If you ask Merriam Webster what pornography is, they'll tell you it's the deception of erotic material intended to cause arousal. Seems reasonable. If you ask Catherine MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin, noted feminist activists and authors, what pornography is, you'd get a very different definition; in fact, when asked by a newspaper to define pornography, the pair described it as the dehumanizing and subsequent rape of a woman. Pornography, however you wish to define it, has been an issue of contention for quite some time, perhaps nowhere more so than within the feminist community.
The fervor and debate perhaps saw its culmination during and shortly after the trials of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. The latter was accused and later convicted of multiple counts of rape, murder and torture. The former, girlfriend of Bernado, was accused of helping her partner commit the crimes and to evade capture. What was crucial to the case were a series of videotapes made by the couple, showing in great detail their numerous rapes, assaults and murders. The jury never saw them, however, thanks in large part to MacKinnon, who fought to have them banned from being revealed or made known to the public. As a consequence, Karla Homolka was never convicted for her direct participation in the crimes, including the prolonged torture of her own sister. When the full light of day illuminated the facts, public outrage ensued.
Is pornography sexist in nature? Does explicit material encourage or condone a social norm of female objectification and submission? I'm interested to hear (read) your opinions on anything you may feel after reading this.
During the 1980's, a visible split occurred between the vocal feminist movement, one side advocating female sexuality and the rights of artists to depict intercourse however they saw fit, and the other in staunch opposition to what they claimed to be nothing short of the objectification and rape of women. This internal debate soon spilled over into the wider community and the relationship between porn and sexual discrimination was on the leading edge of fiery argument.
New Canadian obscenity laws saw radical changes in the treatment of art and freedom of speech (or expression); explicit material of all sorts was under increased scrutiny and the Canadian Customs Department began seizing material, including Dworkin's own book on the issue, Pornography. The popular magazine, Bad Attitude, was also targeted by authorities and removed from stores as it contained depictions of lesbian sadomasochism. Gay rights activists and community members vocally opposed the new laws and claimed they were being specifically target as "obscene. An art gallery was raided and a painting containing child abuse was taken, also.
The fervor and debate perhaps saw its culmination during and shortly after the trials of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. The latter was accused and later convicted of multiple counts of rape, murder and torture. The former, girlfriend of Bernado, was accused of helping her partner commit the crimes and to evade capture. What was crucial to the case were a series of videotapes made by the couple, showing in great detail their numerous rapes, assaults and murders. The jury never saw them, however, thanks in large part to MacKinnon, who fought to have them banned from being revealed or made known to the public. As a consequence, Karla Homolka was never convicted for her direct participation in the crimes, including the prolonged torture of her own sister. When the full light of day illuminated the facts, public outrage ensued.
In 1979, Dworkin published the aforementioned Pornography: Men Possessing Women, which analyzes contemporary and historical pornography as an industry of "woman-hating dehumanization." Dworkin argues that it is implicated in violence against women, both in its production, through the abuse of the women used to star in it and in the social consequences of its consumption by encouraging men to eroticize the domination, humiliation, and abuse of women. Shortly after the book's publication, Pornstar Linda Boreman, publicly accused her husband of beating her and forcing her to perform in various phonographic films. Mackinnon came on to act as Linda's lawyer and the three sought to take the case to courts. However, the statue of limitations rendered the cause without legal merit and the case was abandoned. It did, however, add fuel to the fires within the feminist pair and in their eyes, credibility to the notion of pornography not only being the literal depiction of the degradation and rape of women, but of it being a catalyst to provoking sexist and violent action.
Numerous inquires, trials and commissions were undertaken on the topic of pornography in the mid to late 80's and the radical feminist movement sought to have pornographic material monitored and made illegal under federal law. Although met with the occasional minor success, their pleas went largely unheard and obscenity laws have changed little since their previous reform. A minor and extreme portion of female rights groups has lately taken cue from Dworkin's claims that porn encourages the rape of women and that of children, and one women (whom I have just forgotten the name of, sorry) infamously asked the question: what happens when this generation of men, having grown up on porn depicting submissive women with shaved and waxed genitals has children? She went on to compare what she considers the forced social pressure on women to shave their pubic area bare, to that of the programming of men to find the vagina of children sexually attractive.
Is pornography sexist in nature? Does explicit material encourage or condone a social norm of female objectification and submission? I'm interested to hear (read) your opinions on anything you may feel after reading this.
