ON the ANTI-PORN FRONT--UPDATE ON THE NOW NYC DECISION

http://homesewersneedleworkersunion-hsnwu.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminists-who-sold-us-out-againnext.html

lori gardner said...

One of the problems with blogs is that the reporting is one-sided. The actual vote was to replace the word "Pornography" in the Task Force title with "Objectification of Women'. Bob conveniently neglected to mention this. He has also done this by posting the snippets of the discourse and he has quoted them out of context. He has quoted people's arguments against the word pornography, but not posted other arguments for using "objectification of women." Our concerns with pornography are (and have always been) that it objectifies or exploits women. Our belief was that it (the new name) sent a clearer message to oppose all media content that objectifies women. This could also include content that is not categorized as pornography. It would exclude content that some may consider pornography on moral grounds. We do not want to make moral judgements. We want to raise women up. We want the world to see women as whole individuals, not two dimensional sex objects. The majority of the NOW-NYS Board felt that this change better accomplished our goal. It was also suggested to Bob Brannon that they could change the Task Force name to the "NOW-NYS Task Force against the Sexual Exploitation of Women". This title was also refused. What is this really about? This is really about another male who thinks he should be in control of women. Do not mistake Bob's power struggle as a sign of our weakening position for women's rights. We believe in and protect the rights of all women to have autonomy and control of their own bodies. We have not faltered in our fight to ensure that women are regarded as equals and full human beings--not sex objects, baby makers and housekeepers. lori Gardner

February 25, 2010 7:55 AM

JaneDoeThreads said...

Thank you for clearing that up Lori, and I will be posting this to the top today--however, why not include Both Pornography and Objectification? It does come across as a type of apologetic, a retreat--the language of 'objectification of women' while yes, feminists may understand this, could still be construed by the pro-porn lot to exclude pornography From that, with the whole 'well women Choose that as a form of sexual empowerment' line we hear and we move ten steps backwards, not forwards. With the increase of sex slavery-trafficking I for one, do not believe we should in Any way, soften the language, or retreat, no matter HOW prudish it may be viewed by many or how many will attempt to silence the anti-porn feminist with the 'labeling us as extreme' when in fact, thousands upon thousands are enslaved By the sex industry, younger and younger, all over the globe, and including trafficked INTO this nation, and those numbers are growing. Why soften the language now? I say, NO, I say, we keep the Language up, Against Porn, Against the Normalization of All sexual exploitation--and Stop, sugar coating or 'softening' the Reality, just to be more congenial, women are DYING, this is FAR MORE, THAN WOMEN, BEING SEX OBJECTS, BABY MAKERS AND HOUSEKEEPERS... women and children are BLEEDING, FOR PORN. keep the anti-Pornography Statement IN. And be Non-Compromising About it. In solidarity, Jane I want to add, I am NOT saying [I should have wrote this better], that it isn't important to confront the baby makers, housekeepers, etc., construct, and that isn't what I mean... I concur, we Should lift women up, However, I don't believe we Lift women up, globally especially, by removing Pornography, and then just clumping objectification all together, it's like how the term trafficking is used, to in a way soften the Reality [in the reader's mind] of Slavery and Sex Slavery, it's like a type of 'white wash', I say, keep the ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY LANGUAGE IN...because Porn, the Porn Culture, the Porn-Sex Industry, is a WARFARE, AGAINST ALL WOMEN...period. And its becoming more so, the More it is Normalized, in Any way, the worse it will get, that is what I believe.  Jane