NW/FACT #300
15911 WESTMINSTER WAY N
SEATTLE, WA 98133
206-292-1159-VM
206-367-7756-FAX

nw-fact@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~nw-fact/femmoralism.html

FEMINIST MORALISM, PORNOGRAPHY, AND CENSORSHIP

by Barbara Dority
(This is the text of a talk given at several universities and colleges)

I should like to begin by firmly stating, despite the claims of my
detractors to the contrary in recent years, that before you stands a
long-time, committed, feminist activist. I worked for over four years in
the campaign to see the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the United
States, and I mourned with my colleagues and friends -- male and female --
when we failed. Perhaps I should take this early opportunity to point out
to an assemblage of Canadians who might not be aware of it that the most
influential and dedicated opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment in the
United States was and is a woman [Phyllis Schlafly], and the most
influential and tireless supporter was and is a man [Ted Kennedy].

In light of developments within the feminist movement (over the past six
years in particular), I am now forced to provide a precise clarification of
what I mean when I call myself a feminist. The word has been so corrupted
that I am often tempted to stop using it altogether, but have so far
refused to be forced into such a renunciation by the bullying and
ill-advised activities of others.

The dictionary definition of a feminist is 'a person who advocates or
demands for women the same rights granted to men.' I add two words: 'A
person who advocates or demands for women the same rights and
responsibilities granted to men.' This addition should be a given, since
there can be no rights without responsibilities. However, the contemporary
feminist movement has forgotten this.

I am also a deeply committed, civil libertarian activist and card-carrying
member of the American Civil Liberties Union. At its most basic and
simplified level, this means that I believe the writers of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution meant every single word exactly
and literally as they wrote it: 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press. ' No law means no law. What else
could it possibly mean? That great champion of free speech, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Hugo Black, once said, 'Well, I always thought that when the
First Amendment said `no law,' that probably meant `no law.'' Sometimes I
feel like a broken record on this point. Some of my friends have threatened
to use 'no law means no law' as my epitaph. And I have given my approval of
that plan. I figure if I can manage to be remembered for anything after I
am gone, that will do quite well.

The First Amendment does not say there is to be freedom of speech and press
provided it is not sexually explicit, or considered dangerous or offensive
by anyone. The authors of the Bill of Rights had learned firsthand why it
was absolutely necessary to permit all manner of ideas to be expressed in
the new Republic. They had lived under repressive governments, ruled
absolutely by the majority. After careful consideration and debate, they
concluded that the guarantees of free speech and press could not be
confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by the
majority, but must also always extend to those ideas considered -- by the
many or by the few -- to be socially undesirable or even repugnant. They
gave us a precious legacy based upon the firm conviction that the only way
for all citizens to be truly free was to permit all expression and to
accept and deal with the inherent risks. The strength and beauty of the
First Amendment is that it protects whatever images and words we hate as
well as those we cherish.

In the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:
'[The First Amendment] demands that government keep its hands off all
literature. There can be no freedom of expression unless all facets of life
can be portrayed, no matter how repulsive these disclosures may be to some
people.' Justice Douglas later added that in addition to freedom from
government intervention, all manner of literature and other media must
remain available in the marketplace of ideas or the purpose of free
expression is defeated. In other words, if we protect only the right to
publish and then limit availability, we are still limiting freedom of
speech.

Feminism itself could not exist without these guarantees. It is only
because of the First Amendment in the United States and its equivalents in
other countries that women have been able to speak and write in favor of
reproductive freedom and gender equality. History shows that censorship and
suppression work directly against feminist goals and are often used to
limit women's rights in the name of protection. Feminists should remember
that efforts were made to silence women who first spoke on the subject of
birth control on the grounds that the subject was obscene. Margaret Sanger
was jailed for attempting to set up birth control clinics and her
publication, Woman Rebel, was suppressed and confiscated -- all on the
grounds of obscenity. Censorship and suppression of any kind are in direct
conflict with feminist principles of freedom and tolerance. Of all people,
feminists should be the most outspoken and staunch defenders of the First
Amendment -- because feminism and civil liberties are, by definition,
totally inextricable.

The issue of pornography versus both feminism and the First Amendment has
engendered an intense debate -- a debate which directly involves a great
many issues. Will feminism continue to capitulate to self-righteous
moralism and to perpetuate blatant and vicious sexism, or will it wake up
and take a stand for the liberation of women in all domains, including the
difficult and often contradictory domain of sexual expression, which must,
of necessity, involve the liberation of men as well?

First, let us consider the word pornography, a much overused and abused
term which is uniformly invoked in a pejorative sense by feminists. A wide
range of materials have been branded with this label and condemned,
boycotted, picketed, and even banned. The definition of pornography from
Webster is 'the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing)
intended to cause sexual excitement.' The blanket condemnation of all such
materials is cause for very grave concern. Obviously, this would include a
great deal of advertising, network TV, art, film, and a vast array of
magazines, books, and videos. And, indeed, many feminists condemn most
mainstream advertising and film as degrading and harmful to women. They
also claim to possess the exclusive ability to distinguish 'dehumanizing,
objectifying, degrading' materials from 'erotica.' In making these
judgments for everyone, and in vigorously promoting Indianapolis-style
anti-pornography ordinances, the feminist movement has taken a sexist,
moralistic, censorial, and anti-sex stance.

I would like to provide a brief definition -- a profile, if you will -- of
the pro-censorship mindset. This is a relatively easy task, since it has
remained the same throughout the history of civilization. It is aimed at
protecting us from the perceived harmful effects of what we read and see
and hear. Historically, this was done to protect our souls from blasphemy
or to protect society from alien political or social or economic ideas.
Today, it is being done to protect us from explicit sexual imagery and
words. And, to the horror of many of us, it is being done in the name of
gender equality. The justification, however, remains the same: it is best
for us and it is best for society; it will help bring about the realization
of our noble aims.

Here I must insert a little first-hand observation of mine which I think is
extremely important to our understanding of the pro-censorship mindset. I
have noticed that not one of the many anti-pornography activists I have
debated -- in person or in print, male or female, from the left or from the
right -- has ever expressed the least bit of concern for the welfare and
protection of their own soul. Many of these people maintain extensive
collections of the materials they decry as deadly perils to the human
psyche. They announce this fact quite loudly, followed by detailed
descriptions of what they have observed therein during countless hours of
intensive 'study.' This blatantly displayed belief in their own moral and
spiritual superiority never ceases to amaze me.

These self-appointed, righteous moralists are not worried about their own
ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality -- they are worried
about yours; they aren't worried about their own ability to resist being
seized by uncontrollable urges to commit rape and other violence -- they
are worried about yours; they are not worried about their own ability to
remain decent, law-abiding, ethical human beings who do not wish to hurt or
degrade others -- they are worried about yours; in short, they are not
worried about their own souls -- they are worried about yours and mine.

I find it particularly appalling that this attitude is being so blatantly
and self-righteously displayed toward men by so-called feminists. This is a
very old and powerful sexist monster: the assertion of a natural moral
superiority of women over men, a vicious ideology that is ultimately just
as harmful and counterproductive to women and the goals of feminism as it
is painful and unjust to men.

In addition to the many feminists who are busy writing and promoting
censorship laws, many also write and publish absolutely brutal and sexist
attacks upon the male half of the human race, disguised as 'feminist
scholarship.' Much of the energy of the feminist movement is directed
toward organizing anti-pornography demonstrations, attempts to suppress
certain businesses, and consciousness-raising activities designed to
convince the public that pornography is a central cause of women's
oppression, and that this conspiracy of degradation is being consciously
masterminded by all men. Many feminists are committed full time to these
activities.

Despite their claims to a mandate, I am here to say that these women do not
speak for all feminists. Scores of women and men dropped out or were forced
out of the feminist movement when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated
and attention shifted more noticeably than ever to sexist moralizing and
male-bashing. This stance has alienated many former allies of the women's
movement, and discouraged younger women and men from participating. We will
never know how many feminists were lost to activism, or were never
activated, as a result of this betrayal of the basic goals and principles
of feminism.

The anti-pornography stance of the feminist movement has come to encompass
some virtually standard behaviors which are, in my opinion, unethical,
unjust, and just plain unbefitting of any decent, freedom-loving person.
Women who question the moralistic dogma are ostracized, informed that they
are not 'real feminists,' categorized as 'selfish practitioners of
patriarchal forms of sex,' and much worse. We of the Feminist
Anti-Censorship Taskforce have been publicly called 'cynical slime,'
'insane and demented,' and 'pimps' by no less than Andrea Dworkin and
Catherine McKinnon, the two foremost feminist writers and crusaders for
anti-pornography legislation in the United States. When I debated Andrea
Dworkin on television, she turned to me and my female psychologist
colleague during the first commercial break, sneered, and called us 'child
pornographers.' I am often accused of being a front for the pornography
industry and charged with telling lies for my real employers.

From my own experience and that which has been shared with me by many women
I have met in Washington state and across the country, I have accumulated a
file of horror stories. I shall leave it to your imagination what happens
to the few brave (or naive) men who commit the ultimate sacrilege of
questioning or objecting to the vicious feminist characterizations of
themselves as a class of malignant, violent rapists and misogynists.

In answer to these charges, I sometimes quote Robert Ingersoll.
'Arguments,' he said, 'cannot be answered by personal abuse. There is no
logic in slander.'

There are two crucial issues involved in this debate. First, the moralistic
condemnations of pornography and male sexuality, indeed, maleness itself,
by so-called feminists, and, second, the translation of that condemnation
by nearly all contemporary feminist leaders and writers into calls for
various kinds of legislation which would effectively ban pornographic
imagery and words, including adult entertainment. Both of these campaigns
are very alarming to many of us.

The concept of anti-pornography ordinances is based upon the notion that
pornography is a civil rights issue because it degrades women and
encourages discrimination against them. Feminists maintain that pornography
is sex discrimination and 'hate literature' against women -- a legal
violation of women's civil rights. The United States National Organization
for Women has taken this official position since 1984. (I am assuming that
at least some of you are familiar with George Orwell's book, 1984, and its
frightening Orwellian predictions.) It was my last year of membership in
NOW and an appropriate year for such a declaration from a supposedly civil
rights organization allegedly working for sexual liberation.

Accordingly, NOW supports ordinances which suppress pornography by allowing
civil suits against publishers and distributors whose materials are alleged
to be degrading or demeaning to women, or whose materials have supposedly
caused discrimination or direct attacks on women. Under these ordinances,
any woman may bring suit on behalf of any other or all women. Legal orders
would then be issued forcing the removal of the items in question and
imposing fines on publishers and distributors.

This civil rights violation approach runs contrary to all existing civil
rights laws, the intent and application of which clearly establish that,
legally, discrimination is not what people say, or write, or depict about
other people -- discrimination is what people do to other people. Any
method which attacks pictures or words with certain themes is fundamentally
at odds with the entire civil rights approach used in most countries to
combat discrimination and oppression. Conduct is the subject of all civil
rights legislation. In a free society, there are no crimes of thought --
only crimes of action.

The claim that certain forms of expression are dangerous and an incitement
to violence has been used time after time to try to prohibit speech that
some people don't like. Although some of us do not support exceptions to
the First Amendment, believing there are other equally effective ways to
deal with any problems, the notion of 'a clear and present danger' was
formulated by the United States Supreme Court to address this threat. I
refer to the concept commonly called 'yelling `Fire!' in a crowded
theatre.' It is currently against the law in the United States to exercise
one's right of free speech in this manner because it is said to present a
clear and immediate danger to others since injuries are possible in the
panic to escape, and there would be no time for 'counteracting speech'
before such a reaction set in.

For pornography to be suppressed under this test, we would have to
demonstrate that any viewer is likely to be provoked to sexual violence
immediately upon seeing it. Even most anti-pornography crusaders do not
claim that this is true.

Fortunately, anti-pornography legislation in the United States has so far
been declared unconstitutional wherever it has been enacted. In her ruling
overturning the original Indianapolis anti-pornography ordinance on the
grounds that it violated the First Amendment, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
summarized some of the dangers when she wrote that the law was
unconstitutionally vague and called for unlawful prior restraint.

'This law unconstitutionally diminishes our fundamental freedoms,' she
wrote, 'and would open the way for legislation prohibiting other sorts of
expression offensive to other groups.'

Despite this and several other major defeats, the battle continues in many
forms, by initiative and by legislation, in countless cities, counties, and
states. When a recent ordinance of this type was challenged by my own ACLU
in Washington state, the Seattle chapter of the National Organization for
Women submitted a brief in unequivocal support of the ordinance in total.
It was subsequently ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated
the First Amendment by U.S. District Court Judge Carolyn Dimmick, who
wrote: '. . . much as alteration [of sociological patterns] may be
necessary and desirable, free speech, rather than the enemy, is a
long-tested and worthy ally. To deny free speech in order to engineer
social change . . . erodes the freedoms of all and threatens tyranny and
injustice . . .'

I must here take time to address the issue of campus censorship via speech
restrictive policies aimed at eliminating discrimination, sexism, and
racism. Because I am aware that these methods are currently being
considered at the University of Alberta, I feel an obligation to say a few
words about such policies, which have been adopted and are currently being
challenged on a growing number of university campuses in both the United
States and Canada.

Under university anti-discrimination policies, students have been
disciplined and even expelled from dormitories at such diverse institutions
as the University of Connecticut (where a suit has been filed by a student
who was expelled from her dorm for a supposedly homophobic poster on her
door), the University of Michigan (where the policy calls for discipline of
persons who engage in 'any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes,
victimizes, humiliates, or degrades an individual on the basis of race,
sex,' or a host of other criteria), the State University of New York at
Buffalo (where two law students are suing to overturn a policy prohibiting
language 'based on prejudice or directed at another's race, sex, religion,
national origin, age, or sexual preference, as well as 'homophobic and
anti-lesbian, ageist and ethnically derogatory statements, and other
remarks based on prejudice and group stereotype'), and the University of
Iowa (where a conservative newspaper contained an article and an ad for a
T-shirt which were attacked for being homophobic).

To civil libertarians and anti-censorship activists, this is a particularly
alarming trend. Surely, of all places, the basic concepts of intellectual
freedom and free speech should be absolutely respected on university
campuses. Nearly all the supposed guidelines for these policies are
extremely vague and require subjective interpretation. Even if we could all
agree that a certain T-shirt or sign or skit or article was, let's say,
disrespectful and sexist, this is no cause for censorship and
witch-hunting. (It would be extremely inaccurate to assume that I am
putting my personal seal of approval on any of these activities -- approval
or disapproval is not at issue here.)

It is also my understanding that posters and cartoons have been displayed
on this campus which portray violence against both sexes and make explicit
sexual jokes about both women and men. Why are women being singled out for
protection from these words and images? When will feminists realize that
for true gender equality to flourish, we must move beyond this insidious
'Please, there are ladies present!' mentality? Why do women need
protections that men do not need, or even think to ask for? Why can't
feminists see that this very attitude has been the principle cause of
women's oppression since the dawn of civilization?

I have read that a significant number of the female engineering students
here have spoken out to say that they are not victims of sexism. I applaud
the honesty and courage of these women. But I read that, as usual,
pro-censorship feminists on campus have responded that their sisters are
obviously 'semi-conscious' and 'brainwashed.' How appalling. We will return
to this tragic and misguided attitude later.

I want to go on record on this campus as stating unequivocally that the
solution to a bad idea is a better idea; the solution to speech we don't
like is more speech. I want to state, for the consideration of those who
will be making these decisions, that the fatal flaw in the concept of such
policies is to be found by revisiting Judge Dimmick's ruling on the
unconstitutionality of the Indianapolis anti-pornography ordinance, '. . .
much as alteration [of sociological patterns] may be necessary and
desirable, free speech, rather than the enemy, is a long-tested and worthy
ally. To deny free speech in order to engineer social change . . . erodes
the freedoms of all and threatens tyranny and injustice . . . '

I can only hope that reason and liberty will prevail here at your
university.

Returning to anti-pornography legislation, these ordinances would not
censor images that are violent and misogynistic, but not sexually explicit.
Why would sexually explicit images be given special treatment unless the
proponents believe, as do many people on the right with whom they are
allied on this issue, that there is something inherently wrong with most
sex? These ordinances are premised on the notion that women are victims of
sex and that sex is degrading to women, but not to men. Although the
ordinances are written by women, the predominantly male judiciary would
interpret them. By offering these laws, feminists promote giving power to
the state, not to women, to make decisions about women. In an area where
even all feminists cannot agree on the meaning of a sexual image, one would
think it would be obvious that it would be a grave mistake to give control
to the judiciary to make these decisions.

On the contrary, we need to free sex from state control through the
decriminalization of prostitution and sodomy, instead of creating laws that
assume women are victims of sex and that sex is evil. Such protectionist
legislation fits right into the agenda of conservatives to clean up society
by eliminating amoral sexuality and the immoral sex industries, and by
putting women back into their traditional roles. Feminists should be aware
that these political conservatives will not stop at 'men's magazines' like
Playboy and Hustler. They disapprove of all sexually explicit materials.
Are feminists prepared for attacks on sex education texts? Are they ready
to counter assaults on sexually explicit and violent writings from
'radical' feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin's own sexually explicit and
violent novel, Ice and Fire?

