SFGate: Neva Chonin: "OK, how about this: I want to see less girl trouble in 2007"

[omega minimo]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/31/PKGMQKFQ5I1.DTL&hw=Neva+Chonin&sn=003&sc=921

POWERLESS
- Neva Chonin
Sunday, December 31, 2006

“All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.” -- Unknown

Happy New Year. I'm sitting in a wee house above Muir Beach, watching surfers detonate against the hard waves, and woe, there is a power outage. No Wi-Fi, no coffeemaker, no TiVo, no toaster. Deprivation, desperation. Might as well write a column. It being a certain time of year, I've been thinking about what I'd like to see in 2007, in terms of cultural evolution or crass entertainment or social progress. I am drawing a blank. To quote the title of my favorite Moby album, everything is wrong. And when everything is wrong, it's difficult to know where to begin.

OK, how about this: I want to see less girl trouble in 2007. I want girls to wear underwear, be smart and eschew pole dancing unless they're getting paid really well for it. And could we also get a little more prime-time exposure without having to expose ourselves, please? For example (and you knew I had at least one), one of my favorite series of 2006, "Heroes," revolved around a cadre of average people suddenly discovering they possess extraordinary powers. So why, since women make up roughly 50 percent of the population, are only two out of these eight "heroes" female? Perhaps we're meant to assume that the "heroic" gene has a preference for the Y chromosome; or maybe we're supposed to accept the gender discrepancy as an anomaly, just as we're supposed to accept that the two women who do make the cut are both sexy blondes -- one a stripper, the other a cheerleader -- like a pair of archetypal wet dreams. While I'm bemoaning discrimination on TV, I'll mention another favorite series, "Lost," and a favorite character from that series, Hurley. Hurley, for those of you who don't watch the show, is a sweet stoner dude who happens to be morbidly obese. I think I speak for most "Lost" fans when I say his weight only makes him more lovable, because there's more to love, you see. That said, there is zero chance, zero, that a network would cast a girl as large as Hurley in any series, anywhere. Not in a world where a show about a supposedly "plain" girl, "Ugly Betty," stars a chicklet who looks like a prom queen bedeviled by bad hair and braces. In sum: Women barely rate as "heroic," and no one wants them if they're homely.

Apparently no one wants them in the real world, either. A New York Times article quoted on Plastic.com finds the male-female pay gap has actually widened for women with a college education, thanks to a combination of continuing discrimination and women shifting from office careers to child rearing. (The latter, of course, might be solved if America, like other countries, had government-sponsored day care, but that smacks of communism, so ...) When Plastic.com invited readers to discuss this increasing wage disparity, the replies proved enlightening. "Women hold a surprisingly strong position in household kitchens," opined one. "Now what is more important, some corporate officer at a Fortune 500 company or the person who makes the food they need to survive?" Dude, who knew the family cook held such clout? Not the abolitionists, or Harriet Tubman would have reversed the underground railroad to lead straight back to the master's pantry. Same commentator: "More and more when I hear about workplace gender inequality, I think it is mere penis envy, women bitching that the grass is always greener for the guys. All the while, women never had it better in their history."

I haven't heard anyone seriously refer to penis envy since -- well, I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone seriously refer to penis envy. Didn't that vanish from the psychoanalytic canon back the '60s? Whatever. The contention that women have never had it better might well be true -- men can no longer, in this country anyway, legally beat their wives; we have the vote; we still have the right to contraception and abortion, though how long this will last in the current social climate is questionable. We are unshackled and can both drive and take public transportation. Hot damn! Life is good for the ladies. The African American population, too. Compared to what's gone on in the past, they've never had it better, man. So why, oh why, must they still complain? Why must women? Have I wielded the ham-fist of irony heavily enough, or should I take another swing?

Another Plastic.com reader offered superlative reasoning on gender-based pay inequity. Women's careers, he suggested, will forever be blighted by menstruation-related absenteeism. This is why they call it "the Curse." Yet another was simply befuddled by women's insistence on shooting for high-paying jobs: "Women have complete monopolies over many career paths (like nurses and secretaries) that men often need not apply for," he pondered. "Yet they still feel pressure to compete with men on salaries and management jobs etc." Indeed, why shoot for CEO when you can be a secretary? Why go to medical school when you can be a nurse? Why try to earn a decent salary when you can live inches above the poverty line? Why am I asking so many rhetorical questions? Is it because, according to yet another study, women talk more than men, making rhetoric my predetermined weapon of choice? I leave the answers to you, gentle readers. I'm grabbing a ride back into the city, where the future awaits.

[Redstone]

1. Damn good writing.

Redstone

[omega minimo]

2. Yup

SF Chronicle has some very talented writers and one of the best editorial cartoonists in the business, Tom Meyer

[mzteris]

3. da-uhm.

Excellent article.

Depressing as hell, but excellent.

Is there hope for women?

Pelosi as Speaker is a good step, I think. Having a woman President would be even better. (Not that I'm a 100% Hillary backer. I don't know who I'm more "for" in the current field - there's something to really 'like' about almost all of them!) (Hubby said he saw a Rice 08 bumpersticker, though. HER, I could do without!)

My pet peeve: The sexualization of little girls really needs to STOP, imo.

[twenty4blackbirds]

7. 'sexualization' == Grooming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
:(

[mongo]

4. K & R

Not only is there a gender pay gap, but women who do have make it into management in the corp. world have to be much better than their male counterparts.

Women get promoted for excellence. Too often, men are promoted for longevity or loyalty.

And I realize the comments on the media were mostly a humorous anecdote, but if the media really reflected reality would we have consoles that explode at the slightest provocation on Star Trek?

[nashville_brook]

5. happy to be the fifth... damn good read!

[Morgana LaFey]

6. Excellent, with only one flaw that I can see:

I want girls to wear underwear, be smart and eschew pole dancing unless they're getting paid really well for it.

How much pay is "enough" to transform the practice of pole dancing from exploitation of women's bodies to something positive for and about women?

But it really is excellent otherwise. Thank. And I'm glad to see some of these threads reach the Greatest page, too.

[Quantess]

8. Excellent thought.

Economics is a considerable factor in stripping, nude dancing, etc. I had a friend who paid her way through college being a nude dancer. She tried to convince me to follow her, but I was way too modest to appear naked on stage. These days, I look back and actually kind of regret not trying it, because, I was gorgeous and I could have made more money doing that, than doing the menial jobs I was doing. Nobody treated me with any respect then, anyway! If someone is to go about with no respect anyway, then at least make some money while you're at it! That's what the older, jaded me says, looking back at the young, naive me.

However, My nude dancer friend back in those days was naive in her own ways too. I met her because she was my idiot roommate's girlfriend. He was a custodian/mopper at the club, neither attractive, nor intelligent, nor a likeable dude, in any way conceivable. He hoarded toilet paper in his room. The guy was a total dud. Hopefully, she has moved on, and has better taste in men these days.

Anyway, CEOs who make multi-million dollar decisions to pollute watersheds are seen as modest and responsible, while women willingly showing their bodies for a few dollars are seen as immodest and irresponsible? What twisted world is that?

[omega minimo]

9. That can of worms hinges on the word "willingly"

and as you point out at start and end, $$$$$ is the main motivator--- how many "CEOs who make multi-million dollar decisions to pollute watersheds are" women?

[Morgana LaFey]

10. I see it a little differently. Or maybe a lot differenty.

Mzteris offered a clue: The sexualization of little girls really needs to STOP, imo. and 24blackbirds posted another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

Not many adult women (or semi-adult, as in runaway teens) work in the sex industry unless they've been "groomed" for it by having been prematurely "sexualized" -- which usually happens via sexual abuse while they are children.

I absolutely do not buy the so-called "sex-positive" brand of so-called feminism which holds that women ought to be free enough (!!) to exploit their bodies and sexuality themselves. Nonsense, and it's not about morality. It's about personal space, personal boundaries, personal power, dignity and personhood. You just can't be the most powerful person in the room -- in fact, you can't be anything but the LEAST powerful person in the room -- if you're the one with no clothes on. You just can't. You are reduced to your body parts and sexuality at that point and how many men you can get to leer at you and pay you for your throwing away your dignity, and the "personal power" you've lost thereby is damned hard to get back until you stop being one-down.

All that money one can earn in the sex trade is just a recognition of how much you're giving/throwing away of your personhood and humanity.

Some people (the pornographers and their pro-porn misogynist friends) like to misinterpret this argument as a morality issue. It's not. The objection is NOT that sex is wrong, or nudity is wrong, or even wild and unabashed sexuality is wrong. It's that porn and prostitution and all the rest are perversions of healthy sexuality, and there's NO WAY they can legitimately argue against that. None. Quite simply, he people participating are not exhibiting healthy sexuality -- whether they're the buyers or sellers.

Further, the "grooming" that went on while the participants were children that made them participants later wasn't healthy either, and that's nothing that can legitimately be argued against.

Those are my objections. To summarize:
* pornography and other parts of the sex industry do nothing positive for women (quite the opposite -- they're harmful to women)
* (young) women (and girls) were harmed in the "creation" of those who will become the next generation of sex workers, those on whom the industry depends for its "product"

It's a vicious cycle with nothing positive in it for women in it. (I really discount the "high pay" because of the continuing psychological and emotional damage to the women, who usually turn into drug addicts and/or alcoholics to numb the pain.)

[Quantess]

11. Prostitution is one thing. I just don't see any big deal in wiggling around naked

on stage for a few bucks. I've been dragged to strip clubs (In Oregon, no less--Oregon strip clubs show a lot of skin), and I just don't see anything degrading about it, frankly. Guys pay to see it. On stage she's purely a sex object, of course. But I don't see how the stripper doesn't put her dignity back on when she leaves the stage and puts her clothes back on.

But then, I suppose you're right, we just see it differently.

[Nikia]

13. I don't see it too demeaning to dance naked on stage

At many strip clubs though, dancers must do more than dance naked on stage. Although these acts might not be considered prostitution, they do involve simulated sex acts acts with whoever is willing to pay and feel demeaning to many women.

[Quantess]

75. Yes, and prostitution does go down at some strip clubs.

It all stems from the disrespect toward strippers, and the failure to differentiate between a stripper and a hooker. The strippers / AKA dancers, lose.
I personally can't imagine anything more horrible than being a prostitute. To equate stripping with prostitution is like comparing a puff of weed to mainlining heroin into your neck vein.

[Morgana LaFey]

16. Listen to yourself

I just don't see anything degrading about it, frankly. .....

Guys pay to see it.
That's not degrading? WHY do they (have to) pay to see it? (And I'm not talking about their motivations for wanting to see it -- but why is it something that's PAID -- and paid so well -- for?)

On stage she's purely a sex object, of course.
And that's not degrading? It's the very definition of degrading.

But I don't see how the stripper doesn't put her dignity back on when she leaves the stage and puts her clothes back on.
And it wasn't degrading while she had them off? If not, why does she "put her dignity BACK ON" when she dons her clothes again in you mind? (And btw, I didn't say she wouldn't get her dignity back at that point, but I'll bet sooner or later she'll find it gets easier to "get her dignity back" with the help of a few drinks or drugs.)

Now. One last question: why are you lying to and trying to con yourself in this way?

[mongo]

22. You should take your own advice

Are you implying that any acknowledgement of yourself as a sexual being is degrading?

I was at a party last weekend where two women gave a highly erotic performance piece, because they wanted to and they really enjoyed it (as did everyone in the room). I can assure you that they did not feel degraded.

Is it only when money changes hands that it is degrading? If so, then why is it somehow more degrading to make a good living stripping than being a waitress or cashier at Walmart? Waitress' especially take a lot of shit from people. Tell me that is somehow not degrading.

[Quantess]

73. Well, I DON'T see anything degrading about it.

To you, being a sex object is "the very definition of degrading". I disagree very much.

Now, I am certain that there are some strip clubs that have a disrespectful element for the women, which is terrible. I would like all strippers to be able to work in a respectful environment, which, unfortunately, is not the case in all strip clubs. So in that regard, yes, nude dancing can be degrading because of the work environment.

Some people do like to see attractive women naked (news flash!). Personally, I'm not aroused by seeing strippers, but I'm not repulsed, either. You can't expect everyone to agree with your subjective opinions.

I can think of many other jobs that would be more "degrading".

[mongo]

12. You have so totally made it a moral issue

porn and prostitution and all the rest are perversions of healthy sexuality

This is the exact same excuse that was used to have homosexuality classified as a "disorder" in medical circles. By YOUR arbitrary classification of what is normal and what is "perversion", you have interjected a MORAL judgement into the mix.

Any consentual act between adults is normal and not "perversion". That is my "moral" argument.

And it's obvious that you have no personal experiance in strip clubs. The women hold the power, seperating hapless, stupid men from their money. Strippers use men.

And trying to lump all "sex workers" into one disfunctional catagory is a bad and dangerous generalization. There is a big difference between the crack addicted street walker, and the adult film performer or high-class escort.

But lumping them into one big group gives you the moral authority to condem the industry as a while and declare it "harmful", even though there is no real scientific evidence that porn consumption is harmful, or that all adult performers are "harmed" in the process.

[Morgana LaFey]

15. Oh, you poor man. Porn has apparently

rotted your brain. Or at the very least killed some brain cells.

"Sick not bad." Ever heard that saying? It's popular in some of the 12-step groups because illness, whether emotional/spiritual or physical, isn't WRONG, it's not a matter for moral judgment.

This isn't about morality, but about emotional and psychological health. BIG difference. And there's really no connnection between them, and shouldn't be.

Any consentual act between adults is normal and not "perversion". That is my "moral" argument.

Well, I think when the full range of sexual acts is considered - and you made no exceptions aside from "consent," that remark is pretty extreme. Sick people do sick things, as well as some normal things of course. You can't escape that. If you want to "normalize" every possible consensual sexual act, you probably won't have many mental health professionals lining up with you on that.

there is no real scientific evidence that porn consumption is harmful,

Well, you can hide behind that if you want, but it really doesn't track with common sense or common experience. We have enough social experience to know different. YOU, of course, must justify and defend pornography because it's how you make your living, but the rest of us do not have to do that. We can afford to see -- and speak -- the truth.

And it's obvious that you have no personal experiance in strip clubs. The women hold the power, seperating hapless, stupid men from their money. Strippers use men.

No, that's not real power, not even close. In fact, truth be known it's a perversion of power. Here's a cardinal rule of capitalism for you: those who do the paying have the power, not those who ARE paid.

There is a big difference between the crack addicted street walker, and the adult film performer or high-class escort.

Actually, in the ways I'm discussing, there's not so much difference. Or if there is, it's a different spot on the same continuum line. YOU may think the "big difference" YOU see is definitive or important, I don't.

What do you do -- get on DU and do searches to find the latest thread you have to go do battle in, or do you have snitches who alert you to the threads requiring your attention?

[omega minimo]

18. Pole dancing is a transaction-- not a "consentual act between adults"

So the whole "moral argument" argument seems to be a limited reaction to the word "perversion" rather than something relevant to a discussion about selling sex.




"No, that's not real power, not even close. In fact, truth be known it's a perversion of power. Here's a cardinal rule of capitalism for you: those who do the paying have the power, not those who ARE paid."

[mongo]

19. Gee, and I thought the fundamentalists had the market cornered on "truth"

This isn't about morality, but about emotional and psychological health. BIG difference. And there's really no connnection between them, and shouldn't be.

Wow. Porn is a 13 Billion $ business. Are you trying to tell me that all the responsible adults (men and women BTW) who enjoy adult entertainment are "emotionally and psychologically sick"?

Or do you only care about anecdotes of people who were sick to begin with. Ted Bundy gave two previous confessions where he never mentioned porn. It was when he was interviewed by James Dobson that we gave his famous "porn made me do it" speech.

If you want to "normalize" every possible consensual sexual act, you probably won't have many mental health professionals lining up with you on that.

Wow. Another moral statement wrapped up in professional language. Just like legislators have used to criminalize all sorts of acts from homosexuality to oral sex to selling condoms to unmarried people.

But I could have added more qualifiers. The two schools of thought on this are SSC (safe, sane, consentual) and RASC (risk aware consentual kink). Within the context of SSC, I'd like you to tell me what sort of acts you and "mental health professionals" would find unhealthy.

Here is an example of a sex-positive MH professional. You could learn a lot reading his articles. http://www.sexed.org/

YOU, of course, must justify and defend pornography because it's how you make your living

And it also makes me just a little more knowledgeable about what it is and is not, who is consuming it, who is making it and who is against it and why. A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like. Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?

[omega minimo]

20. I thought maybe this was the "new Mongo" but you just opted out of this discussion:

"A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like"

:evilfrown: That's a big 'fuck you' thing to say and you know it. Go away. Stay out of here.

[mongo]

21. Well, if I struck a nerve

you might want to ask yourself why.

[omega minimo]

23. Your viciousness speaks for itself

You have no reason to be in this forum

[Triana]

26. There he goes again - projecting and blaming the victim...

...abuser. (Mongo) He comes in here to verbally smack women around. Maybe considers that 'entertainment' too.

