When White Males Attack: Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left

315 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Jul 20 2005 11:48
When White Males Attack: Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left
Quote:
When White Males Attack:

Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left

by Jennifer McLune

There are a lot of issues toward which he [Larry Flynt] has

progressive attitudes (Black women were naked and spread-eagled in

Hustler long before they were in Playboy.)" --"Carly-Sue"

The above quote taken from the message board of a young hip feminist

magazine reveals how effective Flynt has been at becoming in the

minds of many progressive folk an anti-racist. This image of him as

progressive on race appears in spite of Hustler's long history of

racist caricatures of Black people, people of color and Jews.

One of his most recent viscously racist assault has been on Aura

Bogado, a Latina Feminist and Free Speech Radio News anchor at KPFK.

In her article Hustling the Left she exposes the war declared on her

when a personal email ended up in the hands of Hustler editors in

which she stood up to Larry Flynt and challenged The Left to look

critically at building coalitions with pornographers.

Full article: http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/mclune.html

admin edit by rkn - got rid of c&p

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jul 22 2005 17:23

Super cool article. I'd love to knock Flint out of his wheelchair and see him squirm on the floor. He really is a big, bulging cock.

That wbesite looks like it'll be good when it properly gets going. Some really disturbing cartoons. Do they have to say 'sexxxism' though? It makes me cringe.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 23 2005 04:25

Maybe if they wrote in English rather than American PC-speak they'd get their point accross more convincingly though...

Edit: Flint's a capitalist cunt who deserves to die, but most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jul 23 2005 16:44
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

thaw
Offline
Joined: 3-03-05
Jul 24 2005 00:39

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I do know that I am instrinsically opposed to the exploitation of women particularly (and some men) in this milieu. Like I say, capitalism sucks, of course, what do you expect - morality of any kind?

It's always the same fight, although we need to take particular issue over women's and minority rights when we fight with the working class (which I hope you are doing).

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jul 25 2005 13:19
Jess wrote:
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

Well i see what he was getting at about PC speak, i mean just look at the title ( ''when white males attack'' roll eyes ) which seems to be designed to alienate a large chunk of the population of the US before they've even read the first paragraph. Its a pretty useless article all round really.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 29 2005 05:49
Jess wrote:
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

Can't elaborate now sorry but I'd sum it up by saying it was drenched in identity politics...

Allysaundre
Offline
Joined: 2-08-05
Aug 2 2005 11:25

Hello,

As a first time poster, I felt the necessity to post a reponse to this article. My horror was not so much at the article itself, but at the positive response it managed to generate in some minds on this forum. I would like to make several points as to why I feel that article has absolutely no credibility (though I feel they should have been quite obvious anyway).

To begin, the language used within an article seemingly intended for publish, either on the internet or in journals, affects the academic credibility of the article. This article suffers from poor use of language, certainly I could not see it being published in a reputable journal of philosophy, politics or sociology. Even though there is no evidence to suggest such lofty aims on the part of the author, it still fails to show that such poor language should be used by a piece that presents itself to be taken seriously.

By this, I refer to the overbearing rhetoric. I come from a position where I know absolutely nothing about Larry Flynt or Aura Bogado (or, indeed, the author herself except from the article). I cannot, however, see any well-formed, analytic debate over his merits as a progressive social reformer. The article (and its author) loses all intellectual credibility by the use of rhetoric in two forms that I will identify here.

First, there is the deliberate ad hominen attack that subversely tries to get the point across using statements such as, "Apparently the only position he wants to see a brown woman in is naked and gagged in silent submission to his misogynistic agenda." This is given merely in response to the fact that Mr. Flynt labelled Ms. Bogado a racist and "feminazi". There is no real evidence or citation given to show that he, in fact, made this claim nor is there any real refutation of his claim had he made it (indeed, Ms. Bogado could very well be racist and a "feminazi"). This, of course, does not defend Mr. Flynt per se, but only shows that there is no logical structure to the thought presented by the author, merely what appears to be an emotional vent.

This is further degraded by the sleazy use of terms to describe her opponents, her claim that Hustler is not a magazine of which black women should not be proud is a case of this. Use of the terms '"black butt" market' or 'displaying "black tail"' is simply an attempt to discredit by demonisation of her opponent.

A related point to this is the overall push to rhetoric that I had mentioned earlier. There seems to be little evidence of any constructive argumentative form, either deductive or inductive. Put shortly, she is not giving the reader any reasons to believe anything she says. The author has merely vented certain expressions in a way that has a chance to stir up anti-Flynt feeling among her audiences. Yet, if her position were true then a powerful, well-made set of premises can be established and lead to the conclusion she desires. My contention here is with the intellectual integrity of the author herself, not necessarily with the status of radical feminism (although, as a side note, my view would be that the lack of wel-formed arguments in radical feminism is based on its weak and erroneous position).

Finally, I find that, as an anarchist, my position is hostile to hers simply because radical feminism has associations with very strong forms of authoritarianism. While my anarchism does not call for the overthrowing of the state by force but aims towards its redundancy, I still find authoritarianism something that we are best without, regardless of whether it claims itself as right or left.

Of course, as I have said, my arguments here do not support Flynt. They only aim to show that the author of this text is misguided and cannot present her case clearly and intellectually. I could on to make more positive attacks on the author, but I hope that they would not be required here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Aug 2 2005 12:12

Well put rob, aswell as noting the appalling political approach of many radical feminists, you are right to say that the rhetoric used by the author aptly demonstates a complete inability to logically argue the auithors position in the first place.

However, i wouldn't worry too much about people on this forum supporting articles of this nature, apart from jess and wendal i think pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 2 2005 19:28
cantdocartwheels wrote:
pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

While the wording is somewhat hysterical and misleading throughout, (phrases like "His whiteness is his claim to innocence. His maleness is his right to anger" are just loopy, for example) the basic point is fine. If it wasn't written by someone who sounds like Kirsten Anderberg on speed it would be a good piece.

Allysaundre
Offline
Joined: 2-08-05
Aug 2 2005 23:58
redyred wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

While the wording is somewhat hysterical and misleading throughout, (phrases like "His whiteness is his claim to innocence. His maleness is his right to anger" are just loopy, for example) the basic point is fine. If it wasn't written by someone who sounds like Kirsten Anderberg on speed it would be a good piece.

Well, as I have said I think that the structure of the argument lacks a decent analytic rigourousness here and I believe I have given a good grounding for that. Further I believe that the premises of radical feminism always will lack the required analytic rigourousness as they are fundamentally false. Of course, I would accept that it would be a good piece of writing if the form was better, regardless of what the argument was aiming to prove (just as one can admire the effort of Descartes's Meditations without commiting oneself to its conclusions). As to the basic point, I'm not entirely sure whether it is an attack on Flynt or as an advocation of gender feminism using the attack as a means to that.

If it was an attack on Flynt then, without a rational basis, it seems slanderous and possibly immoral. That would be a very serious claim to make and, looking on Wikipedia, Flynt seems to be compartively moral compared to some of his contemporaries. My scepticism concerning his moral character rests on the fact that he has compromised his moral position by not investing more of his wealth in moral ends (i.e. more funding to socially responsible causes). Although, he seems no worse in his moral character than most everyday people. Second, I have concern with what happened with his daughter but cannot but give him the benefit of the doubt from the information on Wikipedia. His daughter seems to have acted highly irrationally and shows signs of mental imbalance. Other than that, his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable. Given all this, I really cannot agree with the basic point. Even though his past character is no solid proof of his innocence, it is all I can really go on here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 3 2005 12:06

Rob, I share your views on radical feminism. I think it's actually a huge mistake the way so many anarchists cuddle up to radical feminism when it is incredibly divisive and often anti-humanist. In fact looking through the article again there is barely a single sentence that I don't have a problem with. What I don't have a problem with is that it attacks the view of pornography of that kind being progressive. That debate shouldn't be written off just cos that article is a bit shit.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Aug 17 2005 18:47
Allysaundre wrote:
his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable.

"There are those who say illogic is the native tongue of anything with tits...(women) speak not from the heart but from the gash, and chances are that at least once a month your chick will stop you dead in your tracks with a masterpiece of cunt rhetoric...the one surefire way to stop those feminine lips from driving you crazy is to put something between them--like your cock, for instance."

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:14

eek if the cartoons on that site are really from Hustler magazine that is seriously fucked:

Imagine being a child of Flynt and finding out your dad publishes shit like that sad

rob wrote:
His daughter seems to ... show signs of mental imbalance.

Oh yeah - now I wonder why that could be?!?! roll eyes

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 17 2005 19:20

is that for fucking real? Why would hustler wish to paint themselves in such away?

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:27
Quote:
A series of cartoons titled "Chester the Molester" constitute the most notorious example of this genre of porn in Hustler. They were a regular feature of the magazine until cartoonist Dwaine Tinsley was convicted in 1990 for sexually abusing his daughter (a conviction that was later overturned on a legal technicality). Although Flynt maintains that he is opposed to kiddy porn, his claim make no sense in light of these materials and the fact that the "Internet version of Hustler boasts 'the youngest flesh allowed by law'"

http://www.dianarussell.com/Flynt.html

Theres loads of dodgy ones - the racist ones are pretty nasty too:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/index.html

Im pretty sure they are for real... check out the cartoonists site:

http://www.dwainetinsley.com

Ignore the fact that its a catholic wierdo site:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC137.HTM

Search for Chester the Molester on that page....

Quote:
According to evidence presented at trial, Tinsley explained that "You can't write this stuff all the time if you don't experience it."

Thats actually made me feel pretty sick. Who cares if the article which started the thread is shit...

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:38
Quote:
If you are triggered by hate speech visual imagery we strongly caution you about entering this site.

grin confused Says something about the weird US leftist mentality, that does.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:39

?! I think its a pretty fair statement to have.... those pix made me feel a bit wierd, to others it could have more severe effects...

no?

confused

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:45

No! They looked like shit unfunny examples of bad taste humour to me. Some of them were indeed offensive, although in a very pathetic way.

What do they mean by "triggered" by hate speech? That if you listen to hitler speeches, you'll go kill some jews, or if you watch some porn, you'll go and rape someone?

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:52

roll eyes No, - that if as a child some wanker tricked u in the street then fucking molested you - then you are come into contact with material which gives you flashbacks of something which might have fucked you up quite a bit it might fuck you up all over again. Hence:

Quote:
If you are triggered by hate speech visual imagery we strongly caution you about entering this site. It is in no way our intention to re-traumatize anyone already injured by the kind of material presented here.

Blood helly roll eyes

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:57

Whoops. Should have read that paragraph more carefully. embarrassed

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 17 2005 21:31

yeah some of those cartoons are very ahem "questionable" eek , more so cause they don't seem to actualy be making a point, in some they would seem to be ironic, in others they seem to be neutral and in others they seem to be painting it as just funny in itself, not to mention they are so not funny.

I mean it's obvious Larry Flynt is a cock, but on the whole he seems to be a cock who just likes causing controversy with his 1st admendment bolloxs, i don't think he has a coherent ideology and I think the way in which the website "hysterically" (and yes im aware of the words conatations) attacks Hustler and basically accusses lots of leftist academics of supporting racism, paedophilia, sexism and even anti semitism by not explicitly talking about Hustler is a bit off putting.

There needs to be a debate about the sex industry but sites like this with their overbearing moralism (read the Chomsky interview they are so desperately trying to catch him out as some sort of secret sexist pig) and hyberbolic nonsense just stifles it and reduces positions to "sexist women hating porn" and "uptight anti sex feminists".

Interestingly for a website claiming to be devoted to investigating this huge industry it doesn't seem to ask many of the women involved in it about their views But thats a typical fault of liberal feminism that has always revelled in victimhood and therefore only those "strong survivors" can speak for those other women who are too weak under the burden of patriarchy.

