richw@ada-uts.UUCP (10/11/85)
The following is a copy of some mail I received after mentioning Dworkin and MacKinnon (staunch opponents of pornography) in a reply to some other note. I thought it would be of interest -- i.e. stir up some controversy :-> Seriously, can anyone back up or refute these rumors? I'm not including the orinators name because the mail was intended to be personal. I sincerely apologize in advance if they are simply rumors!! The intention of this note is to find out the truth. -- Rich Wagner >>> That's Catherine MacKinnon you heard on WBCN radio last Sunday >>> morning. She was supposed to be on for a half hour, to be followed >>> by a half hour of Rebecca Shipman of the Cambridge Feminist Anti- >>> Censorship Taskforce (FACT). When Shipman got to the station, >>> MacKinnon announced that she had not agreed to the format and would >>> not appear on the same program as any member of FACT. This seems >>> to be a consistent policy of the supporters of the Dworkin/MacKinnon >>> ordinance: not to debate anyone who claims to be a feminist and an >>> opponent of the ordinance. WBCN has rescheduled Shipman for an >>> hour of the Boston Sunday Review of October 27th. >>> >>> MacKinnon and Dworkin have taken to calling FACT members "pimps", >>> and "fronts for the ACLU, which fronts for the pornography >>> industry". These tactics are not likely to go over well with >>> Cambridge voters, and I expect the ordinance to be soundly >>> defeated next month. >>> >>> See this week's issue (Oct. 10) of the Cambridge Chronicle for >>> more on all this. >>> Anyone know where one can get a copy of "the Cambridge Chronicle"?
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/16/85)
In article <20800021@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes: > >The following is a copy of some mail I received after mentioning >Dworkin and MacKinnon (staunch opponents of pornography) in a >reply to some other note. I thought it would be of interest >-- i.e. stir up some controversy :-> [text deleted] >Anyone know where one can get a copy of "the Cambridge Chronicle"? Cambridge? Sorry I couldn't resist. More along these same lines; From PLAYBOY (not an unbiased source) "Ongoing research tends to confirm that movie depictions of violence seem to have a desensitizing effect on viewers but that this is a problem encountered for more often with R-rated movies, television soaps, and prime time shows then with even the most explicit porno films. Addressing the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Edward Donnerstien of the University of Wisconsin indicated that film entertainment in general often perpetuates old rape myths but added, "We've found no effects for sexual content alone." Professor Joseph Scott of Ohio State University reported that a three-month study found X-rated pictures to have "the least violence of any type of movie" and said that another study had found "no relationship" between the states that ranked highest on the availability of sexual movies or magazines and the rates of reported rape. Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire cited studies that have found that Ladies Home Journal and similar mass-circulation magazines have "more violence then PLAYBOY." However, visiting UCLA law professor Catharine MacKinnon, who wrote the antipronography statute pending in Los Angeles, countered that the "distinction between sex and violence is a false one."" Strange I've always been for sex but against violence, now I guess I'll say I'm ambivalent. :-) -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk