From: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:50:38 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <STEINAR.92Apr14194103@otello.solan.unit.no> steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Charles Herrick writes:
>>Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films
>>by the feminazis again.
>
>Note the term "feminazis" being used by someone wishing to discredit 
>anything that _might_ be feminist again.  Quite honestly i wonder if
>the people who use that term ever think about what the Nazis were.
>Scratch that, what the Nazis are, because they're still around.

You're right, Cindy, the Nazis were much worse.  They wanted to destroy
the Jews, not the men.  And they advocated mass murder of the group they ...
oops, wait, forget that one.  ...And they tried to forcefully surpress
any opposing viewp... no, forget that one, too.

The term "Nazis" has come to be applied to any group with a rigid,
inflexible agenda that isn't always supported by rational ideas and
thoughts.  Besides, it makes a word play -- feminist, feminazi.  I
hope this isn't too far-fetched for you.

>>Or do the feminist really want to imply that all females, like them,
>>are sexually disfunctional and unable to enjoy healthy sex?
>
>There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
>all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
>enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
>not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.
...
>Now, maybe the reason you hear so little about soft-core porn is that
>most people don't feel it does any harm, and so ignore it.

You are making two very bad assumptions here.  First, the porn that a
lot of feminists are going after IS soft-core, with Playboy being the
prime example.  Second, "hard-core" and "violent" porn are not synonymous.
Hard-core is just more graphic than soft, not more violent.

>And maybe
>the reason you hear so much about violent porn is because a fairly
>vocal group feels it _does_ do harm.  And after a while, since
>soft-core is so seldom spoken about, the word "pornography" comes to
>mean for some people only the more violent type.

Then they should learn to define their terms better, to avoid confusion.
Suppose I ran around saying, "Black people are violent, uncontrollable
sub-humans who deserve to be locked up!"  Of course, I would just be
talking about the one who held me at gunpoint last week.  (BTW, this
is all hypothetical.)  Which is more absurd?  The violent porn you seem
to think feminists are talking about makes up a very, very small
percentage of the total, so small that to condemn the rest along with
it is beyond ridiculous.

>I hope this isn't too far-fetched for you.

Ooo, such biting sarcasm!  Chuck, I bet you're writhing in your chair
right now.

Daniel Welch
----
One time I asked him if he liked grouper fish, and he didn't know whether I
wanted to hear that he ate them, or just admired them.

                                - Jane Sibbery, "Extra Executives"
Xref: sparky soc.men:8425 soc.culture.canada:3404