Of course some materials are considered offensive and degrading by many
women, and few would claim that sex discrimination no longer exists. But
many materials are equally offensive, degrading, and oppressive to men,
blatantly promoting not only their oppression but their brutalization.
Using the same feminist reasoning, men would certainly be justified in
demanding legislation to suppress the many feminist writings and films
which portray them as a class of violent, misogynistic oppressors,
war-mongers, child molesters, bad parents, and literally hold them
exclusively responsible for every evil which has befallen humanity since
the dawn of time. Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will would be one of the
first books to be suppressed under this sort of legislation.

What of the fact that there are still aspects of our cultures which
seriously offend some Indians, Hispanics, Asians, and homosexuals? What of
the fact that anti-Semitic literature is inarguably distressful to many
Jews, as is racist literature to many Blacks? I submit that if we support
the concept of suppression based on this bankrupt theory of civil rights
infringement, we must also grant to men and racial, ethnic, and religious
minorities a civil right to suppress speech which they find objectionable.
Any other course would be blatantly and indefensibly both sexist and
racist.

The assertion that pornography leads to sexism and violence forms the basis
for these proposals. This totally unsupported claim draws on simplistic
behaviorist psychology and has been repeatedly discredited by reputable
specialists in sexual behavior. Even the notorious Meese Commission on
pornography (which was stacked with conservative, anti-porn activists)
reported that no such causal link can be substantiated. Many studies show
no effects from the viewing of sexually explicit materials, whether violent
or not, and some studies suggest that exposure to pornography may be
beneficial by serving as an outlet for persons who might otherwise offend.
In point of fact, evidence indicates that sexual offenders are typically
raised in sexually repressed homes and have had less exposure to sexually
explicit materials than non-offenders. Many of us believe that a large
portion of the real answer to reducing violence, especially sexual
violence, lies in more speech and in more openness about sexuality.

Studies of the content of men's magazines and adult videos have found that
violent or coercive imagery is a very small fraction of all sexual images
-- approximately 5% -- and that there is much less violence in pornography
than in nonsexual media. There is far more violence in Saturday morning
cartoons than in 95% of all sexually explicit media. Even the strongest
advocates of censorship must usually admit that most men can look at a
'men's magazine' without being overcome by uncontrollable urges to assault
women and children.

Anecdotal stories of sex offenders who are found to possess pornography are
often cited. As Sol Gordon has pointed out, a large percentage of these
offenders are also found to possess milk in their refrigerators. Sporadic
incidents do not prove a correlation, nor does a correlation prove
causation. This is a basic maxim of any scientific research, and holds
particularly true when attempting to examine and predict the complexities
of human behavior.

Another point which must be made is that if these proposed censorship laws
are passed, an illusion would be created that something is being done to
end sexism and sexual violence; an illusion that would have a harmful
effect in and of itself. We need, all of us, to address the problems of
violence in our societies -- violence to both women and men and to male and
female children. But these censorship measures now being promoted by
alliances of feminists and conservatives will be counterproductive and
worthless.

Sexism and violence toward women, and men, was a reality long before
pornography as we know it today existed and long before there were
facilities for the mass distribution of words and images. Sexist and
violent materials are symptoms of a sexist and violent society -- not the
causes. Sexist and violent materials do not create violence, people do. If
we really want to address violence, the movement against pornography is a
diversion. Pornography is not violence. Stopping it will not stop violence.
In point of fact, we have a good deal of evidence to indicate that such a
further regression into sexual suppression would serve to significantly
increase violence.

Even if it is assumed that a small percentage of people are 'encouraged' to
engage in sexist behavior or commit violent acts after exposure to certain
books or films, this still would not justify suppression. Such a 'pervert's
veto' would threaten a broad range of literature and film. Should we allow
the unstable few to exercise a veto over what the rest of us may hear, see,
or read? A free society must accept the risks that come with liberty.

Feminists are more than willing, along with right-wing, anti-pornography
zealots, to accept the 'porn made me do it' rationales of convicted
rapists, murderers, and known psychopaths. Worse yet and more frightening,
they are willing to actually fashion laws based on the likes of Ted Bundy.
With the string-pulling help and encouragement of John Tanner, Florida's
conservative Fundamentalist Attorney General and 'interviewer' Rev. James
Dobson, a long-time anti-pornography crusader, Ted Bundy engineered and
staged an execution-eve 'pornography made me do it' performance which the
media willingly turned into quite a spectacle.

There was Ted Bundy, convicted multiple rapist and killer, long-established
psychopath and master manipulator, on every nightly news broadcast in
America for three evenings having his final joke on us all. Are we really
expected to accept the social commentary and recommendations of this
obviously sick and terribly disturbed human being? Psychiatrists who have
worked with Bundy for many years have pointed out that we have only to look
into this man's twisted and violent early childhood for the causes of his
psychopathy.

Of course we are affected in various ways by the things we hear, read, and
see. No one would claim otherwise. But people receive different messages
from these influences, just as people receive different messages from
sexually explicit material. It is ridiculous and dangerous to conclude that
a picture or an idea will have the same effect on all viewers or readers.
Charles Manson testified that he was inspired by the Biblical Book of
Revelation to commit multiple murders. Young men involved in interracial
street fights have said that viewing the TV serial Roots led them to commit
crimes. John Hinckley testified that he knew he had to kill Ronald Reagan
immediately after reading Catcher in the Rye. Surely the testimony of these
violent criminals is as good, if not better, than the word of Ted Bundy.
Shall we ban Roots? Shall we ban the Bible? (In fact, legal experts have
confirmed that the Bible would be actionable under the Dworkin-McKinnon
model anti-pornography ordinances. The Bible is replete with instances of
incest, sexual violence, and sexual deviation.) Where would it end?