[Quantess]

74. With all due respect, O.M.

Mongo put it a bit harshly, but, I can appreciate why he feels that way. I guess I'm closer to his P.O.V. on this topic than yours, but just because someone disagrees does not mean they need to leave the discussion.:hide:

[omega minimo]

79. "...just because someone disagrees does not mean they need to leave the discussion."

"...just because someone disagrees does not mean they need to leave the discussion."


Agreed.

I was shocked by the viciousness of that post and like I said, the "viciousness speaks for itself." Volumes. I'm through giving the benefit of the doubt to that individual and being smacked-- yet again! why be shocked?-- with that level of sneering, hateful arrogance.

"Mongo put it a bit harshly, but, I can appreciate why he feels that way. I guess I'm closer to his P.O.V. on this topic than yours."

I don't know what you mean, which post. I can't see his initial post anymore and I trust you aren't identifying with the hateful (way beyond "harsh") one.

[omega minimo]

29. Play the victim. Whine, insult, criticize, Deny, Invalidate, Blame the victim, Projection, Mocking

"A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like. Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?"




1) Play the victim. Whine, insult, & criticize. Make damn sure she knows what an inferior being she is and how everything is HER fault. "Well I wouldn't do that to you if you weren't so __." "Well, I have to act that way because of the way you ___!" "You should feel sorry for me because I have to put up with you and your crap - that's why I abuse you - you drive me to it!" "I have to keep secrets from you because I can't tell you anything without you getting upset!" "You're lucky I bother to put up with you!" "You're insecure/lazy/narcissistic/TOO SENSITIVE/a bitch...and you need psychiatric help!" (she probably WILL by the time she's done putting up with all that projection and verbal abuse for very long - and NO woman should).

2) Deny, Invalidate - "It's all in your head". "You're just imagining things!" "You're just making shit up!" "Why are you bringing shit up that happened YEARS ago. It's not important to ME!" (?) "Why do you dwell on this stuff?" (DOH. Probably because it NEVER gets resolved in relationships with AWM types)

3) Blame the victim for being abused - "It's all YOUR fault - you bring it on yourself!" (see #1). "You ASK to be humilitated and yelled at in front of my friends and in public! You DESERVE it!"

4. Projection. He accuses HER of doing the same things HE is doing himself. Hypocritical finger-pointing. Projecting HIS own bad behavior and personality problems onto her then abusing her for it. This is a Republican tactic that particular political party is very good at. I suspect the majority of Republicans are members of NCFM - aka the Angry White Men's club - or at least subscribe to that same mentality. Whenever a woman hears "You're insecure!", "You're Paranoid!", "You're oversensitive!" and other "You're .....you...you...you!" BLAMING statements - that is most CERTAINLY projection.

5. Mocking. "Oh, I thought YOU were the computer expert around here!" (with superior sarcasm), "Oh, poor you, your're SUCH a victim!", "Are you being a little Princess?" "Well, there's a GOOD reason I blame YOU for everything, woman - because everything is always YOUR fault!" (with very serious and self-satisfied superiority). ALL OF THESE are outright examples of VERBAL ABUSE.

Particularly insidious are men who claim victimhood - they claim that they are punished and oppressed by the oh-so-unreasonable females (see #1 and #2). Woe is them. Then, when they abuse a woman (physically, verbally, or emotionally), and she complains about that abuse, he tells her SHE is "playing the victim". But he plays the victim role himself (see #1) and uses HIS OWN victim story as an excuse for his abusing her. It's a circular logic that's all too familiar. It's HER fault that he cannot handle his own anger, impatience, hostility, need for control, insecurity, and his need to treat her like an inferior human being in order to salve his insecurity about himself. He projects his own personality issues and bad behavior onto HER, blames her for them, and abuses HER because of them. Far too many men have their projection and their circular (blame the/play the) victim strategies down really well.



The utter hypocrisy and circular logic is head-spinning.

[noamnety]

31. That quote went beyond blaming the victim

"Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?"

The implication is that a woman who is abused must internalize the issue, make it her own private emotional struggle, rather than deal with it in an external way by confronting head on the causes of such abuse, and working to put an end to them.

And that also is part of the patriarchy, that women are expected to deal with crime - especially crimes against women by men - by absorbing their pain, rather than demanding accountability for those responsible directly for the crime, or those contributing to it through the marketing of rape and violence against women as a consumable commodity.

I was talking to one of my friends last year about how women are trained to hold people responsible when it's something like a car theft, because that happens to men as well. But if we demand accountability when we are raped or abused, we are "airing our dirty laundry" (which seems to equate to challenging those with privilege).

This is the same argument I've seen against Cindy Sheehan. Others like to tell her what she's doing is unhealthy for herself - she needs to grieve properly (i.e. at home in silence) - which is code for "Quit trying to hold our people responsible for their own actions which contributed to your son's death." Their oh-so-touching concern for her well-being is a cover for anger when she gets uncomfortably close to challenging their own favored untouchables. Here on DU, they certainly didn't feel that way when she was protesting Bush, but NOW, NOW she needs to internalize her issues and quit being so visible - for her own emotional health.

I am sick of men telling women that the healthiest thing they can do about rape is to go home and come to terms with it privately. No shit, men would like us to do that.

[Triana]

42. One of my favorite rants:

I posted this in another thread here but it's worth another post. Men who think women have NO right to anger no matter WHAT is done to them by men - that women should have NO personal boundaries - and NO power in society - will accuse women of being "too angry". Too angry for WHAT? For the status quo? For the established patriarchy? To put up with abuse? To put up with exploitation? To put up with being bought and sold and used like chattel? To put up with being treated like something less than human? Only MEN have any right to be angry? Beware the label and beware its source and its intent (oppression, control). Too angry for WHAT?, the writer below asks:

_ _ _ _ _

.."Too Angry for What?"

I find the "too angry" label most often hurled at women and people of color. And likewise, that intended insult, or leverage, is usually not hurled *by* people of color. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember ever being told I am "too angry" by a person of color. I recall it being mostly white males who call me "too angry." The women who call me "too angry" are usually women who are white, middle class, and very tied into the patriarchy as their support system. Or, more simply put, women who are financially dependent on white men. Basically *anyone* who does not support and promote white male land owner privilege, as was instituted at the birth of this nation, is labeled "too angry." I have come to see the anger label as a form of political manipulation in and of itself.

Just as it was fear that motivated my white male acquaintances to belittle rap and hip hop in ways that starkly contradicted the rest of their musical preferences, I think it is most often fear that makes people label women "too angry" too. When I think of women society labels as "too angry," Roseanne is the first to come to mind. (Personally, I found her rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner," and subsequent crotch grabbing and spitting, at that baseball game, to be one of the most brilliant performances in history and I still get chills thinking about the pure genius she has displayed over the years). Gloria Steinem is called "too angry." Feminist author bell hooks is labeled "too angry." Very intelligent women, who are notably full of genius and vision, have been and currently are, labeled "too angry." Basically, if you are an outspoken feminist, you *will* be labeled "too angry." It is guaranteed. But why? Why is it impossible to be an outspoken feminist without the "too angry" name calling? I think it is because using the "too" in front of the "angry" has an inherent judgment to it, and that the label "too angry" is used more often to control women, than as constructive behavioral criticism.

So let's see here…Feminists are too angry. People of color are too angry. Funny thing, it seems disempowerment and abuse breeds anger. When I look at who is labeled "too angry," I realize I am in good company. I do not want to be in, or support, the status quo or middle class. If I scare patriarchy enough to warrant the "too angry" label, it means I am effective. You have got to look at who is calling you "too" angry and why. The political use of the "too angry" label has been hurled in the past at Malcolm X, Black Panthers, famous feminists throughout history, anarchists, rap artists…basically anyone who threatens to upset the status quo. Even the Dr. Rev. M.L.King, jr., who many view as too pacifist, was called "too angry" as a way to try to neutralize his influence within the status quo.

Am I "too" angry? Too angry for what? Too angry to fight for an end to homelessness and hunger? Nope. Too angry to fight for women's equality? Nope. Too angry to stand up for what I know is right even amidst a sea of armored pigs waving sticks and spraying chemicals? Nope. Too angry to fight rape? Nope. Too angry to fight for children's rights? Nope. Too angry to fight to save our eco-systems? Nope. Too angry to fight against third world exploitation by first world countries? Nope. Too angry to formulate coherent arguments and persuasive articles on these issues and my anger? Nope. What am I "too angry" for? I am too angry for the status quo. Yes, I admit that. But is that a bad thing? I am not convinced that is so. Who draws the line between enough anger and "too much" anger? Who can we trust with such judgments?

http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagetooangryforwhat.html

[mongo]

53. Now you're putting words in my mouth

The implication is that a woman who is abused must internalize the issue, make it her own private emotional struggle, rather than deal with it in an external way by confronting head on the causes of such abuse, and working to put an end to them.

No, the implicaiton is that porn is a convenient scapegoat and a way to externaize anger, instead of coming to terms with it. Many people who have been abused by a family member can't seem to place the blame on the perp and instead blame themselves, or society, or porn, or whatever.

Porn does not "cause" abuse. It is consummed by millions of Americans each year. Do sick and abusive people consume porn? Sure -- I bet they all drink milk too. Your agruments against porn are similar to Carry Nation and the whole prohibitionist movement. Instead of demon rum today we have "demon porn".

I am sick of men telling women that the healthiest thing they can do about rape is to go home and come to terms with it privately. No shit, men would like us to do that.

Well, I would never say that and I didn't say that in this thread.

[Triana]

41. Bingo! (n/t)

[mongo]

54. Wow. you have all the bases covered.

If I disagree I'm playing the victim.

If I point out personal attacks, I'm whining and "blaming the victim"

and I suppose this post pointing all that out is "projection".

Yeah, that comment may have been harsh, but it wasn't a personal attack. I did not say anyone's "brain is rotted", I suggested that some people on this forum get their information about porn from dubious sources.

And the balistic response I have received only goes to show there must be a ring of truth to it.

[omega minimo]

56. It was an attack against all the women (and reasonable men) here

"A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like."


You have worn out your welcome in this Forum.

[Morgana LaFey]

45. emotionally and psychologically sick

Wow. Porn is a 13 Billion $ business. Are you trying to tell me that all the responsible adults (men and women BTW) who enjoy adult entertainment are "emotionally and psychologically sick"?

Um, yeah, basically. I'd use a different term than "sick," becuase there are degrees, but I do believe that porn is for the most part NOT about healthy sexuality. But I'll go even further than that. In my view (and I'm not alone), just about 100% of all Americans and probably nearly that many in the entire world are damaged in one way or another by the societies in which we live. The standard is: are they living fully functional and self-actualized lives? That means everything about them, everything they're able to do, is perfect. They have no "dysfunctionalities" -- they take care of themselves and their various responsiblities without flaw or defect; everything about them is a model of competence and achievement (tho not necessarily material success).


Wow. Another moral statement wrapped up in professional language. Just like legislators have used to criminalize all sorts of acts from homosexuality to oral sex to selling condoms to unmarried people.

The bolded sentence is lifted directly from your Dr. Klein's website. I guess that makes you a good student or something??? Not very credible, tho.

Here is an example of a sex-positive MH professional. You could learn a lot reading his articles. http://www.sexed.org /

And what exactly did you think I could "learn" from on his site? I'd like to know what his professional credientials are, if you have access to any information on that. It's not listed on his website, only his books, etc. I want his EDUCATIONAL credentials.


And it also makes me just a little more knowledgeable about what it is and is not, who is consuming it, who is making it and who is against it and why. A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like. Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?

Is that unflattering and misogynist psychoanalysis lifted from Marty Klein too?

[femrap]

24. Yes....his brain has rotted.

I avoid it with that handy-dandy Ignore Button. In fact, I've thought it would be nice to have the rot banned from this forum...but up to now I've just Ignored.

I think his brain has issues that require a couch. And of course, this rotting brain hates women.

[omega minimo]

25. It's time for that step

How can it be accomplished?

[mongo]

27. When you can't debate the points

make personal attacks.

Nice. Talk about projecting.

Geesh.

[omega minimo]

28. you can't debate the points. you make personal attacks.

"And it also makes me just a little more knowledgeable about what it is and is not, who is consuming it, who is making it and who is against it and why. A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like. Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?"

[Triana]

43. It is his CHOICE to "get information" from here. he doesn't HAVE to...

...come in here AT ALL if he doesn't like what he reads. He chooses to come in here and "get information" (NOT what he's doing bytheway). He can CHOOSE NOT to come in here if he finds the place so utterly disgusting to him and overrun with victims of men just exactly like him. But then again, that's exactly why he comes in here, isn't it? To find more victims to exploit and/or abuse - verbally or otherwise?

Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?"

The above statement is an admission of exploitation of victims of abuse.

Women in here have learnt the difference between "sexual expression" and sexual exploitation - because some of them were in abusive situations. Others are just wise to it. Maybe that's what he finds so annoying. He can't 'sell' it here. No one will 'buy' it here. Not the abuse. Not the pretense. Not the projection. Not the excuses. Not the blame. Not the condescension. Not the whining. Not the circular logic. There are plenty of OTHER "blogs" he can "get information" from. Why hang out in this one? Interesting question. Maybe it makes him feel powerful. He's insecure. He needs to feel powerful over women because he feels powerless otherwise. I believe that is what he is attempting to extract from this forum, since he admittedly gets nothing else out of it.

[omega minimo]

44. Well put

He's insecure. He needs to feel powerful over women because he feels powerless otherwise.

[mongo]

55. The reason I chose to post here

Is not to convince the FEW posting here. It is to provide another viewpoint to the hundreds of others who only read DU and may otherwise get sucked into the one-sided anti-adult entertainment propaganda that gets posted here.

[omega minimo]

57. Go plant your little flag somewhere else

[mongo]

60. Well, your post is a demonstration of bullying behavior n/t

[omega minimo]

61. see #56. You made your choice with one two many attack on all of us

[omega minimo]

63. Goodbye Mongo!!!

[omega minimo]

17. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"I want girls to wear underwear, be smart and eschew pole dancing unless they're getting paid really well for it. And could we also get a little more prime-time exposure without having to expose ourselves, please? For example (and you knew I had at least one), one of my favorite series of 2006, "Heroes," revolved around a cadre of average people suddenly discovering they possess extraordinary powers. So why, since women make up roughly 50 percent of the population, are only two out of these eight "heroes" female? Perhaps we're meant to assume that the "heroic" gene has a preference for the Y chromosome; or maybe we're supposed to accept the gender discrepancy as an anomaly, just as we're supposed to accept that the two women who do make the cut are both sexy blondes -- one a stripper, the other a cheerleader -- like a pair of archetypal wet dreams. While I'm bemoaning discrimination on TV, I'll mention another favorite series, "Lost," and a favorite character from that series, Hurley. Hurley, for those of you who don't watch the show, is a sweet stoner dude who happens to be morbidly obese. I think I speak for most "Lost" fans when I say his weight only makes him more lovable, because there's more to love, you see. That said, there is zero chance, zero, that a network would cast a girl as large as Hurley in any series, anywhere. Not in a world where a show about a supposedly "plain" girl, "Ugly Betty," stars a chicklet who looks like a prom queen bedeviled by bad hair and braces. In sum: Women barely rate as "heroic," and no one wants them if they're homely. "


It's part of a bigger picture, mongo, and in that context, the context of the OP article, MLaF's post is spot on.

[omega minimo]

14. You're right. Well put. Altho it has become trendy to buy into the wishy washy ambivalence

of "so-called feminism" and the truth of your comment will be missed by some.


"I absolutely do not buy the so-called "sex-positive" brand of so-called feminism which holds that women ought to be free enough (!!) to exploit their bodies and sexuality themselves. Nonsense, and it's not about morality. It's about personal space, personal boundaries, personal power, dignity and personhood. You just can't be the most powerful person in the room -- in fact, you can't be anything but the LEAST powerful person in the room -- if you're the one with no clothes on. You just can't. You are reduced to your body parts and sexuality at that point and how many men you can get to leer at you and pay you for your throwing away your dignity, and the "personal power" you've lost thereby is damned hard to get back until you stop being one-down. "

[Warpy]

30. I think we might all be a lot less conflicted about sex workers

if they were the ones taking the bulk of the profit, but generally they aren't. The problem with the sex industry is that it's run by MEN.

Remember, a good whore is much more than a series of orifices. She creates the fantasy of the Venus who shares the man's deepest sexual desire and does things the sensible wife will veto. A good stripper doesn't just stand there and remove her clothing. She is a dancer and an entertainer, again creating the fantasy wherein all things become possible.

Organize the workers and get the men out of the industry and I'd have no problem at all. Sex work is often dirty and dangerous, and the sex worker deserves every dime she gets.

The market will never go away, and neither will the women who are willing to satisfy it.

[noamnety]

32. I'd still have a problem with it

because the effects in society reach beyond the financial transaction between the person on stage and the person paying.

