A Defense of Porn!
In response to an article by Lucinda Marshall here, http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/the_12_step_program_for_discussing_feminism_and_misogyny/, I had this to say:
It strikes me that, while open discussion of pornography must be part of the movement, and yes feminism shouldn't cut short its critique to make misogny "safe", that the porn issue is not one that MUST be settled before the movement acts. Wendy McElroy, Emma Goldman, numerous people within the porn industry, etc. are people I would consider feminists who would or do support pornography. Remember that some women choose to not simply do porn but RUN porn companies because of their own sexual desires.
Re: "Porn stars aren't paid much, the industry's run by rich white guys"
A) The same can be said for law, medicine, indeed almost every economic activity. This is a problem of the economy making labor into a commodity, not a problem of the gender system. I've never heard anyone outside of the pomo left say that we should ban medicine because of current unjust practice within it; rather, we should revolutionize it. Yes, the system should not be rigged to generate economic coercion; yes, people should share equally in choosing how to bake the cake and distribute it and eat it; yes, labor should not be a commodity; no, banning porn doesn't get us anywhere in that regard.
B) Wendy McElroy, among others, has noted that when porn stars are actually INTERVIEWED, they overwhelmingly say that they like their job, that they choose it (some can and do have other jobs, like software design) voluntarily, etc. Moreover, compared to the average wage worker, they make an assload of money; and, even more importantly, they are conscious of the potential problems in their industry.
"Secondly, way too many of the women who work in pornography have been coerced into participating."
So have people who knit sweaters, make toys, even program software. Does this mean these activities should be banned? No, it means that there must be stringent regulation to stop coercion and sweat shops and there must be wide-range economic forms that let people get good jobs so they don't need to choose a task they find degrading. It also means consumers of porn must be conscious of what they're buying.
"And lastly, why are we defending a business where one of the job hazards is the risk of AIDS?"
The same reason why people might defend coal mining despite the black lung or being a policeman despite the risks of being shot or an activist despite the death threats: Because there's a social value to the work. First of all, interviews and investigations of the AIDs complaints have shown that, while there certainly was a problem at the onset of the epidemic (just as there was everywhere), that the porn industry is now far safer than casual sex (check out interviews with Ron Jeremy, for example). Yes, there should be government regulations to make the work safer, but if someone chooses voluntarily to engage in a potentially unsafe yet fun activity, I see no reason any polity should stop it, let alone a nation-state.
What surprised me when I did my little research project on pornography was that people within it were overwhelmingly very conscious about the dangers of porn in a way that is fairly rare compared to other industries, and that they also had interesting things to say on the matter of gender.
The worst part is that anti-pornography laws inevitably, over and over, get used to slam the feminist movement more than porn. It's the danger that Chomsky talks about of giving the decision to the state to handle. Pornography may need an overhaul, but it offers at least the promise of expanding the range of our sexual behavior and freedom. How many couples make sex videos (home-made porn) for their own tittilation? How many women dream of being ravished by Johnny Depp and might get something akin to that with porn? And so on. Yes, we should work to make it not violate reasonable standards of liberation; no, we shouldn't eliminate it out right.
It strikes me that, while open discussion of pornography must be part of the movement, and yes feminism shouldn't cut short its critique to make misogny "safe", that the porn issue is not one that MUST be settled before the movement acts. Wendy McElroy, Emma Goldman, numerous people within the porn industry, etc. are people I would consider feminists who would or do support pornography. Remember that some women choose to not simply do porn but RUN porn companies because of their own sexual desires.
Re: "Porn stars aren't paid much, the industry's run by rich white guys"
A) The same can be said for law, medicine, indeed almost every economic activity. This is a problem of the economy making labor into a commodity, not a problem of the gender system. I've never heard anyone outside of the pomo left say that we should ban medicine because of current unjust practice within it; rather, we should revolutionize it. Yes, the system should not be rigged to generate economic coercion; yes, people should share equally in choosing how to bake the cake and distribute it and eat it; yes, labor should not be a commodity; no, banning porn doesn't get us anywhere in that regard.
B) Wendy McElroy, among others, has noted that when porn stars are actually INTERVIEWED, they overwhelmingly say that they like their job, that they choose it (some can and do have other jobs, like software design) voluntarily, etc. Moreover, compared to the average wage worker, they make an assload of money; and, even more importantly, they are conscious of the potential problems in their industry.
"Secondly, way too many of the women who work in pornography have been coerced into participating."
So have people who knit sweaters, make toys, even program software. Does this mean these activities should be banned? No, it means that there must be stringent regulation to stop coercion and sweat shops and there must be wide-range economic forms that let people get good jobs so they don't need to choose a task they find degrading. It also means consumers of porn must be conscious of what they're buying.
"And lastly, why are we defending a business where one of the job hazards is the risk of AIDS?"
The same reason why people might defend coal mining despite the black lung or being a policeman despite the risks of being shot or an activist despite the death threats: Because there's a social value to the work. First of all, interviews and investigations of the AIDs complaints have shown that, while there certainly was a problem at the onset of the epidemic (just as there was everywhere), that the porn industry is now far safer than casual sex (check out interviews with Ron Jeremy, for example). Yes, there should be government regulations to make the work safer, but if someone chooses voluntarily to engage in a potentially unsafe yet fun activity, I see no reason any polity should stop it, let alone a nation-state.
What surprised me when I did my little research project on pornography was that people within it were overwhelmingly very conscious about the dangers of porn in a way that is fairly rare compared to other industries, and that they also had interesting things to say on the matter of gender.
The worst part is that anti-pornography laws inevitably, over and over, get used to slam the feminist movement more than porn. It's the danger that Chomsky talks about of giving the decision to the state to handle. Pornography may need an overhaul, but it offers at least the promise of expanding the range of our sexual behavior and freedom. How many couples make sex videos (home-made porn) for their own tittilation? How many women dream of being ravished by Johnny Depp and might get something akin to that with porn? And so on. Yes, we should work to make it not violate reasonable standards of liberation; no, we shouldn't eliminate it out right.
posted by Frederic Christie at 2:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home