?

Log in

So, what is this degradation then? - Demonista

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

October 6th, 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
01:11 am - So, what is this degradation then?
bppa.blogspot.com/2008/10/    coming-soon-spoofing-of-sarah-palin.html

i split the link, just close the spaces to see.

it's just another reason to think ernest greene is icky. he thinks its ok to sexually satirise a woman because you don't like her beliefs. yes, that's right, he was advocating sexually mocking a woman -- nonconsensually -- just out of spite. hmmm... needless to say, it's with Hustler, and he's defending slimeball Flynt.

edited to add (oct 10). belenen expresses feminist objection to this brilliantly:

I myself am very against the use of the word rape as a metaphor, but that's not what I meant here... it's hard to explain. I meant that since an actual attack on Palin is punishable by law, they're creating a fake Palin to use sexually in a way that the REAL Palin would not want or enjoy. I'm not saying they are actually sexually using Palin, but that they are expressing a desire to do so.

(32 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


From:laurelinrain
Date:October 6th, 2008 08:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
I heard about this elsewhere. This is vile and cruel.
I wish women could sue arseholes like these for damages when they (or their names/ likenesses) are abused in pornography.
Flynt can go straight to hell... maybe there he can think about why he shouldn't have sexually abused his daughter...
From:maggie_hays
Date:October 7th, 2008 08:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
I wish women could sue arseholes like these for damages when they (or their names/ likenesses) are abused in pornography.
Flynt can go straight to hell...


I couldn't agree more. I wish all that too.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 8th, 2008 07:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
it is. i wish she could sue the pants off of greene, flynt, etc in a way they would NOT like.
[User Picture]
From:belenen
Date:October 6th, 2008 09:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
spoof? satire? more like a deliberate attack on a woman because ze is perceived as being strong. Being strong is not allowed, and outright rape might earn jail, so they settle for 'metaphorical' rape.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 8th, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
EXACTLY. greene doesn't like a woman, so he intentionally sets out to sexually humiliate and violate her. real feminist there, ernest.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 8th, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So far as I know, Greene himself is not involved.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 8th, 2008 08:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't like it either, but phrases like "metaphorical rape" make me pretty uneasy. I understand why you say it (though people in the industry have told me that there are very strict rules in all but the MOST gonzo of companies against depicting anything as nonconsensual, so she's probably going to be depicted as gleefully consenting anyway), but... rape is not a metaphor. Rape is a specific and devastating particular harm. Rape isn't a metaphor, rape is a reality.
[User Picture]
From:belenen
Date:October 9th, 2008 05:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
in response to fierceawakening:

I myself am very against the use of the word rape as a metaphor, but that's not what I meant here... it's hard to explain. I meant that since an actual attack on Palin is punishable by law, they're creating a fake Palin to use sexually in a way that the REAL Palin would not want or enjoy. I'm not saying they are actually sexually using Palin, but that they are expressing a desire to do so.

But yeah, I agree I should have come up with a better way to say that, but even now I'm a little at a loss as to how else to explain. :-/
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 9th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
brilliant articulation! can i add this to the original post (credited to you, of course)?
[User Picture]
From:belenen
Date:October 10th, 2008 10:10 am (UTC)
(Link)
sure, of course!
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 10th, 2008 10:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
done :D
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 10th, 2008 07:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, they're using a sexual medium to lampoon her at the very least, and I think using a sexual medium to do so is different from, say, lampooning her by LOLcatting her.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 10th, 2008 07:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Also, thanks for the clarification. I sit corrected. :)
From:miz_evolution
Date:October 6th, 2008 04:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't agree with this style of picking on Palin either, actually. Dislike her politics or whatever else, fine, but I don't agree with what's being done with this movie.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 8th, 2008 08:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My opinion's posted over there as well -- I don't agree with it either.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 11th, 2008 05:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And... I'd just like to say that from talking to Greene himself, I don't think that he's icky. He's a person. With a partner, and friends, and people he cares about and defends passionately. I don't agree with him on everything but I don't get why he's Satan to people who have never actually talked to him directly anyway.

Like I said, he's not behind this video, though as those comments reveal he's not against it. I just want to say that, well, while I know what radical feminist theory has to say about "pornographers" I really think you might get a different picture of them if you actually asked them "Okay, how IS it you see what you're doing?" without precondition.

There's a lot out there on radical feminist websites, a lot of little short quotes from various pornographers that are really gross. And I don't mean to say that those people didn't say those things. I just think that, well, when you listen to someone as a person, you find out more than one sound bite. (And I actually suspect some of those sound bites are designed to offend/bad jokes/etc. myself.) I'd like to see a lot less of "pornographers are bad! These theories say so!" and a lot more of "You know, I know so and so personally, and while he's nice to puppies, strictly obeys these particular regulations designed to minimize coercion or harm, and loves his grandma, I can't condone this, this, and this that he does."

The sweeping stuff... well, like I've said none too nicely before, I think it's ugly (and scary when you get to "these people should be killed" territory.) I don't see how that's productive, any more than, say, the actual Palin's actual comments that have stirred up extremist conservatives who yell "KILL HIM!" about Obama at rallies.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 09:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I read the last couple comments in my lj, and the latest two entries about me. Thanks for the fair treatment of me in the earlier 3. The last one got me pissy. So I have a feeling I'll sound off-kilter in this and future responses.

To explain my comment policy for the umpteenth time: all logged in friends are not screened. all others are screened. the ones that appeared before yours were never screened in the first place, because i don't filter lj friends-comments.

It had nothing to do with me "censoring" you (ha!), but me, you know, actually doing shit outside of the internet. As I said in this http://demonista.livejournal.com/103514.html post to which RenEv linked you to, and that you read, I said "i'm doing something huge this weekend, and talking with jacob made me realise what i was getting myself into. it hit me--and i ended up crying--when he was showing his concern, and actually giving me a chance to give my...informed consent to this. i have been mostly out of the knowledge loop, yet i'm at great risk here. because of the last paragraph, I won't be able to get to comments until Tuesday." Was I unclear somehow?

btw, the thing I was doing this weekend? planning and executing this: http://www.thestar.com/article/516418

Does that take precedence over my perceived censoring?

One thing I'll also address is this: re: greene. of course he's human. of course he has family and friends. duh. But people who do a various assortment of awful/bigoted/racist/misogynist/etc things are, according to those close to them, often the "fine upstanding citizens who are too lovely to do such a thing"--from pornographers, to men who rape their daughters, to KKK members, to Nazis, to abusive johns, to gay bashers, etc. Nazis have family who love them, fer christsake.

In regards to the Palin, Obama, and racism comparison, it doesn't hold. Pornographers are in a positition of privilege and power over women, not the other way around. Palin, as a white woman, has white privilege over Obama. Just as a racist isn't the black in the scenario; they're the white using their race to incite anger and violence. In his case, he's the pornographer using sexualised misogyny to incite anger and violence against women and feminists.

I've never heard of ANY feminist killing a pornographer. I've heard of plenty of pimps and pornographers killing women.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 09:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To explain my comment policy for the umpteenth time: all logged in friends are not screened. all others are screened. the ones that appeared before yours were never screened in the first place, because i don't filter lj friends-comments.

Okay.

It had nothing to do with me "censoring" you (ha!)

Can you point me to where I used this word? I think my post was pretty clear about my awareness that you are not the government:

"THAT's why I don't like the not approving. Because yeah, trolls are trolls. But when you start going, "This person is beyond the pale and not worth defending, so no one will see you doing it," well -- no, that's not "censorship," but the idea of it, of wanting to prevent people challenging your ideas in your spot, strikes me as motivated by similar concerns: fear some people might start to wonder if the "other side" is right."

I also said this:

"I don't think it's WRONG of D, for example, to not approve those comments by me."

So yeah, I didn't accuse you of implementing repressive state policies. Snicker unwarranted.

"of course he has family and friends. duh."

Point missed. I didn't say he *has* family and friends. I'm saying that he has a partner he absolutely and clearly loves. How is this possible if he's an evil person who delights in tossing women to the wolves?

"In his case, he's the pornographer using sexualised misogyny to incite anger and violence against women and feminists."

Can you cite an example of anything he's produced that has done this? Can you offer any sort of plausible explanation of why this would be his intent?

I've heard of plenty of pimps and pornographers killing women.

Pimps, sure. Pornographers? Names, dates, cases please.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 10:30 pm (UTC)

part 1

(Link)
re: censoring. In comments on that entry, you also said "We think he's not the Devil, therefore we must be silenced." Must be silenced?!? That sounds like you're accusing me of censoring you, no?

Ummm...a lot of people, including the wives, think their husbands love them. maybe the husband very clearly presents himself as loving their partner. does that mean he can hate no other women? NO. I'd say he hated Sarah Palin for one. And he most def likes to spend time trying to discredit SK Lewis. He probably hates me, Laurelin, Witchywoo, and other radfems. He has called antiporn women "groupies" of antiporn men. Such as Andrea Dworkin: "Thank you, Susie, for initiating this valuable debate, in which at least one side, with its sneering, dismissive and intellectually dishonest flame-throwing, certainly reveals itself once again in all its virulence to those of us who are generally successful in avoiding its splenetic spewing.
"Particularly nauseating is the attempt to portray Dworkin as a victim of a vast patriarchal conspiracy to suppress her opinions. That, of course, would explain why she enjoyed a well-funded career as a public intellectual for two decades, sold hundreds of thousands of copies of her books, appeared regularly on the op-ed pages of mainstream newspapers and rated a lead obit in the NYT. So effectively were her views stifled and silenced that we're not even discussing them here, right?
"As a reader of Dworkin's work who found some genuine insights into the hidden links between sex and violence in the better-reasoned of her tracts, I believe that, at the end of her day, she was what she had always been: a hate-monger who advocated violence against men in general and women whose opinions differed from hers.
"The bigotry that she preached, had it been directed at any minority group other then men, would have been instantly recognizable as belonging to the extreme right, where she always enjoyed far more support and admiration than she ever inspired among leftists, liberals or the vast majority of women and men who identify as feminists. The inability of left-wing ideologues to recognize and reject a cross-dressing reactionary is an enduring weakness that leads to continuing embarrassments of the kind I've been reading all morning. Kinda like when Kate Millet praised the mullahs of post-revolutionary Iran for "freeing women from the tyranny of the male gaze" through the imposition of the chador, even as hundreds of Iranian women were being executed for prostitution and other "immoral" behavior.
"But then, Dworkin would probably have been an eager trigger-puller for that kind of revolution, had she been able to take time off from the lecture circuit.
"The ugly truth is that Dworkin, no different from Lou Sheldon or Randall Terry, built a comfortable livelilhood for herself by denouncing those without whom she would have had to figure out some other means of paying the rent. Would that she had."
http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2005/04/andrea_dworkin_/comments/page/2/
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 11:00 pm (UTC)

Re: part 1

(Link)
re: censoring. In comments on that entry, you also said "We think he's not the Devil, therefore we must be silenced." Must be silenced?!? That sounds like you're accusing me of censoring you, no?

Nope. Censorship is something the state does. Only publishing some comments so people only get one side of the story on a blog is something anyone can do. I approve of neither, but you are not the state, and I never said you were.

Ummm...a lot of people, including the wives, think their husbands love them.

Think? I base my opinion on things he has told me about his relationship. What do you have to go on?

Regardless, though, neither Ernest nor Nina is participating here, and I think it's pretty gross to speak for them OR to assume that Nina is hoodwinked or only "thinking" he values her. That's just not something I think you get to assume, and I find it kind of gross that you would insinuate it without knowing the people involved well enough to know.

does that mean he can hate no other women? NO.

Of course not, but I don't think hating individuals who happen to be women is misogyny. There are women whose views anger me deeply, just as there are women whose views anger you. Does that, by itself, make either of us misogynists?

And he most def likes to spend time trying to discredit SK Lewis.

I've said everything I have to say about that already, so I'll just briefly note that I don't think anyone in that thread was behaving hatefully. What they were doing was asking if SKL has as much knowledge of a particular facet of the industry as the documentary hinted she did. I think that's fair. I know quite a lot about philosophy, but if you ask me about mathematics because many philosophers have historically also been mathematicians, you won't get an expert's answer. As anyone does, I have a right to have an opinion, but if I'm presented as someone who knows set theory when I don't actually, someone who does is perfectly within his rights to say "Well, sure, she knows SOMETHING about this most likely, but she studied ethics! What about these folks here?" Not hateful or discrediting to say so.

He probably hates me, Laurelin, Witchywoo, and other radfems.

The feeling appears to be mutual, I'd have to say. In which case, why is it a sin on his side, not on yours/theirs?

As far as his comments about Dworkin, I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes, they're strongly worded and spoken in anger. But anger is not woman hating, nor is vehement disagreement with Dworkin.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 10:31 pm (UTC)

part 2

(Link)
There are also examples on RenEv's blog, as well as the proporn activism one, but this one demonstrates his politics scarily well:
"...They've very successfully maneuvered the fulcrum of the argument away from free speech principles and toward the content of porn.
"While amongst our own, we may have good or bad things to say about porn, in defending it against prohibitionists, our best bet is to oppose the prohibition rather than advocate what's being prohibited. We'll be accused of making libertarian arguments, but libertarian arguments have a lot of traction with Americans of many persuasions, whereas porn itself may not. We must take back the high ground in dealing with people like Herbert and Hazen and remind them that the idea of "taking that chance" (as Hazen put it about the threat to free speech posed by suppressing porn) is contrary to every liberal ideal they've ever espoused in their lives and a disgrace to every principle they claim to uphold. They need to get letters and emails demanding to know why dirty pictures are worth sacrificing constitutional government over.
"Another point where we can apply pressure is within leftist and progressive organizations that have either lined up with APFs or tried to avoid taking a stand on this whole question. When NION sent back Larry Flynt's contribution under a hail of APF criticism, huge numbers of potential Iraq War protesters were instantly depoliticized because they wanted no part of a movement that would turn down resources needed to stop the killing of men, women and children because the resources came from a guy who made the money printing dirty pictures. The leadership of NION should have been called to account for that. They folded up under a couple of outraged emails from the crowd at KPFK and nobody demanded that NION's leadership resign."
http://bppa.blogspot.com/2008/02/robert-jensen-sucks-there-is-no.html

It doesn't matter to him WHAT is the content of porn, what is being defended, etc. What matters is the white men's freedom to say and do whatever the fuck they want. He KNOWS what is produced is misogynist and racist--he just doesn't give a fuck.

And this avoids the question: what kind of person would be all buddy-buddy with Larry Flynt. The crap he was defending, re: "spoofing" Sarah Palin, does he also support this "political satire" http://hustlingtheleft.com/images/Catalog1Sjpg/HustlerS22.jpg? It's woman hatred, pure and simple. At least, he supports the sexual humiliation of and sexual threats against Republican women.

I think that you asking for cases of women killing pornographers, not knowing of any yourself, proves my point: pornographers don't need to fear violence from us. It hasn't happened. And it won't.

The cases in which it has happened is through husbands, pimps, etc making pornography of the victim as part of the abuse. You are placing a false division up between pornographers and pimps--pornographers ARE pimps--they profit off of the prostitution, painful sex, and sometimes outright rape, of others.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 11:06 pm (UTC)

Re: part 2

(Link)
I think you're making a truly intellectually sloppy mistake if you think that First Amendment absolutists' defense of truly vile speech indicates approval of it, or not caring about it. Greene has said many times that he thinks much of porn is bad -- and has told me that he thinks the Nailin' Paylin thing is stupid, actually. You're making a wide breadth of assumptions here because you don't like and don't agree with First Amendment absolutism. Surely there's a way to state and explain your disagreement without presuming that you know what its defenders' opinion is of the speech they defend. The whole point of such a position is that the content of such speech should be protected even if it's vile.

Agree or disagree with that as you will, but you misrepresent the position if you think the idea is that speech is harmless. Honestly, I think Greene is more sympathetic to the idea that words can be real weapons than I am.

And this avoids the question: what kind of person would be all buddy-buddy with Larry Flynt.

He works for him. Are you buddies with all your bosses? Would you be if you worked for a large company?

I think that you asking for cases of women killing pornographers, not knowing of any yourself, proves my point: pornographers don't need to fear violence from us. It hasn't happened. And it won't.

No, I meant pornographers killing women.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 10:36 pm (UTC)

part 3

(Link)
sorry, forgot to put this in part 2


While I’m at it, this is the second result on a google search of him: the film O: The Power of Submission. Now, I seriously hope you don’t think that was a feminist book. Dworkin analyses it well: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WomanHating.html. In the book, O implores Stephen’s permission to kill herself, she gets it, so she does. A different kind of snuff porn. Now we could argue that he changed it, made it magically feminist—but why are only the women trussed up like “drag queens” and “slaves?” Why are only women manacles about the wrists, legs, neck? Why are women the only one’s having pain inflicted on them? Why are they the ones shaved of all body hair? Why are women the only ones penetrated with objects. Why are women always posing for the camera, and not “in the moment”? Why are they in these roles at all? Why are these roles so sexy to so many people, especially men? (Hint: the answer is it ain’t feminist.)

Additionally, one of the first image results for his name turned up this site: http://www.gramponante.com/Archives/2006_10_01_vault.html. There are several racist and “barely legal” fare represented as well. Here’s an example: “Honky bitch you won’t know what real intergration is until you have some nigger cock!” A black man has a white woman on her knees in front of him, and he is slapping her. Another: “gangbang my teenage daughter.” A third: “Gangbang squad: Four cocks, one stunned, sore bitch!” WOW! So feminist! Here’s a forth: “Hookers: Bought, Sold, Traded” Hmmmm…sounds like they think women in sex work are selling their bodies, not just renting a service!
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 11:08 pm (UTC)

Re: part 3

(Link)
I don't think The Story of O was a feminist book. I think it was a book a woman who was interested in submission wrote to her lover to show him her fantasies. I think it's really a strawman to say that anyone on this side claims that Story of O is a feminist book.
From:miz_evolution
Date:October 14th, 2008 11:59 pm (UTC)

Re: part 3

(Link)
Ernest doesn't claim to be a feminist to the best of my knowledge. And I'm not looking to pick a massive fight here, because there is no way we're going to see eye to eye on many, many things, but it's not just men who will defend some pretty insane stuff in the name of free speech. I hate neo-nazi stuff, and I'd really prefer to never hear or see any of it myself, but because of the way I feel about free speech...well, neo-nazi's free speech counts too. I don't like what they say, but they have the right to say it. For me, same goes for everything else.

And I certainly do not go for banning or censoring or what-evering things becuse they might cause some people to do or say some crappy things. I don't believe in doing anything to Marilyn Manson because of school shootings. I don't believe in doing anything with violent movies or video games or music because they might give people ideas. I don't believe in getting rid of fashion mags because they promote an unrealistic body image and encourage "pro-ana" people. Same goes for porn. Feminist or not. I've always been pretty upfront about that, and so has Ernest I do believe.

And I don't think any of us always agree with our friends and allies about everything. I have friends who are going to vote for McCain. Ugh. I don't like it at all. I don't agree with it at all. I think McCain has policies and plans that will be very damaging, but I don't think that makes the people voting for him bad people...I don't even think he's a bad person. I just don't agree.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
the last sentence should specify: unless she was being directly abused by him. some women have killed their abusive husbands/fathers/johns/pimps who have made pornography of them.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 09:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Demonista,

I've publicly apologized to you for my mistake here:

http://trinityva.livejournal.com/899088.html

Again, I'm sorry.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 10:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, ok! Apology accepted.

Is it ok if I delete the other comment saying you apologised? It says the same thing, then gives the wrong link.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 11:08 pm (UTC)

Re: part 3

(Link)
Please do. I pasted the wrong thing. D'oh.
[User Picture]
From:fierceawakening
Date:October 14th, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Demonista,

I've publicly apologized to you for my mistake here:

http://demonista.livejournal.com/102522.html?thread=581242#t581242

Again, I'm sorry.
[User Picture]
From:demonista
Date:October 14th, 2008 10:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, ok! Apology accepted.
From:miz_evolution
Date:October 12th, 2008 06:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
D. what I think you forget is Ernest and Flynt are two different people. They are. I can honestly say, with what I've been through recently, I could not have asked for a better friend that Ernest. I wouldn't say it if I did not mean it. I don't know Flynt from Adam....Ernest had been a real, there, honest to..whatever..non-exploitive friend. You can't ask for much more than that.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com