From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Pornography, a Humble Opi
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:38:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Note - This message was returned to me with posting errors.  I *believe* that
the original message was from soc.feminism.  If not, then it was probably on
soc.women.


histlib@erich.triumf.ca (Mary Olin) writes...
MO> The problem with laws against pornography is mostly with who gets to
MO> define it. If we put this tool into the hands of white, straight,
MO> conservative, men in suits, the law will used against us.

I think that you are being extremely unfair, Mary.  It seems as though you
are impugning the judgement of these individuals, based upon the fact that
they are of the "wrong" gender, race, and sexual orientation.

It is *very* hard to do well in any situation if you are a member of this
proscribed group, as in fact, I am.  Why do I say this?

For instance, if these Politically "Incorrect" legislators banned some sort
of violent pornography, there would be feminist groups claiming victory,
claiming that their successful lobbying had won over the legislators.  There
would of course, be little implication that the legislators did it of their
own volition, but in fact that it was the *lobbying* that succeeded in
"helping" these men to temporarily defeat their own "patriarchal, oppressive
natures".

If however, they were to ban a certain gay or lesbian publication, your group,
and conceivably other similar groups, would condemn them for their
"patriarchal" viewpoints, which essentially boils down to blaming them *on
the basis of being male* (and white, etc.).


Think about it...if someone criticised a woman for misunderstanding some
issue, and essentially blamed her for being a woman, the complainant would
most certainly come under heavy, withering fire (as should be deserved), but
NOW it is almost fashionable to impugn a person's viewpoints, *JUST BECAUSE*
one happens to be male and white...

This is, IMHO, sexism and racism.  The answer to the problem of
misunderstanding is *education*, and *not* blaming, especially not the kind
of blaming that blames a person on the basis of gender, race, or sexual
orientation.


MO> They don't think Playboy and Hustler are pornographic.

Perhaps not, but *I* do.  I do not wish to be lumped in with "them".


MO> Pornography, to them,
MO> tends to be images of any lifestyle that isn't in line with their
MO> oppressive thinking.

This is quite stereotypical.  Indeed, calling these people "them" calls up
images of "us" versus "them".


MO> About two years ago, for example, we had a close
MO> brush with legislation that would have made a large number of natural,
MO> healthy, bodily functions, including (would you believe) lactation
MO> "pornographic".

Well, *I* think that this is ridiculous as well, but the answer is not to
blame these people for being male and not understanding the opposite gender!
If the problem is that they do not understand, insulting them will certainly
not get you anywhere with them!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Incoming fire has the right of way.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.