Thursday, September 18, 2008

The Does and Don'ts between pornography and feminism

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). :)

6 comments:

Md said...

Funny business pornography. The male actors are the hardest to find because they have to have the right... tool... well size really. But the women are paid more.

Then again when someone says porn, you automatically picture naked women. So Justification?

liyanat said...

Yeah, I'm not saying that I'm talking about feminism, the author said that 'blablabla' and I thought oh I see 'blablabla'. Btw what are you getting at anyway? What do you mean justification?

liyanat said...

Justification for what? pornography? or are you eliciting that women are lower than men and therefore deserve this? I don't get what you're asking completely blank mate

Md said...

Sorry, I just read my comments and realize I didn't make any sense with that questions. What I meant to say was that it justified women getting paid more because when one thinks of porn they automatically picture naked women. It has nothing to do with you post or feminism rather just simply making a generalize comment. I'm not a Mulvey person.

liyanat said...

? Actually women on the whole in the whole whole wide world get paid less. For the exact same work as men do, they say this is because women take maternity leave and it is more costly to train women. What is sad is the fact that on the general idea by keeping said costs low women become a surplus low cost labour pool easily exploited on such said grounds. And another instance is the fact that although such and such women do take maternity leave they imply that the cost of women's work is worth less than that of a man (i.e procreation, labour, the continuance of the human raise not to mention the added costs of actually raising a child - think of it this way if she hired a nanny to care for her child how much does that cost? If she took care of her own child it actually costs something but this is an 'ignorable' factor, either way she loses because a) she has to pay for the nanny to get back into the game b) she gets lesser pay for taking care of her own child (on an extra note studies of some sociologists show that despite modern costs of living women are still the ones financially responsible over their families and children). We still get paid low everywhere in the world.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://cialisonlinehere.com/#pkrgq]cheap cialis[/url] - buy cheap cialis , http://cialisonlinehere.com/#eeply generic cialis