Doug
----
>>At 4:25 PM -0800 3/15/02, Susie Bright wrote:
>>>Many feminists (bell hooks, Dworkin, and others) think there's been a
>>>regression in advancement toward liberation for women, too.
>
>
>bell hooks and Dworkin would raise hell to be thrown together in the
>same sentence like that. Virtually every feminist has analyzed the
>progress of,- or backlash against- women's liberation, but there
>are serious, and credible differences of opinion.
>
>>>I count
>>>the failure of "the left" (such as it was in the 80s, though all that
>>>Central American solidarity stuff seemed pretty damn effective) to get
>>>broadly behind the feminist anti-pornography movement as contributing
>>>to that regression.
>
>
>well, it wasn't laziness. When sexual politics started heating up in
>the late 70s, most Trotskyists and NAM types, who really pioneered
>the ideas of American socialist feminism, wanted to defend women's
>sexual expression, and sexual liberation in general, while keeping a
>critical eye on the capitalist machine that produces porn as well as
>it produces widgets. Meanwhile, most Maoist/Stalinist types were
>more symathetic to the anti-porn movement, because it kept in line
>with their feelings that sex stuff ( queerness, for example) was
>bourgeous decadence.
>
>>>
>>>Putting a serious crimp in the multibillion dollar porn industry,
>>>which directly benefits large corps like AT&T,
>
>
>interestingly, this All-American corporate connection to porn is
>very recent. Many sexual progressive leftists would love to put a
>crimp in the porn biz by seeing the labor force organized the way it
>is in the rest of the film businesss. This is much more threatening
>( i.e, realistic) than the notion that one shall simply moralize
>against sexual curiousity and lust until it "goes away."
>
>>>would conceivably have
>>>led, if the studies Mackinnon and Dworkin (and several pro-porn
>>>members of the judiciary as well) rely on are correct, to a decrease
>>>in sexual violence and other structural features of women's
>>>second-class status.
>
>
>Oh. Please. That canard is cooked. Even the most cursory review of
>popular pornography would reveal that it is largely designed with
>mastabatory intent, not homocidal. Porn, as a whole, is more
>diverse than television programming, less violent that either TV or
>Hollywood creations. More sexual predators locked up today have
>read the Bible than have been fans of porn, if you want to apply
>your mashed potato theory to that (" Every murderer ate mashed
>potatoes, therefore, mashed potatos cause murder").
>
>>>
>>>Instead, the pro-sex Suzie Bright, Pat Califa element of feminism
>>>became dominant, and now porn is more mainstream and more widespread
>>>than ever before.
>
>
>That's Susie with an S. and Califia with two i's. We have both have
>been critics of mainstream porn, not because it's "dangerous," but
>because it was a boys'-only club with the most ridiculous
>stereotypes and access priveleges. We developed and supported
>sexual expression that demonstrated women have sexual ideas of
>their own. We destroyed the "male gaze" as the presumptive p.o.v.
>which is articulated in erotica. Pat is one of the most brilliant
>sexual theorists around--- I can't believe you would have read any
>of her books and give her a cursory dismissal.
>
>
>>>As far as I know, yearly rape, molestation, and
>>>sexual assault statistics are largely unchanged.
>
>
>well, you obviously don't make it your business to watch those
>things, do you? No one sent a mailer to your home?
>
> For people who work in social services, prisons, and
>domestic/street violence programs, it's an insult to presume their
>caseloads go up and down depending on the porn that's available.
>Give me a break. They do see fluctuations in statistics. The
>overriding circumstance that provokes more violence is poverty,
>sudden changes in economic circumstance, and problems with health
>care and health problems.
>
>Have a heart, is what I want to say, at the end of this discussion.
>If you care about violence in society, don't be a dilletante and
>blame it on pornography! Roll your sleeves up and deal with the real
>problems that are making people suffer. If you want to shake up the
>porn biz, think about labor organizing- and make some of your own.