Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate Message-ID: <2061@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 20:05:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2061 Posted: Sun Sep 8 20:05:50 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 21:20:20 EDT References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Distribution: net Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 126 Xref: utcs net.women:7384 net.politics:10650 Summary: In article <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: > > After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like >to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here. >That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has >arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few >years has influenced the public's view of feminism. It >has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's >why. It is a shame, but the "public" can be very easily manipulated to believe almost anything. The "media" (another strange entity) seems to have made up its mind recently to prematurely bury feminism by defamation and assertions that it has passed away. Anyone who really wants to learn something about a certain school of thought should really not rely on reader's digest condensations of it but should instead go directly to the sources, i.e in this case, feminist writings. Having read a lot of feminist material myself, I have found basically that there is not one single issue on which all feminists agree (or did I miss it?). I have seen all sorts of very good feminist analyses exploring all kinds of important issues reaching very different conclusions. This does not mean that feminism is a philosophy that cannot make up its mind, but simply that it is a philosophy that acknowledges the complexity of life. Anyway the reason for this preamble was to point out that there is not ONE feminist position on censorship of pornography. Of all the issues I have seen discussed in feminist forums, censorship is probably *the* issue where there is the most disagreement, and rightly so, because it is such a thorny one. Therefore, even though Andrea Dworkin would really like to do so, she does *not* speak for all feminists. > I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed >feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported >except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >of thing. While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat might just include some amount of censorship. > Ellen feels offended by all forms of pornography, >including fairly mild examples such as Playboy. This >is her right. This attitude seems to be more prevalent >these days than in the past. What Ellen and many others >are really objecting to is the explicit portrayal of >women as being sexually available, presumably to men. >What Ellen may not realize is that she objects to people >whose sexual preferences are different from her own. >She realizes that there are people who are sexually >entertained by something she finds offensive and disgusting, >and this upsets her. The mentality here is the same as >that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis >that homosexuality is inherently disgusting. This is >narrow mindedness, pure and simple. And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide exactly what is in Ellen's mind? It is one thing to object to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety. > It's probably part of human nature that any given >individual is unlikely to accept, at a personal level, >all forms of sexual expression. But it takes a heluva >lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality >should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be >banned. Oh give us a break! we all know that. Nobody's objecting to people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate litterature which endangers their safety. > I believe that this sexual intolerance is the real >motivation behind the pro-censorship movement. The >other justifications -- linkage to criminal violence, >association with illegal activities such as child >pornography, and so on -- are pretty much rationalizations. And I believe that your article is pretty much a rationalisation to support the fact that you have a lifetime suscription to Playboy, Penthouse and all sorts of other magazines showing little children and women being cut up into little pieces while enjoying it all, and YOU enjoy it all and you don't want anybody to spoil your fun. So there! See, anybody can psychoanalyse anybody else if they want to and dismiss their arguments without listening to them. You are not immune to it. So if you don't want to be subject to this kind of abuse why don't you practice what you preach and be a little more tolerant of those you dismiss as intoleranty simply because you don't want to bother listening to what they are saying. > So my advice, to those who are considering jumping >on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice >about what you are doing. By attacking one of society's >basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire >women's rights movement. Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our society's basic rights too. Sounds like some rights have to be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) > And the movement is not doing as >well as it was a few years ago. I am not alone in my >opinions, so I think this is something to consider. Of course you are not alone in your opinion. It certainly is not an original one as I've pointed out above. Ah, yes, how much you care about the "movement".. reminds me of Ken Arndt and how much he "cares" about homosexuals. With friends like that..... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie