Posts filed under Alas, A Blog

cicely: And if the…

cicely:

And if the anecdotal evidence (I think it was Charles who provided) is true – that a very high percentage of women (up to 50%) don’t actually enjoy intercourse, intercourse could *still* be widely conceived, albeit privately, as violation.

This is a good point, but I don’t think that the conception of intercourse as violative is even private in the first place. It’s pretty explicitly proclaimed when people (mostly men) write or talk about intercourse as a form of possession (a man “had her,” “took her,” etc.) or force (a man “nailed her,” “screwed her,” “hit that,” “penetrated her,” “rammed her,” “pounded her,” “banged her,” “fucked her,” etc.) or accomplishment against resistance (a man “scored,” “got lucky,” etc.). That men use these terms with regularity and confidence, while also declaring intercourse is the gold standard for sex itself, the realest or perhaps only kind of “real” sex out there I think it’s no surprise that sex is widely conceived as permeated with violation and control (and that violation and control are seen as shot through with sexiness); also that many women would experience intercourse as unsatisfying, perhaps even violative, when so many men are approaching intercourse on these kinds of terms, and being very emphatic about the right and duty of Manly Men to do so.

myriad: Lord no, you…

myriad:

Lord no, you don’t seem divisive, it’s not at that lofy height. It’s just another example of a bunch of people fighting out their personal differences for all the world to see. My point is simple – you’re not in a private meeting room, you’re on the web for all to see. Does the setting fit the discussion?

Sure; why not? This is a movement, not a conspiracy; and as far as I know Barry is operating this blog as a forum for discussion, not as a recruiting tool for new feminists. This kind of concern for keeping heated disputes underground in the name of maintaining public appearances seems wildly out of place.

myriad:

You’re the converted. I pointed quite specifically to those who think about getting involved, are all new, and run screaming for the hills back into the safe arms of patriarchy where at least things are comfortably numb.

Young women undecided about feminism are not the infidel and we are not converts in possession of a dogmatic faith. Nor are they wilting violets whose special needs need to be catered to in order to bring them into the fold. They’re people like you and me and everyone else here, and if you have reasons (as you apparently do) for holding on to feminism in spite of what you see as destructive personal dynamics among some people involved in it, then you can expect that they may very well see those reasons too. Or if they don’t, then we need to think about making those reasons stronger and more apparent, rather than how we can suppress debates and disputes within feminist forums.

I don’t think that the argument here is unreasonable or destructive, but frankly, even if it were, it’s important to keep some perspective. If this is the harshest and most destructive in-fighting that folks have to deal with, then we’re pretty well off. Just to pick a couple of exmples off the top of my head, I haven’t seen anyone yet accuse someone else of being part of an menacing lesbian conspiracy to take over the women’s movement, or a CIA infiltrator trying to co-opt and disrupt radical feminism. Feminism wasn’t destroyed by much harsher and higher-stakes internal conflicts than this one, and I don’t think that this one is going to finish it off, either.

What’s more, there are…

What’s more, there are any number of choices that had to be made the way they were in order for me to exist. … That doesn’t prove, in itself, that the debate isn’t justified, but it does go some way towards demonstrating that “What if your mother was pro-choice?” is a red herring as far as the debate is concerned.

No joke.

My mother’s parents met because of World War II; granddad was in the Air Force and grandma was a military nurse. They were from completely different parts of the country and wouldn’t have met if it weren’t for the war. So it turns out that Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, among a number of other factors, was necessary for my personal existence.

This does not, however, seem like a good reason for me to become a neo-Nazi.

I’m dubious about the…

I’m dubious about the validity of this map. Michigan and Delaware are highly likely to ban abortion?

I don’t know anything about Delaware, but I do live in Michigan, and am quite sure the map is accurate so far as that goes. The NARAL “Report Card” gives Michigan an “F” rating for state abortion laws (we’re tied with Mississippi and Arkansas; only Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Dakota have more onerous restrictions) are worse. The pre-Roe abortion ban has never been repealed (so will remain on the books to re-activate if Roe is ever overturned). Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by the anti-abortion Republicans heavily influenced by the Religious Right in Western Michigan and by Michigan Right to Life.

Raznor: General Sherman also…

Raznor:

General Sherman also authored the Navajo treaty …

I think that having personally commanded several genocidal wars is enough to get you on the “worst Americans” list even if you also worked out a good treaty along the way.

RonF:

Don’t take this as a defense of Sherman’s march to Atlanta. I just want to know what was new about it.

All kinds of atrocities and raids have been practiced in warfare since recorded history, but Sherman’s march inaugurated a couple of new tendencies for the modern age. It was one of the first times in recorded history that scorched-earth warfare was (1) systematically used (2) as a weapon of offense (3) on such a large scale. There are a few examples of scorched-earth tactics being used for defensive purposes (e.g. in Spain and Russia during the Napoleonic wars), plenty of examples of arbitrary pillage, raiding, and destruction in the countryside, and some examples of the destruction of entire cities (such as the Romans’ destruction of Carthage, or the Mongols sack of Baghdad). But Sherman pioneered the systematic use of deliberate devastation as a strategic weapon to break the enemy (through both concrete damage and terror), and he practiced it on a regional scale uncontemplated even in Timurlane’s darkest dreams.

Now, I’m no expert in military history; there may very well be examples of this kind of devastation elsewhere prior to Sherman, and maybe even on a comparable scale. But my understanding is that it’s Sherman whose legacy our contemporary historians and generals study as the origin of modern total warfare. (And if I’m mistaken, of course, he’s still an asshole, for other reasons.)

Well Seasoned:

Emperor remains emperor is ok? Have you studied what was done to US captives by the Japanese? Have you looked at the statistics on how many Americans were still dying during the latter phase of the war? Do you not remember how the war with Japan began? … Sorry that you don’t like it that people are held accountable for their government …

Deliberately killing civilians in retaliation for the crimes of their governments, in order to achieve some political end, is terrorism. In this case, terrorism that resulted in the deaths of over half a million civilians.

Question 1: In what respect is this morally better than the massacre of 2,000 or so innocent civilians in retaliation for the crimes of their government on September 11?

Question 2: Given whatever justification provides your answer to Question 1, is there any moral limit on the number of civilians killed in the terror-bombing of Japan as far as you’re concerned? How many innocent lives would you have considered acceptable losses for an unconditional surrender?

President Harry Truman. He…

President Harry Truman. He ordered or approved the murders of 500,000 – 1,000,000 Japanese civilians over the course of half a year in 1945.

General Curtis LeMay. He carried out the murder of 500,000 – 1,000,000 Japanese civilians over the course of half a year in 1945. A nuclear maniac who explicitly denied that there were any innocent bystanders in war and by all accounts simply reveled in death and destruction.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a pseudo-leftist demagogue who created the military-industrial complex; ordered internment of Japanese-Americans, happily allied with, propagandized for, and consigned 1/2 of Europe to the totalitarian terror of, Joseph Stalin; and one of the three men who came the closest to becoming a dictator in the United States.

President Woodrow Wilson, unreprentant liar and war-monger, KKK fan, arch-segregationist, anti-feminist, and one of the three men who came the closest to becoming a dictator in the United States.

George Fitzhugh, the most militant defender of white supremacy and race slavery in the prewar South, author of Slavery Justified, Sociology in the South, and Cannibals All!

Nathan Bedford Forrest, perpetrator of the Fort Pillow massacre and founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

General William Tecumseh Sherman, one of the inventors of modern scorched-earth warfare, ravager of the South and murderer of Southern civilians; went on to pursue genocidal campaigns against the Plains Indians as a follow-up.

Senator James Eastland, militant white supremacist Senator from Mississippi, mad dog McCarthyist, and founding father of the White Citizens Councils.

In addition to seconding Larry Flynt, I’d also like to add Chuck Traynor, the pimp/pornographer/rapist/batterer/slave-driver who forced Linda Boreman into Deep Throat (among other pornography) and played an instrumental role in founding the mass-market, above-ground film pornography industry in the U.S. through repeated filmed rapes.

Me: It’s well known…

Me:

It’s well known that habitual practice can change our beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, desires, pleasures, and behavior

mythago:

Then why are we complaining about porn?

Because the fact that men habitually use pornography for sexual arousal, sexual pleasure, and orgasm during masturbation makes reactionary content in pornography importantly different from reactionary content in other media. Both are objectionable and both ought to be analyzed and criticized. But it does not make sense to go around, quote Treating Porn Like Every Other Media unquote, when the consumption of pornography in our society has specific characteristics that give special reasons for interest and concern by people who are worried about (among other things) the fusion between sex and aggression in many men’s minds and actions. I already spent quite a bit of time explaining this above in explanatory comments to Amp, an attempt at saying it more concisely, and an attempt at explaining at greater length for reddecca.

mythago:

It’s ridiculous to pretend that boys grow up in a media culture that treats women as empowered, intelligent, fully equal beings, and suddenly when a boy picks up a copy of Penthouse, for the FIRST TIME he is exposed to the idea that women are inferior, fit only for sex, and the magazine will create a Pavlovian conditioning whereby masturbation will cement sexism in his impressionable male mind.

I agree. That is ridiculous.

reddecca: Radgeek – can…

reddecca:

Radgeek – can you expand on what you think the implications are for pornography involving masturbation. How does that mean we should react to it differently, why does that mean that different tactics would be effective?

Sure. The fact that pornography, unlike the rest of pop culture, is made and marketed and consumed and talked about with the expectation that men will masturbate to it, and the fact that many or most men do in fact habitually masturbate to it, changes the nature of the debate because it changes the effects that pornography has on how men view themselves as sexual creatures in ways that, and to degrees that, other forms of pop culture do not. It’s well known that habitual practice can change our beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, desires, pleasures, and behavior; I think that it should be no surprise that sexual habits can change our sexual beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, desires, pleasures, and behavior. If men habitually masturbate to pornography, i.e. use pornography as a part of arousal and orgasm under our solitary control, then it is going to have an effect on our sexual lives. One of the facts about masturbation is that most men do it very often, and the fact about masturbating-to-pornography is that men both do it very often, and also very often imagine pornographic scenes or close variations on them, when they are masturbating without porn directly in front of them. It’s habitual, and it’s one of the more frequently practiced habits that many men have. It’s also one that they usually take up in their sexually formative — i.e. adolescent or pubescent — years. (And in fact the average age has been getting younger as a result of the mainstreaming of pornography and its prevalence on the Internet.) So you can expect whatever effects pornography has to be correspondingly strong. I think this much is not reasonably disputable; a theory that suggests that pornography has no effects, or neglible effects, on men’s sexual lives is just not a theory responsive to the facts. The question is what effects pornography does have, and how fine-grained those effects are. If it has good or neutral effects on balance, then that doesn’t support the anti-pornography critique of pornography consumption; if it has bad effects but those effects apply in a pretty fine-grained way to the parts of men’s sex lives that don’t directly affect other people, then that would tend to undermine it also. (That doesn’t mean that the antipornography position would be wrong; it would just mean a shift of priorities is needed towards other parts of the critique, such as the critique of its production, rather than the traditional double-barrelled analysis.)

