Threaded index Date index FAQ
Feminism: Toxic versus Carceral
Posted by Pharmakon on 2025-September-2 03:00:11, TuesdayIn reply to Mu piece on Toxic Feminism/New era of censorship. posted by JohnHolt on 2025-August-20 08:29:14, Wednesday
The Mu editorial linked by TPKA JohnHolt describes "toxic feminism" as:...the intellectually dishonest precursor and counterpart to "Carceral Feminism".... The link given for "carceral feminism" is to a Wikipedia article stating: The phrase "carceral feminism" was coined by Elizabeth Bernstein, a feminist sociologist, in her 2007 article, "The Sexual Politics of the 'New Abolitionism'". Examining the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United States, Bernstein introduced the term to describe a type of feminist activism which casts all forms of sexual labor as sex trafficking. She sees this as a retrograde step, suggesting it erodes the rights of women in the sex industry, and takes the focus off other important feminist issues, and expands the neoliberal agenda. The link given for "toxic feminism" is to a blog post from January of this year by a feminist "life coach" based in Dubai. The characteristics listed for toxic feminism are largely copied from this source. While both the term and the list of characteristics predate that blog post, both seem to be far more recent than 2007. Calling toxic feminism a "precursor" of carceral feminism thus seem inaccurate. (The Mu editorial does not explain in what sense it might be a "counterpart.") Mu has condensed some of the bullet points listed in the life coaching blog post about toxic feminism. One sentence omitted from the section on "Alienating Allies" reads: Collaboration between genders is essential to dismantling systemic barriers, and hostility only creates further division. This seems to me one of the better points made by the blogger, and I think if given due weight it undermines the use of the term "toxic feminism." Unless the concept can be much better defended than it is in the Mu editorial (or in the linked blog post), I oppose the use of the term "toxic feminism." For one thing, the term "toxic femininity" also exists, with an arguably distinct meaning, so there is a potential for confusion. More importantly, both terms seem to have been derived from "toxic masculinity" in a sort of gender wars tit-for-tat. Toxic masculinity is itself at least arguably a divisive and misleading term, and if so copying it likely only perpetuates these shortcomings. As the article linked below notes: Cultural studies scholar Carol Harrington warns that labeling the outgrowths of patriarchy and misogyny as toxic masculinity shifts responsibility from harmful social systems to the behavior of “‘backward’ and ‘mentally unwell’ men,” making sexism an individual, rather than societal, problem. Carceral feminism, on the contrary, tends to focus attention where it should be focused: on the role of the state. The fundamental weakness of this type of feminism, whether labeled "toxic" or "carceral," lies in its appeal to state power to bring about liberation. The state is the ultimate oppressor, and only uses rhetoric of liberation to divide and weaken those it oppresses. The meaning of carceral feminism has expanded beyond the use Bernstein made of it in 2007, but sex work remains a central issue for liberatory feminism and should be a central issue for boylovers as well. Because youth are economically disempowered, boylove relationships will almost always involve men providing material support of some kind to boys. The state will inevitably use this fact to characterize the relationships as purely transactional and equivalent to prostitution. The line between giving a boy $20 for sex and buying him dinner or giving him a place to sleep can never be drawn with precision. I support the use of the term "carceral feminism" to characterize the type of feminism we should oppose. (A recent use of the term by TPKA Errant, one which I consider appropriate, appears here.) hugzu ;-p  [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |
Follow ups:
