What to do about Internet Pornography: One Approach

[until the Internet entered the lives of millions of people, making pornography--women's exploited and/or raped bodies, accessible to men 24/7]

What follows is a link to a PDF document, which is an outline, table of contents, and summary of a thesis paper on how best to tackle the problem of Internet pornography. Click here to read this PDF document. The thesis it describes is titled: "Regulating Internet Pornography as an Issue of Sex Discrimination", by Michelle Evans.

The argument put forth by Evans is that a censorship approach to dealing with pornography, which is a form of sexual discrimination negatively impacting women's civil and human rights, as a class, is misguided and inadequate. An approach that cannot even see what pornography is and does, cannot remotely remedy the serious problems its existence presents. Offered as an alternative, by Evans, is a civil rights-based legal approach to combating the harm perpetrated by the makers, marketers, and consumers of pornography.

I wish the whole thesis paper were available online, but until I find that, we have a sketch of what Michelle Evans proposes.

I fully support approaches to ending white and male supremacist exploitation and violence against women that names what is being done rather than pretending "pornography" is some abstract, vague idea in the liberal imagination, a matter of sexual taste, or a bunch of naughty pictures of people being sexual. If you think pornography is any of those things just listed, you are not really examining the content and consequences of pornography as a white heteromale supremacist industry earning billions of dollars annually.

Can you name me one industry that earns billions of dollars annually run by pimps, rapists, and drug dealers that does not harm humans and non-human animals is some way?

What is uniquely harmful about pornography as a practice of sex discrimination, as a practice of oppression, is that it makes sexual violence, sexual exploitation, racist sexism and sexist racism seem like it is simply apolitical little ol' sex, at least to its consumers. It isn't. It is, among other things, virulent misogyny and racism created in such a way as require incest and rape. No other billion dollar a year industry I am aware of so effectively makes hate and harm both invisible as such while managing to sell its product as a kind of sexual stimulant. The result is that people believe hatred of women is sexy, and that racism is hot. How this negatively impacts white women and women of color cannot be understated.
END OF POST.

"Don't Be A Dick": a zine by Paul Brown

[this image is unrelated to the zine linked to below, and was found here]

Below is a link to a PDF document, a few pages long, as many zines are. It is made with typed material and cut-outs of various images, including those of male genitalia (drawings, not photographs), for those who may be triggered by such imagery. I would imagine, given that most or all of the images of people are of white people, that Paul Brown is white.

This is what introduces it at the website where I found it:

Don’t Be A Dick is a zine written (mostly) for men about the connections between the construct of masculinity, rape culture, and mainstream pornography. It combines (hopefully accessible) theory and personal experiences to address sexual assault in personal relationships. The zine also includes a section on radical consent.

Here's his zine, which can also be found here at www.xyonline.net.
END OF POST.

More of My Struggle with Transgenderism and Feminism

[symbol/image is from here]

It's getting clearer to me where I stand on the particular matter of tensions between radical feminist ciswomen and anti-radical feminist transwomen. From the start let's acknowledge that there are, in fact, some radical feminist transwomen. In some places a perception is promulgated that these two groups are somehow only oppositionally related while also entirely distinct from one another. These two groups--as if radical feminists was one group with one perspective, as if transwomen was one group with one experience--are seen as not overlapping, as not sharing a lot in common in terms of what they are fighting for and against.

I am reminded of the battles in feminism over racism within the Women's Movement. I am reminded of the struggle of lesbian feminists to be visible in "Gay Community". And I am reminded that white heterosexual men routinely get away with murder. I have three initial points to make and I'll try not to delay making them.

1. Oppressed people, in my experience, look to one another for kinship, for community, for support, and for understanding, and when that doesn't happen it is deeply painful. I believe this is so because those of us who are part of oppressed groups have largely given up hope that the oppressor, whether that be men, whites, or heterosexuals, or non-trans people will "get it" enough to be a friend, an ally, and, better yet, a warrior fighting on our behalf.

2. The most structurally dominant people, and the systems they maintain from the top, are not in danger of being challenged into becoming humane as long as most of the energy activists in oppressed groups spend is spent fighting one another.

3. That said, the misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia inside and outside groups fighting white supremacy, male supremacy, imperialism, globalisation, and the captivity and mass slaughter of non-human animals, must be challenged until the ciswoman-hating, white supremacist assumptions, harassment of queer people, and marginalisation of trans people is no more. For me, it ought not be otherwise. We cannot allow anti-ciswoman/anti-lesbian/anti-gay/anti-trans sentiments and behavior to flourish in any movement for social justice.

Due to valuing integrity, to a belief in the importance of accountability, and a spiritual priority placed on ending exploitation and harm, and also due to point one above, standards placed on activists for social justice are, in my experience, far more stringent than those placed on people in general; and standards placed on feminists are among the most stringent, I believe because they are women. And women are expected, in a male supremacist system, to accommodate everyone and everything. So where men fuck up all the time, women of all colors are held to account. Where whites fuck up all the time, women of color are held to account.

But there is a perception out there, utterly mistaken and white male supremacist in its assumptions and functions, that women of color have more power than white women, in holding them accountable, that white women have more power than white men in holding them accountable, and that women of color have more power than men of color in holding them accountable. I reject this perception as structurally and socially unfounded.

Men, trans or not, masculinist or not, maintain our male privileges and politically more empowered position with alarming regularity and willful ignorance of what we are doing. The same with white folks and our white privileges. I don't see much of a difference between the denial and defensiveness men are in about our social dominance over women, and the denial and defensiveness white people are in about our dominance over women of color. This includes white men, men of color, and white women.

That is why I centralise my understandings of oppression around the experiences and analyses of feminists of color. Relative to white women, white men, and men of color, feminists of color, collectively, see the white supremacist assumptions and actions of white men and white women, and the male supremacist assumptions and actions among white men and men of color, more clearly than any other group of people.

This impression I have reflects what Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said about a wise Latina being more aware of what's going on than a [willfully ignorant] white man whose very position means he cannot see very much of how white men harm others, except through the lens of what he is willing to let himself know about what he alone does. And even then, when he sees himself doing harm, he sees it as being caused by depression, alcohol abuse, women having too much power, anything and everything other than the most obvious: that he is socially placed in a position of dominance, and can act on that whenever he chooses.

My own brother, for example, a Christian white heterosexual guy, is never, ever called out on his misogyny as such. (Unless it's one of those two times a year I have any contact with him.) Nor is he challenged to understand and uproot his homophobia. No one even brings to him the matter of his transphobia, so he may actually think there is no problem there, in him.

It is also important to the powerful groups who are most in control of institutions and systems and industries that problems be seen as primarily psychological, interpersonal, not structural or systemic.

There has been some tension in me and in my own queer community and beyond it, between and among trans activists and radical feminist activists. Usually two or three scenarios are revisited to point out the harm done to one or both sides. And harm was done. The issue, usually, is what could have been done differently to produce less harm, more safety, more security, greater accountability, and more responsibility among the people who most need resources and power to effect radical change in society.

In this context, there is a discussion happening, which I was going to link to until I remembered what I consider to be a serious political misjudgment Stan Goff once made on his blog Feral Scholar. He posted a conversation that took place within queer community into an environment where there were mostly white heterosexual men. I do not believe a conversation that happens among women, for example, ought to be relocated to a place viewed and commented on by men, without the expressed permission of all of the women involved.

That conversation focuses primarily on several points of tension between apparently anti-radical feminist trans people and apparently transphobic radical feminist ciswomen. In the discussion that I've been participating in, I felt obliged to speak up due to the fact that I perceived a trans activist to be making a blanket statement that all radical feminist ciswomen are transphobic or otherwise anti-transgender. In particular, Andrea Dworkin was named as someone who believed that the experiences of transwomen were not as important as the experiences of non-trans women. A few people came forward to respectfully debate that point.

When engaging in any discussion I must remind myself of two things:
1. I am a white man and that impacts any discussion I enter.
2. I am an active supporter of many radical feminisms. I am also an ardent defender of some radical feminists, all of them ciswomen. But I'd better be responsible about how and when I enter conversations with people I structurally oppress, such as transpeople and ciswomen.