I mean the banner proclaims the abolishment of prostitution, well hows that going to happen and more importantly what effect will it have on those women working in the sex industry?

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 17 2005 22:25
Allysaundre wrote:
Hello

Hi. Rumours of your crappy post has been spread all over internet so i got tempted to come back from this page again after staying away from it for quite some time, and ill be damned if it did not lived up to my expectations!

First of all I found it hilarious that you where “shocked” by the bad spelling. As an anarchist I guess that you would prefer to see language kept under strict rules of tradition rather than evolving in a free biological form through dialects and post-colonial English to the benefit of expression (especially in the case of a text like this where there is no trouble at all understanding what the writer has to say and is that not the main point of communication rather than to express oneself in the most correct bourgeoisie manner?).

You also point out that you know nothing about Larry Flynt and are still sure that the writer has been too harsh against him.

Let me give you some background on him.

At young age he raped and after that killed a hen(according to himself in his self biography). How’s that for any of you animal right activists and vegans out there ?

He has during his life most surely attempted to rape at least one of his daughters (and was of coarse not put into jail for that being a owner of a multinational company and being a millionaire x 40)

As pointed out already Flynt has for quite some time published a comic about paedophilia by a sentenced paedophile who in one strip for example is getting a Jewish kid into his trap by dragging a dollar on a string while waiting around the corner wearing a naziuniform and holding a baseball bat over his head.

He has declared a war on feminists as well as on several occasions (one recently) posted death or rape-threats against women who has spoken out against his magazine(that says something of how much of a defender of the first amendment he really is)

Check out this gallery to get some insight in the style of his publication:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/index.html

The reason she is pointing out the use of black women in hustler is that many sees hustler as anti-racist because they published pictures of black as well as white women who where humiliated.

About Hustler being anti-racist:

Warning for disturbing pictures:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/images/Catalog6sjpg/spikeleemovie.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS32.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlerhalf/Images/HustlerSHalf33.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlerhalf/Images/HustlerSHalf34.jpg

“From the image of the black woman as Jezebel, to the black male as savage, mainstream white representations of blacks have coded black sexuality as deviant, excessive and a threat to the white social order. In Hustler sex cartoons, this threat is articulated par excellence in caricatured form and serves to reaffirm the racist myth that failure to contain black masculinity results in a breakdown of the economic and social fabric of white society.”

“The size of the black penis is the theme of a full page "interview" between Hustler editors and "The Biggest, Blackest Cock Ever!" (November 1983: 6). The page is in the same format as Hustler interviews only in place of a person is a picture of a large black penis. The subtitle reads: "A candid, explosive man-to-dick conversation with the most sought after piece of meat in the world." Hustler editors ask "Why do women love big, black cocks?" The answer given by the "cock", (which is of course written by the Hustler editors) is "... they love the size .... you know any white guys hung like this?" The editors continue by framing the discussion in clearly political terms by their answer to the question of why black men prefer white women, "I likes (sic) white pussy best. It's my way of gettin back at you honkies by tearin' up all that tight white pussy .... I fuck those bitches blind".”

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/dines.html

You claim that Miss Bogado could wery well be a feminazi. Lets not get into that you are borrowing here a term from Rush Limabaugh an American extreme right conservative(and still calling yourself anarchist) but the term in itself is hilarious. Nazis idea of the role of woman in society (much like Proudhon’s ) was that they should stay in the kitchen and give birth to loads of babies. Feminism and Nazism could therefore newer be combined but there are people that define themselves as anarchonazis in America so if I would claim that you werry well be a Nazi then my claim would be more accurate than you strange attack on a non white feminists woman above.

And what is this bullshit about lack of well formed arguments from radical feminists?

Take a look at The idea of prostitution by Sheila Jeffrey and if you still claim that no radical feminists does well formed arguments then you are the stooopid one.

And what the hell are writing about radical feminism being authorian. Valerie Solana is anti-state. Andrea Dworkin is anti-censorship(but for giving women the right to sue misogynic material just as people can sue racists material).

Radical feminists is fighting power and the fact that you as an anarchist and therefore a socialist (or are you anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-nazi?) is attacking a non white woman who is speaking out against a multinational corporation owned by a millionaire(even without the racism and hatred against nonwhites, handicapped and working class people that they publish) is a bit hilarious.

Are you on the side of the bosses or the people ?

To let the rich do anything they want to is not something that Kropotkin would support. Not even Stirner would back that up. It is pure anarcho-capitalism and therefore lacking any class analysis.

If you did your homework then you would know that there is something called freedom under responsibility without that the actions of Emperor Nero would be viewed as anarchistic.

As Bakunin points out Socialism without anarchy is oppression and anarchy without socialism is unequal (or something like that if somebody would post the real quote below then it would be much appreciated).

So dont tell me what Anarchism is beacuse what you are talking about here is actualy more of neo liberalism.

If you don’t support Hustler then tell us what you have against them because this far you have not posted a single negative word against his fucked up capitalist empire.

It is hard for me to imagine an attack against the misogynic anti free-speech magazine Hustler that would be unfair after what they are doing and after the extreme levels they go to, to silence anyone who speaks against them.

Larry Flynt doesn’t need your help to defend himself by the way.

He has the police, the government and his millions of dollar that can do it for him.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 17 2005 22:33
Allysaundre wrote:

Well, as I have said I think that the structure of the argument lacks a decent analytic rigourousness here and I believe I have given a good grounding for that. Further I believe that the premises of radical feminism always will lack the required analytic rigourousness as they are fundamentally false. Of course, I would accept that it would be a good piece of writing if the form was better, regardless of what the argument was aiming to prove (just as one can admire the effort of Descartes's Meditations without commiting oneself to its conclusions). As to the basic point, I'm not entirely sure whether it is an attack on Flynt or as an advocation of gender feminism using the attack as a means to that.

If it was an attack on Flynt then, without a rational basis, it seems slanderous and possibly immoral. That would be a very serious claim to make and, looking on Wikipedia, Flynt seems to be compartively moral compared to some of his contemporaries. My scepticism concerning his moral character rests on the fact that he has compromised his moral position by not investing more of his wealth in moral ends (i.e. more funding to socially responsible causes). Although, he seems no worse in his moral character than most everyday people. Second, I have concern with what happened with his daughter but cannot but give him the benefit of the doubt from the information on Wikipedia. His daughter seems to have acted highly irrationally and shows signs of mental imbalance. Other than that, his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable. Given all this, I really cannot agree with the basic point. Even though his past character is no solid proof of his innocence, it is all I can really go on here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

If you still have this opinions after reading all of the posts above then you are either having no heart or no brain. I sincerily hope that is not the case.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 23:23

Wendal - i think what people are against is the wording/style/politics of that article and the website, not the fact that Flynt is a cock-worm. Your post is a bit over the top in its accusations and assumptions... would urge you to rethink what u said, after reading slowly the other arguements.

Good post Revol btw... I agree with all that!

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 17 2005 23:31

thanks rkn.

still quite amazed at the paedo comic strip, thats fuckng nuts!

Seriously could you imagine the reaction to that over here!

The readership itself wouldn't stand for it.

Thou x6party6gurl6x told us that noncing isn't seen as much of an issue in the states.

confused

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 17 2005 23:38

hmmm true, but then in the states there is all that shit about "freedom of speech" and so paedo making sick comic strips is still probably seen "as the american way" and attempts to block it "unamerican".

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 23:52

Isnt Hustler like a really mainstream porn mag as well? Thats probably the wierdest bit... if thats the norm in magazines like that.. whats the less mainstream stuff like eek

The Porkadian
Offline
Joined: 27-07-05
Aug 17 2005 23:58

there is freedom of speech in america, I thought bush abolished that.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 17 2005 23:58

I really think there must be more to that comic strip, I mean is it really by a convicted paedo?

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Aug 18 2005 00:18

http://www.dwainetinsley.com/bio.php

read it and make of it what you will.

sounds like a pile of shit, though.

is there any less interested reports about his conviction? ie not from a Catholic website or his own?