What I wanted was an intelligent exchange of ideas with mature people who don't resort to insults. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with an unreasonable person. Fuck off. And please die.
Pynchon frickin' rules, this guy I know read me some of his stuff recently. *Shrugs* Feminist literature always seemed to take an almost fetishistic interest in sexual assault. Hell, very little of the porn I've watched was that bad. It all depends on what one thinks the problem is. Liberals think it is that we are too unkind, feminists think that it is that we have lost the ability to relate between genders, conservatives think that we have lost contact with traditional values. You take any ideology and you take all of its baggage. I say fuck ideology, the first and most important thing to do is to live your own ideas. In the absence of any political movement, pick and choose from the objectives of various movements. Feminism degenerated into pointless rumination about sex. There was an idea at its heart, but watching a girl's soccer game turn into a good-natured competition expresses that idea more perfectly than any hand-wringing over objectification could. Repo Man: Insult does not equate to irrationality, not even to emotion. Say what you like, fact is I've put forth various ideas that you could have run with and didn't. Quit posturing, turn off the computer, and finally make that appointment to have yourself sterilized.
For any non psychotic people who are curious about what Dworkin was about: By some estimates, Americans rented almost 800 million pornographic videotapes last year. Women, either singly or as part of couples, took home about half of them. Since porn seems to be very much a "guy" thing, one may reasonably wonder whether watching a skin flick is the first choice of the women included as "part of couples." But from my observations of couples renting x-rated movies on a Friday night at my local video store, most women take a very active part in choosing the tapes. They appeared to have very definite likes (Rocco Siffredi), very definite dislikes (Ron Jeremy), and one common complaint (you can't tell anything about the movie from the box cover). Obviously, not all women enjoy pornography. But a substantial number certainly do. For most of the past 20 years, however, a certain segment of the feminist movement has tried to marginalize these women, either by denying that they exist or by telling them that they suffer from false consciousness. Only women brainwashed by the patriarchy could be deluded enough to think they really enjoyed porno, goes this line of thinking. Widespread media attention to such anti-sex zealots as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon makes it seem as if their beliefs are universally shared by feminists. In fact, there are many feminists who disagree with the Dworkin-MacKinnon line. Porn star Nina Hartley, activist Susie Bright, and journalist Lisa Palac, among others, have stepped forward to defend pornography and women's rights to enjoy and to participate in it. Of course, you will never see them counter Dworkin or MacKinnon face to face, since those two refuse to debate other women on the subject. The latest feminist case for porn is Defending Pornography, by ACLU President Nadine Strossen. Strossen makes an important, if ultimately flawed, contribution to the ongoing feminist debate on the matter. Pay careful attention to the title of her book: Strossen does not merely defend free speech--she makes a positive case for pornography itself. Porn, says Strossen, does not play an especially strong role in engendering sexism in society. In fact, for many women, it has a positive impact, helping them get in touch with their sexuality. Indeed, even the Meese Commission agreed that sexually explicit images can have such therapeutic effects. This line of reasoning stands in stark contrast to the Dworkin-MacKinnon position, which holds that pornography fosters sexism, upholds patriarchy, and causes rape. They define sexually explicit speech as a form of sexual discrimination and propose changing laws so that "victims" of pornography can bring a variety of civil suits. For example, if a rapist claims that a particular book or movie inspired his crimes, then his victim would be able to sue the work's producers and distributors for damages. Or if a woman is coerced into making a pornographic film, she would be able to sue the people involved. Dworkin has even argued that female participation in porn is in fact proof of coercion--even if no threats or force were used and even if the women say they participated freely. Strossen agrees that coercing women into making pornographic films should be illegal and notes that it is in fact already illegal. But she argues that claiming women can never consent to pose for sexual images denies women full citizenship and reduces them to the status of children or the mentally deficient. Indeed, she notes that the model anti-pornography legislation drafted by MacKinnon and Dworkin states, "Children are incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic conduct, even absent physical coercion, and therefore require special protection. By the same token, the physical and psychological well-being of women ought to be afforded comparable protection." Strossen argues persuasively that the feminist censorship movement is rooted in a distrust of sex itself. "Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike," writes MacKinnon. Dworkin has offered such observations as: "One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"; "Romance...is rape embellished with meaningful looks"; "In seduction, the rapist bothers to buy a bottle of wine." Strossen points out that the Dworkin-MacKinnon world view is essentially old-fashioned sexual conservatism: that sexuality is male, not female; that men are raving beasts; that men inflict sex on women; and that sex is inherently degrading to women. Indeed, conservative censors have appropriated Dworkin and MacKinnon's arguments about pornography and have tried to enact their ideas into law in several places. Talk about strange bedfellows. http://reason.com/9504/STROSSENbook.apr.shtml http://www.drunkanddisorderly.net/spacemoose/dworkin.gif http://www.drunkanddisorderly.net/spacemoose/give_to_me.htm I think I'll find out where she is buried and leave a copy of Hustler on her grave.
The pornographers rank with Nazis and Klansmen in promoting hatred and violence. --Andrea Dworkin Anyone who could write such a sentence knows nothing about pornography or Nazism. --Camille Paglia, in direct response to the above statement by Andrea Dworkin name an abuse and I hear: "Oh, it happens to men, too." That is not the equality we are struggling for. We could change our strategy and say: well, okay, we want equality; we'll stick something up the ass of a man every three minutes. --Andrea Dworkin If pornography is part of your sexuality, then you have no rights to your sexuality. --Catharine MacKinnon I hate it when other people try to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body and mind. I am astounded by the persistent praise of the MacKinnon-Dworkin ordinance that went as far as the Supreme Court, where it was finally struck down as unconstitutional. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have repeatedly insulted women by trying to create laws to protect them, as though women were a collection of glass figurines under the constant threat of being bumped off a table by the brutes who control their every move. The ordinance reads that any form of expression that is degrading to women, or objectifies women, can be banned while the producer of said materials could be sued for damages against women. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin penned an ordinance called the "Pornography Victims Compensation Act" in 1983. It was passed in Indianapolis in 1985, and became law for a short time until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled it unconstitutional. The definition of pornography in this law was "graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words." The Indianapolis law declared that pornography "is a practice of sex discrimination," and lawsuits could be filed for damages stemming from any of four offenses: "trafficking in pornography," "coercion into pornography," "forcing pornography on a person," and "assault or physical attack due to pornography." The following are additional criteria defining "pornography" as listed in the Indianapolis law: * women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities; or * women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or * women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or * women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or * women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or * women's body parts--including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, and buttocks--are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or * women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or * women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. In February 1992, Canada's Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 that obscenity can be defined as anything harmful to women, or as stated in the law, "Materials portraying women as a class of objects for sexual exploitation and abuse have a negative impact on the individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance . . . a substantial concern which justifies restricting the otherwise full exercise of the freedom of expression." (emphasis added) Suppressing art, music, sculpture, and literature for the good off all women justifies restricting freedom of expression? What about other threats to women's safety--cigarettes, alcohol, diet pills, sedatives, sexually transmitted diseases, guns, or cars? http://www.alexanderrenault.com/macd_workin_pu.html
All saying the same thing, to a philosopher... no? Pynchon's weakness is he was an engineer pretending to be a philosopher. He got some of it right, and then botched the rest, badly. :m:
Android: All symptoms of the same disease. There are too many people, and they've gotten the idea that they are entitled to things. It's cultural rot. Compare the literary avante-guarde (however that's spelled) these days to what was produced even fifty years ago - all in-fucking and endless production of the same sort of books, with a sensationalism calculated to shock somewhat but not to be too disturbing. I haven't read many of his books so I am not qualified to give an opinion. But I did not know he was an engineer. I like that about him...there's something methodical and detail-oriented to what I've sampled. Repo Man: Hey, nice use of the cut and paste. Look, I'm not going to justify Andrea's take on porn. I simply think she was more worthy than a lot of those who criticised her. I've noticed that those fond of debating porn are just using the debate as an excuse to talk about blowjobs with the opposite sex (ON TEH INTRANET!!!11!) so I'll leave you to it. "I think I'll find out where she is buried and leave a copy of Hustler on her grave." Wow, you're a disrespectful asshole. How transgressive.
I just love it when famous people die and then people stand over their grave arguing about whether or not their life meant anything... same thing with this pope business.
I think this is more whining "she was fat and wanted to take away my schoolgirl bondage rape porn, yay she's dead!" Personally I can't decide who is funnier - feminists or people who get upset by feminists.
Yeah, sort of. I'm ambivalent on the subject. I don't have any 'schoolgirl bondage porn'. My stack is mostly composed of either big boob mags, like "Voluptuous" or amateur porn like "naughty neighbors". The women seem happy enough to me. They look like they're enjoying themselves. Then again, would we have to ban Fine Art as well? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But you're right, if I didn't agree with Dworkin I would probably talk about how she was fat and ugly and just says all that stuff because she's mad that men don't like her. (because that's what feminism is, just ugly chicks trying to get respect).
-Bob- Again - I don't care about porn. What's that, the Death of Sardanopolis? Looks familiar. I don't think it would violate the terms of Dworkin's amendment. Nobody is in degrading or upsetting postures. Of course, my took-me-fucking-forever-to-find copies of Total Abuse would.
It's really amazing how little of importance is produced. But plenty of book's about person XYZ's unique suffering and transcendent vision, and all the abstract symbols it implies... Sometimes I wonder: am I the one smoking pot, or... the rest of them? :m:
Death of Sardanapalis, by Delacroix. Sardanapalis committed suicide, but before he did he wanted to have all his possessions burned, including his women. So you see the women as possessions, essentially being executed for his pleasure (and eventually everything is burned). I'd say it easily falls under all those categories for censorship that you mentioned being applied to porn. Some feminist art historians have issues with it, understandably.
android: Then again I ask myself if it wasn't always this way. When Goethe and Schiller were writing, I am sure there were fifty hacks writing "Huhn Suppe fur die Seele" poetry. Greshem's law of literature. I wasn't aware of the Nazi policy towards porn, it's quite amusing to think of a bunch of S.S men reading through and approving porn according to how Aryan it is. Especially considering the high number of homosexuals in the early Nazi party. I wonder what they'd think of "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS" -Bob- Ah, I didn't know the backstory. I still can't imagine that ordinance being used against that painting. Then again I have been known to wildly overestimate people's intellectual prowess. Would they really censor Fuseli? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *Shrugs* I don't particularly consider myself a feminist, but it seems sensible enough to have some standards as to porn. Dworkin's ordinance seems like a better standard than most - there's nothing obscene about the human body, put perhaps in the way it is treated.
I'm glad you enjoyed the cut and paste. Though you obviously couldn't be bothered to read all of it. You'd have seen this: An excellent way to determine the effect of MacDworkinism upon censorship is to closely monitor the developments in Canada since the MacDworkinite procensorship law was passed in 1992. It is no surprise to many that MacDworkinism has greatly damaged businesses owned and operated by feminists, along with gay men and lesbians. Those targeted by law enforcement agents have been, ironically, feminists themselves, along with the Canadian gay and lesbian community. Lesbian magazines, feminists books, and materials on gay and lesbian issues have taken the worst of the assaults. Books are routinely confiscated at the Canadian border and are often held in storage for months while smaller bookstores flounder financially. It has also been found that smaller bookstores have been raided by the Canadian Thought Police and have had books and magazines confiscated that were still available at larger bookstore chains, unnoticed by the Canadian Gestapo. Confiscated literature includes works by feminist scholar bell hooks, Kathy Acker, Langston Hughes, David Leavitt, Audre Lorde, Anne Rice, and Oscar Wilde. Diane DiMassa's cartoon strip Hothead Paisan has also been banned because the lead character is a lesbian. It is also interesting to note that works by both Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have been deemed pornographic and demeaning to women and have been confiscated. Wow, you're a disrespectful asshole. Sorry for sinking to your level. If even half of the events she claimed ocurred in her life actually did, then she had a terrible and tragic life. That's too bad. But it doesn't excuse her finding common cause with Ed Meese. Bob, no one aside from you has mentioned her appearance.
Most of Fuseli's really sick pictures were burnt after his death. (I would show you some better ones, but I have trouble finding it on the internet damnit). So in a way, he was censored in his own time. But yeah, he liked bestiality, lesbianism, rape and all that good stuff. I also cannot imagine such an ordinance being used against fine art, but then again, that's my point. Hundreds of years from now, our porn might be considered as fine art. Not to mention that it shares those mysogynistic and nasty aspects with contemporary porn (women as objects, etc). It seems sensible especially since we have those standards with 'kiddie' porn. If I was forced to give an opinion on the matter, It wouldn't seem unreasonable to ban the stuff where the woman (or man) is obviously being subjected to humiliating or dehumanizing acts, and only in the case where the production of the image entails that those acts actually occur (actually, I see no reason to ban computer-generated kiddie porn). It's an extremely fuzzy line there... a lot of it is very arbitrary/ culturally determined. Repo Man: I was making a joke there. Actually I've never even seen a picture of Dworkin but I was guessing she was ugly (perhaps correctly?) based on my 'theory' of feminism.
-Bob- Interesting, I didn't know that. The Symbolists were quite a group. I'm sure it could be considered so now. Look at all the academics who find great literary merit in the Marquis of Sade. Yes. If we are to have indecency laws (and Repo Man has yet to give a reason for us not to have them) they ought to cover what we think is indecent. But all laws are arbitrary and culturally determined. For instance, we could follow the lead of Camille Pagila and Georges Bataille and argue that sexual desire is inherently violent, then follow the argument to - why not suppress any exposition of it? But we don't because of certain community standards. That's why we have law, to enforce the culturally determined idea that we oughtn't run about killing and raping each other all willy nilly. Which brings me to - Repo Man: What exactly is your point?
Well Bob, you guessed correctly. There are many sites where her passing has brought out many unfortunate comments about her being overweight, and not pretty. This should not be an issue concerning the good or bad of what she had to say, and is a classic cheap shot. But her appearance and demeanor made her an easy target for Limbaugh and his ilk. She was used by the right wing as a strawman to dismiss women's issues. From the linked article again: I believe feminist writer Pat Califia stated it best in 1993 with, "Andrea Dworkin has done more damage to women's culture in her tenure as darling of the media than anyone who is leader of the right wing. She is morally responsible for what is happening to women's literature in Canada."
So, your point is that some stupid dyke who couldn't craft an artful sentence if her life hung on a clause thinks that Andrea hurt women's literature in Canada? Okay. That's great. Neeexxt
Do you think it was just a coincidence? Wait a minute; what do you mean by 'her appearance and demeanor'? Xev: Some things are more arbitrary/culturally determined than others. Sex seems to be one of those issues that everyone has their own opinion about. Hell, in some other culture showing boobs might not be a big deal, or showing an elbow might be naughty. Most arguments about illegalizing porn (including Dworkin's, apparently... that against kid porn) deal with certain harms it is either based on or causes. We don't ban porn simply because we are offended by it; although we could, we usually like to find a reason (a plausable connection to something else everyone agrees is bad). Sure, there will be some people who think rape is OK and so then porn is OK but it's easier to disregard them, and just argue that porn is based on rape and should therefore be banned.
