Monday Reads

Since porn is human rights abuse, there is nothing "feminist" about defending it:

The deliberate conflation of pornography with sexual liberation allows those who use or profit from pornography to silence dissenting voices. If pornography represents sexual freedom, then opposition must be regarded as an argument for sexual repression. Liberal feminists who support pornography have bought into this lie, confusing sexual liberation with female liberation. As Sheila Jeffreys pointed out, complete sexual freedom for men to dominate and abuse women under the guise of ‘sex’ has not been liberating for women.

In any other medium, violent, sexist and racist content that is typical of mainstream pornography would warrant outrage, but in pornography, such content gets a free pass because any examination or analysis of sexual practices is equated with repression. Women who do speak about the realities of pornography are openly mocked and derided by liberal feminists who are unwittingly doing the work of pornographers for them. I’ve witnessed it countless times, and been on the receiving end of it myself. While it’s disheartening, I can’t say I’m overly surprised when it’s men defending pornography. But when it’s women, ‘sex positive’ feminists who tell us we “just need a good ****”, it’s soul destroying.

_____

Good review of Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains.

I think her critics are pissed off not because of supposed errors in the book, and there are a few, but the fact she got hold of Buchanan's personal papers quite by accident and spilled the beans of the Kochism agenda.
____