Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!act From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery (A Further Elaboration) Message-ID: <1624@pur-phy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 22:05:46 EST Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1624 Posted: Wed Feb 6 22:05:46 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 02:09:57 EST References: <1612@pur-phy.UUCP> <4716@cbscc.UUCP> <455@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN Lines: 148 This is posted for C.E. Jackson by A.C. Tselis: > [Paul Dubuc] >Excellent article from C.E. Jackson. Though long it's well worth >reading. >It has occurred to me throughout this discussion that government regulation >probably the least desirable way to deal with the problem of pornography >(although it may be effective). Jackson (Ms. or Mr? I do not know.) made >the point that his/her argument is not for government censorship, but >many pro-porn people insist on making any opposition to porn a censorship >issue. >My question is, for those who recognize the problem and would like to >do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone >who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express >their views. If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave >their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors. If they try to >invoke community standards the same charge is levelled. So what is a proper >and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it? If >not government censorship, what then? Paul, old buddy, don't you remember me? It's C. Elizabeth Jackson, a terrifying advocate of women's rights from over there in net.abortionland! You remember me--I'm the one your articulate & loving anti-abortion pals wanted to sterilize! Given our past disagreements, I want to make very clear what I dislike about pornography because I suspect that we don't have same objections to it & therefore don't have the same goals in mind. (I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your support; I just want all of us to be clear about what you are seeming to support. If, after reading this, you wish to withdraw your support, I understand.) I am not objecting to pornography because it offends traditional Christian views of proper sexual behavior. And I have no wish to *eliminate* pornography; I wish to render it impotent. (Okay, pun intended.) I personally think the idea of pornography is stupid--men tend to use it as a substitute either for real women or for talking to their lovers about their mutual fantasies, but I don't see the point to glorifying misogynic pornography by repressing it (elimination is impossible). After all (as someone pointed out earlier), the last time there were really strict anti-porn laws, some number of "Christian" groups used those laws to outlaw the publication of birth control information. I don't wish to see that happen again. Also, freedom of speech laws are designed to protect the *expression* of ideas & since what I object to most about pornography are *the ideas expressed in it*, I have no wish to work against the sense of the Bill of Rights. I think that, once clearly examined, the ideas contained in pornography will be shown to be as false, as cruel & as hate-filled as those that supported American slavery. Virtually no Americans now condone the idea of slavery; with time, effort & perseverance perhaps as few Americans will buy the ideas currently expressed in pornography. The ideas that I do not like in pornography are those ideas that lie to men about women. I do not like the idea that men are told that women like to be raped. I do not like the idea that men are told that women like to be bound & gagged. I especially do not like the idea that men are told that to entertain ideas such as these is somehow an acceptable way for men to show affection for women. If men want to acknowledge that sexuality is a very complex thing & that sometimes you can really be angry at your female lover & want to do things to her that may hurt her, that is one thing. That is honest; that is real. If people were honest about their feelings, they might not need to act them out or disguise them in cruel fantasies. But that's *not* the way pornography presents it. In pornography, the way to express love is often to behave cruelly. >Do people like Jackson think the problem is going to be solved by >trying to convince everyone not to buy porn? Will arguments convince >the people who are most influenced by the hard core stuff? What are the >alternatives? I don't want to "convince" men, especially, that pornography is wrong because I don't think that's possible as a first step. Men, as a group, have historically not listened to women as a group when women "just" asked for something. The sheer reasonableness of an idea has never, in the history of this country at least, sufficed to convince men that it was "right". Look how long it took for women to be allowed to own their own property, to get the vote, to be allowed to divorce their husbands, or to get the right to birth control! And we *still* don't have anything like equal rights. What I want to do is show *women* (many of whom don't think of or don't *like* to think of the content of pornography) how pornography hurts them. When a *woman* understands that pictures of a woman going through a meatgrinder turns her lover on, she may not want him as her lover. Or she may want to ask him what he has against women to be so aroused at seeing them mutilated. When women learn how many of the phrases that men use to describe sexuality come from so-called harmless magazines such as PENTHOUSE & PLAYBOY (& manifest all the reality & imaginative variation of laundry detergent commercials) they may want to select men who aren't Guccione parrots over those who are. When women look at the rape rate & then look at men who claim films glorifying rape are just "harmless fantasies," I want women to tell men what they think of that idea. Rape isn't an expression of affection; it's a violent crime & pretending otherwise is a vicious lie. Misogyny exists throughout our culture--I am not at all trying to pretend that pornography is the only manifestation of misogyny in our culture. I AM saying that it is an obvious & extreme one. And I want to make the people who "enjoy" it social pariahs. If they are not enjoying misogynist pornography, fine. They can explain to me (or any other woman whose opinions matter to them) why it's *not*. (And if they're explaining it to ME, they'd better have a pretty cogent explanation as to why it's not misogynic.) I want to put men who like pornography on the defensive. I want to know how they reconcile their supposed belief in sexual "freedom" with orgasms over victimized, bound, gagged and/or mutilated women. For centuries, women who have questioned male prerogatives have been labeled "man haters" & have been mocked as women who "couldn't get" men & resorted to feminism as a kind of revenge. Fine. If men want to say that people like me are vengeful, I'll show them vengeance. I say that it's time to turn this around. "Woman hater" should become a term of abuse--not an unused term because that state is the social norm. And men who like pornography should be laughed at for their "obvious" inability to convince (non-violently) any woman that they're worth having. As the campaign to get the vote (& other non-violent, non-cooperation movements) showed, men as a group have historically tolerated any injustice so long as they weren't laughed at. Make them look like hypocritical fools, imply that their behavior is evidence of weakness and stupidity, & they'll do whatever is necessary to regain their "masculine" self-respect. A second way to combat misogynic pornography is to offer men an alternative. Messrs. Guccione, Hefner & Flynt have been the major voices deciding what "free" sexuality is. The monolithic misogyny of their supposedly varied messages has permeated the sexual psychology of American men for far too long. Let's just think about one member of this unholy trinity for a moment--Bob Guccione. How many women would REALLY want to go out with *him*--a man who wears enough gold chains to get a Volkswagen out of the snow [this line was stolen from PEOPLE], a man who finds his own chest hair endlessly fascinating, a man whose aggressive insistence on his own virility smacks of a confession of impotence, a man whose idea of a serious historical documentary is CALIGULA, a man whose idea of warm-heartedness is to ruin Vanessa Williams' career & then offer her a job, a man who has suggested that raping feminists would "straighten" them out, etc. etc. Why on earth should *HE* (& the people he employs) be perceived as the *final* arbitrator of sexuality? What does *HE* know about what women like or think? (I'm not sure he even acknowledges that women *do* think.) Women can come up with far better ideas about heterosexual sexuality than *he* can & I thinks it's time we did, & offered them to men as an alternative.