Liberté d’expression ? Qui parle ? De qui ? Et en quels termes ?!


Betty McLellan, Pornography and the Myth of Free Speech

For Men, Freedom of Speech;
For Women, Silence Please

I wrote this to answer two editorials in The New York Times that quoted from Pornography: The New Terrorism and denounced feminists for undermining the First Amendment (freedom of speech) by speaking out against pornography. The New York Times would not publish it; neither would The Washington Post, Newsweek, Mother Jones, The Village Voice, The Nation, The Real Paper, or anywhere else one could think to send it. It was first published in 1980 in the anthology Take Back the Night, edited by Laura Lederer. I had been named in one of the Times editorials and thought that ethically I was entitled to some right of response. No. I thought the other places–very big on free speech–should publish it because they were very big on free speech. No.

A great many men, no small number of them leftist lawyers, are apparently afraid that feminists are going to take their dirty pictures away from them. Anticipating the distress of forced withdrawal, they argue that feminists really must shut up about pornography–what it is, what it means, what to do about it–to protect what they call « freedom of speech. » Our « strident » and « overwrought » antagonism to pictures that show women sexually violated and humiliated, bound, gagged, sliced up, tortured in a multiplicity of ways, « offends » the First Amendment. The enforced silence of women through the centuries has not. Some elementary observations are in order.
The Constitution of the United States was written exclusively by white men who owned land. Some owned black slaves, male and female. Many more owned white women who were also chattel.

The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect the civil or sexual rights of women and it has not, except occasionally by accident.

The Equal Rights Amendment, which would, as a polite afterthought, extend equal protection under the law such as it is to women, is not yet part of the Constitution. There is good reason to doubt that it will be in the foreseeable future.

The government in all its aspects–legislative, executive, judicial, enforcement–has been composed almost exclusively of men. Even juries, until very recently, were composed almost entirely of men. Women have had virtually nothing to do with either formulating or applying laws on obscenity or anything else. In the arena of political power, women have been effectively silenced.

Both law and pornography express male contempt for women: they have in the past and they do now. Both express enduring male social and sexual values; each attempts to fix male behavior so that the supremacy of the male over the female will be maintained. The social and sexual values of women are barely discernible in the culture in which we live. In most instances, women have been deprived of the opportunity even to formulate, let alone articulate or spread, values that contradict those of the male. The attempts that we make are both punished and ridiculed. Women of supreme strength who have lived in creative opposition to the male cultural values of their day have been written out of history–silenced.

Rape is widespread. One characteristic of rape is that it silences women. Laws against rape have not functioned to protect the bodily integrity of women; instead, they have punished some men for using women who belong to some other men.

Battery is widespread. One characteristic of battery is that it silences women. Laws against battery have been, in their application, a malicious joke.

There is not a feminist alive who could possibly look to the male legal system for real protection from the systematized sadism of men. Women fight to reform male law, in the areas of rape and battery for instance, because something is better than nothing. In general, we fight to force the law to recognize us as the victims of the crimes committed against us, but the results so far have been paltry and pathetic. Meanwhile, the men are there to counsel us. We must not demand the conviction of rapists or turn to the police when raped because then we are « prosecutorial » and racist. Since white men have used the rape laws to imprison black men, we are on the side of the racist when we (women of any color) turn to the law. The fact that most rape is intraracial, and more prosecution will inevitably mean the greater prosecution of white men for the crimes they commit, is supposedly irrelevant. (It is, of course, suddenly very relevant when one recognizes that this argument was invented and is being promoted by white men, significantly endangered for perhaps the first time by the anti-rape militancy of women.) We are also counseled that it is wrong to demand that the police enforce already existing laws against battery because then we « sanction » police entry into the home, which the police can then use for other purposes. Better that rape and battery should continue unchallenged, and the law be used by some men against other men with no reference to the rightful protection of women. The counsel of men is consistent: maintain a proper–and respectful–silence.

Male counsel on pornography, especially from leftist lawyers, has also been abundant. We have been told that pornography is a trivial issue and that we must stop wasting the valuable time of those guarding « freedom of speech » by talking about it. We have been accused of trivializing feminism by our fury at the hatred of women expressed in pornography. We have been told that we must not use existing laws even where they might serve us or invent new ones because we will inevitably erode « freedom of speech »–but that the use of violence against purveyors of pornography or property would not involve the same hazards. Others, less hypocritical, have explained that we must not use law; we must not use secondary boycotts, a civil liberties No-No (since women do not, with rare exceptions, consume pornography, women cannot boycott it by not buying it; other strategies, constituting secondary boycotts, would have to be used); we must not, of course, damage property, nor do we have the right to insult or harass. We have even been criticized for picketing, the logic being that an exhibitor of pornography might cave in under the pressure which would constitute a dangerous precedent. The men have counseled us to be silent so that « freedom of speech » will survive. The only limitation on it will be that women simply will not have it–no loss, since women have not had it. Such a limitation does not « offend » the First Amendment or male civil libertarians.

The First Amendment, it should be noted, belongs to those who can buy it. Men have the economic clout. Pornographers have empires. Women are economically disadvantaged and barely have token access to the media. A defense of pornography is a defense of the brute use of money to encourage violence against a class of persons who do not have–and have never had–the civil rights vouchsafed to men as a class. The growing power of the pornographers significantly diminishes the likelihood that women will ever experience freedom of anything–certainly not sexual self-determination, certainly not freedom of speech.

The fact of the matter is that if the First Amendment does not work for women, it does not work. With that premise as principle, perhaps the good lawyers might voluntarily put away the dirty pictures and figure out a way to make freedom of speech the reality for women that it already is for the literary and visual pimps. Yes, they might, they could; but they will not. They have their priorities set. They know who counts and who does not. They know, too, what attracts and what really offends.

Ce contenu a été publié dans industries, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv, avec comme mot(s)-clé(s) , , , . Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

5 réponses à Liberté d’expression ? Qui parle ? De qui ? Et en quels termes ?!

  1. Lora la Rate dit :

    « The fact that most rape is intraracial (…) »
    Elle n’a pas l’air de prendre en compte les viols massivement commis par des blancs sur des femmes de couleur?

    • binKa dit :

      elle n’ignore aucunement ces viols, Andrea Dworkin est une féministe anti-raciste radicale.
      Elle dit simplement une vérité. Même dans une société d’apartheid, la majorité des viols sont intra-raciaux, car les femmes que les hommes ont directement sous leur coupe sont « leurs » femmes, fille, soeur, tante, femme.
      * Selon l’enquête CSF, plus de la moitié [56%] des viols sont commis sur mineurE, l’écrasante majorité par un adulte proche [famille ou ami de famille], et les viols conjugaux sont absolument pandémiques. La domesticité [minorité et/ou conjugalité] est en fait l’un des plus gros moteurs de viol qui existe. De fait, la domesticité esclavagiste aussi. Mais l’économie des EU, dans les années 90, n’est plus fondée là-dessus.
      * Un deuxième plus gros moteur de viols aujourd’hui est la prostitution. Là certes les viols sont plus souvent inter-raciaux, mais la constante statistique et politique est moins : homme blanc vs femme racisée, que homme (blancs et racisés) vs femme (blanches et racisées).
      * Enfin, un troisième moteur est la colonisation tels que les hommes l’entendent, à savoir de groupes d’hommes à groupes d’hommes. Là aussi les viols sont plus souvent inter-raciaux – mais seuls les hommes isolés de leur groupe d’appartenance [les « pionniers »] cessent de violer momentanément les femmes « familières » de leur groupe, et ne dirigent leur plan de conquête que contre des femmes « étrangères ». Là encore le viol est une arme de colonisation et de destruction massive, mais cette fois tournée par les hommes vers d’autres hommes, en ciblant « les femmes de l’ennemi ». Catharine MacKinnon, amie et proche d’Andrea Dworkin, a réussi à faire reconnaître les viols de masse en Ex-Yougoslavie comme un part du plan génocidaire.

  2. A ginva dit :

    Andrea Dworkin a toujours dénoncé la différence de traitement des femmes racisées par les pornographes, prostitueurs et proxénètes, et dénoncé le racisme en tant que tel. Elle était toujours très attentive à ne jamais négliger les différents degrés d’urgences entre les femmes (entre celles qui survivent à des guerres, des génocides, des colonisations, la prostitution, les violences par conjoint, le viol, les répressions, la rue, etc.).

    Elle dit:

    « The analysis in this book applies to the life situations of all women, but all women are not necessarily in a state of primary emergency as women. What I mean by this is simple. As a Jew in Nazi Germany, I would be oppressed as a woman, but hunted, slaughtered, as a Jew. As a Native American, I would be oppressed as a squaw, but hunted, slaughtered, as a Native American. That first identity, the one which brings with it as part of its definition death, is the identity of primary emergency. This is an important recognition because it relieves us of a serious confusion. The fact, for instance, that many Black women (by no means all) experience primary emergency as Blacks in no way lessens the responsibility of the Black community to assimilate this and other analyses of sexism and to apply it in their own revolutionary work. »

    mais elle dit aussi

    « The nature of women’s oppression is unique: women are oppressed as women, regardless of class or race; some women have access to significant wealth, but that wealth does not signify power; women are to be found everywhere, but own or control no appreciable territory; women live with those who oppress them, sleep with them, have their children—we are tangled, hopelessly it seems, in the gut of the machinery and way of life which is ruinous to us. And perhaps most importantly, most women have little sense of dignity or self-respect or strength, since those qualities are directly related to a sense of manhood. In Revolutionary Suicide, Huey P. Newton tells us that the Black Panthers did not use guns because they were symbols of manhood, but found the courage to act as they did because they were men. When we women find the courage to defend ourselves, to take a stand against brutality and abuse, we are violating every notion of womanhood we have ever been taught. The way to freedom for women is bound to be torturous for that reason alone. »

    C’est une réalité que les hommes les plus proches de nous sont les plus à mêmes de nous violer, car c’est eux qui ont l’accès le plus immédiat à notre corps, à notre espace privé, à nos pensées, qui ont le plus de temps pour instaurer une stratégie de domination, de terreur, pour pousser nos limites, nous manipuler: ceux qui nous violent c’est ceux qui nous possèdent, qui ont un droit de propriété et d’autorité sur nous: nos conjoints, pères, maris, frères, oncles, patrons, profs, proxénètes, voisins, cousins… Et les hommes de notre entourage sont le plus souvent les hommes de la même culture, de l’ethnie ou groupe auquel nous appartenons – une fausse appartenance d’ailleurs, puisque ce monde n’appartient qu’aux hommes et aliène toutes les femmes.

    Plus les femmes sont éloignées physiquement, géographiquement, mentalement, économiquement des hommes, moins elles risquent d’être violées par eux ou de subir toute forme de violence de leur part. C’est logique, c’est comme la différence entre être dans la cage avec les lions ou de les voir de loin avec un jeep et des binocles.

  3. A ginva dit :

    Un extrait de Dworkin dans une interview, sur la liberté de parole, dans « Dworkin on Dworkin », intervw par Elisabeth Braeman

    « the First Amendment protects people who have
    access to the media, and in our country that mostly means people with money. It
    doesn’t protect anybody who doesn’t have access and was never intended to. It was
    written by white men who owned white women and black slaves. A lot of them
    owned black slaves, none of whom ever got any First Amendment protection of any
    kind In fact, if there’s any kind of correlation between the First Amendment and
    the actual status quo, the keeping of wealth by those who have privilege, it
    specifically has to do with literacy. White men, who owned property, who owned
    women as chattels, who owned black slaves, also happened to be the people who
    could read and write; there were actually laws in the slave states saying that you
    could not teach a slave how to read, it was against the law. The First Amendment
    didn’t do anything about it Now, lawyers have all kinds of reasons why that’s true.
    It doesn’t matter. The point is that the First Amendment is now being used in an
    almost metaphoric way for freedom of speech as if the First Amendment protects
    everybody’s right to speech and it doesn’t . It’s not a grant to individuals of a right
    to speak. If it were, you would be able to go to the government and you would be
    able to say, « I need four minutes on NBC. I have something I want to say. » You can’t
    do that [laughter]. I have found the arguments around the First Amendment
    incredibly naive, absolutely unwilling to deal with the reality of male power, the
    meaning of wealth in this society, and I’ve been deeply disappointed not to see
    feminists making an analysis that addresses the marginality of women’s speech and
    the speech in particular of people of color, who also don’t have that kind of access.
    Probably the worst liberal cop-out of the Women’s Movement has been to accept
    this freedom of speech bullshit from white boys, who in fact do have freedom of
    speech, because they do have money and they do have access. »

  4. Ping : Mona Eltahawy and the silencing of women « some of this must be true

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *