NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3371

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 9.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: uunet!infmx![e-mail] (Robert Coleman)
Subject: Re: On being offended
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <robert.727650892@labyrinth>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Approved: [e-mail]
Keywords: Pornography, conventions, courtesy, stereotypes
Lines: 186
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:21:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] ("M. Bickis") writes:

>some feminists are offended by what other people say or do.

>The pornography thread(s) are a case in point.  One side of the
>discussion has emphasized the fact that women *feel* degraded or
>threatened by pornography--i.e., they feel offended.  This seems to
>me a legitimate objection, but the argument is often expressed in
>terms of fears that pornography will lead to more rape, abuse,
>harrassment, discrimination, etc.  The other side counters by
>demanding proof of a cause-and-effect relationship, saying that
>unless one can show that pornography is responsible for rape, then
>noone should object to it.

>I think this entirely misses the point.  The fact that pornography is
>offensive (to women) should be *in itself* grounds for discouraging
>it.  Why should I want to be involved in something that is in itself
>offensive?  Is my private pleasure of such importance?  It does not
>seem sufficient justification that it hasn't been shown to cause
>"objective" harm.  The offense it creates in people is harm enough. I
>think the onus would be to demonstrate that it creates some benefit.

    I believe we know that, say, homosexuality or atheism or
christianity or heterosexuality are offensive to <some> women as well.
In fact, it has been pointed out that the fact that you, a man, is
posting on this group is offensive to <some> women.  If I recall
correctly, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you have been known
to argue that you prefer to put women on a (metaphorical) pedestal, to
which <some> women have expressed offense.

    I'd be surprised, however, if you were to say that homosexuals
need to justify some benefit (other than their personal
gratification).  Or that atheists need to justify that their beliefs
create some good for society, or Wiccans, or Christians, or whatever.
And I believe you would be hard-pressed to "demonstrate" that your
posting on this group, or holding women on a pedestal, creates some
social benefit (though you could, of course, argue without statistics
that it is "probably" so).

    This seeming paradox can best be understood by thinking about
just what the *purpose* of someone "being offended" is (and remember,
you've specifically stated that it is not necessary for someone to
justify their feelings; you've stated that merely the fact that they
feel that way is enough).

    The word is actually completely inappropriate to the question
of what you do "in private".  The word would be very appropriate in
the case of forcing someone who did not want to view pornography to
see pornography; you would be intruding on their person-space; you
would be on the offense.  They would be offended.

    But what meaning does it have when someone is "offended" at
what you do by yourself/with others?  In this case, they are
"extending" their personal space to include you; that's the only way
they can be involved enough to be "offended".

    ****That means that it is a form of control, a power-play, an
absorption of you unto them!****

    When someone is offended about something that you do on your
own, they are attempting to modify *your* behavior through shame and
peer pressure.  By representing the viewpoint of these folks as
"offended", you characterize them as victims; actually, in many
situations, they are *victimizers*.

    That's easier for some folks to see in the case of something
like homosexuality.  If someone states that they are "offended" by
homosexuality, they are attempting to use peer pressure and shame to
modify the behavior of homosexuals.  They are using their
"offendedness" as a weapon, in order to exact what is, IMO, an
inappropriate power over another individual.  Why should a homosexual
have to justify that their behavior has some societal good?  What
business is it of the "offended" what the homosexual does on their
own?

    It's an old game.  Nice people don't want to hurt other
people; people who aren't so nice can use this as a weapon.  "If you
take up the guitar instead of the piano, you're going to break my
heart!"  Who is hurting whom, in this situation?

    I recall a guy in college who was offended because I was in a
ballet/jazz/modern troupe.  Should I have quit because it offended
him?

    Yet, there are times when I *would* approve of this tool to
modify other folks behavior.  For instance, someone who says, "Oh, you
know women really *want* it!" offends me.  I don't mind a bit telling
them so, if it's possible that it might prevent a date rape in the
future.

    The key is that offendedness is a tool that can be used and
misused.  If it can be shown, as in the above case (to my
satisfaction, at least) that the action results in a greater societal
good, then I'm all for it.  But if it's used merely as a tool to
inappropriately control someone else, then it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

    When someone is "offending" into someone else's space, the
question is clearer; a force is being applied by the "offender" onto
the "offended".  The "offender" must justify their actions.

    But in the case of someone "offended" by what someone else
does in private or with others, the force is being applied from the
"offended" to the "offender".  The roles are reversed.  And look where
that puts the onus in this case: squarely on the shoulders of those
who would use the tool.  Rather than what you said above, where you
have the "offender" having to justify the "good" of their actions, the
person attempting to modify the other's behavior is the one who must
justify *their* actions.

    So it is with pornography.  It *isn't* enough that <some>
women are offended, as you say above, because without justification,
it's simply an inappropriate attempt to control.  It *must* be
justified, and to answer your question, it is *entirely* ethical to
stand your ground against unjustified attempts to control your life.
In fact, though I know this is debatable, I think it is necessary for
the ethical person *not* to submit to (unjustified) emotional
blackmail.  Whenever it works, it encourages further abuse, in a way
similar to hostage-taking.

    Mind you, most women think they have justification.  I
personally don't agree, and that's the source of the debate.  However,
your statement posited that the mere fact that someone's feelings were
hurt was enough justification; that's the idea that has led to your
paradox, and this posting.

>So, is indulging in pornography like eating ham, and the feminists
>who object to it are like extremist Muslims who want to ban the sale
>of pork?  Or is this a flawed analogy?  Why do I have no compunction
>about eating pork, yet have one about consuming pornography when in
>both cases I know there are people out there who find the practice
>abhorrent?  Anyone else out there feel the way I do?

    Yes, and no.  Feminists who cannot justify their beliefs
beyond their "feelings" are like the Muslims you've referred to.  They
are attempting to modify your behavior, based on their "faith".
However, there are feminists who have justifications for their
beliefs, and whether or not I agree with their analyses, I respect
them because they are trying to do what's right.

>I don't want this discussion to become legalistic.  This is *not*
>about censorship, or restriction of individual rights, or banning
>anything.  It's about how an ethical person should respond to
>situations that cause offense.

    I hope this response has more-or-less matched the tone you
intended.  I've saved the legalism for last; it wouldn't have been
necessary at all, but your second paragraph listed above contains some
presumptions of default truths.  Not very fair to make presumptions
and then tell us not to debate them!

    1) I don't believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated
that "pornography is offensive to women".  I believe we know that
pornography is offensive to <some> women; I have yet to see a posting
that has statistics supporting even that most women find pornography
offensive.  For all we know, it is a vocal minority.  My little poll,
though completely unscientific, does beg the question.

    2) There are reasons to think the pornography serves a public
good.  Kutchinsky's studies in Denmark of sexual crimes before and
after pornography was decriminalized suggest that pornography may play
a part in the lessening of certain sexual crimes, without causing a
corresponding increase in others.  Pornography is commonly used in
treatment of the sexually dysfunctional, and "normal" pornography is
often used to try to instill "normal" sexual desires in the criminally
sexually deviant.  And although it seldom gets mentioned in forums
like this, pornography is often used as part of a couples' mating
experience, thereby providing pleasure to one woman while offending
another.

    Further, although it is simply a correlation, the US
government polls of individuals as victims of crimes has found that
the rape rate has decreased steadily since the 70s, a period of time
when pornography has become more readily available by several orders
of magnitude.

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 [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  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.