From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.214506.10583@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

[...]
 
>kb:
>|       Does Playboy refer to women as "cocksuckers"? Does it denigrate
>| the women whose pictures it publishes? Does its glorification of women
>| as sexual beings suggest that female sexuality is vile? Is it
>| responsible for attitudes that predate Playboy, that come from a time
>| when such public glorification of female sexuality was illegal?
>
>_Playboy_ exists in a context.  

Everything exists in some context, this is another distinction where
there is no difference.

>                                              Part of that context is
>hatred and contempt for sexuality, especially that of women

I most strongly diasagree, this simply is -not- true.

Please put some flesh on this claim (:^), Playboy is readily available, 
show me what context you claim is "hatred and contempt for sexuality".

>or those who take a woman-like role in it.  That's why 
>"cocksucker" is an insult.  No, _Playboy_ did not invent
>this context; 

No, it was invented by MacKinnon, Dworkin, and their ilk.
Or at least the PC version.

>               on the other hand, its safe, sanitized, highly
>limited commercial derepression probably does nothing to 
>change it either.  This is off the subject, though; it's the 
>kind of thing we could discuss if we weren't always called
>to the barricades.

What does this mean? "Depression"???
 
>gf:
>| >I can't help this; it's just one of the ugly facts of life.
>
>kb:
>|       No, Gordon, you _can_ help it. You can help it by opposing those
>| who want to put human sexuality back in the shadows, to be reviled or
>| sniggered at. You can help it by speaking out against the MacKinnons of
>| this world, who wish to give their own warped perceptions of sexuality
>| the force of law.
>
>It'll take far more than speaking out against the
>"MacKinnons" and looking at airbrushed pictures of 
>naked women.

It will take other than speaking about Playboy and other things
which many feminists do not like. And many feminists like (or at
least have no problems with) Playboy as well.
   
>MacKinnon is not, after all, MacKinnon, but a part of 
>DworkinMacKinnon, a necessary gargoyle for the enemies 
>of feminism to target in order to attack all feminists 
>-- as you can see in this newsgroup.  The particular 
>form that the repression of sexuality takes in our 
>society -- which, by the way, _Playboy_ exploits and 
>probably could not exist without -- can't even be discussed 
>here; instead, the ardent need to denounce the demon, and by 
>extension all feminism, always comes first.  If you don't
>believe me, look around you.

The ultimate proof of an empty claim, a conspiracy theory.
And you are almost as good as making stuff up as they are.
Imagine, a "DworkinMacKinnon" "gargoyle". 

You seem to espouse the their ideology, and yet you claim that this
"monster" is made up, not real. 
 
>If this were not the case, we would use what we thought was 
>useful in the writings of MacKinnon and Dworkin and anybody
>else and leave the rest.  But that would mean accepting the
>basic validity of feminism.

So you claim that we cannot accept one without the other? I do not
support feminism as a whole, because (despite claims to the contrary)
it does include anti-male elements. Some parts I will support, but
there is no need to consider the equal opportunity stuff as feminism.
 
>May I add in closing that if you are as concerned as you
>say you are with the First Amendment, and, I hope, the rest
>of the Bill of Rights, you will forget about this minor
>player who is being used here only as an instrument for an
>anti-feminist agenda.  There are far greater enemies of
>freedom in far higher places; where is your concern about
>them?

And who are these enemies? Why are they a greater threat, and
what do they have to do with feminism? (it may not be appropriate
to discuss them here)

>-- 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2437 soc.men:17610 soc.women:17604