home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!convex!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!barry
- From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
- Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov15.175746.13187@netcom.com>
- Organization: QQQCLC
- References: <1992Nov11.233553.19019@panix.com> <1992Nov12.043057.18571@netcom.com> <1992Nov12.201059.10760@panix.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:57:46 GMT
- Lines: 98
-
- 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
-