Systems of oppression are flexible enough to absorb some members of subordinated groups; indeed, they draw strength from the illusion of neutrality provided by these exceptions. As a sociologist, I am interested in identifying and explaining patterns to help understand how systems of power shape the way the majority of people live.
Here, women have few fan-club websites, do not make it to pop culture and have to endure oral, anal and vaginal pounding that ends with the usual ejaculation scenes on the body and in the mouth.
Women of color are also paid less than white women. Well-known black porn performer Lexington Steele told author Lawrence Ross that:. What makes regular gonzo different for a black Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White is the way past and present stereotypes are dredged up and thrown in her face.
This stereotype of black women as promiscuous, overbearing and in need of control is one that has historical resonance—from slavery to Moynihan —and continues to inform present day governmental policies. Vixen is a sassy ghetto fabulous beyatch with more attitude than Harlem has crack. Ghetto Gaggers, we destroy ghetto hoes …. In sites like these, the debased status of the black woman as a woman is seamlessly melded with, and reinforced by, her supposed debased status as a person of color.
In the process, her race and gender become inseparable and her body carries the status of dual subordination. It is this harnessing of gender to race that makes women of color a particularly useful group to exploit in gonzo porn, since gonzo porn works only to the degree that women are debased and dehumanized.
This sexualizes the white supremacy in ways that render the actual racism invisible in the mind of most consumers and non-consumers alike. Racism in porn and the wider society is not going to change because some women of color are making their own porn. Racism and sexism are macro-systems of oppression, and the way to do battle with them is not to produce more porn but to instead organize against a power structure that allows an industry based on the degradation of all women to flourish.
Shira Tarrant does not challenge the notion that the porn industry is systemically racist just because some African-American women there have good careers. The women themselves questioned that, based on their knowledge of the industry in general including, implicitly, comparing notes with other black performers. They alluded to lots of porn featuring black men and women not just their own that do not look or sound anything like the examples offered above. The presence of Oprah does not make racist practices Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White Hollywood disappear, but the way to fight that is by reforming it, not abolishing it.
Beforethere were no black players in Major League Baseball. Clearly, MLB was systemically racist. Dines had her way, she would just outlaw baseball. But instead, Brooklyn Dodger owner Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson had a different idea — reform baseball through integration. The idea worked, and a historic step forward for civil rights was achieved. I agree with you Sheldon. I would never mean that!
Re-read my post — I agree with Shira. Her main point wasn't that a few black performers are successful, but that their insider view of the business is very different than Prof. The view of an African-American porn scholar as well as the black performers she interviewed is that the industry's stance and practices on race is too diverse to be generalized as Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White or inherently racist. And I'm saying black performers won't tell the truth while they're in the industry.
Shiara should interview black performers once they are no longer necessary by porn producers. I think you'll get a more complete and a more accurate story.
Do you know of any black performers who said one thing when in the industry, and something opposite once having left? Tarrant reported on these blogs that Dines called for enforcement of obscenity laws. That's a load of bunk. I wrote a lengthy response. Chris…I was toiling in mind…you see, I was wondering why Mrs. There is no comparison between an institution that discriminates by excluding blacks, women etc, and an institution that systematically uses the bodies of subordinate groups as sheer sexual objects at best, and open toilets at worst.
The latter institution also perpetuates vicious stereotypes, as Dines discusses it. Of course if an institution remains completely white-supremacist it should be eradicated. Baseball — inherently — is a game in which one team athletically subordinates the other by beating them in competition.
A culture that glamorizes that will certainly find all such sports competitions useful in reinforcing other types of subordination. Sure… fun — for whom? Baseball pits two theoretically equal groups against Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White another in good fun and in equal opportunity.
Nobody is throatfucked Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White pissed into, and nobody gets pounded without a guaranteed chance to pound their partner right back.
Competition is not the same thing as domination. Thank goodnesss for article! Thank you Ms magazine. More of the same please, it is so good to see a radical feminist analysis of porn in this pornified society. When she testified at the congressional hearing it was to make sure that there was a feminist voice in the hearings, not in support of obscenity law. Saba, this is what Shira Tarrant wrote in her introduction to "Porn: In response to Shira's articles, Dines has posted a comment on the Ms blogs, but she has not contested the veracity of the above statement.
I want to second your point that systems of oppression function more effectively when they create "the illusion of neutrality" through exceptions.
As many radical feminists have written for decades now, much of the industry functions only through this very oppression, through the sexualization of racial, sexual, and financial inequality. Please do your analysis Powerful Black Dude Throatfucked By White favor and read some works on political, social, and feminist theory.
Oh, I've read all the books you mean, the ones that support the anti-porn side. But I've also read the books by, for instance, Ellen Willis, one of the original radical feminists and a founder of Redstockings. Just because YOUR radfems have made claims against porn "for decades" doesn't make them true.
I'm not sure how my comparison is cheap — do you reall think baseball is structurally capable of being a revolutionary force for anybody? By highlighting counterstories and allowing women in the industry to speak for themselves about their experiences, Dr.
Tarrant was challenging an absolutist argument. She's pushing for a little more nuance in the conversation. I believe that Dines is missing the crux of the issue. Are there racist themes in some forms of pornography? As there are in traditional forms of media, too. However, this is not a simple issue. Instead of making sweeping generalizations about pornography, how about acknowledging or interviewing the people who are trying to change it? Or digging deeper as to why performers or producers perceive it differently than Dines?
It is not enough to state that porn is totally racist or anti-feminist. It is not enough to "Just Say No!
Whether we like it or not pornography is a form of media and deserves to be critiqued like anything else. That critique should be comprehensive and not part of a bigger agenda. I believe you spuriously and grossly misrepresent Gail's work and will and I'd like to ask you to clarify some points you made.
I'll also respond to portions of your recent comment. Please show us where in Pornland Gail accomplishes "abolishing" pornography. Gail's approach is rather obviously education and awareness—she shows people images in pornography; she doesn't seek to hide them.
Can you please cite from her book the pages and paragraph where she states she supports abolishing pornography? There is a general response common to pro-pornography arguments that appears close to what you state.
The response is phrased in many ways, amounts to this: The argument seems to be, and correct me where I'm wrong here, please, Sheldon, that if a few women want to abolish pornography, that means that pornography is abolished—at some point in time. That women who want laws that allow women harmed in the industry, or by men using the material against them, who are wanting their Throatfucked White rights to be "Powerful Black Dude" right to not be violated by any man—are taking something away from the men who make and want pornography.
What would be taken away is this: That would, in theory, be taken away if a civil rights law was passed allowing women and anyone else harmed by and in pornography to sue the harmers, including the producers of the pornography used in the abuse. However, nowhere in the U. So what is the fear about, I wonder? Isn't it misplaced, the way whites fear of Mexican immigrants is misplaced?
Because the people who are dangerous are always the people with more power, not less. So whether it is gay men and lesbians relative to heterosexuals; people of color relative to whites; the poor relative to the rich; or women relative to men, it will always be the more institutionally empowered groups that can do the major harm, not the oppressed.
Since then U. How, which group has more power: Al Qaeda or the U. Which group can get away with murdering hundreds of thousands—not three thousand—citizens in a country? The answer would be the U. And which gender gets away with murdering of another gender each year in the U. That would be men; boyfriends and husbands who terrorise and kill women. Why is this not termed "domestic terrorism" in our press?
For the same reason that the U. For the same reason that rapist pornographers and pimps aren't called terrorists.