I love Shakespeare. Always have.
Always Will ...puns aside.
(sorry - that was awful).

And one of the main reasons I love Shakespeare... is because his WOMEN are wonderful!!
They really are. Viola. Rosalind. Beatrice.
They are funny, clever, witty, strong, independent, rebellious, eloquent, poetic, and outrageously sexy women!

These are not women subjugated or intimidated or disempowered by men. Not at all. Shakespeare depicts them with such admiration. Such love. Such humour. One gets the impression he is much more a fan of the fairer sex, actually.

Admittedly, Ophelia is weak and wet. But she has a mental illness. And she really is an exception. Lady Macbeth is almost depicted as female power in the extreme  -  too "masculine" -  in fact, to make up for Macbeth's weakness.

And nobody can tell me that Taming of the Shrew isn't totally tongue in cheek.

And then there is always Cleopatra and Venus.

Anyway here are some nice discussions on the topic. (links in purple).

S.A. Markham of What’s It All About, Shakespeare addresses the question “was Shakespeare a feminist?”

Well, no. We can’t call Shakespeare a feminist, because the concept didn’t exist in his lifetime, or for approximately three hundred years following his death. On the other hand, did he demonstrate an understanding of women’s subjugation by men, a realisation that women were not necessarily the “weaker sex” and create characters that could be described as protofeminists?

Yes. However, there is a school of thought which suggests that Shakespeare’s championing of disobedient, cunning, wilful women was merely for the benefit of comic effect, just as the cruelty towards an ‘outsider’ like Shylock was all in the name of comedy. Now, you could, of course, fall on either side of this debate – because there really is no way of knowing exactly what Shakespeare had in mind. But for my money, it is the former rather than the latter.
Portia is by no means on her own. ‘In Much Ado About Nothing’, we find a feisty, quick-witted, bright character in Beatrice, and it must be said that Rosalind in ‘As You Like It‘, and ‘Viola in Twelfth Night’ are illustrative of powerful females in the ways in which they are in command of and manipulate the action. Rosalind is truly sharp, and strong of character, long-suffering, and reveals unwavering integrity. Furthermore she is able to mount a staggering defence when wrongly charged with treason. Viola, too, is intelligent and very much in control; hence by acts of clever manipulation she is able to win the hand in marriage of the man she has chosen and perhaps the strongest of all is Lady Macbeth. Portia is very much akin to them and this is clearly demonstrated throughout the play and most clearly by her control over the final scene of The Merchant of Venice .


Similarly, in an essay on ''Romeo and Juliet,'' Prof. Coppelia Kahn of Brown University argues that Shakespeare used the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets to depict the cruelty and destructiveness of the male-dominated order, one that subordinated love to masculine pride. The feud, Professor Kahn writes, was a ''peculiar expression of patriarchal society'' that led youths to commit acts of ''phallic violence,'' following the authority of their fathers.

When Romeo duels with Tybalt and kills him, an act that leads to his own and Juliet's destruction, he is, Professor Kahn writes, forsaking the feminine influence that is his love for Juliet and obeying the brutal requirements of patriarchy.

Shakespeare’s Women | Feminism and Shakespeare Feminism is a 20th Century
Concept: The "We Can Do It!"

There is, of course, one significant problem with exploring Shakespeare’s plays from a feminist perspective: Feminism is very much a 20th century concept.
Nevertheless, we are often drawn to viewing Shakespeare’s women from a modern angle. Why? Well, partly, because many of them don’t seem to conform to the social and gender conventions of their own eras.
Boys Who Play Girls, Who Play Boys Like They’re Girls
Firstly, my apologies to Blur.
Secondly, it’s easy to forget that when Shakespeare wrote his plays, there was no such thing as a female actor. Women were not allowed to perform, so all female roles were played by boys or young men - something the audiences were, obviously, well aware of.
So, whenever you’re exploring the portrayal of Shakespeare’s female characters, it is worth keeping this at the back of your mind. It adds an additional layer of humour to the comedies, particularly the cross-dressing plays, Twelfth Night and As You Like It, for example.
I Don’t Give a Damn ’Bout My Bad Reputation
However, the added humour of men playing women, can’t account for the regularity with which Shakespeare gives his female characters pluck, mettle and power; the likes of which would not necessarily be associated with femininity, during the 16th and 17th centuries.

