Government-sponsored femininst porn: it's here, it's queer

Posted at 2:29 PM Sep 08, 2009

By Andrea Grimes

​I'd just finished re-reading Catharine MacKinnon's "Pleasure Under Patriarchy" article about sex, power, violence and pornography when a Twitter friend @'ed me with a most interesting premise: government pays for feminist porn! I was all but ready to sign over my firstborn to Barack and Hillary when, of course, I realized that apart from the fact that I hope never to have a firstborn, the American government is a long way from funding porn of any kind. (Then again, there's that thing that happens in my panties when I hear Ira Glass' voice on NPR ....)

Indeed, it's the Swedes who've opted to put feminist--which is, in this case, mostly lesbian--porn out there with a government check behind it, courtesy of the Swedish Film Institute. But not all the taxpayers are thrilled, as is evidenced in an editorial from Beatrice Fredriksson on the English-language Swede news site The Local. Fredriksson is the author of a blog called the "Anti-Feminist Initiative." (A title which is a bit unclear--is she anti feminist, or anti-Feminist Initiative, which is the proper name for government funding of particular "feminist" enterprises? C'mon, Swedes, help me out. Do we have a translation issue?) Anyway, she writes:

Although the market catering for women's sexuality is increasing, it is still limited. There can be no doubt that the porn industry is dominated by men. It is therefore not the idea of developing the industry in favour of women that is upsetting - this is something that many women would welcome - it is the fact that it is happening with our tax money under the cloak of feminism. By labeling lesbian sex as feminist, it also contributes to the prejudiced notion that the equality debate is all about excluding men and privileging women.

There are a couple of interesting, valid points there. The porn industry is limited, as is women's sexuality and the market that caters to it (whatever "it" is), and I don't think most feminists would argue that lesbian sex is inherently more "feminist" than any other kind of sex. Sure. Fine. And then Fredriksson goes all conservative crazypants, happy to tell you what isn't sexy, and what isn't art, and what the government shouldn't and shouldn't do with regard to feminism. (So some people can say what isn't art, but other people can't say what is? I'm confused.)

In my opinion, one of the main reasons the porn industry is male-dominated and not particularly attractive to women is that 'regular' porn movies often feature a great deal of sex between women. Being heterosexual, it is not very exciting to watch. Oddly, it seems to have the opposite effect on men. Lesbian porn is far from the solution to creating a porn market that appeals to more women. While it might very well broaden the market for people with different sexual orientations, it should not trade under the banner of feminism.  

Dowhatnow? Fredriksson earlier acknowledges that the porn industry is dominated by men, and there are women who would welcome lady porn, and we even need to have some lady porn, but now she says it better not be lesbian porn, even if it's made by a lady, because that's gross. Fredriksson doesn't seem to see a difference between pornography made by women for women and pornography made by men for men, instead choosing to lump all pornography together (and, as it happens, if you're a straight woman who likes lesbian porn, well, you ought to get that fixed, I guess?). Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of reasons women are turned off of mainstream porn, lesbian sex hardly being the worst of them.


And there are many feminists who'd argue that any porn is violence against women, since it operates under the patriarchal porn paradigm, even if it operates "against" it. I tend to feel that respectful, feminist-minded porn can be and is made, even if its availability is limited. Still, I'd venture to guess that "broadening the market for people with different sexual orientations" is, at least in some circles, a pretty damned feminist ideal. But if everyone doesn't want feminist porn, should everyone be forced to pay for it via taxes?

It's saddening to see that respect for taxpayers' money is almost non-existent. While everyone is of course in favour of equality, there is no consensus that it can be achieved through feminism, or feminist pornography for that matter.

Readers, what say you? I know we've had similar debates in the U.S. with regard to government-funded arts grants (something to do with poo and the Virgin Mary comes to mind). I'd argue that anything that engenders productive debate is a good thing, and getting everyone talking about feminism and female sexuality, making it part of the larger dialogue, is alright by me.