Critical Analysis: Let's Put Pornography Back in the Closet
Susan Brownmiller's essay, "Let's Put Pornography Back in the Closet," makes a compelling case for taking pornography out from under the cloak of the First Amendment and exposing it for the offensive anti feminine agenda that underlies it. Brownmiller's point is that although she fully supports First Amendment rights and is not in favor of censorship, there is a limit to the types of material that should be defended under the aegis of the first amendment; pornography is not one of them. As she aptly puts it:No, the feminist objection to pornography is based on our belief that pornography represents hatred of women, that pornography's intent is to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure. We are unalterably opposed to the presentation of the female body being stripped, bound, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered in the name of commercial entertainment and free speech (49). Brownmiller addresses an issue that has all too often been overlooked in arguments that
Brownmiller's argument is the clearheaded and considered response of one who has given much thought to the issue and looked at both sides before deciding, not the impassioned diatribe of someone with a pre-existing agenda that she wants to bring out and trot around under the guise of pretending to evaluate them both objectively. Such irresponsible judgments merely incite more people to push the envelope and see how much they can get away with in terms of hauling out the amendment in hopes of getting their particular brand of obscenity or other impropriety sanctioned. Douglas's comment that "no one is 'compelled to look'" is, as she asserts, "hardly true" (Brownmiller 49). It is impossible to avoid seeing the images unless, as is now the case in grocery stores, store managers are compelled to conceal a portion of the magazine covers that display them. Furthermore, her essay is forthright and descriptive. She does not "beat around the bush," but states categorically what her position is-a strategy that not only conveys the sincerity of her position but also demonstrates that she is not interested in trying to appease the opposition. claim the First Amendment as their justification-that the First Amendment is intended to protect people's freedoms, but not at the expense of other people's freedoms. Even those who disagree with her position would be hard pressed to find fault with her reasons for feeling as she does or with her thought processes in arriving at her opinion. It therefore cannot be employed in defense of any type of subject matter that enslaves, demeans, or destroys people. Brownmiller's assessment of the issue is perceptive, reasoned, and accurate. Her essay is well written and compelling in the sense that it enjoins the reader to cut through the bureaucratic fog and see pornography for what it really is-an assault on women. Somehow, the courts lose sight of the original intent of the First Amendment and confuse the issue by allowing claims that are not even distantly consistent with its intent to be adjudicated, further muddying the water. Certainly statements such as "demeaned by an array of dehumanized, chopped up parts of the female anatomy, packaged like cuts of meat at the supermarket" leave no doubt in the reader's mind as to how she views pornography's depiction of women (Brownmiller 49). It is not surprising that her essay has appeared in numerous anthologies since it was written in the late seventies; it is timeless, because truth never goes out of style.
Common topics in this essay:
William Douglas's,
Pornography Closet,
Susan Brownmiller's,
claim amendment,
49 brownmiller,
amendment rights,
amendment intended protect,
amendment intended,
brownmiller 49,
people's freedoms,
intended protect,
female body,
|
Acceptance Essays