If viewing and reading sexually explicit and violent materials caused
people to become sex criminals, I submit that all the members of the Meese
Commission would now be dangerous sexual predators. They steeped
themselves, day after day for nearly a year, in the most extreme sort of
materials they could find. The same would be true of the many sociologists
who study this material, countless persons who create, publish, and
disseminate it, mental health professionals who work with sex offenders,
and all the moralists on the right and the left who pore over these
materials as they analyze them for the rest of us.

In many repressive countries -- whether in Central America, Asia, Africa,
Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, there is practically no pornography,
but there is a great deal of sexism and violence against women -- and men.
In the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where there are almost no restrictions
on sexually explicit materials, the rate of sex-related crime is much lower
than in the United States. Pornography is virtually irrelevant to the
existence of sexism and violence. Again, Sol Gordon says, 'The elimination
of sexually explicit material would not prevent one single rape.' Only the
arduous process of education, the transformation of hearts and minds, will
change the manifestations of sexism and violence in our culture and in our
world -- sexism and violence against women, children, and men.

Nor does a causal relationship exist between an increase in the
availability of pornography and inequality for women. While pornography and
the availability thereof has increased over the past 50 years, the rights
of women have jumped dramatically. If a correlation existed, couldn't we
expect the opposite to be true? Shall we conclude, then, that the increased
availability of pornography has been directly responsible for the
advancement of women's rights? Obviously, both these assertions of causal
relationships are spurious.

We must realize that there are no simple, easy answers to sexism and
violence. The causes of violence are extremely complicated. They are based
in economic, political, and family structures in which both men and women
grow up and live. Reducing violence means taking on every part of our
societies which fosters or condones violence. Directing our attention to
actual instances of violence, we must work to eliminate all violence,
including physical violence in childrearing and violence committed by our
governments.

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to mention something that seems
to surprise a lot of people, even though it is easily-obtainable and
irrefutable information. The facts and statistics about violence are being
grossly distorted by feminists. While it is true that most violent crimes
are committed by men, it is also true that the vast majority of these
violent crimes are committed against other men. Violence against women is a
small percentage of all violence. In the United States, a man is 3 times
more likely than a woman to be murdered and 2 to 3 times more likely to be
violently robbed or assaulted.

I find it very revealing of underlying assumptions and incredible sexism
that violence against men has always been viewed and treated as if it were
of much less consequence than violence against women. In fact, violence
against men is trivialized.

When we are asked what we would do to end violence -- against all people --
we reply that there are no easy answers. We're kidding ourselves to think
there are. Activism is needed on a broad range of issues. The work is a
long and often frustrating process. But it must be done, by men and women
working together with the common goal of creating a better, more humane
life for all people. Some women tell us this is not good enough. But it's
the only answer we have -- the only honest answer.

Many feminists would have us believe that all pornography is violent. But,
in reality, as we have already seen, a very small percentage of sexually
explicit material can be said to contain images of violence or coercion. In
95% of all pornographic media, women are presented as active agents of
their own powerful sexuality and shown as experiencing as much pleasure as
men. In the fantasy-land of pornography, sex is guilt-free, not connected
with reproduction or tied to monogamy or marriage, and enjoyed equally by
male and female. It is difficult to see why such portrayals are sexist or
demeaning to women -- or to men. Unless, of course, common heterosexual
activities in and of themselves are assumed to be demeaning to women. And
here lies the answer. Many 'feminist scholars and theorists' bluntly
maintain that heterosexual sex itself is inherently degrading to women and
is always, in actuality, rape.

Many people, especially those with clear underlying agendas, seem genuinely
surprised when I talk about the actual presentation of women in the vast
majority of pornography. Many outright deny that what I am saying is true,
maintaining, along with Susan Brownmiller in Take Back the Night, that
'standard pornographic fare is the presentation of the female body being
stripped, bound, raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered in the name of
commercial entertainment and free speech.' Susan had to look very hard and
be very, very selective to accumulate such a collection because these sorts
of representations are far from 'standard fare' in sexually explicit
materials.

You don't have to take my word for this -- I encourage you to go and see
for yourself. I challenge you to go to any local rental outlet that carries
adult videos and randomly pick up any ten tapes from ten different shelves
or locations. Take them home and make a list of all the acts of rape,
torture, mutilation, and murder that you see.

Nevertheless, the five percent of pornography which can be said to contain
images of violence or coercion is worthy of our consideration. 'Violent
pornography' is viewed by many as the most offensive form of expression.
Most of this material consists of what is commonly called sadomasochistic
images and words and can be seen in two ways: as the depiction of
consensual sadomasochism or as the depiction of actual coercion and
violence against non-consenting persons. If it is the latter, the actual
perpetrators of the violence or coercion have broken the law and should be
prosecuted to its full extent. However, not everyone sees the degradation
of women or men in depictions of 'violent' sexual activity. What some find
degrading, others find erotic.

Human sexual behavior is very complicated. A significant minority of
persons, male and female, like to engage in sadomasochistic activity (this
broad term encompasses even the mildest of bondage activities) and do so of
their own free will. They enjoy publications which depict or describe this
behavior. It is not a crime or an issue subject to moral judgment to
fantasize about rape, or even for two consenting adults to choose to enact
a pretend rape. It is not anyone's right to judge the private sexual
fantasies, inclinations, or activities of other consenting adults. It is
completely out of line to become so overcome with a desire to redress all
power imbalances between the sexes that we actually set out to rid the
human psyche of certain types of sexual inclinations and pleasures.

Sadomasochistic activities are not designed to degrade or promote violence
against women or men, but rather to satisfy a sexual need of the
participants. Sadomasochistic behavior is not even about violence. It is
about the sexual pleasure some people find in dominance and submission and
controlled pain. Again, I suggest a trip to one's local video store, where
it will be quickly discovered that men are shown in submission to women and
receiving pain just about as often as the reverse. If depictions of
dominant men and submissive women say terrible things about male sexuality,
what do these depictions of dominant women and submissive men say about
female sexuality? And where does lesbian S & M and male homosexual S & M
fit into this analysis? It seems clear to me that this tells us that in a
truly sexually liberated culture, men and women will not be very different
in their personal sexual inclinations and behaviors.

Pat Califia, a woman after my own heart, has written in a collection of
lesbian S & M tales that 'women want and need the freedom to be outrageous,
out-of-doors, out-of-bounds, out after dark, without being silenced or
punished by stigma . . . We have a right to pleasure ourselves, and access
to pornography is part of that.'

But we are told by most feminists that we must especially condemn not only
all materials depicting violence but the sexual practices associated with S
& M themselves to prove that we are opposed to violence against women. We
must condemn nearly all sexually explicit materials as degrading to women
and label pornography a principal cause of women's oppression in order to
retain our credentials as feminists. Many feminist women and men refuse to
do this. We believe it is possible to be feminists dedicated to equal
rights and the elimination of violence against women while defending the
freedom of all kinds of sexual expression. We believe that our work against
violence must be directed at actual instances of violence against both men
and women, rather than at images in sex magazines and videos.

'Pornography is violence against women' -- a popular organizing slogan in
both the United States and Canada. Come on -- let's get real. It is
abundantly clear that the real focus of the anti-pornography campaign is
not violence, but sex and images of sexual behavior. I believe that sexual
materials are being attacked because sex has always been an easy,
vulnerable target and has always been something from which our cultures
have 'protected' women. Most of us still live in extremely sexually
inhibited societies.

I hope that some of the underlying 'theories' and assumptions about men,
male sexuality, and male/female sexual relationships involved here have by
now become clear. But it is absolutely imperative to explore these further
if we are to understand the magnitude of the problem.

To the horror of many of us, the underlying ideology of feminist theory has
become a malignant 'analysis' and vision of men. Men who dare to enjoy any
type of sexually explicit material are condemned as predatory, sexist pigs
who are in a direct enabling conspiracy with rapists, sadists, and
murderers of women. It is bluntly asserted that male sexuality itself is
inherently destructive, violent, and 'pro-rape.' This is blatant and
vicious sexism of the worst possible sort. These women, in their so-called
'feminist scholarship,' are attacking every man I have ever loved -- my
friends, my lovers, my partners, my two brothers, my father, my uncles, my
many young adopted sons, the sons of all my friends, my male colleagues in
the fight for freedom and justice, and every adored male teacher and mentor
who has ever graced my life. I will not stand silently by while these
decent, gentle, loving, exemplary human beings who have earned my love and
respect are slandered and vilified in this cruel and intolerable manner. Do
I need to mention what happens to any woman who dares to come to the
defense of her brothers in the face of this demagoguery?

After reading much of Andrea Dworkin's writing -- a woman lauded by most
feminists as a major feminist theorist and scholar -- and after
encountering her personally, it is clear to me that the Dworkinization of
any culture would mean nothing more than the establishment of a
woman-superior sexism in which the human male is perceived as a dangerous
beast who must be caged by the use of the strongest possible cultural
restraints. I am very sad to say that this scenario is already upon us in
many ways.

I am disgusted by the reams of sheer hate literature against men that have
flooded the women's issues sections of bookstores and the women's studies
programs of many universities. Under the guise of 'feminist scholarship'
and 'women's studies,' feminists have attempted to deny any differences
whatsoever between the sexes, created the 'theory' of eco-feminism (which
holds males solely responsible for the entire ecological devastation of the
planet), denied much of history as 'male-created myth,' and directly
attacked science, biology, and mathematics as 'sexist, racist, homophobic,
and classist.' My favorite example of this is 'feminist philosopher' Sandra
Harding, who claims to find 'rape and torture metaphors' in the scientific
writings of Sir Francis Bacon and Machiavelli. She goes on to conclude that
'male scientific investigations are meant to pacify, control, exploit, and
manipulate women or to glorify males and their domination,' and suggests
that Newton's laws be referred to as 'Newton's rape manual.' Other
'feminist epistemologists' see male dominance in the 'master molecule'
theory of DNA functioning and the description of evolution as a 'struggle'
to survive.

I am ashamed and embarrassed for these women. I am frightened by their
total lack of reason or sanity. I am amazed that otherwise intelligent,
educated, and thoughtful women are uncritically accepting such obviously
false and outrageous ideology.

For a thorough and very enjoyable analysis of this anti-male concept,
complete with countless feminist quotes and citations which I do not have
time to provide here, I highly recommend a book -- by a man, John Gordon --
called The Myth of the Monstrous Male. I discovered this splendid book
about a year ago. It is one of the very few books of its type. It is,
unfortunately, out of print, but is still available in most larger
libraries. I recommend it very highly.

I, along with many other feminists, do not believe that Playboy and
Penthouse are sexist or that the presentation of the naked female body,
whether or not in 'inviting positions,' is intrinsically sexist. We do not
believe that sexually explicit photos and words are intrinsically
exploitative, degrading, or objectifying.

