From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:49:58
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct4.222702.18468@netcom.com> <1992Oct7.214506.10583@panix.com>
	<1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>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.

Yes, everything exists in a context.  Gordon was not trying to say that
Playboy was unique in this, but that the context had to be considered,
as the context that anything exists in does.

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

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

It simply *is* true.

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

He is talking about the context here, not about Playboy itself.  I'll
give you some examples from Playboy, just to make you happy, though.
All the women in Playboy look very much alike.  They ignore and,
indeed, seem to wish to deny, the fact that women who don't look like
that can still be sexy, interested in sex, etc.  In many of the stories
in Playboy women are portrayed as pretty much constantly ready for sex -
there is no need to do anything to arouse them.  Certainly, I think that
what people find arousing is a major part of their sexuality, and it is,
again, denigrated or ignored.  By the way, the same thing tends to be
done to men - the assumption in the stories is that they are
sufficiently excited by someone's looks to be ready for sex.  This,
then, is an example of the general contempt for sexuality, but at least
the men are given some *slight* motivation (huge breasts, short skirts,
whatever).

I see this sort of thing frequently in our society (the context, again).
I am tall and thin.  When I go out wearing tight clothing, a short
dress, or whatever, I get lots of compliments and sometimes obnoxious
advances.  A friend of mine is very heavy.  When she goes out in tight
clothing, she gets insulted, told she shouldn't be displaying her body
in that way, etc.  I display mine much more than she does hers, but no
one tells me to stop, because mine is close enough to the "ideal" that
people *like* seeing it displayed.  They reject my friend's sexuality
(or any display which might indicate that she has any such thing)
because she doesn't have the right body.  Some of the comments she gets
are *extremely* hostile.

Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
be done in secret - my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  If a
girl in high school has sex with anyone, she is regarded as "loose" or
"easy" and many people feel they can simply expect sex from her.  If a
woman has several partners (just read alt.sex - it doesn't take many)
she is "promiscuous" and very much looked down on.  If a person has a
non-standard orientation, such as homosexuality, bisexuality, or BDSM,
they are subject to quite a lot of hatred, to the point of being killed
for their sexuality.  Yes, our society has a lot of hatred for sexuality
in it.

>>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.

No, it was invented by our society, many many years before MacKinnon and
Dworkin were born.  Read up on St. Paul - he certainly qualifies as a
sex/sexuality-hater, and Christianity has taken a lot of their ideas
from him.

>>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". 

*sigh*.  When someone says that there are societal forces behind
something, that is *not* a conspiracy.  Ever hear of "mob psychology?"
You know how a mob sometimes just all start doing the same thing, even
though they didn't talk about it before?  That is not a conspiracy, that
is just the way people work.  You keep bringing up the word
"conspiracy," much as you do "feminism," to attempt to invalidate what
you disagree with by labelling it, rather than disproving it.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn