Pornography On The Internet Essays (1932 words) - Feminist Theory

Pornography On The Internet Pornography It started by way of messengers and scribes, evolved through the presentation of newspapers and radio, brought us together with television, and now serves us world-wide by the ever-popular Internet. It is the mass media, and even from the beginning it has contributed greatly in ways that both enlighten and enrich society, and ways that deteriorate and corrupt it. It is not a surprise to learn, then, that the mass media is the most powerful source of information we have, and nothing else in today's world influences public perception quite as heavily. Unfortunately, most of what is broadcast in the news today is something that society as a whole sees as negative or damaging. But the news on television is not the only type of media taking the criticism of society. Other forms of mass media, specifically movies and television programs containing pornography and violence have been heavily criticized. The question here is; are these images of pornography resulting in increased violence against women. There is no concrete evidence supporting this theory. Research by Baron (1990) shows that gender equality is greater where pornography is more prevalent, answering the question for us. The key here is that the mass media does not cause undesirable social behavior and in actuality, the media people should not be labeled as the ?bad guys?. They simply use their power in the most constructive ways possible in order to promote their ratings and popularity. One way to do that is to concentrate on what sells: sex, violence and disaster. Having said this, why is it then, that many in society still believe otherwise? Why do they continue to believe that pornography is ?evil? and is a major cause for violence against women, specifically rape? There are many reasons for this misinterpretation and through the following few points, an attempt will be made to show that pornography has very little to almost no connections to violence against women. In order to demonstrate this, it must be made evident that pornography is not ?evil? and does not cause undesirable social behavior by displaying nude women in sexually explicit circumstances. Thus, it is important to indicate that women are not treated only as sexual objects through the media. This is done in an attempt to quash any traces of ?evil? in pornography. For thousands of years, sex itself has been considered ?evil? and revolting. This is exactly why the concealment of the sex organs and teaching feelings of shame toward human sexuality is so common worldwide (Christensen 1990:4). These same feelings of shame are the chief reasons that sex is considered a personal and private matter. Contrary to the beliefs of many, the mass media did not create these settings; society creates this image. In some societies, women have no reservations with regard to living their entire lives completely naked, while in other societies, females cover themselves from head to toe, only revealing their eyes. The sex industry is easily topping $20 billion per year. Because of this, the media has been bombarded with criticism, overwhelmingly from the female community, pertaining to the amount of sexually explicit material that is published in magazines and that appears on television. A common argument against pornography is that the media portrays women as being nothing more than sexual playthings and objects to satisfy male sexual desires. The media once again, is not to be held responsible for creating this image. These views are products of society. It would be crazy to assume that women in this society are treated as sexual objects only because the media releases or broadcasts pornographic material. To say that pictures featuring nudity, etc. are making objects out of women is foolish. One should consider females who pin-up posters of male rock stars or children who collect hockey or baseball cards. Society, however, does not say that objects are being made out of these rock stars and sports heroes; pictures of clothed people are no less objects than pictures of naked people. It is also said that the media reduces women to a collection of body parts through pornography (Christensen 1990:74). But why then are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying only ears,

Terms You Might Not Know Are Considered Racist

Terms You Might Not Know Are Considered Racist Some racist terms have been included in the American vocabulary for so long that many who use them are often clueless about their origins. Boy In most situations, the word boy is not a problem. Used to describe an African American man, however, the word is troublesome. Thats because historically whites routinely described black men as boys to suggest African Americans werent on equal footing with them. Both during and after slavery, African Americans werent viewed as full-fledged people but as mentally, physically, and spiritually inferior beings to whites. Calling black men boys was one way to express the racist ideologies of yesteryear. Despite its widespread use as a racial putdown, in Ash v. Tyson Foods, the U.S. Court of Appeals  decided that boy cannot be considered a racial slur unless its prefaced with a racial marker such as black. This decision has sparked controversy, considering that whites typically didnt call African American black boys during Jim Crow, but simply boys. The good news, according to Prerna Lal of Change.org, is that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the holding, ruling that the use of the word boy on its own is not enough evidence of racial animus, but that the word is also not benign. That means the court is willing to consider the context in which boy is used to determine if its being uttered as a racial epithet. Gypped Gypped  is arguably the most commonly used  racist term  in existence today. If someone buys a used car that turns out to be lemon, for instance, he may complain, â€Å"I got gypped.† So, why is the term offensive? Because it equates the Gypsy, or Roma peoples, with being thieves, cheats and con artists. When someone says that they â€Å"got gypped,† they are essentially saying that they were conned. Explained Jake Bowers, editor of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller ezine  Travellers Times, to the British newspaper the  Telegraph: â€Å"Gypped is an offensive word, it is derived from Gypsy and it’s being used in the same context as a person might once have said they ‘jewed’ somebody if they did an underhand business transaction.† But don’t take Bowers’ word for it. If you’re still debating whether or not to use the verb â€Å"gypped,† consider that Philip Durkin, the principal etymologist at the  Oxford English Dictionary  told the  Telegraph  that there is a â€Å"scholarly consensus† that the word originated as a â€Å"racial slur.† No Can Do and Long Time No See These two phrases have probably rolled off the tongues of most Americans at some point in time. However, the sayings are only mocking the attempts of Chinese immigrants and Native Americans, for whom English was a second language. Uppity Most people have no idea that the term uppity has racist connotations when applied to black people in particular. Southerners used the term for black people who didnt know their place and that term was usually followed by another racial slur. Despite its negative history, the word is regularly used by various races. Websters dictionary defines uppity as putting on or marked by airs of superiority and likens the word to arrogant and presumptuous. In 2011, the word got some national coverage when Rush Limbaugh said that Michelle Obama showed uppity-ism. Considering the Shyster Many people have come to believe that shyster is an anti-Semitic, but the origins of the word are linked to a Manhattan newspaper editor in 1843–1844. According to an article on Law.com, at the time, there was a crusade against legal and political corruption in the city, and the editor derived the term shyster from the German word scheisse, which means excrement. There are several reasons for the anti-Semitic confusion including the closeness to Shakespeares Shylock, and belief that the term came from the proper name of Scheuster, who some think was a corrupt lawyer. The etymology of the word indicates it was never intended as a racial slur, and that it was applied derogatorily to lawyers in general, and not to any one ethnic group.