From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.201059.10760@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >Now, if sexual availability is taken to be a mark of low 
>| >status and vulnerability, as our language would seem to 
>| >indicate, then a fairly reasonable argument can be made 
>| >that _in_our_cultural_context_ such a picture might 
>| >contribute to the disempowering of the category of person 
>| >it represents.
>
>kb:
>|         Gordon, do you realize what you just said? Guess what: if sexual
>| availability were a mark of low status, few men would have any status
>| at all :-).
>
>I suppose the only way I could protect my writings against
>this sort of gibe would be to include qualifiers like
>"passive" or "receptive" ahead of "availability."

	I see no difference. "Availability" clearly indicates simple
receptivity to me, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. No
confusion thus far.

>In overt manifestations of sexuality, the idea that one
>is exercising one's will over others may remove some of
>the taint from admitting that one is sexual at all -- this
>is the traditional male position -- but otherwise sexuality
>is a negative.  A male who does not select, or who is
>selected by others (male or female) seems to be looked down
>upon.  Or so it seems to me.

	Well, we're not so far apart, here. You're right, traditional
morality sees unselective sexuality as cheap. Moreso for women than
men, but either sex can be hit with this. That's why the marketing of
sex, its commercialization, earns special condemnation from the
traditionalists; it's unselective.

	But what confuses me, and separates our positions, is your
apparent desire to shoot the messenger. MacKinnon's not standing against
such Victorianism, she's supporting it. It is Playboy and its kin who
stand up against this stuff.

>from the MacKinnon's criticisms as thus far
>printed, it seems to me -- this was already my opinion, but
>it seems confirmed -- that what is required is not a
>suppression of pornography (erotica, if you prefer) but an
>expansion of its scope.

	You got that from MacKinnon?? I wish you'd think some more about
why you're so determined to cast her in the role of your ally. You've
already admitted knowing little about her views, and this certainly
confirms that. MacKinnon is explicitly against _all_ porn/erotica.

>That is, depictions should include
>situations which cannot be taken as demonstrating passivity
>or victimization on the part of women.

	In the eyes of a MacKinnon, anything sexual demonstrates
passivity and victimization of women. Have you never heard her
rationale of how S&M erotica where the woman is dominant, and the male
submissive, still victimizes women? Seems that it's still an acting out
of _male_ fantasy, according to her. If she can rationalize that as
subjugation of women, just what sort of erotica do you imagine would
meet with her approval?

	How blatant do the rationales have to be, before the truth
becomes obvious? MacKinnon's condemnation of porn isn't about the
position of women in society, it's about sex. It's no different than any
other attempt to suppress erotica; the rationalizations are different,
but the reasons are the same.

	What I don't get, Gordon, is why you struggle so hard against
the conclusion that MacKinnon is a plain, old-fashioned prude. When
pushed to the wall you don't seem to support any of her program, and
little of her rationalization. Is it that you believe that it's
impossible for a person to be simultaneously a feminist and a prude for
some reason? That there's something inherent about sexual prudery that
makes only conservatives and religious fanatics vulnerable to it? If so,
can you argue for that position? And if not, then where _are_ the prudes
among the feminists, if MacKinnon isn't one of them? There must be some,
unless feminists are magically immune.

>For this reason, the
>bland, soft-core pornography typical of the copies of
>_Playboy_ I have seen are of little use, since the set of
>depictions is itself rather passive, allowing a great many
>constructions, including malevolent ones, to be put upon it.

	Well, Playboy's too tame for my tastes, too. But the blame for
that goes to the Victorian leftovers in our culture's sexual mores,
leftovers we both seem to disdain, not to the magazine. Playboy is
mass-market, an expensive magazine that pays top dollar for what's in
it. It needs wide distribution to sell enough copies to be profitable,
and if it went hardcore it would lose its distribution network; thank
society for that.

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4902 alt.folklore.urban:29438