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

let there be no misunderstanding I have a huge distaste for (un)radical feminism.

And I do think that many radical feminists take their own issues and hang ups and turn them into issues of universal importance, they also have a huge problem with engaging in dialogue any women who disagrees with their positions (men are easier cos they can just be written off as sexist pigs).

i thought it was liberal feminists you hated?

i dont think you know yourself revol. youre obviously extremely well read on libertarian communism etc, but i dont think you know much about feminism at all. you buy into some very anti feminist myths.

radical feminists are not, as you suggest, anti men. nor do they have a problem engaging in dialogue with women who disagree with them. ive never seen a radical feminist claim that it was somehow in violation of sisterhood to disagree with another woman.

please do point me in the direction of your evidence for the claims you make.

Actually, they were baited several times, in several different ways and feminists equated with Nazis, defenders of feminists or the two feminists in this discussion thereby being, guess what? FemiNazis. More on that below.

As for pathologizing people's sexualities, you have my response on that and it is quite clear, so don't try and change the subject.

I also have no idea what “porn’s essence” is.

Second, porn is a term that only makes sense as an industry, was raised in relation to an industry (Hustler and the critique of the Porn Industry), and one that exploits sexuality, and particularly female sexuality. And sadly its not a narrow band of it that does so. I disagree with your use of the terms and conditions, and that is my perogative in an argument to do so. thats what a real discussion involves, not one where everyone agrees on the meaning of everythig but quibbles over details.

Third, you keep trying to reduce this to individualistic choices and that totally depoliticizes the discussion, turns watching porn or wanting porn into a natural thing, rather than seeing it for what it is: an industry with specific roots, a specific and complicated history, involving complicated relations between people, some of whom benefit from and enjoy it, even sometimes the ones who do the most over the top stuff that even you might recognize as fucked up. That people could like to do something and at the same time it might be a reactionary mess, that their consciousness of it at this or that moment, might have little to do with a political analysis of it, seems to escape you on this particular issue. It seems mostly because you like to jerk off to porn and seem annoyed that anyone might complicate it for you.

Fourth, I don't support any maneuver which stregthens the state or capital, nor have I said a single thing here to indicate that i would. But I must want to ban porn because I think the porn industry is fucked up and particularly mysoginist. Wow, the only choices must be "ban porn, strengthen the state" or "be a Left apologist for porn"...

Fifth, whether or not I am a twat is a physiological question and/or a matter of opinion. Seems according to some opinions you are a cock. thankfully, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Sixth, that the massive marketing of porn has followed on the massive sexualization of commodity society that began back in the 1950's and accelerated since the early 1970's, is not a matter of opinion. Either you can have an analysis of that or you can stand mute and rigid in front of that industry and in the face of a rather generalized backlash against women or you can make apologies for it. Hence, you want to stick to abstractions regarding "consensual relations" (very humorous in relation to waged-labor, though indeed waged-labor must be free in a dual sense) and people's personal sex lives.

seventh, you assume that I have the urge to tell anyone what to do. On the contrary, I make no pretense towards being an organizer going out proselytizing, recruiting and "organizing" people. I discuss with them, share ideas, and where a common ground for action exists, work with them. So I have no idea why i would possibly go and tell porn workers, or any workers, what to do. If I knew some people in the business and they wanted to organize, hey, more power to them. If they wanted to speak out against the racism and sexism in the industry without leaving it, more power to them. If they want to talk about porn, sexism and the industry, pro or con, that's great. And if we disagree, hey the conversation is more important than agreement.

What I wouldn't do is treat someone who doesn't want to watch porn, who is offended by porn and images it conveys, who opposes porn as particularly exploitative of women, as a jackass, any more than I would call someone who watched porn and likes it a jackass for liking it (which is not the same thing as making political apologies for it.) What i will do is say that some Leftist who presents the matter in the way you do is acting like a typical male who is having the political problem of his access to virtual pussy called into question (and please don't moralize about calling your behaviour that of a typical male when you keep calling people twats.)

On feminazi, I half-apologize because no one called anyone in the discussion a femiNazi directly. Allysundre (Rob Mills) dignified Flynt’s using the term in reference to the Italian feminist Bogado by saying Bogado might be a “feminazi” (in a marvelously academic, puerile post). When Wendal pointed out that that was not only fucked up, but that feminist and Nazi never have come together, while anarchist and Nazi have (as she correctly pointed out that there are so-called anarcho-Nazis), she was treated to accusations of willful distortion and misrepresentation (John) and then Valerie Solanis was treated to a comparion with Mein Kampf “Valerie Solana is clearly a fucking mentalist, whose SCUM manifesto is a an embarrasment that isn't fit for even 17 year old angsty riot grrrls, it's sub situationist rhetoric and complete lack of cogent argument places it on a par with Mein Kampf” by Revol, and then mocked with some idiot caricature of radical feminism. What do we make of someone who likes Solanis if the SCUM Manifesto is really Mein Kampf?

Then we get treated to this by Revol:

“I think you are overlooking the erotic potential of power dynamics, my only problem is when such "play" gets intertwined with real power relations and you can't get much more real than economic power.

To be honest, hair pulling over a toliet is pretty mild compared to the shit people in a relationship can get up to.

But then again i did know one "feminist" who cracked up at some guy for playfully slapping his girlfriends ass, she soon shut the fuck up when the girlfriend turnt round and told her to keep her own sexual issues to herself. It was quite sad cos it was obvious that she was projecting her own sexual insecurities on to some couple who just liked to slap each other on the ass.”

Wow, I never knew porn was about what people liked to do in their bedroom, since its only PORN if it is public (at the very least.)

On top of it we get treated to the ontological defense of "unreal power relations" in bed getting "mixed up" with "real power relations" and like a good Marxist, especially the ultra-real "economic ones". What a fucking caricature of Marx! What an implicitly shoddy treatment of non-economic (whatever that means) oppressions like racism, sexism, etc, which are less real than economic exploitation.

More than that, pulling somone’s hair against their will, with their face over the toilet, while they are being raped by a donkey, is a pretty violent act, even if it is that nearly-a-Nazi Coulter. And bad politics do not justify violence against women. It’s the same logic (note, LOGIC, not act) that justifies rape as an acceptable means of extracting information from terrorists (real or so-called.)

And then we get treated to morality tale of the joys of public ass slapping and the frigid feminist’s well-deserved cum-uppance. The scene shows nothing except maybe that people don’t like strangers bugging into their business with their uninvited opinions. I’ve seen people intervene to stop a guy from beating the shit out of her boygriend in the street and the girlfriend went ballistic on the guy who stopped him, for hitting her boyfriend. Fer fucks sake, do you think that means she likes getting beaten in the street??? And no, getting slapped on the ass by your boyfriend is not the same as getting beaten. Don’t be a potzer. The point is that it may not at all mean what you think it means, but it’s a rosy fucking chance for a cheap shot.

So no, I don’t think I was too damn far out of line. I think excusing treating so-called comrades this way is indecent, but there’s always something that triggers it and this is one of those discussions.

Finally,

“And I do think that many radical feminists take their own issues and hang ups and turn them into issues of universal importance, they also have a huge problem with engaging in dialogue any women who disagrees with their positions (men are easier cos they can just be written off as sexist pigs).”

Wow, Revol, talk about projecting! You also seem to have a problem engaging in dialogue with anyone who disagrees with you, engages in the slightest criticism, takes up a topic or a position you do not like, and I know this having visited this web site the entirety of what, 7-10 days ago? It seems to be in almost every post where you piss off someone and make a habit of cussing at people and calling them names.

None of which means i don't appreciate many of the arguments (even some of Revol's, and esp comments by Lucy and Dot, though I must say that the women get far less hostile about this it seems than the men.) No, porn is not the most important topic, not even within women's issues, but it does touch on people's inter-personal relations and even on the way people within a group of social milieu view each other and pro or con becomes a litmus test and a source of much discomfort. In that respect, it is like all kinds of political issues that seem immediately real to people in ways that being a communist, being anti-state, being for revolution, critiquing commodities, don't. It has a lot ot do with how you relate to people and these are the ways that most people experience class, race, gender, sexuality (and how they experience each one in and through the other), even at work, at least consciously. and people can bring all kinds of eperiences to bear on it because it is about sex and most people, for better and for worse, have sexual experiences and experiences of being treated differently according to their sex.

Now, I really want to bugger off of this. the only reason I replied is cuz Revol went after me personally.