In 1984, when the National Organization for Women began their
anti-pornography campaign, Karen DeCrow, a constitutional lawyer and a
former President of NOW (I believe she would be immediately removed today)
wrote a widely reprinted Op-Ed piece for a major newspaper syndicate
entitled 'Plenty of sex, but no sexism.' I would like to quote briefly from
her courageous and particularly insightful remarks:

Sexism can be defined as the belief that one sex is inferior to the other,
or that one form of sex is superior to another. It is clear to me that
Penthouse is a magazine devoted to sex but absolutely is not a sexist
magazine. Anyone who objects to Penthouse -- whether a misguided feminist
trying to have it removed from bookstores, or a misdirected parent trying
to keep it away from a teenager, or a frightened preacher who thinks
enjoying sex is a sure ticket to damnation -- is disapproving of it because
of the sexual content. There is simply no sexism in this magazine. It
contains articles and photographs depicting heterosexual and homosexual sex
without a trace of homophobia. It features articles that laud male pleasure
and female pleasure equally. I can find no putdowns of women, no suggestion
that women are to be exploited, hurt, oppressed, or even asked to cook
dinner. There is no suggestion that women be forced to have sex against
their will. There is no hint that children are the sole responsibility of
women [in fact, the magazine promotes equal parenting responsibilities,
including joint custody upon divorce]. There is no suggestion that men are
intellectually superior. Showing women in the nude is not necessarily
exploitation. Artists have celebrated human life by painting and sculpting
the nude human form for generations. It was, in fact, the nude male body
which was primarily shown and reviewed in ancient Greece.

Many leaders in the feminist movement assert that the message of all
pornography, even 'soft-core,' is that women are slaves whose bodies are
for sale and available to be used and degraded. But, in fact, most of what
is available in adult videos and magazines simply portrays common
heterosexual behavior between consenting adults. The latest figures
compiled from a national survey of video stores [Variety, Jan. 17, 1990]
will tell us who is renting adult videos: 53% are rented by men, 29% are
rented by couples, and 18% are rented by women. More women are now entering
the adult video business in executive and sales positions, and women like
Susie Bright, Candida Royalle, Veronica Vera, and Ann Sprinkle, tired of
hearing women described as sexual victims by other feminists, are producing
pornographic films and magazines. (Anti-pornography feminists definitely do
not approve of most of the work produced by these women.)

In the final analysis, we are faced with the inescapable question, 'Who
will decide?' Whose definitions of certain highly subjective terms are we
to use? Who will distinguish 'dehumanizing, objectifying, degrading'
materials from 'erotica'?

Who will make all the necessary individual judgments on behalf of all of
us? Predictably, many anti-pornography feminists have offered to sacrifice
themselves to perform this service. (Remember our analysis of the
pro-censorship individual who never displays any concern for the welfare
and protection of his or her own soul.) One of my favorite examples of the
level of consistency, clarity, and logic we could expect from this
arrangement comes from my own experience.

An article containing one incredible statement after another appeared in
the 'Feminist Caucus' column of the national newsletter of a philosophical
organization of which I am a long-time member. The author, an
anti-pornography feminist and supporter of censorship ordinances, first
regaled readers with the usual slanderous tirade against men and invoked
the tired old adage, 'Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice.'
After making the incredible statement that 'the fastest way to strip
someone of dignity is to strip them literally' -- and alluding to Jews in
concentration camps to supposedly 'prove' this point! -- she added an
'author's note' to this diatribe which read, 'Please note that the word
pornography is not synonymous with erotica.'

In the next issue, among my other requests for clarification and
substantiation, I asked, 'Is erotica, then, an activity engaged in while
clothed?' I never received an answer to this question, which seems to me a
very logical one to ask. In fact, her response contained no clarifications
or substantiations of any of her claims. It consisted entirely of character
assaults and charges that I had attacked her using smear tactics and ad
hominem arguments (a typical response when these women are challenged). I,
for one, am not willing to have women like this making decisions for all of
us about what constitutes 'pornography' and what constitutes 'erotica.'

Many of us, women and men, do not accept the assertion that women presented
as active agents of their own sexuality are 'on display' and 'dehumanized
as sexual objects,' or that women represented as engaging in sex with more
than one man are being pictured as 'whores by nature.' These moralistic
ideologies alienate not only women in the sex industry, but also women who
create their own sexual pleasure without regard for its political
correctness. Many of us believe it is a tragedy that the feminist movement
has been drawn into an anti-sex stance, condemning 'deviant' sexual
representation and expression as part of a moralistic tangent to wipe out
smut.

Which brings us to the subject of women in the sex industry.

We are told by feminists that no 'normal' woman rationally chooses or
consensually participates in the sex industry, being at best naive or
brainwashed. How moralistic and insulting can you get? I often suggest that
such people make an effort to find out how these women feel about their
judgmental condescension and their 'we know what's best for you' attitude.
I suggest they talk to them, and listen to what they say. If this activity
is beneath them, I suggest they read any number of their works to be found
at the library.

We are pleased to have women in the sex industry as members of the
Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce. Several are topless dancers.
Again, as they have for some years now, the local NOW chapter is urging the
Seattle City Council to adopt a resolution recognizing pornography,
specifically including prostitution and topless dancing, as harmful to
women and a violation of their civil rights. Our members have written
several letters to the editor, pointing out that their so-called sisters in
NOW are proposing that they and their work be criminalized, and promoting
their further ostracism. 'Aren't we your sisters, too?,' they ask. 'Don't
we have just as much right to decide to use and display our bodies to make
a living as we have to decide not to use our bodies to gestate a fetus?'
Perhaps, they suggest, the National Organization for Women should change
their name to the National Organization for Holier-Than-Thou Women.

This makes a most salient point: in the utopian vision of these feminists,
a woman would be free to be a corporate executive or President of the
United States, but not free to be a topless dancer or a pornography
actress; she would be free to read a novel by Susan Brownmiller, but not
one by Rosemary Rogers; she would be free to have an abortion, but not free
to conceive while engaged in creating her own sexual pleasure with the man
or woman of her choice without regard for her rating on the feminist litmus
test for political correctness.

It is argued that women who work in the adult entertainment industry are
often abused. Yes, this is too often true. We should be working to see that
those who perpetrate this abuse are arrested and prosecuted to the full
extent of the law. These women receive less protection and are sometimes
abused specifically because the larger community has stigmatized them,
condemning them as 'bad women,' including their feminist 'sisters.' We
should be working for the rights and safety of these women and promoting
respect for them and their work, not further jeopardizing them by heaping
scorn on their work and attempting to criminalize it.

As for women who enjoy pornography -- feminists have pronounced them
'brainwashed by patriarchy.' This Victorian imagery -- pure, morally
superior women controlling the vile, lustful impulses of men and being
unable to think independently for themselves -- is a sexist stereotype we
should be working against, not one we should be promoting. In this
analysis, as many 'feminist theorists' bluntly tell us, women can never
freely choose to have sex with men. In this analysis, women can never
choose to use 'male-identified' imagery in their sexual fantasies and
practices and certainly can't ever freely choose to earn their living by
inviting the rapacious male gaze or providing sexual services to men.

Tragically, all the various aspects of this anti-male and anti-pornography
campaign are diverting funds and energy from work that will diminish sexism
and violence. Abortion rights are under seige in the U.S., and, despite
constant agitation by some of us, there has been no serious or concerted
effort to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment. Advocacy and work toward
job training, quality day and health care; access to birth control,
accurate sex education and the teaching of critical thinking skills in
schools; and funding for battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers
must be undertaken.

The federal government in the United States has slashed funding for
agencies and programs that serve women, and we've let them get away with
it. Many organizations have been completely de-funded, ironically,
especially those dealing with violence. While harming women in these
obvious and vicious ways, first the Reagan and now the Bush administration
claim they are helping women by moving to eradicate pornography. How can we
buy such logic?

Expanded vice squads, sting operations, harsh jail sentences, even advocacy
of castration for sex offenders, punitive fines, and the arrest and further
criminalization of women in the sex industry have been the natural result
of the current climate. Obscenity crackdowns are already affecting feminist
materials and lesbian and gay materials, as well as sex education
materials.

Many of us believe that all this feminist moralizing and sexism against men
and its attendant calls for censorship have totally undermined the
integrity of the feminist movement. Being a feminist means being against
sexism, not against sex.

In her book Against Sadomasochism (one of many feminist writings which
condemns any woman or man who enjoys, engages in, or even fantasies about
any sort of bondage or other S & M activity, no matter how mild), feminist
Ti Grace Atkinson writes, 'I do not know any feminist worthy of that name
who, forced to choose between freedom and sex, would choose sex.' This is
the choice being presented to feminist women and men. The feminist movement
betrays its principles and destroys its credibility with this rhetoric.

Many of us, women and men, insist on the right to choose both freedom and
sexuality. We cannot afford to remain divided and sidetracked. Let us, men
and women, create a movement for real gender equality and the elimination
of violence against all people. Only by working for meaningful social
reform can we ever hope to live in the safe, just society of our dreams.

Let us acknowledge that we are all in this thing together; we are all human
beings looking for ways to live more freely and more fully. Let us condemn
sexism in all its ugly and painful forms, against men as well as women. Let
us be humanists. Let us roll up our sleeves together and go to work, as
friends and colleagues and co-conspirators, to bring about a world where
women and men may live in freedom, with justice. Nobody ever said that
change would come quickly, or that the work was going to be easy. But it is
our commitment and our responsibility. Besides, what other choice do we
have? And if we don't do it, who will?

I am here to issue a plea for sanity and justice. We must bury the rhetoric
and the demagoguery -- we cannot move forward until we do. Taking a stand
together for true gender equality is our only salvation. I see a network of
us growing, and it excites me. I feel a solidarity of committed people,
waking up to the immediate perils we face, together, and forming new
alliances and solid, respectful, egalitarian friendships. I am here to call
upon other men and women of good will to stand with us. To paraphrase
Martin Luther King, we must live and work together as brothers and sisters,
or we will surely perish together as fools.
------------------------------

Barbara Dority is Executive Director of the Washington Coalition Against
Censorship. As co-founder and Co-Chair of the Northwest Feminist
Anti-Censorship Taskforce, she urges those of like mind to contact
NW/FACT #300
15911 Westminster Way N.
Seattle, WA 98133

AUTHOR'S NOTES:

1. The author would like to acknowledge and thank freethought writer G.
Richard Bozarth for some important insights and ideas incorporated in this
paper.
2. The access of minors to sexually explicit material is a complex issue
which would require a thorough examination beyond the scope of this
presentation. The Supreme Court has held that minors' access to legally
'obscene' materials is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court's
nebulous and subjective definition of obscenity raises even more problems,
and a vast array of materials are currently restricted on the basis of this
seriously flawed definition. These restrictions, instituted to protect
minors, inevitably affect the freedom of adults. Legally, the burden of
preventing the exposure of children to offensive or pornographic materials
should rest with parents; as a practical matter, parents must assume this
responsibility.

3. Standards for obscenity as set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15 in 1973: a. whether the 'average person, applying
contemporary community standards' would find that the dominant theme of the
material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; b. whether
the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way;
and c. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.

4. The serious issue of child pornography would require another hour for
proper examination. Federal law in the U.S. now criminalizes child
pornography from creation to simple possession. Because sexual exploitation
of children is rightfully abhorrent to all of us, most people do not
understand why the criminalization of activities beyond those of child
sexual molestation (i.e., production, distribution, and possession) was
opposed by a broad coalition of free speech groups, including the National
Coalition Against Censorship, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
American Library Association, and many national booksellers' associations.
We believed that the already-existing laws and penalties against the actual
crime of child sexual molestation were sufficient and that these laws
should not be extended to include (then) non-criminal activities.