stock reactions to the word ‘feminism’ among socialists.

The first response is to associate it with the concept of a cross-class or even explicitly bourgeois focus on “women’s issues” insofar as they impede the full participation of (well-off) women in the workings of capitalism and its political-legal superstructure. It is probably conceived of as ‘essentialist’ – that is, thinking that “women are a certain way and men are a certain way and there’s nothing we can do to change that”. The demands of such a movement might be “an end to the glass ceiling”, “more women in Parliament” or “teaching and assessment methods that allow women to get as many first-class Oxbridge degrees as men”. This kind of feminism is rightly rejected by many socialists who see its inherently limited value and its miscomprehension of the way that the vast majority of women are discriminated against. This may therefore lead them to reject anything labelled as feminism from the off.

The second response is to follow through the same thought process but then distinguish this ‘bourgeois’ or ‘liberal’ feminism from a ‘socialist’, ‘Marxist’ or ‘working-class’ feminism. The demands of such a movement might be “a living wage for all”, “no borders” or “organise and decriminalise sex workers”. These kinds of feminism (I use the plural because of the varying degrees of economism represented by those claiming these labels) are embraced by most socialists, although some may – due to having had the first reaction – disavow the word ‘feminism’ as an appropriate label, and claim that these demands are simply socialist.

There may, of course, be deviations from these two caricatures – in some instances, socialists will fall into a wholeheartedly ‘radical’ feminism, or may even just be sexist and therefore ideologically inconsistent. In some instances they will blend a couple of different types of feminism or subscribe to a more niche label like ‘anarchafeminist’.

More on ‘left-wing feminism’

As I said earlier, there are varying degrees of economism among left-wing feminists. According to some simplistic analyses, women will be (magically) liberated when capitalism is superseded, without the need for the workers to consciously set themselves any task apart from Marxist social revolution. It would be uncharitable to attribute this view to more than a small minority, but its root mistake is repeated time and again even by those who disavow its economistic and Utopian nature, placing themselves in opposition to it.

This mistake is to understand the task of feminism as the liberation of women and the root of women’s oppression as emerging from class-based society. “Before class society”, say these kinds of feminists, “there was no sexism, no ‘patriarchy’; men and women were equal in primitive societies. Then scarcity forced society to divide into two [groups? camps? classes?], and labour was socially divided, creating gender roles in the form we understand them today.” Ignoring the question of whether the sexes/genders were actually equal, let’s instead note that it somewhat misses the point. ‘Equality’, as is so often pointed out by capitalists in a straw-man caricature of socialism, simply means being treated in the same way or being treated as if you are of equal value to society. A society divided into two sexes/genders, both oppressed as much as each other by a ruling elite, is one that practices equality between the sexes/genders.

The point, then, is not whether women and men were equal (and so I’m happy to leave the argument of whether in fact they were to one side) but whether they were oppressed. It’s common sense that if there is an oppressed group, there must be an oppressing group; this is absolutely valid logic. The fallacy of those who deny pre-class sex/gender oppression, however is to assume that those groups cannot in fact be one and the same – when we look at groups, the oppressed can be the oppressors at the same time. How can this be so? Because groups are not homogenous and unitary entities, but are assembled by constituent individuals; a group need not act as one. In fact, any group that did act as one in this way would probably qualify as a class – this explains the strange equivocation some socialists make between sex/gender and class when talking about ancient societies; at the point that one sex/gender starts oppressing the other in an organised and conscious fashion for personal gain, they become a class pretty much by definition. So it turns out that there is only way that a pre-class society could practice sex/gender oppression, and that is if the groups self-regulate and inter-regulate.

By “self-regulate and inter-regulate”, I mean of course that individuals condition and police each other’s behaviour both within and outside their own sex/gender group to ensure that it matches the customs of the society. In ancient societies men were made to be hunters and women to be gatherers in the same sort of way that in modern societies men are made to like blue and women to like pink. A combination of peer pressure, stigmatisation, sexual or material incentives and so on are all used to ensure compliance with the gender roles ascribed by society. Is there evidence that this actually took place in primitive societies? Well we know that gender roles and sex/gender ascriptions and their enforcement are culturally relative (some societies recognise only men and women, while others recognise eunuchs, ‘two-spirit’ individuals, Hijira, etc; some societies are relatively lax about gender transgression, while others punish at least some forms with death), so it seems unfeasible to claim that this didn’t happen in at least some pre-class societies. If it happened in even some pre-class societies, then gender oppression [can? must?] arise from something other than class society itself!

So where does gender oppression come from?

If gender oppression doesn’t come from scarcity-induced class society, then where does it come from? Well, I think there’s a one-word answer to that (‘patriarchy’), but it wouldn’t be very helpful if I left it at that without defining what that one word means. Patriarchy, in my usage here, is a complex expression of several different beliefs/assumptions/premises that interact with each other:

1. There are two sexes (biological configurations), male and female.
2. There are two genders (social models of behaviour or self-identities), man and woman [I mean to include children under these terms too].
3. All men are male, and all males are men; all women are female and all females are women. Therefore the terms ‘male’ and ‘man’ are relatively synonymous, as are ‘female’ and ‘woman’ or ‘sex’ and ‘gender’.
4. The two sexes/genders are “complimentary”, which is to say that they are romantic or sexual counterparts. Heterosexuality is therefore the “right” or “natural” sexuality.
5. All of the above are set in stone. Neither sex, nor gender, nor sexuality, can be changed through the course of one’s life.

Of course, the problem is that all of these assumptions are, if not 100% wrong, then at least not 100% right. There are intersex people (neither strictly male nor female), there are neuter people (neither man nor woman), there are people whose gender is not what we’d expect it to be based on their sex, there are homosexuals and bisexuals and ‘queers’ (including those who reject the label ‘bisexual’ because of the gender binary it implies), and there are people whose sex or gender or sexuality changes over the course of their life (maybe they have a sex change, or develop a gradual or sudden interest in people they wouldn’t have been attracted to before, etc). In fact, this probably isn’t the time to get into it, but the average person would have an incredibly difficult time even coming up with a widely-accepted understanding of gender, and there are various different ways of looking at sex even within biology (chromosomal types, ‘primary sexual characteristics’, etc)

It is because modern societies generally subscribe to these 5 theses (to some extent or another) that we see so much homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. If I’m right about this, then the only way to end these expressions of patriarchy is to fight their root cause – the sex-gender binary that feeds them. We can argue back and forth all day about whether women are naturally inclined to be homemakers if we sit inside this consensus; the moment we break out of it, the whole question is posed in nonsensical terms. A robust rejection of all 5 theses would foster a culture in which intersex people were not mutilated or hidden away, an individual’s pattern of behaviour was judged intrinsically (as desirable or undesirable in and of itself) rather than extrinsically (as desirable or undesirable insofar as it matches up to an expectation or requirement based on sex), people were not judged on the sex or gender of their sexual partners, etc.

Wouldn’t this be anti-progress?

One concern raised with the plan to “smash the gender binary” is that it might be unintentionally regressive – the deconstruction of identities may inadvertently deconstruct our resistance to sexism, as it no longer has a basis. If people are assumed to be free to self-define their gender at will and so on, then it makes little sense to focus on defending women’s rights. If the sex-gender complex is unravelled then what ‘gay’ identity is left for ‘gay rights’ activists to be concerned with? This is a misunderstanding – we do not assume that people are free from constraint in these ways, we simply argue that they ought to be. Of course if we turned around and said to someone “you can’t have students’ union women’s officers because that oppresses men”, we would be aligning ourselves with reactionary elements. Maybe in a future society or a Utopia, people will be able to forget all about whether they are ‘man’, ‘woman’, or whatever, and just be themselves. But right here and now that is not how most people think, which means there are two problems with working on that basis – people will still self-define and self-analyse as belonging to these categories, and other people will still define and analyse them as belonging to these categories (however fictitious or simplistic the categories may be according to this theory).

So what does ‘queer feminism’ look like?

‘Queer’ is often used as a label to describe those who completely reject, and/or seek to exist outside of the gender binary – ‘queer feminism’ (if such a term is appropriate) would be an anti-patriarchal movement against the sex-gender binary, but in order to gain ground it will have to reject quick-fix lifestylism or Utopian dreaming. We have to work with the “reality on the ground”, but to do so in a way that points towards an ‘un-gendered’ or ‘infinitely-gendered’ society, or however it is that we conceive of this ideal realm where our behaviour towards each other isn’t based on chromosomal type, sex organs, choice of clothing, or whatever . We have to acknowledge, for instance, that ‘woman’ still exists – even if she is socially constructed – and mount a defence of those who identify as such from those who exploit or oppress her. But this also includes defending the freedom not to be ‘woman’, and so on. We must acknowledge and work with the current situation without shooting ourselves in the foot by perpetuating the situation. For this reason LBGTQ (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered and queer) considerations accompany everything else we do; woman-led organising must be trans-friendly, sex worker support must be sensitive to non-heterosexual sex work and work that may not match the actual preferences of the worker, and so on. Only this tight-rope walk (between the twin evils of forcing ‘queerness’ on everyone and resisting ‘queerness’ where we find it) can fundamentally challenge patriarchy as a system of thought while at the same time challenging its effects on the ground. Naturally for socialists it will also take on a working-class nature, concerning itself with the way that patriarchy impacts upon the poor rather than the rich, the workers rather than the bosses, etc. This is an intersection between two distinct systems, however – patriarchy is not a part or a consequence of capitalism, it is a conceptually-distinct and pre-existing complex that has been intertwined with capitalism to the benefit of the bourgeoisie, similarly to the way that religious bigotry has been intertwined with capitalism to justify exploitation of other nations (for instance). We should address this byconcentrating our energies at the intersection rather than fighting on two fronts separately or assuming that patriarchy will fall alongside class society.

Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your genders!

What’s wrong with Object?

Object are distinguished from most other (ostensibly) feminist groups by their single-minded obsession with issues of “pornification” and “sex object culture”.  According to this worldview, almost every injustice suffered by any woman can be traced back to “sex object culture”, which essentially seems to mean the sex, beauty and advertising industries. Plastic surgery, eating disorders, Playboy-branded stationery… All of these are identified as aspects of the “sex object culture”.

But let’s take a closer look at what exactly this as-yet-undefined “sex object culture” is, and its effects. In Object’s own words:

“You only have to go to your local corner shop or supermarket, turn on MTV, jump on a bus to get to school or work, and you will be bombarded with images of women in highly sexualised poses and with vacant expressions being used to sell products, music and films”.

Unfortunately, this does little to answer the question. The key features of sex object culture appear to be that we are “bombarded” with a bizarre marriage (spot the pun) of “highly sexualised poses” and “vacant expressions”. That the same is true of men’s representation in the media seems to be lost on Object. In fact, they explicitly state that there is “little parallel for men” – a quick image search for “Calvin Klein” pleads otherwise.

Moralism dressed up as feminism?

So, is it the “highly sexualised poses” or the “vacant expressions” that Object find so Object-ionable? (We’re on a roll with the puns tonight, n’est pas?) Perhaps there is something peculiarly undesirable about vacant-sexualised images, but this doesn’t seem to be Object’s concern. Consider the following statements:

“As pornography saturates mainstream culture and the line between what used to be considered hard core and what is sold in newsagents and supermarket becomes increasingly blurred, the rape narrative which originated from porn has become increasingly acceptable”.

“Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice”.

Forget for a moment the spurious nature of the porn/rape narrative/more porn/more acceptable rape narrative chronology (ancient erotic literature was heavy on the rape narratives, which were a great deal more acceptable to contemporary audiences than they have ever been since), or the quasi-fascist potential implications of the latter quotation. The clear contention here is that it is a sexualised culture per se which is at the crux of these issues, not a particular breed of misogynistically-sexualised culture.

Moving back to the question of rape narratives, Object once again show their moralistic Victorian hand:

“In fact, Maxim (2006) even tells teenage readers that ‘a lot of women fantasise about things like being raped’…”

Maxim is quite right. A lot of women do fantasise about being raped. Whether this is a peculiarly modern feature of the hypothesised “sex object culture”, or a relatively a-historical phenomenon, is anyone’s guess based on the evidence before us. But surely nobody is suggesting that the very fact that these women have such fantasies is a problem any more than the fact that a lot of women fantasise about firemen? As a level-headed pro-sex woman once put it to me, “Fantasy and reality are completely different things”.

Uneasy bedfellows for students and socialists.

Not only do Object appear to be on a moralistic anti-sex crusade masked behind feminist language, but they’re content to use any tactics at their disposal to do so. As well as imploring supporters to be as personal and emotional as they like when writing in support of the Policing and Crime Bill, their website features the following gems:

“Over half (54%) of all women around the world say they first became aware of the need to be physically attractive between 6 and 17 years of age”.

“At every End Violence Against Women Coalition consultation event members have raised the sexualisation of women in the media as a factor in violence against women and girls”.

“It is long established that the overwhelming portrayal of women as sex objects in society plays a role in maintaining inequality between women and men. This has been recognised at the international level by the United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which calls on States to take decisive action to tackle objectification – which it links to stereotypes and prejudices based on gender”.

