I spent a hours reading articles from this feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu, this www.avclub.com, and a blog called feministing.
You guys should check it out I read it from end to end.
Now aside from all this I was reading on the dancing dance (hahaha) between feminism and pornography, as is the fact feminists are so divided about this, one article (just google feminism and pornography and one with the author being wendy mcelroy) I deemed really interesting. Pornography has always been the issue that it objectifies women as being sexual objects (McElroy argues that this is subjective, why not? she asks, good question) and I thought about it, patriarchy always deemed women as being lower, yes, and on the other hand they demand that the women that they 'own' should be demure and ofcourse according to Hindu law the concern is largely to protect caste purity and therefore cross caste marriage (note: marriage not extramarital r'ships haa) is frowned upon between a man of higher caste and a woman of lower caste and one hundred percent unforgivable for a woman of higher caste and a man of lower caste (cf. Andre Beteille). And from my own experience with men they all say this : (this is quite common for Muslim men but I think the virus is bigger than that ;) - thus applies to a LOT of men) there are two types of women - women you fuck and women you marry. The ones that are married are kept sacred and pure (to avoid him from having to care for another man's child as well as to keep property strictly within his own family sphere, this is a good example to link patriarchy and capitalism btw). Now, if ALL women were to deign pornography as acceptable and participate in it, I wonder whether this is sexually liberating or not? In my head I thought that if this was possible then the cards would all be on women's tables. No longer are there women available for so-called purity and subservience, because definitely the women that men can fuck, are always deemed to be OUT OF THEIR CONTROL and therefore out of their jurisdiction, no longer will they be docile animals under the care of the all heavenly father/husband/brother/boyfriend/lover/friend. Note the irony of the argument above, the one that says to avoid him and to keep property within his own sphere, doesn't the idiot realize that his pumping activities may well spread a gallon more of his so-called seeds to twenty different women each producing more children there would be more distribution of his so-called property, I don't understand why they're so frigging stupid, sons loyalties are towards their mothers and the families of their mothers, up to a point they will comply with their patrilineage but sooner or later after the death of the fathers allegiances change (cf. The Lugbara of Uganda). :)
