I have Google Alerts set up on certain keywords. One of them is erotica -- because I wanna know what the media is saying about my genre. It also occasionally provides blog fodder. Oh, I'm sure I could work up a blog rant about the typical alerts I receive -- a community's uproar over a "dirty book store" opening in its back yard or a politician's prediliction for BDSM reading material -- but I just don't have the energy. Once in a while, though, I follow the links to "news" and read something that speaks to me. Today, for example.
The email looked like this:
I clicked. I read. I seethed.
The article is a book review (and the use of the keyword "erotica" is ancillary). Considering the source, it's no wonder that it has a good bit to say about misogyny in porn. The book's author is also, apparently, aware of it and very critical of his gender for its hypocrisy.
What pisses me off is the seemingly pervasive mindset that misogyny is a male "flaw" and, as such, is the responsibility of men to correct it; that by shining a light on it, men will realize the error of their ways and learn to appreciate women for the remarkable creatures they naturally are.
(Y'know, we chastise our children for incessant whining.)Misogyny sells. Why does it sell? Because it fuels the male desire to dominate. Why do men have this desire? Well, one school of thought is biological: Men are genetically programmed to do so (i.e., the cave man model). Another, however, is seemingly lost on most feminists: Men feel inferior (i.e., the playground bully model). Which is it? Probably both -- and in constant flux.
So, rather than bitching and accepting a subservient role (as the biological school of thought posits women are genetically programmed to do), why aren't the more vocal feminists DOING something constructive about it?
Misogyny prevails in porn (and in other realms) because women have
allowed it. Women are enablers, and many women -- even the most vocal feminists -- are codependent enablers when it comes to fueling misogynistic behavior.
Porn has been described as addictive, as skewing reasonable expectations about sex and relationships. If likened to alcoholism, the pathology of codependency becomes quite clear. Everyone, I believe, wants to be so incredibly desirable that they drive their partner to complete distraction. (I know
I do!) Yet when women achieve this objective objectification, they bitch about it. Go figure.
Yes, it's a slippery slope. Passion tends to work that way.
In defense of the book -- and its review -- they are merely triggers for this rant. I found the reviewer quite frank about her perspective and open to alternatives. I think I may actually read the book, too.
I've lost my steam, so rant over.
Although it's a wonder that paper can hold words so hot without catching fire, some of my work is available in print.
