Countering the Feminist Argument
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 10:07:03
dem_red wrote:
> I think this may be a stronger campaign tactic -- though as a woman I may need a man to back up my argument :P -- than giggling childishly if anyone mentions feminist arguments against porn.
First, to re-iterate: I would not giggle at arguments... although might do so at some research. That is a separate topic and separate debate.
Second, it seems useful to draw out argument, rather than let it fester. I would actually be interested in understanding some of the argument and counter-argument on this topic, rather than seeing it descend into a polemic about who on here is more pro/anti-feminist than everyone else.
The point has been made that there is both a feminist counter to MP's such as Vera Baird. Since, I suspect, she would both describe herself as feminist and possibly state that her arguments are made 'in the interests of women', it would be useful to understand where she is coming from and what the faultlines are in her arguments. Not least because I am interested in knowing whether she is mainstream and FAC is minority - or whether, in reality, FAC represents a large silent minority amongst women in general.
As a starter for ten, I will stick up what _I_ think she is arguing. So if I am wrong, please put me right: and if I draw the wrong conclusion, please explain why.
She starts from a point of view that women are and have been abused. No quibble with that: it happens.
She also seems to take the view that this is largely something that men do to women. Less happy with that - but separate discussion.
She then seems to take a view that there are some activities that are inevitably and intrinsically abusive. That they remain such even if consent is given. And the reason why this is so is that women who consent to such activities don't really know their own mind: they have been so cowed, abused, or generally indoctrinated by the patriarchal view of things that they don't really understand what is good for them.
Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something?
Because if it is that simple, it seems to boil down to a highly elitist view that some people (such as Vera Baird) believe they know what is best for everyone else - and that they know better than those people do themselves.
Which feels like an argument we can win.
Regards,
M
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 10:37:33
that's about the size of it, Manniq. It is all of a piece with people who
say they know all about the psychological research, but they prefer what
"common sense" tells them.
"Common sense" is often the rationalisation of "gut feeling" an automatic
(kneejerk) response to stimulus that may originate in inappropriate learned
behaviour, (socialisation, brainwashing).
The only remedy I can suggest is education, which is a long, painstaking
road with resistence every step of the way. But I keep trying....
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 10:37:33
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:06 AM
>
>
> dem_red wrote:
>
>> I think this may be a stronger campaign tactic -- though as a woman I may
>> need a man to back up my argument :P -- than giggling childishly if
>> anyone mentions feminist arguments against porn.
>
> First, to re-iterate: I would not giggle at arguments... although might do
> so at some research. That is a separate topic and separate debate.
>
> Second, it seems useful to draw out argument, rather than let it fester.
> I would actually be interested in understanding some of the argument and
> counter-argument on this topic, rather than seeing it descend into a
> polemic about who on here is more pro/anti-feminist than everyone else.
>
> The point has been made that there is both a feminist counter to MP's such
> as Vera Baird. Since, I suspect, she would both describe herself as
> feminist and possibly state that her arguments are made 'in the interests
> of women', it would be useful to understand where she is coming from and
> what the faultlines are in her arguments. Not least because I am
> interested in knowing whether she is mainstream and FAC is minority - or
> whether, in reality, FAC represents a large silent minority amongst women
> in general.
>
> As a starter for ten, I will stick up what _I_ think she is arguing. So
> if I am wrong, please put me right: and if I draw the wrong conclusion,
> please explain why.
>
> She starts from a point of view that women are and have been abused. No
> quibble with that: it happens.
>
> She also seems to take the view that this is largely something that men do
> to women. Less happy with that - but separate discussion.
>
> She then seems to take a view that there are some activities that are
> inevitably and intrinsically abusive. That they remain such even if
> consent is given. And the reason why this is so is that women who consent
> to such activities don't really know their own mind: they have been so
> cowed, abused, or generally indoctrinated by the patriarchal view of
> things that they don't really understand what is good for them.
>
> Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something?
>
> Because if it is that simple, it seems to boil down to a highly elitist
> view that some people (such as Vera Baird) believe they know what is best
> for everyone else - and that they know better than those people do
> themselves.
>
> Which feels like an argument we can win.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2098
>
>
zak, 22 Oct 2005 11:04:31
Original Message:
-----------------
manniq@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 11:04:31
So if I am wrong, please put me right: and if I draw the wrong conclusion,
please explain
why.
She starts from a point of view that women are and have been abused. No
quibble with
that: it happens.
She also seems to take the view that this is largely something that men do
to women. Less
happy with that - but separate discussion.
She then seems to take a view that there are some activities that are
inevitably and
intrinsically abusive. That they remain such even if consent is given.
And the reason
why this is so is that women who consent to such activities don't really
know their own
mind: they have been so cowed, abused, or generally indoctrinated by the
patriarchal view
of things that they don't really understand what is good for them.
Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something?
Because if it is that simple, it seems to boil down to a highly elitist
view that some
people (such as Vera Baird) believe they know what is best for everyone
else - and that
they know better than those people do themselves.
Which feels like an argument we can win.
Regards,
M
That is about broadly right on the anti-porn 'feminist' argument: that
certain women who
ahve read the right feminist books know better than women who have had
direct experience
of the issues, how other women feel and what they should do. The anti-porn
'feminists'
have always, just FYI, reserved their worst venom for the women who work in
the porn
industry and who totally reject their patronising arguments.
Again, it's really sex-phobia that softens people's brains like this. There
is no industry
in this world without occaisional cases of workers being abused, ripped
off, bullied, etc,
but people don't tend to get hysterical about the plight of the poor
secretary/bricklayer/fishmonger in the same way...
zjk
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D32
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 19:19:44
In message <3893098.1129972019481.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>First, to re-iterate: I would not giggle at arguments... although might do so at
>some research. That is a separate topic and separate debate.
>
>Second, it seems useful to draw out argument, rather than let it fester. I
>would actually be interested in understanding some of the argument and counter-
>argument on this topic, rather than seeing it descend into a polemic about who
>on here is more pro/anti-feminist than everyone else.
>
>The point has been made that there is both a feminist counter to MP's such as
>Vera Baird. Since, I suspect, she would both describe herself as feminist and
>possibly state that her arguments are made 'in the interests of women',
You appear to have misspelled 'wimmin'. HTH.
>it would be useful to understand where she is coming from
Redcar in the People's Republic of Yorkshire.
>and what the faultlines are in her arguments.
Whenever the silly woman opens her mouth or commits her 'thoughts' to
written media...
>Not least because I am interested in knowing whether she is
>mainstream and FAC is minority - or whether, in reality, FAC represents
>a large silent minority amongst women in general.
I expect that the majority of women are silent because they simply do
not much care about the top-shelf trash that men buy. They may be
inclined to giggle at us or make such comments as 'Position's
everything' at some of the more acrobatic (and doubtless uncomfortable)
poses of the wenches therein, but I'd doubt that many would seek to
*control* what people may view. As for necrophilia, it's dead boring,
whilst bestiality might make one wish to contact the RSPCA.
>As a starter for ten, I will stick up what _I_ think she is arguing.
>So if I am wrong, please put me right: and if I draw the wrong
>conclusion, please explain why.
>She starts from a point of view that women are and have been abused.
>No quibble with that: it happens.
I'd doubt it had happened to her, though; most abusers don't carry
sufficient paper bags with them...
>She also seems to take the view that this is largely something that men
>do to women. Less happy with that - but separate discussion.
That's not only sexist, it's also simply wrong. Women (or 'wimmin') do
abuse men, but often in more subtle ways.
>She then seems to take a view that there are some activities that
>are inevitably and intrinsically abusive. That they remain such even
>if consent is given. And the reason why this is so is that women who
>consent to such activities don't really know their own mind: they have
>been so cowed, abused, or generally indoctrinated by the patriarchal
>view of things that they don't really understand what is good for them.
And that's simply arrogant. It's also utter twaddle, as that argument
could also be used to withdraw the universal franchise from 'wimmin' as
they have been too indoctrinated to vote for the 'correct' candidate.
After all, if they're too brainwashed or stupid to be able to think for
themselves, isn't it inherently corrupt for such a 'pocket borough' to
exist?
>Is it as simple as that? Or am I missing something?
Vide 'Even Steven' on alt.sex.bondage for a longer exposition of such
patent piffle.
I feel sure that, should such nonsense be accepted, it will not be long
before a man and woman having consensual if somewhat rough sex are
charged respectively with rape and aiding and abetting rape.
>Because if it is that simple, it seems to boil down to a highly
>elitist view that some people (such as Vera Baird) believe they
>know what is best for everyone else - and that they know better
>than those people do themselves.
What do spermatozoa and Vera Baird have in common?
They both have a one in 50,000,000 chance of becoming a human being.
[Apologies to Stephen Fry...]
>Which feels like an argument we can win.
No, because folk such as Ms. Baird are utterly convinced that they are
always correct and that They Can Do No Wrong. They're known as
'conviction politicians' and, such are their convictions, I would be
inclined to lock them up in a padded cell before throwing away the key.
There is no way to persuade them of the fallacy of their arguments any
more than one could persuade a member of the KKK to accept a negro as a
son-in-law.
You'd find it easier to teach Victoria Beckham to sing in tune.
--
< Paul >