I have read Barasa's article with keen interest and I must say the author has looked at the whole issue of pornography and feminism from a fresh angle. He gives great insight into the whole debate. However, there are some things I feel were not critically looked at or needed further exploration and I have taken the opportunity to highlight what I agreed and disagreed with in the article.
To begin with, I agree with the definition given by the author drawn from that of Andrea Dworkin, a feminist writer, and her lawyer compatriot, Catherine Mackinnon that pornography is a form of subordination of women. However, I think pornography is more than subordination; if you ask me, it is also a form of sexual perversion because one, pornography does not only involve women; there is also male pornography.
Secondly, for the pornographers, I don't think they feel subordinated, on the contrary, they feel liberated and for them, it is a form of sexual pleasure. They get a kick from looking sexy and arousing those feelings. So, for women who engage in pornography, it is a power thing, not subordination! They feel powerful to have men ogle at their bodies and want them and yet, in all probability, they can't have them (like in the case of magazines); a kind of femme fatale thing.
Secondly, Barasa argues that the 'girl' who walks out of a movie hall complaining that women are treated as sex objects, implies by her statement that a woman is a tangible object. Well, a woman is a tangible object, Barasa, although that is not the only thing that she is. I think we cannot separate the fact that a person is a physical, spiritual, and emotional being. In that sense, the you in one way is not tangible, it is an essence, like the soul; but the physical you is tangible and therefore, it is possible for that you, the physical one, to be treated as an object.
However, I do agree with the author that by focusing on physical pornography, we forget that there can be mental pornography.
I disagree with the argument espoused by the author in his reference to the proposals made by Linda Moncheck that sexual objectification based on physical bodies is a key contributor to the domestication of women by men. On the contrary, I don't think it is the sexual objectification of a woman's body that allows her to be dominated by a male world, I think it is first the mental sexual subjection of a woman through things like culture, which assign certain roles for the different sexes, societal norms of what a woman can/should and cannot/should not do, that translate to the physical sexual objectification.
I think the author is mistaken when he argues that women also want to be treated as sexual objects as in the case of a woman dressing up in a sexy evening gown that flatters her physical attributes. There is a very big difference between a woman wanting a man to appreciate her as an emotional, spiritual and sexual being (like in the case of dressing in a manner that flatters one's physique, like in wanting to have sex with your husband/boyfriend etc and in him appreciating your body) and being treated as a sexual object.
You see, if my man tells me I have a great body, yes, he sees the physical me, but then, I am in a relationship with this man and I know that he appreciates other attributes about me, like my brains, my listening ear, etc, so in that sense, it is not only [in] the physical. He is seeing me, the whole me.
Now in pornography, it doesn't matter if I am Jane, Mary, Harriet, it is the breasts, the thighs, and the butt that matter regardless of whom they belong to.
Regarding the author's discussion on "The Vagina Monologues" which are considered to be nothing short of pornography by some but are viewed by [its] proponents as liberation of women, my view is that they beat the purpose they are trying to achieve and it is vulgarity. You see, you don't fight what you don't like by becoming it, e.g when women get into politics, to prove that they can be better or at par with the men, they become as vulgar, crude and corrupt as the men. But in doing so, they lose the war. For women to think that they are liberating themselves from being viewed as sexual objects by flaunting, in a way, the core of their sexuality 'the vagina' then in that way, they only reinforce what they have been trying to fight because they become as pornographic as the men.
I totally agree with the author's discussion on the supposed difference [between] pornography and erotica. My take: all of them are pornography and just because one is occurring in some small room in the slum and the other one is occurring in an exclusive club in the form of strip dancers and table dancers does not make them different.
When it comes to the role of literature in promoting pornography, the author attempts to give literature a clean [bill of] health arguing that literature, by highlighting pornographic acts, does not contribute to the subordination of women but only depicts what is already in existence in society.
I disagree. Pornography in literature is a form of subordination of women as well as a depiction of it. It is true that the authors are feeding from the readily available material in the form of society's moral decadence but, on the other hand, by authors - both male and female - writing such things, they subordinate women. A teenage boy reading After 4.30 may know pornography exists but may not be in the know of the types, the graphic details. Now when you write and tell him that a woman can enjoy being raped, that there are many things besides his male organ that can be inserted into a woman, that women want a man who is rough and harsh, then you are helping subordinate women in the mind of this boy. So, you are not only depicting but also helping the vicious cycle! The author should therefore equally condemn literature even as he is calling us to castigate movies and magazines that promote the culture of pornography.
Finally, it's kudos to Mr. Barasa for being brave enough to brooch into such a controversial topic and take on the traditional thinking on the issue of pornography.