For me, the tension which was unformed in me is this:
To what extent does a social justice movement that seeks, in the context of male supremacy, to highlight gender as a problem of narrowness of options and bigotry against any person who doesn't neatly fit the categories "man" and "woman" reinforce the invisibilisation of gender as a hierarchy, as a system of sexual dominance, as a practice of degrading those called women, while privileging those called men?

Does active support of trans agendas--as I woefully and generally misunderstand them, require me to betray or pause my commitment to highlight and challenge gender as a misogynistic hierarchy?

What I know, thus far, is this:
My commitment is with ciswomen and transwomen in their various battles against white cismen's systems and institutions, practices and values, which negatively impact all women (trans, intersex, or neither) as a class of beings alleged to be naturally subordinate to, and inevitably vulnerable to cismen and those who defend and protect cismen's abuses of power and structural position atop that hierarchy.

I won't actively support people to be racist, antifeminist, transphobic, or otherwise misogynistic. And my focus usually but not exclusively is on racist misogyny and its impact on ciswomen, white and of color.

I will maintain a focus on understanding and critiquing gender in such a way that gender-as-hierarchy remains especially observable. I will do work that, hopefully, renders rapists an endangered species. (To those inclined to think I said something biologically essentialist: I believe men, masculinists, and patriarchs are humans born of culture and society, not of placentas and DNA.) To the extent that they (cismen) behave as misogynistis, I will call them out. To the extent that they are silent in the face of the rape atrocity, and so many other atrocities disproportionately impacting women, I will call that out. And to the extent that systems and structures of misogynistic harm, of racist harm, are made invisible, I will seek to make them visible and targetable for radical actions which seek a rapid end to white male supremacy in all its manifestations.

Why Don't They Make My Brown Eyes Blue: The Destructive Power and Coercive Influence of White Standards of Beauty and Humanity

What follows is from here.

[caption in original article: Sight for sore eyes: Shenise after the operation to insert a coloured lens over the irises - but doctors later had to remove them]


[caption from original article reads: The NewIris lens: 'For consumers who wish to change the colour of their eyes with a natural appearance and without the limitations, risks and annoyances of contact lenses' - according to the company's website.]

I can't help but notice, above, how there are no brown "NewIris" lens options in this promotional image. Now why wouldn't people with blue eyes want to make them brown? Oh, right: because of white "aryan" male supremacy.

Some of the utterly racist, misognyistic, and classist comments aimed at Shenise Farrell:

As a tax payer how much have I had to contribute to this woman's stupidity?

- Steve Goodwin, Leeds, UK, 28/8/2009 19:23
Click to rate Rating 90


What on earth is wrong with some women??????? Pathetic, vain woman...

- bobo, london, 28/8/2009 19:24
Click to rate Rating 76


What an idiot! And worse, an idiot who's costing the NHS money because of her vanity.

- Martin, Manchester, 28/8/2009 19:34

Note the utter callousness and racist, classist, misogyny directed (above) at this woman in the comments section not fully copied and pasted below. It's so easy to hold those of us who try to assimilate into dominant society responsible for the dominant society's inhumane values and practices. But anyone with any awareness of how oppression works must acknowledge that the inhumanity aimed at Shenise Farrell would better be spent dismantling white heterosexist male supremacy. For without white male supremacy as an overpowering force and influence, the desire to turn brown eyes blue, to bleach hair that is darker than light blond, to enlarge breasts, to "Westernise" eyelids, to narrow, shorten, and straighten noses that don't look Nordic, and obtaining the medical means to do all of the above, would not be possible.

Wealthy white people have all kinds of cosmetic surgery, all the fucking time, and never get the kind of response aimed harshly at Shenise Farrell. Many of her critics are concerned about how much her actions are costing tax-payers. The appropriate answer: not nearly the amount of money tax-payers pay to have white man-dominated societies' police and military forces murder people of color around the world.

The article the assholes above are responding to follows below:

Single mother travelled to Panama for operation to turn brown eyes blue... and was almost blinded

By Julie Moult

Shenise Farrell, pictured following corrective surgery in the UK, still has brown eyes despite spending £5,000 on an operation to turn them blue

When Shenise Farrell read on the internet about a £5,000 operation which could turn her dark brown eyes light blue, she wasted no time in heading off to Panama.

Less than two weeks later, British surgeons were battling to save her sight.

They had to repair a hole in her iris and remove implants. It is unclear whether she will suffer long-term damage – and her eyes are still brown.

‘It was the biggest mistake I have ever made,’ said the single mother of three from Perivale, West London.

‘To think I could have never been able to see my children again. It was totally reckless of me.’

Miss Farrell is taking a community studies degree at Goldsmiths, University of London in the hope of becoming a social worker.

She is believed to be the first person in the UK to undergo such an operation, which involves inserting a coloured lens inside the eye, over the iris, and is not licensed in Europe.

Miss Farrell called the US number of the New Colour Iris company, linked to a clinic in Panama run by a Dr Delary Kahn.

She was told to undergo five tests with opticians in the UK to check she was suitable and then hand over $3,000 (£1,800) deposit and proof of airfare and hotel.

The opticians advised her not to go ahead with the procedure but she raided her savings and flew to Central America in June, telling family she was off on holiday.

‘I’ve already had breast implants abroad in Bulgaria and had been very happy with that, so it didn’t faze me that I would have to go to Panama,’ she said.

‘The procedure was unpleasant and painful. I screamed out at one point. But it was over within ten minutes and I was taken back to my hotel with just some eye drops and
told to buy my own painkillers.’

For the next eight days, her vision remained blurred, particularly in her right eye. When she arrived back at Heathrow, she had to be helped through the terminal because her sight was so poor.

Four days later, with no improvement and after developing a painful sensitivity to light, she called NHS Direct who advised her to go straight to the Western Eye Hospital in Paddington.

They immediately referred her to consultant ophthalmic surgeon Mr Ali Mearza at Charing Cross Hospital.

‘She could barely make out the top letter on the eye chart,’ he said. 'We could have registered her blind.

‘There was no question but to remove the implants which in itself was quite a challenging procedure. I would strongly advise people not to undergo this process.’

Although Mr Mearza managed to save her sight, Miss Farrell might develop cataracts in later life and is at increased risk of glaucoma.

A spokesman for New Colour Iris said that while it sympathised with Miss Farrell, it had carried out more than 600 operations since 2002 with only a handful of complaints.

‘No procedure is perfect,’ he said.
END OF POST.

And the War against Women Continues: 18-year-old Mildred Beaubrun is Gone. Forever.

The above photo is of Mildred Beaubrun who was mercilessly and atrociously shot and killed when she and her friends refused to give their numbers to a group of guys they didn't know.

It's all just unbearable. And unrelenting. And infuriating. And so, so sad.

What follows is horrifying, and is from this website.

May she rest in peace. I send out my condolences to her family and friends.

Cops: Girl Shot For Rejecting Strangers

On May 18, 2008 cops say 18-year-old Mildred Beaubrun left Club Firestone in Orlando, Fla. with two of her friends and headed to 7-Eleven to get gas and drinks.

As the girls were pulling out of the gas station, headed west on Colonial Drive, cops say three guys in a silver PT Cruiser or Chevrolet HHR pulled up next to them.

Cops say the guys started cat-calling and asking the girls for their numbers, but when they weren’t acknowledged, they turned to name-calling. Then, one of the girls threw something and hit the guys’ car.

Thinking the confrontation was over, cops say the girls turned right and stopped at a stoplight at the corner of John Young Parkway and Princeton Street. But the guys pulled up next to them.

Cops say one of the guys pulled out a gun and fired into the girls’ car, hitting Mildred. Cops believe she saw the gun and tried to duck. The bullet hit her in the back and traveled up her torso.

She survived for several weeks in the hospital in a coma, but died on June 3, 2008.

The guys may also have been at Club Firestone that night and could have followed the girls from there.

Cops Seek Three In Young Girl's Killing

Police released this sketch of the man witnesses say was driving that night.

Cops say the other girls in the car weren’t hurt and were able to provide police with sketches of two of the guys, but didn’t get a good look at the third.

