Cagliostro Cosplay by Rat Sakura Quite Crimson
“First Yakuza War in 30 Years” Breaks Out
Valkyria Chronicles Remastered Revisits BLiTZ System
Fight! Iczer-One Censored: “They Don’t Even Care Anymore!”
Oxford University Textbook: “Miku = Cultural Appropriation”
Yaoi is more degrading to gay people than it is to women; in fact, women are to blame for it.
Sankaku Complex Forums » General
-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
"I'd never heard of Hustler..."
There you go. I've always thought of him as an ivory tower collegiate thinker, and I don't think the assumption is all that far off. It's a little hard to believe that a political thinker is unaware of the porn magazine that became the centerpiece for a major Supreme Court decision on free speech.
Posted 5 years ago # -
My god I just watched it
He's senile!Posted 5 years ago # -
I posted a comment.
This guy is right women are too stupid to make decisions on there own they need men like Mr.Chomsky to tell them what to do.Posted 5 years ago # -
---- said:
Yaoi is more degrading to gay people than it is to women; in fact, women are to blame for it.Except I don't find it degrading to gay people either. I'm a guy, I like yaoi just like women to. Just like there are many lesbians who enjoy pictures of picture. In fact our own famous Kallen fan(and one of our more intelligent users) is sadly gone now.
I do think that the mainstream porn industry has a lot of problems, but these "anti-porn" feminists are doing nothing more than generalizing something they don't understand. I don't feel degraded by gay porn, even when we're idealized by women in yaoi. I wish there was less rape and some of the dom/sub fantasies I'm uncomfortable with, but yaoi is a great thing in my opinion.
I think that people need to better address the real issues of pornography instead of just making horrid blanket statements like "porn is bad" or pretending there's a difference between "erotica" and "porn".
Notice by the way, that in the end he's not asking for the elimination of pornography, but the factors in which a woman selling her body is easier and more profitable than more intellectual jobs that create the disparity between women and men. In fact he didn't even go that far with his words, though given that most women aren't financially forced into it, I should say that's the best interpretation.
His comments are mixed with a slew of ignorance and generalization on matters, but it's not quite as bad as some are spelling out.
I had more and better ways of getting this post across, but this will have to do because I've run out of patience, it'll have to be an ugly post.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I don't wish to start an pointless argument but..
Notice by the way, that in the end he's not asking for the elimination of pornography, but the factors in which a woman selling her body is easier and more profitable than more intellectual jobs that create the disparity between women and men.
that's kinda unfair.
and the moment just before ejaculation, at that moment women are nothing more than an object, your rationality and your 'self' is gone. Is that not the ultimate act of degradation?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Ukonkivi said:
Notice by the way, that in the end he's not asking for the elimination of pornography, but the factors in which a woman selling her body is easier and more profitable than more intellectual jobs that create the disparity between women and men. In fact he didn't even go that far with his words, though given that most women aren't financially forced into it, I should say that's the best interpretation.
There's nothing in the video to infer that, actually. He starts off by calling pornography a humiliation and degradation of women, and then sets aside any mention of women working in the porn industry of their free will with his sweatshop analogy:
The fact that people agreed to it and are paid is about as convincing as the fact that we should be in favor of sweatshops in China where women are locked into a factory where they work 15 hours a day, and then the factory burns down and they all die. Yeah, they were paid and they consented, but that doesn't make me in favor of it. So that argument we can't even talk about.
As to the fact that it's some people's erotica, well, that's their problem. That doesn't mean I have to contribute. If they get enjoyment out of humiliation of women, they have a problem. But it's nothing I want to contribute to.
He doesn't imply a difference between pornography that humiliates women and pornography that doesn't. That may have been cut out during editing -- who knows. But wanting to put a stop to the degradation of women without making that distinction basically means he wants pornography in general to be taken out behind the barn. He equates the degradation of women in pornography (sans distinction of pornography, remember) to child abuse, saying that they both need to be eliminated:
The answer to that is: stop the conditions in which the child is starving. And the same is true here: eliminate the conditions in which women can't get decent jobs.
By stopping the conditions in which the child is starving means to end child abuse, and proper analogy use would dictate that the related to child abuse is pornography. At this point, his mention of "better jobs" sounds a lot more like "jobs that are not porn-related," since the view he appears to take is that these portrayals of women are a part of why they are mistreated. So unless you know of Noam Chomsky's other mentions on pornography where he makes a distinction between pornography that is degrading and pornography that is not degrading, your interpretation of his comments in this video clip are guesswork at best.
Posted 5 years ago # -
MelancholyMomo said:
that's kinda unfair.and the moment just before ejaculation, at that moment women are nothing more than an object, your rationality and your 'self' is gone. Is that not the ultimate act of degradation?
I think that people are very wrong with their words about objectification and degradation. I have many of my fellow feminists to thank for this problem of seeing a problem and completely missing the point.
Objectification isn't bad. Most art that depicts humans is essentially objectification in most the senses that porn is described as objectification. Objectification isn't bad. What's bad is that the bodies of women are treated as of importance more than a man's. Which is why you see ridiculous amounts of time spent on women putting on make-up, culturally the greater tendency for desire for more clothing and things of personal looks and fashion, breast surgery, the list goes on and on. All people women's looks are treated more importance at least on some scales, than a man's.
Sex and depiction of sex isn't degrading, it's society that treats it as so. So it's cultural attitudes towards sex that are the problem, not representations of sex.
Sadly, again, half of all feminists that agree with me on this, are totally attacking the wrong things when it comes to "objectification" and "degradation".
I don't think this or porn is degradation. I started this thread defending porn, and just because I defend Chomsky and Feminist I seem to be treated as going back on my pro-porn stance.
I don't think that women's bodies should be treated as a commodity and men's not. This has nothing to do with what you're saying.
Posted 5 years ago # -
nocturne said:
There's nothing in the video to infer that, actually. He starts off by calling pornography a humiliation and degradation of women, and then sets aside any mention of women working in the porn industry of their free will with his sweatshop analogy:Yes there is, the part where he's basically asked "how do we improve the porn industry" the matter of what he's saying becomes far more vague and he contradicts his first stupid generalization.
I know he starts off that way, I'm not talking about that. I have spent this entire time address how stupid and generalizing that part was. Don't try to push my position and defending the part I was first and foremost attacking.
nocturne said:
He doesn't imply a difference between pornography that humiliates women and pornography that doesn't.Yes, exactly, especially not in his first words as I've stated many times before as stupid and generalizing.
This is the problem.
But he does, however, get more vague in the later part. Again, where he's asked how to make improvement. He doesn't say "well no you can't improve this without making porn illegal and stopping it's existence altogether".Posted 5 years ago # -
His latter statement is not a contradiction to his previous statement, actually. If he defines pornography as the humiliation and degradation of women, that means his statement "by eliminating degradation of women" means he is in favor of the elimination of pornography. His position becomes clearer if you look at his child abuse analogy. He doesn't want child abuse to be reduced or reformed. He wants it eliminated outright. The analogy doesn't work if he sees a distinction in pornography since he doesn't see a distinction in child abuse.
Posted 5 years ago # -
look guys if you wanna know just email him
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.htmloh hey he went to the same school as Mimi isn't that neat ^_^
Posted 5 years ago # -
Ukonkivi said:
wow so that's what you guys are fighting for, good luck with that.
Posted 5 years ago # -
That might not be a bad idea. I wonder if he'll reply. He probably gets a deluge of e-mails every day.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Well, he was asked "how do we improve the production conditions of pornography", and while he said pornography is degradation of women at first, I think the second part is a little more vague.
You have a point, nocturne, but I think you're oversimplifying things into one interpretation.
To truly not contradict his first statement in any way, he would say the conditions of porn "can't be improved, because as I just said porn is the degradation of women".
The child abuse analogy really doesn't clarify anything about your point.
And "he means elimination" is your personal interpretation here.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm only using the word because he's using it in his child abuse analogy where he equates pornography to child abuse and posits a way of solving them -- in this case, elimination.
Here's the child abuse analogy.
By eliminating degradation of women. That would improve it. Just like child abuse. You don't want to make it better child abuse; you want to stop child abuse.
The parallel elements to this analogy are clear. He wants to put an end to the degradation of women in the same way that he says one wants to stop child abuse. He further develops on this analogy by creating a scenario where someone will give food to a starving child in the slums in return for letting him abuse the child. He then implies that the method of ending child abuse in this manner is to "eliminate the conditions in which the child is starving," which then he equates to "eliminate the conditions in which women can't get decent jobs."
Again, he has made no distinction between types of pornography, so his generalization of the term means that when he equates elimination of starvation ending child abuse, he means that eliminating conditions in which women can't get decent jobs means that the degradation and humiliation of women through pornography will also be eliminated. There is absolutely nothing here to show that he sees pornography being a respectable career option for women. There is, however, good evidence to infer that he dislikes the idea of pornography in general.
Posted 5 years ago # -
He doesn't equate pornography to child abuse, he compares situations.
For instance, he uses the factory comparison to say that paying is not enough to accept something as fair treatment.And with child abuse, he says that money compensation doesn't negate the factor of abuse. And saying a tradeoff of money isn't not necessary making an act agreeable.
He says the "women are paid for porn" case is just like the factory worker or child abuse case in that, even though you could pay a child for sex or pay a person to die, doesn't make it right.
And given context, the conditions he's talking about getting rid of is women's poverty.
Just because he says thankfully child abuse is illegal, doesn't mean he's saying the same of pornography.
But yes, we should e-mail Noam, though we probably won't be given his time.
He's surely a very busy person.Posted 5 years ago # -
Yeah, the factory comparison is saying exactly that: just because women in pornography are willing and getting paid doesn't mean they're being treated fairly. In fact, by his words, they're being degraded.
The child abuse analogy sees compensation for abuse as wrong, and says that a way of getting rid of child abuse would be to create conditions where children do not find a need to seek such compensation. Basically, women are entering the porn industry because of its incentives, but there's nothing good in it for them because pornography degrades and humiliates women -- his words. The incentives should be nullified, thereby eliminating pornography, in the same analogical way that eliminating the incentive to seek compensation for child abuse would eliminate child abuse. I'll say it again: there's no contradiction between his first statement and his latter statements. From what we know from this video, Noam Chomsky dislikes pornography in its general sense; the only room for improvement he sees -- answered wryly since the question was asking for ways to change the industry, which doesn't fall under his likely suggestion of removing it outright -- is to create conditions where it will naturally die.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I think we're not going to resolve our disagreement as to his meaning about his last statement, yours being that he answers by disagreement with the premise without actually stating so, while I do.
Posted 5 years ago # -
wow a debate that i'm not a part of.
is this what it's like to watch other ppl debate =3of course i'm not saying anything because why would i debate someones opinion not factual, opinion :P
Ukonkivi said:
I is fanboyNocturne Wins. (non)Fatality
Posted 5 years ago # -
Vicious said:
wow a debate that i'm not a part of.
is this what it's like to watch other ppl debate =3of course i'm not saying anything because why would i debate someones opinion not factual, opinion :P
Nocturne Wins. (non)Fatality
lol
Posted 5 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.