Please read!!

There is no way I can do a better job at describing the ludicrous events that happened at this past weekend's Anti-Pornography Conference than Joelle did in her blog. Please, feel free to check it out!

Blog # 27: Bob Jensen, Lierre Keith et al. : The Rabid, Transphobic Hate-Mongering of the Anti-Pornography Movement

From Joelle Ryan's blog, Transmeditations.

University of New Hampshire Students Shred Porn

I was at this demonstration shredding some magazines myself and I am in this video clip, but I bet you can't find me!

Let's further normalize pornography.

I recently came across the movie trailer for Middle Men. Has anyone else seen this?

"The guys who brought the XXX to the www."

It's absolutely disgusting. The film features money, guns, and porn: three prominent sources of violence in our culture. The guys in this movie are cultural terrorists, assassins of the future and executioners of morality. The most obvious goal of this movie is to normalize pornography and desensitize people to the violence and objectification within it. The internet has become saturated with porn and, in effect, is a breeding ground for addiction, pedophilia, violence, guilt, divorce, unhealthy attitudes towards sex, racial stereotypes, sexual aggression, misogynistic attitudes, as well as numerous handicaps in social situations.

This is the basic plot of this movie:  Luke Wilson plays Jack Harris, who helps introduce pornography to the World Wide Web and the World Wide Web to your credit card. But Jack's just the middleman: He clears the path for the inventors of online porn, paying off all gangsters, attorneys and other crooks and cronies who come at him. In Houston, 2004 we see Jack peeling out of the driveway beneath an apocalyptic storm with $4 million in a zipped-up bag. Bad things are happening, he tells the audience, and all because "I figured out a better way for guys to jack off." Jack's new perks include private jets and porn-star privates. The movie is fast paced and is always showing another guy who either wants to kill Luke Wilson or get money from Luke Wilson or kill Luke Wilson and then take his money. Wilson just gets to luxuriate on the porn's profit, but also seems to suffocate in the feeling of walls closing in on and crushing the poor bastard who thought he'd gotten the Good Life. Jack treats every encounter, no matter how intimate or dangerous, like a business transaction. He gets stuff done, even if it involves blackmailing the Harris County district attorney.
(Click here to read the full article).

I've done a little research on reviews for this movie, and sadly most of them are actually good reviews. When I did find a decent review, other people commented on it, declaring that the anti-pornography point-of-view is "ultra conservative or puritanical." Religious groups aren't the only people involved in the anti-pornography movement. We also include feminists, ex-porn stars, psychologists, sociologists, and anyone who knows that pornography can contribute to the breakdown of marriages and personal relationships. To have an anti-pornography stance is not to be ultra conservative, it is to recognize that the women in these films, magazines, websites, etc. are actually real people. The "Anti-Porn Feminists" blog based out of London effectively sums up the question "What's wrong with pornography?" in eight points:

Pornography harms women.
Pornography is not fantasy. Pornography happens in the real world, to real women; everything you see in pornography happened somewhere to a real woman.

The pornography industry is a multi-billion dollar global industry.
Pornography exists to make money. It is an industry that chews women up and spits them out; it is an industry where exposure to violence, harassment, injury and infection are seen as normal and acceptable.

Pornography doesn’t expand our sexuality – it stunts it.
Mainstream heterosexual pornography dictates a narrow and limited idea of human sexuality. In pornography, male sexuality is predicated on cruelty, coercion and degradation; female sexuality is predicated on submitting to or appearing to enjoy being subjected to cruel, coercive and degrading treatment. Pornography eradicates women’s sexual agency, and makes it harder for women to find out about their own bodies and their own sexuality.

"Business is a lot like sex... getting in is easy, pulling out is hard."

Pornography portrays sexual violence against women as normal, natural and an inevitable part of male sexuality.
Sexual desire does not develop in a vacuum. The prurient attitude we have to sex in this country, combined with a lack of decent sex education, means that many people use pornography as their primary source of information on what sex is supposed to be like. Mainstream heterosexual pornography tells men that the sexual abuse of women is exciting, and that women enjoy being abused. It tells women that in order to do sex properly, they have to put up with and enjoy such abuse.

Pornography reinforces male supremacy, and the idea that men are entitled to sexual access to women’s bodies.
Men define themselves as being whatever is not a woman, in order to be a man it is necessary for there to be a subordinate group of women for men to compare themselves to and feel superior to. In mainstream heterosexual pornography men are always the active agents and women are always the passive objects. No man in pornography ever fails to get what he wants; the women in pornography exist solely to satisfy men’s desires, they have no will or desire of their own except to service men’s needs.

