Pornography

Mith's Blog: The Feminist Anti-Porn Argument

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:53:35 GMT

Okay, Mith here. I'm going to be doing a few blogs for Argus. Once I figure out how to work this thing...*hits computer with hammer*

Close enough.

Anyways, onto more serious matters. It's often been a common to hear feminists complain about porn. Well, that makes sense. They see it as a way to degrade women...but is that true? Here's a link to a Feminist blog (vlog?) on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHXyomf6NAA&feature=PlayList&p=3B6AC545B0E0C730&index=0

As the blogger indicates, she feels that she cannot clearly outline her problems with porn, but she does have a list that she believes does it well enough for her. As such, I have taken the time to outline the large, large problems with this list. Said list can be found here:

http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/whats-wrong-with-pornography/

And if you'll bear with me, I still haven't learned to use the quotation method that Argus has, so I'm going to put the quotations in bold and a slightly larger text.

Pornography harms women.
Pornography is not fantasy. Pornography happens in the real world, to real women; everything you see in pornography happened somewhere to a real woman.

Yes, Pornography is real—to an extent. Pornography is an entertainment industry. So while some of these things in porn do happen, such as the actual physical sexual contact, it doesn’t mean that everything else such as incidents surrounding it happened. Nor in fact, does it mean that these women are being forced into this. They choose to do this. Just because a woman is low on income and sees this as a last resort does not mean that they were forced by into it. There are other options that the woman has, but for some reason she chose that industry to make her life.

The pornography industry is a multi-billion dollar global industry.
Pornography exists to make money. It is an industry that chews women up and spits them out; it is an industry where exposure to violence, harassment, injury and infection are seen as normal and acceptable.

Yes, yes it may be. The problem is, that doesn’t make it illegal. Construction workers face similar problems. They are constantly being exposed to danger and they are asked to physically destroy themselves. Or US soldiers. They’re asked to put themselves in areas full of hostile enemies with not just knives, handguns, and a midnight alleyway, but against enemies with automatic weapons, bombs, and tanks. Life is not this rosey little world where everything is fair and nice. People from all walks of life are forced to do things they don’t like.

And why is this a 'woman’s' issue? Why is this not potrayed as something that also chews men up and spits them out? Are they no less on sexual display? Are they no less considered meat that is to be tossed out when no longer of value? What about men who start suffering erectile disfunction? What about men who get too old and are no longer considered of use?

Pornography doesn’t expand our sexuality – it stunts it.
Mainstream heterosexual pornography dictates a narrow and limited idea of human sexuality. In pornography, male sexuality is predicated on cruelty, coercion and degradation; female sexuality is predicated on submitting to or appearing to enjoy being subjected to cruel, coercive and degrading treatment. Pornography eradicates women’s sexual agency, and makes it harder for women to find out about their own bodies and their own sexuality.

False. Yes, there is some porn that does indeed display men using predetorial means of obtianing sex. Porn that displays men being manipulative, forceful, and doing things that are degrading nd cruel is not potraying an accurate form of sexual experience. But then again, pornography isn’t a documentary. It’s not meant to teach men what sex is—it is there to act as a ventation. In the same way that playing a video game of two hardcore cops on the edge is not an accurate represenation of how real police officers work is not meant to portray the reality of law enforcement, neither is porn an actual representation of sexuality. Because it’s not supposed to be.

Porn is directed at men, or least, the majority of it is. And thus, most porn represents a very male dominated presentation because it is a male fantasy. It is the idea of men getting entirely what they want out of sex. What is that? Pleasure and dominance. Just like how in an action game, we want to be a gun totting badass who guns down innocent civilians who get in the way of villains. Porn is nothing more than a fantasy. It’s no better than attacking a violent movie for being violent.

This doesn’t mean that men who watch porn will become violent. It may, for some who are rather naïve, direct them into having some early trips in how reality works if all they’ve seen is fantasy, but that doesn’t mean it ruins their life forever, just like how playing a football game on the Wii and then playing it in real life suddenly causes a brutal awakening to the naïve player. As for women—again, this is not a female oriented industry. Perhaps there are women, who like it, but this is again, a fantasy and they will not be looking to be making love with someone, but rather get out sexual tension.

Pornography portrays sexual violence against women as normal, natural and an inevitable part of male sexuality.
Sexual desire does not develop in a vacuum. The prurient attitude we have to sex in this country, combined with a lack of decent sex education, means that many people use pornography as their primary source of information on what sex is supposed to be like. Mainstream heterosexual pornography tells men that the sexual abuse of women is exciting, and that women enjoy being abused. It tells women that in order to do sex properly, they have to put up with and enjoy such abuse.

Just as sexual desire does not develop in a vacuum, neither do humans lack the ability to learn when reality isn’t living up to fantasy. A young male, even one who has learned only sexuality from porn, is not going to act that way against a woman for only the reason of watching a porn video. Human interaction is far more complicated than that. If a young male experiencing sex for the first time does something overtly aggressive that he sees portrayed in a fantasy—it will be met with female hostility. Why? Because the female does not like it. Now, because in most cases, men want to make their sexual partners happy long before sexual interaction, they will often immediately cease that action. Why? Because it is a logical response. Just like how if I were misinformed in a proper way to speak to someone, I would not continue to act that way when my expectations of their responses are not met. This is because we are a very social species and we will more often than not cease a behavior that is disapproved by another individual.

This is not always true of course. There are plenty of people who will insist upon their way and demand that others obey—but that is not the fault of pornography, but rather a mixture if improper raising on the parent’s part or simple problems with that individual. It is not the company’s fault that someone has chosen fantasy over reality and has trouble because of it.

Pornography reinforces male supremacy, and the idea that men are entitled to sexual access to women’s bodies.
Men define themselves as being whatever is not a woman, in order to be a man it is necessary for there to be a subordinate group of women for men to compare themselves to and feel superior to. In mainstream heterosexual pornography men are always the active agents and women are always the passive objects. No man in pornography ever fails to get what he wants; the women in pornography exist solely to satisfy men’s desires, they have no will or desire of their own except to service men’s needs.

An incredibly bad argument. First, saying that men define themselves as what is not womanhood is utterly and completely bunk. Men are the way they are because men desire to be masculine and they define that based upon their own desires and culture. Furthermore, men are not always portrayed as active agents. There is plenty of pornography depicting women as the aggressors and men as passive objects that the women desire to have and get—purely for their own sexual pleasure.

Again, this isn’t something that men thought on for hours, days, weeks, or even years, but rather a natural desire of humans. It has taken a sexual encounter and potrayed it in a light that while not socially acceptable—is exciting and hence, arousing. The same is true in women. Some women might find a porn where a woman gets forced into sex as arousing because women view masculinity as desirable. And while they would never accept a male who forces her into sex when they want to, they find the situation arousing because it presents a very radical and masculine heavy image.

Pornography portrays sex and women as disgusting.
The words used to describe women and women’s bodies in pornography betray the fact that women and sex are seen as dirty and disgusting by the men who use it: ‘bitch’ ‘cunt’ ‘slut’ ‘fuck toy’ ‘fuck hole’ ‘dirty’ ‘filthy’ etc etc.

Again, that is not entirely true. There are plenty of porn movies, games, and the like that portray sex as deep, beautiful, and in some cases, even spiritual. The women in these more ‘dirty’ pornographies are not portrayed in such a manner because they wish to influence the audience, but rather to appeal to the audience’s already set desires. People don’t make movies (often) because they want to influence people, but rather to appeal to something people like. Action movies and comedies exist because people like them and will pay to see them.

In that same manner, people will pay for dirty porn because they want dirty porn.

Pornography promotes misogynistic beauty standards.
In mainstream heterosexual pornography women are interchangeable, it trains women and men to see a natural female body – one with pubic hair, or small breasts, or any fat – as unnatural and disgusting.

Another misconception. First off, this only shows the lack of knowledge and the abundance of ignorance shown here. There are many pornographies out there that show fat women, older women, hairy women, and women with small breasts as attractive and desirable by males. This is again, because it is playing to the likes and dislikes of people. People in general, prefer attractive counterparts. This is based on a natural desire to seek out a mate that is not only healthy, but successful. This is determined by many factors that make men and women attracted to each other. Women seek out masculine men and thus will be more attracted to men with greater physical strength and stamina, but even more so men will be attracted to women with hips that shows they will bare healthy children or ample breasts that show they will be able to supply that child with nutrition.

Pornography affects you.
Even if you are not a pornography consumer, a significant number of the men you interact with every day will be. It’s difficult to imagine that a man can spend a lot of time viewing and masturbating to degrading images of women without that pornographic ideology having a negative effect on his view of women.

It’s difficult to imagine because it isn’t true. Most men are not stupid, easily led individuals who will believe one source of information their entire life when all of their interactions prove this to be wrong time and time again. Nor is it true that because a great deal of women like Twilight—a fantasy about an emotionally distant and abusive male vampire who treats his girlfriend like an object and nothing better than added luggage—that they will suddenly all desire men such as that. Which is ironic because most men hate Twilight because the vampire Edward is an emotionally distant and abusive boyfriend who treats his girlfriend like an object and nothing better than added luggage.

In short, if this is what you consider a good argument, you’re in trouble. The argument ignores the reason for porn and why it exists. It furthermore ignores the fact of why it exists. This isn’t an argument about morality or how these women are being abused (because they aren’t, they chose this), but rather an argument of porn causes sexual violence and violations. It’s no different than claiming that video games cause violence. It ignores that most people understand the difference and it ignores that most people do not act they way they should in a fantasy setting because fantasies by their nature, are designed for that purpose. So we can act in ways we don’t often act. So we can be the villain, or the cop on the edge. Or the hardcore stud screwing some hot chick and tells her to go make sandwhich.

The fact is, you don’t understand men or women. You just want to paint a perfect world where no one ever even conceives of people being remotely violent or aggressive towards another in a way that isn’t socially acceptable when in fact, we all do it. And the reason we simulate it is so we don’t actually have to do it to get the same satisfaction from it. Just like how some people play video games for the thrill, some people watch porn of abusive sex for the thrill of being mistreated or mistreating. They all appeal to portions of the human mind.

What is Feminism?

ArgusEyes — Mon, 11 May 2009 01:22:47 GMT

This is about as intellectual as many discussions on feminism get. I focus on feminism in my videos so much because no other political movement is so demonstrably wrong and stupid as I believe feminism to be, and yet people still swallow the blue pill and whisper comforting myths to themselves as to the true nature of feminism. This video is a very condensed description of feminism as it exists now, in the modern world, there is not time to cover the history of feminism and I am speaking about the people who form the academic and activist vanguard of the movement.

The first step is to deconstruct the term “feminism”. When we put “ism” on the end of a word we do so to denote a belief system. So apparently feminism is a belief system of the feminine or of acting in the interests of the feminine, as is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the term:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

This sounds perfectly reasonable, and the early feminist movement has done a lot to raise awareness of the need for women and men to have equal rights but it has been perverted, as most movements eventually do. Here it is mentioned that feminism is a doctrine advocating equal rights but a lot of people mention it as advocating equality. These things are not the same and words have meanings and it is important that we go beyond the beyond to examine how these philosophies play out in real life.

We understand equality, in terms of mathematics most clearly, as two sides of the equation being the same. But a lot of us understand that humans cannot be made uniform, we vary naturally as a species in ability and drive so when using the word equality, libertarians and classical liberals refer to the equality of opportunity and the non-discrimination of law. Whereas socialists and collectivists use the word equality to denote equality of outcome or sameness. Therefore the libertarian definition of equal rights is closest to what this dictionary definition says and the actual feminists are farthest from it.

The feminist stands for the socialist collectivist model, you can see this in the types of arguments they make. When a feminist argues that the fact that women earn less than men and therefore this is proof of discrimination, they never try to explicate whether or not women are making personal decisions which result in less pay, as Warren Farrell proves in his book “why men earn more”, or whether or not this is really discrimination. Feminists assume that the existence of a difference is, in and of itself, proof of discrimination and that is the end of the story for them.

This un-academic and simple minded treatment of a complex subject betrays the religious nature of what feminism actually is. It is a system of beliefs that are not open to examination, they are faith based. Nothing is more faithfully held to the feminist than the belief that the roles men and women assume are socially constructed, that is that the differences between the two are largely due to conditioning and that the main difference is physical.

As much as feminists will try to deny this, the wage gap argument that so many feminists make is one proof for the veracity of this argument. If you assume that an outcome in numbers is all that is needed to prove discrimination then you are tacitly admitting that the two sexes are the same but of course this is not true, any reasonable person can understand this through his or her interactions in the daily world. Male female difference is one of the favourite topics of comedians because it strikes at the heart of the differences between us and our angst at those differences.

The feminist meme that gender is socially constructed, whilst true in some, is ultimately a denial of science. If one is to admit that men and women differ physically and that the brain is a physician organ like any other. Then it stands to reason that men and women have different behaviours due to different brain compositions and hormonal balances and this is exactly correct. As a science geek myself I have read numerous studies about the differences between men and women. I know of not one peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that men and women are the same. Feminists simply do not back up their claims like their detractors do, such as Steve Moxon does in his book “The woman Racket”.

A good example our innate differences is the case of David Reimer who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision left him with no penis. David rejected his indoctrination and changed his gender back to male but suffered mentally and eventually committed suicide. The case was hailed as a success in the media but after the truth came out, Dr Money, who suggested the change, rejects criticisers as being part of the “anti-feminist movement”. [1]

Numerous surveys report that young woman want to stay at home, put more emphasis on the family, prefer male bosses, marry up to men making more than they do and have a different sexual nature to men. However, this evidence does not get incorporated into feminism because they already have their conclusion and they use evidence like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination, this is a prominent feature of many other pseudosciences such as creationism and homeopathy. A good example of reality falling on deaf feminist ears is this extract from the BBC’s women’s hour program.

(please see the video for audio)

The outcome based view of the feminist makes them an enemy of liberty. Since, in liberty you have the opportunity to fail or to have the effects of your actions affect the standing of the social group you are in. Such things are reprehensible to the collectivist so the solutions they propose are always to push for big government intervention into all of our lives.

This is happening constantly, the latest event I am aware of is of “Harriett Harman” the “minster for women and equality” proposing an “Equalities Bill” which would force companies to publish average hourly rates for their male and female employees. In very recent news she will now use this bill to force banks to hire women.

'Sometimes we have to take scary methods in order to achieve worthwhile results,' she told a mainly female audience. 'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".'[5]

I must use brevity in light of the fact that I am physically shaking with anger and rage whenever I read the latest fascist proposal from this worm of a human being. But the next time you hear a feminist squawking about what whatever is disturbing their system at that particular time then just remember this, this is what they believe in and this is what they will do. Female supremacy, sexism and socialism bordering on fascism.

Despite Harman’s efforts to put women on a pedestal, one of the big myths around feminism is the notion that it acts in the interest of women. In fact not many things are more disdainful of women than feminism is. This is exemplified by a famous quote from Simone de Beauvoir in reference to stay at home mothers:

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it."[3]

The arrogance of this is staggering. Surely the person who should be acting in the interest of a woman is that individual woman. One of the actions the left performs is that it monopolises a group and pretends to be the only legitimate and allowable moral voice in representation of that group. A woman who subscribes to feminism is making a serf of herself to a particular political agenda.

Apparently a woman cannot choose whether to appear in pornography or to prostitute herself as there is a strong feminist opposition to such things. Why is this so? This is a clear cut case of where feminism acts to restrict the choices of women and as the Simone de Beauvoir quote alludes to, there is an agenda about what the feminists want women to be doing. The objection to pornography comes from being anti-male. Their problem with it is that women are being sexually submissive to males but there is also strong evidence that an increase in pornographic proliferation leads to less instances of rape.

The leftist activism of feminism is inherently anti-conservative. Old models of femininity are seen as being created by and for the benefit of men therefore the aim is to break the bonds between the genders. The example of the wage gap is an example of the disdain for women’s choices; another good example is how things such as Rape and domestic violence have their meanings skewed to include more and more women in their folds.

Does this attempt to broaden the meaning of rape help young women or hinder them? Feminism continues to exist as long as it has a bill of victim grievances to sell. By keeping young women angry and scared they ensure the next generation of young feminists through their paranoid conspiracy theories. I met young women like this at university not too long ago and they had chips on their shoulder that were at complete odds with their status in the 21^st century. Never before have has women had so much choice and freedom and never before have they been so angry.

The truth is that feminism is an identity which people with an activist mindset can slip into like a warm slipper. Their modes of acting and though are not too dissimilar to what one can see in black activism and gay activism and if a feminist was born a black man then she would be following Jesse Jackson instead of Gloria Steinem. Same walls, different wallpaper. These movements start with noble causes but as they succeed the membership is whittled away to the radical members who are left with the task of manufacturing grievances to legitimise their own existence.

The majority of people who call themselves “feminist” have bought the notion of feminism meaning equality and thus call themselves feminist without too much thought as to what feminism is, but these people do not sit on the payroll of feminist organisations or on women’s study faculty or try to pass feminist inspired laws. They are simply a rather convenient human shield for the radical feminists who are doing the damage. Feminists like this:

“The National Organization for Women-NYS stands in solidarity with NYS Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington in support[sic] legislation that will once and for all state clearly that violence against women must be regarded as a "hate crime."”[4]

Believe me, I have a long list of laws and proposals like this. Another good example is gender quotas. There is another name for a philosophy whereby you look at the world through the lens of sex, where every situation must be examined in how many women are in it and how it affects women. The name for this is sexism and that is ultimately what feminists are, sexists. Any man who says comparable things about women would be branded as a sexist and bigot and sent packing in short order.

So in short: Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] When Feminist Dogma Met Dr. Mengela - Carey Roberts

http://mesarchives.blogspot.com/2004/05/when-feminist-dogma-met-dr-mengela.html

[2] Bill set to expose gender pay gap

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

[3] Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens

http://blog.enlightenedwomen.org/2009/04/06/chapter-12-the-gender-wardens.aspx

[4] NYS Lawmakers Must Rethink Violence Against Women as a Hate Crime
February 26, 2009

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2009/pr_022609.html

[5] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

[not referenced] Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter

http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1261

[not referenced] Women's brains are different from men's – and here's scientific proof

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

A government built on empathy will ultimately degrade those it seeks to help

ArgusEyes — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:44:59 GMT

There is a guy on YouTube called “Thomas” who I have been having an email exchange with, I have been posting my replies on this blog as I feel it is important to get other people’s take on the matter and to also display a reasonable person who debates well. You can see my previous responses in the posts “I get email: 'Real Injustices'???” and “Our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them”. I present his newest email minus introductory pleasantries and signature.

YOU SAY THAT YOU WANT THE FREEDOM TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES AND MISTAKES AND THAT THE OPPRESSIVE SPECTRE OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OFF OF OUR BACKS.

Unless you are completely anarchist, you will agree with me that the implementation of laws that take away for instance peoples freedom to commit murder is very necessary, because the freedom to do such things severely stifles the freedom of people other than the choice making individual itself. In this way, a human beings right to choose to do whatever it pleases ends precisely the moment when its choice of action does damage to or stifles the freedom of other individuals, and most of us (including you and I) are very appreciative of a government intervening on our behalf to stop other people from compromising our freedom by stealing from us, killing us, hurting us, cheating us and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately the most privileged group in our society, i.e. white western males often seem to believe that government should only intervene to the extent that western white male (dare I say patriarchal?) freedoms and liberties will be protected from oppression, and that the oppression and hardships unique to a single given minority should continually be allowed to be practiced by said privileged group of white males.

We ban murder in our society because we consider a murderers freedom to kill to be worth a lot less than the freedom and security of potential murder victims. By this logic society should also consider male sexual dominance to be worth a lot less than the freedom and security of women and children, especially in the face of all the evidence of both the harmful effect of pornography on the human mind and on the enormous human costs of the sex industry itself. It does not, however, because of the utter lack of empathy of the privileged ruling class in society; a class whose supremacist ideals of individualism and freedom do not apply to the suppressed, but amounts only to the freedom of the oppressor to continue oppressing.

ALSO, IN COMMENTING ON MY ARGUMENT REGARDING THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN CHOICES, YOU SAY THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ANALYSE THE NUANCES IN OUR DECISIONS AND IN THE LIGHT THEREOF DECIDE WHAT IT THINKS ARE ACCEPTABLE WAYS TO LEAD A LIFE BECAUSE THIS STIFLE[S] THE FREEDOM OF MEN [AND] INFANTILISE[S] THEM.

It would seem that you did not read my last letter that closely, so let me answer the above-mentioned (again) with a true story this time. Consider 19-year-old Maksuda. She is a single mother and has been a factory worker since she was 11. She became pregnant with her daughter at age 17 and found herself unable to keep up with the rapid production of goods. Her manager noticed her slow down and said that he didn't want to hear her excuses about being pregnant. She tried to respond but according to her, "He violently kicked [her], hard, in the stomach and [she] fell to the floor. [She] fainted." She worked until she was eight and a half months pregnant and tried to ask for a legal maternity leave but was told that there was no law for this in the factory.

I wont tell you how this story ends, but rest assured that if you as a government official tell Maksuda that you will not analyse the nuances in her decision to be in the factory because you do not wish to infantilise her, the expression on her face will not be one of extreme gratitude. But then again, you did say the freedom of men; not the freedom of women and children my bad.

Moreover I do not think that your very individualist statement that [i]f people want to degrade themselves then let them do it would not look overly humane in the context of Maksuda and neither does it in the case of the victims of the sex industry.

FINALLY, YOU SAY THAT WANTING TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY AND NOT PORNOGRAPHY IN SPIRIT IS IMBECILIC.

This is, in fact, NOT what I insinuated. If you would care to look at my letter again, it says that I am NOT AT ALL [] proposing that we make it illegal for women to [] participate in pornography. If this was not clear I apologise and I hope that you will let me clarify this point. What I mean to say is this:

If a woman should really (really?) want to engage in double anal and vaginal penetration while simultaneously being called a worthless little slut reduced to the mere tightness of her genital openings in the privacy of her own home in front of her brand new SONY handycam, then that decision is of course entirely up to her. What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is of no business of the state - period. In the same way, if you want to smoke a fat cigar in the privacy of your own home, not caring about the empirical evidence in front of you, telling you that it could kill you in the long run, then that is also entirely your decision. But

The moment you enter a multi million dollar industry in which you get paid (as opposed to doing it for free) to do physically and emotionally devastating things to yourself in public (as opposed to doing them in private) for the amusement of white western males in order to support your children or a drug abuse (as opposed to doing it out of personal inclination), then considered government intervention is most certainly justified as it is was when the government decided that you cannot blow smoke from your fat cigar in my face in public and endanger my health or stifle my freedom from getting lung cancer.

To be honest, Mark, I do not think that our disagreements are as much about a clash of fundamental world views as much as they are about our very differing views on privilege and empathy.

Our differences are indeed about empathy. I feel that making political decisions on empathy is a fools path. Empathy is not normally universal, that is just not what humans do right? When we empathise then we do so towards some perceived oppressed group, and that leads to misery.

Your writing drips with a kind of Marxist demagoguery. When you talk about “white males” at every step then I think it’s not too much of a leap to imagine your mentality causing real oppressions for that group, and then what? Re calibrate, recast them and then they become the new victims? This kind of thinking has caused more human misery than is possible to calculate.

Basing systems on empathy and emotion is the worst thing us humans can do. It is a well know phrase that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I don’t doubt that you are a good man but your mentality causes harm. Let’s have an example:

There was a luxury tax passed a while ago on yachts. The idea was basically eat (ahem sorry, tax) the rich. What happened? The rich stopped buying yachts, they would buy other things or work around the loopholes to avoid the tax. Sales of yachts dropped. Who suffered? The not so rich people who worked in shipping yards and providing services that related to yachts and yacht owning. So the emotion of punishing those deemed to be the haves, the emotion-based laws punished the types of people they are supposed to empathise with.

The foundational flaw of your argument is where you compare direct action which cannot be misunderstood like committing violence against another person, with an ethereal threat for which you need to make a winding justification for its danger.

People have churches and groups and can make their own mind up on what is bad for them, when you make the government enforce it on all people then this is tyranny. For everything there is a line, a pat on the back is hitting and some nebulous threat according to you is not the same as a tangible threat.

Also, ever considered that you might be wrong? I feel that rape has decreased due, in part, to the proliferation of porn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDshCXHBjQc). Think beyond your specific causes for a moment. The average life expectancy of a homosexual male is decreased about 14 years by their actions, compare this to the loss of life through cigarettes (7 years the last I heard). Now, in a system you want where policy is made on what people emote about being good for society. What is to stop a bigoted anti-gay group from oppressing homosexuals? Nothing, if you can make a strangled case for it then it might pass. In my system nothing like this can pass because of the basic freedoms that I would grant to all.

Porn Up, Rape Down

ArgusEyes — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:51:05 GMT

Our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:31:57 GMT

This is a follow-up to some feedback email I received. You can read the original blog post here.

Dear Mark

I could seemingly not upload this letter as a comment on your blog. Will you do that if you can?

With respect to Feministing.com I am glad that you make clear that focussing on the trivialities of a particular cause from time to time is not necessarily always a bad thing. But I completely agree with you that only focussing on trivial matters is to neglect many of the issues that really matter in this instance your trash magazine-analogy was a nice example. I do not know if Feministing.com censor opposing view, are obtuse [or] fling obscenities at their opponents, but if this is really the case, then of course they would go down in my estimation as well. I am just yet to experience this as I do not really spend much time on the Feministing home page.

You go on to say that [w]e hear a lot about women in the media and that a lot of silly commentary like Feministings does appear out there all over the place. I would argue and urge you to consider that you are having this particular experience precisely because you (because of your position in the Mens Rights Movement) are subconsciously but actively seeking out contexts in which trivialities and silliness is bound to occur. I am not making any presumptions about where you are and what you are doing, but I certainly do not experience a great interest in womens issues in the mainstream media (here speaking of the 6 oclock news and the morning newspaper; whatever your average citizen reads), and whatever issues are featured are seemingly not something which is done anything about in any case. I would, however, like to see not only more emphasis on womens issues, but on mens issues as well. If gender relations were something that all men were as passionate about as you then I believe we would have much more varied media coverage of gender issues and as a result hereof these issues would not as easily be dismissed by politicians as I often feel they are in this day and age.

Secondly I do not expect you to address reams of points in one video, but I am glad (not in the I agree-kind of way) to hear that you plan to actually formulate and publish your opinions about pornography in a YouTube-video. Notify me when you have done so, and I will (perhaps) make a rebuttal video. For now I will address the points you make in your reply.

To brand pornography evil is NOT an arrogant presumption. First of all, it could not possible be a presumption since it is not an opinion I pull out of the blue, but an assertion based on long and thorough research on the matter. Second of all it is not arrogant as my view stems from actual knowledge about the industry of pornography and thus subsequent empathy for the women in it rather than from an ignorant and ideological black/white world view which I (without makinf presumptions) think you are exhibiting at this point. Pornography and prostitution is hate propaganda and exploitation. Pornography and prostitution are factors that must be outlawed and eliminated from society in the same way that we have outlawed (but not) eliminated slavery, child abuse and the legality of men stamping on daughters necks because of their religion and bigotry. When you say that women in pornography choose to do it and make quite a bit of money doing so, you are making two assertions. 1: Women choose it themselves and are responsible for their own choices, and 2: They get paid a lot to do it. First a few words about your assertion about choice.

From the point of view you present it SEEMS (note that I am not presuming anything) that you believe that choices are something we human beings either make or do not make and that all choices are uncomplicated, clear cut and gets you from point to point in life by your own responsibility. In my opinion, to hold a view like that is simply to be ignorant of all the nuances and abstractions that a human life is full of. More than quite often, the people I meet who use the trump card argument of choice are people who will thwart any call for self-reflection about their use of pornography; most often because they are born into privilege; never having had to experience how ones social heritage, skin colour, family or economic situation, etc can affect how one makes (or is directly or indirectly forced to make) choices that will lead you to very uncompromising places in life.

I am not saying that you are necessarily one of these people. I am saying that you at least use the choice argument here as if there is not an age-long tradition of academic peer-reviewed and approved research which has long proven beyond reasonable doubt that [a] meaningful discussion of choice cant be restricted to the single moment when a woman decides to perform in a specific pornographic film but must include all the existing background conditions that affect not only the objective choices she faces but her subjective assessment of those choices (Robert Jensen. Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. P. 87). You ought to do some check-up research on the matter yourself before speaking so casually about choice. I assure you that thorough research has been done on the matters of childhood sexual abuse and childhood physical abuse and their later-in-life repetitive natures, the role of poverty, homelessness, economic deprivation, socially determined lack of economic opportunity, trafficking, fraudulent job advertisements, and finally cultural training and socialisation to pornified culture. There is a rich body of literature out there for you to explore, or you can perhaps start out at www.againstpornography.org. Anyway, all of the factors mentioned above must be taken into consideration when you speak of choice, and the more factors in play, the less meaningful the notion of choice becomes. Ill emphasise this with an example:

Chinese single mothers who spend 18 hours a day in a sweat shop factory under working conditions that would make even the most neo-liberal asshole cry do also have the choice to either be or to not be in that factory. But taking all of the social conditions under which these women live into consideration, the notion of choice looses all meaning. To bend it in neon for you: If one performs a degrading and/or self-destructive act whilst knowing that there is a chance of there being even worse future consequences IF the degrading and/or self-destructive act is not performed, then your choice to perform the act has been rendered meaningless.

Seen in the light of all this, your second assertion, that women make quite a bit of money doing so, i.e. doing degrading and/or self-destructive acts (my words, not yours) is not any better. That people contribute to the economy on the one side and are humiliated, degraded and abused on the other side as a consequence thereof does not a morally acceptable balance of human interests make. One would have to be either extremely ignorant or extremely cold hearted to render notions of abuse, humiliation, degradation, violence, etc acceptable as long as one could make money off of it. Unfortunately people like these DO exist and they are constantly trying to make you and others adapt their view of human kind (and women in particular, though also men) to make you buy their product and increase the demand for more abuse, humiliation, degradation and violence.

You will perhaps make the argument that some women choose to be in pornography completely of their own free will without any free-choice compromising being in play. While it might be possible to actually find these women somewhere, you still have to take into account the inescapable fact that at least some women (and probably a majority according to research) choose under conditions that seriously complicate their choices. So when you as a consumer throw on a DVD at home or engage in online pornography, you have no way of telling which category the girls you are watching belong in. Even if you knew for a fact that the particular woman or man (or donkey) you were watching was there completely by his/her own free will with no compromising conditions behind her/his decision, you are still helping the porn industry staying profitable and thus helping to increase the demand for new adult performers some of which have not made the choice themselves or under the wrong conditions. There are of course resources for getting off like YouPorn, RedTube or the good old file sharing systems, where the consumer does not contribute economically to the porn industry. But this still useless, since the consumer of porn is both altering his (or her, but in 90% of the cases his) view on sexuality and fuelling his appetite for more rough kinds of pornography; a well-known syndrome of the porn user that one kind of porn leaves you needing more and different visual stimulation for your next fix. In any case the consumer is still looking at women being degraded and humiliated and if that is his erotica then he has a problem.

I know that you are an ardent individualist, but your passionate anger about the patriarchal oppression of women in Islam leaves me thinking that you of course have empathy for other human beings. I urge you to read this article by Martin Amis and reflect on whether pornography is perhaps equally oppressive in nature. Here you go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4153718,00.html. Now to something else.

The following I did not say in my first letter, but I am going to say it now in the light of what I have just discussed. I think that being against Islam because of Islams oppressive nature towards women while simultaneously being pro-pornography is to be against one form of oppression but for another. And now an apology:

If I in any way made presumptions (right ones or wrong ones) about you in my first letter, I am very sorry. It was a rather quick and not well though through scribbling down of commentary section material. I apologise. In this letter I have tried to emphasise when I am expressing my personal perception of you or when I am talking about people with the same attitudes and ideas as you. When I PERCEIVE something about you, I am not making presumptions be sure of that I am more than open to the fact that you are not the way I perceive you to be. Just tell me when I perceive wrongly.

Finally, I have watched your video Men are More Oppressed than Women, and I really feel that I should not mix this letter with my rebuttal of it. I will perhaps do that in another letter or make a video for you. The long and the short of it is that your assertion that men are more oppressed than women is flat out wrong, and that your arguments for it are easily dismissed we do agree on a few things in your video though.

I hope that some of the previous has made you rethink your attitude toward certain things too.

---

Sorry to bother you again, but I forgot to mention something that might not be obvious to anyone. I just want to make clear that when I say 'BAN pornography and prostituion', I am NOT AT ALL (just to emphasise!) proposing that we make it illegal for women to prostitute themselves or to participate in pornography. Even though there might be conditions that influence what choices they make, it is ultimately their own bodies and their own minds.

What I am saying is that we need to make illegal the BUYING of prostitutes and the DISTRIBUATION of pornography. In that way we will in both cases have eliminated the economic factor which ensures that it remains a growing industry. Once money is out of the picture, the ones who make porn in the privacy of their own home because they WANT to (secular society with respects to pornography as it is our goal with respect to religion) and those who have sex with 10 men a day because they WANT to, can do so without me or others suspecting that pimps and other scumbags are making money off of the humiliation of women, men and children.

At the same time we will of course have to engineer more economic opportunities and social relief for women so we remove the conditions that might make them turn to being humiliated sexually for a living in the first place and create opportunities for those who wish to leave prostitution or the porn industry

Hi,

First of all I have to say that you write well and respectfully. I appreciate that. It is certainly rare on YouTube.

Human choices are not simple, one would have to be a fool to believe that. What I think is that the government (which one implies when one is talking about laws and what should be allowed) must respect people's choices that they make. It is not the role of government to analyse the nuances in our decisions and act like mummy to us, this is tyrannical. I suspect that this is simply where we have differing opinions about what the role of government should be but I think that you too are a man who is seeking to clarify where we differ rather than win.

Some of us base our decisions around some guiding principles. For me it is liberty. The freedom to make my own choices and mistakes and to have the oppressive spectre of the government off of my back.

Bearing that in mind, let's examine your arguments where you present research. You can cite all the papers you want to me, it will mean nothing. Let's compare it to a similar situation – smoking. I know that smoking is bad for me so I don't need you to cite me research that says so.

The government deciding what it will allow me to do based upon what it thinks are acceptable ways to lead a life means we have entered a situation where our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them. This is not a good situation.

You may say that smoking is legal and indeed it is, but the government already tells businesses that they cannot allow smoking on their own premises. Also, I cannot smoke pot can I? A substance far more useful than tobacco and far less damaging to society than alcohol is.

Basically you sound quite high-and-mighty deeming the decisions of these women to be "self destructive" and "degrading". I object to attitudes like this, be they the social righteousness of the left or the moral righteousness of the right. If people want to degrade themselves then let them do it.

To address your follow-up email. You might say that all I have written so far does not apply because you say you're not really for banning porn. Then I must say that it is quite a dishonest position to say you don't want to ban porn in spirit but want to ban the buying and distribution of it. That is imbecilic as a position to be quite frank. What is the point? That is like saying "I'm for cars as long as no-one dies in one", then you're not for cars. Also it still represents the ban happy attitude of our government where they intrude into our lives more than is necessary.

Sorry I have not written more, given how much you wrote, but I think there is a clash of fundamental world views here.

Sincerely,
Mark

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:26:36 GMT

Okay, for some reason I could not post this in the comment section even when breaking it down into little pieces. If you can, please do in the name of free speech:-)

Feministing.com could spend their time on more important things.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first. If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I am almost inclined to not answer this email as it ascribes imbecility to me, but since I have far better things to do I might as well give it a shot. First of all, your email makes many claims as to what I believe that are out and out lies since I did not make these points, you made them up and then assigned them to me, in many ways this is worst than a lie. Consider this a tip on how to write decently. Address the points of your opponents only, bunch of strawman logical fallacies does not a good argument make.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first.

This is an accurate summary of my position. As pertaining to Feministing. However, I would not treat this as a rule to be applied to all people who meet the criteria. There are a few extra things about Feministing that makes me call them cowards. They censor opposing view, they are obtuse and fling obscenities at their opponents, they seem to deal only with trivial crap and they pretty much symbolise the modern feminist sandy vagina method of complaining about nothing legitimate. Given all this, I have no doubts about calling them cowards.

If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Only if I don’t take on any larger issues. I do. Also there is a marked difference between an individual person passing comments on youtube as compared to an organisation with the goal of (supposedly) helping women. Given this your comparison of my situation to Feministing’s doesn’t hold up. People can focus on trivialities, we cannot go at 120mph all day, but if triviality is all you do, then I look down on that. This is why I have a certain disdain for people who read trash magazines all the time and never pick up anything better.

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

We hear a lot about women in the media, if the superficial crap that Feministing peddles doesn’t appear then there is a reason for it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what these issues actually are? Anyway, I content that a lot of silly commentary like Feministing’s does appear out there all over the place.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I cannot address reams of points of view in one video, that would make it long and unwatchable. The remit of the video was to make a point against Feministing so let it stand for what it attempts to do. I’ll make other videos on other days about some of what you said there.

Also to brand things such as pornography evil is an arrogant presumption that will not be left standing here. A man stamping on his daughter’s neck because of his religion and bigotry is inherently evil and thus I label it as such. Whereas a woman in a free society making her own decisions as to what to do with her own body and choosing to be filmed having sex and making quite a bit of money doing so.. Is not being oppressed. And to label a situation such as this “evil” is to display your real contempt for women’s choices. I, like many other MRA’s don’t want to “turn back the clock” and remove women’s rights like you apparently want to do.

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

That was clever. Ooh, but I cannot complain because you didn’t tell me this apparently. I might as well tell you that you are a presumptuous unwise dishonest fool who has bought a pack of lies.. But I’m not going to. (beat that)

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

This is what I mean by ascribing imbecility to me. To believe this I would have to be an idiot, and I didn’t say this but you assume I am an idiot because I hold different beliefs to you. This is a character flaw of collectivists and you need to get it sorted.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I wouldn’t say that I have such a cause, but more importantly your statement that “you have not experienced what inequality really is” is the most presumptuous thing you have said so far, you know nothing about me and whilst I have suffered no serious oppressions, men are certainly more oppressed than women in modern western societies. You need to watch my video “men are more oppressed than women” for this proof.

Sincerely,
Mark

Idiotic viewer feedback #2 - I hate childbirth!

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:09:57 GMT

This one goes way back.

Filming people having sex is not normal and therefore could never be consensual. When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private.Pornography is the same as prostitution and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists can see that porn treats women as not human.There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions. It is unacceptable to be racist so it should also be unacceptable to be sexist.This is what porn is-sexist.Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

By the way, I've put this in paragraphs. The original email was all one big block of text. I imagined if this woman were saying this that she would be talking very quickly and in a high pitched way.

Filming people having sex is not normal

Define “normal” many couples film their sexual acts for their own pleasure. Also who cares about normality, the rules are not defined to maintain the common opinion.

When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private

Nope. Swingers.

Pornography is the same as prostitution.

Maybe, but why is prostitution illegal anyway? Is sex legal? Yes. Is free trade legal? Yes. Is selling sex legal? No. Work that one out.

and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.

Nope. If it is consensual then it's not rape.

Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists

Punctiation is your friend. Also, you can guage the emotional sophistication of an opponent by asking why those who agree with you disagree with you. If what you get back is an ad hominemn then they are a very wise and unsophisticated person.

There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions

Really? Well how about you stop defining what women can and can't do based upon stereotypes about them eh? Seriously, generalisations are O.K. I use them a bit meself but you've got to provide examples. This flawed woman's email is a litany of generalisations and stereotypes. It's a veritable Gish-Galllop of hysteria.

Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

You know what else is unnatural? Cars. Give me your keys.

There is a logical fallacy called the “naturalistic fallacy”. It basically means that a person assumes that something is good if it is natural and/or something is bad if it is not natural. Poison ivy is natural and space flight is unnatural, get it? We as humans are where we are because we have risen above out environment and harnessed it to our own means.

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

I’m trying as hard as I can to follow this woman’s train of though and I’m coming up dry.<.p>

I’m anti-birth now? I don’t know what I said to set her off let along if I said anything about child birth. As far as I know I’ve always been pro childbirth. Since she petered out like a yammering cat woman I will try to sum up my opinion on porn as succinctly as I can.

Porn uses women, it exploits their bodies for the sexual satisfaction of (mainly) men in the same way as my company exploits my enormous programmatic prowess and brain power to tap away at a keyboard for five days a week. Or that a city council exploits the proletariat to fling our garbage bags into a big truck. Lots of us are exploited for our abilities and efforts. It’s called work.

This is freedom. In freedom some people are going to do things you wouldn’t. Get over it. As long as they are not forced to do it then you shouldn’t butt into other people’s business with your sexual hang-ups.