There are precious few female Shakespearean characters who don’t go against the grain in some way. But it’s not always in an overt way, like the ‘shrewish’ Kate from The Taming of The Shrew.
Oh, no. Even the more docile girls, such as Juliet, Jessica and Desdemona, are ‘unruly’ in that they disobey their parents and elope with their respective beloveds.

Was Shakespeare a Feminist?
Well, no. We can’t call Shakespeare a feminist, because the concept didn’t exist in his lifetime, or for approximately three hundred years following his death.

On the other hand, did he demonstrate an understanding of women’s subjugation by men, a realisation that women were not necessarily the “weaker sex” and create characters that could be described as protofeminists? Yes.

However, there is a school of thought which suggests that Shakespeare’s championing of disobedient, cunning, wilful women was merely for the benefit of comic effect, just as the cruelty towards an ‘outsider’ like Shylock was all in the name of comedy.

Now, you could, of course, fall on either side of this debate - because there really is no way of knowing exactly what Shakespeare had in mind. But for my money, it is the former rather than the latter.

Uncomfortable Mix of Tragedy and Comedy
My reason for saying that is two-fold. Firstly, I don’t think that Lady Macbeth, Portia (from Julius Caesar), Regan, Goneril, Volumnia, Desdemona, Queen Margaret, and a whole string of other Shakespearean women, are meant to be funny.
It can’t be denied that there are uncomfortable shifts between tragedy and comedy in many of the Bard’s plays. However, if these women are intended to be figures of fun, then it drastically alters our commonly held perceptions of the plays.

Secondly, it is very clear that not all instances of disobedience, wilfulness or empowerment are designed to make the female character in question appear foolish.

For example, Cordelia’s refusal to play the “who loves Dad most?” game is clearly not intended to turn her into a comedy foil. Instead, it demonstrates that, despite the significant amount she stands to lose, she is more concerned with being truthful. Now, some people might call that foolish, but I wouldn’t.

What About the Women Who Win?
There are also many instances of a female character’s wilfulness winning out. Portia in The Merchant of Venice for example, or Maria in Twelfth Night. In both cases, these women outwit their male counterparts. In the case of Portia, saving Antonio’s life and, in the case of Maria, outfoxing the pious Malvolio.
But, then these spunky girls have a habit of deferring to their husbands (although, for Portia, not before she teaches Bassanio a lesson).


What About the Women Who Submit?
 One of the main culprits where ‘submission’ is concerned is Kate from The Taming of the Shrew. And you might use her closing soliloquy, which extrapolates on the virtues of conforming to the label “fair sex”, as a decisive blow to argue that Shakespeare was, surely, no kind of feminist.

However, what isn’t clear and, therefore, completely open to interpretation is whether or not Kate is sincere or sarcastic. Moreover, it’s worth keeping in mind that she gives as good as she gets and, you could say, she tames Petruchio, just as much as he tames her.
So, in fact, the two have a pretty equal relationship from the moment they meet.

It is possible and, in my opinion, likely that her closing soliloquy is done with a nudge, a wink and her tongue firmly in cheek.

Some reading on the topic to further your education my dears: (click for more info)

I was inspired to write an article on this topic after yet another photoshop outrage hit the news.

Australian model Meaghan Kausman made the wonderful decision to fight back after a swimwear company photoshopped her body down to an X-small.

