🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7AUG199216193741@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.204521.22468@cis.ohio-state.edu>, fine@soccer.cis.ohio-state.edu (Thomas A. Fine) writes:
>> Modern media (radio, tv, tapes, magazines) have a HUGE potential to
>> influence people, often (usually?) in ways not understood or expected.
>> Seeing three "shocking" specials per week about rape may have the
>> effect of desensitizing people to the crime, even though that is the
>> opposite of the intent of these specials.  Does this make them
>> "pornography", or something that should be censored and/or controlled?
>
>This makes me think of subliminal advertising, which you find in
>perfume commercials, alcohol commercials (print media only now) just
>to name a few.  It least with out and out porn, they don't try to
>sneak around the viewer's sensitivities.

Speaking of which, I just happened to have run across this in soc.women
a few minutes ago.  Enjoy!

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  Intellectual discourse....

>From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
>Subject: Feminism & "Pornography" (ARTICLE)
>Date: 8 Aug 92 03:14:13 GMT

[From PeaceNet's media.issues via misc.activism.progressive]

    "The unholy alliance some feminists make with the right wing is
    cause for serious concern for feminists."
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Sexual freedom, the chance to experiment sexually, has always been
    of vital importance to women asserting their self-identity.
    Prescriptions of ``politically correct'' sex, of any variety, run
    counter to feminism's desire to empower women to explore their
    sexuality.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 200       Should pornography be banned? 
peg:aldis       media.issues    11:45 am  Aug  7, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/* Written 11:22 am  Aug  5, 1992 by greenleft in peg:greenleft.news */ 
/* ---------- "Green Left issue 65, August 5" ---------- */ 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				   
		    Should pornography be banned?
				   
			    By Pip Hinman


It's almost received wisdom within some sections of the women's  
movement that to be a feminist is to support censorship of  
pornography. But a growing number of feminists are concerned  
about anti-pornography campaigns. 

We disagree with the view that pornography is central to or a  
cause of women's oppression, and hence reject the strategy that  
flows from this approach. Pornography does not cause women's  
oppression, as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon argue; it's  
a symptom of it. 

Secondly, we believe that pro-censorship campaigns could assist  
the very powerful and conservative forces that maintain the  
systematic oppression of women. 

Third, we believe that feminists should be campaigning for more  
freedom of expression, including the freedom to publish,  
distribute and consume sexually explicit material and material we  
find erotic, especially more material prepared by women for  
women. 

We believe that a more repressive sexual regime will further  
narrow women's real choices. Feminists seek both to provide an  
analysis of women's oppression and to promote women's liberation,  
which means greater freedom of choice in our economic, social and  
sexual lives. 

The word ``pornography'' came into use in the mid-19th century,  
when Victorian middle-class moralists declared that sexually  
explicit material was obscene, degrading and corrupting if made  
available to the general public. So pornography, which literally  
means ``writing about prostitutes'' was allowed only to a narrow  
elite. 

Definitions of pornography were developed by the ruling class in  
order to decide what to ban. For the same reasons - to decide  
what to ban or censor - the anti-pornography feminists have  
developed their own definitions of what is pornographic. For  
instance, Andrea Dworkin describes pornography as ``the graphic  
depiction of women as vile whores'' and she says that pornography  
is violence against women. Susan Brownmiller thinks that it is  
``the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda''. 

But when it comes to the practical business of drafting  
censorship laws, anti-feminist conservatives and anti-pornography  
feminists end up agreeing that pornography is sexually explicit  
material which is assumed to degrade women. 

It is said that women know what is pornographic because we have a  
gut feeling against it. But most of us have ambivalent feelings  
about sexual imagery. Feminists need to challenge the  
conservatives' claim that sexually arousing equals degradation.  
We should also accept the large variety of subjective responses  
to different imagery. Your erotica might be pornography to me and  
vice versa. 

Many women and some men are not used to seeing pictures of sexual  
activity and the display of genitals. We may feel disturbed,  
troubled or guilty. Images of attractive young women looking  
``sexy'' may also arouse confusion or negative feelings about our  
bodies, especially in the light of the other billion dollar  
industry exposed by Naomi Wolfe in The Beauty Myth. 

