Well, looks like the great Cease Fire of 2007 has lapsed. Great! We're all well rested, got our second winds, ready to fight the good fight once again. so - CHARGE!
I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.
Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.
BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?
OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important. I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?
and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus." I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session. which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded." Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating. So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
a lot of us "don't listen" when it becomes blatant browbeating and even abuse; this is what's called "getting the hell away from toxic people."
ReplyDeletealso? the fact that people "listen" doesn't mean they're gonna change their minds. And no one over -here- necessarily expected that, i don't think; from the comments of "not ok" it appears that -someone-, at least, expected Renegade to "change," which in her case i guess would mean, what, repent, hang up her whole career, try to rechannel her sexuality...
ReplyDeleteyeah, you're bound to be disappointed, i should say, if that's what you mean by "listen."
whereas over here i'm fairly certain most of us just meant "couldja maybe talk TO us instead of AT us for once? At minimum, do you think you could maybe stop being such choads for five seconds? No? oh well."
Yeah, I get the very strong impression from some of 'em that "listen" means "agree" in their minds.
ReplyDeleteAmber's right. I think to listen => to examine => to realize that there is only one right way and that's ours, damnit.
ReplyDeleteConversely, believing something different => not having examined => not having listened.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, they're not trying to tell anyone what to do, because radical feminism isn't about domination and control (domination and control are male, after all) – they just want you to listen and examine what you're doing. And naturally, if you've listened, you'll come around to their way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You still don't agree? You're not listening!!! Why are you so hostile to radical feminists!!! You're a tool of the Patriarchy!!!
Circular reasoning at its finest.
Acually, I think I am "listening" when I provide counterarguments to APRF assertions about pornography. And if they have any counter-counterarguments, I'm perfectly willing to listen. That their next argument seems to inevitably consist of some variation on "you're just a man protecting your privilege, so nothing you say can possibly have any validity" seems a bit like not listening on their part. But I guess I have this hopelessly archaic patriarchal notion that communication is a two-way street.
ReplyDeleteA big part of the problem with radical feminism that has a big bearing on what makes dialogue often impossible, is that its perhaps one of the amazingly closed systems I've ever come across. It essentially a religion, really.
ReplyDeleteYou either believe that the Class Man opresses Class Woman, that this is the primary contradiction in the world, that men run everything, that women who are not absolutely pro-Class Woman are suffering from false consciousness, that being pro-Class Woman requires strict conformity to a certain set of behaviors and alliegences, etc.
And having read some of MacKinnon, I just don't see the entry-point to this world view. The only inroad is if it "clicks" with your own set of experiences and you accept it totally and start to see everything through that self-reinforcing mindset.
I suppose you could say its like fundamentalist Christianity in that regard – "born again feminists" as it were. Except that with Christianity, there's a long tradition of apologetics that posits why God is supposedly necessary for the existance of the universe, the problem of suffering is dealt with, etc. Not that I believe most of those lines of argument, but there's supposedly a way "in" to Christianity (and other religions) through reason, however tortuous.
With radical feminism, I've never seen a good apologetic for "How do you know radical feminism is The Truth and everybody else is suffering from false consciousness?" At best, the answer is that radical feminism was worked out through consciousness raising, so it must be true. (Huh?) Or, the comeback is some kind of guilt trip – if you weren't just defending your privilege/false consciousness/perversion, surely you'd see The Truth – its self-evident. (Actually, no it isn't !)
If that fails, the response is all too often, "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your false consciousness down!"
ReplyDeleteI suppose you could say its like fundamentalist Christianity in that regard – "born again feminists" as it were.
*nodding slowly*
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
ReplyDeleteSilly Ren, don't you realize that degading and harming fellow human beings is reserved for the practice of sex-negative radical feminism, not orgasm?
It is ok to degrade sex workers and harm them by keying their cars, denying them legal protection, and fostering an environment which exposes them to hate crimes.
It is ok to make women (and men) feel degraded for enjoying sex they way they want it and cause them harm by denying them sexual satisfaction and causing emotional distress.
/snark
From
wikipedia:
Willis, writing in 1984, was critical of the notion that all hierarchies are "more specialized forms of male supremacy" as preventing adequate consideration of the possibility that "the impulse to dominate… could be a universal human characteristic that women share, even if they have mostly lacked the opportunity to exercise it.
The anti-porn folks like to non-consensually dominate the rest of us. They get to decide, not us, what we can do for a living (no sex work), how we can dress (nothing provocative), what we can enjoy in our bedrooms, what we can share with our friends, what we read and watch, and where we can buy it. So much for being opposed to hierarchy. In fact, it sounds a whole lot like the patriarchy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
faustophiles said:
ReplyDelete"The anti-porn folks like to non-consensually dominate the rest of us. They get to decide, not us, what we can do for a living (no sex work), how we can dress (nothing provocative), what we can enjoy in our bedrooms, what we can share with our friends, what we read and watch, and where we can buy it. So much for being opposed to hierarchy. In fact, it sounds a whole lot like the patriarchy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
And its terribly obvious to those of us on the receiving end of radical feminist hectoring that this is very much about domination and control, or at least an attempt at it. There's nothing "egalitarian" about it.
In spite of that, hey still come up with get like this one (from Witchy's discussion of this blog):
"it still floors me when some total moron steps up and claims that radical feminism is all about censorship and control."
If its not about that, why are you doing it, pray tell?
well, (their) radical feminism isn't ALL about censorship and control. there's the annual bake sale...
ReplyDelete...and all those hot womyn's festivals...
ReplyDeleteAnthony
"The anti-porn folks like to non-consensually dominate the rest of us. They get to decide, not us, what we can do for a living (no sex work), how we can dress (nothing provocative), what we can enjoy in our bedrooms, what we can share with our friends, what we read and watch, and where we can buy it. So much for being opposed to hierarchy."
ReplyDeleteWORD.