*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.