I posted this because it struck me as illuminating one small piece of the complicated terrain that is the porn industry. It’s an industry with high rates of violence, disease transmission, injury, substance abuse and suicide, and generally very modest financial rewards, at least for performers. One very negative account of the pornography industry is provided by this film. Hartley has a different perspective, and as an academic, linking to Flea’s interview struck me as a reasonable thing to do. It wasn’t meant as an endorsement of Hartley, or the pornography she is involved in. As an e-mail just reminded me, Hartley’s failure to aggressively promote condom use in porn production is particularly odious.
Given the nature and mission of this blog, posts expressing a wide variety of perspectives about pornography are always a possibility.
–Ann Bartow
What is the mission of this blog? If the mission is feminist, then I would think posts which attempt to expose and challenge forms of oppression, particularly male domination, would be encouraged–rather than posts which bring in a wide variety of views (regardless of whether these views harm women or other groups).
So I guess my question is, of all issues, why when it comes to pornography is it a possibility to have posts with a wide range of views?
A fair question. I have very strong views about a lot of things, and pornography is one of them. But the prime directive of this blog is to foster community among law profs who all identify as feminist, but hold a variety of views about many things. Pornography isn’t the only topic where there is disagreement, not even close.
Let me also say this: I’m not afraid of people who disagree with me about pornography. Reading other views helps me fine tune my own position, which I believe to be the correct one for a just world. I know I am very lucky to have a job that affords me time to read and think and process a variety of perspectives.