• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is definitely something to be said of context. Any learned feminist should know that. First and second wave feminism would be (and are) downright toxic by today’s standards, but back then, that veneer of vicious independence was absolutely necessary when pitted against that very ingrained patriarchy of the time.

    Not to say the patriarchy is solved by any means, just that fewer and fewer positions of power are gendered by expectation.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah and it should be noted that second and third wave feminism weren’t happening separately, most of their existence was simultaneous, it was thesis and antithesis, call and response. Second did things and third called it out. Anti porn feminism came about criticizing men taking sexual advantage of women and then the third responded with shit like all women porn collectives creating porn by women for women and presenting the statement that porn isn’t inherently exploitative, men use porn to exploit women for sexual pleasure and financial gain.

      Criticism of playboy from a feminist perspective is deeply rooted in the second wave. It was Steinem who led it and she was as many iconic second wave theorists were, not wrong but incomplete. (Side note, I’m mentioning her a lot and need to point out her role in the satanic panic, she’d 1000% be into Qanon today). But Steinem wouldn’t care that playboy published everything from Hunter S. Thompson to Margaret Atwood to a frank discussion about her transition with Wendy Carlos.

      They absolutely exploited women’s bodies to sell good journalism, but it was damn good journalism, so in the end it’s just kinda weird