Apples Vs Oranges

I have a great bunch of students. They have been so receptive to the Raunch Culture theme in my composition classroom, and many have talked with me privately about learning a great deal and "changing the way they see pornography." But, even after all the headway and all the important conversations, some still don't get it. And, who can blame them. I don't think most people do get it.

We were discussing Pamela Paul's Pornified where she argues that "Those who defend pornographic images that denigrate women would be loath to defend Little Black Sambo books or Nazi artwork."

So, during our conversation, I had a student say that its "apples and oranges" to compare racist acts/words/images with sexist acts/words/images because one (racism) is meant to hurt a people and pornography is not.

Hmmmmmm....

Um, its no different.

Thankfully, we live in a society that deems racism inappropriate. We do not have cartoons or pictorials of lynchings and if they are out there, no one besides a bunch of Kluxers are defending them.

Again, a few students said, "well lynchings are about hurting blacks. They did not choose to be lynched." So, we come back to "women ask for it."

When people brought up how "articulate" Obama was during the primary season, many people were angry (as they should have been). How dare someone assume he would not be articulate. That is racist. Not that long ago, with the political cartoon that depicted the "washington elite" as a dumb monkey, many argued that the cartoonist was being racist, calling Obama an "ape." The issue was plaguing the airways for over a week. Countless talking heads pontificated about how "wrong it was" even though many could say the chimp stood for politicians in general.

The animosity over the blogger posting a picture of a White House with watermelons growing outside of it was fierce. Countless talk show hosts and comedians used their minutes to berate the "hatred" the blogger "must have held." People were astonished that the blogger could be so cruel, outdated, bigoted.

I am the first person to say there is no place for racism. But what appalls me is that nearly no one fusses when the contempt, loathing, and denigration is targeted at women.

I brought up another quote from Paul to my class. "Not only do pornographic images stretch the definition of 'speech' but, as disseminated in the marketplace, they have a similar demonstrable effect on women as a white person making a threatening and vulgar racial epithet toward a black man or woman, which courts have already ruled to be unprotected by the First Amendment."

So, I wish I had asked them this...

Why do we spend so much time and energy denouncing racially motivated "speech," but we do not spend one second decrying women being gagged, raped, and scoffed at? Watermelons on the White House lawn is not ok, but laughing at pornography and how cool it is to see Stacey crammed full of 3 different cocks at once... well, THAT is protected "speech?"

No. The reason one is protected by the first amendment and the other is not is that we are more sexist than we are racist. Most people grasp that the color of our skin does not dictate our value. We now understand that all humans are created equal; well, unless they have a vagina.

We live in a gendered constructed society. The more feminized woman, the more masculinized man.

We value that which is man, but not that which is female.

We allow pornography because we do not like women very much. We think it is ok to degrade and dehumanize them because "they let it happen." "They asked for it."

We think of all sorts of excuses to convince ourselves it is alright to use women like trash receptacles. To value them only as an object to "get off" on.

One student astutely said, "well, its all about money. People are not going to buy racist paraphernalia. Its all about capitalism."

He is right. Woman as commodity, making others a fortune.

Now that is rich... and proves my entire point.