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: <2265@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 22:27:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2265
Posted: Wed Sep 25 22:27:32 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 00:21:34 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> <2061@mnetor.UUCP> <10423@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 175
Xref: utcs net.women:7542 net.politics:10968
Summary: 

In article <10423@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes:
>
>Sophie Quigley responds to my posting.
>
>>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 consider myself reasonably well-read and well-informed on
>the subject.  And I don't think my "ignorance" led to any
>misstatements in my original posting.  And in your reply you
>don't point any out.  So what IS your point here?

The point I was making (clearly I thought) was that there is not ONE
feminist position on censorship of pornography.  What I've noticed
from reading feminist litterature is that this issue is creating a
split in the feminist community.  The next point I was making is that
"the media" has been ignoring the voices of anti-censorship feminists.
(I did say both of these things.  I don't know how much clearer I can
make my point).  Therefore, all I was trying to say is that you shouldn't
rely on the popular media to get a deep understanding on feminist ideas,
just like you shouldn't rely on the popular media to get an understanding
of what hackers are.  If you believe that media, all of us hackers are
criminals and feminists are all pro-censorship.

>>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.
>
>A responsible society should be able to censor itself? 

Yes, and it doesn't and that is very unfortunate because we do not have
a responsible society.  Whether the *state* should enforce censorship is
another issue.  The point I was trying to make (awkwardly - my fault)
is that some rights have to be weighed out against others, and I do not
find it inconceivable that in a "perfect" society, pornography would not
exist because people would realise that its benefits are not worth the pain
that it creates.  How we achieve such a society, I don't know.

>As for pornography posing a real threat to women, I don't
>buy it.  Rather, it is society's prudish, moralizing attitudes
>towards sex that pose a threat to women.  

It is both.

>    As others on this net have pointed out, violence against
>women is highest in countries (such as the Soviet Union)
>with the strictest censorship.  Countries such as Sweden with
>little or no censorship have the lowest rates
>of violence againstr women.  If viewing pornography might
>cause a marginally stable individual to go out and commit 
>a sex crime (and this hasn't been demonstrated) it is probably
>tracable to his moralistic upbringing and conflicts related
>thereto.  But arguing these issues was not the point of 
>my posting.
>
It wasn't the point of my posting either.  The reason I posted was that I
was incensed by the atmosphere of insensitivity that surrounds this whole
issue.  I do not believe in censorship either, but I cannot respect people
who will refuse to acknowledge the negative feelings that some pronography
causes some people.  All pornography is not equal, some of it is harmless
and even stupid, some of it is fun, but there is also some of it which is
very depressing.  All I would like is for anti-censorship people to say:
"yes we realise that pornography hurts, but we really don't think that
censorship is going to solve the problem" instead of "if pornography hurts
you, it's because you are sexually repressed and you simply want to impose
your prudishness on other people".  All I would like is some more compassion,
and I don't see much of it (except from Sherry, who of course was attacked
for it).

>>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.
>
>Clearly you don't regard reading pornography as a valid
>form of entertainment, as oppposed to whatever it is 
>you do for sexual pleasure.  You feel that pornography
>is a personal threat.  I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels that
>he is personally threatened by the mere existence of
>homosexuals, and that their existence is degrading to 
>all men.  I stand by my analogy, I think it is a good one
>and explains a lot about the attitudes of people like you.

I don't care about whether pornography is a valid form of entertainment
or not.  (Actually, I have bought some pornography (gay) and got some good
giggles out of it, so I guess it was entertaining).  But yes, I do feel
threatened by some pornography, and some of it makes me very depressed.
I don't know about "people like me" and their attitudes, but I don't see
why you had to make personnal attacks against people who had a different
opinion from yours.
Maybe you felt threatened by them...
>
>>
>>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.
>
>Well, pornography isn't "hate literature".  
>It's designed to entertain horny men, nothing more.

Well some people see it as "hate litterature" and that's why they want it
banned, not because they don't agree with the form of sexual expression.
You see, you are doing it again: you are refusing to listen to other people's
opinions on pornography.  Some pornography is obviously hateful of women.  Why
are you refusing to admit this?  Admitting this does not entail that you have
to be pro-censorship.
>
>>be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada)
>
>Maybe that explains something.  Lousy as the public school
>systems are in the U.S., they do pound a few basic things
>into your head such as respect for freedom of the press.

Yeah, but do they explain why?  Is this "respect" based on actual caring for
the welfare of society and its members or is it just one of those wonderful
slogans that makes one feel proud to be free to be proud to live in the
greatest (and freeest and proudest) country in the world?

>    The point of my posting, really, was to say, "Nobody's
>raised the issue on the net yet that this right-wing
>pro-censorship stuff is eroding feminism's liberal
>base of support."  

I think this is a very good point.  I just wish you hadn't surrounded it
with all the other garbage and personnal attacks against pro-censorship
feminists.  Yes, I worry about this too, but as I explained a few times
I see this more as an outside misrepresentation of feminism than anything
else because I really don't see feminist being united in this issue at all.
One would hope that people who care about these issues would care enough
to distrust the media's portrayal of (anything in general, but more
particularly) the feminist community's opinion on the matter.  That is
probably very wishful thinking however.

>    I believe Sophie is underscoring this point for me.
(well, actually, I think you did a pretty good job of underscoring it
for yourself.  <-:)

>She probably wouldn't write off an otherwise loyal
>feminist just because they were against censorship,

I hope not, I'd have to write myself off.  Until very recently, I was very
annoyed by this issue and refused to have a position on it because a/ I believe
that there were more important feminist topics to worry about and b/ I didn't
like any of the arguments I had heard from either the feminist pro-censorship
side or the liberal anti-censorship side (and of course not the right-wing-
protect-our-women's-purity side either).  However, I have recently been exposed
to some feminist anti-censorship positions which do not attempt to excuse
pornography, and do not dismiss the problem and pain as imaginary, but who
simply and reasonnably adress the issue of whether censorship is an appropriate
reaction to this problem (and come out concluding that it isn't).  I am 
convinced.

>but because I'm male, and tried to dig a little deeper
>into the background of the pro-censorship movement,
>she writes me off instantly.  Wonderful.

I don't think you dug deep enough.  All you did was slander, and that's what
I objected to.  My opinion is that a pro-censorship attitude is a very
understandable reaction to the feeling of threat that pornography causes,
but that one must move beyond that position and realise that censorship would
create more problems than it would solve, because it would almost certainly
be used against the exact people it was supposedly meant to protect.
Actually some men have already said this on the net.  I didn't object.
>
>steve pope
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com