Wednesday, September 22, 2021

A Square Missing From a 2 by 2 Grid

       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.





In the above argument, you can replace women’s rights with the rights of any gender minority. (LGBT etc.) 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