Here are some specific ways in which antipornography feminists claim that masturbation to pornography affects men’s sexual lives in ways that are pernicious, and that contribute to both social systems and individual behavior that hurt women: (1) pornography is repetitive. (It’s repetitive both across different pieces and in the use of a given “favorite” piece by individual men; men who use pornography very frequently and unapologetically often crow about their “collection” or “hoard” of porn and pick out “favorites” within it to use over and over again. I know because I used to be one of those men, and to talk to other men with similar attitudes.). (2) It associates a pretty strictly scripted progression of situations and sex acts with sexual arousal, pleasure, and orgasm for men who habitually arouse themselves by watching pornographic scenes, please themselves while watching pornographic scenes, use the scenes to heighten the pleasure, and orgasm to pornographic scenes (which was, typically, the purpose of viewing the pornography in the first place). (3) The content is generally concerned specifically with sexualized masculinity and sexualized femininity (this, of course, is also true within gay pornography and pseudolesbian pornography intended for male audiences; I wouldn’t know about pornography intended for lesbian audiences, because I haven’t seen any). (4) This content is specifically hostile to women in any number of ways (contains rape myths, focuses on acts that are often not nearly as satisfying to women as they are to men, focuses on acts that aren’t really satisfying to anyone but are easily filmed with extreme close-ups of engorged body parts, fixates on visual display in general, makes frequent use of deception or coercion from positions of authority to gain sexual access, etc.). (A full explanation of the details and defense of the claim here, if you don’t buy it, is really beyond the space I have available here, and is better found in book-length treatments or essays on specific sub-topics by antipornography feminists. Anyway, the hostility of pornographic content towards women is part of what Amp was stipulating to in the comments I was remarking on.) (5) Pornography provides a staple of sexual fantasies (that is, scenes that are found enticing and desirable). The fact that many of the themes alluded to in (3) and (4) are widely recognized as ridiculous and unrealistic may affect men’s plans but not their fantasies about what would be enticing and desirable. (6) This affects, among other things, how men look at women (think ogling), how men talk about women (think locker-room talk), how men treat women whom they have never met (think street harassment), how men approach women that they’re sexually attracted to, the sort of acts and positions that men typically want and typically don’t care about, the sort of emotional reactions men do or don’t have toward women that they’re having a sexual relationship with, including during sex itself, the sort of situations in which men think that sex is appropriate, the sort of reactions that a man may have when a woman isn’t interested in having sex with him — at all, or in the situation he wants to have sex in, or at the time he wants to have sex at, or of the kind that he wants to have. (Think about the idea, more or less universal in pornography involving women, intended for male audiences, that women are wildly and indiscriminately hypersexual once aroused, and that it’s acceptable to use coercion or deception to ratchet up the level of sexual contact until she becomes aroused. Think about the fact that many men are habitually masturbating to this kind of material, using it to arouse themselves and having orgasms to scenes that revolve around it. What does that mean for the sorts of things that men may find exciting and desirable in their own interactions with women?)

There’s a lot more to say, but this is already very long and contentious as it stands. I hope this gives some kind of idea about what I’m saying, though, when I say that some specific details about social use mean that there may be some specific differences between pornography and “the rest of pop culture” that merit special attention towards pornography. That pornography has a specifically sexualized role that other forms of pop culture don’t have should (I think) be obvious; that its specifically sexualized role might make reactionary themes in pornography of special interest and concern to people who are concerned with men’s sexual aggression towards women shouldn’t be much harder to see. But I hope this helps explain in some more detail. Feel free to prod me if I’m not being as clear as I could.

(Of course an explanation is not yet a defense. If you think that this position is wrong, fine, but you’ll find a better defense of all these positions in printed book-length treatments of pornography, and essays on specific sub-topics, by antipornography feminists.)

reddecca:

The odd thing about the feminist pornography debate is that both sides do appear to feel like the attacked and betlittled minority, which isn’t particularly good for discussion.

That’s a very good point. It doesn’t help at all that each of them tends to treat the other as a mere appendage of, or at least a spiritual cousin of, some larger and much more clearly menacing and mean force in cultural politics (i.e., the Religious Right, on the one hand, and mainstream pimps and pornographers, on the other).

Thomas: Actually, I think…

Thomas:

Actually, I think that giving performers a say in how their images are used over time is, while difficult, ultimately a good thing. However, that leaves open the Norma McCorvey problem: fundamentalists have sometimes been really effective at recruiting allies that will embarass feminism. I don’t want to see some “ex-gay” converts to the far right using a statute to attack material that they were perfectly happy with when it was made.

Thomas, let’s set aside for a moment the legal question of whether or not (say) born-again people who were once in pornography should have the right to force pornographers to stop distributing images of them, in favor of an ethical question. Let’s imagine that someone used to be in pornography and didn’t have any particular trouble with it at the time, but later in life regretted it, for reasons that you don’t agree with (for example, becoming a born-again Christian). Let’s also imagine that this person wishes that he or she had never been in the movies, and doesn’t want people masturbating to her or his pornographized image.

Do you think that it’s right for you to keep doing so, even against the explicit wishes of the person whose image you’re using for masturbation material?