From Luciole friend Bridget Van Loon. Jackson Katz's article: "Dennis Kucinich endorses Hustler."
Posted by kluciole at 1/14/2008 4:48 PM 
Categories: Human Rights, National, Friends, Politics, news, Justice
Categories: Human Rights, National, Friends, Politics, news, Justice
This is not what I would think of as supporting the creation of a Department of Peace that would: "focus not just on issues of war and peace, but on issues like child abuse and domestic violence, and other issues of "unique concern" to women and children."
I had no idea about this, and it makes me really wonder. Doesn't anyone even care about this, or about women? Is it only about people screaming over First Amendment rights, and not caring about those who have been or will be hurt? I like many things that Kucinich says and supports, but is he a hypocrite? I wish there would be more discussion about this, because like I said, now I am wondering.
Editor K.
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kucinich Endorses Hustler
December 17, 2007
by Jackson Katz
Larry Flynt last month co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich in Los Angeles. Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, joined Flynt and a number of other left-leaning Hollywood celebrities at a dinner November 16 at the headquarters of Larry Flynt Publications. At the dinner, Flynt endorsed Kucinich's bid for the Democratic nomination. He later told the porn industry web site Xbiz that he has been friends with the liberal congressman from Ohio for 40 years.
For those of us who cling to the quaint notion that any progressive politics worthy of the name must be anti-sexist by definition, this is truly deflating news. After all, we're in the 21st century. The days when prominent men in the progressive movement would dare to associate this openly with the likes of misogynists like Larry Flynt were supposed to be relegated to the mists of memory, before the modern multicultural women's movement came along. In fact, one of the catalyzing forces in the rise of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was women's experience of sexism on the left and in the civil rights, anti-poverty and anti-war movements.
The pioneering women who built the women's movement -- and subsequent generations of feminists/womanists -- implicitly and explicitly issued a challenge to liberal and progressive men: If you truly believe the radical notion that women's civil and human rights are every bit as important as men's, then put your behavior where your rhetoric is. You can't say you're committed to the struggle for non-violence and human dignity while actively perpetuating the subordination and degradation of women. You can't publicly claim to be for social justice and privately continue to treat women like second-class citizens. Quite simply, you can't claim to be a leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic party if you align yourself with Larry Flynt.
Let's be clear about who Flynt is. He's not some run of the mill good ol' boy with political passions and deep pockets. Please spare us the "First Amendment hero" platitudes. On the contrary, Flynt is a wealthy capitalist who for years has been one of the most notoriously sexist figures in American public life. His signature publication, Hustler magazine, has published some of the most misogynist and racist photo layouts and cartoons in the history of mass-distributed porn magazines. He has been accused of incest by his now-grown daughter. He repeatedly dismisses women with the gumption to challenge his raging sexism as "anti-sex bitches" and much worse.
It is willfully naïve for any self-respecting "progressive" to dismiss Flynt's pornography as harmless "adult" entertainment. How can it be considered harmless to consistently portray women and girls in a sexually demeaning and degrading manner? Flynt hasn't built his porn publishing empire in a vacuum. Our society has some of the highest rates of sexual and domestic violence in the world. The numbers are staggering: one in four women will be raped or sexually assaulted. One study showed that one in five teenage girls has been in a physically or sexually abusive relationship. Most women won't even walk alone after dark. Whenever we discuss the effects of pornography -- and regardless of how one feels about people's right to produce or consume it -- anyone with a minimal sense of social responsibility has to examine the relevant context, including where and how it is produced and its relationship to social reality.
It is within this tragic cultural and historical context that Flynt has taken the commodification and exploitation of women's bodies to new lows. But Hustler is not just notable for its uber-explicit photographs of women's genitals. A shrewd businessman with sharp cultural antennae, Flynt found a way, early on, to profit from the male backlash against feminism. Its pages are filled with angry rants against feminists and other "uppity" women.
For those readers who have averted their eyes from Hustler, or have never taken the time to see what's on or between the covers, it is important to note that Flynt's woman-hatred is not confined to the countless misogynous photographic images he publishes, such as the infamous Hustler cover portraying a woman's naked body going through a meat grinder, or an "erotic" photo layout where a nude and bound Asian woman is depicted hanging lifeless from a tree.
Hustler cartoons are also notoriously saturated with images of racism and sexual cruelty. As the media scholar Gail Dines points out, the cartoons can be even more overtly offensive than the photo layouts because they carry a "humor license" and hence avoid critical scrutiny. One result is that men of color -- especially African-American men -- are routinely presented in the most reductive racist stereotype: as brutish rapists of white women. Women of color are caricatured with animal-like qualities -- or as non-hygienic slobs. One characteristic cartoon depicts a school science fair. A white boy proudly stands in front of his project, next to a big sign that reads: "ant farm." Next to him is a large Black girl, naked from the waist down; under her the caption reads: "crab farm."
Rape and domestic violence jokes are a recurring theme in Hustler cartoons. One cartoon depicts a billboard where the text reads: "If you have been raped or would like to be raped, call RAPE LINE 555-7675." Another shows a middle-aged white man wearing bright red boxing gloves. He is punching a naked woman's breasts. She is screaming, with her hands tied up behind her head. The caption reads: "Every good fighter started out slappin' one of these around."
It gets worse. The Larry Flynt who endorsed Dennis Kucinich sits atop an empire that actively participates in the crude sexualization not only of women, but of teenage girls. Among his many magazines, Flynt also publishes Barely Legal, a web site and porn magazine whose raison d'être is the commodification of young girls' bodies. The male consumers of Barely Legal would likely insist that naked 18-year-old models with bows in their hair, spreading their legs wide for the camera, are technically "consenting adults." But everyone knows the intent is to create the illusion that they are much younger.
For years a popular feature in Flynt's signature publication, Hustler, was a cartoon that followed the exploits of a fictional serial sexual abuser of young girls, Chester the Molester. The cartoon was discontinued only when the cartoonist, Dwayne Tinsley, was convicted of sexually abusing his real-life daughter -- who claimed the art was a chronicle of her actual victimization. Is it credible to maintain there is no relationship whatsoever between our society's pandemic of child sexual abuse and the widespread availability of products like Barely Legal? You don't need to argue that legal porn causes illegal activity in order to assert that it contributes significantly to a culture where younger and younger girls are made into sexual playthings, and hence set up to be the objects of adult men's sexual desires and pathologies.
Congressman Kucinich has famously proposed the creation of a federal Department of Peace. According to his web site, this new institution would seek "nothing less than the transformation of our society" to one where children are educated in principles of compassion and non-violence. The department would focus not just on issues of war and peace, but on issues like child abuse and domestic violence, and other issues of "unique concern" to women and children.
Here is a suggestion for Mr. Kucinich. If you want people to believe you are serious about abiding by the principles embodied in the Department of Peace you envision, issue a statement to the effect that you renounce Larry Flynt's endorsement, and have returned his money. It is not only the right thing to do; there are also political benefits. You might lose some porn-loving white male lefties and die-hard libertarians (the latter wouldn't be voting for you, anyway). But you might begin to repair the damage you've done with feminists and many other women, as well as the no-longer silent minority of men who are beginning to speak out against sexual exploitation and all forms of men's violence against women.
For good measure, you might also want to point out that unlike your antagonist President Bush, you are confident enough in who you are as a person -- and as a man -- that you can admit you made a mistake in aligning yourself with a misogynist like Larry Flynt. That would go a long way toward modeling the kind of masculinity that is surely required if we are ever to live in a just and non-violent society and world.
Jackson Katz's book The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, is available at major bookstores and at Amazon.com
I had no idea about this, and it makes me really wonder. Doesn't anyone even care about this, or about women? Is it only about people screaming over First Amendment rights, and not caring about those who have been or will be hurt? I like many things that Kucinich says and supports, but is he a hypocrite? I wish there would be more discussion about this, because like I said, now I am wondering.
Editor K.
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kucinich Endorses Hustler
December 17, 2007
by Jackson Katz
Larry Flynt last month co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich in Los Angeles. Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, joined Flynt and a number of other left-leaning Hollywood celebrities at a dinner November 16 at the headquarters of Larry Flynt Publications. At the dinner, Flynt endorsed Kucinich's bid for the Democratic nomination. He later told the porn industry web site Xbiz that he has been friends with the liberal congressman from Ohio for 40 years.
For those of us who cling to the quaint notion that any progressive politics worthy of the name must be anti-sexist by definition, this is truly deflating news. After all, we're in the 21st century. The days when prominent men in the progressive movement would dare to associate this openly with the likes of misogynists like Larry Flynt were supposed to be relegated to the mists of memory, before the modern multicultural women's movement came along. In fact, one of the catalyzing forces in the rise of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was women's experience of sexism on the left and in the civil rights, anti-poverty and anti-war movements.
The pioneering women who built the women's movement -- and subsequent generations of feminists/womanists -- implicitly and explicitly issued a challenge to liberal and progressive men: If you truly believe the radical notion that women's civil and human rights are every bit as important as men's, then put your behavior where your rhetoric is. You can't say you're committed to the struggle for non-violence and human dignity while actively perpetuating the subordination and degradation of women. You can't publicly claim to be for social justice and privately continue to treat women like second-class citizens. Quite simply, you can't claim to be a leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic party if you align yourself with Larry Flynt.
Let's be clear about who Flynt is. He's not some run of the mill good ol' boy with political passions and deep pockets. Please spare us the "First Amendment hero" platitudes. On the contrary, Flynt is a wealthy capitalist who for years has been one of the most notoriously sexist figures in American public life. His signature publication, Hustler magazine, has published some of the most misogynist and racist photo layouts and cartoons in the history of mass-distributed porn magazines. He has been accused of incest by his now-grown daughter. He repeatedly dismisses women with the gumption to challenge his raging sexism as "anti-sex bitches" and much worse.
It is willfully naïve for any self-respecting "progressive" to dismiss Flynt's pornography as harmless "adult" entertainment. How can it be considered harmless to consistently portray women and girls in a sexually demeaning and degrading manner? Flynt hasn't built his porn publishing empire in a vacuum. Our society has some of the highest rates of sexual and domestic violence in the world. The numbers are staggering: one in four women will be raped or sexually assaulted. One study showed that one in five teenage girls has been in a physically or sexually abusive relationship. Most women won't even walk alone after dark. Whenever we discuss the effects of pornography -- and regardless of how one feels about people's right to produce or consume it -- anyone with a minimal sense of social responsibility has to examine the relevant context, including where and how it is produced and its relationship to social reality.
It is within this tragic cultural and historical context that Flynt has taken the commodification and exploitation of women's bodies to new lows. But Hustler is not just notable for its uber-explicit photographs of women's genitals. A shrewd businessman with sharp cultural antennae, Flynt found a way, early on, to profit from the male backlash against feminism. Its pages are filled with angry rants against feminists and other "uppity" women.
For those readers who have averted their eyes from Hustler, or have never taken the time to see what's on or between the covers, it is important to note that Flynt's woman-hatred is not confined to the countless misogynous photographic images he publishes, such as the infamous Hustler cover portraying a woman's naked body going through a meat grinder, or an "erotic" photo layout where a nude and bound Asian woman is depicted hanging lifeless from a tree.
Hustler cartoons are also notoriously saturated with images of racism and sexual cruelty. As the media scholar Gail Dines points out, the cartoons can be even more overtly offensive than the photo layouts because they carry a "humor license" and hence avoid critical scrutiny. One result is that men of color -- especially African-American men -- are routinely presented in the most reductive racist stereotype: as brutish rapists of white women. Women of color are caricatured with animal-like qualities -- or as non-hygienic slobs. One characteristic cartoon depicts a school science fair. A white boy proudly stands in front of his project, next to a big sign that reads: "ant farm." Next to him is a large Black girl, naked from the waist down; under her the caption reads: "crab farm."
Rape and domestic violence jokes are a recurring theme in Hustler cartoons. One cartoon depicts a billboard where the text reads: "If you have been raped or would like to be raped, call RAPE LINE 555-7675." Another shows a middle-aged white man wearing bright red boxing gloves. He is punching a naked woman's breasts. She is screaming, with her hands tied up behind her head. The caption reads: "Every good fighter started out slappin' one of these around."
It gets worse. The Larry Flynt who endorsed Dennis Kucinich sits atop an empire that actively participates in the crude sexualization not only of women, but of teenage girls. Among his many magazines, Flynt also publishes Barely Legal, a web site and porn magazine whose raison d'être is the commodification of young girls' bodies. The male consumers of Barely Legal would likely insist that naked 18-year-old models with bows in their hair, spreading their legs wide for the camera, are technically "consenting adults." But everyone knows the intent is to create the illusion that they are much younger.
For years a popular feature in Flynt's signature publication, Hustler, was a cartoon that followed the exploits of a fictional serial sexual abuser of young girls, Chester the Molester. The cartoon was discontinued only when the cartoonist, Dwayne Tinsley, was convicted of sexually abusing his real-life daughter -- who claimed the art was a chronicle of her actual victimization. Is it credible to maintain there is no relationship whatsoever between our society's pandemic of child sexual abuse and the widespread availability of products like Barely Legal? You don't need to argue that legal porn causes illegal activity in order to assert that it contributes significantly to a culture where younger and younger girls are made into sexual playthings, and hence set up to be the objects of adult men's sexual desires and pathologies.
Congressman Kucinich has famously proposed the creation of a federal Department of Peace. According to his web site, this new institution would seek "nothing less than the transformation of our society" to one where children are educated in principles of compassion and non-violence. The department would focus not just on issues of war and peace, but on issues like child abuse and domestic violence, and other issues of "unique concern" to women and children.
Here is a suggestion for Mr. Kucinich. If you want people to believe you are serious about abiding by the principles embodied in the Department of Peace you envision, issue a statement to the effect that you renounce Larry Flynt's endorsement, and have returned his money. It is not only the right thing to do; there are also political benefits. You might lose some porn-loving white male lefties and die-hard libertarians (the latter wouldn't be voting for you, anyway). But you might begin to repair the damage you've done with feminists and many other women, as well as the no-longer silent minority of men who are beginning to speak out against sexual exploitation and all forms of men's violence against women.
For good measure, you might also want to point out that unlike your antagonist President Bush, you are confident enough in who you are as a person -- and as a man -- that you can admit you made a mistake in aligning yourself with a misogynist like Larry Flynt. That would go a long way toward modeling the kind of masculinity that is surely required if we are ever to live in a just and non-violent society and world.
Jackson Katz's book The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, is available at major bookstores and at Amazon.com
I actually think Kucinich shot himself in the foot when he aligned himself with Ron Paul..as far as I am concerned this is just more dirt over his political coffin.
Reply to this
When we objectify others (such as women), we do it in order to dominate, to construct boundaries, to reinforce our own feeble beliefs and soothe our insecurities. Kucinich is appealing to those knee-jerk individuals who see any and all nonconformists as underdogs. I see this illusion time and time again, on both the left, and right.
Department of Peace. A lovely idea. So will it increase the minimum wage? Reform the banking and accounting industries? Improve the environment? Allow women to break through the 'glass ceiling' (a silly euphemism which might be better labeled as the 'boy network'? Address corporate greed? If so, how?
Again and again I see proof that the Dalai Lama has the right idea : begin with the individual. Create a person to person dialogue, however limited the exchange. Start with a political party of one. Fight for your own integrity.
Fight to hear the truth. It's out there, although so far I haven't heard a whole lot of it from the 4th estate or our presidential candidates.
During the last two terms of Bush's presidency, the womens' movement has almost been destroyed.
And its more about greed than sexism. Clearly Kucinich feels Larry Flynt's dough is as good as anybody else's. You don't have to like Hillary, but I wish there were more female candidates out there so the media would not be so quick to assume her supporters only like her because she's female. Although I think that is one characteristic she definitely has in her favor.
Reply to this
"You don't have to like Hillary, but I wish there were more female candidates out there so the media would not be so quick to assume her supporters only like her because she's female. Although I think that is one characteristic she definitely has in her favor."
You can say that again!
Reply to this
Hmmm.
I really like Diana's comment. I have strange opinions about sexism and objectification though. We, as human animals, tend to objectify as a part of nature. (Whether porn existed or not.) I'm not saying it's right, it just IS. I do believe we need to keep evolving....but I'll go out on an unpopular limb and say that men actually worship women's bodies. Yes, women should be cherished for their brains and souls, but visual creatures will always see the body first.
I happen to be a feminist who wants to be appreciated for my brain and talent...but I also like when people like my body, too. Perhaps I'm in need of my own evolution, but I also don't think it's wrong to appreciate what God created...as long as I'm not degraded. But what constitutes as "degradation" is up to each person.
I have a few friends who work as strippers and sex workers...they don't feel they're exploited because of their free will. I, as a writer who was SUPPOSED to be paid for my work in a book yet hasn't seen dime one, do feel a bit used by that editor. I think it's all about an individual and their choices and opportunities and boundaries.
