Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel
From: sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth A. Gordon)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Pornography
Message-ID: <1991Jun2.195149.13529@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 91 19:51:49 GMT
References: <2584@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Institute for Dangerous Research, Diplomatic Corpse
Lines: 61
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



In article <2584@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
 dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.UK
 (Colin Dente) writes:
>
>In article <674857657@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu
>(Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>
>>After at least one of those who produce, sell, exhibit and distribute
>>the Bible will be sentenced for the damage it causes, I'll be willing
>>to sit down and discuss the anti-porno laws.  Till then, it seems
>>to me that y'all use different standards to different groups.
>
>On the contrary, I believe the bible to be responsible for a great
>many of the ills in our society (including the oppression of women).  I
>would be glad to see the churches (of all religions) held more
>responsible for the hateful philosophies which they constantly
>espouse.

Why do you want the *churches* to be held responsible?  Why not hold
publishers and distributors of the Bible responsible, the same way porn
publishers and distributors would be held responsible under the Dworkin-
MacKinnon ordinance?

>When I wrote my original article, I had just finished reading John
>Stoltenberg's book "Refusing to be a Man".  Much of this book is
>concerned with the radical feminist stance on pornography, and, I
>admit, Stoltenberg's views formed the basis for the majority of
>mine....

I suggest that you read a broader selection of feminist literature.  The
anthology _Powers of Desire_ would be a good place to start; several of
the essays there directly attack the feminist anti-porn movement from a
feminist perspective.  After that, try anything by Gayle Rubin, Joan
Nestle, Barbara Ehrenreich, or Pat Califia.

>...I think that something, noble in
>principle though it is, like the first amendment which, as a side
>effect, can end up restricting the freedom of half of the population of
>a country *must* be subject to review, and should, where necessary, be
>restricted in it's [sic] scope.  

You assume here that freedom of speech (more precisely, pornography that
is allowed to be published due to freedom of speech) restricts the
freedom of women (i.e., encourages rape, wife-beating, child molesting,
etc.)

Pornography may have a slight influence on rape, just as Tom Clancy
novels may have a slight influence on the Republican Party's popularity.
But porn is *not* the little wheel that turns the big wheel of sexism.
There are countries with far more pornography than the US and far less
rape (e.g., Denmark); there are countries with stringent restrictions on
pornography and far worse conditions for women (e.g., Saudi Arabia).

It is, therefore, quite possible to improve the conditions for women
without infringing on anyone's right to free speech.


--
-- 
"Marx made a man out of me!"  --George Bernard Shaw
: bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!sethg / standard disclaimer
: Seth Gordon / MIT Brnch., PO Box 53, Cambridge, MA 02139