Excellent points. Thank you for this opinion, which I find, actually, quite generous toward men with its implication that they do not relish in misogyny and draw an identity from it.

I'm not sure a mocking opinion parody piece is the best way to address this debate. I am male, anti hard core porn, but accepting of soft core erotica. I see hard core porn as a symptom of a sick society, the social determinants of which are many and complex but have to do with both men and women. Megan Murphy might have spent her time more wisely by addressing some of these complexities and presenting some of the extensive research data in support, rather than her trite HAHA's .

I am simply amazed that this article was published on this site, when recent well written and research supported, submissions by a colleague of mine addressing important issues around domestic violence were rejected by the editor who states " but I am careful what I will publish." Presumably highligting that women can and are violent too is something that should not be discussed.

Greg Canning

Bettina Arndt recently wrote an interesting article about how men spend a life time suppressing sexual desires.

A subject that until now no-one dared to cover, yet even then feminists are quick to try and kill any discussion on the subject/

Well I’ve been called misogynist so many times it doesn’t mean much to me, except that someone can’t properly express themselves, so they have to resort to words like misogynist.

I think most feminists can’t think or express themselves very well at all, so they classify things as being "patriarchal" or "misogynist" or something similar.

Use of such big words helps them look or seem important, while hiding the fact that they really can’t think very big at all, or see much of the bigger picture.

A very ordinary attempt at critique. It would have been better to confront your opponents in a more serious way.
I wonder if Murphy would like to tackle women's implicit role in perpetuating the porn industry? The usual argument, which Murphy insinuates in her article, is that men have somehow deviously manipulated women into doing porn beyond their will. According to feminists only men can be responsible for their actions, and women are just dumb, passive creatures easily manipulated.
This same (tired) argument can be reversed: men were manipulated beyond their volition by the sexual allurement of women, and were objectified by women in order for them to be paid large sums of money.

Also, I wonder if the feminists would confront the issue of wage inequality in the porn industry. The actresses are paid more than double the actors, are they not?

Now, now Aristocrat,

You can’t use logic. I have attempted to use logic with feminists many times, and it just doesn’t work.

But you have a point regards pay, and I thought of how much pay male models receive compared to female models, or is there such a thing as a super male model.

The female supermodels are of course being looked at, scrutinised and objectified by women, and paid a lot of money, but all they have to do is remember to turn when they get to the end of the catwalk.

There is a lot of money to be made by being objectified by women.

*I don't believe that your erection is dependent on my subordination.*

Easy fixed, Meghan, then don't subordinate. Meantime some of your
attention seeking sisters are out there, doing their thing with
pleasure, as they just love the attention.

Why should that be any of your business or my business?

Men and misogyny are two separate things...

thanks Meghan for saying this with such grace.

Helen

isabelberners

She said it with somewhat less grace when she originally posted it on the "F Word"

Can I get a F(censored) you?

(it against the forum rule to use the actual profanity in her title. )

http://www.feminisms.org/4248/can-i-get-a-fk-you-why-erections-are-always-right-and-feminists-are-always-wrong/

which begs the question of why the national forum bother with it here?

Wow. So much anger.

'Shaw argues that feminists who are critical of porn are hysterical, screechy, and, generally, stupid.'

You're trying to prove him right in this article?

'setting up a "straw-man version of anti-porn campaigners as ideologically driven, extreme feminists or religious loons."

So in response, you set up a straw man argument of 'This is actually what people who support the porn industry believe.'

'One can only assume that, before porn...'

I think porn has been around for a long time.

'I think we can reasonably conclude with this: feminists hate masturbation.'

Not really, it's more that a certain type of feminist resents men being 'gratified'. Well, I think it actually stretches to men being happy at all, but that's another topic altogether.

'Men make up the majority of consumers and makers of pornography. And, therefore, it has come to define male sexuality.'

Or do feminists WANT it to be definitive of male sexuality for their arguments? I so often hear it from feminists that porn is made for the male audience, and it reflects male sexuality, and it is an expression of male misogyny. Now you reckon it's somehow corrupting men? Regardless, women never liked men dictating their sexuality, why should men now allow feminist women to dictate to men their sexuality.

