Hey y'all, Please click here to head over to Blogger and check out my most recent blog. It's on feminism/pornography/law . . . but I know some of you will be into it. :) I would post it here, but I'm keeping LJ apart from my "real life" stuff...though that "RL" thing is totally problematic, you know what I mean. xo, L
LINKAGE:
ponderings,
law schoolery,
philosophy
Comments 3
*cough*
Ok, that was fun. It's been a while since I've been involved in Feminist theory (since Senior year?) and it's obvious that I need to get back into that shit.
Obviously, when "arguing" against MacKinnon and Dworkin (be they alive or be they dead), you're already off to a bad start because of the very definition. I'm sure most women (and most men) are against porn when you define it the way M&D do. It's already a prejudiced and therefore false definition, and a very narrow one that I believe leaves out most of mainstream pornography. And how can one have a discussion about outlawing all porn, when the only porn you're talking about (based on the definition) is a very small part.
Also, how interesting that you're not sure about equality vs. difference feminism! We'll have to talk about this sometime!(geek)
Reply
Also, yes, I need to think more on the difference/equality argument. There's another blog in that. However, basically, if equality = sameness, and sameness is based on a male-centric gender standard, then this means to equality is impossible. The question is not whether difference feminism is wrong (I think it is) but if equality feminism is POSSIBLE . . . yet another binary that I see as false.
Reply
I don't know, I'll need to get back to you. I'm too all-over-the-place right now. And the Borscht is waiting.
Reply
Leave a comment