The porn/stripper industry also results in men feeling entitled to expect other women to look and act like porn stars for their benefit, and feeling justified in pressuring them into things they don't want to do.

[Warpy]

33. Damn few men who go to tittie bars feel like that

once they're over 25 or so. Most men have a reasonable ability to tell fantasy from reality. It's like saying women who read romance novels expect real life to be like that. It isn't, which is why romance novels are so popular.

I'll agree that the porn industry has a lot to answer for in having curious youth expect real women to act like the fantasies written by men. The good news is that most of them get over it. If they're wealthy enough, they hire sex workers to act out those fantasies. If they're not, they do cybersex with other men.

However, again, once coercion is removed and the sex workers can run their lives and their businesses, I have little problem with it.

[noamnety]

34. We have very different understandings

of the affects of porn throughout society.

I haven't seen any studies showing that men's attitudes toward porn change after the age of 25. I have seen studies showing that spouses have lower self-esteem and are more likely to have body-modifying surgery and self-image issues when their husbands are porn consumers. The porn industry has a way of making more and more extreme and unnatural "beauty" standards become mainstream, including everything from shaving (must look prepubescent) to labiaplasty.

"Labiaplasty was once the domain of sex workers, nude entertainers, nude models, swimsuit models and the occasional woman who needed her labia reduced for medical reasons such as infection or pain. Not anymore. Doctors have reported that women from every walk of life and from ages 15 to 75 are having labia and cosmetic vaginal surgery.

Many doctors who perform the surgeries say while there are some women who opt for the surgery because they are unhappy or their labia has caused them physical discomfort, the bulk of the women getting this surgery are ultimately being pressured by men who want them to conform to a idea of beauty most often seen in the porn industry. Doctors say these women request the procedure because they are afraid of having "old looking" vaginas. Doctors Loftus and Young say feedback from male partners is the number one reason women request the surgery.

The most common reason we hear is that they have had a negative comment made by a male sexual partner. Women are made to feel that they are not perfect the way they are and often it's the partner that sets this off," Loftus said."
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2067/context/archive

"# Pornography's Relationship to Rape and Sexual Violence
According to one study, early exposure (under fourteen years of age) to pornography is related to greater involvement in deviant sexual practice, particularly rape. Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend. i

The habitual consumption of pornography can result in a diminished satisfaction with mild forms of pornography and a correspondingly strong desire for more deviant and violent material.ii

# Pornography's Relationship to Child Molestation
In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 percent of those who molested girls admitted to the habitual use of pornography in the commission of their crimes.iii Besides stimulating the perpetrator, pornography facilitates child molestation in several ways. For example, pedophiles use pornographic photos to demonstrate to their victims what they want them to do. They also use them to arouse a child or to lower a child's inhibitions and communicate to the unsuspecting child that a particular sexual activity is okay: "This person is enjoying it; so will you.""

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

"Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women

* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality

* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)

* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution

* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi "

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

Industries don't exist in a vacuum - they affect more than just the buyer and consumer. It doesn't matter what the industry is, that's always the case.

As for coercion being removed from the sex industry, that's a bit like saying it would be great if we could smoke cigarettes and it wouldn't damage our lungs. The reality is that as long as the sex industry exists, as long as men feel entitled to buy access to women's bodies, women and children will be sold into sexual slavery. Don't be an advocate for that.

[Warpy]

37. Personally, I find that "protectkids" site to be a threat to

civil liberties. I've noticed that the greatest threat we face is from nanny types who want to protect THE BAY BEES from life at horrific costs to adults.

We are coming from very different places and I know that much of the research you cited on the deleterious effects of porn have since been contradicted by other studies.

You see, perfectly sane, reasonable and, yes, NICE men enjoy porn. It never did a damned thing for me, but neither have football and creamed parsnips.

In the meantime, I refuse to shriek about the harm sex workers do to men or the precious bay bees. It's like saying everybody who tries alcohol will be an instant skid row drunk, it's a fantasy of the nanny state.

Like it or not, neither the audience nor the actors are ever going to go away. The best we can expect is to get men out of the business and make sure sex workers are licensed, healthy, and not coerced into the jobs.

[noamnety]

39. not being able to buy women is hardly a "horrific cost" to adults

Can you be more specific than just stating vaguely that the research I posted isn't valid?

Can you maybe post research showing that women getting labiaplasty is NOT a result of self-image problems related to porn, or that spouses of porn consumers feel more confident about their bodies and have a better self-image than those whose spouses don't use porn? Or can you point me to a series of studies showing that men who are exposed to mainstream porn during studies feel MORE respect toward women, and feel stronger about rape prosecution and are less likely to blame the victim after watching it?

[Warpy]

40. Buy women?????????????????

Good lord.

They are buying performances, entertainment, and fantasies.

They are not buying slaves.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. Too often they ARE buying slaves

Certainly in other countries -- there's a very vast and vibrant sex-slave trade in women and children. And wasn't it KBR whos contractors most definitely were involved in sex slaving in the Balkans?

THen, there've been a rash of stories over the last couple of years about sexual slaves here in the U.S. One man who "adopted" a foreign child (Russian??) only to keep her as a sex slave. Another woman or girl who escaped from a dungeon her captor had created. Another story just the other night on local TV about an escort or massage service where there was a woman who'd been kept as a sex slave for 4 years.

Now, in these latter cases they may not have been "bought," but they most certainly were slaves.

Further, you're completely missing the figurative meaning of the term "bought."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. Sure, but we already have laws against slavery.

I fully agree that any form of coercion to get involved in pornography or sex should be illegal.

It is.

No further legislation is therefore needed. What consenting adults choose to do is not our business, and anything not between consenting adults *is* illegal.

[Morgana LaFey]

47. I'm sorry, I have to ask --

Are you male or female? Because I keep getting cognitive dissonance between one post of yours versus another.

Personally, I find that "protectkids" site to be a threat to
civil liberties. I've noticed that the greatest threat we face is from nanny types who want to protect THE BAY BEES from life at horrific costs to adults.

And how, exactly, is that the case? Why are you sneering at the idea of protecting children from pornography and online pornography in particular by using a demeaning and derogatory term for chilredn (BAY BEES)? Basically, what's your gripe?

You see, perfectly sane, reasonable and, yes, NICE men enjoy porn.

Yes, and child molesters are often the really, really nice man next door, the pillar(s) of the community, the man NO ONE would expect.

I'm sure those men you're thinking about are very nice; I'm equally sure they have a warped idea of or attitudes towawrd women. Might not interfere very much in their lives, might not be particularly noticeable or even anything they act on -- IOW, something you may never really see evidence of. But the fact remains: they GET OFF on seeing women portrayed as sexually subservient and unequal. They cannot help but think of women as a class as "less than."

I've just been reading this report, which I found at the site lwfern linked to, and it's fascinating. It's more damning than I'd have imagined. I urge you to read it -- I'm on page 8, which continues a list of the studies that have shown how men's attitudes toward women were altered by their use of porn. Fascinating -- and frightening -- stuff. IF you dare (it's a challenge):

Understanding the Effects of Pornography
http://www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf

[Warpy]

49. Didn't you get the part about coercion?

There is no way to get kids into the porn industry without it.

Every threat to our civil liberties via things like the drug war have been justified on the backs of children, as in "if it saves ONE CHILD from trying drugs, it (the destruction of the Fourth Amendment) is WORTH IT!"

I don't believe in protecting adults from themselves and I don't believe in criminalizing anything fully consenting adults do, including making dirty pictures for other adults or getting paid to be sexual fantasies.

Also, those reports are inconclusive, since newer studies did contradict them.

There seems to be an automatic "ick" factor from women who are unable to cope with the fact that some of their sisters are engaged in supplying a market they don't understand and therefore don't approve of.

I just don't share it.

[Morgana LaFey]

58. Why are you avoiding my question? Are you male or female? nt

[mongo]

59. I'd give a more detailed response to this post, but I'm pressed for time

So, just a little quote from the Feminists for Free Expression Website:

SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL CAUSES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

* No research, including the Surgeon General's report, finds a link between "kinky" or "degrading" images and violence. Exposure to such material does not cause people to change their sexual preferences or commit acts against their will. The derailed impulses of child abusers and rapists are caused by childhood traumas. ''They are not," wrote leading researcher John Money, "borrowed from movies, books or other people."

* Studies on violent pornography are inconsistent. Some find it increases aggression in the lab; some find it does not. Research also finds that aggression will be increased by anything that agitates a subject (that raises heart rate, adrenaline flow, etc.), not only violent movies but riding exercise bicycles. Agitation will boost whatever follows it, aggression or generosity.

