feministing member reviews Jensen's book

[bluecoat28]

web addy to a review of Jensen's book (I disagree with this author): http://feministing .com/archives/008165.html#comments

Courtney (author) does NOT believe men ought to transcend masculinity. I do. She also thinks it's too extreme of Jensen to say that "we live in a world that hates women".

It's frustrating when "feminists" choose not to look at violence against women. She even said at the beginning of the piece that she "avoided thinking about... pornography".

[sam]

I remember a debate at Reclusive Leftist where a woman defending pornography refused to look at what she was defending. If millions of men masturbate to nightly what you can't bear to watch once then you shouldn't be defending it against charges that it is anti-woman hate speech.

The comments thread over there, just like heads of Feministing's writers, is full of that disproven stupidity that woman-friendly porn will replace woman-hating porn. They have convinced themselves that men only watch prostitutes sexually abused on film because no capitalist ever thought to make films of prostitutes not being sexually abused before, and once these are made of course the men who are 80% of porn's consumers will switch to them.

It's like saying men only rape because they've never been given the option not to rape before.

There are people in that thread still beating the 1980s dead horse about how once porn becomes more mainstream we'll see the revolting treatment of women in porn diminish. That horse is so old and dead they're flogging bones, but they continue to say that the multiple 24-hour porn cable channels and unlimited Internet porn access just isn't mainstream enough to effect this purported pro-woman change.

The pornstitution apologists at Feministing are terrified of the truth about men's hatred of women, and I get that because I was once in their shoes and it was a horrible realization that made me first scared, then angry. We don't need "sex positive" feminism because sex never needed a pr agent and men don't hate sex, we need "woman positive" feminism because pornstitution's popularity is about men hating women, not men hating sex.

[Kitty Glendower]

she even said at the beginning of the piece that she "avoided thinking about... pornography".

Cognitive dissonance!

At least with cognitive dissonance there is hope, meaning the average mind is conscientious and is actively avoiding connecting an unacceptable behavior with a conscious thought. Maybe one day she will in fact not avoid looking at pornography, but I don’t have much hope because to admit aloud that she must avoid thinking about it says she has already made her decision.

On the other hand, what I’m afraid of, is cognitive dissonance becoming so commonplace (as evident by the above author) that soon there will be no struggle between the two opposing forcing and just a complete realm/reality of desensitisation.

[delphyne]

It's sad to see one lone feminist, Betty Boondoggle upholding the anti-porn position whilst the rest of the commenters are made up almost completely of female sex shop owners (I'm sure I saw at least two of them) and male perverts and sadists. Talk about people who have an agenda.

It's irritating to see that CRAPPY argument that always comes up whenever anybody examines the content of actual pornography about how it is a narrow view and they are ignoring all the lovely porn out there. What do these idiots think men are looking at?

[sam]

It's irritating to see that CRAPPY argument that always comes up whenever anybody examines the content of actual pornography about how it is a narrow view and they are ignoring all the lovely porn out there. What do these idiots think men are looking at?

I've been musing on this exact thought since Don Hazen of Alternet said he masturbated to pornography.

The same people who make a fuss over the supposed variety in porn and how very, very important that is to consider in every conversation about porn didn't ask Hazen to clarify what kinds of porn he was referring to the way they insist porn critics make the distinction. I want to know if Don Hazen is a Girls Gone Wild guy, a Bang Bus boy, a Hustler man, or a lesbian-made, distributed-through-feminist-media erotica dude.

Though I'd like to think other Alternet-reading feminists would want specifics about the porn Don prefers when reading about his newfound john consciousness, I think the same fear Courtney expressed has them paralyzed because they don't really want to know that Alternet's editor finds "Nigger Bitches in Heat" or "50 Guy Creampie" sexually arousing. If they never ask for clarification about the content of the porn he uses then they never have to confront what they intrinsically know about it not being Candida Royalle he's stroking himself to sleep with but something more akin to "Lolita Cumlickers" and "Big Black Dicks in Tiny White Chicks."

No data, no problem.

[sam]

Just in case it ever comes up in a debate you're having...

You can either prove a freakishly high number of prostituted women were sexually abused as kids with meticulous research and statistics that will bore everyone but serious researchers to tears, or you can remind people that until the average age of entry into prostitution rises above 13-14 that it is impossible for the overwhelming majority of prostituted women to not have been sexually abused as kids.

