Member since: Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:42 AM
Number of posts: 794
Number of posts: 794
What is happening here has more to do with some sort of button I must have pushed for you in my original reply to the OP-
If someone posts an OP with the intent of inflaming deeply held personal preconceptions about "Red States'" morality versus "Blue States'" morality, visa-a-vi pornography ownership and viewing, you can expect some sort of reactions that might set you off iff you are an emotional proponent of the view that porn viewership indicates moral short-comings.
Please accept my apologies for pushing your buttons- but don't you think you ought to grow a thicker skin about this subject? Understand, I am in no way stipulating that you are correct in any of your strident declarations as to my character or my intentions. I believe they have been very clear; I disagree with you about the unimportance of the damage caused to men by the romance novel industry and it's many media outlets. I also disagree with many mainstream men that posit the notion that pornography does no damage. My original reply was to an inflammatory post that challenges all DUers to question what we are doing here if we are just going to go around conflating silly numbers like pornography use and positing political maxims from the conflation.
It's fun, but it's what the teabaggers do for entertainment too.
I hope that DU can grow beyond it and people that think that they should be able to tell others to stop posting- I will when I believe my point is made. I have violated no TOU and never will.
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:46 PM (0 replies)
My point- and I believe i have made it- is that you are more likely to generate solutions to problems if you are able to have an inquiry that incorporates all of the instances and sources of the problem.
This is American pragmatism in action.
The OP is suggesting that there are a couple things at play in the discussion about pornography as it related to political demographics within the United States. One of the points made was that "porn" was somehow the responsibility of the male gender of the human race and is used exclusively by men in the attempt to deny humanity and intrinsic value and importance to women. I understand that some feminists believe this to be true, but there certainly isn't a 100% agreement about this. And there certainly is not a 100% agreement on what sorts of things are pornographic. Feminist criticism includes more than just "Lady Issues", and by restricting your membership and self identification you are denying yourself an opportunity to learn and understand other points of view.
Disagreement is an invariable portion of any social group, but with-holding respect and charity from an individual question or suggestion is not disagreement, it's bullying.
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:18 PM (1 replies)
of course women have been dealing with all of these issues- anyone that would claim otherwise is just in denial over the true state of the world. The facts of the problems that are faced by women, caused by patriarchal arrangements and suppositions within our culture does not relieve the feminist school of thought of it's obligation to truth and egalitarian remedies to our cultural unfairness and bigoted targeting of the "other". Sometimes the "other" being targeted is not the politically convenient under-represented demographic. I realize that my take on this is not a popular one with my fellow feminists, but I feel it is of utmost importance to make sure that the hypocrisy of this particular position be pointed out. A political or social notion that relegates men"s objectification by women; through the use of women's chosen mode of "porn", as at best a laughable inconsequentiality, should be explored and called-out as a weakness on the part of modern, personality-driven feminist criticism. I am very sure there are those that will claim that I am not a feminist or that I am being dishonest in my inquiry, and to them I only ask "why are you so determined in your claim that women do not objectify men or use media that succeeds in the objectification of men?". Does anyone really believe that women are somehow morally immune to this very human immoral condition?
Instead of attacking me out of hand, why not deal with the question? Intellectual activity and moral reasoning never hurt anyone.
If you want to be taken seriously about the damage caused by the objectification of humans by our media and culture, then you ought to show at least a modicum of concern for the damage caused to the other 50% of the human population. The type of behavior that relegates an entire gender's complaints to inconsequential nothings, is the same behavior and attitude that feminism was supposed to be an antidote for.
Punishing groups of people by ignoring thier very real complaints and troubles does not engender charity or future positive relationships, but it sure FEELS good, huh?
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:32 PM (3 replies)
This is just the way the right wing handles those pesky little people that still believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. There are plenty of nurses in America, yet hospitals are screaming about a shortage. If this were true, hospitals would be competing against one another in a contest to attract the best nurses. In an honest, truly fair capitalist economy, pay would go up for nurses as hospitals compete for them, but in America, hospitals and health care industry schleps have driven down the pay and benefits offered to nurses.
Many Americans understand that the education to become a nurse is an investment that can bring entire families out of poverty and launch them into the middle class. Right wing teabaggers and corporatists absolutely despise this pathway to economic liberty and social advancement- especially because so many female heads of households are the ones driving the change (we know how teabaggers love strong women).
I hope 2014 will be the year the teabaggers finally lose all of the undue influence over American policy and legislation they stole in 2010.
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:50 PM (3 replies)
The standards are always shifting when it comes to the porn warriors and the damage caused by thier chosen media interest. So when a woman claims to be the target of purient media and dehumanizing standards, we ought to listen to what she has to say- but should a man have the same complaints about the same media-imposed personal destruction, his complaints and the media's relationship to the creation of the atmosphere that makes his objectification possible, should be criticized and wholly disregarded as a dishonest appraisal of the situation. Not because of any proof offered in defense of the stance of porn warriors, but because, as a group, they are so darn sure they are right. Feminist criticism is a unique and powerful tool that enables humanity to widen our scope of intellectual inquiry. Like other forms of criticism, it is not the only one out there, nor does it have a corner on the market of truth. You disregard the objectification of men through female porn at your own peril; no one will be willing to advance charity in thought or deed towards your viewpoint if you continue to trivialize the damage to families and society caused by the objectification of either sex through each sex's chosen form of "porn".
This notion that women are somehow morally distinct from men in character and intention is sexist and derogatory. I thought the goal was mutual respect, not maintaining a seperate sect.
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:33 PM (2 replies)
I am repeatedly amazed by the sweeping generalizations and appeals to emotional reactions amongst those that have a knee-jerk reaction to the stuff they call porn.
When the people fighting "porn" start to take the female version of male-objectifying-porn just as seriously, and condem all consumers of modern romance trash novels and their media equivilences that objectify men as non-human paycheck providers and social, as well as sexual, playthings and status inflators, I'll be willing to have a discussion with them. The modern romance novel industry and it's many media spin-offs represents an evil, insidious influence on our society that empowers women to treat men as objects for molding towards some sort of female-fantasy- an object that forever offers a standard of behavior, economic blandishments and sexual perfomance that dehumanizes men and trains women to view us as penises with lucrative jobs and social status conferees that are always there to do as they are told by the female definition of manliness and masculinity. Why is it that female purient desires and sexual bigotry is never recognized as a problem? So sexually explicit media somehow "hurts" people, but only the media that appeals to males. Where have I heard this point of view expressed before? hmmm.
Women objectify men and damage the universal self-image of men through their preferred form of objectification- yet we are left to deal with the damage to our relationships, family and children- with out so much as an "I'm sorry" from the anti-porn activists that claim they are just trying to help families and others objectified by the media that they have arbitrarily decided to be the prime culprit in causing so much destruction to women and families, while ignoring this very real problem. But when intelligent, honest individuals and studies point to the devious and damaging intention behind the female porn of choice, we are roundly laughed at and pronounced as mysogonists, thus cutting off any really substantive discussions about the subject.
Women objectify men as sex objects and unrealistic security providers all the time- they just prefer the written description of the male's destruction as an individual, instead of explicit film or pictures of the abuse.
When the porn warriors are offended, they claim the offensive material is damging to everyone in our society. Why do these offendees think that this is a one-way street that only admits thier particular pet social issue?
I think Mr. Zappa had some things to say to the porn worriors- but then he has been accused of being a producer of porn as well (art or porn, what's the difference, as long as someone gets to tell thier fellow Americans what images they can see and produce)- because everyone knows that picutures, videos and the written word hurts just like a knife. (um sarcasm)
Posted by sigmasix | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:30 PM (2 replies)
The original post pre-supposes something about America that has never been true; that America is basically just an economic model or approach.
America is an experiment in departing from the dogma of economic predestination. We are a representitive democracy that uses a mixture of economic models to accomplish our shared goals and ideals. We have found that American pragmatism is the shining light of wisdom and knowledge to guide our choices for economic models. This is why we have elections that are supposed to be voted in by every qualified (read: steeped in American pragmatic thought and application) citizen. Sometimes capitalism, well regulated and taxed, accomplishes American goals. Sometimes the use of a socialist economic model is more pragmatic, as in basic human and civil rights and needs like healthcare, food, housing and education.
The OP takes too much for granted in disregarding the truth of the special nature of our great country and it's ideals, expressed through our shared history. We are so much more than an economic model.
Just my .02
Posted by sigmasix | Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:37 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1