I changed the books on the side panel. One also sees that my own book is "a work in progress," though I also did the finishing touches to the first major clean-up job. The first time around (October), a look at the hard copy showed a bit too many problems -- editing and a few items of content -- so it turned out to be more of a rough draft. Joe's Constitution is really always a work in progress. I'm forever considering various questions and reading new cases, suggested by new cases inserted during the latest editing, a few arising this Supreme Court term.* Wikipedia seems a better option, since then I can always edit without worrying about the formatting (a pain with the self-publishing site I used) in the final file, but I think the book can be considered to be done for the moment. Imperfect as it might be.
The first book is a feminist memoir. I discussed it a few days back and noted opposition to her anti-pornography stance. My first response to this stance, especially those like her who wants to give communities the right to keep newsstands from voluntarily including nudie magazines even behind the counter,** is how we define the term. Brownmiller seems to like to focus on the hard core violent/racist pornography, a tiny aspect of the materials at issue. She speaks of women being raped, bound, forced, and violated in pornography.
Now, I saw some pornography in my time -- especially the soft core sort on cable, but also a few magazines -- and I do not recall any that called us to be pleased by women having sex against their own will. It is out there, but surely not the sort of thing that dominates. So, to speak. So, no, it is a lie to define "pornography" in this fashion. This is somewhat less true online, but her anti-porn crusade came before the Internet phenomenon. But, even online, most pornography is of the explicit photo variety. And, much of the most explicit sorts are fantasy fiction or maybe chat rooms. Again, defining pornography as not "writing of prostitutes" but writings of rapists is simply wrong.
And, it should not take a pornographer to tell this to her. And, it really does not. She admits in passing in her book that some women were upset at the anti-pornography movement, some of the images actually pleasurable to them. They felt the anti-pornography brigade was calling their pleasure impure, and she said she "guesses" they were. You think? The true concern is not the tiny amount of pornography that involves rape fantasies and the like (and, yes, this is legitimate fare that examines one part of our psychology), but the degradation of women.
But, surely, nudity and sexual activity is not necessary for this. In fact, she talks about other portrayals as well in advertising and so forth. I would argue that this is in the long run is a much more problematic enterprise, especially looking at things through her eyes. Can we ban this fare? Also, what about all the violent fare in our society, which in fact is loathe to seriously address sexual matters in an adult non-porn sense? Why should we target a tiny explicit segment that is already deemed "bad" in some sense, even though millions (of both sexes) do want to look at it?
Such a misguided approach in my view. Furthermore, women are degraded in any number of ways in text as well. She is not for censoring that sort of material. At least, I do not think so, though some in the movement would. One person on the panel I linked below noted that any number of materials out there appall people. For instance, promotion of sexual freedom. Somehow, this is acceptable, even though millions are upset at it -- as shown by who is in power these days. How nicely selective. This is someone who honored women having basically lesbian meet-ups that at times led to topless dancing in a burst of glorification of their sexuality and gender. I wonder -- is same sex porn okay for her?
SB is excited about a comment by Chief Justice Burger of all people (does his Bowers' concurrence excite you too, Susan? Or, his tepid support of abortion rights?) that obscenity is not included within the glories of free speech. The old battles have been won; erotic literature protected along with the progressive thought that dominated the feminist movement, but once was liable to get you arrested. Our rights to enjoy sexual speech, including of an education nature, is less important to her. Oh, sure, she understands the need of the latter.
But, not when used in various pleasurable aspects, including sexual fantasy lives. Then, it can be degrading to women, so rightly targeted -- even if women themselves voluntarily take part and enjoy the material. SB does not push for a more well-rounded sort of "porn," which includes the pleasure of women into consideration. It might even be that she would define the term differently, since apparently when this is involved, it must be "erotica." This though millions of women read cheap romance novels that often promote sexual stereotypes as simplistic as the sorts in porn, especially of the soft variety. The fact that free speech overall involves some unpleasant material, sometimes because it reflects unpleasant desires and realities, also does not quite seem to reach her.
Or, is it only a problem in this field? Oh, she speaks of how the tiny area of Nazi themed porn appalled some Jews, But, how about all the speech that attacks the right of Israel to exist? Is this somehow less of a problem for Jews? Please. Eventually, SB saw the movement become too divisive and almost seem illiberal. Good instincts, but it was there from the beginning. Sexual degradation is worthy of attack, though pornography is a pretty narrow way to do it, but those who kept from suggesting the state should get involved had the right idea.
---
* The Supreme Court, even after the conservative Fourth Circuit ripped the Administration a new one over its twisting of the evidence ["shell game"], rejected Padilla's appeal. Thus, it managed to avoid deciding the one case of an American citizen jailed for years without trial who was not picked up from the battlefield. The question is narrower now, but on some level this is a clear dereliction of duty ... though one can look at it as a modified victory. Still, this drawing out process gets ridiculous after four years.
** During a roundtable debate, an ACLU attorney noted that women manage to pass news counters without feeling violated by the presence of such magazines, especially since they are not "thrusted" in their faces. He suggested those who felt violated in some fashion chose to be, since they could avoid them.
SB suggested he was implying that some also "chose" to be raped. A ridiculous comparison -- the same applies to MacKinnon and Dworkin who directly connected the two, the latter basically suggesting sex was never truly consensual unless it was of the same sex variety.