Language, Definition & Privilege
Men have, historically, controlled the language that women learn and use. From children of other races and countries being forced to learn English because of the consolidation of money (and therefore power) in an American male oligarchy to the father of the house who says, "don't talk to me that way, young lady," males are often found not only defining the language that is used, but if it even can be used by women. In many places, men argue that one or a few isolated - and rare - incidents constitute sexism against men; they are allowed to protest the occasional silencing of men's voices through government and completely ignore the routine silencing of women's voices through both the larger culture and many other subcultures; and they are allowed to decide what the mental and emotional state of women who disagree with them is, which will be the point of this essay.
It has been noted before by many women that, when a woman curses or is loud or refuses to be quiet, she is accused of being "too angry to discuss the subject" and told that she should calm down. If she persists, she is told she's being "irrational", though the label of irrationality is not only limited to women who are passionate or angry (more on that later). A man, when he is angry, is decisive, powerful, and passionate; a woman, when she is angry, is irrational, hysterical, a bitch, a man-hater, or any other flavour of epithet deisgned to put women in their place.
Of particular note is the pro-pornography group and anti-pornography movements (movements being defined as trying to change something, and society is largely pro-pornography thanks to careful use of language); pro-pornography people define themselves as "sex-positive", "pro-free speech", and "anti-censorship", leaving anyone who encounters these propaganda terms to believe that anyone who opposes them is the opposite - and pro-pornography people often explicitly refer to those in the anti-pornography movement as "anti-sex".
The implications of these terms are striking; the first, "sex-positive", suggests that prostitution and pornography are the be-all end-all of human sexuality, as there are many anti-pornography feminists who are anti-pornography and anti-prostitution, but thoroughly enjoy sex and sensuality, yet the moniker "anti-sex" suggests that if one is not pro-pornography and pro-prostitution, one must be against all sex - thus conflating the sexist, racist, transphobic, and pedophilic brutality of mainstream pornography with more egalitarian, or even non-recorded, sex.
"Pro-free speech" and "anti-censorship" are also misnomers; the vast majority, if not all, of anti-pornography feminists do not advocate censorship as a solution to pornography, but instead education with a goal towards a society-wide boycott of pornography and prostitution. It would appear, then, that the propaganda aimed towards silencing anti-pornography feminists is designed to be against the education of people about pornography; this is perhaps so, but a far more striking implication of this is that pro-pornography people do not want to know the truth about anti-pornography feminists; they simply want to hate us, as has been the historical privilege of the ruling classes.
That is the point of all of this. Pro-pornography people are not making these terms and beliefs up to propagandise others against us; they are making these things up for themselves so that they can dismiss us. It is not so much that they want to turn others against us as it is that they want to keep themselves from listening to us - much the same way those who eat animals and their bodily secretions will tell themselves that "animal rights activists are like those PeTA nuts" or "it's a human right to have food" (therefore assuming that animals are food and therefore are things, similar to how "it's a human right to masturbate" uses women as its absent referent). They just do not want to listen. Lying to oneself about another person is the best way to feel like one does not have to listen to them - especially when that other person is proposing something that would radically change the worldview of the person deluding themselves, i.e. that women do not have an inalienable right to their own bodies that cannot be abridged by consent to one person. Pro-pornography people, primarily men, use their privilege to frame the debate in order to be able to dismiss anti-pornography feminists, primarily women.
We have not come so far after all, I'm afraid.
It has been noted before by many women that, when a woman curses or is loud or refuses to be quiet, she is accused of being "too angry to discuss the subject" and told that she should calm down. If she persists, she is told she's being "irrational", though the label of irrationality is not only limited to women who are passionate or angry (more on that later). A man, when he is angry, is decisive, powerful, and passionate; a woman, when she is angry, is irrational, hysterical, a bitch, a man-hater, or any other flavour of epithet deisgned to put women in their place.
Of particular note is the pro-pornography group and anti-pornography movements (movements being defined as trying to change something, and society is largely pro-pornography thanks to careful use of language); pro-pornography people define themselves as "sex-positive", "pro-free speech", and "anti-censorship", leaving anyone who encounters these propaganda terms to believe that anyone who opposes them is the opposite - and pro-pornography people often explicitly refer to those in the anti-pornography movement as "anti-sex".
The implications of these terms are striking; the first, "sex-positive", suggests that prostitution and pornography are the be-all end-all of human sexuality, as there are many anti-pornography feminists who are anti-pornography and anti-prostitution, but thoroughly enjoy sex and sensuality, yet the moniker "anti-sex" suggests that if one is not pro-pornography and pro-prostitution, one must be against all sex - thus conflating the sexist, racist, transphobic, and pedophilic brutality of mainstream pornography with more egalitarian, or even non-recorded, sex.
"Pro-free speech" and "anti-censorship" are also misnomers; the vast majority, if not all, of anti-pornography feminists do not advocate censorship as a solution to pornography, but instead education with a goal towards a society-wide boycott of pornography and prostitution. It would appear, then, that the propaganda aimed towards silencing anti-pornography feminists is designed to be against the education of people about pornography; this is perhaps so, but a far more striking implication of this is that pro-pornography people do not want to know the truth about anti-pornography feminists; they simply want to hate us, as has been the historical privilege of the ruling classes.
That is the point of all of this. Pro-pornography people are not making these terms and beliefs up to propagandise others against us; they are making these things up for themselves so that they can dismiss us. It is not so much that they want to turn others against us as it is that they want to keep themselves from listening to us - much the same way those who eat animals and their bodily secretions will tell themselves that "animal rights activists are like those PeTA nuts" or "it's a human right to have food" (therefore assuming that animals are food and therefore are things, similar to how "it's a human right to masturbate" uses women as its absent referent). They just do not want to listen. Lying to oneself about another person is the best way to feel like one does not have to listen to them - especially when that other person is proposing something that would radically change the worldview of the person deluding themselves, i.e. that women do not have an inalienable right to their own bodies that cannot be abridged by consent to one person. Pro-pornography people, primarily men, use their privilege to frame the debate in order to be able to dismiss anti-pornography feminists, primarily women.
We have not come so far after all, I'm afraid.