From: als@bohra.cpg.oz.au (Anthony Shipman)
Subject: Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Organization: Computer Power Software Group Pty Ltd
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:01:32 GMT

dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) writes:

>The following is an email reply to me, posted with the permission of Phil Ryan, who
>started this thread ...

>David

>Go ahead, post your response to my email.

>I find your views as expressed here even more repressive than those that 
>were expressed in your original posting.

>You seem to feel that women who work as topless barmaids would rather be 
>doing that than anything else - which is total bullshit. If women and men 
>had equal opportunities in this society, and the subjugation of women was 
>not thought of as being OK, then there would not be topless barmaids. You 
>said it yourself - that the women involved would have liked the extra cash: 
>how come a topless barmaid gets paid more than a non-topless one? Because, 
>like prostitution, she is selling her body. (And in any case, the topless 
>women were getting exploited like crazy - no tits, no job etc. etc.)

>You are living in a fairytale world where people are equal, and yet women 
>_still_ prefer to be seen draping cars, being topless barmaids, being 
>prostitutes, being used in pornography. It is garbage: women are doing 
>these things because our society is constructed such that we don't let them 
>do much else - except be mothers to ourseleves and our children.

>There are two groups of women involved in the pornography debate: those 
>opposed to it, and those in favour of it. Those women in favour of 
>pornography are, like the 'collaborateurs' in France during WWII, like that 
>because they feel that the world cannot be changed (and will not be), so 
>that they may as well make the most out of their lot in the male-dominated 
>world.

>Now, to help to bring you back to reality: why don't you ask some women 
>that you know - of any socio-economic class - if, for the same money, they 
>would rather be topless barmaids or porn stars, than what they do now.


Men are exploited too.  There are lots of men out there doing the shit jobs
like digging ditches, collecting the garbage, cleaning public toilets in parks.
They don't want to do it but they have to earn a living and they have to put up
with exploitation by the bosses in doing it.  Cleaning toilets is pretty
demeaning I think.  There aren't many men who would swap their present jobs for
one cleaning toilets even on the same money.

I have little sympathy for the argument that women are exploited if they
are stuck in jobs that they don't like.  Aren't we all.  Eliminating the 
problem job isn't much of a solution.  It just throws the person into poverty.
You can't say that the person can just find another job otherwise why not
change jobs immediately if there is an alternative.



>As to the question of 'evidence' of opression in the production of 
>pornography: there is plenty of it. Many cases have been won, where the 
>women involved have won compensation for their forced roles - usually of 
>course, the men involved are then declared bankrupt, but the point is that 
>there _is_ the evidence. Of course, there is also the child pornography: I 



Where women are being coerced in their jobs, any jobs, then the standard
solution is to unionise.  In unity is strength.  Unfortunately while
prostitution is kept illegal and marginalised, unionisation, arbitration, court
actions etc aren't possible.

--
Anthony Shipman                 "You've got to be taught before it's too late,
CP Software Export Pty Ltd,      Before you are six or seven or eight,
19 Cato St., East Hawthorn,      To hate all the people your relatives hate,
Melbourne, Australia, 3121       You've got to be carefully taught."  R&H
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet