Hugo does good here.
Shut up. I think he does. Developing thought based on listening and critique and such is GOOD. Granted, I did not much care for the "porn is the enemy of empathy" line...'cause I think it's crap, and the enemy o' my empathy certainly hasn't been porn, but rather...oh...anti-porn BS and assumption (and lies and so on...) but I am glad Hugo is thinking, and listening, and looking beyond what seems comfortable and easy for him.
See, when that happens, I can be nice and reasonable and civil and whatnot. I really can. What I said here is serious truth. But stuff like this doesn't make it easy.
And I'm glad Hugo seems to be figuring that out.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Figuring it out, or a blind squirrel stumbling on an acorn?
At least the guy is honest enough to admit that his anti-porn stance is almost completely religious in nature...
E.
"Figuring it out, or a blind squirrel stumbling on an acorn?"
Ha! I'd like to think he's trying. Though the cynical part of me wonders how much he'll actually retain.
Though a lot of people seem to be opening their minds lately. Here's hoping. *ting* :)
No.
His stats are down.
Ernest said:
"At least the guy is honest enough to admit that his anti-porn stance is almost completely religious in nature..."
That's true, and I am struck by how many pro-radfem men seem to also double as Evangelicals or Calvinists (even Robert Jensen has been on some weird "Calvinism without God" thing for the last year).
But one thing I will say about Hugo Schwyzer is that, from reading his posts occasionally for a while now, the whole Christian humility thing does actually seem to be genuine. That's pretty rare, really – usually when I see people coming from a strong sexual moralist standpoint based on Christianity, I see the very opposite of any kind of humility. Yeah, there's the obligatory "I'm a sinner, too" rhetoric, but it doesn't really amount to anything meaningful. In Hugo's case, the idea of his own fallibility does at least allow him to question some of his ideas, which is healthy.
I still disagree with the guy a lot though, and I definitely don't aspire to "evolved feminist man" along his model. My ethics and sense of right and wrong come from an entirely different place than that, really.
I think he did good there, too. The quarrels I had w/ it in my post are also legitimate, I think, but overall I do think it's a good thing that he's listening, thinking, processing, etc. THat is always a good thing, for anyone.
IACB: I agree with you 100% on this, actually.
But one thing I will say about Hugo Schwyzer is that, from reading his posts occasionally for a while now, the whole Christian humility thing does actually seem to be genuine.
I don't think so. I think it's a load of bullshit, he hates women, and all his "we feminists" shit is just cover for insinuating himself into an environment where he can tell a bunch of women what to think and how to act. This is just a theory, of course, but one that I consider reasonably well-supported by evidence.
Hmmm – lots of talk about human trafficking in relation to the porn industry. Which raises the small problem that, so far, there hasn't been one documented case of a trafficked person turning up in a piece of commercial porn. Something I blogged about last year (link).
There was even an entire book going by the title Pornography: Driving the Demand for International Sex Trafficking, but all they were able to come up with is the vague idea that pornography "drives demand" for trafficked women, and MacKinnon writing an essay about how any woman crossing an international border to do sex work (including porn) should be counted as "trafficked".
In other words, there doesn't seem to be any there there when it comes to all this talk about trafficked women in pornography. But because it gets repeated often enough, now its part of the conversation. A "big lie" tactic in action, if you ask me.
"Ernest said:"
Even though I like Nina, I'm not Ernest, sorry! ^_^; I'm just "E" here...
E.
Obviously no woman would ever cross an international border (or even leave her husband's or father's house, really) unless she was forced or brainwashed to do so by the Patriarchy. This is so self-evident that it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. =P
E.
Post a Comment