Yesterday this post by Hugo Schwyzer showed up as a referrer in my StatCounter: Bridging the Porn Divide: sex, feminism, empathy, and the commitment to stop pathologizing the other side.
It’s a long post, and I suggest you read it all before reading my response to it, so you’ll be sure to have the full picture.
(I suggest you not read the comments on his post, unless you aren’t quite as harrowed by such things as I am; more than a few of them provoked this response from me.)
Anyway.
In his post, Hugo says, among other things:
In my case, I’m ready to do more listening than talking. I’ve got two avowedly “pro-sex” students in my women’s studies class working on a scholar’s option project about feminist pornography, and I’m looking forward to seeing how their project develops. I’m reading the work of women like Ren and Amber and Audacia and others, looking not for evidence of dysfunction or self-deception, but looking to connect with the reality of their experience.
I’m not sure how I feel about this, and I’m torn on how to respond. On the one hand, it’s great that he’s thinking through these issues and allowing room for his beliefs to grow and change. That’s always an important thing to do; one of the most important things, in my opinion, as I think “the unexamined life” (didn’t some philosopher coin that term?) is a most unfortunate state of being.
On the other hand, it feels like a back-handed compliment; I mean, why should I give him a cookie and pat him on the head simply for not operating on the assumption that I’m dysfunctional or damaged? I mean, really, that should be a given, a default, a non-issue. I should be able to assume that people don’t see me as damaged or dysfunctional - I shouldn’t have to give it any thought, really - and if they do think that, then it’s their problem, not mine. Certainly if someone wants to engage with me as an intellectual equal, this should not be an issue. But it kind of comes off sounding like Hugo didn’t consider me an intellectual equal until recently, and now he’s seen the light and sees that I’m not some stupid deluded little thing, and isn’t that wonderful!
I’m torn because I always want to encourage people who are working through issues in their own space, coming to new conclusions, revisiting previous assumptions, etc., because that’s how people learn and grow. (I rambled about this a bit last night on the Cult of Gracie radio show.) I’m a big fan of, as Jenny puts it, “judgment-free zones.” But does that mean that my space, my blog, should always be a judgment-free zone set to accommodate people who, while they might be doing valuable work on their own timeline, are also being a bit insulting?
I tend to take it on a case-by-case basis. I’ve said it before: I’m not a patient person, but at the same time, I can be infinitely patient. That’s how I am when I’m dealing with a friend, a trusted colleague - basically, someone who I know is engaging me in good faith, in an environment of mutual respect, with the intention of truly having a dialogue.
I feel like, hopefully, that’s what Hugo is trying to do. (I don’t know him well enough to really make a call one way or the other, but I do get a feeling of sincerity from his post - rightly or wrongly, who knows.) And I want to be supportive of that. But at the same time I don’t have to love everything he’s saying. After all, a big part of being supportive in stuff like this is calling people out on things that aren’t okay; it’s part of the process. I know that I feel very fortunate to have friends who trust me enough to call me out on something when it’s necessary. It doesn’t have to be done in a hostile manner (although certainly there are times when hostility is warranted).
(Aside: I feel like I’m giving a caveat to just about everything I say in this post! I guess that just goes to show how complex all this stuff is.)
This torn feeling I get from Hugo’s post is one I’ve gotten from other things he’s written in the past. Like, he’s trying, and that’s good because that’s more than a lot of people do, because a lot of people are assholes; but… just… argh. It’s along the same lines of the sentiment I mentioned here. Great, another dude finally gets it, has his big epiphany, and we’re all supposed to rejoice; it’s just that, ya know, we’ve been saying this stuff for years.
-Wow, I realized I haven’t even addressed the topic of Hugo’s post yet: porn. So let’s get to that.
First of all I think any man who writes about porn, especially a man who attempts to do so from a feminist perspective, has be to VERY careful. Kind of like a man talking about reproductive justice. I would never discourage someone from participating in a thoughtful conversation on any topic, but with certain topics and certain people, it’s best to do a lot more listening than talking.
And yes, Hugo does say he’s ready to do a whole lot of listening. But then toward the end of his post he says this:
I am convinced that on balance, prostitution as it exists today in the Western world hurts virtually everyone involved. I remain convinced that the porn industry, particularly the male-centered mainstream, sends out tremendously damaging messages about sexuality. I am keenly aware that porn can play a part in reducing our ability to connect with each other as full and complete creatures of light. Porn, it still seems to me, is the enemy of empathy.
Emphasis is in the original. And can I just say, what is with all this “empathy” business? Robert Jensen pulls that card out all the time too - but I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. Is it just supposed to provoke an emotional reaction? The other thing that bugs me about it is he’s always saying ‘empathy’ but it seems like what he’s really describing is sympathy. Look up the definitions, there’s a big difference.
And then of course comes the question of, why sympathy (or empathy, whatever, to stick with his word)? Why is it invoked here in particular? Why is the woman cast as someone who has to be sympathized with; in a sense, pitied, felt sorry for? How is that not the same pigeon-holing you claim to oppose? Because you’ll notice, in Jensen’s writing, the woman never really has a voice. It’s all about what Jensen interprets about her based on things like her facial expressions - and there’s a whole hell of a lot of projection going on. And as we’ve seen, when actual women show up and confront Jensen directly (this has happened on Ren’s blog and a few other places) and say, “I’m a woman, and no, you don’t speak for me, this is not my experience” - he dismisses their voices outright. Remind me again in what universe this is feminism?
So I’m curious to know what Hugo (hmm, I guess I should call him “Schwyzer” because I called Jensen by his last name… argh, consistency!) means when he invokes empathy. He doesn’t explain it; he just leaves it hanging out there.
As for the rest of that quoted portion, it really undermines a lot of what he wrote earlier in the post and makes me wonder how sincere he is after all. If he remains convinced that porn hurts everyone involved, then what’s the point of listening, and what to do with the voices of people who say they are not hurt by porn? And as always, I’m left wondering why this focus on porn? Why do we single it out when it’s part of a much larger picture of media representation and socially prescribed gender roles? (And in many cases, porn is actively fighting AGAINST those roles; again, not a monolith, and there’s absolutely no useful conclusion that can come from continually talking about just “porn” without differentiating.)
I think the thing that bothers me the most about Hugo’s post is that it misrepresents a lot of what the sex-positive “side” is saying - part of which is even subscribing to the black-and-white idea of there being two distinct sides! He says this, for example:
Like so many folks, I’ve been more willing to hear the stories that match up with my pre-existing world view. I confess I’ve given more credence to those who spoke of the sex industry in negative terms (exploitation and abuse and addiction) than to those who talked about genuinely enjoying the work they were doing.
…and I’m like, well, yes, but… there’s so much more to it than that. Simply casting the argument as “people who like it” and “people who don’t like it” is way too reductive. This is how the sex workers’ rights movement and sex-positive feminism constantly gets reduced to these easily-digestible elements, ignoring all nuance; which bothers the crap out of me, because the most important thing for me in all this is nuance!
Really the sex workers’ rights movement isn’t about whether or not someone genuinely enjoys their work. That sounds bad, but let me explain what I mean in case it’s coming off the wrong way (limitation of the written word, and all). Obviously it would be awesome if everyone in the sex industry loved their work; it would be awesome if everyone in any industry loved their work. But that’s not a productive goal in terms of real-world activism and affecting change. -Or, wait, let me put this another way… It can’t be a goal in itself, but rather something that can be achieved as a matter of course by taking concrete steps such as making sure that sex workers have easy access to safer sex materials, the ability to contact law enforcement just like the rest of us take for granted, practical exit strategies for those who want to leave the industry (e.g., how do you explain a gap of five years on a résumé, when sex work is stigmatized and/or criminalized so that including it is not an option?), are able to form labor unions, and so on.
I’ve said it before, and I can’t reiterate this point enough: sex workers’ rights is a human rights issue. This is basic, fundamental stuff, people. It doesn’t matter what you personally think of sex work; sex workers are HUMAN BEINGS who, like all the rest of us, deserve the right to speak for themselves, name what it is they need, have equal access and protection under the law… all that basic stuff. (Hmm, I’m getting déjà vu.)
This is why I cannot comprehend how anyone who identifies as a feminist - whatever their stance on sex work is - can be opposed to decriminalization of prostitution and destigmatization of all sex work. The policies and stigmas in place now are HURTING WOMEN. Plain and simple. Nothing is gained by maintaining this stratification, where many women’s voices are erased.
It’s like I said to Hugo at the WAM! conference when he mentioned being a fan of the Swedish model: that’s great ‘n’ all, but if you listen to actual Swedish sex workers, you’ll find that the Swedish model doesn’t work. Aren’t their lives more important than maintaining a certain ideology?
As for feminist critiques of porn: it’s fair game, sure, just like anything else is. Feminist critiques of media and society are important; there shouldn’t be anything unique or specially-isolated about porn. (Talked about this on the radio show last night, too.) But fundamentally I think it’s pointless to get going down the track of what is or isn’t feminist based on the content of porn movies. Sure, there can be some valid analysis there, just like there can be valid analysis of popular music lyrics; but banning music because it makes your kids commit suicide? Well, we all know how that went - it fixed everything, right?! I think it’s important to remember, as Dacia has pointed out many times, that it’s not the content that truly determines whether porn is feminist, but the conditions under which it was made.
