On feminism, yes I consider myself one (excepting that I don't think I should be called a black-ist or latino-ist or people-of-color-ist for supporting civil rights and racial equality, I should just be called "sane on the matter of race relations"; similarly the term feminist, female-ist, to refer to my believing in civil rights and equality based on gender as well, seems to me unfortunate, but perhaps that's just a quibble..) Maybe gender-radical. Also sex-radical (of course people, myself included, can be tense about talking sex-radical, but, just as we can talk about and analyze food, its nutrition, other roles in society, etc, as separate from which foods we love, which we hate, which we're not sure how we feel about, the same can be done for sex and sex acts).
Anyway I'm behind on email with you, so why not catch up before writing about something else? Because I just posted last night a response (response 3 below) to someone's quoting MacKinnon in response 2 below...
I diverge from some "feminists" on such matters as "porn", and in fact (maybe self-righteously) consider this difference with (those parts of mainstream feminism) to be based on my position being more, not less, radical/progressive.
I also posted today a followup, a clarification (lest people think I'm comparing homosexuality with rape/murder fantasies. I'll email that to you after this item.
Harel
Topic 107 free speech and INET 5 responses prigan lbbs.mediapol 7:14 AM Mar 2, 1995 (at zbbs.com) (From News system)
Any comments on the recent prosecution of the Michigan student who "published" his rude sexual fantasies on the internet--in a discussion group. I fear that this--and "kiddie porn" issues--are being used as a wedge to gain censorship control over the internet.
Yet in this case the perpetrator explicitly named his fantasy victim, described her room, and described in gory detail his violent fantasies.
Topic 107 free speech and INET Response 1 of 5 harelb lbbs.mediapol 9:52 PM Mar 5, 1995
In a sane society, it would be clear to all that this guy needs serious help.
In our society, the reactions are (1)lock him up (2)someone else wrote and posted to the net a "response fantasy" with the original poster as the victim of rape/torture/murder instead.
Of course in a sane society the original posted would probably not have gotten so fucked up as to write such a "fantasy"
Harel
Topic 107 free speech and INET Response 2 of 5 hdunagan lbbs.mediapol 1:58 PM Mar 26, 1995 (at zbbs.com) (From News system) SP> Any comments on the recent prosecution of the Michigan student who SP> "published" his rude sexual fantasies on the internet--in a SP> discussion group. I fear that this--and "kiddie porn" issues--are SP> being used as a wedge to gain censorship control over the internet.
This is a fastinating issue. How much mainstream media attention has it got? I'm a bit behind on mainstream press these days. I read about this on the WEB and would to love to hear other people's opinions. A student wrote a violent rape/murder story and published it to alt.sex.stories using his college internet account. He assigned the victim a name that matched a real student in one of his classes. An alumnus read the story and complained; the student was expelled and the FBI is prosecuting him.
My primary reaction is that this is a bad precedent that would later be used against others using the internet. The content of the story is probably not dissimilar to material available in print in this country. (I have not read the story, however.)
I read parts of a transcript of a "town meeting" on the issue that is available on the WEB. In this meeting, Kathryn MacKinnon asked, "Do the women at the University want their tuition money to go to pornography?" As much as I normally dislike MacKinnon's ideas, this question really resonnated with me, as it did with many audience members, apparently. It brought me back to the days when I was in college and was told it wasn't safe for women to go into the stacks of the library unaccompanied because of multiple attacks, it wasn't safe for women to walk two blocks from the dorm to the library. I was enraged at that time at the imposition, and enraged that people didn't see this as an issue of equal access to education.
God, I am rambling, but the point is, I bet other women students in Michigan feel the same sense of outrage, the sense of not being safe on THEIR OWN campus. And in that sense there is probably a difference between a story published on the net and one in little magazines that boys hide when their girlfriends or moms come to visit. The story, "about" a real-live Michigan student, was openly published in a medium that college students have easy accesss to.
I would encourage those who have web access to check this out and post comments:
http://www.wired.com/Staff/justin/dox/law.ass.html
Topic 107 free speech and INET Response 3 of 5 harelb lbbs.mediapol 8:23 PM Mar 26, 1995
The quote of MacKinnon resonates, with me, as reactionary, very much like: "do we want the taxpayer's money supporting homo-erotic 'art'??"
As usual, "pornography" is left un-defined. MacKinnon seems to equate A (rape/torture/murder) with B (what I will call eroticism); the poster (sorry IGC does not display your full name) seems to do this as well in talking about "the magazines boys hide when their moms/girlfriends come" -- as if Penthouse Forum and the like, has (have) rape/murder/torture as their themes.
The questions of equal access, feelings safe, not being inside a 'prison', etc, I think are very serious indeed.
How do we react to them?
First, we should not equate A with B. In fact the "Anti-porn" movement among 'feminists' is not only an assault on civil liberties, it is an assault on the sex-positive future which, I believe, is essential for gender equality and liberation.
Second, we should celebrate B and condemn A. We should all be in agreement on this point, but unfortunately the first half of this sentiment is not widely shared, at least in public settings.
