XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography by Wendy McElroy

Author:Wendy McElroy [McElroy, Wendy]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
ISBN: 9780312152451
Amazon: 0312152450
Publisher: St. Martin's Press
Published: 1997-03-14T16:00:00+00:00

CHAPTER FIVE

LIBERAL FEMINISM: THE GLIMMER OF HOPE

In the maelstrom of antipornography hysteria, liberal feminism often provides the few voices of sanity heard above the storm. Liberal organizations like Feminists for Free Expression (FFE) have consistently and courageously stood up against measures like the Victims of Pornography Compensation Act, and for sexual expression. Some liberal feminists like Nadine Strossen have been staunch and tireless in their defense of freedom of speech. It is difficult to imagine better companions in the fight for sexual choice.

Other liberals seem to have forgotten their roots and are now willing to sacrifice free speech for the greater good of protecting women from pornography.

There is a growing schism within liberal feminism, which threatens to disrupt such key liberal organizations as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

What are the arguments that are causing such turmoil in liberal ranks?

LIBERAL FEMINIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST CENSORSHIP

In general, liberal feminists offer three types of arguments against censoring pornography: Freedom of speech is a necessary condition for human freedom; the suppression of pornography will hurt women (in the several ways presented below); and, pornography offers certain benefits to women.

Let us examine the first two arguments. The third will be discussed in the following chapter.

Freedom of speech is a necessary condition for human freedom. This argument says little about women's relationship to pornography, except in the most general sense. Even feminists who believe porn degrades and humiliates women sometimes argue against censorship as the greater threat. These are the feminists who say: As a woman I am appalled by Playboy... but as a writer I understand the need for free speech.

Such feminists are not pro-pornography. They are anticensorship. They argue on several grounds: Great works of art and literature would be banned; the First Amendment would be breached; political expression would be suppressed; and a creative culture requires freedom of speech.

The suppression of pornography will hurt women. This argument specifically addresses the relationship of women to pornography. But, again, it is not so much a defense of pornography as it is an attack on censorship. Liberal feminists point to the real problems involved in implementing the antipornography program. Among the insightful questions they ask are: Who Will Act as Censor?

Whoever acts as censor will wield tremendous power, because words such as degrading are so subjective they will be interpreted to mean whatever the censor wants them to. In the August 1993 Virginia Law Review, Nadine Strossen worries that the antipornography definitions are so vague that they could be used against homosexual and lesbian material: "It is not clear whether Andrea Dworkin or Catharine MacKinnon would classify homoerotic photographs or films as 'pornography.' Although their model law defines `pornography' as thèsexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words,' it expressly stipulates that even images of men could be interpreted as portraying the subordination of women." [1]

69

The state that banned Margaret Sanger because she used the words syphilis and gonorrhea is no different, in principle, than the one that interprets obscenity today.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.