Notes on Garry:
The title of Garry's paper is "Pornography and Respect for Women". One of the primary
questions of this essay is "To what extent, if any, does pornography degrade human beings?"
Garry wants to know whether pornography degrades women more than men, if it indeed does degrade
humans. Then she asks, "Must it degrade women?" These are excellent questions, one and all,
and the answers to them would possibly be important for the establishment of public policy
regarding the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Garry herself does not
dispute the fact that some pornography does degrade women, but will argue that nondegrading
pornography is possible.
The concept of "respect for persons" quickly becomes a focus of the essay. Question: If pornography is degrading to women, and if this degradation is tantamount to treating the woman as an object (in the case of pornography a sex object), and if treating a woman as an object is to treat her with a lack of respect, then doesn't it follow that pornography is a display of lack of respect for women? Garry would say yes to this question, and add, that most of the material presently construed as pornographic is just this way. But further, it seems there is something even more sinister than this (if that is possible) in the case of pornography. It seems to many people (and not just radical feminists) that pornography recommends treating women as objects, without the respect due them as persons. This is a very important charge to make. Consider when you are treated rudely by someone. One can feel as though the person is not treating you with respect. Though this is agreed by all (most?) to be bad behavior, there is not much one can do about it. Now, when you extend the case to include not only treating you rudely, but recommending that you be treated rudely by others, this is even worse.
Reflect for a moment on a film which graphically portrays a woman being brutally raped by 3 men. Rape is morally impermissible in itself and, if the current thinking on rape is correct, rape is not a sex crime, but a crime of violence. This being so, any film which portrayed rape as a recommended action of men would recommend immoral behavior. The difference between films which graphically portray/recommend rape and films which portray/recommend rape without graphic explicitness seems to be the difference in calling one pornography and the other not. Nevertheless, both films would seem to be recommending treating women without respect. This example does not match up a definition of pornography with Gary's definition, which is, "...those explicit sexual materials intended to arouse the reader or viewer sexually." In the above example, the nongraphic film is not pornographic simply because it is not sexually explicit, even if the producers of the film intended to sexually arouse the audience. In the other film (the graphic one), the only thing left out is the explicit reference to "intention". While intention is hard to prove, it is not our point here to argue about definitions. Our point is only to call attention to the idea that portrayal or recommendation of behavior which objectifies (treats with a lack of respect) women is not the expclusive preserve of "pornography".
Respect for women has seemed different from respect for men in our society, according to Gary. The sort of respect men have had for women arises out of the double standard which exists in our culture. It is one thing to treat women with the same sort of respect which is accorded to men, where gender equality is fundamental. It is quite another to treat women with respect only insofar as women are inferior to men. The best analogy I've heard on this came from a student some years ago. She said, "It's like saying, 'Don't beat your slave', and reasoning that if you beat the slave, the slave won't be able to render the service you need." The idea here is that treating women, as a class of inferior beings, with respect is important to the continuing process of having women be dominated by men. The crucial idea here is that the respect given to women is never the respect one would give to a man because women are not equal to men.
As Garry points out, however, women are divided into two groups, the "good" ones and the "bad" ones. Part of the double standard referred to above is this: if one woman falls from the pedestal, then the entire class loses the respect of men while if one man should fall from grace, it is only the one man which loses the respect. So, if one woman becomes bad, the entire class suffers; if one man becomes bad, it is only the individual man who suffers. A double standard indeed. Pornography portrays some women "behaving badly", hence, this reflects negatively on all women. And when this woman behaves badly, it becomes easy for society (read men) to see all women as degraded and so worthy of being degraded.
The feminist sees all women as full persons (recall Baker's essay), equal to men in worth. Hence, since persons deserve respect until such time as they behave in "disrespectful" ways, to treat any person without respect simply on the basis of gender is morally impermissible. In essence, gender is not a moral category. This is an argument against the double standard.
One of the ideas that is pervasive in much talk about pornography is that sex is in itself harmful to women (the "sex-harm thesis"). Again, reflect on Baker's essay and the language of sex linked with the language of harm -- "Fuck you" is said to a person who you are mad at, or to one you think has treated you badly in some way. It is an open question whether the language of sex link with the language of harm is any more applicable to women than to men, especially in light of the fact that women may be thought sexually dominent to men simply by switching the "penetration" language to "engulfment" language. It seems in many ways that the sex-harm thesis is an out of date non-starter. If this is so, then much of what Garry has to say about pornography being more degrading to women than to men is also non-starting.
Quiz. Due TBA
A. True/False.
B. Essay.
State explicitly Garry's argument for the existence of nondegrading pornorgraphy. Include at least one original example (one which you create).