M.Ali Abdi
Writing for Feminists Against Censorship (FAG), a group of long-time feminist academics and campaigners who fight censorship from a feminist perspective[1], G. Rodgerson and E. Wilson has dedicated their article to a better understanding of different British feminist approaches to pornography in the mid 80’ and taking a position on the issue. Their main point is that censoring pornography would let patriarchy, or, for that matter, traditional moralists misuse feminists’ engagement in anti-pornography movements and take advantage of it, which would have devastating effects on many feminist achieved goals.
Writing for Feminists Against Censorship (FAG), a group of long-time feminist academics and campaigners who fight censorship from a feminist perspective[1], G. Rodgerson and E. Wilson has dedicated their article to a better understanding of different British feminist approaches to pornography in the mid 80’ and taking a position on the issue. Their main point is that censoring pornography would let patriarchy, or, for that matter, traditional moralists misuse feminists’ engagement in anti-pornography movements and take advantage of it, which would have devastating effects on many feminist achieved goals.
According to the text, both anti-pornography and anti-censorship pro-pornography feminists share similar ideas regarding the current industry of pornography. The former believes that pornography leads to more violence against women, provides a pleasing opportunity for patriarchy to fulfill its eternal desires and “lies at the very heart of women’s oppression.” Similarly, the latter also agrees that the current industry of pornography degrades women, intensifies the patriarchal stereotypes, and feeds greedy men.
But when it comes to the issue of censorship, the two groups diverge. The writers, who consider themselves as anti-censorship pro-pornography feminists, persuasively argue that if pornography should be censored because of a sexist attitude towards women, then why not to prevent other genres, like Renaissance paintings, from being exhibited? Aren’t the paintings objectifying women, degrading their social status, and strengthening patriarchal power relations as pornography does? Moreover, the pro-pornography feminist writers also share their understandable fear of possible effects of the alliance between anti-pornography feminists and non-feminist traditional moralists with the readers. They argue that such incongruous partnership would lead to the overturning of the many feminist achievements that have been gained during the twentieth century. Thus they continue to doubt that the underlying reason for the contribution of some feminists in anti-pornography movements might be a non-feminist one. In the eyes of the writers, not the possible inferiority of women in pornography but the capability of anti-pornography movements in catching public sympathy beside repulsiveness of pornography itself among some feminists may play a more significant role in engaging feminists in the movement.
In my point of view, in some parts of the text, the tone of the article turns to become authoritative. Does being a feminist necessarily and inevitably mean being an anti-censorship pro-pornography one, as the writers imply? In fact, when Rodgerson and Wilson are explaining the passivity and degradation of women in much pornography they primarily stand on the side of anti-pornography feminists but later, as we get closer to the ending paragraphs, the attitudes of anti-pornography feminists is more considered to be “foreign to feminism” and “pre-feminist” ones.
This authoritative attitude is evident, again, when writers talk about the underlying reasons of feminists’ engagement in anti-pornography movements. When they ask “Is it the underlying reason that they [anti-pornography feminists] themselves feel revulsion?” they do not just pose a simple question. They actually try to undermine the opposing arguments by addressing to a personal unverified issue, rather than by a provoking a persuasive valid argument. Here again, the writers seem to forget their previously discussed shared attitudes with their opponents towards the existing sexist pornography. Actually, as the text itself clarifies, there are many good reasons to be against pornography rather than just an unproven personal one.
Besides, what I think is that the text could have been more productive if the writers also had not blamed anti-pornography feminists because of shaking hands with anti-feminist moralists. The question that I want to raise is that do inconsistent schools of thoughts, like supposedly contradictory groups of feminists and moralists, always have different fieldworks or opposing attitudes in all social debates? If so, how is it possible that for instance feminists in North Africa are working closely with non/anti-feminist religious Muftis to eradicate the practice of genital mutilation? Actually I am just asking why one should oppose anti-pornography feminists because that they have some shared views with moralists about pornography? Isn’t it again an indirect way of not recognizing the genuine criticisms made by anti-pornography feminists and instead still trying to maintain that authoritative status?
After all, also from a pragmatical standpoint, the writers do not answer the question posed by anti-pornography feminists that if abolishment and censorship are not the answers, then what shall be done to avert oppression against women in pornography. Although the text is not supposed to show a concrete alternative for the stereotyped existing pornography, it may be put into consideration further.
[1] Taken from FAG website; http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/facfaq.htm