People who reject the demonstrated link between child sex abuse and prostitution will probably also reject the proof that most newbie prostitutes are children, but you'll convince less ideologically fundamentalist persons reading along.

[MaggieH]

web addy to a review of Jensen's book (I disagree with this author): http://feministing .com/archives/008165.html#comments

Courtney (author) does NOT believe men ought to transcend masculinity. I do. She also thinks it's too extreme of Jensen to say that "we live in a world that hates women".

It's frustrating when "feminists" choose not to look at violence against women. She even said at the beginning of the piece that she "avoided thinking about... pornography".

All this is unfair and awful!

[bluecoat28]

I sent Robert Jensen the link to the review and I let him know that I disagree with Courtney. He responded with this:

Estela: Thanks for the note and the support. I read that review, and it was a strange one. But I’m used to that.

[resisterance]

courteney has recently been invited to do a feminist column at the "new statesman". this is what she came up with:

http://www.newstatesman .com/200711260001

See i was annoyed in the first place that there are so many UK feminists they could have asked to write for a UK magazine, but didn't. They could have asked any number of bloggers for example, or even some of the women at Subtext. They could even have gone to the Education Not For Sale alleged socialist feminists. But instead this British socialist magazine chose to ask an American on a Liberal feminist blog to write a column on feminism. Perhaps us brit fems tend to be too radical for them, but like i said, they could have gone to ENS if that was the case. I know this might not be an issue for Americans - but these women already have books published, they already get read in classrooms, they already have that audience. UK feminists dont get book deals, we dont get read at universities, we dont have an audience that isn't other feminists - homegrown feminists in this country are basically ignored. And there are a lot of us to ignore! But this UK socialist mag overlooking us all and going to a feminist who probably has very little in common with even the magazine is infuriating - what they mainly have in common is most likely a lack of interest in radical feminism.

So there was that. But then the article itself - the usual "im young and pretty and im feminist so that smashes stereotypes" stuff. All she does is essentially say, oh its okay if you dont like *that* sort of feminist, because us third wavers are snappy dressers! You know what im saying, right, she should be saying - fuck your fascist beauty standards, what i look like is irrelevant to my humanity or my politics!

I mean - her first column at that place and at the very least she could have started her analysis at the magazine itself - the fact that its willing to give a small space to feminism as a "belief or philosophy" rather than apply feminism to socialism as a necessary component of the whole. Basically - feminism should be there throughout the whole magazine, not a small column on the side, harking back to days where newspapers would dedicate a single column to "womens issues". Could they be any more patronising?

Or how about the title of the magazine itsef "New Statesman"? According to their "About" blurb they not long ago merged with New Society magazine, so they had a genderless title right there they could have stuck with, but they chose instead to continue using the gendered - why?

Or how about their list of editors on the same page, since 1913 and throughout 14 editors, all have been men. Is it coincidence, that men are just naturally the best for the job, or is there discrimination in there, do you think?

Id suggest that if feminism is merely a "belief system", if 'women's issues' can be chucked the odd column, and if the gendered title was chosen to be more appropriate than the ungendered, that the discrimination is deep enough to explain why they have only ever had male editors.

Rant over, sorry.

[sam]

Fourth wave feminism? What nonsense is this?

There is not one iota of political or ideological difference between 3rd and 4th wave feminists. It's patriarchal youth fetish sucking up, nothing more.

The only reason to make the distinction between 30-something libfems and 20-something libfems is for the 20-somethings to say "I'm 20-something and that's young and I'm also a young 20-something feminist and by that I mean inherently fresher and better than older feminists because we're young and youth is queen, baby, and did I mention how I'm youngyoungyoung and those women aren't young anymore so pass the microphone this way."

If anyone feeling more generous than I cares to try and wiggle out one difference between 3rd wave liberal feminists and Courtney Fourthwaver libfems that doesn't rely on sexist ageism of women I'm willing to hear it.

edited to add: you have nothing to be sorry about vg1; your rant was superb.

[Moonlight]

I didn't realize Courtney was the author of the book on body image. I haven't read it and was planning to.

I just read her article on Jensen and started reading the follow-up. I usually don't read blogs for a variety of reasons, and the more I read, the more my blood boiled. I think there might have been one person (a woman) in all the comments I read (and I did not read a huge huge amount) who was against porn.

Mathematically speaking, it's been proven that the more time a group spends arguing about a problem, the farther away they are to get from discussing the original problem itself. No surprise there.