This was her response:


"Making art is my passion. Creating beautiful photos and meeting inspiring people has really given me a new lease on life. I recently did a photoshoot wearing Fella Swim, with an extremely passionate and talented underwater photographer, Pip, @seagypsea_photography Her photos are magical; they capture women in water and celebrate their beauty. This morning I was extremely shocked to see that Fella Swim had uploaded a photoshopped version of Pip’s original photo to their Instagram page. They had drastically altered my body, thinning out my stomach and thighs in an attempt to box me in to the cultural ideal of beauty. Above is their version, below is the real version. My body is a size 8, not a size 4. That’s my body! I refuse to stand by and allow ANY company or person to perpetuate the belief that “thinner is better”. All women are beautiful, and we come in different shapes and sizes! This industry is crazy!!!! It is NOT OKAY to alter a woman’s body to make it look thinner. EVER!"

These are the photos with the photoshopped image on top:

It's always helpful to be reminded just how brainwashed we are by fashion magazines and almost every single media driven depiction of beautiful young women - THEY HAVE ALL HAD THEIR BODIES DRAMATICALLY ALTERED, THEIR SKINS SMOOTHED, THEIR CURVES CUT DOWN AND THEIR BODIES ELONGATED SOMEWHERE.

We hardly ever get to see women how they actually are.
This is a terribly harmful thing, when you think about it.
No wonder so few of us feel beautiful or happy with our appearance - we are always striving for a totally unrealistic standard that we think is the norm... when in fact it is a totally artificial standard.

I know we all know this theoretically, but the more models who stand out against it like Meaghan, hopefully it will become less easy for companies to distort the image of beauty that they are shoving down our throats.

It's fascinating how notions of what is sexy and beautiful have changed over time.
Even in the 60 and 70s women could have curves and  short waists and imperfect skin and still be considered mega hot.
nowadays it seems like the ideal female beauty is an androgynous teenager, with no curves.
This is a sad image for women to live up to.
These teenagers are also hyper-sexualised in a way that is hard, easy and tough.

Just to hit home how extremely different notions of sexiness was about 100 years ago, have a look at these amazing photos of burlesque performers from the 1910s. These women were considered the epitome of erotic beauty.
Audiences became so wrapped up in the beauty and sex appeal of these performers that stories circulated about some men who were willing to kill themselves in fits of lustful passion. Their costumes were considered absolutely scandalous and so tantalising that they really were the equivalent of today's pornography.

Oh my, how times have changed!!
Read more:

As you can see these women are curvy and natural - they probably had cellulite and wobbly flesh in parts - but they didn't need to feel bad about that. In fact, their curvy bodies were considered perfect shapes and extremely sexy!
How cool (and easy) would it be to have felt beautiful and sexy in those days!
And notice how none of them look like teenagers. They are all women. Yes, they may be wearing silly costumes (obviously fantasy fetishes will never change!), but they look pretty healthy and normal.

Nowadays every single one of those women would be considered fat and unattractive and certainly far from sexy.
And it is all just due to the power of indoctrination from the media.
As a society we are so at the mercy of it... images that come at us from every angle.
I don't even know how we can free ourselves from this entanglement, but at least women like Meaghan certainly contribute towards our freedom in important small ways.

Don't you love the horse-suit?

Ida Florence (above in the white veil) was the Californian prize beauty.
She certainly is a far cry from this, isn't she:

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy is an extremely brave woman.
Some would say suicidal.
Today she posted an "outrageously graphic" photo on facebook with her and another woman menstruating and defecating on the ISIS flag to protest against the Islamist terror group’s recent advances in northern Iraq and Syria.

But are we shocked more by the image of menstruation ...than by what she is trying to protest against?
It's an interesting fact in itself how uncommon it is for us to see images of a normally bleeding woman.

It's also interesting that images of her displaying her naked body have shaken the Islamic world like a bomb going off... in a society that would find it much more acceptable for her to mutilate her body and slaughter herself and others with actual explosives. Admittedly, she is defecating on a holy flag... not the best way to win friends. But from any sane perspective, the shocking nature of this image is nothing compared to the graphic violence perpetrated by the Islamic State terror group with their recent advances on Iraq and Syria.

Check out her webpage here and read about what she experiences on a day to basis - the rampant misogyny and oppression of women in Islamic culture.

She is obviously not a woman afraid of controversy. She has previously protested the brutally restrictive and misogynistic ideology of fanatic Islamic culture with this photo in 2011 which caused a stir simply because of the nudity. She says that the photos are "screams against a society of violence, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and hypocrisy."

And here is an interview with her and a friend:

And here are some fascinating books on the subject (click on book covers for more info):

Ethically produced, feminist pornography that challenges traditional gender roles and appeals especially to the sexual appetites of women.
Is there really such a thing?
This is a subject I am going to return to again and again on this page - because as a woman who enjoys really good quality porn, yet as a feminist who resents the stupid, sexist, misogynistic kind of porn that dominates the market - I am always on the lookout for porn that is different, creative and fully empowering to women. Real women. Not just the fake boob, fake tan, fake orgasm, brainless bimbo kind of women.
The Feminist Porn book - Politics of Producing Pleasure  by"sex educator" Tristan Taormino
is a fascinating read and I can highly recommend it to any women or feminsists (of either sex) to enlighten your perspective on pornography (click on the book cover for more info):

And here is an interview with her on the subject:

Get some more education into ya about what feminism is and is not.
If you want to talk the talk, people, you need to know your labels!

Article by Sherrie Silman

There’s a question that many Feminists are sick of being asked:

“If feminism is about equal rights for everyone, why don’t you call it equality-ism or humanism?”

Here’s the short answer: ADVERTISEMENTFeminism isn’t called Humanism or Egalitarianism because Feminism, Humanism, and Egalitarianism are three distinct theories.

Feminism isn’t called Humanism or Egalitarianism because Egalitarianism and Humanism pre-existed the idea that ‘women could or even should be recognized as persons’ and didn’t care to take up the cause of gender equity, or to combat homophobia, or racism, or other prejudices that human rights law seeks to eradicate.

Feminism declines to change its name to not include the ‘fem’ because the desire to erase the feminine is negatively prejudicial.

Feminism is called Feminism precisely because of the anti-fem sentiment infecting this planet.

The explanation: Feminism is a social movement advocating for equal recognition of human rights and associated protections for all genders – and not just rights and protections on paper or in theory, but rights and protections in practice.

Feminism operates on the tenet that gender is not an acceptable basis for discrimination, subjugation, marginalization, oppression, enslavement, and/or eradication. The very first distinctly unifying grounds upon which the movement arose was the concept that gender should not dictate whether or not an individual was granted personhood under the law or provided with basic human rights. It’s called Feminism because the gender being denied personhood and subjected to other oppressions was (and still is) female, hence the “fem” in feminism.

Feminism began in places where female-gendered persons were being subjected to discrimination, marginalization, oppression, enslavement, eradication, and other violence. Historically, in most parts of the world, female persons were considered less than men, property of men, and even less than human. This sexism continues in the majority of the world today (and anyone telling you that things aren’t that bad is really just telling you that they don’t experience sexism, marginalization or subjugation directly and don’t care to advocate for those who do).

So, yes, Feminism advocates for female persons to have equal rights with non-female persons. Feminism advocates for equal rights for all persons regardless of gender, because gender is not an acceptable basis for discrimination. To advocate that gender is not an acceptable basis for discrimination is to advocate that sex, orientation, age, nationality, socio-economic status, literacy, ability, and so on are also not acceptable bases for discrimination. Many of us reading this would agree: human rights are for everyone. However, violations of basic human rights, including outright acts of enslavement and oppression, happen every day everywhere on the planet. How does change get enacted? Through action. You start a movement. You prepare for battle.

Feminism is a movement for gender equality.

Who was around before Feminism to advocate for and demand equal rights for all persons regardless of gender? That’s right: No one. There’s no memorable movement identifiable before Feminism. There were movements before what spawned Feminism, and those movements contributed to the social climate that allowed Feminism to coalesce, but none of them had Feminism’s focus. Feminism is the movement against using gender as a basis for discrimination.

So-called ‘feminist claims’ that do not support the aim to achieve equality in terms of human rights and protections for all genders (and by extension, for all persons and social locations suffering under abuses of power) are not actually feminist claims.

Humanism is a branch of philosophy (and ethics) that advocates for equality, tolerance, and secularism (what is commonly known as “the separation of church and state”). Humanism recognizes that human beings do not “require” religion in order to develop moral systems or behave morally. In other words, Humanism is the theory that human beings are able to use logic to determine what is ethical (right and wrong) and do not require dictations from a spaghetti monster (or other deity) in order to understand morality. Humanists advocate for education, tolerance, representative politics (rather than monarchies), and freedom of thought (from religious tyranny). Humanism is not currently an active socio-political movement.


Egalitarianism is a form of political philosophy that advocates all human beings are fundamentally equal and therefore equally entitled to resources (e.g., food, shelter, respect, social status). Egalitarianism, for all its merits, has some distinct limits in applied practice. Equality was originally conceptualized as a means to give everyone the same things, the same means as it were, and although concepts and theories of equality morphed and grew from that starting point, the fact is you can give everyone the exact same items and still have not alleviated inequality and/or unfairness. For example, stating that everyone is entitled to two apples and then handing out two apples to every person does not address the inequity of resources that pre-existed the handing out of apples (in other words, some persons might have already had two apples while others had none, some people are allergic to apples, and some people were more in need of blanket than an apple). Egalitarianism, while a fundamental ethical concept, often fails to address inequities through an intersectional lens. Egalitarianism is not currently an active socio-political movement.

Humanism and Egalitarianism are important intellectual movements whose philosophies inform Feminism as well as global human rights legislation. But Feminism is the only movement actively advocating for gender equality. Feminism is called Feminism because it began as a socio-political movement to achieve gender equality for females and, through its own logic and rhetoric, therefore is a socio-political movement to achieve equality for all persons regardless of gender (or any other demographic characteristic). By logical extension, Feminism supports Equity Theory.

Equity Theory recognizes various and intersectional spheres of power dynamics that create locations of domination/subordination based on value-judgements assigned to various concepts or actualities (e.g., race, gender). Unlike Egalitarianism, Equity Theory tackles how to create equality without treating everyone like they are all exactly the same. People are not all exactly the same, and differing social actors in differing social locations face differing challenges within the social environment.Handing everyone an apple does not create equality if anyone is unable to actually grasp the apple. Barriers, physical, social, and discursive, create inequality of access and require individualized approaches to be overcome. Equity Theory is an intersectional approach to ethics, human rights, and socio-political thought.

To break this down more simply: Egalitarianism tries to give every person the same two loaves of bread despite that some people are allergic to bread. Humanism argues that we should give the loaves of bread to everyone not because the spaghetti monster told us to but because it is logically ethical to do so. Equity Theory recognizes that what some people need (for equality) is two different types of bread, or one loaf and one apple, or no loaves and two oranges (because everyone is different). Feminism reminds us that no one gender is entitled to more loaves of bread, or the freshest loaves of bread, and that certain social locations (genders, sexual orientations, ethnoracial identities) have been pushed to the back of the line unfairly, frequently, and often violently. Feminism points out that, despite the kind thoughts and well-meaning beginnings of Egalitarianism and Humanism, those pushed-back social locations are starving on the crumbs left behind by those who think only certain types of people are entitled to bread in the first place. And Feminism points to the humanists and egalitarians stepping on the heads of those in marginalized social locations to point out that there’s someone beneath their feet, and that if they could just shuffle their position a bit then the person beneath their feet would no longer be trampled.