Not just in pornography, I believe the market decides what is popular, not the marketers. They might use the popularity of one thing to sell another, but what's popular is defined by the market. The market is screaming amatuer porn at the moment, no matter how many feminists spend all weekend looking at rape sites for their thesis on the inate misogyny of men and their corrupt (or corrupted) sexuality.

It's only fantasy. As long as there is choice and consent and decent pay and conditions, there is no problem. Rape fantasy is a popular female fantasy BTW.

Why aren't feminists interested about female sexuality at all? Feminism is always all about men it seems.

There's porn and there's porn. The argument goes nowhere when each side uses different things to define porn.

Spot-on Yabby.

'Men and misogyny are two separate things'

Next you'll try to tell us the mass of NGOs, pressure groups, statutory and non-statutory government bodies, universities and so forth all of whom work to 'advance women' only want 'equality'.

Who said women weren't funny?

I think women's studies graduates and misandry are two separate things too. Really.

rper1959

You seem to be right.

The author has an "F" radio show, and an "F" website and writes "F" articles.

That's really "F"

It must be a feminist who likes to use the "F" word as much as the word "misognist".

To be truthfull, I didn't think this article was all that worthy, but I didn't say anything earlier because I didn't want to upset any feminists.

So you don't like porn ? Turn it off. I didn't realise it was compulsory viewing.

Valley guy writes
'So you don't like porn ? Turn it off. I didn't realise it was compulsory viewing. '

A totally ignorant view of man's fallen nature which thrives on being fed perversion.

I'd like to thank GY for publishing this article. It's not often that we get to read such a mish-mash of undergrqaduate gender-studies dogma and outright self-loathing.

She did say something completely accurate, although she intended it to be ironic (I think, but as a man, how can I possibly be trusted to hold an opinion) which was:"Forget violence, objectification, oppression, feminist film theory, powerraceclassgendersexism,"

Excellent advice. Forget the word "patriarchal" as well. After you've forgotten all of that, you could do worse than to forget everything written about the sociology of gender over the past 20 years.

If you can manage all of that, you might just have some room left in the ol' noggin for some actual thinkin' gear.

Or you could just google "porn" and learn that there are lots of women who are making lots of money out of doing what comes (more or less) naturally on film.

I doubt that many of them would be bothered whether they're part of "the dominant discourse" or not, as long as someone's prepared to pay. "How do you make a hor-mone? Don't pay her".

Oh and Meghan? If you don't like sexism, why are you working so hard to promote it?

Antiseptic,
I agree. I really couldn't understand the article that much, but then I don't consider myself totally feminist.

But do these "women's studies" courses ever pay the rent or pay the electricity bills?

Only for the feminist lecturers.

So they have to keep the system going, even though such courses ultimately devalue the degrees of everyone else who attends the university.

Gee I hate to interrupt this anti-feminist, pro-porn rant, but really guys, you didn't get this article at all did you?

This author is not anti-male at all. She is not even really anti-porn.
She is trying to say that male sexuality came before porn was ever invented, and they don't need porn to get their kicks, although porn may add to the excitement nowadays of course.

I don't have a problem with soft porn, but I abhor anything that depicts violence, as I think it sends the wrong message to any sicko's out there who can't get an erection without violence.

@ Suseonline

I think rather that anti-feminist the comments are anti "gender" feminists or anti- "Radical" feminist.

The "fun fems" as the "rad fems" call them simply are not with the program! Fun fems actually advocate for gender equality not female supremacy and male vilification or eradication.

"This author is not anti-male at all. She is not even really anti-porn."

read her blog the http://www.feminisms.org/ and the original version of this article without the overt misandry removed she is indeed anti mal

You can never trust a feminist.

They may speak with a F tongue.

Thank you to all the sad men on this commentary section. You have overwhelmingly proved every single one of the author's points, and then some.

Question for Graham Young. Why do you continue to allow these tired old bigots with obvious mummy problems to lock up these gender threads with their warped views on both men and women, corrupting any idea or argument that might even remotely turn into a worthwhile discussion?

This once-great forum has been in decline for some time now, and you just have to look at the comments above to see one of the main reasons why. On these gender threads at least, all the reasonable, thinking minds have gone elsewhere.

@ Killarney

Typical, can't offer anything in support of the article, so attach those making comments, minimise their rights to express a view and run away to somewhere where perhaps everyone agrees with you?

The bigger question for Graham Young is why post something as poorly written and of such dubious quality, written in response to extreme views posted on obscure web site in the first place? Perhaps something a little more scholarly that could provoke a decent discussion.

Dear Killarney,

Your post does nothing to address the questions put to Ms Murphy. Your post is typical of the personal vitriol that passes for debate amongst feminists.

One page 1 I put these points to Ms Murphy in a civilized manner:

"I wonder if Murphy would like to tackle women's implicit role in perpetuating the porn industry? The usual argument, which Murphy insinuates in her article, is that men have somehow deviously manipulated women into doing porn beyond their will. According to feminists only men can be responsible for their actions, and women are just dumb, passive creatures easily manipulated.
This same (tired) argument can be reversed: men were manipulated beyond their volition by the sexual allurement of women, and were objectified by women in order for them to be paid large sums of money.
Also, I wonder if the feminists would confront the issue of wage inequality in the porn industry. The actresses are paid more than double the actors, are they not?"

I have put these questions to feminists before, particularly Ms Tankard Reist, and never got a reply. Not one that actually addresses the points I make anyway. Usually spiteful personal remarks is what passes for debate with feminists.

Lost in the noise Aristocrat.

I also asked 'women never liked men dictating their sexuality, why should men now allow feminist women to dictate to men their sexuality. '

and,

'I think porn has been around for a long time.'

Hey Suze, tell me about the days when there was no such thing as porn? What year was that? Actually it probably all started when women started to cover themselves.

'Typical, can't offer anything in support of the article, so attack those making comments, minimise their rights to express a view and run away to somewhere where perhaps everyone agrees with you? '

Sounds about right for Killarney.

PS: Can anyone answer why so many Feminist aritcles are all about men? Perhaps it's some Daddy fixation...

Aristocrat 'Your post is typical of the personal vitriol that passes for debate amongst feminists.

Thank you so much for that, Mr Pot-Kettle. Such righteousness has indeed blinded you to the fact that these OLO gender threads are all drowning in their own vitriol - against women in general and feminists in particular.

If you actually think you are addressing the article here, you are deluding yourself. Indeed, you are actually proving it right. The author's central argument is that '... what many people do when presented with a critique of systematic oppression [is to] remove all context and make it ALL about them, as individuals who exist inside social bubbles, far removed from the influence of society and culture and governments and media'.

This is EXACTLY what you and at least 90% of the comments here have done. I note also, that these comments are coming from a tiny handful of MEN (and at times, a token woman) who make the same comments over and over and over in EVERY OLO gender thread, regardless of the subject matter of the article they are responding to.

And, BTW, I'd go easy on expecting a personal reply from Melinda Tankard Reist and any other feminists to whom you've thrown this concern curveball about pay inequality in the porn industry. You are just inviting their complete and utter contempt and will no doubt egg them on to write even more male un-friendly articles in the future. (I hope...)

*The author's central argument is that '... what many people do when presented with a critique of systematic oppression*

Well some of us simply question the "systematic oppression" bit,
because we know plenty of females who willingly get their gear off
as they love the attention.

Killarney
"If you actually think you are addressing the article here, you are deluding yourself. Indeed, you are actually proving it right. The author's central argument is that '... what many people do when presented with a critique of systematic oppression [is to] remove all context and make it ALL about them, as individuals who exist inside social bubbles, far removed from the influence of society and culture and governments and media'."

The central argument then is predicated on a number of unexplained assumptions. There is no argument presented by Ms Murphy that "systematic oppression" exists. It is merely presumed and enforced by Ms Murphy through rhetoric, not empirical data.
Secondly, this is not about "them," by which I presume you mean "me." My question was directed toward the unexplained problem of responsibility. Ms Murphy's argument, like all feminists, is that men are fully responsible for what they do, they are endowed with free will and are at full command of their actions at all times. Women, however, are viewed as not responsible for their actions. Anything bad a women does is the fault of the male. Why cannot women make choices of their own volition? What is the "magical" force that makes men naturally endowed with free will and women incapable of decision making?
Thirdly, why it is only men who "objectify" women? Are not women "objectifying" men for payment? Women are using the male as an object in order to receive money. This is mostly a business transaction. Unless, of course, you extend "objectification" to all areas of work and not just the porn industry. If that is so, one wonders why all forms of work don't come under "objectification" and "exploitation" by feminists.