Third, while we condemn A, we have to ask: how do we address the problem itself? Leftists recognize that with violent crimes in our inner cities, we don't want to "lock 'em all up", for at least two reasons: (i)moral reasons having to do with the inhumanity of the prison system (ii)it (locking people up) does not address the root causes and therefore will not ultimately alleviate the problem of violent inner city crime. Similarly, lashing out at the student who posted the sick fantasy doesn't accomplish anything, except to provide a temporary vent for (rightly) outraged and scared women (and men.) That sick student is the messenger more than the message; his post merely reminds us of what's out there, the sickness out there, rather than creates the sickness/danger (to my knowledge he has not acted out any such violence).
Like cross-burners, I don't think we should be attacking this student, but attacking the root causes. (obviously this student is a good example to cite for why we need free mental health for all citizens!)
Most ironically, if we pick up that truly sick rhetoric about talking about "sex and violence" (like talking about "love, and disembowelment") we are moving in precisely the opposite direction we need to push our culture in.
What's in R-rated movies, the violence, is obscene.
That should be XXX rated. Nudity, and love-making
should be celebrated as positive. With these
broad brushtrokes I'm trying to indicate the
kind of societal attitudes we need to move towards
both (i) because they are right and (ii) they
are the kind of sane attitudes which can rescue
us from the kind of madness we have today about
Harel
From harelb Mon Mar 27 14:44:29 1995 I would like to add one clarification to my post last night on this
issue. I noted that MacKinnon's was using the term pornography to
refer to (A), not (B) (and seems to equate A (rape/torture/murder)
with B (what I will call eroticism)); with that caveat (for I think it
would be a great idea to have (B) supported by taxpayers/tuition (at
least as a goal for a good society; one can reasonably , argue, I
think, as to how "ready" we are, today, for which types of erotic
public works/workshops):
About my analogy between MacKinnon's "Do the women at the University
want their tuition money go to pornography?" and "Do we want the
taxpayers' money supporting homo-erotic 'art'??" by right-wingers.
One might object that we agree that "pornography" (in quotes; we are
referring to (A)) is bad, while on the other hand we feel that there
is nothing bad about homo-eroticism.
Nevertheless, the analogy is valid, since the politicians who talk
about "do YOU want YOUR tax-dollars supporting and funding
homo-sexuality?!" are talking to, and trying to appeal to, people who
do think that homo-sexuality is "bad".
Hence in both cases, the same (bad) Principle is being appealed to:
"If you don't agree with X [consider X bad], then [it's ok to] attack
the fact that X is partly publicly paid for". That's the analogy I
intended, a valid one I think.
Nevertheless, it's quite easy to come up with closer analogies in which
not only the same Principle is being appealed to, but also it's
something, unlike homo-sexuality, that we agree is bad.
Take public funding of elections. One of the most common arguments
against it, that I've heard from right-wingers and "even" liberals is
"I don't want my tax-dollars paying for Fulani's campaign!" Insert in
place of Fulani, the Nazi Party, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, etc, and
what you have is an argument exactly like MacKinnon's "do you want
your tuition dollars used for (A=rape/murder fantasies posted)??"
Sure, I'd like to live in a society where the Nazi Party, Buchanan,
etc, do not run, for the reason that no such people exist, or for the
reason at least that basically no one would vote for them. But, living
in the society that I do, I support their right to run, and that
includes my tax-dollars paying for their campaign and (equal) media
access once we have the public-funding system I support.
Another example, one I cite in arguing back, is my tax-dollars being
used for police protection for the KKK when it marches, which I support
for similar reasons. Supporting Free Speech means, by definition,
supporting it when you completely disagree with that speech, and, as
the public elections and police protection examples illustrate, that
support for speech you hate, does, indeed, include paying for it in
many cases
Similarly, I'd like to live in a society where tuition does not get
spend on posts, and posts don't even exist, of rape/murder fantasies,
for the reason that that society I'd like to live in wouldn't have
anyone, or hardly anyone (even good societies will have people who are
seriously psychologically disturbed, perhaps, and who need
psychological help), is interested in that. BUT, living in the society
that I do [and believing in freedom of speech] just like supporting my
tax-dollars for Nazis running for office, I cannot argue based upon
this bogus "tuition paying for it!" argument because once you open
that door, then you're using it against things you disagree with:
"speech which I hate, I shouldn't pay for" which is a position I think
the left must oppose on principled grounds, because if you have that
position, then you're really saying "I'm against free speech for
speech I hate" as the examples indicate.
As to the serious question of what to do about the insane climate
we're in, gender/sex-wise, and violence-wise, and disgustingly mixing
the two, I think that's worth discussion, and indicated some of my
thoughts about it in my preceding post.
Harel Barzilai (March 1995)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 95 14:44:26 EST
From: harelb (Harel Barzilai)
To:
Subject: Part (II) of Harel debates MacKinnon
Topic 107 free speech and INET Response 5 of 5 harelb lbbs.mediapol
11:28 AM Mar 27, 1995
"With regard to freedom of expression there are basically two
positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you
reject it in favor of Stalinist/Fascist standards."
--Noam Chomsky., "Force and Opinion," _Z_, July/Aug. '91.