So the next time someone tells you that they’d get behind Feminism only if it changed its name to some other movement that doesn’t actively combat oppression and inequity, go ahead and congratulate that asshat on the whopping size of their prejudice. And, if you’re feeling kind, maybe send them to this article.

Written by Sherrie Silman

Four undergraduate students at North Carolina State University have produced a nail polish that will reveal the presence of “date rape drugs” such as Rohypnol and GHB by changing color in their presence.

“With our nail polish, any woman will be empowered to discreetly ensure her safety by simply stirring her drink with her finger,” the Undercover Colors creators said.

However, some feminists have been critical of the claims about this technique. They believe innovations like anti-rape nail polish are well-meaning but ultimately misguided. “I think that anything that can help reduce sexual violence from happening is, in some ways, a really good thing,” Tracey Vitchers, the board chair for Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER), told ThinkProgress. “But I think we need to think critically about why we keep placing the responsibility for preventing sexual assault on young women.”
"Women are already expected to work hard to prevent themselves from becoming the victims of sexual assault. They’re told to avoid wearing revealing clothing, travel in groups, make sure they don’t get too drunk, and always keep a close eye on their drink. Now, remembering to put on anti-rape nail polish and discretely slip a finger into each drink might be added to that ever-growing checklist — something that actually reinforces a pervasive rape culture in our society.

One of the ways that rape is used as a tool to control people is by limiting their behavior,” Rebecca Nagle, one of the co-directors of an activist group called FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture that challenges the societal norms around sexual assault, explained. “As a woman, I’m told not to go out alone at night, to watch my drink, to do all of these things. That way, rape isn’t just controlling me while I’m actually being assaulted — it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior. Solutions like these actually just recreate that. I don’t want to fucking test my drink when I’m at the bar. That’s not the world I want to live in.”


"According to Alexandra Brodsky, one of the founders and current co-directors of Know Your IX, a survivor-led group working to address campus sexual assault, well-intentioned products like anti-rape nail polish can actually end up fueling victim blaming. Any college students who don’t use the special polish could open themselves up to criticism for failing to do everything in their power to prevent rape.

Indeed, the argument that women simply need to be more responsible is a common response to the current conversation about sexual assault on college campuses — and one that activists say doesn’t get to the heart of the issue."

“The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place,” Nagle pointed out.

“I think a lot of the time we get focused on these new products because they’re innovative and they’re interesting, and it’s really cool that they figured out how to create nail polish that does this. But at the end of the day, are you having those tough conversations with students, and particularly men, who are at risk for committing sexual assault?” Vitchers added. “Are you talking to young men about the importance of respecting other people’s boundaries and understanding what it means to obtain consent?”
“One of the reason we get so excited about these really simple fixes is because it makes us feel like the problem itself is really simple. That’s a comforting idea,” Brodsky noted. “But I really wish that people were funneling all of this ingenuity and funding and interest into new ways to stop people from perpetrating violence, as opposed to trying to personally avoid it so that the predator in the bar rapes someone else.”

2. The second is differences in the object of blame/ or the enemy, and the goals to be achieved.

• For anti-gender feminists, the enemy is society imposed gender-norms, which are inextricably linked to patterns of oppression, suppression and indoctrination. The goal is to eliminate the imbalanced power structures inherent in notions of gender roles and identity and to be free to experience, and express, all kinds of sexuality.
• For pro-equality feminists, the enemy is the patriarchal power structure which has always oppressed women throughout history by keeping them subservient and confined to the realm of the home. The goal is to oppose the inequality inherent in standard gender roles and overthrow patriarchy through a radical reordering of society - especially by enabling women to equally participate in the professional, political and financial worlds. For example, in order to free women from the conditions of work as a mother and housekeeper, socialist feminists such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman see the professionalization of housework as key.
• Similar, yet also different, are the socialist feminists, marxist femiists and anarcha-feminist who all tend to place more emphasis on the struggle against patriarchy being inseparable from class struggle, and blame the role of capitalism in the oppression of women. Their solution is purely a political and economic one involving revolution to abolish class inequalities.

These books below are really good examples of different attitudes and approaches to feminism. Click on them for more information.

• The object of blame for pro-difference feminists is interesting and more complicated. Of course, not all pro-difference feminists think the same by any stretch of the imagination. There are french feminists and cultural feminists who fit into this group and who have very different views on all kinds of things. But generally speaking, their thrust is that neither the elimination of gender differences nor the achievement of women in positions of power in the workforce or in politics will fix the problem. Because the problem is that these forms of resistance and insurgency are all played out on an already patriarchal stage. The male dominated world is presented as the only method of both expressing and recognising struggle against power structures. But this is problematic because all forms of insurrection get immediately appropriated and become in themselves another form of oppression of the true feminine essence which has no way of expressing itself effectively through these mediums. So from this perspective even feminist discourse itself can become its own enemy. The goal is to find a way to resist without using existent patriarchal oppressive mediums. To find a way to express actual female discourse, as inherently different from male discourse, and to change society so that it can start valuing what it is not used to valuing.
  
• Both cultural feminism and post-colonial feminism have a lot to say about and contribute to achieving this. Cultural feminism is often maligned, but is probably where I happen to most fit in. This is based on an essentialist view which commends the differences between the sexes and explores the heirarchy of differences (rather than the eradication of differences). This is often where post-colonial feminists find space to articulate their own versions of feminism. (See for example,  Mary Daly). As an anthropologist, buddhist and post-colonial theorist, myself,  I kind of gravitate towards this space too. However, cultural feminism has its ample share of zealous critiques who denounce it as the death of the feminist movement and blame it for the depoliticization and demobilization of feminism. I beg to disagree... but I'm not going to try to convince you of my reasons in this post. We can get into that another time.

3. The last is their different attitudes towards pornography:

• OK, well, basically anti-gender feminists are totally into pornography of all kinds with no exception. They think all pornography should be legal and that censorship is the real crime. They believe women are into porn as much as men and they don't really have a problem at all with mainstream porn. They are into BDSM, gang bangs, ... you name it. Anything goes because we are all grown ups capable of knowing what we want to watch. The more porn the merrier. Here is a great article by a anti-gender feminist right on point.
  

• Anti-inequality feminists are divided on the subject. Some are absolutely anti mainstream porn and say that it is by nature exploitative of women and part of the misogynistic patriarchal world that needs to be overthrown. Others are into porn but only if it isn't exploitative or tasteless. They usually see it as an unavoidable part of life that is fine, as long as it is legal and doesn't oppress the poor or helpless. But if a guy is watching too much in a relationship and neglecting his woman, then there will also be a lot of talk about how too much porn is bad for a relationship because it is inherently geared towards  the male viewer and there is not enough porn out there for women.

• Pro-difference feminists on the other hand, are often anti-pornography, but only on the basis that it caters to and perpetuates the exploitation and misunderstanding of women's sexuality and thereby distorts the natural sexual appetite and appreciation between the sexes. This is because the artificial bodies of the women in most mainstream porn and the very fake representations of what sex is, contributes to the gaping chasm between the sexes and magnifies the differences in the way they experience life... and sex. This results in a decreasing ability to obtain pleasure from real sex, or intimacy from a real woman. (read this article for an insight into this). However, if there was more porn out there genuinely made by women for women, which portrayed women in an empowering way and helped women (and men) to get back in touch with their own sexuality, then the amount of porn wouldn't be a problem and could be very positive.

Click on the books below as essential reading for anybody trying to understand feminist attitudes to porn:

So anyway. This is my introduction to feminism 101 for you, stemming from all the wisdom I have gained from conversations over dinner with friends and thoughts on the subject I have had ever since I was a young, horny, rebellious (and fervent female chauvinist) adolescent.