Pornography portrays sex and women as disgusting.
The words used to describe women and women’s bodies in pornography betray the fact that women and sex are seen as dirty and disgusting by the men who use it: ‘bitch’ ‘cunt’ ‘slut’ ‘fuck toy’ ‘fuck hole’ ‘dirty’ ‘filthy’ etc etc.

Pornography promotes misogynistic beauty standards.
In mainstream heterosexual pornography women are interchangeable, it trains women and men to see a natural female body – one with pubic hair, or small breasts, or any fat – as unnatural and disgusting.

Pornography affects you.
Even if you are not a pornography consumer, a significant number of the men you interact with every day will be. It’s difficult to imagine that a man can spend a lot of time viewing and masturbating to degrading images of women without that pornographic ideology having a negative effect on his view of women.


This movie is sickening and offensive. Living in this porn culture, I'm not sure why I am surprised that this movie made it to theaters and into the minds of the public. The men in this movie are violence and rape instigators and I can't fathom why there would be a movie made to glorify them. I quite obviously find that objectifying half of the human race is more than just a little distasteful.

Multiple Identities = Multiple Oppressions: A Response to Dan Savage's 'It Gets Better' Campaign

Dan Savage started a campaign called "It Gets Better" to reach out to LGBT youth who are struggling with bullying and he attempts to let them know that despite the hard times they may be going through now, to stick it out because in the future, their lives are sure to get better. Joelle Ryan responds to his campaign in her blog by making several important points. She blatantly disagrees with Dan Savage and offers several examples from her own life where she states that she faces transphobia, fatphobia, and classism everyday and it certainly has not gotten any better for her. Joelle even goes so far as to say, "Telling vulnerable queer and trans teens that it gets better when it doesn't is incredibly cruel and heartless" (Ryan, 2010).

I think it is important to bring up these intersectionalities of social identities, especially if it results in multiple oppressions for a single person. This is something that Dan Savage cannot relate to, as he is a white, gay man and really only speaks about the hard times he has had regarding his gay identity. He doesn't face racial, classist, or sexist discrimination on a daily basis and, for some people, their multiple oppressions are what put them over the edge. Several times, Joelle mentions that LGBT youth need to be told the truth about the patriarchal world they're about to grow up in, instead of sideswiping them with the fallacious notion that their future will be better and brighter if they just wait around for it long enough. The truth is, not all children can look forward to a rosy future with promises of health, prosperity, acceptance, and happiness. Dan Savage's story is just one experience and there is no way he can speak for all gay youth in America. I am not a pessimistic person, I am honest and rational, and would rather speak a realistic truth than an idealistic lie.

Even for those people who do decide to live in the "it gets better" mentality, what about the present, the here and now? Some people are literally dying out there and can't just sit around and wait for their lives to get better. Children are ostracized, bullied, mocked, beaten, and abused everyday and they need help now. I think a more effective approach is to be active. Dan, if you really want to help the youth of America, educate them, give them resources, give them support, give them truth. Give them anything but false hope. I am in complete agreement with Joelle when she says "I wish more people had been real with me about what was ahead for me in this patriarchal world" (Ryan, 2010). I wish I were better prepared to live in such a hierarchical way of life. Maybe somebody could have explained to me that under the patriarchy, hierarchies exist for every social identity and at least for race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex, gender expression, religion, political affiliation, and class, I am close to the bottom rung of the ladder and I should expect members of the dominant identities to step on me as they make their ways to the top. At least then I would have known the only thing that can help me survive is my own strength, because as we know, the bottom rungs of the ladder encounter the most weight.

AVATAR: A Movie About the Na'vi Clan, starring a human.

As Lisa Nakamura points out in Digitizing Race, "...the massification of the Internet has not damaged the market for traditionally racialized representations of people of color... White people are still depicted as the users that matter in these narratives that are so influential among popular audiences, especially young audiences" (208). This holds true for James Cameron's 2009 science fiction film, Avatar. The movie takes place in 2154 when humans discover a valuable mineral, unobtainium, on Pandora, the home of the Na'vi clan who are non-technological and worship Eywa, a mother goddess. While scientists have created avatars for humans to observe and learn about the Na'vi and the biosphere, the RDA of the military plots to send a former marine to Pandora via an avatar to persuade the Na'vi clan to move away from Hometree, the clan's dwelling, which sits on top of a particularly rich mining site for unobtainium. Obviously, a war ensues between the Na'vi and the military, and guess who saves the day? The White male human--and former marine--who befriended the Na'vi through deceit and manipulation.

