Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Friday, August 12, 2005
Solidarity with Cindy Sheehan, the dogs of war, and who's Hustling who?
HANG IN THERE, MICKEY. The more they hustle you, the more support we will have for our cause. Below is an excerpt from an article on today’s lewrockwell site. Can it be that we are reaching the Tipping Point?..................... “...So – as Bush likes to say, “history will show” the Revolution started on a steamy August day...at the pig farm.
Who knew? Who would have believed just a week ago that, after all our years of hard work, the crude and pitiless Bush would run out there, ram his middle finger in the face of a heartbroken mother, and jump-start the Revolution?
By the time Cindy Sheehan leaves her station at the pig farm, Bush will know that he was wrong. He will know, because “Mother” is not just half a word, as Bush and his Texas buddies, his Skull and Bones cohorts, his PNAC perps were raised to believe. “Mother” is an invincible, protective force that, if awakened and sufficiently outraged, will sweep the entire murderous bunch from their seats of evil power. Ultimately, “Mother” will bring our troops home.
The mainstream media will find, much to their chagrin, that the Revolution is now, and will continue apace without them. The Iconoclast is offering hourly updates on the Sheehan vigil. Friends of Peace and Justice of Waco is mobilizing support for Sheehan’s vigil, which could last until the end of August.
More information can be obtained at the Crawford Peace House website or by calling (254) 486-0099. Air America Radio hosts, especially Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, are all over this story, giving minute-by-minute updates, many of them coming from Sheehan herself, who calls the station regularly. Google “Cindy Sheehan,” and you will discover the entire Internet is wide awake and on the march, and will join the Revolution – at the pig farm.”
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from down on the pig farm 08/12 at 08:03 AMI think pornographers take advantage of women and men who are in bad situations and that many of the men and women who take part were sexually abused as children. There is no excuse for the images of adolescent girls included in Hulster and shown all over the Hustling the Left website.
I also think that nothing is either all black or all white.
Larry Flynt is a pornographer and he has pretty nasty taste. Larry Flynt also fought for freedom of speech. Larry Flynt is interested in publishing intelligent and revealing articles about our government.
I think it is a good thing to include truthful writing in any magizine, perhaps especially magizines such as Hustler.
Noam Chomsky explained his inclusion in Hustler as having happened because an interviewer misrepresented his or herself and did not show him the final draft of the interview or where it was to be published:
http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/hustler_interview_context/
So I think that discredits the HustlingTheLeft.com website quite a bit. They even admit down the page on there sight that Chomsky was used “unwittingly or unwillingly.” So why use his name then?
To say you are helping make the misogyny, racism, anti-semetism and hate speech happen is wrong. The women who run the site seem to be into sensationalism and exageration...never a good way to make an argument.
If I were in your place I would state what I felt was wrong and what I felt was right about the magizine and my inclusion in it and leave it at that.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/12 at 08:05 AMWow...I hope Cindy can accomplish all of that.
I think she has really hit a nerve with the people of this country, especially mothers...and watch out when mothers get together to accomplish something.
But. I am always a little nervous when one person begins o represent an entire struggle. Let’s hope it all works out and I will definitely be spreading the word.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/12 at 08:11 AMThanks, James and Rosemarie. The porn issue is huge and, as James explains, complex. I was planning to make it the only topic today but Cindy Sheehan is now everyone’s top story. So, I promise to return to the porn ASAP.
I too worry about one person representing the movement. If the press finds out Cindy once farted in church, they’ll discredit her and thus the movement. Still, this is huge. Or should I say, the potential is huge? Activists have spoken the same words as Cindy for decades and been ignored. She camps out at Bush’s ranch and voila: international coverage. Exactly what we need.
On the video I posted above, Cindy suggests we each do one thing a day for peace AND she asks us to decide what kind of “extremist” we will be. Speaking for myself, the “extremist” I am will do what I can to make sure Cindy’s stance is not co-opted by the Democrats or translated into solely an anti-Bush protest.
Send that video out to your list, folks. Spread the word.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 08:18 AMTough call on the “Hustler/Hustling The Left” issue.
I think porn is an accurate reflection of society’s values. Looking over the Hustler covers they have posted, I see visual images of the same sentiments expressed daily—albeit in circuitous ways—by pundits, “moral values” scam artists and politicians. There’s very little erotic art in our culture.
I don’t think violent or crude porn affects people as incitement. The most heavily censored press is in countries where violence against women is institutionally supported and often written into law. Supression of porn doesn’t get at what causes abuse. If anything, it’s part of the same authoritarian dynamic. I do think porn often serves as tacit approbation of sexually expressed violence—in much the same way the infotainment media serves as approbation of anti-democratic governance and economically rooted violence. Larry Flynt will pay you for writing on that and publish it to a huge audience.
Flynt is—against his capitalist interests—giving people who would destroy what has made him rich a platform for their views. I think he must be pretty conflicted and torn—like most of us—and to a certain extent he’s doing something admirable. The NY Times, in comparison, wouldn’t even consider regularly publishing any of the people in Hustling The Left’s rogues gallery.
Whatcha going to do? I think writing for Flynt’s magazine, currently, does more good than ill. I also think this merits further discussion. I would love to know what he thinks about all this, preferably when he’s not feeling defensive.
Posted by Harry on from 08/12 at 09:15 AMtrack the distortions of the cindy sheehan stuff through the conservative media....
very intersting…
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1363
Posted by michael on from scotland 08/12 at 09:19 AMAt risk of offending some (but not the new wave of “pro-porn") feminists, I think that there’s nothing wrong with writing for Hustler. I have always thought that - despite the exploitation that goes on in the less professional side of the porn industry, that the Left should organize sex workers and adult entertainers, not demonize the industry. The whole anti-porn thing is doing the Christian Right’s work for them.
Posted by Jordy Cummings on from 08/12 at 10:17 AMMickey, I think the case against Hustler is strong but I think the case against CNN is strong too (in a slightly different way--I mean the pornography is different). Shit, the case against MTV is strong. Chomsky (for example) won’t appear on CNN, but Robert Jensen (for example) will. I don’t think it’s okay to be dragged through the mud by the HTL people before they have brought their case to you. I also think it’s an important point that you didn’t *write* for Hustler, just gave them permission to republish something.
It’s that whole “does Noam where Nikes” issue I mentioned some time ago. Do the HTL people really need to disparage Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky for not being “left” enough? Fine: I despise Hustler too, but I don’t think this is a feminism issue; I think it’s poor use of “left” energy issue.
I’m not as worried about Sheehan being a solitary figure in the movement as I am about her entire cause being deflated by a televised meeting with a pseudo-sensitive, pseudo-concerned Dubya at some point. But maybe she’d still triumph--she is so eloquent and so determined. Shame about the REM in the background of that video, tho.
Posted by Keir on from New York, momentarily 08/12 at 10:34 AMThanks for all the great input. You know, I had someone e-mail me and ask if I’d also let me work appear in a racist or anti-animal publication...and I said “yes.” How else to reach people? As Keir points out, what about CNN? If CNN asked me to come on and give a one-hour dissertation on the state of the planet, should I turn it down because, in actuality, corporate media outlets like CNN make it possible for governments and industries to commit the crimes they do. If I only appeared in or on magazines, websites, radio shows, and TV programs that agreed with me, well, I’d never been heard from again.
My only complaint about “Hustling the Left” is the lack of nuance. As Jordy explains, there are complexities here. As Harry says, suppression is not the answer. as i explained, I was taken by surprise by this and my opinions are still developing.
Michael: Thanks for the Spinwatch link. I hope those on the right have done their yoga and Pilates because they’re gonna need to do some serious acrobatics to spin Cindy.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 11:08 AMMy objection to porn is that it deprives children of a childhood-friendly atmosphere. Our culture is so saturated with porn that it has even contaminated children’s toys. There have been some scientific studies that show the adverse effects of depriving children the normal stages of development. It seems to me that the sexualization of the culture is a form of child abuse. -----------Now on to the Cindy topic. One of the problems is that there is not much, if any, compassion being shown for the slaughtered Iraqis. It is as if we are saying that it is wrong to kill us, but OK if we kill you. I hope that that issue will be addressed quickly. I wish that there was an Iraqi Mother standing next to Cindy, or at least someone representing the dead Iraqi children. I have refused to participate in any demonstration that does not include showing what we have done to them. I always have a photo of a slaughtered Iraqi child with me when I participate in any action. ALSO, here is another important point. There is a counter-strategy that the White House could be using. I am surprized that Karen Hughes has not thought of it yet. Let’s hope that she doesn’t. It was just reported on the news that Cindy’s family has just released a statement saying that they do NOT support her actions. That is not good news. If that report is true, we should increase our support.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from down on the pig farm 08/12 at 11:26 AMIn the video, Cindy does mention Iraqis being killed...but I agree: she could go further. Also, to respond to something Keir said: The REM song on the video is a bad choice. Besides being corny, Michael Stipe of REM campaigned for Kerry, a man who wanted to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 11:28 AMJust to comment on something “the sexualization of culture” is child abuse. I think that sexualization of culture, with limits of course, say about Paris Hilton’s influence and the whole “slut-chic” thing, is absolutely healthy. It reminds me of I think George Carlin saying that movies with sex can be rated R or X, but with violence can be PG. America is sexually repressed, not overly sexualized, in my opinion. For more, see Slavoj Zizek’s “On Women and Causality” - he asserts that, like heavier drinking and less alcoholism, Europe’s attitude towards pornography and prostitution actually produces a healthier balance than the secretive repression in North America, where a poor guy (the Catholic Monsignor of NY) can get busted for having a girlfriend, but another Catholic Monsignor can appear on Fox News and celebrate “God’s war”
Posted by Jordy Cummings on from 08/12 at 11:37 AMRe: Cindy. I think it is brutal of either “side” to pick apart her words when she spends from about 5PM to midnight daily talking to reporters. And about having one person head this drive....See “Other Moms” here:
http://lunchtimesedition.blogspot.com/2005/08/other-moms.htmlMickey...sorry for your troubles. Perhaps that is just the price independent types must occasionally pay for the freedom of operating without a safety net. You’re the best....thanks gobs.
Posted by deb on from Seattle-ish 08/12 at 12:12 PMThanks, Deb. I added that link to the original post.
Also, I wouldn’t want to characterize the Hustler thing as “troubles.” Hustling the Left has a viewpoint and they’re not happy with my choice. I just wish they would’ve touched base with me first.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 12:30 PMWhat’s the deal, I wonder, with the blurb below your photo?:
“Mickey Z. has made a name for himself as a regular Joe, but the outspoken New Yorker has made a name for himself as America’s Cool Observer.”
I don’t get the insult…
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/12 at 01:14 PMThat photo and caption appeared alongside my article in Hustler. Hustling the Left added the words pasted over my image.
I know Chomsky has claimed he was tricked but I wonder about Palast, Goodman, Caldicott, and the rest.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 01:19 PMthat explains it…
I don’t think they were tricked.
I agree that the best argument here is, “If I only appeared in or on magazines, websites, radio shows, and TV programs that agreed with me, well, I’d never been heard from again.” And to add to that...If you only appeared in those types of publications/shows/programs when would your voice (or anyone else’s) be heard by a wider range of the public?
Like Rosemarie said...hang in there, Mickey. I appreciate the work you do, and in case I haven’t said it lately: Thanks!
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/12 at 02:09 PMLet me quickly say again that I’m not portraying myself as a victim here. (I’ve been attacked worse than this right here on my own website.) I’m trying to get a better handle on how I feel about all this.
James, let me turn it right back around to say thanks to all of you who make this site a regular stop and take time out of your busy lives to express your opinions. I appreciate the community and the civility...and have enjoyed and learned from the exchanges.
(And a big thank you to those who made donations.)
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 02:22 PMGreat conversation.
Mrs. Sheehan obviously has some experience with Leftist concepts. It must have been agonizing for her to watch her son go off to war in the first place. Many / most mothers still seem to believe “their government.” I hope Rosemarie is right, and that these angry, protective mothers can bring about some huge changes. Has this story made it into the mainstream press in a big way? If so, why? Our “Iron (Media) Curtain” could shut it off at any time. Hell, we crush entire populations, overthrow governments, despoil vast swaths of the environment without so much as a “peep” getting through. If this is being covered - why is it being covered? Can this be a “happy accident?” Maybe, but I very sincerely doubt it. We’d learn a lot if we could figure it out.Hustler: Mickey, you’ll never influence your detractors to alter their perspectives. It’s almost impossible to discuss these matters with blunt honesty and openness ANYWHERE - even within the Left, without someone becoming enraged. Sexual attitudes in the US are so twisted, so diseased, so completely intertwined with relegious delusions, that it’s almost impossible to confront these matters in a sane, reasonable way.
Our entire culture is pornographic in the extreme. Advertising uses beautiful, scantily clad women, or the promise of sex with beautiful women, as a way of selling all sorts of products. Order the right drink, tonight, and that sweetie across the tavern will probably go home with you. Wear the right jeans and you’re sure to get laid. Wear the right “body cologne” and even your girlfriend’s mother will rip your pants off.
Victoria’s Secret ads are placed consistently into or directly before or after “family” programming. So are “Levitra” ads or “bigger penis” ads or “vaginal dryness” ads. Some / Many? of the girls in fashion advertising or perfume advertising, dressed and made up to look so sweet and sexy, turn out to be 11 or 12 or 13 years olds, chosen because their skin and overall look is so appealing to the folks who buy the products. Firesign Theater group once did a skit about the very obvious sexuality of our “girls gymnastics” team competitions. We dress these little girls up in tight, sheer, very ‘high cut’ outfits and watch them prance and dance and twist about, then fail to mention that “ratings” are often unusually high for a girls athletic competition. “Gee, I don’t get it! Men usually don’t watch such things...”If you choose to confront this stuff, all you can do is be honest, Mickey, but the pieces will scatter everywhere, quite beyond any logic we’ll be able to apply to the situation, here. You’ve entered the “netherworld,” where nothing is or can be what it seems to be…
Posted by joe on from Oregon 08/12 at 03:28 PMJoe, I am glad that you are part of the conversation. I am not optimistic that the Cindy Protest will bring about change, BUT I think that it could with the right support behind her. My guess is that the Left will screw this up too. It will be just another wasted opportunity. The mass of protest is still building. So there is still hope. Mainstream media is watching and O’Rielly did a very negative report last night. They are bashing Cindy at Fox. To me, that means that she has struck a nerve. If she hangs in there, they will continue to bash her just like they did to Ward Churchill.They had another anti-war mother on last night. It was fun to watch them trying to put words in her mouth but she held them off and did a great job..................Also, thanks for mentioning the sexualization and exploitation of adolecent girls. You always “hit the nail on the head”.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from down on the farm 08/12 at 04:12 PMHey Mickey, I’ve been a fan for a while. I think that what you did is a personal choice and one which makes a lot of sense. I respect the decision you made. To tell you the truth, I’d shake my head at you becoming an advocate for the democratic candidate before I’d shake my head at your decision to appear on a magazine that doesn’t represent your views. Let’s face it, in this fucked up system, not everything we do is going to be in accord with our principles. We are forced to contradict ourselves every once in a while, in my opinion. On another note, I heard the Rolling Stones are doing a fundraiser for Arnold Schwarzenegger???? Is that true? I also read that when they were asked if their song was anti-Bush they said no and that it wasn’t directed at one person in particular (I guess it was directed not just at Bush). But I think they could’ve made a better and stronger stance when given the opportunity to explain themselves. And now I hear they’re gonna fundraise for arnold? Please, someone tell me I’ve misheard. Not that I love the stones or anything, I just can’t believe what I’m hearing. One last thing: Bush is taking a 5 week vacation. That’s three weeks longer than my best friend gets, and his job is a lot more important. Do you guys remember what happened the last time he took a vacation this long? I think it had something to do with an 11 and a September, but I can’t put the two together.
Posted by RB on from 08/12 at 04:34 PMRB, Think about it. Isn’t it good that Bush takes a lot of vacations. Maybe if he stays out of Washington he will do less harm. We have to figure out a way to give him an even longer vacation....an all expense paid trip to someplace very far away. Their Maine Mansion is very nice, but too close. If you have not seen their “little” summer place, try to get a peek at a photo. Everytime I see it, I think about the thousands of homeless people who could be housed with the money that that place is worth.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from down on the farm 08/12 at 05:31 PMThis is why the Anti-war movement will never succeed. A reminder, George Bush NEVER killed anyone.
I just took this off the WCBS-TV site article about the Cindy Protest.
“...Protesters say they support the troops.
“We can be proud of our soldiers and ashamed of our government at the same time,” said Tammara Rosenleaf, whose husband is stationed at Fort Hood and is to be deployed to Iraq this fall...”Posted by rosemarie on from 08/12 at 05:55 PMWell, we have a long, long road ahead of us, it seems, Rosemarie. We’ve been lathered and slathered in lies wrapped in greater lies, and all resting upon immense lies… Maybe 250 years worth of lies, all designed to keep us unwashed masses in our lowly place - in that dark, shut in place beneath the stairs.
How long does it take to scrape away a quarter of a millenium’s worth of encrusted horseshit?
We’ll know for sure that things are shifting, when hundreds upon hundreds of Cindy Sheehans rise up and scream, long before their sons are on their way to boot camp. We’ll know that something seismic has taken place when ordinary people begin to complain that this is not their country, at all, that it’s never been their country, and they’re not sending their beloved children off to die for the Looter-In-Chief and the gang of thieves called “the government.” Let those mothers speak the truth - that this country belongs to the thugs and gangsters of the American Aristocracy: Let the Elites go off and fight the wars. Let them go off and bathe in the blood of innocents. Let them steep themselves in the horror that war always is…
When we hear these refrains from here and from there, we’ll know “IT” has begun… Until then, we’re just schlepping along, doing what we can, and marvelling at the weird mumbles and gropings of a sleeping population, in the grip of that ancient disease called government.
Posted by joe on from Oregon 08/12 at 06:25 PMYou are really an amazing wordsmith, Joe. You elevate the discussion. But the truth in what you say depresses me. I don’t have enough time left to “scrape away a quarter of a millenium’s worth of encrusted grime”. I need for things to be made better for my Grandbaby and all the children now. You are right, though. We should all get out of the denial and admit that we have lost. We have been in overtime since WW2. They have won. Game is over.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from beneath the stairs 08/12 at 06:55 PMWe’ve got a murdered dream, and an old guy standing there, holding a still leaking pen - this looks open and shut!
Now, just a minute, that pen wasn’t loaded! We can still dream! We’ve got courageous people like you, Rosemarie, and Mickey, and Cindy Sheehan and James and Harry and Keir and Michael and Deb and Jordy and RB and Helga on from Australia. We’ve got a chance - and, better to go down with a “bang!” than with a whimper.I know how you feel about the kids - My youngest son, Craig, is just 16. I don’t want him to live his life in some planet-wide gulag…
We have no option but to hope, and hope BIG.
- hopefully, joePosted by joe on from under the floorboards 08/12 at 07:26 PMHey everyone. Thanks for great comments, Rosemarie, Joe, and RB. Every day, I am humbled by how many interesting, compassionate people make time to visit this site and leave comments.
Anyway, I just got home. Michele and I (and some cool friends: Jenn, Nechama, and Michael) went to see Dave Zirin talk in Manhattan. He was amazing and I must once again urge everyone to consider buying his book. The gig was taped for Book TV (hmm...maybe it’ll end up in Hustler, too?), so I made sure to ask a question and get my mug seen.
It’s depressing to think the left might drop the ball again, re: Cindy...but it’s already happening. I certainly don’t urge anyone to walk in lockstep, but it would be helpful if everyone would agree to stop saying stuff like “we support the troops but not the war.” Of course, we can hope Americans aren’t blown to bits and work hard to get them home, but public pronouncement like “support the troops” only serve to strengthen the argument of the militarists.
Also, at the talk tonight, I had the opportunity to speak with several activists and the Hustler topic came up. I was pleased to hear how most felt it made sense to reach out to a new audience. Even if I believe my critics have over-generalized and over-simplified, I take such a critique seriously and will continue to do so.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 09:02 PMThe savaging of Cindy: http://progressive.org/?q=mag_mc081105
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 09:17 PMWow, Mickey, when I read that article I was amazed by how quickly I got angry, very angry. Then, I just felt bad for those folks: It’s like they’re proudly displaying some pretty nasty stains on their underwear. They don’t realize that where they feel pride, they ought to feel humiliation.
It’s just such profoundly confused people who regularly shill for the Elites who, themselves, don’t know enough to feel humiliated, either.
Sounds like you’re feeling a bit better, Mickey. Thanks, again, for this place, where we can all get together so frequently, in such an open, mellow environment.
Posted by joe on from Oregon 08/12 at 09:41 PMBrilliant: “It’s like they’re proudly displaying some pretty nasty stains on their underwear.’
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/12 at 10:00 PMPeople: ignore all that bullshit below-the-belt pseudo-patriotic anti-Sheehan infotainment. Seriously. We should all be focused on better ways to stand with her and emulate her. We should be focusing on making the heroic--or the merely decent--reverberate ever more loudly rather than trying to squash the corporate propoganda arm of our sociopathic political elite. Um, Rosemarie, not to single you out, but are you actually telling me we’ve LOST? You’ve been doing this longer than I have (I’m 29). So do you want me to go home? Should I stop? I’m a bit surprised here. I thought we knew the work we do today was for gains to be made a generation or so from now.
Furthermore: fair enough, you won’t see a “support our troops--bring ‘em home” bumper sticker on my bicycle, but that doesn’t mean I won’t walk in step with someone who does. If all I was doing in my own anti-war work was trying to convince veteran activists, vegans, and committed leftists to raise their voices I might have a pretty easy time of it. I want the guy next door, with a “support the troops” sticker on his SUV, to have his heart melt at Sheehan, and--okay, maybe he won’t march on September 24th, but perhaps he’ll send Sheehan or Benderman a bit of financial support if we work it hard enough. Maybe. Worth a shot. Right?
Posted by Keir on from New York, momentarily 08/12 at 10:25 PMAbout the jingoists, they don’t use language to reach a truth. They use it to signal dominance, submission, convey orders and hash out strategy. They don’t have conversations with people who disagree with them. They “win” or “lose”. They have repetoire of snotty high school debate tricks and that’s it.
Posted by Harry on from 08/13 at 03:01 AMThanks, Keir. Your passion is the kick in the ass I needed right now. I really mean it: Thanks.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 07:18 AMMickey: since you brought my name into all of this…
Re: the “Hustling the left” site > slanderous indeed, but as far as I’m concerned, was to be expected. But did you not expect it?
At any rate, if you wish to have anything to do with Flynt’s perverted publication, then that’s your business. It’s just not a place that I (and most women for matter) would find you. Afterall, the magazine’s primary purpose is to sell horny men to its advertisers.
But I also think it paints a somewhat mixed message from you - and perhaps the libertarian left most broadly - in terms of claiming to be for the advancement of social justice, espcially concerning women’s rights, when you willfully agree to be published in such a magazine. I think that is the crux of the critic’s argument at least, however weak that argument may be (or seem to be).
Other than that Mickey, please keep up the good work that I’m used to seeing from you. And I think you already know where I will not be looking.
Posted by RT on from Houston 08/13 at 08:28 AMI’m so glad you weighed in, RT. I was looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I’d be curious to get your feedback on this: If a racist or pro-military magazine wanted to pay me for writing an article that would appear unedited, I’d say “yes.” I don’t feel my action endorses what else appears in that publication. To take it one step further: If the NY Times (indirectly responsible for far more injustice than any publication on the planet) asked me to write an op-ed, again I’d say “yes.” I just want my words to reach readers. Whaddya think?
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts…
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 08:36 AM“I’m so glad you weighed in, RT. I was looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I’d be curious to get your feedback on this: If a racist or pro-military magazine wanted to pay me for writing an article that would appear unedited, I’d say “yes.” I don’t feel my action endorses what else appears in that publication.”
You don’t have to endorse it; other will do that for you. That was my point, which was simply how your decision to be published in such a magazine would/could be used against you, as seen from the Hustling the Left site. Again, did you not expect this?
“I just want my words to reach readers. Whaddya think?”
I agree, at least in principle.
One question: would you have written for Hustler if you knew that they were not going pay you a single dime? I say this because you mention in your post (in the same breath as “reaching a new audience") that getting paid was a factor in your decision.
Just curious.
Posted by RT on from Houston 08/13 at 09:45 AMTwo quick answers, RT:
Oddly, I did not expect the backlash. Of course, I know how porn is viewed by many...but I figured it would be a welcome change to have something radical and progressive appear.
Secondly, good question, re: money. I rarely get paid to write so I was excited to be offered a sizable fee. Would I have done it for free? Probably...because it was just transcribing a talk that was already mostly transcribed. Thus, the amount of work was minimal. If Hustler asked to write something new without pay, I would probably not have the time to do that.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 09:51 AMOkay - well enough then.
But let’s go back to the Times: a “well respected” mainstream source of news and information.
Now, I certainly agree that the Times is, as you say, “indirectly responsible for far more injustice than any publication on the planet”... But there’s once critical difference: the Times doesn’t have the immediate controversy and other baggage associated with it, as with Hustler.
So, the question becomes this: would you have recieved such backlash if you had an op-ed published in the Times? I seriously doubt it. Instead, any criticism would be directed at the Times as more evidence of “liberal bias”, etc., and not necessarily have anything to do with you, your character, and so on. Then, you’re just some radical writer with an opinion, but without the aformentioned baggage.
Another point I’d like to make is this: that progressives need to be more conscious (and cautious) about the far more powerful forces that work against us. Just look at what happened to Churchill…
But that’s just my 3 cents (after adjusting for inflation)
Posted by RT on from Houston 08/13 at 12:07 PMThanks, RT.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 02:47 PMHe who would sup with the Devil needs a long spoon, indeed.
The only way to deal with these sort of people is to not deal with them, Mickey.Posted by Jim on from 08/13 at 07:54 PMHey Jim, haven’t heard from you in a while. Are the “sort of people” you refer to the crowd at Hustler or Hustling the Left?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 08:05 PMYeah, it’s been a while, Mickey. Been out Perp hunting! I might be able to send you a newspaper link in a couple of weeks (hpefully)!
To the point - I was referring to the Hustler people. I don’t know the others. But I have found it applies to anyone who seeks to deceive or exploit others. They have a different way of thinking and I have found I can’t outmanouver them on their playing field. The only hope is to play with an extremely “straight bat” as we say here in Oz.
Hope you are keeping well.
JimPosted by Jim on from 08/13 at 08:18 PMPerp hunting, huh?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 08:48 PMEntry in the Official Strine (Oz joke!) Dictionary:-
“Perp Hunting” - Col. Seeking to expose to public scrutiny, and/or bringing before the courts, people of particularly bad character often involving criminal conspiracy. aka Perpertrators. col. “perps”.
Posted by Jim on from 08/13 at 08:58 PMAh, now I’m beginning to understand.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/13 at 10:03 PMLarry Flynt’s own autobiography catalogs as an important formative event: when he raped a hen. Enticed by the promise of the bird’s yolk sack, which he heard was ``hot as a girl’s p***y’’ but better, since chickens ``wiggled around a lot more,’’ Flynt proceeded to ``thrust away.’’ When he was finished, Flynt worried that his grandmother would notice the hen ``staggering, squawking and bleeding,’’ so he snapped the bird’s neck and threw it in a creek. Then he wrote up a “how to” manual in Hustler about raping chickens.
Micky Z, you say that you didn’t think too much about this and maybe that is some of the problem? Please go to the Hustling the Left website and LOOK AT THE IMAGES (you can press on each of the thumbnails and the least you owe on this is to look at every one of them, imho)
http://hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/russell.html
If you don’t think it’s worth thinking much about what this magazine does to women and people of color and the disabled the at least let us hear your opinion, as an animal rights activist, about what you think about funny jokes about raping animals and how you feel after thinking about it that you earned money as a result of that kind of “humor” and helped promote it at the same time as lining your own pockets. Yes Micky Z it is important who you take your money from and where they got it. Think about that, if you wll.
Also please take a moment and tell us SPECIFICALLY what Hustling the Left is doing that is unethical and slanderous. Thanks!
Posted by Nikki Craft on from 08/14 at 03:08 AM“My only complaint about “Hustling the Left” is the lack of nuance.” Mickey Z
You’re kidding, right?
We get the message, Mickey Z. You still don’t even consider this important enough to give it a separate page without hodgepodging it with a discussion of Cindy Sheehan; disrespectful of both issues, in my opinion.
I’m reading further in your entries on this topic and you say you feel we should have contacted you first. We believe it was up to you to research Hustler before you did an interview, just as you should research any KKK magazine before you do an interview with them, eh? If you do articles in KKK magazines then that is your business, but you need to do the leg work and then you won’t look up and find yourself so surprised that others are concerned about your lack of responsiblity in this regard.
all opinions expressed are my own.
Nikki Craft
http://www.hustlingtheleft.comPosted by Nikki Craft on from 08/14 at 03:31 AMNikki,
I’m glad you found this discussion but, please...enough with the straw men. I never said you were unethical or slanderous and I never said this issue wasn’t important. I’m not defending Flynt or Hustler and, what should be obvious, is that your site has sparked a long conversation here and much thought on my part. Your “with us or against us” stance, however, leaves little room for such conversation. If anything, I’m surprised and disappointed on how you choose to discuss something that is clearly important to you.
So, if all you want to do is engage in a flame war based on your false assumptions about me, I must decline. But if you’d like to e-mail me and start a discussion, I’d be happy to do so.
Thanks…
MZPosted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 07:13 AMMickey Z wrote:
“I’m glad you found this discussion but, please...enough with the straw men. I never said you were unethical or slanderous and I never said this issue wasn’t important”Hi Mickey Z. Sorry for spelling your name wrong in my earlier posts.
I thought the person who wrote “slanderous” was quoting you. Sorry. I misunderstood.
Can you please let me know why you chose to juxtapose this discussion as “Who’s Hustling Who?” with the Cindy Sheehan issue? What point were you making? Were you implying it was Hustler doing the real hustling or were you saying it was us? It’s unclear and then when our site is called “slanderous” it accomplishes the same that trashing Cindy Sheehan does instead of hearing out her message. Can you see what I mean and it’s the set up of this site that sets up the so-called straw man? That’s my take on it, anyway.
Mickey, I see you as a potential ally and that is why your actions were able to hurt so much. We would have expected better from you. Yet you’ve published in a magazine that has declared an OFFICIAL *WAR* AGAINST FEMINISTS. Forget major research or inquiry. It would have taken you one internet search to know that we have been challenging them for 25 years. You got, probably as much as 500.00 to 1,000.00 for your article… (how much, btw were you paid) and we’ve spend months of our time and lots of money dealing with the aftermath. We paid, you profited.
In this same way as you are disappointed we too are that you can be so clear when it comes to other issues, like not buying a bracelet because of what it would support, and then be so fuzzy and befuddled when it comes to your publishing an article with Hustler.
You want all the rights to “attitude” and “righteous anger”? Can you understand where our anger and frustration comes from about this that you are still a few months later asking people for feedback? How about some accountability? Some apologies? It’s up to you, but how about some real education of your supporters about what the images are in Hustler and why it’s reactionary to support this publication? I’d like to see you write an article about this analyzing the images in Huslter and telling the story about what happened to you adn tell us why you would chose NOT to publish in Hustler if you had it all to do over again. Of course I hope you have a much better reason than if they wouldn’t pay you you wouldn’t be able to find the time. You will do as you please but I’ll tell you I’d like to see you begin to undo some of the damage your actions have caused the left, feminism and activism. Without any of that how can we know you’re not in alliance with Larry Flynt? You tell me, Mickey Z.
As to contacting you in private email? Ann Simonton has done so several times in behalf of Hustling the Left and can you tell me what you have told her?
Thanks, Nikki Craft
http://www.hustlingtheleft.comPosted by Nikki Craft on from 08/14 at 08:53 AM“I thought the person who wrote ‘slanderous’ was quoting you. Sorry. I misunderstood.”
No, that was just me. I said that before I actually had a good look at the site. But I based that opinion on what I saw written on the picture of Mickey, which reads: “Mickey Z Cool in Hustler Magazine while helping the Misogyny, Racism, Anti-Semitism and Hate Speech happen”.
Now, I don’t know exactly where that picture came from, but it seems to suggest that Mickey might just as well be a racist Jew hater, etc., since he is supposedly “helping” to make all of these things “happen”. So that PICTURE seems a bit slanderous to me, and perhaps just as tasteless as Mr. Flynt’s own perversion.
And Nikki, although I support your actions against Mr. Flynt and his disgusting publication, I really don’t think it’s necessary to slam Mickey on his own site, as you are doing. In fact, Mickey has said here that this whole affair has made him think about a lot of the issues at hand. Is that not enough for you?
Re: Mickey: the controversy and baggage I spoke of earlier…
Posted by RT on from Houston 08/14 at 10:15 AMHi Nikki,
Thanks for replying and for bringing this to the next level.
You’re right: If Hustler has officially “declared war on feminists,” I should have known about it. This situation is causing me to rethink the theory of “I’m trying to reach a new audience.” Nikki, I’m not as successful or as widely known as Chomsky, Caldicott, Goodman, etc. so I’m rarely if ever in such a position. Perhaps it took this situation to make me more aware...and again, you’re right: If I won’t buy Lance’s bracelets, it’s hypocritical to not boycott Hustler, too. Excellent point.
However, there was no message or implication in my juxtaposing Hustler with Cindy. If you peruse my site, you’ll see it is very stream of consciousness. I had prepared the Hustler post when someone sent me the Cindy video and rather than picking one over the other, I wrote about both.
As for Ann Simonton, she and I have exchanged many e-mails privately. In fact, I was just thinking of interviewing her for websites like Counterpunch. So, here’s my proposal: I’ll be in and out of town the next two weeks. After that, can I e-mail you and Ann via e-mail and submit that interview to the sites that regularly publish me?
One last point: Sometimes “fuzzy” and “befuddled” is okay...and necessary. None of us have all the answers and we’re all human. For example, Tim Wise (a man I deeply respect) wrote an article at Counterpunch yesterday that I felt unjustly generalized about the animal rights movement. I e-mailed him to start a discussion. That’s what solidarity and collective work means to me. Just like you and Ann contacting me and us, I hope, taking things to another level with our interview.
Thanks again,
MZ
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 10:24 AMThanks, RT. Please see my post above.
Here’s how I see it: I truly believe Nikki misjudged me and the public mockery was not appropriate. I also now admit that she is 100% right that my decision to publish in Hustler should have been something I gave A LOT more thought to (as with the cancer bracelets). Finally, the comments above by everyone show that respectful discussion is the only way to go. I’m learning that last lesson the hard way...as anyone who visits this site knows. My life is in flux and thus, so are my perceptions.
I will certainly disappoint folks again and again. My hope is that I can learn something from each experience and come away with new comrades.
RT, I’m really glad to have you as a regular visitor here.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 10:30 AMHey Mickey,
Thank you. It all sounds good. Yes I did notice the “stream of consciousness” you speak of, and yes it is the style you adopt on the site in general, but awfully confusing to come into unprepared. And again I believe not too good for poor Cindy Sheehan to be plunked into a discussion of the likes of Larry Flynt.Sure we always allow for mistakes and gawd knows we make em ourselves, all the time. Thanks too for your willingness to move forward. You’ve got my respect. We’ll talk now.
Nikki Craft
http://www.hustlingtheleft.comPosted by Nikki Craft on from 08/14 at 10:42 AMBoy, I wish I could maintain 3 or 4 blogs with many topics running concurrently. I love this type of interaction. But alas…
Anyway, Nikki, I’m back in NYC to stay by Aug. 26 or 27. Shortly after that, I will e-mail you and Ann with some questions, okay?
Good Sunday to all…
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 10:50 AMMickey,
I felt we had arrived at what might end up to be some common ground for further discussion. Remember I said “We’ll talk now”? Yet only hours later I’ve just received an email that seriously concerns me.
I’m not sure how you jump from our previous conversation on this blog to emailing others in private email that you’re going to do a three way interview with me involving Hustler magazine editors. You explain you’ll be asking _me_ tough questions? Can you please explain whaz up about this?
Maybe you’re just trying to be helpful, give us a voice in your forums--but I gotta tell you that’s not what it looks like to me. I know you may think it’s harsh, but I do have to say it like I see it and to me it looks like arrogance, dodging accountability, and male control issues; jumping to place yourself in some authoritative position as overseer of the mess you’ve helped to create. It just ain’t gonna happen, Mickey.
You still haven’t even begun to answer the questions I’ve asked in my previous emails on this blog --and the questions we intend to ask--*you*.
I could be wrong, but from the little bit I’ve seen, I think you are an introspective person who might care something about accountability. I know there’s a lot to be done and I’m glad you are doing some of it. I’m glad you are an activist and I know the energy and effort that takes.
Still, my experience has been that--unless they are really careful--that busy, busy guys like you blare on and continue making mistakes that cause people much expenditure in time and energy and damage results. When the shit comes down they don’t make good allies and they don’t earn or deserve respect, from those of us who know better. I really don’t like what you’ve done claiming that I’m doing an interview with you and Hustler. I’m trying to give you some benefit of the doubt. What kind of ally are you going to be? You tell me.
Nikki Craft
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com
Posted by Nikki Craft on from 08/15 at 05:49 AMHonestly, Nikki, this is getting a little odd. There’s nothing going on, I’m not blaring on, and, as for “mistakes,” well...no one is innocent here.
Yes, I very much thought we found common ground and yes, I very much want to build on that...but can we slow down with the accusations?
I’m heading out of town in a short while...but will contact you upon my return. If you’re not interested in being interviewed, I understand.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/15 at 06:58 AMHi again Mickey,
I’m not interested in you telling people that I’m taking part in any interview with you and Hustler magazine. This is a misrepresentation of any exchange you and I have had so stop making that assertion.
Now, can you please begin replying to these questions as you have time for in between your travels and feel free to take whatever time you need. No time pressure while you are on your trip, but please make this a priority when you return and we’ll see where this will go from that point on. I too am still open to the opportunities here. Thanks, Nikki
As I asked you in my previous email, how much did you get paid for your interview with Hustler?
Have you looked at those images from Hustler yet?
http://hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/russell.html
When you have had time to look at them carefully and thoughtfully will you please post your analysis of the images on this page, individually and collectively? We don’t want to be telling you what is wrong with those images. We want you to tell us and that is going to take some real thought and effort on your part.
What time have you set aside for KPFK for your interview with Sonali? Have you contacted her? When you do that interview we hope you will have thoroughly researched all the complicated issues about Hustler, all the sorded history involved here, and be able to take part in a truly informed interview, where you will be formulating your own values and positions within the context of real information that you have taken the time and energy to look into yourself. Because of your past actions and all it’s ramapant repercussions you now have a responsibility to take this on as your own project as you would anything else you actually care about and take seriously. Do you agree?
Have you been keeping up with Stan Goff and Robert Jensen’s work against pornography? If not I urge you to contact them immediately to begin an ongoing conversation with them. If you have then what can you say about their positions on feminism and CRAP (Corporate Racist Atrocious Patriarchal) media in comparison to your own?
Additionally, can you please tell us if you feel betrayed by Hustler in any way? Did they use deception when they approached you about doing the interview?
You say that Hustling the Left is not nuanced enough, that this is a complicated issue. Lots of people think it’s really complicated about whether to be against the war, or not. However, I don’t see you requiring Cindy Sheehan to be more nuanced in her approach, even working to assure that her voice will not be coopted by other viewpoints. Setting up any interview between her and Cheney, or something equally evil to Huslter magazine. You aren’t even arranging interviews alongside the friggin’ Democrats, are you? Hmmm. I smell the employment of a double standard. Am I wrong?
When it comes to the war I’m quite certain you expect your allies to sort through all the complications and come down on one side or the other, don’t you? So what do you have to say about those who know full well all about Hustler--like Greg Palast, for instance who says Hustler puts his words between “beaver"--and still continue to work with them and recruit others in the left for interviews and cooperation?
Have you seen the Hustler logo?
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/manufacturingcontempt/
As an animal rights activist can you please tell us what you see in that “Hustler goes to War” logo? As an animal rights activist what do you think about Palast and Flynt calling women’s vagina’s “beaver”? How about using animal symbols to denote evil and hate? What do you think about that?:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:
Hustling the Left
Deconstructing Manufactured Contempt
Entrenched in Larry Flynt’s Corporate Sexxxism Empire
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/
:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:
Posted by Nikki Craft on from 08/15 at 07:29 AMI got an email from Hustiling the Left about this thread. Reading through the comments, I think it might be more useful to “engage” people like Mickey who seem quite sincere and honest in their efforts.
His point that it would be a welcome change of pace to have radical commentary and analysis in Huster is an arguable position. Seeing Amy Goodman next to porn is WEIRD, but then it’s an interesting to wonder how many men who would never otherwise encounter dissent do because of this choice.
Still, Huster is a particularly fucked up magazine. Their long history of racist crap, explicit and sexualized misogyn, and viciously (and dishonestly) attacking feminists is well established. Huster and Flynt have done more to mainline hardcore porn into American (and world) culture than just about anyone, and appearing there can be read as a tacit endorsement.
I love sex, and am part of the post-60s generation that came of age WITH pornography. I still own and use it. But I feel increasingly uneasy with the contradiction between my egalitarian ideas and the nature of the images that arouse me. As a female friend of mine said, “fantasies are still real.”
There are two debates: 1) Is porn equal to hate speech?, and 2) If it is, then how should radicals interact with it.
Mickey’s point about CNN is kind of true. As is his note that he could have been contacted before a “shame campaign” was launched. I think Nikki would be surprised at how far a phone call can go at avoiding misunderstandings and winning people like Mickey over instead of tying him over a barrel.
The anti-porn movement of the 1980s didn’t fair too well, and my estimation is that this method was part of it. So far, Not In Our Name corrected a mistake they made in LA, Chomsky has clarified his position and Amy Goodman, I think, has said that she won’t appear in Hustler again.
Aside from his vegan fanaticism, I like Mickey alot. He’s spot-on, sharp and plain spoken. Yeah! Taking the time to tease the arguments out, and to assume a common ground (even when it feels hard) is the kind of culture a healthy left needs.
So, from the wilds of Brooklyn: Mickey, think about the choices you make. Nikki, try talkng and LISTENING for a minute. And maybe we can get stronger from dispute instead of wearing each other out.
Posted by friendly fire on from Brooklyn 08/15 at 09:49 AMI wrote to Mickey Z: “What time have you set aside for KPFK for your interview with Sonali? Have you contacted her? When you do that interview we hope you will have thoroughly researched all the complicated issues about Hustler...”
I am now realizing the way I phrased this it might sound like I am representing KPFK regarding the interview. I do not. When I said “we” I meant Hustling the Left hopes he will have researched Hustler when he does do the interview. Sorry for that confusion.
Nikki
Posted by Nikki Craft on from 08/15 at 02:38 PMI said to Mickey, “He who would sup with the Devil needs a loooong spoon, indeed.” (wish I could remember the author). In other words, do a deal with these people and you WILL get burnt.
Here’s the thinking or logic, if you like:-
Hustler exploits people (first women, then men).
People who engage in exploitation become exploiters.
Exploiters seek to exploit EVERYONE. It becomes their primary focus and eventually, their raison d’etre.
They only do deals that allow them to continue to exploit.
So if you agree to a deal with them then, neccessarily, you are being exploited and assisting them in their ongoing mission.
So, why would you deal with them?
This is the bottom line.
All other arguements will have their points but eventually are self defeating as they distract from the enduring truth above and cause division and dissention in “the ranks” and so aid the very people you are all fighting.So, a plea from me:- can we focus on the fact that exploitation and pornography in particular is destructive to everybody involved (including, ironically, Larry Flint, from what I read on HustlingTheLeft) and come up with a joint action to combat this destruction. Solidarity, brothers and sisters!
Posted by Jim on from 08/15 at 07:37 PMI like the clarity of your argument, Jim. That seems to be a reasonable place to garner foundational support.
To Friendly Fire:
The issue is not who is listening (or not), primarily, it’s what is the Left actively doing (in the progressive to radical activist sense) about the antifeminism and misogyny and, as Jim points out, the overall dehumanisation and exploitation, of the porn industry?Why don’t men on the Left educate themselves about the harm of porn? There’s plenty of solid materials out there; I’ll gladly list them for you if you’d like. A good place to start would be reading “Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality”, by Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, and Ann Russo. An excellent book.
Why don’t men on the Left who are sincerely and genuinely confused about the politics of the sexxxism industries, contact Stan Goff and Robert Jensen and get clarity from them? Why do these overt actions of accountability to feminists working to end misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-child human rights violations not occur to progressive activist men to do in the first place? What part of misogyny in porn do men not get as a blatant violation of women’s human dignity and civil rights? See also: “Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day For Women’s Equality”, by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon. See also: “Black Sexual Politics”, by Patricia Hill Collins.
The issue is what men on the Left are and are not doing, for real, in public, systematically, in an organised fashion, to defend anti-porn, anti-racist feminism, and to radically critique patriarchy, the way they do capitalism, or corporate greed, the Religious Right’s agenda, the U.S. War on Iraq, Empire, or Animal Rights abuses.
Why is the male Left so appallingly silent when it comes to harm done to women (especially poor women and women of Colour, and children) in porn, prostitution, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery worldwide, and in the U.S.? Why is this subject not “on the radar” of men on the Left, generally, with maybe two exceptions (Goff and Jensen)?
For me, Friendly Fire, these are the main points.
I hope that this post is helpful in clarifying some issues.
Julian Real, an activist fighting Corporate Racist Atrocious Patriarchy (CRAP)
Posted by Julian on from 08/16 at 01:51 PMJulian, part of the problem is that people have different takes on porn. They really do, and people of good conscience. When the porn wars happened in the 70s and 80s, the anti-porn side lost. Badly. Porn is more pervasive than it has ever been and, in my experience, women are fairly split on the issue… especially on the left.
I am against the porn industry, but I think recognizing the reality that people of conscience genuinely disagree is necessary to engage the discussion.
And talking with people first, such as Mickey Z., might win friends rather than putting people under attack without even bothering.
Why is the “male left silent?” Maybe it has to do with the fact that men almost universally use porn, and MANY women have basically said “whatever.”
Posted by friendly fire on from Brooklyn 08/16 at 05:07 PMHi Friendly Fire.
First, I am aware of who you are, but won’t “out” you. I mention knowing of you only because I must thank you SO MUCH for a piece of writing you did, which I’ll also keep anonymous. But please know it helped me through a rough time, enormously, this past spring. It was one of the more inspiring things I’d read, and it gave me hope for the future.
I have great respect for you and am so glad you posted here as you did here, as I think you raise some really important points that certainly need and deserve careful consideration, as we all work towards a more humane, caring, nonoppressive, nonexploitive world without systemic contempt for some groups of people, and the dehumanisation of all of us, and the abuse and exploitation of the other creatures who share this Earth with us.
I’ll respond part by part, so I don’t miss anything from what you wrote. (That’d be the only way--otherwise I’m likely to leave and think “Did I even completely respond to him??)
FF: Julian, part of the problem is that people have different takes on porn. They really do, and people of good conscience.
JR: I couldn’t agree more. A parallel I’ll be using here, in honor of Mickey Z (I hope all is well in your world, Mickey), is the abuse of animals, the commercial meat-production industries, and veganism. Many people are genuinely not knowledgeable about the harm done to animals, individually, by those who are simply callous, or systemically, through production industries of mistreatment. Some are terribly aware of what is going on and choose to be vegetarian. Others choose veganism. Others choose veganism and are Animal Rights activists. I see this as roughly parallel to how people understand porn. Talk to some people about eating meat or owning a butcher shop, and they’ll quickly tell you to “lay off” and “I have a right to...” All of that defensiveness is rather entirely missing the point. The point is to reach people’s hearts and minds, about systematic cruelties that no humanitarian would wish on anyone, or any creature on Earth. And of course people have the right or power to do all manner of inhumane things and get away with them.
Some of us, because we have been in the porn industry, or know people who have been in that or other sexxxism industries, know a whole lot (too much, some might say) about the harms done there. Others just see the ads for the latest cuts of beef and don’t think a thing about its production and the consumerist push to get people to eat meat, throught extensive advertising reminding us all of how great that steak or hamburger smells and tastes. But once you’ve been to the slaughterhouse, it’s hard to unknow that experience. A variation of that is true in the world of porn, prostitution, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery worldwide.
Forgive me for jumping back and forth between the porn issue and my Animal Rights analogy. What I would say is: everyone can know about the harm, if they carefully learn about the industries. People will then, of course, decide whether they still want to eat meat, want to be vegetarian, wish to be vegan, or an Animal Rights activist. And here’s an important point, I think: one can be an Animal Rights activist, with some degree of integrity, and not be vegan, and maybe not even be vegetarian!
End of part 1 of 4, I think…
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/17 at 12:42 PMI think this notion of political purity gets in the way of our willingness to know about certain forms of oppressive harm, and also gets in the way of us feeling like we have a “right” to speak out, as we may be “part of the problem”. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who ISN’T part of the problem, depending on how we define the problem! I would imagine that many anti-porn folks use porn, for instance, and that many people who care deeply for the well-being of animals still eat meat. I understand, viscerally, the appeal of porn (as I know the appeal of meat). For me, it is simply, corporate, commercial sex turned into sexxx. It attempts to meet our needs for sex, or sexual satisfaction, while not quite doing so, or while doing so at great expense to those in the industry; similarly, the meat industry tells us eating meat is good, but many folks know we can be healthier if we don’t eat meat. I think it is very important to not “put down” or shame meat-eaters or porn-users. I think taking on the production end makes more sense, which is not to say that of course we can still talk to people around us about the issues, if they are interested.
Some people get into porn as a user or actor or producer, and some are not so lucky, or able, for whatever reasons, to get out. My experience is that life without porn is a better quality life, not morally, but humanistically. Porn is not a moral issue for me (as it seems to be for some on the Right), and neither is Animal Rights, although we could argue it in those terms. But for me, both are matters of justice and the right of beings to live free from systemic harm, corporate industrialised harm and exploitation. For me it’s a matter of politics more than morality, in other words.
FF: When the porn wars happened in the 70s and 80s, the anti-porn side lost. Badly. Porn is more pervasive than it has ever been and, in my experience, women are fairly split on the issue… especially on the left.
JR: That’s one way to look at it, I guess. First, I see the porn wars more as a class war, than a division among feminists (or non-feminist women). But it is often framed up as that way, in part to perpetuate the woman vs. woman scenario that patriarchy often gets off on. What actually happened was activists who were harmed by the sexxxism industries, with those who were very knowledgeable about what happens in the industry, built meaningful coalitions with poor women, and women of Colour, and working class folks who were much more likely to have porn shops in their neighborhood, and have to deal with the repurcussions of increased abuse of women, than the wealthier folks, and collectively they organised to do something about that harm.
Those with class privilege, those who could keep a “middle class” (privileged) view on something they enjoyed, organised against those activists. This played out across all demographics, including amongst feminists, but it was largely a “class war” not a war among feminists. The porn industry had a lot to do with it, after all, by systematically maligning anyone who spoke out against them. Their smear campaign worked, as most smear campaigns do: those with the most speech win. Hustler is well-known for doing this, rather viciously. They recently attacked Aura Bogado, of KPFK (Free Speech TV/radio) for speaking her mind about porn, Hustler in particular. Hustler responded by turning her into porn and berating her, and calling her (a Latina woman) a Stalinist and a sexist and a racist. No surprise there. Go to http://www.hustlingtheleft.com for the full story.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/17 at 12:44 PMHow the tale of what happened in the 80s is told is important. It carries with it certain biases, no matter which version is told. It was complicated time in the dominant culture, when patriarchy was resolidifying after a valiant effort by feminists to dismantle some of the key sites of women’s oppression, including the sexxxism industries.
I guess I would agree, though, sadly, that the porn industry won. And, as you note FF, in winning, it was able to soak its values and practices into the dominant culture much more than it had before, especially with Clinton’s assistance. (Note: This comment should not be interpreted to mean I am “for” the Right. I am not. I am well aware, very aware, that the Republican National Convention last summer kept prostitutes far busier than those in the city of the DNC. We all know the U. S. Catholic Church is, in part, a child sex abuse ring, where nuns are also systematically raped (but the media prefers to focus on the abuse of boys, for somewhat sexist reasons). I am very glad parts of the story are now known, and that male and female survivors of priest-abuse can be more believed when they disclose what happened to them. We aren’t there yet, culturally, with survivors of harm in the sexxxism industries. For example, let’s say a group of prostitutes gets media and tells about the rampant use and abuse of prostitutes by delegates and politicians from the RNC. How fast would they be silenced and discredited? The Right has the power, the speech status, and the rights to defame any opponents. As many industry pornographers and corporate pimps have the power, the speech status, and the rights to defame those who speak out about the harms of the sexxxism industries.
FF: I am against the porn industry, but I think recognizing the reality that people of conscience genuinely disagree is necessary to engage the discussion.
JR: Agreed. We have to start where we are, not where we wish to be!
FF: And talking with people first, such as Mickey Z., might win friends rather than putting people under attack without even bothering.
JR: No doubt, but it is important that porn-using men not be calling all the shots as to how the conversation needs to go. That would be a bit like whites calling the shots on how discussions of racism ought to go. Some feminists are very angry about what happens to women in porn. Pro-porn men (and pro-porn women) need to learn to listen to that anger, and rather than dismiss it and deny the facts, see if perhaps those angry feminists are angry for the same reasons many Animal Rights activists are angry.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/17 at 12:45 PMBut, having said that, I do hope a constructive, meaningful discussion can happen here about how Hustler harms people (dehumanising everyone in the proces). I strongly get the sense Mickey Z is open to that, and I sense you are too. So things look good, eh?
FF: Why is the “male left silent?” Maybe it has to do with the fact that men almost universally use porn, and MANY women have basically said “whatever.”
JR: And, increasingly, many women use porn too. That is the goal of any oppressive system, that is not dictatorial or totalitarian: to control speech, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and behavior by controlling what is produced and put into the dominant culture. Basic Chomsky stuff. The sexxxism industries are a 56 billion dollar a year enterprise/empire, and a lot of harm goes into that level of production of material that degrades women and uses women and children as sex-things.
Some will argue “there is no harm” or “the harm is rare” or “women like being treated like that” as some meat eaters will argue “If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why did He make animals out of meat?”
I do not think many people like being plowed into by three erect penises at once, to the point that their eyes roll back in their head, trying to stay somewhat in their bodies because a camera is on them. I do not think many kids in Cambodia like having adult white U.S. businessmen come over and stick their penises in their mouths in exchange for some money. I don’t know many prostitutes who use heroin throughout the day in order to be high enough to #### ten strangers in that same day, or who #### ten strangers to make enough money to support their drug habit. This is reality, of course, but not a kind of freedom the Left endorses, unless the Left’s principles have, well, left.
Pro-porn folks will answer with “but it isn’t all like that: there are some women who have taken charge of production, and don’t allow abuse.” Yes, I believe that is true, as I know there are organic farms that treat animals humanely, but the proportion of the market of “feminist porn"and “non-abusive animal to meat production businesses” are rare, and because they exist doesn’t mean the other 99% of the commercial sexxxism industries aren’t exploiting and harming people. Anyone who has studied or lived in the sexxxism industries knows that the fully empowered prostitute is more a myth than a reality. And even if those kinder non-corporate farms were half of the market, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be protesting the corporate commercial meat industry.
I’ll close for now.
Peace to you all.
Julian Real
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/17 at 12:46 PMCorrection by JR:
This: I don’t know many prostitutes who use heroin throughout the day in order to be high enough to #### ten strangers in that same day, or who #### ten strangers to make enough money to support their drug habit. This is reality, of course, but not a kind of freedom the Left endorses, unless the Left’s principles have, well, left.
Should read as follows:
I don’t know many prostitutes who use heroin throughout the day in order to be high enough to #### ten strangers in that same day, or who #### ten strangers to make enough money to support their drug habit, and call that life a life of freedom. This is reality, of course, but not a kind of freedom the Left endorses, unless the Left’s principles have, well, left.Posted by Julian Real on from 08/17 at 12:52 PMWow, I go away for a few days and look what happens…
I’m only around till Saturday and then it’s off to Texas to be with my mom. I can’t possibly read and digest all these posts...never mind conjure a useful reply. For now, all I can hope to do is eventually answer Nikki’s questions and post my own to her, and try to figure out who the mystery man from Brooklyn is. What’s the big secret that I’m not in on?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/17 at 06:17 PMThank you for your posts, Julian. They are very eloquent.
Recently I read of a Denver policeman who conducted a studyon the harm to prostitutes through their occupation. He was appealing to the judiciary to treat them as the victims they certainly were. He was inspired to do this after noticing the rapid deterioration evident in the mug shots of repeat “offenders”.
I have been unable to find it but you may have more luck.
Have any studies been done on the adverse effects of viewing or “using” pornography on the consumers?
This would be the clincher, I think, as I am sure most men not only think they are doing no harm to the “models” by looking at it, but also think they are doing no harm to themselves and, by extension, to their loved ones.Posted by Jim on from 08/17 at 08:28 PMHi all.
First, a suggestion. Out of respect to Cindy Sheehan, and the validity of focused discussion about what she is accomplishing through her heartfelt acts of bravery and determination, could we separate the themes of this thread, so one can be about her and her supporters and struggles, and another be about Hustler and the effects of porn on us all?
Julian. Next up, a long-ass reply to Jim. I hope you all find it relevant and meaningful.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:19 AMHi Jim.
An ally!
Thank you for your post, very much. And for the work you do. I would indeed like to know about that report you mention, an important one, yes!! I will research that, when time allows. I want to reply to you first, though, as I think you also raise really excellent points, that will keep this conversation moving forward, and will hopefully be personally and politically valuable for the readers here.
Jim:
...This would be the clincher, I think, as I am sure most men not only think they are doing no harm to the “models” by looking at it, but also think they are doing no harm to themselves and, by extension, to their loved ones.JR:
This is so important. I’m glad you honed right in on it.I think the ruse is that we, as males, do not already have this information. We know how porn dehumanises us, we know how it dehumanises our relationships, and we know how it harms those we are with. That is my contention. There are studies, yes, mostly of violent porn’s effect on how men treat women. The results show a decisive link. What men learn from porn, they try and enact on the women in their lives. Were it not for the specifics in porn, those specifics would never become the traumatic memories of many women. A white man strung up and hanged an Asian girl after seeing it in porn. Was he balanced to begin with? I would assume NOT! Would she be alive if he hadn’t seen that particular porn. I think it is likely she would be. His association of an Asian girl being hanged, with his high level of sexual arousal, resulted in him enacting that “fantasy” on her, much to her peril.
I am focusing here on heterosexually active men, but the same holds true for the effect on gay men and lesbian women who use porn, I believe. The issue isn’t males’ and females’ “natural” desires and sexual propensities. The issue, as you suggest, is the effectiveness of porn in turning our sex lives into sexxx lives, and teaching us how to treat people we are intimate with, or not so intimate with, as the case may be, disrespectfully. The porn industry, as most corporate industries do, are in business to supplement our real human needs for needs dictated to us by corporate interests, in this case deeply patriarchal corporate interests. The corporation seeks to exploit and dehumanise the consumer of its product, whatever the product, by telling us we need it to live, or it will enhance our lives. Meanwhile a very small number of people reap financial gain, at our expense. See the movie: The Corporation. Fascinating film which posits this: The corporation is legally understood as an individual person. If the corporation is a person, what kind of person is it? The film argues, rather convincingly, that the corporation is a psychopath. I think it must be rentable now, as it came out last year, I believe.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:21 AMTo further answer your question, I will tell you two true stories (maybe three, it’ll depend on whether I need to nap!), and I’d ask any sexually active man who is reading this who has used a lot or a little porn, to reflect on these anecdotes in terms of their own lives and behaviour. Note: there are no invitations here for men to feel shame. Only greater self-awareness, and responsible to “humanity” as the Left understands it.
One more point before the stories. Have you, dear reader, ever had this thought that repeatedly occurs to me when seeing one of those shows about a trial, and the back and forth of did he do it or didn’t he do it: I wonder “Geez, if the guy would just tell the truth about his behaviour, this two-hour Dateline NBC would be five minutes long!”
If those who commit unjust or disrespectful or criminal acts just simply told the truth of what they did, then we wouldn’t need all these attorneys and juries and legal expenses. If people just simply copped to what they do: “Yes, I murdered him because I he ripped me off last week. I shot him twice.” “I raped her last night after feeling frustrated all day. She didn’t want to have sex, I did, so we did.” “I molested 200 children, boys and girls. My supervisors knew what I was doing, and moved me from parish to parish, which helped me believe that it was OK to keep doing it, even though I knew it wasn’t in my heart. I just couldn’t stop myself. No, wait. I didn’t want to stop myself because molesting kids is a real high for me. I could have stopped myself after the first time (or before), by walking myself down to a police station, and saying “I have a strong desire to molest kids. I’ve acted it out once. I suspect I’ll keep going until I get caught, but I work in a profession that seems to tolerate and condone, privately, this sort of behaviour, even though publicly it condemns those who do such things to eternity in hell. I’d rather spare all those kids so please just arrest me now and keep me from them.”
I realise the preposterousness of what I just wrote. But I think it is easy, when people ask for or require “proof” of things, to acknowledge, when possible, that we know what’s going on. We just won’t talk about it, honestly. Porn has lots of effects on us, some not so harmful to others, some harmful to others, some dehumanising to those who use it.
True story # 1 (I know, this sounds like a bad tabloid magazine!!):
I knew a young male, who was 17 years old, whose best friend was around 15 years old; the 15 year old loved porn. I’m not sure what kinds of porn he liked, but this was pre-internet, and he looked at lots of heterosexual porn magazines of objectified displayed women, for straight men. He was also very lonely.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:22 AMHe met a girl, and they went out, and at the end of their first date, she was open to kissing him. They began kissing. He very soon thereafter pinned her down, sitting on her stomach, with his knees on her arms, and proceeded to kiss her and fondle her breasts. She was very upset by this, which he didn’t seem to notice. He was in a sexual trance state. She eventually got free and never went out with him again. He didn’t understand. My 17 year old friend told me what happened, starting with “You won’t believe what ________ did to ________ last night! I told my friend “I hope you will please explain to him about consent and inappropriate (for clarity here, on this blog, I mean: dehumanising, exploitive, violating) uses of power in sex.” (I was older; not a teen. I had this sort of appallingly clear style of speaking.) I’m not sure to what degree they had that talk. If I knew the 15 year old, I would have talked to him myself, explaining how that made her feel, to help him learn empathy, and that what he has learned to do with porn does not usually play out well with 3 dimensional people, and that there is a real difference between 2D images and 3D people. But I didn’t know him and my friend did not feel comfortable relaying all that to him. They didn’t talk that way with each other.
Here’s what I believe about that incident: the lonely boy was used to having complete control over his sex life. He took out mags when he wanted to experience certain sexual feelings, and the porn was what he used to have sexual feelings. He was used to flat pictures, 2D women, who were available to him. He could flip from pose to pose, to find whichever one turned him on most in that moment.
Once with an actual live female, he basically only knew how to treat her as he did the women in porn: as a 2 dimensional thing, as an object for his sexual use. He was not emotionally mature enough to consider her feelings about the matter, or to contemplate, before or after the incident, how his actions might impact on her. He was 15. I think there are many 15 year old males who are quite capable of more levels of empathy than that, but he wasn’t among them, needless to say.
So, he flattened her out, pinning her down, using her the way he used porn, except he got to act out his fantasy of kissing and touching her. As soon as he got aroused with her, he moved into the determined mode of being sexual that he had been practicing for a few years, with magazines. Had the porn magazines not existed, he never would have learned, at that time, how to treat females this way. (It was before MTV got really sexxxist.)
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:23 AMI believe he would have been immature, emotionally, due to his life experience, even without porn. He never had a male in his life talk to him about his emotional and sexual life, nor “how to treat women as real human beings, with feelings, the way he has feelings, and who are vulnerable, the way he is vulnerable.” I think if he had the lonely upbringing he had, let’s say two hundred years prior, he might have been somewhat callous to females. But back then females were chattel property, so it wouldn’t have been a political issue. We live now in a time of feminism, where women work very hard to remind men “I’m a human being. I am not a piece of pornography.”
But, in this particular time, 2005, now that the porn industry won the war of the 1980s, there are, increasingly, women and men whose desires, tastes, fetishes, etc, are significantly shaped by the sexxxist porn industry, so that women and men both “want” or “desire” what the industry sells. Consumerism is the desire capitalism cultivates in people, purposefully. Sexxxism (not sex) is the desire the porn industry cultivates in its users. Corporate pornographers succeed in selling us all sexxx in place of sex (and intimacy). I contend that humans need intimacy, male and female humans. But that is not what is sold. Idealised ideas of romance are sold. Ridiculous notions that women and men are from different planets are sold (neglecting the fact that boys are not encouraged to have rich emotional lives, and are, instead, systematically shamed away from them, or have no role models for how males can be fully human). Porn is sold. Women can and do absorb this message: if you aren’t sexxxy, men won’t want to be with you. If you aren’t sexxxy, people will think you are ugly or not valuable. Men learn similar things: how men are supposed to act, sexxxually, for example, and how to make sex into sexxx.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:24 AMBut back to our story:
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that the 15 year old treated her this way, and I felt sorry for him, and very concerned about the well-being of the female, knowing that she felt violated, upset, angry, betrayed, hurt, and exploited. I know this was a traumatic experience for her--one of her first sexual experiences. I don’t know it because of studies and statistics; I know it because my friend also was close friends with her, and she’s the one who told him about the encounter, not the 15 year old male. It was my friend who later went to the 15 year old male and told him how his actions affected her.End of story one.
Story two:
A 15 year old male, not the same one, thank God! (he’s had enough troubles), and his best friend, also 15, and a friend of the friend, who was 14, went into a city and got entrance, “legally” so to speak, into a porn theatre to see “Deep Throat” and “The Devil In Miss Jones”: a double feature. They had heard lots of rumors about the movies, especially Deep Throat--about how a woman has to suck guys off in order to experience orgasm. “Cool”, they thought. I say “legally” but of course it was not legal for them to see these movies at that age. But the ticket collector didn’t give a shit, and accepted their cash, as cash is cash, whether it comes from the hands of adolescents or adults.They went into this porn theatre, nervously wondering if men would be jerking off there. To their delight, the theatre was pretty empty. It was the afternoon of a Christmas Day in the mid-1970s.
I will discuss the effects of seeing the films on one of the boys only, although we could discuss the others too, but this post is already JIGUNZA. One of the 15 year olds found Deep Throat really poorly done, really dull, and stupid. (A movie critic, at 15!) But he was intrigued with one scene in the Devil In Miss Jones, also not a very good film. He intently watched as the lead actress inserted a banana into her vagina, with seeming great delight. “Wow!” he thought. “I didn’t know that would really turn a girl on!!!” “I’ve never thought about that before… a banana.”
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:25 AMHe had been using porn since he was 13, by the way. Magazines only, except for the non-traditional Christmas outing to see the two disappointing porn flicks. They all felt kind of ripped off, after leaving the theatre, but whatever, they got to see their first porn films, and so could brag about that, and that was worth the price of admission: being able to go to school after winter vacation and tell kids “Guess what I did on Christmas Day?” (That’d shock the hell out of most kids at that age, at that time! And it did.) These days you’d have to make them 9 year olds for this story to be believable. Internet porn access means kids are seeing porn at younger and younger ages, after all.
Back to the story:
Two years go by. The one boy we’re now discussing has a new girlfriend. They have sex for the first time. He likes her as a person. She likes him as a person. They laugh a lot together, and share common interests. He loses his virginity to her, walking around school the next day wondering if anyone can notice. (No one does. All that social patriarchal pressure to lose his virginity, and nothing to show for it!)During their first months of being sexual together an idea comes to his mind: “I bet she’d love to masturbate with a banana!!” This is a dishonest thought, partly. He does wonder this, which asking her would give him an answer to. He asks her. She says she’s not interested. Now it stops being about her needs and wishes and desires, and becomes solely about his. He’s kind of obsessed with the idea of seeing her do this with a banana. He keeps asking her and telling her it will feel really good. He knows for sure it will feel real good. “You’ll love it” he keeps telling her, “I promise”. After weeks of pressuring and determination, she relents. “OK, give me the banana.” (He made sure to always have a not too ripe one available, hoping she’d relent at some point.) He puts a condom on it first, for health reasons. He does this to convince her he cares about her well-being. She uses it for a minute or so. “I’m not enjoying this,” she says. “That’s because you’re not letting yourself,” he argues pleadingly. “Just keep trying it… it’s gonna feel real good soon.” She tries a while longer, increasingly bored. Finally he accepts her word that this really isn’t doing anything for her. He is utterly perplexed.
Years later he apologises to her for pressuring her to do that. He explains “I saw it in porn and was convinced you’d really like it. But me pressuring you was about my needs to watch it, not really about your needs, although I did really think you’d enjoy it.” She told him, “I barely remember that. Don’t worry about it.”
This is the only time in his life he was sexually coercive with a female. He grew up empathising with females, because he had a bully for an older brother, to whom he said “I hate your guts” a lot, and had close female cousins his age who treated him much better than his brother did. He was molested by someone who lured him with porn, as were two of the three female cousins he was close with. They were incested by a great uncle, actually. Later on he learns about porn from feminists and about the harm done to the star of Deep Throat, and the rise of incidents of throat rape after the movie came out. This isn’t abstract theory for him. He gets it. He’s lived it.
