Warren De MontaJournal
with lots of eye-rolly, heavy sighing and general grousing and moaning about it when it suits them, as in when the speech is of a particular variety that gets their knickers in an endless series of twists.
Sigh... "so-called free speech", "so-called free speech concerns" "what you mistakenly label as the 1st amendment" sigh sigh eyeroll eyeroll grumble grumble...
that kind of thing.
I spent the better part of the day criticizing the administration over the Plan B decision over there, and oddly enough I have had no ill repercussions from said administration-criticizing.
What I suspect is going on, at least in some quarters, is certain small sub-groups with decidedly minority viewpoints are pissed because the tired games they've been using to force everyone to toe their ideological line, to make their views appear more universal than they actually are, and to hector and browbeat the rest of us in the name of divisive axe-grinding just may not work as well in the new format.
So I'm taking the hysteria with a grain of salt, right now.
because so-called 'jokes' perpetuate a patriarchal male gaze herteronormative paradigm of oppression
which has been scientificificinally provenated by assorted well-funded quasi-scientific researchers -who only happen to have ties to the religious right but we're not talking about that now so please dont divert from the topic of patriarchal male gaze heteronormative gender harmfulness- to harm vulnerable populations through oppressive objectification that is furthered by objectifying oppression.
SO STOP IT. And DONT LAUGH.
portrayed hard-working, entrepreneurial job creators as heartless misers, and glorified teat-suckling dependents like Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Snow White and the 7 dwarves promoted interracial, non-traditional lifestyles, as well as polyandrous relationships.
Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer enabled an agenda of bigoted intolerance towards those whose deeply held beliefs compel them to bully and mistreat anyone who is different. Plus, you know that "Dentist" elf was really supposed to be Gay.
Alice In Wonderland was equally culpable with Timothy Leary in getting a whole generation hooked on the pot and LSD.
Like I said, back up your assertions. Because they're exactly the same sort of crap an anti-choice jesus freak would try to spout unchallenged, with broad generalizations and scientific-sounding but ultimately meaningless -or blatantly false- gibberish about how such and such is 'proven to be harmful'...
...except, uh, it hasn't been.
And the ridiculous thing is, many of the EXACT SAME PEOPLE here having a tantrum that they should be allowed to 'educate' the rest of us without anyone challenging them or expecting the most minimal sort of evidentiary basis for their outlandish claims; those same folks would have a giant fucking shitfit if anti-choice godbags tried to pull the exact same nonsense over something like reproductive freedom.
If the shoe fits, lady.
commercially available porn.
You can't, because it's not there. In short, you got nothin'.
Do you know what a 2257 statement is? If you actually look at the porn that is out there, instead of hearing about it 3rd hand from Robert Jensen or Catherine MacKinnon, you will see something about documentation pertaining to 2257 compliance. That is record-keeping verifying the ADULT AGE of the performers. Since the performers provided verification of their own age, I think it's a safe bet that they consented, too. In fact, they probably signed something to that effect as well. Shit, I know from my experiences with Hollywood that you can't so much as fart near a camera without signing a consent/release form.
So there you have it.
Unless it really isn't about non-consent, or non-adults, but instead something else, for you.
doesn't cause teen bullying and suicide.
I think VALUES are important: namely, values like compassion, kindness, understanding, and also TOLERANCE and FREEDOM.
I've had all sorts of crap and name-calling thrown at my head in this thread simply because I have consistently, repeatedly, stood up for a very simple and (to me) self-explanatory position: that consenting adults should be free to do what they want in their bedrooms and in front of cameras, and other consenting adults should be free to watch them- again, if everyone is a consenting adult.
For this, I get called every name in the book, I supposedly hate women and endorse rape, and I don't care if bullied teens commit suicide. Jesus.
Some people clearly disapprove of other people's consensual sex activities- you don't need to look too hard to see it, here. You have at least one poster in the thread who likes consensual adult bondage (ie being tied up) yet others believe that any depiction of that consensual adult activity somehow harms "all women" and exerts a mojo-like quantum influence on the ability of women to achieve pay parity.
I think if the problem is SPECIFIC ads, like the one Dolce and Gabbana ad from 6 or so years ago that is continually pulled out as "Advertising is promoting rape and bondage!!!" then yes, challenge that company and challenge that ad campaign. I've often said that the answer to bad speech is good speech, MORE speech. This is not a mere academic exercise for me; I come from a Jewish family in the Midwest and I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie. I understand that the 1st Amendment is only as good as the right of the most offensive voices to be heard.
I also think there have been good campaigns aimed at promoting self-esteem in everyone from teen girls to GLBT youth, in recent years. I wholeheartedly support those campaigns.
in front of a camera.
That's as simple as I can put it, and believe it or not, I think that MOST "porn" (I put it in quotes, again, because a solid definition of what is 'porn' seems elusive in the first place) is 2 people having sex in various ways. I think "sex positive" is sort of a nonsense term, it is sex that is designed (in most cases) to be arousing to someone, so it is -at least in some cases- intended to be sex enhancing. It's hard for me to imagine how porn could be 'sex negative' because it would kind of defeat the purpose of it being 'porn'.
Part of MY objection to these discussions is the monolithic, almost 2 dimensional way they treat wide-scale, amorphous phenomena, as well as even more nebulous, ill-defined concepts such as "the general conception of women". Even if it could be argued that ONE particular porno had an effect on one particular viewer's idea or ideas about one woman or several women or even women-as-the-entire-category-of-women-who-have-ever-existed, you're still arguing, essentially, about ill-defined categories and terms enclosed in (trying to be friendly, here) at best nebulosity and spurious semi-assertion.
Now as far as what is NOT 'degrading' -- another problem is that what YOU consider degrading might not be what someone else considers degrading. Is 2 people having sex degrading? You may say, 'of course not', but let's cut to the total, honest chase here.. when we've had these threads in the past, once the Dworkin (there's that name, again!) quotes start flying, it becomes perfectly apparent that some people DO consider heterosexual, penetrative sex, at least in front of a camera if not everywhere, to be INHERENTLY 'degrading to women'. Others consider ANY picture of a naked woman that might appear to be presented in such a way that a heterosexual male might find it arousing, again, is INHERENTLY 'degrading to women'. I'm not saying that's your POV, but it is certainly one that has been argued enough times to warrant a rebuttal, or at least a question as to whether that is the default position re: what is considered 'degrading to women' in regards to, again, 'porn'.
I do NOT think 2 people having consensual, hetero, penetrative sex is inherently 'degrading to women' (I also question the whole concept, as I alluded to above, and will expand on below) nor do I think that the vast majority of sex acts that 2 people would have in most porn would be degrading to either person. I would ask, is oral sex degrading? When performed by either partner? Is anal sex degrading? I mean, there are a long list of combinations and acts and positions that could or could not be 'degrading', I'm wondering where the line is, if it's specific to what people do or something else...
Now, I spent a good amount of time working for an indie, non-corporate chain of video stores, back in the day. I was pretty familiar with the smut that was around back then. I would categorize SOME percentage of porn as, yes, misogynist, to be distinguished from 'degrading to (all) women'. I absolutely think there's a place for SPECIFIC criticism of certain SPECIFIC pieces of art or entertainment, but if you notice the hullaballoo around this thread, what you see is not an indictment of, say, the one particular Dolce & Gabbana ad that is being used, over & over again, as THE EXAMPLE of PROMOTION OF RAPE IN ADVERTISING. Rather than criticizing this one fucked up ad, it becomes ALL ads and "the ad industry" and "the media" which is manipulating and brainwashing "the culture".
What was my, personal, criteria for finding SOME -maybe 3-5% of the total- porn misogynist? (which, again, should be distinguished from 'degrading to (all) women' which is a power I don't think any specific movie or image has) It wasn't any specific act, more like the attitude. I never felt it should be censored, but I and other people working in the stores told management not to order more of it.
That said, there IS porn out there where men are insulted, spat upon, tied up, etc. by women. And some men really like that stuff. Human sexuality is complex, and yes those disclaimers about how things are role play are important. People who like to be tied up and people who like to tie those people up are engaging in consensual behavior, and that's their business and it's really not the place of others to judge it.
I think it's a vast oversimplification; both of the vast menu of entertainment options available to people as WELL as how our brains work- to suggest that one set of images is somehow programming people and beyond that capable of somehow 'interfering with the struggle for gender equality.' In the 1950s, you couldn't see married couples sleeping in the same bed on tv, and gender equality was a fucking disaster. In the decades hence, we've progressed quite a ways, and we've somehow managed to do that at the same time as we've come to a place where consenting adults can CHOOSE to see other consenting adults having sex on their tvs or the internet. I don't think the increased sexual freedom and choice have negatively impacted the struggle for gender equality; I think greater freedom and greater choice- even if it means some people are making choices you or I wouldn't make- have HELPED the struggle for all of us to be more free and have more options.
told me that the whole capitalist system needs to be dismantled, man, and instead of arguing about bourgeois concerns like a livable wage or single payer health care or sensible regulations on speculative trading and 'creative financial instruments', we REALLY need to TEAR THE MOTHERFUCKER DOWN, MAN!!! ANARCHYYYYYY!!!
He was going to say something else, but then he realized that he needed to call his dad since this month's check is late.
1) Single payer health care.
2) End the drug war. Legalize, regulate & tax marijuana.
3) 50% reduction in the military budget.
4) Restore the Bill of Rights, esp. Amendments 1 & 4.
5) reinstate Glass-Steagal.
6) tax upper income earners and corporations at a higher rate.
7) liveable minimum wage
8) if we're really worried about our kids competing for 21st century jobs, STOP LETTING FLAT FUCKING EARTHERS near our kids' science curriculum. If you don't accept the science behind evolution or global warming, you shouldn't be in charge of educating anything more intelligent than a schnauzer.
9) massive peaceful technological and infrastructure investment, everything from smart roads and metropolitan light rail to NASA.
10) Once and for all, get the government out of the personal morality business. This means if 2 consenting adults of the same gender want to get married, mazel tov. If consenting adults want to watch movies of other consenting adults fucking, and Mother Jones, Noam Chomsky, Pat Robertson or Concerned Women of America don't like it, too fucking bad. Same goes for birth control and abortion. Also, if terminally ill people want a dignified, painless exit of their own choosing, THAT'S THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS. Obviously, this applies to the drug war (#2) as well.
11) Corporations aren't people until they can be sent to prison for injuring or killing folks. Capice?
That bus she rode around the country on? I'm willing to bet it was built by a corporation. This gibberish about "corporatism" is just utter fucking nonsense. Yes, let's tax the corporations, yes let's not give them personhood, but this idea that somehow they're coming to get us unless we all grab pitchforks and take back this country for some protectionist agrarian ideal... I mean, it's fucking childish, and what Palin (and Nader) are doing is getting people with legitimate beefs- like the disappearing middle class- to blame imaginary, conspiratorial forces instead of focusing on proven real-world solutions.
We know how to improve the lives of the middle class. Education. Infrastructure. A solid social safety net. A higher marginal tax rate on upper income earners.
....but the idea that Ralph Nader (or Sarah Palin, for fuck's sake) is somehow going to usher in a utopia with no corporations is just facile.
Atheism is not a "religion". A belief system is not a "religion". A lack of belief is not the same thing as a belief. A way of looking at the world is not a "religion". The scientific method is not a "religion".
"most Atheistss in the Western World embrace some form of Humanism." According to whom? Where'd you hear that? At the Atheist Church? Got any statistics to back that up? Links?
Don't give me shit about Ayn Rand and "Atheistic Belief Systems". Buddhists don't believe in the Western Judeo-Christian "God" either. Does that make Buddhists Objectivists? Let's put it this way: You don't believe in Zeus, right? Therefore, you're a Zeus non-believer. A Zeus Atheist, if you will. Likewise, the Jim Jones cultists at Jamestown, also didn't believe in Zeus. Therefore, via your logic, your belief system must be somehow included in the venn diagram with the Jim Jones people. Right?
Oh, I'm sure you can diddle this semantic monkey all day, spouting tautological but authoritative-sounding nonsense like "Humanism fits the description of a religion blah blah blah therefore humanism is a religion"
And all frimhatzes are fully fitwardled because you have proclaimed yourself the 12th sultan of Smoot. I'm not playing this game with you, Jack. You're not making "arguments", you're just trying to stir up some of the same old tired theocratic shit.
Starting with the fact that the majority of the Vietnamese people supported unification and Ho Chi Minh, and would have voted for such had the elections they had been promised been allowed to go forward by the French (and, by extension, the Eisenhower Administration)
There is simply NO WAY to compare Vietnam to Nazi Germany, or the Vietnam war- which was overwhelmingly viewed by the majority of participants as a war for national liberation and against colonial occupation- to WWII. It's not just a weak comparison, it's a totally bogus one. Nor was Ho Chi Minh anything like Pol Pot in Cambodia. Whatever the excesses of the Hanoi regime, it's simply not a valid point to make.
Even if somehow you could make a parallel between the North Vietnam Government and the Nazis, Jane Fonda STILL wouldn't be equivalent to "Hitler". At best, she was made out to be mildly supportive of the regime. She wasn't responsible for it. It might make sense to say "I'll forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive Charles Lindbergh", that sort of thing.
But you're right, the dude clearly isn't Vietnamese.
They also enter their ideas into things like scientific debates, then engage in a lot of 'special pleading' for their ideas, like the idea that "God made everything" is so intrinsically truth-containing that it, unlike other assertions made in a scientific context or debate, doesn't need actual evidence to back it up.
THEN I see- particularly on DU- a lot of doubletalk around this particular area: One, we are constantly hectored and reminded not to conflate fundamentalist, right-wing Christians with "all Christians" or (my favorite) "Real" Christians (who are hanging out next to the True Scotsmen, no doubt) ...right? So, Fundy Christians aren't ALL Christians and they aren't the Christians on DU. Right? Good? Okay, keep following... so THEN, invariably, when a thread comes out criticizing or even (oh no!) ridiculing fundy, right-wing christians or their ludicrous beliefs (witness the 'rapture' we recently had) immediately a gang of DU Christians protests that they are personally being picked on, personally being mocked, and again, you get special pleading about how no matter how ridiculous a belief is -like the rapture happening a few weeks ago- it must not be mocked or even critically analyzed, lest DU be engaged in 'religion bashing'.
You can't have it both ways.
Can you imagine if Tip O'Neill was still alive, and he heard that someone took pictures of his PENIS! and put them on the INTERNET! and those pictures were taken in the Congressional Gym, not 10 feet from where he and Henry Hyde used to exercycle together?????!!!!!!???
Oh, who the fuck am I kidding, Tip O'Neill and Henry Hyde never went to the congressional gym.
My underwear is a spectral antenna which allows me contact with the Divine, and his only begotten son and earthly prophet, Carrot Top.
don't you dare mock my beliefs.
Not a DU Donor
Member since Thu May 20th 2004
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Did "NoElephants" pass away??
A Giant Union Is Planning to Protest the Oscars
Happy Valentines Day, old friends!
NEVER trust government. nt
By No Elephants
Shirley Temple-talented phenom and more, gone at 86
By No Elephants
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums