On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Diane Wininger wrote:

>         instead of giving my arguments even a modicum of respect (i am
> engaging in "debate" just as much as the rest of you, although my position
> is clearly unpopular), you have automatically labeled me as shrill (thank
> you, adam, that is exactly what i was thinking, it IS the well-lubricated
> tool of the oppressor), hysterical, and irrational -- in short, just another
> crazy feminist bitch.  

I think you were making huge leaps in the course of your debate. I never
said I thought you were a crazy feminist bitch. You did. It is another
example of a huge leap in the course of a debate. 

>         And before you dismiss wholesale a potential link between
> pornography and sexual violation, please consider the following.  The
> effects of these images were bolstered by physical acts -- another female
> craftworker had her breasts pinched by a foreman, and "[had] her ankles
> grabbed by a male coworker who pulled her legs apart and stood between
> them."  Are these women hysterical prudes for feeling threatened?  is it
> really so heretical to suggest that there is sometimes a fine line
> separating images that depict women as submissive, hyper-sexualized objects
> and an anti-woman attitude in the workplace and even violation of bodily
> integrity, as in the case cited above?  

Do you think that without pornography these fellas would have been perfect
gentlemen? 

>         can you admit--if only in this limited context of the case
> above--that pornography might have an adverse effect on women? if you want
> more cases supporting this claim, let me know. my housemate is a law student
> and can supply them. 

These cases involve sickos who are purposely trying to torture a woman
with pornography. Of course there is an adverse effect. Does this mean we
should ban it?

>         all this aside, i just want to respond to a few of your comments. i
> know that you're going to say that i'm being defensive but hey, i'm being
> attacked by the majority here. of course i'm on the defensive. As to
> comparing Margaret to an idiot, i think you misunderstood me.  i was simply
> saying that i felt like she was discrediting an entire movement based on the
> extremist position of one activist (andrea dworkin), in the same way that my
> brother-in-law discredits the entire black power movement based on the
> extremist position of one activist (farrakhan).

I'm under the impression that Margaret is clear on the different factions
in the movement, whereas your brother (the idiot) is not. If Margaret is
doing something in the same way as an idiot, would this not be a
comparison? It's always context.

>         also, i wasn't comparing dworkin to mlk, per se.  i was merely
> rebutting margaret's assertion that dworkin was capitalizing on pornography
> merely to gain noteriety and make a few bucks.  that's like saying that mlk
> was speaking out against racism for fun and profit. i'm comparing the
> concepts, not the people.

Tomato.

>         but am i not allowed to have a visceral response to some porn, just
> as you are?  am i not allowed to discuss my opinion without being roundly
> chastised and dismissed as irrational and humorless?  

Everyone is allowed to discuss their opinion, whether they think someone
is irrational or dead on. As far as freedom goes, that is.

>         and as to the statement that i am "mean" -- why is it that when i am
> being attacked (by j for example) it's all in the spirit of debate, but when
> i assert my opinion, it's mean. i'll tell ya why, it's because i am
> unpopular among you. shake your head all you want j. 

I thought your comment to Margaret concerning sexual advances was mean, so
I said so. I will.

>         why do you all just assume that margaret knows what's she's talking
> about? j and others have completely ignored where she has been outright
> wrong! just listen to me for a second, please. in an attempt to discredit
> anti-porn feminists as hysterical, margaret said that there were "surveys"
> that showed that women claimed whistling to be a form of rape. after i
> challenged that, she admitted that she had overstated her case and actually
> meant to say sexual harrassment. there IS a huge distinction. and its an
> easy tool to classify anti-porn feminists as prudish hysterics. 

I'm not assuming she's always right, but it's nice to see her admit
overstating a point. 

>         as to a whistle being a form of sexual harassment -- consider that
> there may be a continuum extending from whistles, to comments to sexual
> assault.   

Consider that there may not be. You cannot assume it will always turn out
that way. You consider everyone guilty based on the few.

>       consider a woman walking down the street at dusk, and a
> man slowing down to comment on her body (she is wearing baggy clothes) and
> asking her if she needs a ride.  she politely declines.  then imagine him
> pulling down a side street and comes after her on foot.  she escapes rape,
> barely.  well, this has happened to me, and i am not alone -- 3 out of 5 of
> my best girlfriends have been in similar situations.  so, i'm sorry if i
> can't nonchalantly say that a whistle is harmless or a compliment.  and i am
> constantly aware that i am forced to circumscribe my actions and not walk
> alone at night or at nightfall. 

I think this is terrible. I do. But if I get thrown in jail for whistling
at a female because some asshole tried to assault you, it would be a
terrible injustice. We try to punish the guilty, but the law is designed
to do just that, punish the guilty. You cannot remove every chance of an
attack without removing the rights of all people. 

>         i'm merely suggesting to you that TBTN is not radical and off-base
> if a speaker proclaims whistling to be a form of sexual harrassment. ya
> know, it's one thing if my friend whistles at me or pinches my ass, but it
> is quite scary if it's a stranger whose limits are unknown. 

Well now would could discuss the difference between whistling and actual
physical contact. I think there's a major difference there.

>         i don't have time to try to educate people on an issue that they
> would just as well mock. If by chance, anyone is interested, i implore you
> to check it out with a non-biased attitude. 

I never meant to give the impression I was mocking the issue. If I was
(and I'm not so sure about it) mocking anything, it was you.

I think most of the people responding are far from defensive or
overreacting. I think they simply have problems with the way you structure
your arguements. 

J