And sex...sex is part of what we're on the planet for. It's difficult to untangle the circuits of natural instincts. I'm not intending to defend pornographers, but it's not gonna go away any time soon...if ever. I'm not really familiar with how Flynt's medium differs from, say, Hefner's. I suppose it doesn't matter. I don't think women should be exploited period...which means that women are exploited in an infinite number of ways and not just as sex objects in magazines.
Somehow we have a relatively high rate of violence against women and sexual assault in our country, yet porn exists in other countries...
I have bigger problems with less obvious sexism...such as films like "Pretty Woman" or the fact that fashion models get paid more than their male counterparts while other jobs held by women are still earning less than men's. Why are Victoria's Secret lingerie models respected and idolized? Etc etc...
My point is that I'm sure Larry Flynt isn't the only "misogynist" that Kucinich or any of the other candidates welcome into their circles.
Reply to this
It is not an unpopular limb, Ana, and your opinion is welcomed here. This is not about being against all porn, or whether people are visual creatures or not. This is about particular strains of racist and sexist behavior that have nothing to do with being appreciated body-wise.
Chester the Molester cartoons, drawn by a man convicted of abusing his daughter, is not about liking sex, or people who like porn, or whether sex workers feel like they are doing something of their own free will. When there are jokes about rape, that pretty much takes the "free will" out of the equation. This is not just about exploitation, but about a violent component underneath it.
I think Diana's comment is to the point and inspiring. I think we should do what we can to foster discussion on this issue. It is far too important. Why grouse and posture about civil rights if you are going to turn around and giggle and say 'politics makes strange bedfellows' (I mean anyone who says that) and act like it is ok and/or funny because it involves porn. This is not about erotic pictures or sex. There is a difference.
This is not about a playboy spread, or all porn. This is about "She is screaming, with her hands tied up behind her head."
This is not about consenting adults, either. You can choose to take part in it if you wish, but the explicit message there, amongst all the rape jokes, is that this is for the pleasure of someone who does not want it to be consensual.
It is a trend I see too much of, and it makes me heart-weary. Why is it that there are so many out there claiming they are for civil rights and against racism and bigotry, and then snicker over something like Larry Flynt despite brutal sexist and racist overtones, with people who are being hurt for sadistic pleasure? And not people who consented to something; this is literally about rape as an extremely attractive way to get an orgasm and abuse someone.
Is Chester the Molester (the artist was convicted of raping his daughter) just about being appreciated for your body (I mean all women). If you have a problem with the hateful and racist tones, are you just an anti-sex bitch?
Sex apparently confuses the issue for a lot of people. I would not hear too many people make a successful argument over exploiting Native Americans or African Americans, and then turn it over somehow into a way that you were just appreciating their culture and the beauty of their heritage.
Candidates and other people who hold themselves up as being for human rights, then think the article above is ok and compatible with human rights, make me wonder. I really don't see how what is said above has anything to do with being against sex or appreciating someone's body or beauty.
Reply to this
Bridget wrote:
"Sex apparently confuses the issue for a lot of people. I would not hear too many people make a successful argument over exploiting Native Americans or African Americans, and then turn it over somehow into a way that you were just appreciating their culture and the beauty of their heritage."
I couldn't agree more, Karen!!! I think it has more to do with control and power (insightful uh?) than sex. So it's really about cruelty to women and that's hard for a lot of people to grasp, because we are affected by the media regardless if we think we are or not.
I like the idea Inga Muscio (author of "Cunt" has) which is to walk out of a theatre and demand your money back if the movie produces a rape scene. Hollywood movies have sexist images plastered all over in order to sell (and forgive me if i sound like a ninny here) but I think we do get confused when it really is quite simple. You're right though, Karen, that this wouldn't even be an issue if we were talking about African or Native Americans. I guess when it has to do with women it becomes more complicated.......?
(o.k. I don't know if any of that made sense I'm so fucking tired)
Reply to this
Rape is definitely more about power and less about sex.
There are several subjects going on here. All related, but not the same. "Objectification" was brought up by Diana in her astute comment. So, while I agreed with her, my point was more about the issue of objectification and porn (not about rape) and then I felt like addressing other hypocrisies that exist.
When I see things like this, as upsetting as it is, I still go "what about this? and this?"
Reply to this
Water-boarding, torture, Dennis Kucinich and Larry Flynt:
I just have a question for anyone out there. Can you be against illegal torture and things like water-boarding, but support racist and sexist hateful celebrations of sexual torture like you can find with Larry Flynt? Rape=sexual torture. Can someone explain this please?
"If you truly believe the radical notion that women's civil and human rights are every bit as important as men's, then put your behavior where your rhetoric is."
Reply to this
Well, I didn't really mean to say that I think the cartoons are about appreciating a woman's body...
I just meant there are so many OTHER offensive things out there BESIDES the magazine. And I don't think they get as much focus as they should. I personally don't agree with the images being described, but I also don't agree with how women are portrayed in most mainstream Hollywood movies. I thought that was the point I had made.
I don't know who is to blame for all the violence against women...I think it's up to the individual. I have been a victim of violence myself, but I never thought it was due to Hustler. That's all. I suppose it's not exactly part of the solution...
I actually thought the meatgrinder photo was akin to art actually. It's offensive and ironic and I think it makes an interesing point. Perhaps I give it too much credit...but if it were done by Mapplethorpe it would be considered a "challenging" and interesting work. That doesn't mean I'm defending a cartoonist who raped his child though.
Reply to this
Many of us have been victims of violence, myself included. And I have no intention of denigrating your opinion. I believe you have every right to your opinion, and my feeling in bringing this up as a post was not so much to argue over porn or the offensive things in culture, of which there are many, but the potential hypocrisy of a political candidate supporting compassion and human rights and a Department of Peace to help people, yet is being feted by someone who seems so counter to all of that. Someone who says they have been friends for 40 years.