Chris

chris. sorry i didnt read your post. it was too long. no offence but it is just really hard to read. except

no thats argument. it happens on political forums where people disagree with each other. i think on the whole the argument was quite civil

random. what i said about the focus on porn was never meant as sarcasm, irony or exaggeration and was not presented as such. i said what i think. i have also taken part in the discussion after this. why do you think what i said was intended as sarcasm, irony or exaggeration? and zobag said what she thought as well.

people who are listening and talking are people with their own ideas and opinions. they are not blank tabula rasa waiting for us to jump in and contort their minds with our dangerous opinions.

because its a publically accessible forum how would you have us behave? some kind of "feminist" consensus which ignores all fracture lines and argument? people aren't stupid. sarcasm, irony and exaggeration are seen as what they are. although i did not use them and neither as far as i can see did zobag. but what exactly is so dangerous on a political board? dissent?

that is an example of an exaggeration. when people respect your opinion, as they do here, it is a dangerous thing to do to take a diverse group (eg feminists) and make misleading statements like that.

thats true, but every single one of us, every single person, is influenced by the people around us and especially the people we trust and respect.

i disagree.

i referred to zobags dismissal of feminism in a previous thread where she said that dworkin put her off feminism, which cant be right because it seems to me that zobag is feminist (zobag if im wrong then im sorry for that). so saying that she isnt (if she is) could mislead.

please dont make out like i dont like argument or dissent.

i don't really see what the problem is here. let the 'identity politics' brigade argue about flynt's racist (or otherwise) leanings. that's not the problem. the thing with the porn industry is that it's an industry, and like any other in the capitalist mould, relies on exploitation of one class by another. flynt unambiguously falls into the latter category, which is why the only alleged segments of the left to love him up are the liberals.

it's also sad that discourse on feminism these days is so bogged down in obnoxious stereotypes (which are invariably rightwing in origin, but nonpartisan in usage).

random, i have already told you that i was not being sarcastic, ironic nor intentionally exaggerating on this thread.

so basically i need to consult the random book of truth before i am able to post anything you disagree with? and have no opinions or thoughts of mine own at all?

my apologies to all you libcommers who have agreed with my dangerously misleading opinions and are consequently burning effigies of feminists in your backyards. there you go, that was both sarcastic and intentionally exaggerated.

children, don't try this at home.

yes lucy but atleast you haven't got your arguments twisted into "You are defendin porn cos you want to wank guilt free. your a typical leftist male... pussy on demand etc etc"

I mean all i argued was that porn cannot be reduced down to the industry, the industry itself is fractured in many ways. I also argued that 90% of porn is shite and that feminists worried about porn should perhaps get int touch with people seeking to make porn which doens't reinforce reactionary gender ideas, as opposed to leading hysterical anti porn campaigns, espeically ones that press for greater state power eg Dworkin and MacKinnon.

I also pointed out that I have no desire to defend the porn industry, wage labour or alienation, but rather I defend the right of people to make pornography and to enjoy it.

I also am concerned about the implied pathologising of peopels sexualities in Wendals post on BDSM.

Ok, to clear that up - many feminist writers - including Greer, Solanis and Dworkin to name but a few, hold opinions that I personally disagree with and do not wish to be linked to ideologically. I have also encountered many radical feminists whose opinions I disagree with, and these writers and individuals have put me off radical feminism. I do still consider myself a feminist, but first and foremost a libertarian communist, with feminism playing a strong part in that.

I have never said I am not a feminist, I have said I am not a radical feminist and I'll stand by that.

I don't feel that either I nor Lucy have exaggerated or used (too much) irony on this thread.

this is getting frustrating.

i know that there are real disagreements on this board, about this topic. but there is so much sound and fury that i am, ironically, not sure about the underlying conflict(s).

let's see if i have this right:

on the one hand there are people who believe that non-commercial porn is a valid part of modern sexuality, as are BDSM, and various other controversial practices (which are all acceptable between consenting [human] adults).

on the other hand are people who believe that porn is a term only usefully used to describe objectionable (exploitative, violent, bad) commercial media.

on the one hand there are people who find value in dworkin's writings and don't believe that she is sex-hating or excessive.

on the other hand are people who don't like that dworkin helped write legislation.

on the one hand are people who consider "feminism" a primary label for themselves, on the other hand are people who find other labels more useful/interesting.

and everyone likes to debate and disagree and be disagreed with (which is why we're all here, right?) and no one wants to be called names or have characteristics falsely attributed to them...

have i missed anything interesting?

dot

that seems like about right.

from a press release by mackinnon and dworkin:

wendal - as an anarchist, i am opposed to attempting to have the state defend me. whether it does so "successfully" or not.

so perhaps i should have added an addendum to the "feminist" vs. "other kinds of labels" post, regarding the issue of reform vs. non-reform.

it seems on the one hand are people who believe in the necessity of state involvement to address the needs of women, and on the other hand are people who don't agree that state involvement is appropriate.

p.s. to "pathologize" something is to make that thing a sickness, and on a general level, to look at things through a health/disease lens.

something that i am interested to know, what is the libertarian communist or anarchist view on how rape would be defined and dealt with?

if 'the state' are not to get involved, how are people sorting it out in their own communities? not "how will you, when the revolution comes" but how are you, right now? is there an anti fascist type group that 'sorts out' rapists and domestic violence perpetrators? are there specific anarchist/lib com people that survivors can go to for help? how do you work out whether an alleged offence is true or not? how do you provide support for the survivor?

it is ridiculous and unfair to expect survivors of such violence to sit and wait while anarchists decide what to do, especially when theres no evidence so far to suggest that there is even a basic understanding of sexual violence and in general (certainly here) the problem is either ignored, denied, or made a joke of.

dot, the civil rights law that dworkin and mackinnon proposed, as wendal said, was not about state defending anyone. it was about civil rights, about the right of a person to sue in a civil court for damages against pornography they could prove had damaged them in some way. they discovered that women had no rights at all in these circumstances when they were working with linda marchiano. she alleged that she was raped in the making of deep throat. deep throat has made millions and is still available today. if this ordinance had existed for her then she would have been able to stop this movie from being sold and claimed 'damages'. at no point would the ordinance have made porn illegal.

all of this information, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions, is available online. i dont know whether it is laziness or intent to misinform that the same people keep banging on about censorship.

i do not recognize the difference between criminal and civil court. the courts are the courts.

the conversation about what i am doing to address rape and violence in my community can begin by visiting

http://sfbay-anarchists.org/intimateviolencezine/

wow, what a brilliant comment. i really needed that. everything is clear now. i hardly need you to use ward's name for such a scintillating insight - not that ward is an anarchist or anything.

this makes no sense to me. if the state is dealing with the things that we need, a) we have less motivation to fight it, and b) we are not learning how to address those needs ourselves.

i'm not "against unions" i just find them mostly irrelevant. mostly they are thoroughly integrated into capitalism.

do you know what laws are?

here are some sites that might be helpful when you are looking for definitions -

http://onelook.com/?w=pathology&ls=a

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+pathology&btnG=Google+Search

interesting zine dot. it sounds like it was a good thing to do, the group and then the zine. i still have questions, because the various solutions given would not have worked in many situations i have been in or seen. it seemed very much aimed at anarchist circles, and not all the people we mix with or get involved with in whatever ways are going to be anarchists, and also i felt that it only really would work if you could trust the people involved to be honest, which isnt always going to be true.

the idea that after things 'calmed down' then all involved parties could continue to be in the same community is quite a difficult one for me.

but its definitely a start, and a really good one, but as your group pointed out that sort of group and 'work' needs to be done across all communities, and that is the first time i have seen anything like that. has anyone in the uk been involved in an anarchist/lib com group with similar objectives (to talk about 'intimate violence').

revol68 writes:

Perhaps anti porn feminists wouldn't get so much stick if they weren't such a bunch of moralistic patronising fuckwits who seem happy to pathologise millions of peoples sexuality in order to further cement their dogma.

................

Perhaps, revol68, proporners like yourself wouldn't get so much stick if you weren't such a bunch of insensitive, ignorant patriarchs who seem happy to pathologise many feminists working to create liberation for women from capitalism AND patriarchy, and the industries which produce and reproduce bipolar, hierarchical, oppositional experiences and understandings of gender.

_____________________________

John writes:

Although I do disagree on basic premise of sex work being considerably more degrading than other wage labour under capital - they're all shit. Sure some are much better than others but what fundamental difference does that make? I think people like revol68 (and me) aren't saying that sex work is great fun, just that it is pointless attacking the workers in the industry, or calling for the industry as a whole should be banned.