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:26 AMI’ll close for now, Jim, because I’ve rambled on long enough. But I would ask any man who is reading this, who has used porn, or who uses porn, to tell stories about themselves, or about men they know, who have used porn in these ways. I know there are at least a million of these stories. Maybe we can document a dozen or more of them here.
Peace.
Julian Real
Posted by Julian Real on from 08/18 at 10:27 AMHi R.T.,
I’ve read some more of the page and I like very much what you have written here, what insights you have shared with Mickey, and both your thoughtfulness and your political perspective. I want to respond to several of your concerns and questions eventually, but there’s only time for one right now.
You wrote:
“Now, I don’t know exactly where that picture came from, but it seems to suggest that Mickey might just as well be a racist Jew hater, etc., ...”
We don’t think Mickey is a “racist Jew hater” and that’s not what we wrote. What we wrote was: ““Mickey Z Cool in Hustler Magazine while helping the Misogyny, Racism, Anti-Semitism and Hate Speech happen”.” And we do believe that Micky Z did enable Hustler magazine’s message of hate by publishing his article with them.
Let’s use this as an example, say Mickey had instead figured he wanted to reach a larger audience and did an article about organic cotton for Stars N Stripes. I believe it could legitimately be said that he was aiding and abetting the military, and personally profiting, at a time they are slaughtering the people of Iraq.
I’m pretty sure at least some of our allies would interpret his alliance with a military publication--no matter what the audience--to be collaboration, wouldn’t they?
I’d hate to even mention the debate that would surely ensue if he got $1,000.00 from the military for an article on organic cotton that failed to recognize what the military was doing in Iraq, and I’d imagine everyone wouldn’t be all nice and cozy asking for a quick explanation about his article. Close your eyes and truly imagine how it would make you feel if he published in such a publication, under those circumstances, and that’s how we feel.
Now here’s the key, I believe, if you go into any oppressor publication or dominant media forum and get across an article that challenges the premise of the oppressors publication and/or their power then I would assume that might be considered a political success.
However, a man who considers himself a vegan and a feminist goes into a magazine that advocates rape of women and animals talking about some other topic and doesn’t mention, “uh, say, don’t you have cartoons all the time about raping animals in your mag...well uh I’m against that”? has just make mincemeat of his own politics.
Nikki Craft
F.U.C.K. (Feminists Uncovering Censorship Knowledgeably)
http://www.hustlingtheleft.comPosted by Nikki Craft on from 08/18 at 11:00 AMHere’s a story about bananas:
In the movie “City of God” about gangsters in the slums of Brazil, two women are speaking over the well. The older, more sexually experienced woman asks the younger, also married girl if she “takes it from behind.”
The younger girl says, “no.” And says that she thinks her husband would beat her for even asking.
The older woman asks if she’s ever stuck a banana in her ass or pussy (it’s not clear). The younger woman blushes away, and embarrassed at her own inexperience says that her husband, a scumbag and local snitch, would never do those kind of things.
The older woman says to try double penetrating herself with a banana while she’s having sex and that “men go crazy for that kind of smut” and encourages her to be sexually experimental.
The next scene shows a banana on the bed, but a younger fishmonger has come into to do all the “dirty” things her husband won’t. Her husband discovers her indiscretion and murders her.
Does “City of God,” one of the finest movies in recent years by any measure, promote the abuse of women because it presents women as seeking new forms of penetration?
By the way: dipshit adolescent boys were sexually abusing girls LONG before porn was an issue.
My own experience with dildos was from women introducing them into sex play when we had problems using condoms, from young lesbians giving workshops on sex toys, and from, yes, you guessed it, pornography.
If porn has any merit at all, it’s that it vastly expands the sexual knowledge of young people. Young women are watching A LOT of porn, and coming to their own conclusions about it. The pocket rocket vibrator is now ubiquitous, and the pornographized culture is part of why vibrators are now destigmatized.
This is beside the point about what Hustler magazine is, and what fucked up ideas it promotes (including what can only be called misogyny).
The simplistic and wrong-headed arguments of the anti-porn crowd are why so many people of conscience have just written the issue off. That, and the fact that with the internet—it’s not going anywhere.
Posted by to Julian on from in an octopus' garden by the bay 08/28 at 01:35 PMPart 1 of 2 posts.
Hello poster with no name other than “to julian”:
You can publicly defend porn all day every day, and that doesn’t make the misogynist, racist, and pro-child sex abuse material, and uses of that material, disappear. The fact that not all porn is harmful to all people doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful to some, and doesn’t make the industry ethical. Vioxx didn’t cause everyone to have a heart attack or stroke, but it was considered dangerous. Everyone who drinks and drives doesn’t get into an accident, but that doesn’t make doing so safe. Your logic is horrendously flawed. The fact that people died from the Plague doesn’t mean they don’t die from AIDS.Porn teaches adolescent boys many things: none of them especially useful to having a respectful, emotionally real relationship with a girl (or boy); rather, heteroporn trains boys, generally, to see girls and women as sexual things to be used, to be visually violated or physically violated. It needn’t have this effect on everyone to have this effect. The fact that tobacco doesn’t lead to lung cancer in everyone doesn’t mean, as your logic suggest, that it magically doesn’t lead to lung cancer in anyone. (And I don’t just mean Hustler, although the http://www.hustlingtheleft.com website does actually show you the level of contempt for humanity many parts of the porn world thrive on. When’s the last time a corporate pimp/pornographer got a humanitarian award? Do you have any wonderful pornographers you’d like to nominate?
Porn (what the corporate porn industry manufactures and distributes) cannot exist without performing (at least) two dehumanising acts against humanity: objectification and exploitation. Those are the prerequisites for it to exist. You, unnamed one, are apparently content with those as human values. Most people I know who call themselves humanitarians are not content with that standard of treatment of others. We believe people should be SEEN and TREATED as real, complex, multilayered people, not flattened out into sexxx-objects for consumption in corporate racist patriarchy. You get to disagree. That doesn’t make you right, however, and if you gave a shit about women harmed in the sexxxism industries you wouldn’t offer up such callous and self-serving commentary in order to defend your own uses of porn. Let’s face it: ain’t no one gonna stop your porn use, buddy. So go enjoy yerself. But don’t pretend the industry doesn’t cause harm. It does. Yes, there are other forms of injury in the world too: famine, genocide, poverty. But calling porn “good” for humanity is like calling McDonalds “good” for humanity. And in each case, lots of people liking what is sold doesn’t change what it does, nor what it exists to do.
Is there any brave soul willing to talk about how porn has effected their lives/relationships/views of women and children negatively, because we all know stories of this happening, but most men won’t talk about it, in order to protect their right to use the material, and people, that way. Surely, at least, there are men out there who, as boys, had someone lure them with porn to gain access to their bodies to then sexually abuse them. It’s in the “How To Rape Kids, for Dummies” book, in the “Common Approaches” chapter. Is anyone willing to speak out about this, or are heads just going to remain in the sand?
And the fact that more and more women enjoy porn only tells us how effective the corporate sexxxism industry is in selling its products (an effective marketing campaign doesn’t make the product “good”,as anyone who watches TV and buys products knows. Yes, women are being sold the idea that looking like porn is the way to be beautiful, but I know plenty of women and men who think that “look” is tragic, not beautiful. That you sexually enjoy images or videos of fake-breasted, fake-haircolored, fake-fingernailed, airbrushed two-dimensional people doesn’t make doing so “humanitarian”. If porn is so wonderful, will you encourage your daughter to be in the industry, or to be a prostitute? (What if she really WANTS to?) If more and more people like McDonalds, does that render their food healthy?
If all women asked to be treated disrespectfully, does that make disrespecting a woman OK? The humanitarian answer is “no”.
Posted by julian real on from 08/29 at 06:22 PMYour arguments are weak, your logic has permanent flaws, and you demonstrate a terrible naivete about what actually happens in the sexxxism industries designed to use and abuse people. Some of those real people are women, some are men, some are children. You have the option to actively care about that. Instead you take up cyberspace defending an industry of inhumanity. Some of us don’t have that wall of denial up to hide and use porn behind. It matters not to me whether you are caring about women harmed in the industry; the industry, like most corporate industries, is set up to not care much about real people; that you do not care (to the point of publicly defending the industry) simply makes you a “bought” consumer. To publicly defend a corporate industry that does so much harm is to render yourself rather insensitive to the suffering of others.
I’m Julian Real. What’s your name?
Posted by julian real on from 08/29 at 06:24 PMNews from London:
The London Radical Cheerleaders (LRC) have
recently become aware of the refusal of a major
high street stationary retailers to withdraw
their ‘exclusive’ range of Playboy stationary
following many complaints. While a spokesperson
has stated it is marketed towards teenagers such
complaints have confirmed that it’s being purchased by girls aged 10 and 11. While we believe in educating children about sexuality, including pornography, we do not feel this is an informed way to teach them about such a potentially damaging and exploitative industry as behind the guise of the pink emblazoned logo and glitter the realities of the industry are hidden. We believe many young girls that are arguably often unequipped to make informed decisions regarding their consumer power or appreciate the power of symbolism that this product endorses are passively imbibing patriarchally controlled sexual objectification thinly veiled as female adoration.As no real efforts have been made by this retailer to address this issue members of the LRC will be visiting 5 different London based retailers on Saturday 27th August to counteract what we perceive as the glamourisation and normalisation of the porn industry, directed towards young girls. We are also planning to challenge, within the same establishment, the display and accessibility of ‘lad’s mags’ and their disingenuous attempts to display ‘proper’ pornography more discreetly. We intend to distribute information to custormers encouraging the questioning of financing and advocating lascivious lothario whose status is equivalent to pimpdom. There is also a letter being drafted in which we will pitch our own product with offensive symbolism to the product buyers at the retailer’s headquarters to mock their moral negligence and emphasise the importance of corporate responsibility.
Posted by julian real on from 08/29 at 07:09 PM
Next entry: A middle-class parable (with an Ethan Hawke coda, no less)
Previous entry: Tell-a-friend Thursday, plus: John, Yoko, bagism, and some frightening food for thought
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
