Scannint this year’s Christmas Wish Book, I could not help but notice an expansion on a traditionally limited section of merchandise. Yes, there on pages 224 and 236-237 was the most tastefully displayed slection of children’s weaponry and military dolls I had ever seen. : When I was young, I always found ample guns, rocket-launchers, grenades, helmets and army-men to satisfy my Christmas list to Santa. Then, as time progressed, the slection dwindled until the only military playthings were hidden in a black and white corner of the catalogue. What do we have now? In the past couple of years, I have noticed a marked increase in these toys available for youngsters; now appearing in the side-by-side colour glossy pages.$ In my opinion, as the paper’s token reactionary and Sears’ account holder, this is great. Unfortunately for my fellow ‘paper people’, this increase is a sign of societies return to a military-industrial complex, and its swing to the right. My collegues scatter in confusion, wondering if they should boycott Sears this Christmas. My point being is that we are entering an era of ‘military might makes right’; and it’s showing through high military spending and subtle hints to tomorrow’s adults and leaders. What better military education than the playful deployment of laser cannon armed Star Wars strom-troopers against a massive trust of M-16 toting GI Joes! ; Watch out. It’s starting again. The Other Press, certain defamatory statements have been made about the ex- Other Press member Richard Moore. The main perpatrat- or of these, Ian Hunter, is sorry about this and has pledged never to do it again. lan Hunter Caroline Hardor - reflecteditorial policy. Letters may be brought to the Other Press oe published in Press ~~ Probably you'll find that there is something y Other Press. Would y like to see it. The Other Press Dear Editor Re: Pornography: A Philo- sophical Look Having read the article by Warren Laine in the Septem- ber 30 issue of the Other Press we feel that we must respond with some facts, which are not adressed in the article. 1. Pornography is not a mirror of everyone’s sexual desires and fantasies, nor is it an outlet for everyone’s sexual needs. Pornography does not deal with sex, it deals with power, dominat- ion and violence and certain- ly does not mirror the sexual desires or fantasies of wo- men. We do not know of any women who desires to be tortured, beaten or shackled. Pornography also objectifies women. It is no accident that third world children are used in ‘‘kiddie porn’’ more often than white children. The buyers of child pornography (the vast majority of whom are middle aged, middle class, white, married men) feel that it is more exotic to have sex with children who are not white. It is also possible that the use of white children may hit a little to close to home for most buyers. 2. Men are not forced to interact with anyone. The suggestion that women who refuse to be objectified, beat- en, violated, and brittalized are amazons is simply ignor- ant. This attitude is archaic, sexist, uninformed and typi- cal of someone who believes in and perpetrates stereo- types. 3. Pornography is not strictly fantasy, since it encourages and condones violent behay- ior toward and violent treat- ment of women. Constant images of violence against women increase the possibil- ity of those images becom- ing reality. There is research available which indicates that ‘“‘men exposed to sado- masochistic stories are more likely to be aroused by stories of rape, more likely tc believe that victims enjoy rape, and more likely tc report that they would be- have like fictional rapists themselves when assured of non-punishment’’. Porn- ography is the theory- rape is the practice. 4. The ‘‘freedom of speech’’ argument can be countered fairly simply, in our opinion. It is a fudamental principal of Canadian law that the free- dom of an individual may be limited where it impedes or infringes upon the freedom lof another individual, group, ’ A Philosophical Rebutal ] or community. It would suff- ice to mention that society provides other ‘‘stop lights’’ to undesirable behavior by not allowing one individual to murder another individual without suffering some pun- ishment. One must also point out that if men, or Jewish people, or Chinese people, or any other group within soc- iety were depicted as being tortured, beaten, bound, or. shackled, the: public outcry would be very great. Women do not enjoy that kind of ‘support from society. 5. If ‘‘woman’s normal”’ role is to be submissive, then why do men need a ‘“‘social tool’’ to keep her in that role, and why do they need a so-called ‘buffer’? 6. The statement that ‘‘fem- inists over-generalize in the assumption that most men fantasize about sadistic act- ions toward women and that, during sexual acts, have these images in the back of their minds’’ is intriguing to say the least. If a large number of men do not have these images in their minds, then why do they: -spend $5 billion per year in North America on pornog- raphy? -beat their wives? -rape women? -commit incestuous acts on their children? -molest other people’s chil- dren? The rapid rise in pornog- raphy sales and crimes of the sort mentioned above would indicate to most intell- igent people that violent images are certainly on the minds of many men and that they are putting these fant- asies into practice. 7. There is no such thing as “‘normal’’ pornography. All pornography is obscene. Any literature or material which degrades, objectifies, tortur- es, and victimizes one seg- ment of the population is obscene. For your informat- ion the Commission on Ob- scenity and Pornography de- fines pornography as foll- ows: ‘the degrading and dem- eaning portrayal of the role and status of the human female...as a mere sexual object to, be exploited and manipulated sexually’. 8. Pornography not only contributes to violent crimes but is a violent crime in itself, 9. Pornography zs being for- ced on us. It is forced on us in advertisements, on record jackets, on television, in dis- plays in our corner stores(at a child’s eye level no less) and just about everywhere else. 10. With regard tothe e statement ‘‘surely an educat- ed person can decide what to read and what not to read’’ we can only respond by saying- apparently not! We might also point out that education and _ intelligence are not always directly link- ed. The author of the article Pornography- A Philosoph- ical Look may be on his way to becoming educated but.... Yours Truly, Marian Exmann Women’s Centre Coordinator Barbara Gilliland Student Services Clerk Marilyn Kristian Admissions Clerk Julie Steele Financial Aid Officer Ann Fenton Student Services Clerk Debbie Lazarowich Records Clerk Dear Editor With regard to the article by Warren Laine in the September 30 issue of The Other Press, I would like to express my opinion. First, I am deeply embarr- ased that another male (my assumption) would write such ‘‘philosophy’’ in the 1980’s. I had hoped that the selfish playboy attitude of the 1960’s had been educ- ated somewhat in 20 years- but obviously some people think guns are toys.Second the opinion that it (porno- graphy) is not being forced on us is one of personal perception- for instance, I think the market is flooded with it. This may explain the $5 billion North American revenue, which confirms my concerns that pornography zs big business- but then so is heroine. Just because there is a market for something doesn’t mean it is good for your health. Third, classify- ing feminists as ‘‘amazons’’ is a derogatory statement which strongly suggests to me an ignorant mind- which brings us to the last sentence of the article. Perhaps the assumption that people are educated, and therefore can decide what to read or not to read, does not apply to the author of any article such as cases Continued on.... Page