..............

First, as noted many times, no one is calling for the banning of porn. That's a typically HISterical reply by those who cannot bear to think of porn being seriously critiqued and confronted for the real harm to women it does. Please try and keep you histeria in check, eh?

Second, if it's no better or worse than other work, are you saying you'd prefer to suck cock and take it up your ass by ten to fifteen stranger men a day, and have them cum on your face, or do what they wish, because they have paid you, day after day? If you aren't willing to do that work, why should anyone else be coerced by capitalism or patriarchy to do so? Be a prostitute or a gay porn star for two years, then get back to me about what's degrading. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If both are exploitive, as many here agree, then why bother trying to make a case that those who oppose a form of exploitation should be doing something else instead? (Would you prefer that antiporn feminists knit and breastfeed?) What sort of politic is that? (Other than patriarchally self-serving?)

______________________

revol68:

The argument is why is porn singled out for special focus as a "commodity". My argument is that those who present every woman in porn as a "victim" need to look at the banal exploitation and drudgery of everyday life if they are going to understand why someone would prefer to do porn. Are the women who actively choose a career in stripping or porn anymore victims than those women who leave rural life in China and find themselves in a sweatshop making trainers? Why do so many feminists take such an interest in the spectacular "exploitation".

..............

Why NOT single it out? If it produces subordination of women, who is served by "leaving it alone"? Not women. So what the fuck is your issue with it being taken on? If you agree it's exploitative, then do your own area of activism and get the fuck out of the way. You misunderstandings, based on pure ignorance of the industry AND the feminist response to it, make your arguments sound stupid. No one says "all women are victims" in porn. What we are saying is women are harmed in and through the production and consumption of porn. If not ALL Cambodian kids are fucked and prodded with dicks by white white Western businessmen, does that mean it becomes an issue to "not attend to" politically, through activism? If not all bunnies have chemicals put in their eyes, does that mean Animal Rights activists are wasting their time? Your arguments and logic are inane.

_______________________

revol68 writes:

wendel you seem to be mistaking porn for abuse, which whilst only an idiot would claim didn't exist, isn't actually essential to it. You do realise that there are many porn actresses who actively choose such a career because they think it's better than any of the other avenues that capitalism offers them. What would you say to a woman doing porn and who choose it because it was less degrading to her than working for £4 an hour in some shitty waitressing job? Would you patronise her as a "victim", might she not be in a position to patronise some of us for doing "degrading work"?

...............

You seem to be mistaking the 56 billion dollar a year porn industry for something that isn't deeply dehumanising and harmful.

What do you think it means, revol, that patriarchal societies will pay women more to be naked in front of men, or for men, or to be sexually available to men, than to do anything else? What's your political analysis of that? Does it not show exactly what patriarchy "values" most about women?

___________________________

revol68 writes:

Essentially we might be able to have alternative porn, with equality between men and women, but it will be equality to be commodified under capital. But to me this is of no greater importance than the commodification of any other human activity.

...................

You're speaking out of your ass, dude. No one is going to oppose the kind of porn you want more than pornographers, who are in the business of sexualizing patriarchy, even its "variations" on oppressive themes. Go tell the pornographers what kinds of porn you want to watch and tell me what their reply to you is. It's likely to be: fuck off, we're making money off misogyny. And who says you have the fucking right to access to women's bodies, visually?

And what is of greater importance to YOU seems rather beside the point, doesn't it? Should all feminists give you a call on the telly before they plan their next actions, to make sure you approve of them? Check your fucking ego.

Porn harms women. Porn teaches adolescent boys about the aesthetics and practices of patriarchal sex, and how to be turned on my flat images of fake women. That may not be such a priority for you. You may care more about women working in sweat shops. I care about women working in sweat shops too. But I would never tell you NOT to work to liberate women from sweat shops just because some of them will say they "chose that line of work" and because there are other industries of exploitation and degradation that also demand attention. You don't like the focus SOME (and relatively speaking, only a few) feminists place on the harms of porn.

Go do your own work and fuck off. The fact that you take up space arguing that some feminists should be paying attention to your priorities is about as arrogant and patriarchal as it gets.