What we really need is for those who have been involved in *any* level of the industry to speak out about what it is and is not.

When I read all about this being a "postfeminist" era yadda yadda yadda, I really have to stop and wonder--if there were equal power relations in society, would putting a bag over a woman's head, kicking, biting, etc. be defended? It's still an unequal personal relationship if it's BDSM and the woman is the "top".

I do have thoughts on fantasies; no, they're not "natural"--but I'm not going to post on that site.

I could always just bang my head against the table instead.

[elfeminista]

It is patriarchy that is a "belief system". feminism is not, because femnism is about human concensus and the well being of all in the community.
Mary daly defines patriarchy:
" Society manufactured and controlled by males: Fatherland:society in which every legitimized institution is in the hands of of males and a few selected henchwomen, society characterized by oppression,repression,depression,narcissism ,cruelty,racism,classcism,ageism,objectification,sadomasochism,necrophilia, joyless society ruled by the Godfather,,Son and companya society fixeted on proliferation, propagation, and bent on the destruction of all life.2) The prevailing religion of the entire planet, whose essential message is Necrophilia."-

This may seem a bit extreme to some, until we realize that somehow, there is a thread that binds the men who have constructed our present social reality together.The thread can be seen in articles such as this, and in publication such as "The New Statesman".
Every thread in every action of these men, every thought promulgated by them (and the few "selected henchwomen"), serve to atempt to trick life loving Women, and the few males that "get it". That patriarchal society is all that there is and all will be well as long as we go along with the program. the atempt to throw women of the track is one of the ways in which Western Women are offered the gilded cage. Also the women of the upper classes of subjected countries are likewise offered the gilded cage of a purportedly reasonable society, if you will just listen to the wisdom of *Great* men and wait quietly.

[axjxhx]

i couldn't help myself, i left a comment on feministing:

here's an excerpt of the book that i find to be indicative of the core problems of pornstituters. here, jensen is quoting a "veteran of the pornography industry":
I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face. (pg 69-70)
the most serious problems our culture faces in the mirror that is pornography is the intent of violence against women. regardless of what 'type' of porn is consumed, this is the underlying concept that pornographer$ are u$ing.

and

porn does not equal sex.

because from what i did read of the porn-apologist comments, they were trying to equate sex and porn.

the debate reminds me of an old art debate: does art imitate life or life imitate art? porn apologists keep trying to derail the debate with this rhetoric and with the redundancy of what the 'definition' of porn is. sure, it's hard to debate core issues if everyone is stuck on defining what it is they are trying to debate.

it is striking that courtney starts the review off by saying that she's afraid of porn. hmm. maybe, just maybe she will continue to think about why she is so afraid of porn now that she's admitted this. it's a process.

[MaggieH]

i couldn't help myself, i left a comment on feministing:

here's an excerpt of the book that i find to be indicative of the core problems of pornstituters. here, jensen is quoting a "veteran of the pornography industry":
I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face. (pg 69-70)
the most serious problems our culture faces in the mirror that is pornography is the intent of violence against women. regardless of what 'type' of porn is consumed, this is the underlying concept that pornographer$ are u$ing.

and

porn does not equal sex.

Well-done! Well-put!

[Moonlight]

I also find that whenever I am discussing (debating, arguing, whatever) pornography with someone, the subject of a definition comes up. I generally use Diana Russell's, but the pro-porners don't agree to that, because they say that defines porn itself as bad. I get what they're saying, although I disagree that porn has any merit, or will ever, for that matter.

Any thoughts on what to say re: the definition question?

[MaggieH]

Any thoughts on what to say re: the definition question?

Check this out (I hope it helps you):

https://www.againstpornography.org/definition.html

[bluecoat28]

Any thoughts on what to say re: the definition question?

At the slideshow training, I think Gail Dines said, "Pornography is how it is defined by the pornographers". Basically, you could refer to contemporary porn titles and say that those are pornography: "Bangkok Suckee Fuckee", "Bubblegum Cuties", "Pimpmyblackteen .com", "Give Me Pink"...

MaggieH's page covers it basically.

[axjxhx]

"Pornography is how it is defined by the pornographers".

i've quickly learned that this is the best way to define porn. let the pornographers hang themselves.

mostly, the definition of porn serves to derail the debate, like i said. just as in art critiques (i went to art school), defining art is a way to hijack someone's productive critique into meaningless-land.