Newsgroups: soc.feminism From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) Subject: Re: Another Angle On The Pornography Debate Message-ID: Sender: tittle@netcom.com (Cindy Tittle Moore) Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Menlo Park, CA 94025 References: <2nv6hp$lsh@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <2o3q6e$4mv@search01.news.aol.com> Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 01:07:06 GMT Approved: tittle@netcom.com Lines: 149 breene@cs.tamu.edu (L Anne Breene) writes: ->In article , ->Nan Ellman wrote: ->>In article <2o3q6e$4mv@search01.news.aol.com> mndbnd@aol.com (MndBnd) writes: ->> ->> ->> It is interesting to point out- The first "pornography" to be ->> confiscated when the Dworkin law was passed in Canada was "On our ->> Backs".. a lesbian Publication.. ->i read an interview with mackinnon about a month ago (in a sunday ->paper, i think i have it somewhere still..). she stated that this ->incident in fact never happened. that it was rumor only. and she ->further stated that she and dworkin believe civil not criminal legal ->avenues are the correct strategy for fighting violence against women ->in porn. Yes, well, she's being a little, um, "insincere". Here's an excerpt from an article by Dworkin called "Against the Male Flood: Censorship, Pornography and Equality", taken from "Letters From a War Zone", 1988. ...In the amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance of the City of Minneapolis, written by Catherine A. MacKinnon and myself, pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or in words that also includes one of more of the following: women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; or women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or women are exhibited, such that women are reduced to those parts; or women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, abasement, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual." "This statutory definition is an objectively accurate definition of what pornography is, based on an analysis of the material produced by the $8-billion-a-year industry, and also on an extensive study of the whole range of pornography extant from other eras and other cultures." Firstly, the amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance was not a Civil law, but rather a criminal law. It was struck down in court. In other words, the reason that Dworkin and MacKinnon believe "civil not criminal legal avenues are the correct strategy for fighting violence against women in porn" is because they *tried* the criminal approach, and it didn't work. I believe they tried twice and were struck down twice, but I can't find a reference for that at the moment. Now, why would MacKinnon neglect to mention that? Why would she make it sound as if it were their own idea to pursue "civil" means? Why the dishonesty? The rest of the quote I put in to address your paragraph below: ->it is interesting that their views don't ever seem to be clearly ->represented here (on this forum - or in the media usually for that ->matter). i have now read several of mackinnon's articles and books. ->the way i read it: she is not against porn/erotica per se (i have not ->read dworkin as yet). the way their position is stated, only material ->that depicts violence against women is targeted. in fact, the way i ->read it she wouldn't object (or at least sue) to porn/erotica in which ->there is no violence. i am not sure where violence between women ->would fall. Note that their joint, carefully worded, intended to be "legal" definition contains *many* things that have nothing to do with violence. Carefully encased between things that many people would object to, such as women portrayed as sexual objects desiring to be raped, is the following: "... or women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or women are exhibited, such that women are reduced to those parts; or women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals..." So, the thing to figure out is if these things match *your* definition of violence. So let's see: what qualifies as a posture of sexual submission? Rear-entry position? Fellatio? A position of readiness for cunnilingus? (Actually, given that this is entirely in the mind of the beholder, what position *couldn't* be construed as a posture of sexual submission?) Would these things meet your definition of violence? How about the "exhibited"? Does that cover Playboy and every other over-the-counter "men's" magazine nicely? Do these magazines meet your definition of "violence"? And would you normally consider a woman masturbating with a dildo to be an act of violence? I have to be honest, I've never quite thought of it that way. Maybe Dworkin and MacKinnon do, and maybe they don't (though the way *I* read them, they do.) Maybe you're entirely right that they're only against "violent" pornography; but if so, their definition of violence is somewhat different from most people's, and I get the impression that it's different from yours. This is *normal Dworkian tactics*. Read almost any Dworkian prose carefully; she spends most of the time righteously angry about truly violent pornography, but *somewhere in the middle* she slips in the *rest* of her and MacKinnon's definition, the stuff that isn't so easy to object to. I believe many things about Dworkin, but I don't believe she's stupid. I believe she does this very deliberately, to leave people angry about violent pornography while subtly changing the definition to *any* kind of pornography. (Incidentally, as to your question of women with women, many of these acts don't have to involve a man at all. They do *not* make any references in their definition to the gender of other participants, or even the existence of other participants, only what is happening to a single woman in the scenario.) (I just noticed that men being "presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation" or men "presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped" or men "presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt" wouldn't match their definition of pornography or be covered by their law, though this material exists. Interesting, eh? I guess that's just good clean fun. Anyone who wonders why Dworkin and MacKinnon can be considered misandrists need look no further for an understanding.) (Gotta be fair, though, I know from other readings that Dworkin, at least, is against gay pornography as well, but not because men are getting hurt [using her "extended" definition of hurt and pornography]. No, according to her, it's because, a man in any of these situations *really* represents... ...a woman. And *that*, of course, is evil. Amaaaazing stuff.) Incidentally, I believe MacKinnon is, er, "mistaken" about the Canadian event, as well. Some of the few lesbigay bookstores in Canada have already been driven out of business as a result of the application of this law by homophobes; I'll see if I can provide the name of the bookstores and some of their owners tomorrow. If you're really interested, I bet a long distance phone call to one of the existing shops could clear up the point pretty quickly. Do you happen to remember where you read this interview? I'd be interested in finding a copy. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf. -- Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu. Questions and comments should 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.