Killarny
"And, BTW, I'd go easy on expecting a personal reply from Melinda Tankard Reist and any other feminists to whom you've thrown this concern curveball about pay inequality in the porn industry. You are just inviting their complete and utter contempt and will no doubt egg them on to write even more male un-friendly articles in the future. (I hope...)"

That's not actually an argument. The question still remains unanswered. Why is pay inequality in porn not a central focus of feminism when pay equality in central to feminism?

Suseonline:"She is trying to say that male sexuality came before porn was ever invented, and they don't need porn to get their kicks, although porn may add to the excitement nowadays of course."

I'd reckon porn came after privacy was invented in any given culture. There's not much porn in the traditional Aboriginal or PNG or any other primitive culture that practises communality in living arrangements. Who needs porn when there's a couple having it off in the corner of the longhouse?

Of course, there aren't a lot of feminists, or even faux-feminist apologistas in such cultures either. I'm sure that nobody notices the lack.

Kilarnry,
The article has not been an eye opener for me.

I have previously known of the absolue crap that is being produced in women's study courses in universities.

And also, no amount of money thrown at it will ever improve it.

Murphy said " feminist arguments based on what they actually say – which is that rather than individual men or men's "natural desires" being the problem, the problem has to do with privilege, socialization, media, imagery "

Could have opened up debate - and explored some evidence for these assertions but did not...

If women just refused to be involved in porn the industry would die.

You know like the feminist argument that if men stopped being soldiers then war would not exist.

Thing is women are not conscripted by governments into the porn industry as part of their "role" in society , some women go down the porn path because of the income available form it , just as dienfrnachised men have joined armies over the ages because there seemed no other alternative.

"'Men and misogyny are two separate things'"

How very gracious of you to say so.

So far as I could make out through the author's nagging, she seems to be saying that men's predilection for looking at pictures of sex is because of violence, objectification, oppression, patriarchy, sexism, and "powerraceclassgendersexism". She makes no attempt to prove this. Rather than writing an article that assumes your entire argument is true without any kind of proof but impassioned appeal to absent authority, perhaps you should consider trying to prove your point?

Violence is already illegal. The women in porn don't have a gun at their heads; they're participating because they agree to do so, just like the providers of any other paid service. I would prefer to be paid without performing any work for it: does that mean I'm a "victim" of "violence"?

Oppression: you're going to have to do better than just allege it. Merely unequal outcomes as between men and women doesn't automatically prove your point, because men and women aren't equal in the first place, on account of women have babies and men don't. Just because men don't necessarily agree to pay for the babies that women have, doesn't mean women are being "oppressed". Women's frustrated desire to force others to pay for their babies is not "innate": it's just a social construct of patriarchy that you need to get over.

One complaint that keeps coming up repeatedly is "objectification". But what's that supposed to mean? How could a man be sexually attracted to a woman and *not* objectify her? He'd think that she were himself, is that it?

As for "patriarchy", when you are arguing that men should not be forced to pay for women's babies you will be qualified to make that argument, and not before. Go ahead.

As for "powerraceclassgendersexism", what's that supposed to mean? Without making out your argument, we can hardly be blamed for ridiculing your incoherent hysteria.

Besides, what are we supposed to do? Lock up people who make or look at pictures of consensual sex?

A pathetic piece of harridan-screech.

Peter Hume,

I agree.

For many years feminist were able to get away with the system of “I represent women, so if you don’t agree with me, then you are anti-female and a misogynist”

No one elected them to represent women.

As well, feminists have gone on to carry out some of the worst, most biased and bigoted research ever undertaken in universities, or they have formed their beliefs on no research at all, but hearsay only.

I have also noticed their literature entering more into mainstream media, and their beliefs are becoming accepted as truth, when in fact those beliefs are based on the most minimal evidence, or no evidence at all.

I point the finger directly at the university system for letting them in in the first place, and then allowing them to stay there, when women’s studies (another name for feminist indoctrination) has no relationship in anyway with the scientific method.

Looks like Killarney and Ms Murphy have thrown in the towel.

meaghan - what a great article! every good wish, jas

Jocelynne, what a fatuous comment. Every best wish, ant.