|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, I think that this is a great article. It lays bare the divisions within the feminist ranks, and does an excellent job of dissecting the arguments, influence, and effects of Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hangers-on.
Thank God that not all feminists agree with Dworkin and MacKinnon, but I'm horrified (but not surprised) that our Supreme Court judges do agree with them. One thing that jumped out at me from this article was the judge who expressed surprise that the feminist ranks were not unified behind MacKinnon's position, who said that the Butler decision was based on the idea that feminism had ruled on this issue and had found pornography an affront to all women. My reaction upon reading this was, "Excuse me?!? What the #$#@$*?!?!?" More coherently, why are Supreme Court judges making decisions based upon how the feminists feel about public issues? Aren't they supposed to be deciding based upon the law? Aren't they supposed to be deciding what the lawmakers (parliament) intended when they enacted the law? To make decisions based upon what some particular lobby group thinks makes the Supreme Court open to political lobbying. Isn't this exactly what the Supreme Court is not supposed to be?!?
Second, I was dismayed that the writer spent so much time talking about how this law impacts gays and lesbians. Particularly the quote from the owner of Little Sisters in Vancouver cracked me up: the notion that this hits gays and lesbians hardest. Of course, everyone who is in a "group" thinks that every bad thing that happens to them: a) happens to no other group; b) happens because of discrimination. At least the article had a dissenting opinion on that one near the end. For me it's just one more example of how society doesn't care about fascism that slams men, but when the same authoritarian fist hammers fashionable minorities, the alarm bells go off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some recent (darkly humorous) observations about the world of pornography.
Some time ago I heard a CBC radio "interest" piece about two women who opened a pornography shop for women. The gushing (and witless) reporter covering the story marveled at how cozy and inviting the shop was compared to the seedy joints that are run by men. "Oh yes," said one of the owners, "women just stroll in here and look around. They seem to get a kick out of the products we offer here. Some of them even leave and return with their female friends. They make an evening of it. It's very different from the way men slink into pornography shops, buy something and slink back out again."
Well... duh! Women have been slamming men for generations over porn. The state (backed solidly by women) has always let porn teeter on the brink of illegality, but has never (and neither have women) allowed porn to be legitimate and accepted. As such, is it any surprise that men slink into porn shops, quickly buy what they want and slink out? Hey, if pornography were openly accepted, porn shops for men would probably have had large-screen TVs and comfy couches long ago. It's ironic that now that women are discovering porn and judging it legitimate, they look back at what men have been doing and shake their heads in bewilderment.
Finally, there is a modern—and odd—distinction between pornography and erotica. I have heard people say that they think that pornography should be illegal, but that erotica is OK. If you discuss this further and boil it down, the bottom line is that "erotica" is any kind of porn that women might like; "pornography" is all the other stuff. Welcome to the brave new world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 29, @10:31PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I bet women who slam men's kind of porn probably have a truckload of "romance" novels (women's porn) for example you can go to Donna Laframboise's site and look at the pink kink catalog for some good examples of women's porn, if you want to that is.
Oh yeah, brave new world indeed.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I've looked at Donna's site several times, but I haven't bothered with the catalog, more out of lack of interest than anything else.
I have to hand it to Donna, though: she's firmly against censorship and prissy new-Victorian attitudes. I like her writing: she's one of the few people and even fewer women who can see the other side of the feminist coin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 30, @03:20PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Some people say that monsters don't exist. I think this article does a good job of dispelling that myth by showing us some real world monsters. Hitler existed. Stalin existed. These freaks, Drorkin & MacKinnon exist, too.
In this instance, radical feminism (which sometimes claims to have a Marxist heritage) did damage to what should be one of a free society's most cherished freedoms--the freedom of speech and expression. Just as Marxism led to attorcities in Russia and Europe, so to can the ideas discussed in Peron's article lead to attrocities here and elsewhere.
Take the lesson to heart--abstract philosophical ideas really do matter and lead to political policies in practice.
Right now California is considering (and may have passed) legislation that would force high school students to perform community service (mandatory servitude). I claim that the purpose is to indoctrinate students with the morality of altruism and collectivism and that, eventually, those ideas, if taken seriously and held consistently, would lead to communism and dictatorship in practice.
Aside from the spectacle of Nazi Germany (where an educated, civilized populace adopted a philosophy that led to the mass murder of millions of people), let Peron's report and observations be a warning to us all--ideas do matter and the destructive effect of the widespread acceptance of evil ideas can happen here.
From a gender issues perspective, right now the feminists own gender studies and other humantiies departments in the universities and use them to spread their ideas. That's why it's crucial for men's interest groups to obtain big money donors and to begin making inroads on academia and to convince donors to cut off funding to institutions that advocate destructive ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 05, @08:14AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
As the author of the original article I wanted to respond to a few things Buster said. First he seems to believe the article is about the US. It's not. It refers to the effects of such ideas in Canada not the United States. It doesn't change much but the Canadian Constitution has a clause on equality instead of liberty and that makes a big difference. Next he is upset that I referred to the effecs of the ruling on gays and lesbians. First, the article originally appeared in a gay publication so what do you expect? SEcondly, in Canada (not the US) this ruling did impact gay bookstores the most. So it wasn't an issue of being PC (I'm very antiPC) but it was a matter of accuracy. Normal gay academic books and novels were being confiscated under the Butler decision and that didn't happen with straight books to anywhere near the same degreee. So unfortunately most of Busters's comments seem out of context to me
Jim Peron
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