The first two of these “statistics”, as Object refers to them, are clearly not evidence for Object’s claims (despite being filed under “The Facts” on their website). Glance at the first statistic and you may well be shocked – “6 year olds under pressure to be attractive!” – but read to the end of the sentence and you’ll get a much more sedate view of the situation. It’s hardly surprising that slightly more than half of 17 year old girls are aware of the need to be attractive. By that age, they’re legally entitled to be engaging in sexual activity in this country – I’d be amazed to find someone who wouldn’t say they were “aware” of a “need” to be “attractive” (all quoted terms are highly ambiguous, mind) by that age, and if anything it’s stunning that the figure is so low!

The second “statistic” shows only that women perceive a link between the two things, not that the link actually exists. Of course, I’m not saying that such a link definitely isn’t there but Object seem to be suggesting that this is evidence for the link, when it clearly isn’t. If scientists claimed that smoking causes cancer on the basis that lots of people believe it causes cancer, sceptics would be justified in questioning the scientific relevance of the paper. The last “statistic” is the most despicable justification of the lot; not only is it untrue that the convention calls on states to tackle objectification, the word “objectification” never appears in the convention, and the word “object” only appears in the sense of “objective” rather than in the context of “sex object”. Is proper and honest evidence, not presented in a way that is likely to mislead, too much to ask of a major national campaigning group? Students and socialists, groups that should uphold high levels of factual accuracy and honesty, are out of place in a campaign that claims the authority of the United Nations by citing a document that never actually mentions the concept under discussion!

This is to say nothing of Object’s failure to account for the agency of workers in the sex, beauty or advertising industries; some women (and indeed non-women) do choose work in these industries for themselves and are content with their choice. Socialists in particular ought to know better than to take a paternalistic approach to models or sex workers. Students, feted as hedonists free from the intellectual shackles of previous generations, should know better than to judge young women (or indeed non-women) for “objectifying themselves” – read: engaging in sexual activity that Object and their kind disapprove of, whether that be erotic submission, creating amateur pornography, or indeed consuming mainstream pornography.

So what?

I’m not going to go into the more theoretical problems with Object’s approach – to do so would probably at least double the length of this post. I think the issues I’ve highlighted here are reason enough for readers to be suspicious of Object’s line on feminism. So, I’ll leave you with a quote from Penny Red, as she’s put it so well:

“I am not asking for us to pretend that raunch culture is unproblematic, or that it’s uncomplicatedly fun to be a Southend lap dancer. I am asking for honesty. I am asking for an analysis that is more rigorous, more grounded in an understanding of the gendered basis of capital, an analysis that is less focused on recalcitrant sexual morality. I am asking for an analysis that addresses itself to young men, who also consume and are affected by the brutally identikit heterosexual consensus. Most importantly, I want a consensus that actually gives a voice to young women, not just those who work as strippers or glamour models, but all young women and girls growing up in a culture steeped in this grinding, monotonous, deodorised sexual dialectic.”

An addendum – Object and sex workers.

The Anarchist Bookfair 2009 hosted a debate on sex work and feminism focusing on whether the Policing and Crime Bill was a step in the right or wrong direction; everyone knew the debate was likely to be heated and that very stark confrontations of opinion would divide the audience and panel. What we did not expect was to hear an Object member tacitly condone the rape of sex workers, causing a near-violent eruption of anger.

The panel included several sex workers and ex-sex workers in various parts of the industry, such as masseurs and prostitutes. These were largely aligned with the British Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers, seeking to improve the working conditions of sex workers by organising them into trade unions and other associations through which they can exert pressure and make their voice heard, as well as take pro-active steps themselves and work together for their own safety. On the opposing side of the argument were various women, mostly of ‘radical feminist’ persuasion, some of whom were campaigning for certain provisions in the bill (such as those which criminalised many clients).

Among the problematic and derogatory comments that the Object supporter made to the sex worker speakers was that “[their] job is to be raped”. The speaker argued that by having sex for payment, prostitutes in particular legitimise rape. Obviously this makes little sense – the same logic would suggest that shopkeepers legitimise theft – but the more important issue here is the offence and hurt caused to many members of the panel and audience, and the real logic behind the argument.

To say that a sex worker’s job is to be raped is itself a justification and excuse for those who rape sex workers. If we care about the safety and rights of sex workers, we should stand very sharply against the idea that their job is to be raped, an idea which legitimises sexual violence against people in an often-already-dangerous industry.

This event was not just a one-off slip of the tongue; it is one instance of the systematic disregard and patronisation shown to sex workers by Object.