I don't want this to be a situation of hypocrisy; I would like to believe there is someone who really walks his/her talk. I felt it was important to bring this up in light of that.
Thanks for your opinions.
Reply to this
What about all the movies that depict violence against women? How many horror movies that have numerous women as sex objects in peril and eventually brutally murdered are blockbusters and considered okay for teens to see?
I know that wasn't the point of the blog, but it's what I think of when topics such as this come up. I suppose I rambled on about free choice and porn, in general, instead of just stating that the cartoons are wrong or that Flynt is a misogynist. That seemed too obvious.
I can't really say what goes on in other magazines and websites that are run by men besides Flynt. I just don't think Larry Flynt is any worse than Gary Marshall, quite frankly. But I didn't think I was defending him.
Nowhere did I say that someone who is anti-rape is anti-sex.
Reply to this
Ana, honey, the anti-sex bitch comment is what Flynt says, not you. It was a reference to his words, not yours. I was trying to weave two narratives into one, both an answer to your post and a further discussion of the article. My apologies if that was not stated very clearly!
I agree with all you say about the movies, etc. My problem, in this blog post, was the political connection and wondering who the hell stands up entirely for human (including women's) rights without having seemingly contradictory connections and alliances. This confused me, and I have to say, disappointed me. So this is not just porn. I wanted to discuss this in the context of who the hell is going to not be a hypocrite?
Reply to this
I guess my debate is different from what is in the article, so being discussed side by side with Flynt takes me out of context. I have a way of seeing a point that isn't the point...again, I didn't address the specific material discussed in a few of the paragraphs because I felt that was too easy and obvious. My ultimate point was in bringing up OTHER hypocrisies that are related that I feel never get much notice.
To several people, pornography itself, is considered very offensive and degrading to women. Bettie Page photos of her tied up and appearing victimized and afraid are offensive to some. A poem I've written about being dominated by a man is most likely offensive to some. That doesn't mean I'm defending the rape jokes...it's just that my mind works in tangents I guess. Things aren't black and white.
Also, I am unclear as to whether the racist and violent cartoons are in the past or not. I've read the article twice, but I can't tell if the images are still current. The Chester cartoons were discontinued, but I don't know about the others. One thing I want to mention is a foreign "art" film called "Man Bites Dog" and how some think its satire is brilliant, yet I was personally offended by the movie and it's depiction of humor and rape and murder. Why is that film acceptable and the Hustler cartoons are offensive? I feel I have to reiterate I'm not defending the cartoons or Flynt, but it's just something I find interesting.
And I know it's beside the issue at hand, but Japan has a popular subculture of sexualizing children and child-like images...perhaps "Barely Legal" could be considered part of the problem, but I still wonder about what is beyond the easy ones to blame.
In regard to Kucinich being a hypocrite...I would wager that he might be ignorant, just as I am, of the full content in the magazine. The article points out some of it, but I thought that the referenced images were in the past. Even if they have been acquanited for years, I could still defend Kucinich as not being fully aware of the content. Perhaps I'm wrong and he just sees himself as standing for freedom of expression, I can't speak for the man. I don't know, so I can't judge him. That is why I did't have much to add to that particular debate.
And, again, I just think the hypocrisy goes beyond Hustler...
Reply to this
It makes me wonder too! I'm still processing this, because it really did come as quite the shocker. I've been really upset since hearing about the KucinichFlynt/ connection! I supported Dennis completely on every issue until I heard this (as it is a blatant hypocrisy if I've ever heard one). How can one claim to be pro peace, pro justice (esp w/ this with a corrupt administration), pro animal rights, pro health care for our people, etc. yet be taking money and support from one of the most misogynistic men on the planet, not to mention backing (I don't know to what degree but does it really matter?) from the very corporate billion dollar industry that traffics and exploits women and children for prostitution? I mean I'm not naive enough to think politicians are angels, I just really wanted to trust this one.
Reply to this
"I mean I'm not naive enough to think politicians are angels, I just really wanted to trust this one."
Yes, my point in bringing this up. If someone is supposed to be a candidate of compassion, then why be politically feted and supported by Larry Flynt, who rails at women as bitches and celebrates rape in his magazine?
Health care and Iraq withdrawal are not everything. Hypocrisy is important, as is someone actually giving a damn about these issues.
Am I missing something here? To me this goes to the heart of trustworthiness and integrity. I would like to see this addressed somehow, but I doubt it will be. I would like to hear Kucinich's take on this, but again, not likely to happen.
The first Bush administration supported the Taliban, and allowed a representative from the government to upbraid and make fun of a woman reporter during his visit to the U.S. who dared to question the treatment of women in Afghanistan. Then a few years later, to quote part of their reasons for invading Afghanistan, the second Bush admin. mentioned the Taliban and their truly *sniffle* bad treatment of women as a reason to be for the fight against terror. Hypocrites.
I would like to think the people who claim to be for all human rights is not talking out of the side of their mouth and actually meaning what they say. This makes Kucinich seem almost on par with the Bush admin. and laughing over the Taliban officials comments.
Reply to this
Well, this article is pretty much straight forward isn't it??? As I see there are two kinds of left-libertarians; there are those whose emphasis is on the practicing of humanism and there are those who stand to defend the individual's rights at any cause - this is where the left-libertarianism bites itself in the foot, and where our internal struggle is. Dennis Kucinich is clearly situated on the 'freedom of the individual at any cost'-side as he openly endorses something like Hustler; a magazine which since the beginning have been a manifest of the liberty of speech. In other words; Hustler was initially Larry Flynt's bold outcry to a society of moralists and his extreme voice moved boundaries elsewhere. The problem, however, was that he did it the wrong way - he (and Dennis Kucinich) are so obsessed with the individual's freedom of expression, that they totally and utterly forget who they are hurting in the process. And for those of us who believe in unconditional humanism this poses a big problem. We are situated in the left-libertarian quadrant of the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) and as such we ALSO believe in the freedom of the individual, but at the same time we emphasize that freedom come with responsibility. I believe that a boundary of what is permissible regarding sex in the public sphere was reached long ago, and now people like Larry Flynt, Hugh Heffner, and now admittedly also Dennis Kucinich are continuously expanding these boundaries and in the process forgetting what extreme consequences this has for the future condition of the mindset of our children and the already uneven equality between women and men.
This 'La Luciole' correspondent's opinion (weird that you are allowed to openly say that as a reporter in American journalistic articles): Dennis Kucinich really needs to grow a pair and tell his misogynist friend Larry Flynt and his already pornified celebrity friends that he doesn't want to play anymore - now that, my friends, would be a presidential candidate with balls!!!
Don't be fooled - Dennis Kucinich might say that he is fighting for the individual, but clearly only the individuals with penises or those willing to let society have phallic interests as its focal point.
To all Americans sick with the fact that a left-libertarian will never ever be president:
Revolution Now! You did it once, and you can do it again – there are currently 13 million people living under the poverty line as a result of the American government. Just imagine if those people let their voice be heard…13 million people all traveling to Washington to confront the government: When the government can no longer scare its people, it will happen!
Reply to this
When I read the article it made me go hmmm because it's kind of disturbing, but I wasn't given Kucinich's side so I couldn't automatically comment on that.
When I say men worship women's bodies I pretty much figured that obviously wasn't on the topic of rape. It was about ojectification and sex. Seems to me I'm not talking about violence here...Diana brought up ojectification so I felt like elaborating on it. I didn't realize it was only being used in the context of violence. But my words were then brought into the argument about violence anyway...that, to me, is being taken out of context. Then I talk about hypocrisy, but it's not the hypocrisy that's meant to be discussed.
You seem like you're attacking me because your posts are in response to me specifically. And since you're discussing the other issues, I don't see how it's fair to use my topic within your own DIFFERENT topic? It's unfair to say that porn and ojectification is not the point, but then use my words to support Flynt's view of violence against women when that wasn't MY point despite what you want to talk about.
I went off on a tangent and I'm very sorry about not making that clear. I still think there is other hypocrisy going on that isn't being brought out into the open because it's not obvious like Flynt is. I realize the article isn't discussing that....that was kind of my point. I want to know why they go after something easy and not see the other hypocrisies existing. What if Howard Stern supports Kucinich? What if thousands others support him who are misogynists? The fact that he attended a dinner that Flynt threw for him means he supports Hustler? I don't know...I think you could be jumping to conclusions. We haven't heard from Kucinich. I happen to have a cousin who is a sexist bigot and I've gone out to eat with him and his family on several occassions. He also bought my book. Now, if he claims that he and I are good friends and he's known me my entire life and loves my book does this somehow mean it's all true and that I support his racist jokes and male chauvinism?
Maybe Kucinich actually does support Flynt and it's disappointing, and so we should write letters and vote for someone else...which I was doing despite this.
I'm not posting anymore or reading this anymore. And I'll go ahead and admit I'm a hypocrite because I'm into consensual S&M and nudity, in general. Many feminists see me as part of the problem because I like Bukowski and Woody Allen. That's fine. I know myself and don't need to fit neatly into the right or wrong boxes. I don't like Larry Flynt, but I do like John Waters. (That doesn't mean I advocate sex with chickens though.) And I just can't point fingers until I hear the other side.
Reply to this
I did not feel like I was attacking you, Ana. I am sorry you feel that way.
" I don't see how it's fair to use my topic within your own DIFFERENT topic."
Different topic? Well, it was MY blog posting. I suggested the topic, so I don't see how I am deriding a separate topic you brought up. Conversations are fine, but there is nothing wrong with me talking about the original post. You shouldn't be angry I still talked about the original post despite your separate tangent. I did not try to attack you. If the article brings up certain issues, and I bring my post back to that, it is not about YOU. I already stated on here it was not about YOU.
It is not hypocritical to like consensual S&M. That is a different issue entirely. It doesn't matter to me if you like Bukowski or Woody Allen or John Waters, or even Larry Flynt. Kucinich and Flynt can be friends too, but if he or another candidate brings someone in in a political context of a party to announce an endorsement, a voter has a right to ask what it means to themselves personally, and ask others. That is a whole 'nother deal, and a valid issue.
"Maybe Kucinich actually does support Flynt and it's disappointing, and so we should write letters and vote for someone else...which I was doing despite this."
Fine. It is still a valid topic for some people whose votes are not necessarily earmarked for someone else. His friendship is one thing; a party wherin an endorsement is announced takes it into the political realm, and it becomes a very fair question. Kucinich is no simpleton. He has to understand the potentially potent political implications of something like this.
While you are rightfully celebrating your right not to fit into a certain box, do not try to box others in to match your opinions either.
Reply to this
I cannot even begin to comment - there is so much to comment upon here. I am in total agreement with the writer Jackson Katz...Total agreement.
But total agreement is boring and so I will put something out there that maybe is not so boring...
I am pro censorship. Its true. Me... who writes about charmed matrimonial beds guaranteed for a lifetime of loving passion within the marriage is pro censorship.
I like to imagine, to amuse myself, a Ministry of Pornography in America, led by wise sensible women, and men like Jackson Katz.
Just as we have a Food and Drug Administration to protect us from inserting harmful things into our stomachs, so too should we have a wise gathering of folks to determine when a harmful line has been crossed, in regard to pornography. I will explore this further in my next book.
Reply to this
I 'came of age', for lack of a better word, in the seventies when Larry Flynt and Hustler were quite active. Feminists at that time found his magazine to be an outrage. It wasn't seen as glorification of the female body and his attitude towards women was one of 'woman is object', not woman to be adored. At least Hugh Hefner seemed to care for the women in his magazine if we're talking nude female magazines. There's a way to present nudity in good taste and in a nondemeaning manner and then there's the opposite. Larry Flynt represented the latter. I think women who didn't live through those days when he was in his prime , saw his work and heard his denegrating words first hand, might have trouble understanding the big fuss.
Reply to this
K of La Luciole Magazine wrote me and said:
"I guess my question is, as short as I can make it: why is it amusing or politically ok for Dennis to be allied with Flynt, who spouts so much hatred? How does that not negate some of his message?
K."
Ok I think I understand your question...
Q: Larry Flynt has behaved atrociously toward women and committed crimes indirectly and probably directly against women that have continued to cause suffering.
Larry Flynt and Kucinich have stated publicly that they have had a long association.
Should that not lower Kucinich in our eyes? Does Kucinich's message of peace now ring less true due to his unwillingness to disassociate himself from this violent man?
as you put it:
How does that not negate some of his message?
.......
Basic answer:
It does "negate some" or better stated *reduce the effectiveness* of his message absolutely. If I knew the details to mention to Dennis I would want him in front of the cameras answering to that... and if I were a one issue voter and that was the issue, I could not support him... and I would tell him so.
.........
More nuanced answer:
When we look at candidates we have a limited choice, due to experience in Government, age, and of course money and fame. Wall Street has a bigger and more poisonous effect on our system of government than anything else and the spectrum of candidates is sadly limited to those who "played ball" to some degree with those who's interests are more of greed than good deed.
So when I choose to support a candidate or candidates it is not usually because I think they will win the office they seek. Usually the hit single goes to the lame song... and usually the office goes to that politician who compromises.
So I look to see who is able to get air time and print and face time with the BEST MESSAGES of the LOT.
Hillary is a triangulator, her message is "party".
"I am the center of the Democratic party, I am the only other choice than more Bush politics"... but she voted to go to war and just authorized action against IRAN. She also signed the bankruptcy bill, a horrid attack on working families. She has supported expanding nuclear power and weapons.
If she wins it's fine but not the BEST OF THE LOT.
OBAMA is also a triangulator and his message is "personality". He says he will include both sides and unite the country. He has voted to fund the war non stop and has signed Cheney's energy bill... which relied heavily on nuclear power. He has not shown this populist side that he gives words to.. his actions have been different.
If he wins I will be happy but he is not the BEST of the lot.
to be continued...
Reply to this
John Edwards is much closer to what I want... his message is to fight the "POWER" and he stands up to corporations. I like that. He stands up for the working people and unions in our country... I love that, but he also did vote to fund the war, send nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, support expanded nuclear power and he did sign that horrid bankruptcy bill, a give away to predatory banking and a big part of why Americans are suffering under the mortgage crisis.
If he wins I would be pretty darned happy... but his message is not the BEST of the lot.
Dennis Kucinich:
*Opposes all Nuclear power on the grounds that it is environmentally hazardous in an unacceptable way.
*Is the ONLY candidate to support Not-For-Profit health care for all, like in Europe... (Norway’s health care rules.. I know... ) ala Michael Moore.
*Is the only candidate to fully support stem cell research
*Is the only candidate to fully support marriage for all
*Is the only candidate to fully support unions
*Is the only candidate to call for the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO so we can have jobs back here again
*Is the only candidate to fully support total health care for 9/11 rescue workers... and to investigate why they were injured and why others were injured... and anything else that Cheney has hidden about that day's events and his errors.
*Is the only candidate to fully support IMPEACHMENT of Dick Cheney.
*Is the only candidate to suggest war crimes trials against the neocons
*Is the only candidate to end the war immediately with no troops left behind.
*Is the only candidate with a comprehensive education plan to let schools out of that horrible "no child" disaster.
*Is the only candidate to not only roll back bush's tax cuts but to raise taxes on the wealthy corporations, raise taxes on imports, and redistribute wealth from those who stole it back to the middle class.
*Is the only candidate to fully support strict regulations that protect the average American again. He wants to stop lobbyists from revolving in and out of our government and making the place a corporate clearing house. He has called for an end to the military industrial complex's hold on our nation.
he talked about how to stop genetically modified food... mercury in our water...he has clean air plans that are stark in contrast to the others... his speeches on the environment are excellent. Only Al Gore does better.
And finally... Dennis proposed a department of peace in answer to the pentagon.
And he is the only one.
He will not win.
But his message needs to be out there..."pulling" the others in the right direction.
He is associated with someone who's actions, if they are what you say they are...(and I have no reason to doubt you)we do not respect or condone: but ... THAT IS NOT HIS MESSAGE... nor is it his actions.
He is not going to win... am I disappointed that he is allied with a brutal sexist? SURE!
to be continued...
Reply to this
But ... and this is the way of politics... Dennis is still THE BEST OF THE LOT.
with great respect and love,
J
Reply to this
Hi Jensen! =-)
Thanks so much for sending this my way! Let me think on it.
Two things: I do like all the Kucinich appears to be for. But the issue I brought up is not a single issue deal (when you said if you were a single issue voter). To me, it speaks directly to his integrity. And that is the biggest deal of all.
I am not sure how I can explain that in a way that does not seem preachy. But I was thinking about Halliburton earlier today, and then in your post you brought up Cheney.
Halliburton has an atrocious record on many accounts, including a recent Congressional hearing on the rape cases. One woman, 3 or 4 days into her job in Iraq, was drugged in a drink and raped for hours vaginally and anally. She was then stuck in a crate with two guards and left for hours. One finally felt sorry enough for her to give her a phone, which she used to call her father. He called the Embassy, they arranged to get her out. To make this as concise as possible, she is not alone. Nor is she alone in having to still have reconstructive surgery to be semi-normal.
Now, Hustler would no doubt love to do a whole spread on that. Flynt loves rape and rape motif. And he has made no secret of the fact that women need to be put in their place because they are uppity bitches if they dare to challenge a man's dominion over her.
So, I don't know how associating in a political alliance with a hate mongerer who advocates/encourages such abusiveness that is also practiced by Halliburton makes Kucinich better than Cheney.
I know there are many things to point out about Halliburton and Cheney that are horrendous. But I am saying Kucinich, for all of the excuses anyone can make of odd political bedfellows, should not make a political alliance with someone that is no better than the men at Halliburton.
For me, because I wanted to believe in Kucinich's stances and integrity very much, this is very troubling. I would like to think someone gave an actual damn about things like this. It is not a single issue to me, because it potentially destroys his credibility in my eyes. All of the things you name in his platform are excellent! And I agree that while he will not win, a vote is important in that it represents your voice. I don't know how I am supposed to take Kucinich at his word that he is better than anyone else, or would actually do the things he speaks beautifully about, if he is no better than Cheney in this important way.
After all, if he is not likely to win anyway, it is not like he needs to compromise in order to get the funds Flynt can provide in order to go on and try to win and make the world a better place. So, this is his choice he made even though it cannot further any hope of actually being elected.
Reply to this
What troubles me further is that this is not considered important by many who would have a fit if Kucinich had a political endorsement at a party with someone advocating hatred and hurtful actions towards, say, black people or homosexuals or anyone else but something involved with sex and women.
This is not important to me only because I am a woman. It is important because it is hypocrisy to believe Flynt is ok, and a free speech icon, when they would shut him down and anyone associated with him if he said the same amount of hateful, inciting vitriole about ANYONE else. The uproar might be deafening. But THIS issue is often set aside because people don't think it ranks high enough. But it ranks high in credibility issues. If he can't win anyway, why make a bed with Flynt? And why do people not yell about it?
I guess overall it makes me think people are still willing to overlook almost anything, even blatant, with their limited views of human rights. I can't say I believe a candidate who claims to be such a champion of human rights and a force against things like Cheney and illegal torture, if he fetes and celebrates a man who is nothing if not for sexual torture and is akin to Cheney.
I do truly appreciate your time and effort in this, I do. I think it is wonderful you have taken the time to discuss this and to give me more food for thought. I will think more on it. I just want to say, if there is a single issue at hand for me, it is not "sex" or "Flynt"... it is "integrity" or "credibilty." And the lack of people willing to say, ok, we will not allow hate against all sets of people.
No to racism, no to homphobia... but Flynt? Or extreme misogyny? Either it is cool, or it is not important enough. And that makes me very sad.
And I am not wanting to think poorly of Kucinich. This just makes me very sad about both Kucinich and the Democratic Party, and anyone else who supports ending hate speech against race or sexual orientation or religion, but not against women or anyone considered to be in a weaker position and to be taken advantage of.
Equally with great love and respect,
K
Reply to this
Integrity and credibility. Got it. Even with this lowered credibility, Kucinich still has a better message than the other Democratic candidates. And remember I am not posting pro Kucinich messages because I expect him to win... I am picking the best messages of the limited choices I have. If the issue of his credibility makes his message less than another one of the candidates then of course you or I should say so. I also support Edwards anti corporate stance... but remember, he said that "God" didn't want gays to marry. Man... if believing in that kind of nonsense doesn't kill credibility I don't know what does. Both Obama and Clinton say they want the war to end... but they talk about troops being there another decade... and worse... they fund the war! Credibility out the window for me. At least Kucinich's problem is his association... the other three it's their words and deeds. See what I mean? So of the limited messages to support... I'm stuck with Dennis.... because I'm not going to sit this election cycle out.. .no way. Now if Lily Tomlin would run... well we wouldn't be having this discussion!! I'd also vote for George Carlin... Michael Moore? Paul Rubens!!
Reply to this
I missed that about Edwards... what the heck? *sigh*
"I am picking the best messages of the limited choices I have."
Indeed, we do the best we can do, don't we?
Hmm, a Lily Tomlin/George Carlin ticket. That would shake things up!
The only thing I can say is, politcal association makes me think/consider carefully if I can trust words and deeds. And that is part of politics and being a conscientous voter. You are right about the issues/questions about the other candidates. We will, like I said, do the best we can. I can't picture what will happen between now and November. So interesting we have this kind of a race at the mid-point of January.
I respect your opinions and viewpoint, and thank you for sharing them. Great food for thought!
Reply to this
I just want to add, that if this were Don Imus, Michael Richards, or say Orenthal Simpson having a fundraiser dinner for one of the other candidates, it would be a very different story. And probably not much of a debate. Can you imagine the outrage? It is only because it IS Larry Flint (and he is a figure who unfortunately has seeped so profoundly into the fabric of our culture that his deep misogyny and harmful contribution to society have become sorely overlooked) and people go ahead and swallow it, as if it's nothing critical to Kucinich's character. I think that is a mistake. And a hypocrisy.
Sexism is too often laughed at or brushed under the rug whereas racism is wildly unacceptable (definitely not conspicuous) in today’s world by the mass majority of people. How is that fair? Or equal for that matter? And how does that jive with Kucinich's stances? For Kucinich can rail on how all he wants about ending the war/bringing American troops out of harms way, and what he will do for the American people, about granting homosexual partners the right to marry, (and although I want all these things & more) I simply no longer believe what he says. By his four decade-long friendship and financial partnership with Larry Flint, he is making the choice to ignore the entire female sex. That doesn't sit well for me, as a woman or a human being.
Reply to this