Now, let's for a moment imagine that Jake Sully(the ex-marine) hadn't joined the Na'vi clan. How would this movie have ended? Well, presumably the Na'vi clan would have been wiped out or forced to relocate when the military waged war on them, attacking them with tanks, guns, and other advanced weaponry, and leaving the Na'vi to defend themselves with bows and arrows and an apparent defeated response to their home being destroyed. So basically, the only reason that the clan survived and overpowered the military is because they had an alpha male human on their side to tell them what to do. I also must add that even though most of this racism isn't only through human races/ethnicities, it is between species, that the actors and actresses who play the main Na'vi characters (the lead Na'vi female--Neytiri--whom Jake falls in love with, the clan chief, Neytiri's mother, and the Na'vi male that is skeptical of Jake) are all played by Dominican, African American, or Native American people. No White people. And the main human characters (Jake Sully, the head scientist and doctor, and the military men--the colonel, corporal, and private) are all played by White actresses and actors. Now, that's interesting. How stereotypical is it that they cast a Native American man to play the Na'vi chief? And the only main human character who is not White is Trudy, the Hispanic female pilot who turns against the military and steals a helicopter--like a true criminal (which is a typical stereotype of Hispanic people, in case you didn't catch that).

In Avatar, it is clear that the White humans are the superior race and species, as they have the access to all the technology--they have advanced military weaponry and robots and advanced scientific technology to create the avatars and mentally link them to humans. The Na'vi are so obviously depicted as being primitive, non-technological, and sexual. The Na'vi's only weapons are bows and arrows! They of course have to add a sex scene (although not human sex, it is still sex) between Jake in his avatar body and Neytiri, the lead female Na'vi. Even before the actual scene where they have sex, Neytiri is portrayed as being sexy and one can see how she is slowly seducing Jake although it is meant to appear that she does this unintentionally or subconsciously. Right.

Lastly, I want to discuss the title of this post. Avatar is geared towards a variety of audiences, but is clearly meant to be enjoyed by young people, as it is rated PG-13. Most people, but particularly young people may watch Avatar and only see a movie about the Na'vi clan who live on Pandora, deal with their home almost being destroyed by humans, but ultimately surviving and then living happily ever after. I watch Avatar and see a movie about White guilt. It is a movie that is perceptively about the Na'vi clan, but ultimately stars a human (hence, "A Movie about the Na'vi, starring a human"). This movie could have done without having Jake Sully as the hero for the Na'vi and especially being the praised Na'vi clan member like they all owe their entire species' survival to him. James Cameron could have easily had one of the Na'vi be in the lead role and save their own species from obliteration without the help of any humans. But sadly, he would have rather portrayed the guilt that White people have from being superior to other races (and causing them oppression and distress) and casting that into the movie in the form of human guilt of being superior to the Na'vi, which is why Jake Sully switches sides in the end and betrays the military (and ultimately all humans) to help the Na'vi. Oh, and Jake also gets the perks of being allowed to permanently living in the Na'vi clan and having the daughter of the clan's spiritual leader as his mate.

it gets you down sometimes.

my heart breaks when i hear you. i'm sitting here with a sinking feeling in my chest just wanting to hold you and have our lives be better. i can only imagine how you must be feeling.

one person can change our entire life. one person can ruin so many potentially wonderful experiences for us. one person can make us feel like we've lost touch with what we are most passionate about, one person can make us feel embarrassed and guilty and hypocritical for falling into the system in which we hate most, and one person can make us feel utterly defeated and empty. how can people think that they have the right to come in and out of our lives as they please? she's a god damned hurricane. she shows up before we know it and we're caught off guard. and she storms through our lives leaving a path of destruction, devastation, and trauma. we're left to pick up the pieces, if we can even do that. but we shouldn't be alone. nobody deserves to be violated and left to face this kind of devastation.

i can feel the energy that surrounds you and i only wish there was something i could do to lessen the hurt. but there is nothing. you are strong. you will survive. and i will be here.

