🚀 go-pugleaf

dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) posts, but Phil Ryan writes:

[Paragraph on exploitation deleted]

Enough people have responded to this point already.  In summary, they have
said in one way or another that the possibility of exploitation is an artefact
of capitalist society -- many industries exist (including the sex "industry")
in which the potential for exploitation is high.  Despite this, not all
employers in such industries are exploitative, not all the products of
such industries perpetuate exploitation, and not all the employees within
such industries are exploited.

Censorship, and the outlawing of all facets of the sex industry, would have
two certain consequences: the mass unemployment of all workers, regardless
of whether or not they are subject to exploitation, and whether or not
they might actually be *content* with their jobs; and the forcing under-
ground of the industry, resulting in less control, and greater exploitation.
Believe me, I have a very good understanding of the way society treats
women, and the work still to be done to create genuine equality, but this
does not strike me as being a _solution_.  It may even be seen as regressive
in that it does nothing to empower women to control their own lives, but
in fact reinforces the notion that women *need* special protection and
it restricts women's freedom to choose their own careers and to do as
they wish with their bodies.

>You seem to feel that women who work as topless barmaids would rather be 
>doing that than anything else - which is total bullshit. If women and men 
>had equal opportunities in this society, and the subjugation of women was 
>not thought of as being OK, then there would not be topless barmaids. You 
>said it yourself - that the women involved would have liked the extra cash: 
>how come a topless barmaid gets paid more than a non-topless one? Because, 
>like prostitution, she is selling her body. (And in any case, the topless 
>women were getting exploited like crazy - no tits, no job etc. etc.)

A woman should have the *right* to sell her body.  As should a man.  I agree
with you that it is a terrible thing that people in society are placed in
a position where they feel they have no choice but to do so against their
will.  However, *empowerment* is fundamental to the advancement of the
women's movement, and power and control start with control over one's own
life and one's own body.  So long as men dominate the legal and political
processes of society, the passing of any law designed to "protect" women
in fact restricts women's power to control their own lives.  Susan Faludi
is fairly critical of male "feminists" in her book _Backlash_, arguing
that many male sympathisers are in effect retaining dominance by
subterfuge.  In her case this does not seem to translate into an
anti-censorship stance, however as I have already pointed out in a previous
posting, the debate is multifaceted, and solutions far from obvious.

>You are living in a fairytale world where people are equal, and yet women 
>_still_ prefer to be seen draping cars, being topless barmaids, being 
>prostitutes, being used in pornography. It is garbage: women are doing 
>these things because our society is constructed such that we don't let them 
>do much else - except be mothers to ourseleves and our children.

Actually it's worse than that -- women do some of these things because
our society is structured in such a way as to make doing them desirable.
Personally, I believe that for the average woman in society the advertising
industry has a worse effect than the sex industry (although the two are
very closely related -- a fact not lost on author Brett Easton-Ellis,
whose controversial novel _American Psycho_ is built around imagery which
is totally dependent upon this relationship).  Advertising either creates
or reinforces those images of women which are perceived as desirable.  The
relationship between "creation" and "perpetuation" is subtle and complex:
advertisers will tell you that they merely reflect society (you might want
to check out John Singleton's pathetic and ineloquent defence of his Eagle
Bitter commercial in a letter to _The Australian_ published in the Jan.
9-10 1992 edition).  We are constantly assailed by images of "perfection"
which help to form men's expectations, and women's self-image.  Pornography
forms a comparatively small part of this process, and is in general far
more reflexive than advertising.

>There are two groups of women involved in the pornography debate: those 
>opposed to it, and those in favour of it. Those women in favour of 
>pornography are, like the 'collaborateurs' in France during WWII, like that 
>because they feel that the world cannot be changed (and will not be), so 
>that they may as well make the most out of their lot in the male-dominated 
>world.

Almost everything in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.  Linda Williams
(pro-porn, or more accurately anti-anti-porn) would no more wish to be
allied with Hugh Hefner than Andrea Dworkin (anti-porn) would wish to be
associated with the Reverend Fred Nile.  However, this has happened to
both of them, despite the fact that their aims and their arguments are
totally incompatible with those of the men who have adopted them as
accomplices.  Both "groups" (and there is more to the spectrum than the
two extremes anyway) wish to achieve the same thing: empowerment of
women.  They disagree on how this is best done.  Dismissing the pro-porn
feminists as "collaborateurs" is an insult, in that it totally ignores
the enormous body of work they have contributed to the debate.

>Now, to help to bring you back to reality: why don't you ask some women 
>that you know - of any socio-economic class - if, for the same money, they 
>would rather be topless barmaids or porn stars, than what they do now.

>As to the question of 'evidence' of opression in the production of 
>pornography: there is plenty of it. Many cases have been won, where the 
>women involved have won compensation for their forced roles - usually of 
>course, the men involved are then declared bankrupt, but the point is that 
>there _is_ the evidence. 

The most famous case is, of course, that of Linda Musciano, aka Lovelace,
for her role in _Deep Throat_.  The problem is that the result is far from
clear-cut.  She never went to court until years later when she was
encouraged to do so by anti-porn feminists who, quite aside from wishing
to see justice done, wanted the publicity, which they subsequently
milked for all it was worth.  Now, it seems almost certain that Linda's
relationship with her (then husband) director was unconventional and
probably violent, and that there was probably some degree of coercion
involved.  However, her degree of complicity at the time was probably
greater than that presented in the subsequent court case -- and I am
referring to her relationship with her husband as well as to the making
of the film.  Quite aside from which, even evidence of individual cases
of exploitation does not, of itself, justify censorship.  (BTW, I am
fully aware that the argument I have just presented would be seen by
Susan Faludi as a clear manifestation of the backlash against feminism,
and that the fact that it has occasionally been presented by women as
"collaboration": the truth is a slippery commodity in this debate!)

Back to the question: does pornography degrade women?  It seems obvious
to me that although some does, there is a lot that does not.  Clearly
gay porn does not, whether it is male or female (and here I mean porn
made by homosexuals for homosexuals: Linda Williams draws a clear
distinction in her work between lesbian porn, and the girl-girl scenes
which are part of the standard repertoire of made-for-men pornography).
There is also a lot of heterosexual porn which is equitable.  These
days there are more women in controlling positions in the industry, who
are making porn for women, and for couples.  There are also male producers
who are doing similar things, if only because there is a market for it.
Indeed, in Australia there is a legal market for little else, since
comparatively strict censorship controls restrict the combination of
sex and violence in legal 'X' rated material.  So, putting aside for
the moment how one might practically control porn which falls outside
these bounds, how does one justify the censorship of the kind of material
I have just described on the basis that it degrades women?

Well, radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin do precisely that by arguing
that all pornography is an act of violence against women.  Not that it
depicts acts of violence against women, or that it incites acts of
violence against women (although they argue that too), but that it *is*
an act of violence in and of itself.  How can the depiction of consensual
heterosexual sex be an act of violence?  It is if you see the act itself
as violent -- that penetration itself, and the harsh thrusting of the
male are inherently violent and inequitable.  To be fair to Dworkin,
I'm not sure that she sees consensual heterosexual sex as being evil,
but she certainly sees its "exploitation" in the form of pornography as
a threat.  And if you can bring yourself to read her novel _Mercy_ from
cover to cover, she uses the forms and techniques of pornography to
paint a disturbingly graphic picture of how sex, which may appear
consensual from particular points of view, can in fact be truly violent
and degrading to the women involved.

However extreme the views of radical feminism may seem, if you bother to
investigate them, and make the effort to understand, you will find that
they are not as easily dismissed as you might think.

Enough said for now!  What about that new newsgroup?

Mark.
          --------------------------------------------------------
              Mark Summerfield,  Photonics Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne  
                ACSnet[AARN/Internet]: summer@ee.mu.oz[.au] 
          --------------------------------------------------------
   "This terminal is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone
    to meet its maker. This is a late terminal. It's a stiff. Bereft of
     life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the bench, it
      would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and
            joined the choir invisible. This is an X-Terminal!"