New study says porn users have ‘egalitarian attitudes’ — so what?

By Jonah Mix / Deep Green Resistance

This article originally appeared in Feminist Current.

Last month, the Journal of Sex Research published “Is Pornography Really About ‘Making Hate to Women?’” a paper claiming to find a positive correlation between pornography consumption and feminist attitudes. In its abstract, the Canadian researchers behind the study waste no time making their disdain for radical feminism clear:

“According to radical feminist theory, pornography serves to further the subordination of women by training its users, males and females alike, to view women as little more than sex objects over whom men should have complete control. Composite variables from the General Social Survey were used to test the hypothesis that pornography users would hold attitudes that were more supportive of gender nonegalitarianism than nonusers of pornography. Results did not support hypotheses derived from radical feminist theory. Pornography users held more egalitarian attitudes—toward women in positions of power, toward women working outside the home, and toward abortion—than nonusers of pornography. Further, pornography users and pornography nonusers did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the traditional family and in their self-identification as feminist. The results of this study suggest that pornography use may not be associated with gender nonegalitarian attitudes in a manner that is consistent with radical feminist theory.”

Of course, news outlets have already jumped on the study as proof of radical feminism’s pearl-clutching prudery. But these smug liberals, like the researchers themselves, are mistaken about basic feminist theory. The radical anti-pornography position doesn’t claim men who watch porn are necessarily more misogynistic than men who don’t — only that pornography is a common and effective way men are indoctrinated into misogyny.

Other, equally effective methods for cultivating woman-hate still exist, and most men who don’t watch porn happen to be under the influence of the biggest one around: Religious conservatism. When you take a look at the thousand different ways men might learn to hate women, it becomes obvious that “Men who use porn are less sexist than men who don’t” and “Porn doesn’t make men sexist” are two completely different statements. Drug addicts who use cocaine probably live longer than drug addicts that use heroin. That doesn’t make cocaine good for you.

But this study doesn’t even ask its stupid question well. For one thing, they define a porn user as anyone who has “viewed an X-rated film in the preceding year.” What does that even mean? The vast majority of porn today is watched in short clips online, and most people don’t use either “X-rated” or “film” to describe them. There’s no way of knowing how men taking the survey interpreted the question; I can imagine quite a few porn users wouldn’t consider their fifteen minutes spent on Porn Hub as constituting an “X-rated film.”

It’s also an unacceptably broad standard for declaring people porn users. Under this metric, someone who masturbates to Facial Abuse twice a day is counted as equal with a dude who clicked a sidebar ad for Girls Gone Wild nine months ago. Both are unequivocally wrong, but it’s ridiculous to put them in the same category when you’re doing a study like this. The far more reasonable approach would be to measure frequency of porn use against sexist attitudes and look for a correlation.

This vague language and deceptive grouping are problems, but the study moves from flawed to futile when you look at their measure for sexism. The researchers used four data points as criteria: Support for women in positions of power, support for women working outside the home, support for abortion, and self-identification as a feminist. Really, researchers? That’s your definition of sexism?

If this were 1960, sure, it would be reasonable to gauge misogyny by asking about women having careers and abortions. It would also be reasonable to gauge racism by asking about segregated lunch counters. But neither set of questions would say anything about the world in 2015, when misogyny (and racism, for that matter) have been proudly wed to a rudderless liberalism that embraces those supposed markers of progress.

It’s very, very easy to hate women while still believing they should work outside the home (because Jesus Christ, get off your asses and do something, ladies!) or get abortions (because raising kids is a drag, but who wants to wear a condom?). Even women in positions of power get a stamp of approval from plenty of patriarchs, so long as they pledge to keep the same woman-hating laws in place. Remember Sarah Palin, anybody?

Questions about women working outside the home or holding office might screen for cartoonish patriarchs, but they give a free pass to the average misogynist. The only people who really reject these basic rights are hardcore religious conservatives — who also make up the large majority of men who never watch porn! This reflects a fundamental flaw in this study that borders on unethical: The researchers selectively defined sexism with standards that were most likely to be fulfilled by those in the category of non-porn users. Dozens of other criteria that might catch equally sexist liberal dudes in the porn-using camp were completely ignored.

With all this in mind, the actual thrust of the study is fairly weak. All it purports to show is that men who consume pornography often hold “egalitarian attitudes.” Shaky methodology aside, I don’t doubt that’s true. It’s not shocking to hear that the average porn user, when asked, will tell you he has an “egalitarian attitude” towards the women he uses as masturbation aids. It’s just shocking that these researchers think such an insipid declaration has anything to do with feminism.

Egalitarianism and misogyny aren’t incompatible. In fact, with the exception of some conservative holdouts, the vast majority of anti-feminism today comes from this supposedly worthwhile “egalitarian attitude” — you know, the one that excuses a woman’s sexual exploitation because, hey, she consented; laughs off domestic violence because, if women are equal, that means men can hit them; and eliminates women’s health and social services because you don’t want anyone getting special treatment, do you?

Developing a real understanding of the relationship between pornography, male power, misogyny, and violence requires more than a few yes or no questions. Asking men to self-report if they think women are human beings is not a good way to understand misogyny, and measuring “egalitarian attitudes” is not a good way to gauge a commitment to aiding women’s liberation. This study does have something to teach us, but it’s not that men who watch porn are more likely to be feminists — it’s that a definition of feminism based in “egalitarianism” is so meaningless, even porn-sick men can claim it.

Jonah Mix is a member of Deep Green Resistance and an anti-pornography activist. He runs the blog Gender Detective at Jonahmix.com.

Salini Engineering reported to OECD over Ethiopia/Kenya dam disaster

Salini Engineering reported to OECD over Ethiopia/Kenya dam disaster

By Survival International

Survival International has reported Italian engineering giant Salini to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) over its construction of a controversial dam which is set to destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people in Ethiopia and Kenya.

The dam has cut off the Omo river’s regular flooding, which 100,000 people rely on to water their crops and livestock and a further 100,000 depend on indirectly. According to experts, this could also spell the end for Lake Turkana – the world’s largest desert lake – and disaster for the 300,000 tribespeople living along its shores.

Salini did not seek the consent of local people before building the dam, but claimed that an “artificial flood release” would compensate them for their losses. However, this promised flood never came and thousands of people now face starvation.

Up to half a million people face starvation as a result of the dam Salini has constructed on the Omo river. © Magda Rakita/Survival International

Up to half a million people face starvation as a result of the dam Salini has constructed on the Omo river.
© Magda Rakita/Survival International

The region is one of the most important sites in early human evolution, and an area of exceptional biodiversity, with two World Heritage Sites and five national parks. The head of Kenya’s conservation agency said last week that the dam is unleashing “one of the worst environmental disasters you can imagine.”

Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said: “Salini has ignored crucial evidence, made false promises and ridden roughshod over the rights of hundreds of thousands of people. Thousands are now facing starvation because Italy’s largest contractor, and one of its best known companies, didn’t think human rights were worth its time. The real consequences of the Ethiopian government’s devastating policies for its country’s development, which are shamefully supported by western aid agencies like the UK’s DFID and USAID, are plain for all to see. Stealing people’s land and causing massive environmental destruction is not progress, it is a death sentence for tribal peoples.”

Peru: Mercury poisoning “epidemic” sweeps tribe

Featured image:  A huge proportion of the Nahua tribe have been affected by the poisoning, which causes anemia and acute kidney problems © Johan Wildhagen

By Survival International

Up to 80% of a recently-contacted tribe in Peru have been poisoned with mercury, raising serious concerns for the future of the tribe. One child has already died displaying symptoms consistent with mercury poisoning.

The source of the Nahua tribe’s poisoning remains a mystery, but experts suspect Peru’s massive Camisea gas project, which opened up the tribe’s land in the 1980s, may be to blame. The project has recently been expanded further into the Nahua’s territory, prompting fierce opposition from the tribe.

Rampant illegal gold mining in the region is another potential source of the mercury poisoning.

The Nahua, who live inside a reserve for isolated Indians in south-east Peru, have also been suffering from acute respiratory infections and other health problems since they were contacted.

Other indigenous communities in the area may also have been affected by mercury contamination, but tests have not been carried out. Some of these communities are uncontacted or extremely isolated. It is understood that the Peruvian Health and Environment Ministries have been aware of the problem since 2014.

AIDESEP, the main indigenous organization in Peru’s Amazon, is lobbying the government to carry out full health checks on the Nahua and other tribes in the area, and to conduct a proper investigation into the cause of the poisoning. A study was conducted by the Ministry of Health in spring 2015, but the results have yet to be published.

The Nahua were first contacted in the 1980s. Subsequent epidemics killed many members of the tribe © Survival International

The Nahua were first contacted in the 1980s. Subsequent epidemics killed many members of the tribe
© Survival International

Nery Zapata, an indigenous leader, said: “Mercury contamination is extremely damaging to human health because its effects are irreversible. The health department must investigate this, and stop the contamination that is poisoning the indigenous population.”

Survival has also written to the Peruvian Ministries of Health and Culture urging them to publish the results of their study and put an end to the catastrophe.

Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said: “The Peruvian authorities have always been pretty indifferent to the problems facing their indigenous communities, and the total neglect they’ve shown in this case just proves it. Had this poisoning taken place in Lima, I don’t expect they would have been quite so casual in their response, or as slow to publish the results of their earlier findings. It’s nothing short of scandalous that they are not doing more to sort out this crisis. It’s also very telling that they are withholding information about it from the public.”

Survival International calls for end to Botswana’s Bushman “apartheid”

Survival International calls for end to Botswana’s Bushman “apartheid”

Featured image: Botswana government resettlement camps are poorly supplied, and diseases like HIV/AIDS are rife. © Fiona Watson/Survival International

By Survival International

Survival International has launched a campaign calling for an end to a draconian system in Botswana which has broken Bushmen families apart and denied them access to their land. Critics such as veteran anti-apartheid activist Michael Dingake have compared the system to the apartheid-era pass laws.

The call comes in the fiftieth anniversary year of Botswana’s independence.

After having been brutally evicted and forced into government camps between 1997 and 2002, the Bushmen won a historic court victory in 2006 recognizing their right to live on their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

Since then, however, this right has only been extended to the small number of Bushmen named in court papers. Their children and close relatives are forced to apply for permits just to visit them, or risk seven years in prison, and children born and brought up in the reserve have to apply for a permit when they turn 18. Many fear that once the current generation has passed away, the Bushmen will be shut out of their land forever.

Most Bushmen are still forced to live in government resettlement camps, rather than on their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve © Dominick Tyler

Most Bushmen are still forced to live in government resettlement camps, rather than on their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve
© Dominick Tyler

On the subject of the fiftieth anniversary, one Bushman told Survival: “I don’t even know anything about these celebrations. They are doing this so that people will not think they are a bad government. They are celebrating; we are not. We’re still feeling the same way. They’ve been celebrating for the last 49 years.”

Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said: “The Botswana government has viciously persecuted the Bushmen for decades, first with violent evictions and then with a permit system designed to break families apart. If Botswana still wants to be seen as a “shining light” of democracy in Africa, it needs to listen to the Bushmen, uphold its own court’s ruling and end this appallingly unjust restriction on the Bushmen’s right to live on their ancestral land in the Central Kalahari reserve. I hope that this historic year will mark the end of the decades ­long persecution of the Bushmen.”

Malheur and the Land Seizure Agenda

By Wildlands Defense

Two months have gone by in a blur since the Bundy Militant Seizure of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge was taken under the cover of cowboy hats. Public lands ranchers have always been at the front of western land grab efforts, as Bernard DeVoto described.

Malheur brought unsavory players engaged in a medusa-headed effort to seize control of public lands into full public view. Proliferating militias, “constitutional sheriffs,” and various crackpot lecturers were suddenly out in public view, all on board with the land privatization agenda.

WLD’s Natalie Ertz and Kate Fite traveled to Malheur to join a Protest opposing the Bundy Seizure. We hiked on the Refuge, where Militants “on patrol” attempted to intimidate us. We met up with the Center for Biological Diversity folks who had been at Malheur for many days, and several other Boise people who came out for the event. (3rd video)

We had the privilege to speak with leaders of the Burns-Paiute Tribe. We witnessed a surreal Militant ceremony where New Mexico rancher Adrian Sewell renounced his grazing permit. At the end of this, Pete Santilli tried to incite an armed crowd against an environmentalist by claiming he was an FBI agent.

Just as we returned home, we learned of a Land Seizure Conference in Boise only a few days away – “Storm Over Rangelands”, with Kanosh Utah attorney Todd MacFarlane, a member of the militia-like Harney County Committee of Safety, and others.

We worked to organize a Protest march, and documented the
conference, which preached there is no such thing as public land – grazing on BLM land establishes a “right” for the cattlemen, so the land is no longer public.

Members of the Bundy Cowliphate have now been arrested. But the Land Seizure movement remains in high gear. The fight to protect public lands is now more important than ever. At least three Bills have been introduced in the Congress to give states control of federal lands.

Cottonwood creek – Owyhee Field Office, Idaho BLM. Monitoring cage illustrates typical degree of forage removed by livestock that would otherwise stabilize stream-banks, purify water, and be available to wildlife. (Photo: Brian Ertz)

Cottonwood creek – Owyhee Field Office, Idaho BLM. Monitoring cage illustrates typical degree of forage removed by livestock that would otherwise stabilize stream-banks, purify water, and be available to wildlife. (Photo: Brian Ertz)

There are myriad other efforts chipping away at public lands and public lands protections in Congress and state Legislatures across the West.

This is a very important time in the fight to protect wild lands and wildlife in the west. Please support our frontline efforts to protect public lands.

Help Stop Yellowstone Bison Slaughter

Help Stop Yellowstone Bison Slaughter

By Buffalo Field Campaign

SPECIAL ALERT: Phone Calls Needed Today to Stop Imminent Buffalo Slaughter

Yellowstone National Park is holding approximately 150 of America’s last wild buffalo captive in their Stephens Creek bison trap. The Park Service intends to ship these gentle giants to slaughter facilities beginning this week! Why does Yellowstone slaughter America’s last wild buffalo? Because Montana’s livestock industry pressures them to. There is no justification for it, no matter what the Park Service tells you. Wild bison are not overpopulated, and the so-called brucellosis threat is a livestock industry excuse to kill wild buffalo and prevent them from reinhabiting their native landscape.

So many of you have been taking action, calling Yellowstone National Park, and urging them to set these buffalo free. Thank you so much! Unfortunately, Yellowstone has been unresponsive. Yellowstone’s superintendent still needs to hear from you, but we need to increase our pressure and take our message all the way up to the White House. We also need to contact Montana Governor Steve Bullock and tell him to end livestock industry authority over wild, migratory bison, which is the driving force behind Yellowstone’s participation in the slaughter of America’s last wild buffalo.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!

* CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA AT THE WHITE HOUSE: #202-456-1111

Tell President Obama to make Yellowstone stop the buffalo slaughter and set the captive buffalo free! There is no justification for killing members of the world’s most important bison population, beloved the world over. Tell the President you do not want your hard-earned tax dollars to be spent on destroying a natural, national treasure.

* CALL MONTANA GOVERNOR STEVE BULLOCK: #406-444-3111

Tell him you stand with the majority of Montanans who want wild, migratory bison restored in this state. Tell him bison slaughter hurts tourism, and insist that he work to end livestock industry policies and intolerance, which are the driving force behind Yellowstone’s participation in the slaughter of America’s last wild buffalo.

* CALL YELLOWSTONE’S SUPERINTENDENT DAN WENK: #307-344-2002

Demand that he cease catering to livestock industry intolerance, release the captured buffalo, and end plans to slaughter! His willing participation in slaughtering America’s last wild buffalo goes against the National Park Service’s mission and Yellowstone’s own bison science!

Thank you so much for taking these actions for the country’s last wild buffalo!