Man Caught Viewing Child Pornography at UNH Library (mini research project & my reaction)

Over the summer, a man from Exeter, NH was caught watching child pornography in the Dimond library at my university. Since then, there has been debating of the idea of a policy limiting or restricting the consumption of pornography in public libraries. As a class activity for my Cyberbodies course, on Tuesday September 14th, David, Ben and I interviewed six people on campus about this summer's incident and the idea of a policy in public libraries. We asked their opinion on a policy, what they would do if they found someone viewing pornography in the library, and if they had been previously informed of this summer's incident. This is what we found from the six people:

1. Female, second year Grad student in Education:  She had not previously heard about the occurrence from this summer. She believes that there should be restrictions- just as in public schools people should have to log on to the computer to be held accountable for their actions because viewing pornography is not appropriate to do in public. She said if she witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library that she would approach them and let it known that it is not appropriate and then inform a librarian.
2. Male, Senior in Forestry: He had not previously heard of the occurrence from this summer. He does not believe there should be any limits in censoring the consumption of pornography, except in the case of child pornography. He said if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library he would find it amusing and just laugh it off.
3. Male, Professor of Philosophy: He had not heard of the occurrence from this summer. He believes in free speech and would frown upon policies that would restrict the consumption of pornography, stating that restrictions don't work well and it would be overprotection. He said if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library he wasn't sure what he would do. He may report it to a librarian if it is child pornography but says it is hard to tell what is pornography unless it is very offensive.
4. Female, State Senator (re-running): She had previous knowledge of the event from this summer. She stated that the creation of a policy restricting or limiting the consumption of pornography in public libraries is a slippery slope and doesn't believe in it, but maybe a policy for child pornography.
5. Female, Sophomore in Women's Studies & Social Work: She did not know about the occurrence from this summer. She believes there should be a policy restricting all forms of pornography in any public space. She said if she witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library she would inform a librarian and secretly unplug their computer if she could.
6. Male, 5th year Senior in Mathematics & Philosophy: He did not know of the occurrence from this summer. He does not believe there should be any restrictions or limitations on the consumption of pornography in public libraries, even adult magazines, except in the case of child pornography. He said he would not do anything if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library, unless it was child pornography, then he would report it to a librarian.

To sum up this mini-research project, only one person had heard of the event that happened this summer, two people believe there should be restrictions on viewing all pornography in public libraries, five people mentioned some kind of policy restricting consumption of child pornography, one person said they would approach a person seen viewing pornography in the library, two people said they would inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing any kind of pornography, four people said they would inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing child pornography, and one person said they would do nothing at all if they witnessed someone viewing any kind of pornography in the library.

My reaction to this-- Just the fact that only one person out of six people (including a grad student and a professor!) had heard about what happened this summer is disheartening, although not hard to believe. I know the student personally who witnessed the man viewing the child pornography and she informed me that everyone involved in the situation--including any students, faculty, and staff--were asked not to talk about the incident to reporters of any kind--including TNH, our university's own newspaper! Now all I can ask is why this should be kept a secret? I think our campus has the right to know that viewing child pornography in the library (or anywhere really) is not okay and you will be arrested. University administration is way too concerned about their appearance and public opinion of the university. Shouldn't the well-being of the students be one of the administration's top priorities? Well, you would only think so.

Four of those people do not believe there should be a policy restricting the consumption of pornography in our public library and four people said they would not inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library, except in cases of child pornography. What if a person walked into the children's section on the fourth floor, opened a laptop and started watching adult pornography with children present in the room? Would someone care then? What if it was your children who were there trying to read? Or your younger brother or sister? People need to start asking questions and reflect on why certain acts or behaviors are considered okay in our society. So many people just give into the patriarchal way of living without ever thinking twice about it because nobody asks questions. The patriarchy tells us that it is okay for women to feel they have no choice but to participate in the production of pornography in order to guarantee they will get a pay check at the end of the day. The patriarchy tells us that it is okay for pornography to normalize violence against women and make women of color look like animals and inform us that all women are objects--sex objects--conveniently here for the sole purpose of pleasuring men. Lastly, the patriarchy tells us that is okay for people (as long as you're over 18...) to consume these messages--even in the comfort of your university's public library!

And I just wanted to add that another man was in the library and had seen the man viewing the child pornography. He seemed to have felt uncomfortable so he got up and moved to the other side of the table so he could no longer see the man's computer screen. Then, when questioned by the police whether or not he had seen a man viewing child pornography he denied it! I was taken aback when I heard this because it didn't make any sense to me. The man clearly did not support the consumption of child pornography as it made him uncomfortable enough to move, yet he was reluctant to tell police that he had witnessed the man watching it. I mean, really? Maybe he thought he was going to get in trouble for witnessing it and not doing anything about it, but what about that man he is now trying to let go free? He was doing more harm than good in lying to the police. It turned out that the man from Exeter had a previous charge on him and is a registered sex offender. Maybe if he wasn't caught he'd spend tomorrow on a bench at the public playground watching your children play together in the sand.