D.A. Clarke: Women Adopting Men's Bad Habits Is Not the Answer
Posted by NPNAdmin at 5/20/2007 8:56 PM 
Categories: Feminist Perspective, Anti-Pornographers Bookshelf, Impact of Porn, Debate on the Issues, First Amendment
Categories: Feminist Perspective, Anti-Pornographers Bookshelf, Impact of Porn, Debate on the Issues, First Amendment
Recently "Sarah Coeur d'Or" criticized us for not publishing some of her comments. If we claim we care about the participation of women in public debates, she argues, then we are obliged to publish the comments from all people claiming to be women, regardless of the merits of these comments.
We disagree. That an opinion happens to come from a man or a woman is no guarantee of its quality. Some comments show compassion, wisdom, and a genuine desire to understand the concerns of others. Others are more callous. We have entertained plenty of callous comments in this blog in the past, from men and women both. Generally we feel they degraded the quality of the debate, and may well be discouraging others from participating, so we are publishing fewer of them. Women can drive other women out of the public space just as men can.
D.A. Clarke explores the phenomenon of women adopting men's aggressive attitudes and habits in "Consuming Passions: Some Thoughts on History, Sex, and Free Enterprise":
Bewilderingly, I now have more solidarity and sense of community with straight women who seek creative ways to redefine their relationships with male lovers (such as agreeing to forego standard heterosex entirely in favour of more egalitarian activities) than with lesbians devoted to sm, or gay apologists for pornography (though these are in theory my people). Their desire to derive entertainment from weary old racist and sexist cliches, from glamourised woman-hatred, from the look and feel of fascism - and their pride in this desire, their inconceivable arrogance in claiming it as an achievement and a liberation - anger me beyond words and beyond any sense of commonality...
...it is hard for me to know exactly what to feel, when young women decked out in a close imitation of SS regalia call their lesbian sisters Nazis or sex-fascists for opposing pornography or prostitution - when both are traditional tools and institutions of 20th century fascism as well as ancient despotism...
It has been said of lesbian sadomasochism and of pornography in general that they are a way of transcending or transforming women's suffering under male rule: victimisation turned into art. Well, that has been done before - but the last time I heard about it, it was lampshades they were making. This may seem a rather shocking reference, but I cannot better express the insane arrogance of those who presume to turn other people's pain and death into an art object, or (heaven help us) an entertainment...
Why is it that women, women who call themselves feminists, lesbians who of all people should have the least faith in Big Daddy, are more anxious and willing to stand up and defend sex than to stand up and defend women? Why does the freedom to choose from a familiar menu of sexual alternatives mean more to us than the freedom of all women to live our lives in safety and security?...
For women, including lesbians, have absolutely nothing to gain from nihilism, fascist chic, self-conscious decadence, and a romanticisation of the crimes of dead privileged men. That is not the way to legitimise our lives and lovers. When life is valued cheaply and pain is in vogue, it is women's and children's lives which will be valued cheapest of all, and women's and children's pain which will be the raw material for entertainment. When fantasy is valued over truth, it is the truths about our lives and deaths which will be hidden, and the fantasies of others which we will be made to serve. When brute force is admired and bullies are cultural heroes, the vast majority of women and children will be the losers.
The conflict of values can be represented as a struggle between ethics of excess and moderation...
To accept that the costs borne by strangers in far-off lands make our way of life unaffordable implies that we learn to respect those people and that we become ashamed of living at their expense; to accept that we are responsible for the damage that we do to our soil, water, and air means that we learn to clean up after ourselves; to accept that resources are precious and should not be wasted is to learn that the world is not a consumable, an expendable - and neither are its people. To accept that our way of life is costing too much means accepting less: giving up excess, resolving to live within our means. Shoving off the costs of your behaviour onto others, expecting someone else to clean up your mess, blowing away the household economy with irresponsible spending, treating other people as objects to be used and discarded: are these not some of the traits for which feminists have persistently criticised and confronted men, the habits of privilege and arrogance?
Grabbing all you can while you can get it is an expensive way to live. It may turn out to be an expensive way to die. A generation which took this lesson to heart would be less likely to use up, despise, abuse and discard women and children as sexual toys...
The symbols, language and style of lesbian sm chic are the symbols and language and style of male supremacy: violation, ruthlessness, intimidation, humiliation, force, mockery, consumerism. Words like respect, tenderness, gentleness, are boring and passe, according to our new fashion leaders. What we want is excess, and lots of it: extreme experiences of every kind, a great bazaar of fantasy for our shopping pleasure...
Ruthlessness, hardness, force and intimidation have characterised the successful businessman, soldier, gangster, politician and pimp from the very beginning. If we admire those qualities, we implicitly endorse the world these men have created - perhaps we subscribe to the fantasy that women can become hard enough and mean enough to compete with men on their own turf. Suppose we do so, and suppose some of us win: will a world that contains a token handful of lesbian aristocrats among its ruling class be a better world?
See also:
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
The most valuable feature of this book is the chapter "The Future That Never Happened," Levy's brief history of the feminist movement, which shows how it became co-opted by a male-dominated sexual revolution that evolved into raunch culture. For instance, one little-known fact is that Hugh Hefner helped bankroll early feminist initiatives such as the legalization of abortion and the Pill, the National Organization for Women, and the Equal Rights Amendment. Anything that broke down "prudish" sexual mores was good for business, Hef reasoned. His targets included not only religious conservatives but what he called the "puritan, prohibitionist...antisexual" element within feminism...
Raunch culture came along as a way for women to have their cake and eat it too. We could feel empowered without needing to make enemies or stop having "fun" as defined by the commercial media. In this way, says Levy, feminist energy became co-opted by a consumer culture in which solidarity for political change is replaced by personal advancement at the expense of other women. For a large part of raunch culture's appeal, she says, is that it permits women to hang onto their feminist credentials while using their sexuality to achieve success in a male-dominated business world.
Women have to act like one of the guys to establish themselves in this domain, and gleefully collaborating with their love of porn is an effective way to do it. "Raunch provides a special opportunity for a woman who wants to prove her mettle. It's in fashion, and it is something that has traditionally appealed exclusively to men and actively offended women, so producing it or participating in it is a way both to flaunt your coolness and to mark yourself as different, tougher, looser, funnier—a new sort of loophole woman who is 'not like other women,' who is instead 'like a man.'" (p.96) A loophole woman is a token successful woman who creates the illusion that her profession is accessible to women in general.
Lizzy Borden: We don't shoot "all the lovey-dovey stuff that there's not a big market for" (explicit language)
The idea that women don't make good directors is a commonly held belief in the porn industry, [Borden] says, because women "shoot all the soft stuff, all the lovey-dovey stuff that there's not a big market for. In the video stores, that's not what you go see: You want to see hardcore..."
Borden...began to see herself as a kind of female challenge to the male-dominated industry: "I said: '...I can be a man!'..."
Added 6/26/07:
I Was a 'Self-Esteem Vampire': A Woman's Journey Out of Watching Porn (explicit language)
...I began to question the things I was seeing. I began to wonder why I despised those women and yet was using them, even in my own head, to get off to. Slowly the veil began to thin and the guilt and disgust I would feel afterwards would grow stronger than the compulsion to look at the stuff in the first place...
I asked myself honestly, what was I getting out of porn? The answer surprised me. It terrified me. It shamed me...
I was getting a sense of power from watching the humiliation and degradation of the women on the screen.
I was claiming power, the all-elusive power that women strive for their entire lives, from degrading and enjoying the degradation of other women. I had absorbed a lesson from the patriarchy: women are easy to degrade, weaker, and more vulnerable, so much so that even another woman can take their power. Watching women being slapped and hurt was filling that void within me that was taken so many years before by men. It allowed me to feel powerful and in control...
It wasn’t some sort of biological excitement from seeing two people having sex (although, that’s what I told myself for a very long time). It was the power that is inherent in degrading and humiliating another human being that brought me climax...
And I hated them for it. I hated them for reflecting my own weaknesses back at me...
At the same time I hated MYSELF for using them. I hated myself for being a vampire of sorts, a kind of ‘self-esteem vampire’. A creature which was incapable of making her own self-esteem and who therefore took it from other humans. But self-esteem garnered at the expense of another human being does not, and never can, replace your own...
Kara Nox: Adult Movies I Have Been In
The Violation Of Melissa Lauren
Melissa decides she needs to take a break from her suburban lifestyle and journeys out to the Ozarks looking for some fun. But what begins as a ligh hearted adventure soon becomes a nightmare when redneck locals descend on poor Melissa and have their way with her.
Naturally, you completely misunderstand my point. The comment you supressed suggested that you contribute to the unsavoriness of the debate by calling people names who disagree with you, and by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be a moral monster.
Since you do do that stuff, and it does contribute to the unsavoriness of the debate, I can't imagine why you're saying that the comment was of "low quality," unless being critical of your childish behavior is automatically a mark of low quality. It's not.
Furthermore, I have no idea what it is about disagreeing with you or criticizing you that you regard as especially "manly," or why you think my behavior has been "bad." I just think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that it is other people, and not you, who make this debate uncomfortable for people. And I think it's hypocritical of you to loudly lament the silencing of women's voices while quietly silencing the voices of women who criticize you.
I also resent the implication that women in particular can't take it when a debate turns sour. Perhaps you think that womenkind is the gentle, fairer sex and that we cannot cope with the stress of a heated debate. Women are intelligent, thoughtful people who can take care of themselves. We do not need you (a man) to protect us from the "horrors" of online forums.
P.S. Why do you put my name in quotation marks?
Reply to this
I put your name in quotes because I can't verify who you are, or even if you're a woman, and apparently the sex of an author is important to you.
I am indeed concerned that many of our opponents are not showing sufficient compassion for the people and communities who suffer from the sex industry, or for those who have left online debates for fear of their safety. I see aggressive efforts to deny the evidence of harm, minimize its importance, and find cheap ways to distract and discredit us through juvenile personal attacks. I have also seen people claim that since they don't think porn has harmed them personally, or because they personally don't want any assistance, that's the end of the discussion.
You don't have to want any help, but is it right to interfere with those who do?
Reply to this
You're the one who appears to think that gender is massively important. You posted an entry that says that women in particular are being frozen out of debates, and that this is particularly bad because it's happening to women.
Then you turn right around and supress the comment of a woman, not because there's anything objectionable or irrelevant in what she's saying, but because she points out that your own activities contain an element of the very viciousness you criticize.
Doing so is deeply hypocritical in a variety of ways. For one thing, it's hypocritical to whine and complain about a problem you're helping to cause. For another thing, it's hypocritical to loudly lament the silencing of women's voices while simultaneously silencing women's voices. For another thing, it's weird and bizarre to claim that I'm "adopting men's bad habits" in being critical of your heavy-handed name-calling. I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you're just using a politician's trick to make me seem less sympathetic to your readers.
As far as the first amendment's being a "tragic document" goes, I think Doug Schubert put it very well. Although you may feel threatened or attacked, no one has actually harmed you. No one has, for example, accused you of collecting child pornography in an attempt to discredit you. Far from being "tragic," the first amendment is alive, well, and healthy, and doing its job.
Your apparent suggestion that the right to free speech is outweighed by the negative value of impoliteness is what's tragic and hypocritical. You dish out personal attacks and name-calling as well as anyone else, and you appear to have an extreme distaste for apologizing. That you could behave this way while criticizing others for doing the same thing, and that you could behave this way while calling the first amendment a "tragic document," is a testament to the capacity of mankind for hypocrasy.
Finally, I have no idea why you think I'm "interfering" with people who want help. Has anyone actually asked you for help? Has anyone complained to you about me, or about anyone else, for that matter? Has anyone besides you and your wife even been attacked in this debate? I didn't think so.
Reply to this
Have you noticed that certain voices are missing from this debate? Certain people, victims of sex trafficking are a good example, who may not have the unrestricted access to the Internet that you do, who are closely monitored, beaten into submission, and in many cases don't speak English? On those rare occasions when a reporter talks with them, their suffering and despair are obvious. Do we need to wait for them to implore us in person before we call attention to their situation, their exploiters, and the role of porn in making things worse?
In the 1850s, would you have dismissed abolitionists as interfering busybodies, made up vicious games with their images, and urged them to leave town, as Mopornnorthampton has done in our case? At Moporn, it seems beyond comprehension that someone can have motivations that are not entirely narrow and selfish. We invite all readers to compare our site with theirs, and with TalkBackNorthampton, and with Prospect Perspective, and see who fights fair, sticks to the facts, has more evidence, presents logical arguments, suggests feasible solutions to problems, avoids idle speculation, and has better compassion for those who lack power and privilege.
Reply to this
Seems to me that all the people you've banned, their voices are missing from this debate, too.
Either you truly believe what you're saying and can't see through your own hypocrisy, or you truly believe that no one else will see through your lies. Either way, it's pretty sad. And comparing yourself to abolitionists won't change that.
Reply to this
Porn is the sea of lies, Stanley, not us. And if this isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
Generally speaking, the pro-porn side has had extensive airtime for several decades now. Our declining to publish a handful of meritless comments or uncivil speakers is not depriving the public of any meaningful amount of information. By contrast, rank-and-file members of the sex trade have to be just about the most uncared-for group of people in the world. Amplifying their speech is badly needed.
Our commenting policy is entirely consistent with our overall position that private actors should think hard before publishing or profiting from meritless or harmful speech.
Reply to this
The evidence clearly suggests that large numbers of women are fleeing online forums because of the hostile tone of the discussion. If some of the women who are left include those who are post meritless or uncivil comments, I would say they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Women can chase women from debates just as men can. I see no benefit to suspending our judgment just because the speaker claims to be a woman.
Being female is no guarantee that you're a compassionate person, immune from criticism, or that your opinions deserve publication. Gaining stimulation or profit from the subjection of others is a common human failing, and some women are seduced by it. "Madams", for example, have been around for a long time. Other women believe that a callous attitude shows that they are as tough as men, that they can compete in a man's world. This phenomenon is explored in Female Chauvinist Pigs .
Reply to this
If the porn store shelves contained dvds, magazines, photos of white men gang banging white men; of white christian men hunting white christian men and hanging them on trees for the sexual gratification of white Christian men (strange fruit of a different type), of skinning them and sewing their skin into lampshades, or bootlegs and saddle ornaments this might even the score. Is this what mopornnorthhampton would like to see? HMMM ....
http://www.mopornnorthhampton.com
"The Violation of Melissa Lauren"
Reply to this