Whip me, beat me and while you're at it cancel my N.O.W. membership - feminists war against each other over pornography

Washington Monthly, June, 1987 by Kathleen Currie, Art Levine

"What happens if a woman says to a man,"fuck me'?' Hunter asked, referring to the anti-porn ordinance, which prohibited "sexually explicit subordination.'

"Is that submission? Is that begging, or is itdemanding? Is she submitting, or is she in control?' Hunter then calmly analyzed the dangers of the anti-porn efforts to feminism. At one point she said, "Under this law, the new feminist erotica that is starting to come out would be gone. Publications, primarily lesbian, like On Our Backs and Bad Attitude get attacked.'

"Boo!' shouted the anti-porners in theaudience.

"You're damned right!' one woman screamed.

Hunter paused. "Look further into thelanguage of the ordinance,' she continued, pointing to a section that barred presenting women as sex objects who are hurt or tied-up. "Now that sounds pretty horrible, but think about if for a minute. Do you really think that "tied-up' necessarily belongs there?'

"Yes!' the anti-porners shouted back.

Hunter appeared momentarily shaken by thevehemence of their response. "There are other people in this room who do not find it to be subordinating,' she said. Then she warned, "We are going to be fighting against each other in court over the meaning of sexually explicit subordination, and I suggest this is a disaster.' She received polite applause.

MacKinnon then dismissed the legal reasoningof Hunter and other opponents of the anti-porn legislation. "Why don't women lawyers act as though they give a damn?' she demanded angrily. "Why are women lawyers who identify as feminists trying to make sure that women are not going to matter?' Most of the audience cheered. MacKinnon derided Hunter as "speaking for the pornographers' and masquerading as a feminist. There was a thunder of approval. More than 20 women then trooped to the podium to call out their differences to the still-riveted crowd. At one point, a black woman law student and a white incest victim confronted each other. "If one iota of the intensity of this debate had gone into outlawing poverty in this society, maybe we'd be getting somewhere,' said the law student. "To put these [anti-porn] laws on the books is such a diversion away from bread and justice and real empowerment.'

"If women and minorities are really empoweredin our society, you will see a change, you will not see pornography,' she continued. "But, no, you want to attack a goddamn symptom! Where are we going here? This is dividing a community. I couldn't go anywhere else today because finally I was sucked into this debate.'

"Is it not worth it?' demanded the incest victim,who was now crying.

"No, it is not worth it!' the student yelled."Hundreds of thousands of people are dying!'

"And 100,000 missing children are taken off thestreets for the use of sex and to be photographed!' cried the incest victim.

"You give women the power they need and thatwon't happen,' the law student shouted back. "You give women the support they need for raising their children and that won't happen!'

A former prostitute joined the argument withthe law student. The crowd applauded eagerly. Then, all over the room, the different factions began screaming at one another about porn and rape, bad feminists and lesbian erotica, The Village Voice and Jerry Falwell, their angry words barely distinguishable above the roar.