Read Online XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography by Wendy McElroy - Free Book Online
Authors: Wendy McElroy
Ads: Link
who was destroyed by censorship-claimed that a purely semantic definition of pornography offered no useful information at all. "The word itself, we are told, means `pertaining to the harlots'-the graph of the harlot. But nowadays, what is a harlot? ...
Why be so cut and dried? The law is a dreary thing, and its judgments have nothing to do with 29
life. The same with the word obscene: nobody knows what it means. Suppose it was derived from obscena: that which might not be represented on the stage; how much further are you?" [3]
Dworkin's definition may not transmit useful information, but it does clearly show her hatred of pornography. By calling pornography "the graphic description of the lowest whores"-when the adjective "lowest" is not in the Greek translation, Dworkin tells us more about herself than about the word pornography.
Moreover, the spectacle of radical feminists leaning upon the support of etymological authority is a strange sight indeed. After all, they adamantly reject the science and history of Western civilization as manifestations of white male culture. They reject the chronicles of history, because they are not herstory. They rail against the hard sciences, because they spring from white male methodology. The white male study of etymology, however, is legitimate-at least, when it suits their purposes.
Enlightenment is not likely to come from antipornography feminists, who view the world through the lens of ideology. Their rhetoric is the linguistic equivalent of thermonuclear war.
Pornography is called "genocide"; Susan Brownmiller describes it as "the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda"; Judith Bat-Ada compares Hugh Hefner to Hitler; Andrea Dworkin's book on pornography begins by claiming "Men love death ... men especially love murder."
Such descriptions are normative, or biased. They embody the viewers' reactions, and their desire to condemn pornography. It is important to understand why antipornography feminists spend so much time and energy trying to define pornography. Definitions not only control the debate, they can control what sexuality itself becomes. Radical feminists view sex as a social construct. That is, they do not believe the current expressions of sexuality are inherent in human biology; instead, they are products of culture. If women's sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, then defining it becomes tremendously important. Whoever controls the definition will determine the content.
The struggle to define pornography is part of radical feminism's attempt to control sexuality itself.
The stakes are high. High enough for freedom of speech to be jettisoned. Indeed, in her recent book Only Words, Catharine MacKinnon argues that pornography has no connection with free speech whatsoever; it is an act of sexual subordination, of sexual terrorism.
"Empirically, of all two dimensional forms of sex, it is only pornography, not its ideas as such, that gives men erections that support aggression against women in particular." [4]
Over the last decade or so, the feminist position on pornography has shifted toward this definition. Pornography is no longer viewed as merely offensive; it is redefined as an act of violence, in and of itself. It is the sexual subordination of women, by which their victimization is eroticized and perpetuated. It is the main way patriarchy subordinates women.
Other feminists have pointed out that rape existed long before Playboy appeared in the racks of corner stores. Such voices of reason are lost in the wind of hysteria. Antipornography feminists acknowledge them only to launch an ad bominem attack.
For better or worse, it is necessary to treat antipornography feminists with more respect than they are willing to give back. It is important to consider the substance of their definitions.
The antipornography definitions abound with emotionally charged and highly subjective terms like "humiliation" or "subordination." And they are commonly offered as the
Why be so cut and dried? The law is a dreary thing, and its judgments have nothing to do with 29
life. The same with the word obscene: nobody knows what it means. Suppose it was derived from obscena: that which might not be represented on the stage; how much further are you?" [3]
Dworkin's definition may not transmit useful information, but it does clearly show her hatred of pornography. By calling pornography "the graphic description of the lowest whores"-when the adjective "lowest" is not in the Greek translation, Dworkin tells us more about herself than about the word pornography.
Moreover, the spectacle of radical feminists leaning upon the support of etymological authority is a strange sight indeed. After all, they adamantly reject the science and history of Western civilization as manifestations of white male culture. They reject the chronicles of history, because they are not herstory. They rail against the hard sciences, because they spring from white male methodology. The white male study of etymology, however, is legitimate-at least, when it suits their purposes.
Enlightenment is not likely to come from antipornography feminists, who view the world through the lens of ideology. Their rhetoric is the linguistic equivalent of thermonuclear war.
Pornography is called "genocide"; Susan Brownmiller describes it as "the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda"; Judith Bat-Ada compares Hugh Hefner to Hitler; Andrea Dworkin's book on pornography begins by claiming "Men love death ... men especially love murder."
Such descriptions are normative, or biased. They embody the viewers' reactions, and their desire to condemn pornography. It is important to understand why antipornography feminists spend so much time and energy trying to define pornography. Definitions not only control the debate, they can control what sexuality itself becomes. Radical feminists view sex as a social construct. That is, they do not believe the current expressions of sexuality are inherent in human biology; instead, they are products of culture. If women's sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, then defining it becomes tremendously important. Whoever controls the definition will determine the content.
The struggle to define pornography is part of radical feminism's attempt to control sexuality itself.
The stakes are high. High enough for freedom of speech to be jettisoned. Indeed, in her recent book Only Words, Catharine MacKinnon argues that pornography has no connection with free speech whatsoever; it is an act of sexual subordination, of sexual terrorism.
"Empirically, of all two dimensional forms of sex, it is only pornography, not its ideas as such, that gives men erections that support aggression against women in particular." [4]
Over the last decade or so, the feminist position on pornography has shifted toward this definition. Pornography is no longer viewed as merely offensive; it is redefined as an act of violence, in and of itself. It is the sexual subordination of women, by which their victimization is eroticized and perpetuated. It is the main way patriarchy subordinates women.
Other feminists have pointed out that rape existed long before Playboy appeared in the racks of corner stores. Such voices of reason are lost in the wind of hysteria. Antipornography feminists acknowledge them only to launch an ad bominem attack.
For better or worse, it is necessary to treat antipornography feminists with more respect than they are willing to give back. It is important to consider the substance of their definitions.
The antipornography definitions abound with emotionally charged and highly subjective terms like "humiliation" or "subordination." And they are commonly offered as the
Similar Books
