And a link

Blr Bytes sent me this quite a while ago, and I’ve been meaning to blog it and forgetting. So, who’s going to be the first to figure out what’s wrong with what Naomi Wolf’s saying about Andrea Dworkin?


6 Responses

  1. Well. To my mind, Naomi Wolf is missing the point that despite what she says, women are still objectified and is concentrating too much on the ‘effects’ seen. The cause for the effects is still the objectification. And the ‘effect’ she mentions is the cause that leads to that sexual mayhem.

  2. Why can’t we have a slightly elaborated post on this? (A little too shocked after reading the piece!)

  3. We Indians don’t need pornography to objectify women. We have movies.
    Who needs nudity with songs like “Sexy, Sexy, Sexy mujhe log bole….”

    sigh… Bharat Mata ki jai…

  4. qwerty: But that’s not what is wrong with her analysis of Dworkin, is it?

    another tax student: It’s in the works 🙂

    taxstudent: A different question for you, then: what is the BIG POINT you’re missing here? Think. You’re not completely stupid, I know.

  5. As far as my rudimentary knowledge goes, Dworkin doesn’t talk of the effect of porn on men.. she talks of porn itself being a product of this male-lorded-over society. Her point was not that porn will cause men to look at women as a debased species, porn in itself was testimony to that.

    Full marks or a straight fat zero?

  6. […] Some time ago, I blogged about Naomi Wolf’s essay, The Porn Myth, and I asked what was wrong with Wolf’s statements about […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: