i'm trying to drink away the part of the day that i cannot sleep away

in my media && democracy course we discussed catharine mckinnon's "sexual politics and the first amendment." i'd say it has been the most heated debate in our class this semester. but anyway. i'd like to draw on a few of her points about pornography.

she makes two points that i think worth considering. the first is the connection she makes of pornography and women to the dred scott case and african americans. in the dred scott case, she argues, the court told african americans, "you are property." she argues that the same thing is happening with women and the notion that pornagraphy is "free speech." in other words, it is saying, [to women] "you are speech." this point seems valid to me (especially in violent pornography--that which she is referring to) because the industry (and the porn itself) is male dominated. the male is using the female as a means of speech.

another point i'd like to examine is that pornography (that is violent--not what she considers "erotica") obejectifies the female and dehumanizes her after long periods of exposure (cultivation theory). in other words, after repeated exposure to this violent pornography, men's attitudes against women become increasingly desensitized and they begin thinking sexual violence against women is okay. thus, increasing the amount of sexual violence and assults against women.

while her arguments seemed somewhat off-the-wall to my classmates, i tended to relate to her arguments. perhaps i didn't agree with her proposed law--that is, to allow people to sue producers of violent pornography because it was available in a store and it offended, but I understood her point that women are speech and the means to a man's speech at that.

yeah. that's my rant for today. relaxing with carlo. work = uggggh. my life lately = uggggh...i can't get some things off my mind.

happy thanksgiving.

sweeter dreams.
k