Let’s see, what else….? I wish Hugo would stop using the term “pro-porn,” even in quotation marks. There’s that reductive approach again.
Well, I guess that’s all for now. I could keep going all night but this is long enough. Hugo, if you read this feel free to comment; I would like to discuss it with you if you want to.
—
A final note: I’m also aware that parts of this post could come off with me looking like some haughty would-be Arbiter of Truth; but maybe that’s just hyper-awareness after having dealt with so many assholes on the internet over the years. :P
READ ME: Disclaimer
17 Responses to "Response to Hugo Schwyzer"
Great response, and actually quite a good riposte to those commenters on Hugo’s thread saying “I know all their arguments, heard it all before, because I was one of Them/a sex worker myself”.
Exactly. It seems like I’m always having to point out to people that there is no “pro-porn”, “pro-prostitution” side in this debate. There is, however, a “pro-porn performers”, “pro-prostitutes” side (that is, pro-sex workers side).
Damn, Amber, you catch me with this JUST as I am about to go on a ten day hiatus.
I promise a response about empathy the week of October 6 — sometime between Monday and Friday of that week, I’ll get something out there. It will give me time to think really carefully about whether I really meant “sympathy” or “empathy.” (And whether I unconsciously let my unseemly boy-crush on Bob Jensen drive a lot of my own writing.)
As for the line about “hurting everyone involved”, that was directed towards prostitution, not pornography — my bad with the original syntax.
And no, I’m not asking for a cookie. I’m blogging the process, not the outcome — and that means I’m in between the Already (having realized that I have work to do in terms of really recasting/rethinking how I conceive, write about, and teach about sex work) and the Not Yet (where I would like to be, which is having real clarity and insight.) Stuck in that place, I’m gonna piss people off mucho.
Thanks again for such a lengthy response — and come somewhere that week of the 6th, you’ll get a good reply.
H
Oh, and please call me “Hugo.”
We’re Facebook friends, and we’ve met in person. (For all I know, you might be Facebook friends with BJ, but somehow I doubt it.)
I liked Hugo’s post overall, very honest. But yes ” Porn, it still seems to me, is the enemy of empathy. ” wooo, that part bothered me. A lot. Everyone find “enemies” as it were in all kinds of places…for me, porn sure as hell hasn’t messed with my empathy…but radical anti porn feminism most certainly has. Mostly for the reasons Hugo mentioned…and the rest of us have beaten to death…the whole hate it/love it argument, the denial of agency, so on, so forth.
And I don’t even want to get into some of the comments. I mean, porn with women getting literally cut up? WTF? Gee, nothing I’ve ever seen outta the mainstream market, even the not so mainstream market…and oh gee, I let MEN comment on my blog? Hello? Sorry, but Ernest beats out…well…99.9% of the APRF crowd when it comes to the friend and ally catergory.
It’s simple, I guess. Yep, I have been downright mean and nasty to some people…who A) refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t fit their agenda B) oh, THREATENED ME, and C) simply, cannot, EVER admit they might be wrong or oh so mean and nasty themselves. I don’t know what bur Faith has lodged between her toes, but her continually singling me out as THE BIG EVIL MEANIE has become very, very old. The whole claiming she’s seen both sides thing? yeah, I’m wondering which eye got poked out.
And that, Hugo, is why it’s rough “to get along”…can’t do that with anyone who fails to see me as human, or merely sees me as something in need of saving…
I don’t want empathy or sympathy from people like that…and I’m not alone in that notion, either.
Boy-crush on Jensen, eh? I’m sorry.
Yeah, that “enemy of empathy” thing absolutely flabbergasts me too. I get that it’s supposed to mean that for some people, pornography… does… something. I think it’s something like “makes it harder to focus on your partner.” But I can’t figure out how that works, as my introduction to porn was using it WITH a partner. It was part of our cuddling and together time, and he would go out of his way to hunt through his collection for things he thought I would specifically enjoy. I try to compare that with this stereotype of the person who supposedly prefers paper or the glow of the CRT to human flesh, and I simply *can’t* — it’s so far outside of my experience that all I can do is nod a bit and say “I *guess* that makes sense, yeah.”
And later partners of mine, too — all have used porn in some fashion, and I never felt in any way pushed away by it. I found looking at what they liked to be interesting. It gave us something fun and sexy to do, and it gave me insight into their kinks and personality. Sometimes it helped me learn or divine things about their interests that they might have been shy about telling me upfront. And I have never felt that I couldn’t say “I like this, but that bothers me, so look at that on your own time” to any of them, ever.
But just as Hugo doesn’t want to ignore the people that he isn’t famiiliar with, I don’t want to deny that some people are hurt by porn. Some people are pressured into looking at it or acting like it, and that’s bad. Some people are pressured into being IN it, or trafficked into it (though these things, I find, are often discussed really sloppily on the anti-porn side), and that’s horrific. So I can’t say the experiences are the same for everyone.
But I do find myself really mind-boggled when I read the experiences. I wonder if it’s common in vanilla circles, this pressure and force and addiction THING, because I really haven’t seen it at all in kinky men (or women, for that matter, and yeah, lots of dykes like by-dykes-for-dykes porn and erotica.)
Why?
Hi Amber,
I saw the same post, and while I winced at some of the same things you did I was also really *really* excited at the way he’s really making an effort to break out. And by “effort” I mean he *sees* what he’s been doing and he doesn’t want do to that any more.
For instance I didn’t hear him congratulating himself for reading you and Ren and Dacia with new eyes, I heard him acknowledging that he *hadn’t before.* That’s a huge shift.
So while I think it’s important to catch him when he slips back, the way you caught him here, it’s also really important to help him (or anyone else) pull himself the rest of the way out.
His commenters, as you noticed, are doing their best to beat him back, with all the tactics they always use. It’s going to be pretty uncomfortable for him, and probably a huge temptation to fall back. As much as I can I want to encourage him to keep listening and learning instead.
figleaf
figleaf,
I want to encourage him to keep listening and learning as well. And I feel strongly that part of doing so is continuing to push back on things that are offensive or reductive - you know, the old “not coddling” thing. Because regardless of someone’s intent, it’s the impact that ultimately matters. We’ve all been through this before, I’m sure.
Hugo,
Actually I know you don’t “want a cookie” - that part of my post was more about my reaction to what you wrote and how conflicted I felt by it. Also, re: this:
Whether you meant prostitution or pornography, my original point stands. It’s a sweeping generalization that doesn’t allow for individual, nuanced, diverse, complex voices of people actually involved in a variety of ways.
Trinity,
And I’ve certainly never gotten from you or Ren or many other sex-positive bloggers I read that you want to dismiss experiences you’re not personally familiar with. Quite the opposite in fact. It’s one thing to say “I have no idea what that feels like, because it’s so different from anything I’ve experienced” and another to tack onto the end of that statement, “…therefore it must not be true.”
Porn can be hurtful for some people, definitely, for all kinds of reasons. What drives me up a wall is (again) the generalizations, the white-washing, the talking about it as if it’s a monolith. The desire by some to abolish it ignores the fact that some aspects of porn - the DIY stuff, a lot of internet-based stuff, etc. - is offering a means of expression for people who have been sexually marginalized historically. And when any sort of “crack-down” comes, it’s the marginalized who suffer first and hardest.
It had occurred to me while reading the post that there’s a bit of a “Swedish model” approach to the subject going on, in that Hugo appears to (now) be willing to listen to the perspectives of sex workers, but still seems to depict their customers as invariably adulterous, lecherous, creepy, and addicted (not to mention invariably male).
Thanks, Amber. It’s all too often assumed that we’re barging in to take over conversations, when all we’re saying is “Okay, so this has had deleterious effects on you. Let’s consider its effects on me and people I know, which look like this…”
Yes, that. It’s like, “you have one story and I have another, but both are true and both have meaning.” But all too often we hear from the “other side” that only one story can be true.
Oh, and by the way Amber, did you know I’m the one that made that “bleach my eyeballs” icon? I see it uncredited all over now…
Ha, I had no idea you made that icon! I couldn’t remember where it came from; I’ve had it on my work computer for a long time and recently uploaded it to my server. I probably downloaded it from your LJ or something a long time ago… but no, I didn’t know that, so: well done! It’s so appropriate.
Amber, you occasionally reflect on why you should be allowed to speak on behalf of sex workers rights when you have no direct experience in the arena yourself.
It’s because you get it - you’ve never been there, yet you truly understand. And you express it so very well. ;-)
Yep. I think I still have the PSD’s.
A lot of LJers ganked it, though. I find people with views I totally disagree with using it and just laugh. :)
[...] Response to Hugo Schwyzer “On the other hand, it feels like a back-handed compliment; I mean, why should I give him a cookie and pat him on the head simply for not operating on the assumption that I’m dysfunctional or damaged? I mean, really, that should be a given, a default, a non-issue.” [...]
Excellent critique, Amber.
If you ever track down a book of essays by Joanna Russ, titled Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans & Perverts–check out the chapter about porn. She sees romance novels as a type of “female porn”–precisely due to this empathy/emotion obsession that Hugo and Jensen engage in, and that is romantically regarded as “woman centered” sexuality. Thus, more graphic visual depictions therefore morph into the opposite: “male centered” and “lack empathy”…can’t do the essay justice, but ever since first reading it, I am hip to the deployment of the language!
Leave a comment