		     ===========================
		      S e x i s t   i m a g e s
		     ===========================

We are also reacting against the flood of sexist imagery that  
confronts us everywhere - every billboard, outside every  
newsagency, in every TV commercial and every soap opera.  
Pornography remains a small proportion of the total body of  
sexist imagery. 

In a society which systematically oppresses women, culture  
inevitably reflects this oppression by promoting ideas that  
encourage men to believe that they have the right to dominate  
women in all areas of life. But this domination of women and its  
inherent violence predate the recent explosion of mass media and  
of pornography. 

Much of pornography includes sexist imagery, sexist stereotypes  
and images that are degrading to women. But some of it, including  
pornography produced by and for women, doesn't. 

Really violent sexually explicit material makes up only a small  
part of pornography. It is an even smaller part of a much larger  
body of sexist and violent imagery screening every day on TV and  
cinema screens and in a wide range of publications. This  
indicates the inadequacy of just focusing on pornography:  
misogynist and violent imagery in material which is not  
considered pornographic is much more widespread and many times  
more influential. 

The most widely read heterosexual male pornography magazines,  
such as Penthouse, Playboy, and Mayfair, do not incorporate  
images that are explicitly violent, but they do fetishise parts  
of women's bodies. Yet many mainstream fashions also fetishise  
parts of women's bodies, emphasising certain characteristics such  
as breasts or thighs. If the objectification and sexual  
stereotyping of women is violent, then do Mills and Boon novels  
and popular women's magazines qualify as violence against women?  
Should they be censored? 

Images of SM sex are explicitly ``violent'' - but if these  
practices are entered into consensually and enjoyed by both  
partners, can they really be? And what about lesbian SM  
pornography - is it also violence against women? Should this be  
censored too? 

			     ===========
			      P o w e r
			     ===========

Some feminists argue that sex has become totally corrupted by the  
eroticisation of power relations. They argue that some women have  
been brainwashed into accepting this framework and some even  
enjoy politically ``incorrect'' sex. 

This suggests that there is some essential or ``true'' female  
sexuality that is being suppressed. The ideal of ``a sexual  
relationship between fully consenting, equal partners who are  
emotionally involved and do not participate in polarised roles''  
is proposed as women's true sexuality. But this analysis tries to  
define an ideal sexuality outside social conditions; it ignores  
the conflicting desires of real, existing individual women. It's  
a new brand of moralism which once again divides ``good'' women  
from ``bad''. 

Real life suggests that sexual domination or submission is no  
indicator of personality or behaviour toward others. Men who, for  
example, enjoy masochistic and submissive sex, are not  
necessarily masochistic and submissive in their daily lives.  
Sexual preferences and behaviour may not mirror attitudes and  
behaviour outside the context of sexual activity. 

Andrea Dworkin argues that pornography is itself violence and  
cites anecdotal evidence about sex workers and women who work in  
the pornography industry. The famous example is the snuff movie -  
in which an actual murder is supposed to be seen on screen. The  
perpetrators are real murderers and should be treated as such.  
But it is simply ridiculous to put images of violence on a par  
with real violence. 

Undoubtedly, millions of women all around the world are forced,  
at least by economic pressures, to work as sex workers and take  
part in the pornography industry. But millions more slave as  
domestics, super-exploited labourers in industries and unpaid  
labourers in the home. Many more are trapped in cruel and  
loveless marriages. This is all part of the horror of class  
society, which is systematically violent against women and  
against the great majority of the world's population. This shows  
how ridiculous it is to claim that pornography is the cause of  
women's oppression. 

An analysis of women's oppression that sees pornography as the  
cause leads to an inadequate strategy for fighting it. The belief  
that there is a direct link between one kind of media  
representation - pornography - and the level of violence against  
women can obliterate analyses of other sources of female  
oppression. It also threatens to stifle the rich discussion about  
women's sexuality by constantly reducing this discussion to  
pornography. 

The last thing we need today is a new moralism about politically  
correct sex. 

	       =======================================
		I n c i t e m e n t   t o   r a p e ?
	       =======================================

Another argument for censorship says that ``pornography is  
incitement to sexual hatred''. ``Pornography is the theory, rape  
is the practice'' - is the famous quotation from Robin Morgan,  
meaning that rapists are inspired to act by the things they see  
in pornography. Some feminists believe that we live in a rape  
culture, where all men are rapists. 

But the evidence for this is largely anecdotal, given by women  
who have been sexually abused by their husbands or lovers who use  
pornography. This evidence must be treated with care. It may well  
be a way of the offender trying to shift the blame and relieve  
himself of some guilt, blaming pornography for supposedly  
``making'' him commit a crime. 

The ``theory and practice of rape'' thesis also does not explain  
why the vast majority of men who read pornography do not rape,  
nor does it take into account the many men who physically,  
psychologically and sexually abuse their partners without  
reference to pornography. 

The statistical evidence linking rape and pornography is less  
than clear; feminist authors and researchers such as Lynne Segal  
have spent a lot of time documenting this and warn that all  
research must be treated with caution. 

According to the British Feminists Against Censorship, evidence  
shows that many sex offenders have been exposed to pornography  
later than other men and have seen less of it. At the same time,  
men who have committed violent acts against women have often been  
preoccupied by non-pornographic images in art and literature.  
Almost any stimulus may act as a trigger to sexual arousal or to  
violent impulses, or both. 

If pornography is the theory and rape is the practice why is it  
that the legalisation of pornography in Sweden, Denmark, West  
Germany and Holland has not increased the sex crime figures in  
those countries? 

This argument is based on a behaviourist notion that human beings  
are programmed by their biology and social conditions. 

The biological determinist view can at first glance appear to be  
``common sense''. But it fails to acknowledge that humans are  
more complex beings than other animals and that, unlike Pavlov's  
dog, we do not always respond in the same way to the same  
stimuli; self-consciousness, reflective and reasoning power and  
emotional response all come into play. 

To see men as naturally programmed for violence is to endorse the  
most conservative views on human nature - to see it as unchanging  
and essentially unchangeable. It is a defeatist theoretical  
analysis - one which states that it is useless to try to change  
attitudes and the social climate. To argue that men are  
programmed - whether by their hormones or by their conditioning -  
is also to absolve them of responsibility for their actions. 

Even if it were true that most pornography promoted violence  
against women, it wouldn't follow that we should not be exposed  
to it. Ignorance can never make us safer. 

Images of war can be used to expose the horror of war and explain  
its causes, as much as to promote it, depending on the context.  
We can apply the same approach to sexually explicit and violent  
images which can be used to demystify pornography, explain sexism  
and its causes, and to empower women. 

There is one stark lesson we can draw from the experience of  
women in eastern Europe and the former USSR. Where sexuality is  
repressed, it can easily be packaged and sold back to us,  
particularly in its most misogynist form. Censorship in eastern  
Europe didn't diminish the demand for pornography - and it  
certainly didn't stop violence against women and children. 

		   ===============================
		    R i g h t - w i n g   t r a p
		   ===============================

Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon say that pornography is  
central in maintaining men's dominance over women. This position  
has led them to ally with extreme right-wing anti-feminists to  
introduce anti-pornography legislation in several states in the  
USA. 

In the early 1980s the Minneapolis City Council passed an  
ordinance, drafted by Dworkin and MacKinnon, which would allow  
women to take legal action against anyone involved in the  
production, distribution or sale of pornography on the grounds  
that they had been harmed by the image of women that it  
portrayed. It received no support from local feminist groups. 

A year later a similar ordinance was introduced into the  
Indianapolis City Council, and attempts were made to pass similar  
legislation in Los Angeles and Cambridge, Massachusetts. A two- 
year legal battle by the Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force, and  
media groups and publishers, finally resulted in the ordinance  
being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

In this ordinance, for the first time pornography was defined as  
a form of sex discrimination, which would have allowed  
individuals to sue in a civil court to ban specified sexually  
explicit materials and to collect damages for the harm done by  
the pornographers. 

Both Dworkin and MacKinnon argue that these ordinances are not  
censorship laws, but civic ordinances which empower women. They  
claim that these laws are no different from laws dealing with  
incitement to racial hatred. (Such laws are themselves  
problematic in that they do not distinguish between oppressor and  
oppressed, and are often used against the latter.) 

The legislation was very popular with right-wing legislators in  
each city. During the public hearings on these ordinances, the  
feminist phrase ``degrading to women'' was continually converted  
to ``degrading to femininity'' by the men who ran the hearings. 

Definitions in the ordinances are vague and all inclusive.  
Pornography is defined as the ``sexually explicit subordination  
of women,'' in ``postures of sexual submission''. Interpretation  
of such phrases is left to the citizen who files the complaint  
and to the judge who hears the case. Feminists Against Censorship  
say the legislation does not just prohibit the images of gross  
sexual violence that supporters of the ordinance claim is its  
target, but drifts toward covering a widening range of sexually  
explicit material. 

It is not unusual for such legislation to be used far more  
broadly than originally intended. For example, an anti- 
pornography law in the Canadian province of Ontario was recently  
used to raid a bookshop for carrying a sexually explicit lesbian  
magazine. 

The unholy alliance some feminists make with the right wing is  
cause for serious concern for feminists. The agenda of the right  
wing has not changed - it is to limit our choices, to take back  
the gains of decades, to reassert the reactionary "pro-family"
ideology and women's role within it, to restrict our sexuality,  
to restrict our economic and social options. The conservatising  
years of the 1980s in the US, Britain and Australia have given  
rise to a renewed attack on our rights, as Susan Faludi so well  
documents in Backlash. ["s added --HB]

Feminists have always attempted to de-link sexual relations from  
economic dependence within the family, and we don't want to make  
it easier for the back to the family brigade under the guise of  
supporting ``feminism''. 

	    =============================================
	     A n t i - c e n s o r s h i p   a g e n d a
	    =============================================

The women's liberation movement has consistently sought to  
explain why men are violent against women; we have campaigned  
against sexist media imagery which stereotypes women - we want a  
wider recognition of women as capable, strong, independent and  
sexual beings. 

While moral crusaders worry about the corrupting influence of  
explicit sexuality, the women's movement realised that one of the  
many barriers to our liberation is the repressed nature of  
sexuality within the existing family system. Sexual freedom, the  
chance to experiment sexually, has always been of vital  
importance to women asserting their self-identity. Prescriptions  
of ``politically correct'' sex, of any variety, run counter to  
feminism's desire to empower women to explore their sexuality. 

We have a responsibility to counter in the most effective way  
images which are sexist or exploitative - not by seeking to have  
them banned, but by initiating a much more wide-ranging debate  
about sex, by lobbying for better sex education in schools, by  
creating more informed, tolerant and responsible social attitudes  
to the expression of sexuality, and by supporting those who are  
creating an alternative body of sexual images for women. 

Women need open and safe communication about sexual matters,  
including the power relations of sex. We need a feminism which is  
about choice - about taking control of our lives, including our  
sexual lives. 

We [need] erotic material produced by and for women, freed from the
control of right-wingers and misogynists, whether they sit on the
board of directors or the board of censors.

We don't need new forms of guilt parading under the banner of  
political correctness. 

We need a safe, legal working environment for sex workers, not  
repressive laws or an atmosphere of social stigma that empowers  
police and pimps to brutalise them. 

We need an analysis of violence that empowers women and protects  
them. Feminism should be a critique of sexism, masculine power  
and patriarchal society. It also must be willing to tackle issues  
of class and race and to deal with the variety of oppressions in  
the world, not to reduce all oppressions to pornography. 

Ruth Wallsgrove of the British feminist magazine Spare Rib was  
right in 1977 when she said: ``I believe we should not agitate  
for more laws against pornography, but should rather stand up  
together and say what we feel about it, and what we feel about  
our own sexuality, and force men to re-examine their own  
attitudes to sex and women implicit in their consumption of  
porn.''