* Dr. Suzanne Ageton, measuring violence out of the lab, found that membership in a delinquent peer group accounted for 3/4 of sexual aggression.

* Studies in the U.S., Europe and Asia find no link between the availability of sexual material and sex crimes. The only factor linked to rape rate is the number of young men living in a given area. When pornography became widely available in Europe, sexually violent crimes decreased or remained the same. Japan, with far more violent pornography than the U.S., has 2.4 rapes per 100,000 people compared with the U.S. 34.5 per 100,000.

MEN WATCH PORNOGRAPHY AND COPY IT OR FORCE WOMEN TO DO WHAT THEY SEE

* Violence and intimidation existed for thousands of years before commercial pornography, and countries today with no pornography, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not boast strong women's rights records. Men have forced women to do things -- sexual and nonsexual -- for centuries. The problem is not sex, it's force.

* People do not mimic what they read or view in knee-jerk fashion. If they did, the feminist books of the last 25 years would have transformed this into a perfect feminist world. If they did, advertisers could run an ad and consumers would obey. Instead, businesses spend millions of dollars and still, the strongest motive for purchases is price. People juggle words and images -- good and bad -- with all the others that they have seen or heard, and with all their real life experiences. It is experience that is the strongest teacher.

* Men do not learn coercion from pictures of sex. They learn it from the violence and contempt for women in their families and communities where each generation passes down what sorts of force are acceptable, even "manly."

* Copycat theories are "porn made me do it" excuses for rapists and batterers. They relieve criminals of responsibility for their acts.



http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statements/statements_pornography.html

[Morgana LaFey]

64. False

Just plain false OR cleverly argued. Most of it doesn't even pass the common sense test. Here's one of those cleverly (and irrelevently) argued points, for example:

Men do not learn coercion from pictures of sex. They learn it from the violence and contempt for women in their families and communities where each generation passes down what sorts of force are acceptable, even "manly."

Half truth masquerading as a "fact." The whole truth is that men learn coercion from EVERYWHERE, including from porn. No one ever said that this culture's problem with misogyny is the exclusive fault of porn. Not at all. Just as with language and other facets of our culture, porn is a SYMPTOM, but it is also a causative factor.

I could go on but I don't have time at the moment. Is your Ph.D pro-porn sexologist / therapist friend an advisor to this group? Sounds like his style of argumentation, tho this is more sophisticated and much better written.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. What do you mean by "men learn coercion from everywhere"?

It sounds like an incredibly sweeping claim, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it - I presume it can't be intended to be taken literally?

[omega minimo]

69. It's hard for fish to believe that water exists

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. On the contrary, it's very easy, they can see it all around them.

You may believe that I am genetically or constitutionally incapable of understanding what you are talking about; this is not, however, a position you can expect me to share.

My question stands.

[omega minimo]

72. They don't notice the medium they swim in.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Oh, come off it.

Are you seriously trying to claim that all men learn "coercion" everywhere, but that nevertheless it is impossible for you to define what you mean by that or give any examples comprehensible to a rational being, irrespective of gender?

[omega minimo]

77. Chill, Fishie

and get thy strawman away from me, thank you very much.

[Morgana LaFey]

80. And just have a look at YOUR bullying coerciveness

on the subject, as if to prove our point. Who invited you in here to throw your weight around, brandishing your well-developed, overfed sense of entitlement, expecting your white male privilege will work its wonders and make these women kowtow to you? Hell, I oughtn't even answer you just because you're being so ugly -- insistant and coercive -- about it.

YES, men in this culture learn coercion EVERYWHERE because it is such an integral part of our culture. Omega's comment is completely apt, whether you want to argue the analogy you nevertheless understood perfectly well or not. It is INVISIBLE to you -- so invisible you don't think it exists -- precisely because the whole culture is so saturated with it. You have to do a PARADIGM SHIFT to even begin to see it. But you would have to be willing to do that, so I imagine you're not a candidate for any such paradigm shift. Few men are -- they'd have to give up too much (i.e., their sense of entitlement and white male privilege).

If you CARE to actually understand (and I'm sure you don't, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong), it would require work you need to do yourself to figure it out: contemplation, observation, and perhaps a little internet research. For the latter you might try Men Stopping Violence or just a google search on violence against women. Let's see if your question was sincere, or just bullying (hah! as if there was any chance of sincere interest).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. If by "coercion" you mean "expressing disagreement" then yes, you're right.

The claim that I've been bullying anyone is just risible - if anything, Omega Minimo and yourself have been trying to bully me. What I have done is *disagreed*; not "attempted to coerce* - I have done nothing except repeatedly ask you to justify an attack you launched on all men, including myself. That's self-defence, not "coercion" or "bullying".

The person who invited me in here was Skinner, who created an open discussion forum. Your first paragraph, not merely disagreeing with me but challenging my right to be here and calling me names, is as clear an example of an attempt at bullying as one could wish for.

Remove the beam from your own eye before you worry about the mote in mine.



You accuse me of "sense of entitlement". You clearly regard this as a criticism, but you don't make it clear what you think I think I'm entitled to, or why you think I shouldn't. For what it's worth:

:-I think I'm entitled to express disagreement with anything posted on a public discussion forum, epecially posts accusing me of something that isn't true, provided I do so in a reasonably civil fashion.

:-I do not think I am entitled to try and prevent other people from disagreeing with me by any means other that putting forwards the reasons why I think that I am right and they are wrong.

:-I think that these are true of everyone, irrespective of gender.

[omega minimo]

85. That's just bullshit

"The claim that I've been bullying anyone is just risible - if anything, Omega Minimo and yourself have been trying to bully me."

OM and MLF are not the same person. "We" are not doing anything to you. If I agree with her on a specific point, we are still not the same person.

I invite you to read my posts with an open mind. If you come in here with a chip on your shoulder, there's not much point.



"I have done nothing except repeatedly ask you to justify an attack you launched on all men, including myself. That's self-defence, not "coercion" or "bullying"."


Well no. A common problem on DU is that when women discuss certain concepts/realities, someone who assumes it is an "attack on all men" without even TRYING to comprehend or discuss becomes unecessarily antagonistic and belligerent, claiming "self-defence."

These endless circles are pointless.

[Triana]

86. (s)He's Using Circular Logic...and Diverting Discussion

...the abuser claims victimhood of the victims. Blaming, twisting what someone else said, and diverting the conversation.

Through this type of diversion the topic is changed, often turning the tables so the OP must defend herself on an unrelated topic.

None of the abuser's diversions answer the OP's question nor do they deal with original content of the post in a thoughtful and considerate way. The abuser blocks attempts to gain information or open communications by diverting the discussion from the issues in the OP. He does so with accusations and irrelevant comments.

To cap that, OM is right. It's bullshit.

[omega minimo]

87. His original question to MLF was about this in #64

"Half truth masquerading as a "fact." The whole truth is that men learn coercion from EVERYWHERE, including from porn. No one ever said that this culture's problem with misogyny is the exclusive fault of porn. Not at all. Just as with language and other facets of our culture, porn is a SYMPTOM, but it is also a causative factor."


Unfortunately, my attempts to converse with him did not meet his approval.

[Morgana LaFey]

89. I've reread this subthread

and I can see I overreacted somewhat to your "Oh come off it" post. I read it as somewhat more demanding than my 2nd read, for which I apologize.

However, I do think it disingenuous in the extreme for someone who comes to this forum to either pretend they don't know what is meant by that or to actually NOT know what is meant by that -- or by the term "sense of entitlement," or any other terms used in discussions about women's rights for the last nearly 40 years. Unless, of course, they don't give a damn about Women's Rights, in which case why the hell are they in this forum?

So, I have to assume you don't much care about Women's Rights and your questions, and somewhat oppositional questions to boot, only serve to confirm that. Were some male to come in here and be genuinely, RESPECTFULLY interested, I feel certain the women would bend over backwards to educate and mentor the man. But instead, the common experience is for men to invite themselves into this forum for the express purpose of pro-actively NOT supporting women and women's rights -- IOW, disrupting. I may be new here, but it looks to me that I can safely say for the most part the only men who show up in this forum are here to defend sexism in one way or another. It gets very old, as you can imagine. I've seen nothing from you that makes me think otherwise, and hints that you're just another one.

In answer to your question about men learning coercion EVERYWHERE -- as Omega points out, you're not even trying to get it. What kind of toys are made for little boys? Do cartoons include violence? Finally, starting from their earliest TV-watching, what do they learn about women from the media, and in movies, and in consumer magazines?

So I'm not going to take any time trying to educate you. The women here knew very well what I meant, and you are free to do some research on the subject if you are seriously interested. My guess, already mentioned: you're NOT seriously interested, just playing games.

[omega minimo]

91. Oh, come off it.

Are you seriously trying to claim that all men learn "coercion" everywhere, but that nevertheless it is impossible for you to be coerced to define what you mean by that even though someone else made the claim that you are being commanded by a male to defend or give any examples comprehensible to a rational being, irrespective of gender, inferring that you are not a rational being and coercively commanding to prove after putting up with the put down that started the whole post?












:evilgrin: :evilfrown:

Welcome to DU.



You nailed it here:

"However, I do think it disingenuous in the extreme for someone who comes to this forum to either pretend they don't know what is meant by that or to actually NOT know what is meant by that -- or by the term "sense of entitlement," or any other terms used in discussions about women's rights for the last nearly 40 years....

"Were some male to come in here and be genuinely, RESPECTFULLY interested, I feel certain the women would bend over backwards to educate and mentor the man. But instead, the common experience is for men to invite themselves into this forum for the express purpose of pro-actively NOT supporting women and women's rights -- IOW, disrupting."


That point about "either pretend they don't know what is meant by that or to actually NOT know" is important. People have absorbed a lot of Dittohead bullshit even if they're not morans. It's been normalized, the way the subject you started the parent sub-thread about, has been.

One thing that occurs commonly here is shown in DIR's replies:

Donald Ian Rankin
"It sounds like an incredibly sweeping claim
You may believe that I am genetically or constitutionally incapable of understanding what you are talking about; this is not, however, a position you can expect me to share.
The claim that I've been bullying anyone is just risible - if anything, Omega Minimo and yourself have been trying to bully me.
I have done nothing except repeatedly ask you to justify an attack you launched on all men, including myself.
That's self-defence, not "coercion" or "bullying".
I think I'm entitled to express disagreement with anything posted on a public discussion forum, epecially posts accusing me of something that isn't true, provided I do so in a reasonably civil fashion.
I do not think I am entitled to try and prevent other people from disagreeing with me by any means other that putting forwards the reasons why I think that I am right and they are wrong."




As I told him:

"A common problem on DU is that when women discuss certain concepts/realities, someone who assumes it is an "attack on all men" without even TRYING to comprehend or discuss becomes unecessarily antagonistic and belligerent, claiming "self-defence."
These endless circles are pointless."


Not only that, look at how quickly it became all about HIM. Not just AN ATTACK ON ALL MEN :scared: :yoiks: :bounce: :wow: :bounce: but many times the fear response kicks in so automatically that the incomprehension becomes the "defence" position.


You'll see it a lot. Here's to you for trying to bring some life back to the Forum (beaten down by the ridiculous repetitiveness of all of the above) :toast:

[Morgana LaFey]

92. Ridiculous repetitiveness of all of the above

OMG, that makes me want to either burst into tears or throw up. Or maybe both. The sheer tiresomeness of it all. "Prove it." "Show me." "Define your terms." "I wasn't sayin' nothin'." "Who, me?" "You're going to alienate those who could be your friends with that kind of talk."

I guess it's the Wear Them Down strategy.

Okay. I'm worn down. But I refuse to give in, dammit.


Don't you KNOW I hated to say "I apologize"? Lordy, lordy. But I value intellectual honesty and when I reread the subthread, it wasn't as menacing as it had appeared at first. But all the rest of what you and I both said IS true: yes, it was immediately, as always, all about him/them. But don't mention no sense of entitlement, that don't wash at all. Never heard that term; don't know what it could possibly mean. LOL.

Thanks for the giggle. And sisterhood.

[omega minimo]

93. Repetitive ridiculousness?

"OMG, that makes me want to either burst into tears or throw up"

LOL :spray:


"Yeah, you gotta problem with that?!" "Sounds like this is a very personal issue for you...." "If you consider "coercion" to be when someone disagrees with you... oh THANK YOU for the clarifiCAtion" :sarcasm:

We're so right and we're so wrong because we done got hijacked :banghead: and never did discuss the coercion fishbowl because of all the turds floating in it.

:hi:

[Triana]

94. Diversion...

It looks to me like he's claiming abuse because someone disagrees with him. I didn't see anything in in MLF's post that was abusive or personally attacking. She asserted her own point of view which didn't agree with his, that's all.

And seems he is twisting the meaning of the other person's side of the argument ie: "all men" and "porn is to blame for all mysogeny" - when no one said or implied that - and then claiming abuse or bullying because someone disagrees with his (erroneous, twisted) assertions.

So now the original question/topic between them (and of the OP) has been diverted onto defending (against) his erroneous, insecure, self-defensive assumptions and bogged down in the details of that instead of what it was originally about. It is now all about HIM. HIM. HIM...

[Morgana LaFey]

95. Right. On. The. Nose.

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

81. The OP article provides a context for the "everywhere"

Donald Ian Rankin (1000+ posts)  Thu Jan-11-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Oh, come off it.
"Are you seriously trying to claim that all men learn "coercion" everywhere, but that nevertheless it is impossible for you to define what you mean by that or give any examples comprehensible to a rational being, irrespective of gender?"

No, actually I didn't claim that and I can't answer for MLF when you asked what she meant by that. (Hint: we're not all the same person). So this didn't make sense either:

Response to Reply #69
71. On the contrary, it's very easy, they can see it all around them.
Edited on Thu Jan-11-07 09:36 AM by Donald Ian Rankin
"You may believe that I am genetically or constitutionally incapable of understanding what you are talking about; this is not, however, a position you can expect me to share."

I have no idea what that means.

So MLF is right-- you are being coercive (ach, the irrony!!) and you are right-- it sounds like a "sweeping claim." But honestly, in a world where one gender has power over another as pervasively as this, isn't the coercive power of the one over the other, in a sense, "everywhere"?

Sort of like breathing and swimming in a medium that you don't even notice is... everywhere.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. Ah, so by "coercion" you mean "disagreement". That clarifies matters.

"So MLF is right-- you are being coercive (ach, the irrony!!)"

No, I'm not, I'm disagreeing with you. If and when I try and use any means to *compel* you to change your mind, *then* I will be being coercive.

If you categorise expressing disagreement as coercion, then yes, many people, of both genders, learn it a lot. You had me confused for a while because I thought that by "coercion" you meant "coercion".

[omega minimo]

84. I will not try to coerce you to see the Big Picture since you seem compelled to miss the point again

"Ah, so by "coercion" you mean "disagreement"....If you categorise expressing disagreement as coercion, then yes, many people, of both genders, learn it a lot."


You seem too intelligent to make these false accusations (rote bullshit that must be in the Badgerer's Bible). Clearly the "coercive" tone in your posts is the bullying, antagonism, mixing up who you're replying to and who said what and demanding satisfaction from the wrong person, throwing in some sort of convoluted paranoid accusation of someone accusing you of something that's in your imagination....................... :crazy: That's not coercive? The quotes I provided make the point. You chose to "use any means to *compel*" a predetermined response. Ddisagreeeing is one thing. Demanding and accusing is another.


There was a broader point about coercion on a larger level-- which was an attempt to answer the question you asked of MLF; an attempt to engage you in conversation-- but you seem stuck not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Morgana LaFey]

88. He's just playing games --

the kinds of language games that typically trolls use in the main forums (and no doubt elsewhere as well). The phrase "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing" comes to mind.

I have one small thing to say to him and then I say we ignore him, if not Ignore him, if you get my drift.

[omega minimo]

90. That honor I will reserve for the

constant disruptors/thread hijackers. Out of 100,000 DUers, 2 went on my list immediately-- way overdue. In 2 years I've been here, only 2 deserve that extreme designation.

[lukasahero]

35. I'd like to offer what will probably be a unique perspective on "tittie bars"

When I was in my 20's - 30's, I played in local rock bands. One of the premiere clubs we played (always a big crowd, hopping spot) was a strip club until 7 pm when it became a regular night club. Because I was in the band and we had to set our equipment up before the regular nightclub opened, I was often there just as the strip club part of it was winding down for the day. The strippers were gone, the men were not.

I was not always the only women in the bar but sometimes I was. Either way, I may as well have been as the men there treated me distinctly different than they treated the women who may have been with them. I was on stage (or going to be) after all.

As a result, the men seemed to feel entitled to tell me what they wanted me to do for them, they felt entitled to touch me, they felt entitled to sexually harrass me. The three other guys in the band were too intimidated by the number of guys in the club to do anything about it and eventually, I just didn't go to set up the equipment and just showed up to play when the losers were gone.

Although I can regale you with plenty of horror stories about how guys in general treat women on stage regardless of whether they're in a "tittie bar" or just a regular club, here's what I can say about how (some!) men separate fantasy from reality in strip clubs: it depends on who you are and who they think you should be. Had I been just another patron, I suspect they may have left me alone. But because I was also there for "their entertainment", they did not know or care to separate reality from fantasy.

And their behavior ultimately prevented me from being able to just do the work I was hired to do.

[Warpy]

36. You were on the stage, not in their kitchen, big difference

I was treated like a groupie one time too many when I was a stagehand. I started to carry a switchblade.

[lukasahero]

50. Actually, if you read more closely, no I wasn't yet on stage

I was also not "dressed up". For that matter, I never did do "dress up" (I was more Axle Rose than Madonna) but that didn't stop them for thinking of and treating me like I was an object for their sexual entertainment. They did not separate reality (a woman trying to do her job) from fantasy (a woman as nothing more than another body provided for their sexual pleasure).

Also for the record since I didn't make it clear in my post, these were not 20-something college kids - they were working men in their 30's, 40's, even 50's and 60's. They left the club before the younger crowds arrived.

Finally I make no excuses for my non-violence beliefs. Stabbing someone for being rude and threatening is outside my realm of reality.

[Warpy]

51. Hell, I dressed in baggy jeans or overalls

combined with Fruit of the Loom T-shirts, certainly not the attire sported by groupies, and I was backstage. With a tool belt and steel toed boots.

If you're anywhere NEAR a stage, you are ASSumed to be on it.

[lukasahero]

52. Please don't take this the wrong way but

it sounds like you're saying that's just the way it is and we women should just deal with it. That it's quite alright for men to treat any woman on (or near) a stage as a sexual object for their entertainment. That it is, perhaps, what we "get" for being on stage. Please tell me I'm wrong in that assessment.

[Warpy]

62. No, if you'd read it correctly you'd know

that what I said is that men have a context for their harassment and bullying that THEY think makes it OK.

[Lars39]

38. There's a documentary called 'Pretty Things' that has run on HBO.

Interviews with former burlesque stars. Very hard to watch at times.

[Morgana LaFey]

46. Yes, it's run by men, BUT the few women "entrepreneurs" in the

industry, like all tokens, are held out as shining beacons making all porn "okay"

The market will never go away, and neither will the women who are willing to satisfy it.

Well, never is a long time. I like to fantasize a world in which we are at least getting BETTER over time, and that would mean healthier attitudes about women which couldn't help but generate healthier attitudes and practices involving sex. Etc.

Call me a dreamer.

OR call me someone who is just not willing to allow the current status quo define our collective future without a fight.

[Morgana LaFey]

65. I found a nugget of wisdom in another post on a different subject

that comes close to capturing what I so vehemently object to in the sex industry and indeed many other facets of Patriarchy. It's a single word, and havocmom (writing on an ancillary subject) put it this way:




Back in the darkest days of the hell of divorce, I found a word in my heart that I had been seeking to explain to myself and others why the pain was so sever(e) that death was preferable. The word: DEVALUED. I felt that the person I trusted most, believed in most and cared about most had DEVALUED me.

I finally came to realize that I was still quite valuable, a rare gem in fact. If he didn't see my value, it was his loss, not mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3082265


Women are not fully functioning human beings to pornographers (and, again, to most of Patriarchy) but instead, "things." They're objectified and dehumanized. They are DEVALUED by being made into commodities. And there's no escaping that. Pornographers and their defenders can come in here or go somewhere else and TRY to defend their trade, but it will never, ever, ever be true. They can say it a million billion times over, they can believe it fiercely and fervently themselves (wishfully, I might add), but pornography and all other aspects of the sex industry AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT* is harmful to women. If it devalues women -- and it does -- it's harmful to us in our quest to be considered fully and completely human.

* I do believe there is a viable place for "erotica" -- but most Westerners don't have a clue what that is. I myself would be hard-pressed to define or describe it, except that I know it would celebrate sexuality and mutuality, and promote and heighten -- rather than degrade -- respect for one another. Both sexes would be cherished, not commoditized. Not being a consumer myself, that's about as far as I can get.

BTW, havocmom's post is a beaut -- well worth reading in its entirety.



I want to add that it's my belief that Patriarchy is all about DEVALUING women (so that women can be oppressed with impunity -- and even at times applause). So havocmom's experience and the experience of each and every one of us (no doubt) in a Patriarchal society is going to be in some way (or many ways) that we were and felt devalued. There is also going to be a psyops component in that it often takes us a while to SEE where we're being devalued.

Take, for example, one of the arguments offered in this thread -- that men lusting after scantily clad women, and tucking dollar bills in their g-strings is high praise for women (and is THAT why so many young girls want to be strippes when they grow up? And does the same compliment apply to women being paid for sex, another profession that gets NO respect -- at all. I mean, can you have it both ways? Insist that women in those jobs are getting all kinds of positive reinforcement, while the reality is the professions themselves are frowned upon, nearly universally. I digress.)

But the more famous example of women being conned on the one hand while being devalued and oppressed on the other were the old arguments (current well into the 60s) that women "were the heart of the family," and thus belonged at home. That we were put "on pedestals" by men, because of our high value and worth -- all the while those "pedestals" were in reality isolated little prisons preventing us from living fully. And there were other lies about how much men appreciated us, all the while keeping us from living fully engaged lives, preventing us from participating in the world except in carefully drawn and very narrow roles. Etc.

I have the same problem with most men who insist that they LOVE women. Most of the ones I ever encountered who claimed that were in reality "love 'em and leave 'em" types who DID love women, but almost exclusively as sex partners, not life partners. And they were usually utterly commitment phobic which, for this type of man, is a blessing in disguise for the women he gets involved with.

[omega minimo]

68. Vital point.

"Women are not fully functioning human beings to pornographers (and, again, to most of Patriarchy) but instead, "things." They're objectified and dehumanized. They are DEVALUED by being made into commodities.... If it devalues women -- and it does -- it's harmful to us in our quest to be considered fully and completely human."


And by extension, "Women are not fully functioning human beings to" those who have been conditioned to view/relate to women through that particular objectified, commodified "male gaze."

People who grew up with the post-Paglia skewed "Feminism" that finds empowerment in self-exploitation have lived in an environment saturated with that view. And internalized it. Males and females.

And still:

"If it devalues women -- and it does -- it's harmful to us in our quest to be considered fully and completely human."




(This is the part of the discussion where some bully accuses us of acting like victims and whatever other rote insults they have to DEVALUE the discussion..... We'll see how much the new Disruptor Buster (Ignore/Block Tool) will affect the quality of discussion on DU).

[Triana]

70. Day-um - that's the word...

...not only for the porn industry but for abusive relationships too. The victim (male or female) is DEVALUED. Their feelings, their self as a person - devalued. Part of the same problem/attitudes, I think.

"Most of the ones I ever encountered who claimed that were in reality "love 'em and leave 'em" types who DID love women, but almost exclusively as sex partners, not life partners. And they were usually utterly commitment phobic which, for this type of man, is a blessing in disguise for the women he gets involved with."

I've known quite a few guys like this - committment phobic - long-term relationship challenged (as I call them). They aren't mature enough to be able to have a relationship with a woman they can't CONTROL when/if she says or does something he doesn't like or doesn't agree with. That happens after the initial hot 'romance' wears off. Since he cannot accept her as an independent, equal human being with her own opinions, behaviors and her own mind, there's no respect there. He devalues her and that manifests itself as abusive, critical, angry, controlling behavior towards her. Sort of off topic, I guess - but then again maybe not, if this is all part of the same problem and I think it is.

EDIT: This type of devaluation of other human beings is what war is based on. Stan Goff writes about how this is also related. It's easier for a soldier to kill other people if he sees them as less than human. They teach them to DEVALUE other human beings in order to be able to kill them without much (or any) remorse in war. This same type of devaluation occurs in society, in relationships, and in war. Note that sexual exploitation (male/male) was part of the DEVALUATION and abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The same attitudes that allow that to happen - also allow the abuse and devaluation of women. It's all related.

[Morgana LaFey]

78. The other thing I like about this word

is that it's one that most people can actually see, whereas "objectification," "dehumanization," etc. are stretches of the imagination for most since the rampant DEVALUATION of women is so thoroughly and most of all deeply ingrained in our Patriarchal culture. Too, everyone has actually experienced being devalued in one way or another, if only in some minor social situation or on the job or any of a million other ways, and that means they can identify with what being devalued FEELS like.

I'm glad others liked my "discovery" as well. Thanks.