Customer Reviews

Pornography: Women, Violence and Civil Liberties

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Whether women willingly participate in pornography or not, itis still trash. This book simply show the effects of porno on malebehavior. Is a South African female being murdered for pleasure the same as Pamela Anderson Lee posing nude for playboy, no, of course not. BUT the fact that women like Lee pose nude to gratify their own greed for money, and men's selfish lusts creates an environment where women can be objectified to the point where a female servant can be murdered for pleasure. This book very nicely presents the research that suggests that pornography has a profound effect on how women are viewed and treated, and that there is a connection between women who willingly participate and those that do not. For example perverts that are steeped in the garbage of pornography use women like Pamela Anderson Lee and other porn stars as an excuse for victimizing women, they say, "well if Lee likes it then this girl must". The above reviewer in New York takes a very liberal view towards porno. The book was well written and well researched. Did some of the connections seem strained (i.e. those that are willing participants and those that aren't? Maybe to the liberal mind who is afraid of offending anyone by taking a stand on a moral issue. Should feminists marginalize those in the porn industry? No, they should speak for all women and should work for the betterment of all women. Yet, the research clearly shows that women are harmed by pornography as well as men, that is why feminists fight so hard against the porn industry. This book is a VERY zealous effort in that direction.

My rating of this book as one of "the worst" does not refer to its academic prowess. The footnotes are all there, and the style is passionate and intense, typical of most anti-pornographers' heady intellectual indictments of one genre of media for all our gender woes. It is the worst, to me, because it is the ultimate gathering of the forces of illogic which drive the anti-pornography forces. The most extreme example of how far these people will go to attempt to prove their points comes in Itzin's own contribution, in which she relates the story of a South-African farm worker who was murdered for the amusement of the farm owner's dinner guests. Because pictures of the gruesome undertaking were shot and passed around, Itzin compares these pictures to pornography such as centerfolds. Surely this would enrage the family of the murdered man to hear his death trivialized in this way. Itzin goes on to claim that the "free speech" defenses of pornography imply that such photos (of Kasire's death and of naked women, who supposedly could not willingly choose to pose so graphically) are not only comparable, but that the distribution of both are similar crimes. Never mind that Marcia Pally has pointed out that if photos and descriptions of a rape are destroyed, the rape remains while the evidence does not. Never mind that the horrific descriptions of graphic pornography included in this book would be illegal themselves under such laws as the Proposed Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance, written by MacKinnon, who seems to be Itzin's mentor and contributed to this collection of essays. Never mind that Nadine Strossen has pointed out that women do not experience any particular freedom from rape or domination in cultures in which the production of pornography is a punishable offense. Never mind logic when we can tell by looking at pornography that it's nasty. Why not stigmatize women even more by pointing out that they're too helpless and deluded to make their own choices about whether to read or participate in pornography--good God, do these creatures even have enough sense to VOTE? I think that at least some of these anti-pornography crusaders are more obsessed with porn than any of the porn "addicts" they describe. True feminists would be out helping sex workers to get better working conditions rather than marginalizing them in the way to an even greater extent. This anti-pornography view is not "radical;" it conforms to the traditional perception of women as requiring virtue in order to lead meaningful lives. It seems to me that they ought to be attacking the concept of female virtue (oh, fate worse than death!) rather than the existence of male sexuality!