A Square
Missing From a 2 by 2 Grid
I
may be way out of line here... BUT...
(
- he said, stepping straight into something!)
So
what is it this time? I’m wondering about a strange intersection between
feminism and pornography. Of four possibilities, one is missing.
A
polity can liberate women, or else oppress women. It can also permit
pornography, or it can suppress pornography. Of course this is relative;
oppressing women is quite real, but few if any places have fully realized the
feminist ideal. And suppressing pornography is generally at best nominal;
prohibition doesn’t work.
Two
times two makes four possibilities:
A
polity can be (genuinely) anti-feminist and (nominally) anti-porn. Many
examples come to mind; most Middle Eastern nations, Red states and cities in
the USA.
A
polity can be (nominally) feminist and (genuinely) pro-porn. Many examples come
to mind; the Scandinavian nations, Blue states and cities in the USA.
A
polity can be (genuinely) anti-feminist and (genuinely) pro-porn. Japan comes
to mind.
But
try as I might, I cannot think of a single nation or city that is both pro-feminist and anti-porn, even nominally! Andrea Dworkin’s ideal polity would
be an example; but her anti-porn feminist utopia has never been realized in the
space-time continuum.
Feminism
and porn make a 2 by 2 grid, but one square is missing! Am I correct in this?
Or am I missing an example?
If
I am correct, then these two deductive rules apply:
IF
a polity liberates women, even nominally, THEN it is genuinely permits
pornography.
IF
a polity suppresses pornography, even nominally, THEN it is genuinely oppresses
women.
Are
these deductive rules valid? Dworkin’s utopia would be a counterexample, if it
existed. The converse rules are invalid; Japan is a counterexample.
Why
is Dworkin’s utopia imaginary, but Sweden, Japan and Saudi Arabia are real? To
blame ‘patriarchy’ is to name rather than explain. Presumably it has something
to do with male psychology. (My theory; most men, when they like women, they like them that way as well!)
And
by the way, I doubt that even Dworkin’s utopia would be genuinely anti-porn.
Market forces trump state power; the invisible hand is quicker that the
all-seeing eye. What’s more, I bet a whole zero dollar bill that in Dworkin’s
utopia, the lesbian porn will be called erotica, and therefore OK, in obedience
to the Law of Self-Service.
***
Postscript:
In
the above argument, you can replace women’s rights with the rights of any
gender minority. (LGBTetc.) Again, of the four possible combinations of
pro/anti porn, pro/anti gender-minority rights, only three are realized. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment