ACLU president argues merits of ‘sexual expression’
Author fails to recognize true nature of female empowerment,
free speech
By Barbara Hernandez
Daily Bruin Staff
There are very few occupations where women are paid more than
men. Pornography is one of them.
In ACLU president Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU,
attempts to argue the merits of free speech and "sexual expression"
while taking on the anti-pornography movement started by radical
feminist Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in her new book
"Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s
Rights".
Strossen unfortunately chooses isolated incidents of censorship
 the Venus De Milo painting taken down from a mall and Goya’s
"Naked Maja" taken down from a business office  that have
some semblance of legitimacy. Is it not also censorship to ignore
repeated requests to have an object removed? These examples are
pitifully weak and undermine her argument that censorship,
especially that of the government, can ruin our sense of art and
history. Instead of investing her intellect on this point, she
takes pornography and tries to say it glorifies women and benefits
women by reclaiming their sexuality.
Strossen does pay lip service to poverty, childcare and low
wages, but her many idealized interviews with pornographic
actresses, nude models and strippers seem to draw the most
attention. She lauds their freedom and "sexual expression," weaving
a fairy tale how these women  a former prostitute who now
does erotic videos and a former adult film actress who now directs
 now have control of their lives and the industry.
An industry where all the major production and selection, as
well as the consuming, are done by men.
One hardly thinks most women today think of their lives in terms
of pornographic films, nor do they have sex lives approaching
anything like them. The reason? Women do not own their own
production studios, do not supervise photo shoots, do not choose
their own photos, do not write their own scripts. Men do, and the
women do as they’re told or instructed. There is not sexual
expression other than what’s in the male producer’s mind. There is
no glamour, there is no joy.
Women in pornographic films are paid to be there. They are not
there to sexually express themselves and salute womanhood.
Women using a medium of sexual expression written out by men for
men’s viewing is not about women’s empowerment. What Strossen seems
to be avoiding is that the vast majority of pornography (including
Playgirl) is aimed at men, not women. So when women are presented
in this way, how can they be empowering women as sexual
objects?
Strossen also criticizes Dworkin and MacKinnon’s views, slyly
suggesting they are in league with the conservative right, much to
their dismay. Yet it is Strossen who also joins the Right by buying
into the "Stop portraying women as victims!" arm of the media.
Instead she argues against the cases of sexual harassment in the
nation, especially those in which male workers placed pornographic
photos in lockers of female coworkers or various sexual
paraphernalia. It is perhaps this argument that makes the reader
turn off completely to Strossen’s arguments and reassess their
opinion of radical feminist Andrea Dworkin.
Instead of recognizing the legal precedent women are making in
the country and the courts, Strossen condemns it. She condemns
their freedom of speech by defending her own, more ambiguous
brand.
Why not laud women for being in control of their destinies and
empowering themselves, even in pornography? But why dwell on it?
Why can’t we applaud the women who went back to school or started
their own businesses from scratch, instead of the one who mastered
giving head on camera. Why not? Because it sells books.
BOOK: "Defending Pornography" by Nadine Strossen. Now available
at bookstores everywhere.