One is described as a man in his 30's or 40’s, who appeared older than the other guys in the car, with long dreads, a full beard and a Haitian bandanna around his neck. Cops say he was sitting in the passenger seat of the car.

The driver was a man in his 20’s with short hair, a goatee and glasses, according to police. Witnesses are unsure who fired the gun.

The guys may also have been at Club Firestone that night and could have followed the girls from there, Det. Mike Moreschi of the Orlando Police Department said. The club hosted one of several Haitian events held in Orlando that weekend.

Mildred grew up in the Orlando, Fla. area, but her mother was from Haiti. She attended Olympia High School and was no longer in school at the time of the shooting.

So far, the tips cops have received haven’t panned out, and they’re looking for new leads.

If you have information about this crime -- or know who these men might be -- call our hotline at 1-800-CRIME-TV and put these dangerous criminals behind bars.
END OF POST.

Presumed Heterosexual, and...

AND ALSO FALSELY ASSUMED TO BE RACIALLY, SEXUALLY, AND ETHNICALLY SUPERIOR

[image/poster is from here]
END OF POST.

Men's War Against Women: No Truce in Sight

[street protest image is from here]

A friend of mine was racially and sexually assaulted recently, with aggressive words so contemptuously aimed at her, the only Black woman on a street among white women, I wouldn't even consider printing them here. He chose her to abuse from among the group of women, not known to one another. Later, when she sought support, a "feminist" male friend told her it must have been her "energy" that drew him to her. To that "feminist" male ex-friend: go fuck yourself, you misogynist asshole. He was basing this assessment in part on the fact that the assailant was probably psychotic. (Since when does psychosis give men a sixth sense when it comes to choosing "women appropriate to abuse"?) I find it interesting, to say the least, that even with psychosis, he knew, as a Black man, that he couldn't get away so easily doing exactly the same thing to one of the white women around her.

My brother once sexually assaulted a woman on the street he didn't know, while he was actively psychotic. Male supremacist/rapist behavior is apparently not forgotten, no matter how delusional and deranged a mental state a man is in. (And women are called crazy for calling out oppressive men!)

Another friend of mine, a white woman, has been waiting for years for the prominent man who is known for writing the 1970s hit "You Light Up My Life", who drugged and raped her in a hotel room, to face the charges in court. There were significant delays in that happening, even with several women coming forward, who don't know one another, from different periods of time (over decades), telling more or less exactly the same story of how he drugged and raped them too. This is because we live in a society that thinks the worst human atrocity is putting a rapist in jail if he hasn't been adequately proven to be a rapist, according to fucked up white male supremacist pro-rape laws.

One in three American Indian women will be raped in her lifetime. White men continue to wander onto Reservation land and rape with impunity from the U.S. governmental systems allegedly involved in protecting people on this land from terrorism.

Stories abound of white men abducting and possessing, also raping, white girls. The stories of abducted or threatened girls of color don't make major headlines.

The Curvature, among other feminist blogs and news services, have been reporting on what can only be regarded as a nauseatingly disgusting level of pro-rape misogyny by male-man judges and defense attorneys in U.S. courtrooms. The Abyss2Hope blogger effectively takes on an overtly pro-rape dickhead, with a level of patience I wouldn't be easily be able to find in myself.

What else, precisely, has to happen in this country, so systemically and repeatedly, for us to acknowledge that men are waging a sexually violent and often racist war against women?

To all those asshole men who believe in such a thing as "a war between the sexes" let me just say this: if the playing field were, in fact, level, women and their male allies would have figured out a way to destroy your privileged and protected asses centuries ago. It is only because you have such dominance, status, and positions of superiority over women in so many spheres, in so many ways, that you are getting away with this CRAP.

I welcome men, in ways that are responsible to women's concerns and safety, organising to take out P.R.I.C.K.s by any means necessary.

To any man who is spending more than one hour a week playing online video games or looking at pornography, please take at least that much time out to teach the pro-rape, pro-sexual exploitation men around you that sexually assaulting women ought to be a crime punishable by death, and make them the first cases.
END OF POST.