Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahuta.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ahuta!ecl From: ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <318@ahuta.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 12:38:23 EST Article-I.D.: ahuta.318 Posted: Fri Jan 4 12:38:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:57:33 EST References: <257@hocsp.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 87 Xref: watmath net.books:1162 net.movies:5399 net.legal:1197 net.women:3961 REFERENCES: <257@hocsp.UUCP> The person didn't say that feminists were "rabid man haters"; s/he said that "a group of rabid man haters" were pushing for passage of the ordinance *as written*. The fact that the original ordinance (as written by the "feminists") was different doesn't change the attitude of those who wrote the "current" ordinance. And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. And so, conversely, any ordinace that would stand such a test obviously has little relationship to the one that I posted here. And, by the way, virtually all references in "feminists" in this discussion have been qualified: > They weren't Falwellites, they were feminists. Misguided feminists, perhaps, > but certainly not Falwellites. > two-edged sword. Who is to say what is prohibited and what is not? Will > control of its enforcement stay in the hands of well-meaning feminists who > will use it only for the protection of society? Hell, no. The ordinance > itself contains such a broad definition of pornography that it could be used > to ban even the works of many feminists themselves, and it sets a precedent > i.e., who's behind it? To me, it reads like it was written by Fundamentalist > conservative types trying a new tack to get one by the courts, but I'm > aware there are liberal feminists who would support it, as well. I hope > They weren't only feminists. True the original ordinance was > conceived by Catharine McKinnin, a noted feminist. But the final ordinance, > the one that passed, was drawn up by the town council and a large bunch > of New Right Christian types. What Ms. McKinnin wished to achieve and > what the Falwellites wished to achieve were two very different things, > even though it looks the same on the surface. Radical feminists want to > control pornography by making it a civil rights issue. If some women can > ... > the kind of legal action that one faction of radical feminists want > to see. > Radical feminists contend that until pornography is seen for what it is, > a method to objectify and subjugate women, > Feminists are working on ridding us of the insidious form of sexism that > you speak of, believe me. They don't wish to ban it outright. Feminists > have more respect for our rights than all that. But they do exert pressure, > legally and economically, to remove this brand of sexism from our society. > If anyone is interested, I'm sure I could dig up Catharine McKinnin's > version of the story. I find it quite disconcerting when feminists > are branded as people intent on denying us our rights. Feminism isn't > some warped philosophy advocating state control of our minds and deeds. > It only asks that women have the opportunity to control their own lives, > without men continually telling them that they know what is right for them. > I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill. However, > I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either. > give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city > council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by > denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the > law) to others. > No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was > written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors > were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison > (WI). > The mainstream of feminism in Madison (you know, the folks who > successfully engineered the recall of a judge who stated on the > record that a five-year-old kid had "invited rape") has thoroughly, > in fact publicly, disassociated itself from this effort. In fact, > it's only being pushed by one very vocal member of the Dane County > Board who has yet to put anything specific on paper. > Let's not get too heavy into feminist-bashing. All the feminists I > know have been very vocal in opposing these ordinances. (Isn't grep wonderful?) On the whole, it looks like it isn't "feminists" who are being attacked, but "radical feminists." In fact, most of the comments about "feminists" (no qualifiers) have been positive. Evelyn C. Leeper ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl