From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:48:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct8.011702.21904@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>What is wrong other than the fact that you seem to feel that it should be
>>different? And -everything- is objectified, it is more than a non-issue,
>>it is a non-sequitor. (sp?)
>
>Well, that's a bit of an overstatement, but it's true, by the way
>"objectified" is overused these days, it does seem to boil down to that.
 
{ digression ommitted, not representative, but interesting}
 
>>>But the pornography is a symptom, not the illness itself.  And it's not just
>>>a symptom of an illness in a few people who are going to be sick with or
>>>without porno.  It's a symptom of an illness in society as a whole.  Please
>>>note that I am still talking about the INEQUALITY of porno, not the 
>>>existence.
> 
>>"INEQUALITY" is anothert invented non-issue. It has never existed, and
>>I think it is not a stable or realizable position. So what? An equally valid
>
>Okay, from the context it's clear to me that he meant "INEQUALITY of
>representation" -- that is, there are far more females in porn than
>males.  Is that an invented non-issue?  Nope.  It's a fact.  It
>may or may not be a problem.

Once again, so what? What is the significance and why does it mean anything?
If it is not a problem, then who cares and why even bring it up?
 
>It's a problem from my perspective, as a female consumer... not
>enough merchandise.. :)

I susect that the supply follows the demand in these things.
 
>>>I enjoy a good porno flick as much as the next guy, but there IS something
>>>wrong when there are *way* more girly mags than there are Playgirl-type mags.
>>>                                                          ^[Note the irony.]
> 
>>So what? Why is this 'wrong'? Where in either type magazine is there a
>>wrong?
>
>Um, he didn't say that anything *in* either magazine is wrong.  He said
>something more like: There is something wrong with our world when zillions 
>of men want to go down to the corner store and buy some nekked lady pics, 
>but zillions of women, for whatever reason, don't do the same with nekked
>men pics.  Kinda leaves open the question of whether the problem is in 
>the men, for buying it, or in the women, for not buying it, dontcha think?

What is wrong here, please be explicit and as clear as possible. Define
it please, and stop talking about it as a forgone conclusion.
 
>>>I do think things are improving, and I don't think censoring porno is the
>>>answer.  I would like to think that the exteremists know this also, but I
>>>can't speak for them.
> 
>>Some things are improving, overall things are much worse, much much worse.
>
>Damn it, I said the glass was half *FULL* !!!!!!!

Sorry, I just drank it, it's empty. :^)
 
>rini
>- Who's soon gonna learn to stay outta other people's flame wars... 

(or who hopefully will someday learn what a flame is, because she does not)

Rich

payner@netcom.com