In this article, I examine the seemingly incompatible epistemologies of sex offered by dominance ('governance') feminism and queer theory. While these bodies of work, especially when applied to US legal and political activity on prostitution, are commonly viewed as divergent sparring partners, I propose a 'convergence' of the two in the form of a revived and enhanced sex-positive feminism. If dominance feminism is the 'theory of no' to heterosexuality's male gender power, and if queer theory is the 'theory of yes' to the defiant possibilities of sex, sex-positive feminism is a 'theory of maybe': it examines practices of gender and sexuality in multiple contexts to find the ways in which heterosexuality can sometimes reify, and other times resist, the transfer of eroticised dominance and submission to political practices of patriarchy. After tracing the split between feminism and queer theory and arguing for a 'sex-positive queer feminism', I use the example of prostitution to consider some theoretical and practical implications of this shift in feminist lenses.Keywords prostitution, queer theory, radical feminism, sex-positive feminism, sex wars, sex work At a recent US academic conference, I presented a paper on feminist arguments for decriminalising prostitution. Its premise was that decriminalisation might serve as an incomplete but positive step towards both opening up sexuality norms and ameliorating some of the dangers of the practice of prostitution. If that is true, decriminalisation could facilitate some of the goals of abolitionism while also serving other purposes. I expected spirited intellectual engagement that (I hoped) would help me hone and strengthen the argument. Instead, the response from

Addressing past and present injustices in order to create more just futures is the central premise of most social movements. How activists conceptualise and relate to time affects 1 how they articulate their vision, the actions they take and how they imagine intergenerational justice. Two social movements for change are emblematic of different relationships with time: the struggle to resolve and repair past injustices against Indigenous peoples and the struggle to avert environmental disaster, which haunt the future of the planet. We report ethnographic research (interviews and participant observation) with young activists in these two social movements in New Zealand: Protect Ihumātao seeks to protect Indigenous land from a housing development, and Generation Zero is lobbying for a zero-carbon future. We argue that analysing activists’ articulations and sensations of time is fundamental to understanding the ways they see themselves in relation to other generations, their ethical imperatives for action and beliefs about how best to achieve social change. Protect Ihumātao participants spoke of time as though past, present and future were intertwined and attributed their responsibility to protect the land to past and future generations. Generation Zero participants spoke of time as a linear trajectory to a climate-altered future, often laying blame for the current crises on previous generations and attributing the responsibility for averting the crisis to younger generations. How activists conceptualise time and generational relations therefore has consequences for the attribution of responsibility for creating social change. Understanding and learning about temporal diversity across social movements is instructive for expanding our thinking about intergenerational responsibility which might inform ways of living more respectfully with the planet.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract