I was looking around for something nice for you for the weekend but couldn’t find anything. So here’s some more pornography instead (sorry Satchel girl).
First up, Julie Gale’s piece on ABC The Drum Unleashed on the porn in the corner store 
issue which I have also covered. Much of the graphic material in the original piece was cut. While I understand why editors choose to remove explicit references and images from an easily accessible public site, it also serves to underscore Julie’s point about the fact that the same material is in the corner store with the lollies and kids’ mags.
I’ve had the pleasure of working with Julie (Kids Free 2B Kids) on the issue of sexualisation of girls for about three years now (she has a chapter, “One woman’s activism” in my book). We like to get together in her homey kitchen -where Julie’s laughter tinkles like cascading water as she prepares tea cups and plates of biscuits (thanks Claire Halliday) – and share our favourite comments and feedback. (Getting Real readers may recall some of these gems in my introduction, such as the charming and mysteriously evocative “as ugly as a hatful of arses”). We’ve been accused of everything from wanting to ban all sex, forcing Australian women to don the burka and (just last week actually) hastening armageddon. Anyway, this special post in the Unleashed comments section provides fresh inspiration for Julie’s comedy routines:
I have read some drivel on this site but, really! What else does Ms Gale want to ban – shorts, singlets, short skirts (nothing above the knee) or puberty. Moreover, how about a time machine so that she (and those who support her) can be transported back to the Victorian era!
Julie has confirmed with me today that she does indeed want to ban EVERYTHING. “Everything must go!” she said.
But here’s a good one (thanks anonimouse):
Same old boring conspiracy theories about religious right whenever regulating pseudo child porn is discussed. Same old irrational assumptions that regulating this stuff is oppressing kids. These arguments are at least 40 years old now… and meanwhile the pseudo left have nothing to say about the massive capitalist exploitation of kids that is only too happy to co-opt their libertarian rhetoric. How come defending the status quo (creepy porn culture etc) is confused with being hip. Don’t mess with the sovereign consumer and their right to buy creepy porn from the newsagent! But it is not just creepy, this kind of porn is obviously normalising grooming kids…It is great that you keep speaking out.
Melbourne academic and long-time feminist activist, Sheila Jeffreys, who has written extensively against pornography, prostitution and harmful beauty practices in the West (some of her work appears in my recommended books section) debated EROS Foundation’s Robbie Swan as part of the ABC Big Ideas series recently. Here’s the debate.
And here’s Communication Minister Steve Conroy’s defence of the Government’s internet filtering plans in The Punch (over which the defend-all-porn-at-all-costs brigade went ballistic, as described here).
When is the Coalition going to develop a backbone on this issue?
13 Responses
With regards to the Internet filter at the bottom, if you read the government FAQ here:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions
you will see that pornography (X18+ rated material) is not included within the scope of the mandatory filter. Indeed, only Refused Classification material that has been previously complained about will be ‘blocked’. (I use quotes because ISP level filters are incredibly easy to circumvent.) As I work in the technology space, I’m very wary of technological solutions to blocking Internet pornography. There is simply such a huge quantity of online pornography, that it is impossible for any human controlled blacklist to keep up. Dynamic filters, which try to guess if a site is pornographic or not based on the material on the site, are slightly better, but are far too slow to be employed at an ISP level. Additionally, they suffer from over and under blocking issues. This means that safe, even educational material, will be mislabeled as pornography and blocked, or genuine pornography will not be caught and allowed through. (This is another reason they cannot be employed at an ISP level. Innocuous material will be blocked, which could harm legitimate business.) The upshot is that parental supervision is still required; nothing is gained. It is thus strange that the government abandoned the NetAlert program which offered free dynamic filters to all citizens who wanted them for their home PCs.
For children’s use of the Internet, I’d recommend placing the computer in a public thoroughfare of the house, and certainly not their bedroom. If they are young children, a white list filter can be a good option. This is where a parent (or company you trust) examines websites and explicitly allows their child access to only those approved. This, of course, has huge over blocking, but for young children it is a better solution as you can be sure that only websites you trust will be accessible. As children get older they’ll have the technological skill to bypass any filtering system, which is where education comes in. If we instil proper critical thinking skills by the time they are old enough to circumvent the technology, there is far less chance of them being surprised by the material that is available. They will be able to examine it critically and reach their own healthy decisions about what to expose themselves too. Finally, there are ISPs in Australia that specialise in providing a filtered service already, which is another option if, as a parent, you feel you need some additional help.
As to the rest, I’m personally still sceptical. I’ve never seen a newsagent or petrol station that sold magazines such as the one you have a clip of above. Perhaps this is the area I live in. I’ll keep more of an eye out for such material next time I’m in such a store; I’ve never thought to browse for such material from a petrol station or newsagent.
It should be noted that magazines like Penthouse or Playboy typically come in two versions. A Restricted version which must be sold in plastic, and an Unrestricted mature version. Even banning the sale of Restricted magazines in such stores, will still leave the Unrestricted version available and on display. Some argue that the current Unrestricted category is worse because of the digital manipulation that must be performed on the genitals of the women who appear in the magazines to pass the Classification Board. Such manipulation gives a false impression of what is ‘normal’ for women’s bodies. This is thought to be one of the reasons for the increase in labioplasty in recent years.
Arved, i’m not sure that anybody who is concerned about this issue has had to “browse” for it, due to it’s obvious placement.
For photographic evidence, see here: http://www.sayno4kids.com/blog/?page_id=114
Yes, I followed all the links. I’ve never seen Restricted material in the petrol station I frequent, nor in the newsagent that I sometimes go to. All I was saying is that I’m going to be more observent next time I’m in those stores. I don’t doubt that your anecdotal experience is more concerning.
I have noticed Unrestricted magazines on display, certainly. The lack of Restricted magazines in the stores that I frequent suggests, to me, this is an enforcement issue, rather than a requirement for censorship. ie. The current laws are strong enough, but they aren’t being observed by a number of stores.
Perhaps the legal availability of pornography in Canberra (where I live) means that it simply isn’t as lucrative for petrol stations / newsagents to flaut the current laws as brazenly. That is, the current prohibition on the sale of pornography in the states may actually be counter productive for this issue.
Arved
I disagree, I dont believe the laws are strong enough and I think it is more than just an enforcement issue.
There are too many gaps, too many excuses and so many outlets which are still supplying and displaying magazines with images and wording that are inappropriate for public viewing. I can’t speak for Canberra, but my area certainly has an issue.
I am concerned that this material is becoming more and more normalised and those of us who do care and want protection for our children are being silenced.
I am pleased that professionals are beginning to rally together. For those of us who are parents, it is out of control and we have not been listened to; silenced.
I should have the right to decide what my child views until they are old enough to decide for themselves. My choice has been taken away, as has my childs. My child will not be brought up as if this porn culture is acceptable. I want to enable my boys to see girls differently to that of the sleezy porn industry.
Where can I get my hands on one of those bunny shirts with the cross through it! Maybe I need to start wearing one when we go down to fill the car up with fuel!
Melinda said “[…]over which the defend-all-porn-at-all-costs brigade went ballistic[…]”
Why does Melinda keep painting those who are against the filter as porn apologists when the government has clearly said they’re not going to block X18+? The filter is useless because it can only ever block 10,000 sites maximum (due to the limitations of the software). There are over a trillion unique URLs on the web and that figure grows by about a billion a day. There are probably millions of sites that would fit into the RC category. It also can’t block URLs on high traffic sites like Youtube and Facebook, otherwise the censorbox crashes. Conroy has already spoken to Google about taking down RC Youtube videos like how to guides by euthanasia advocates and graffiti videos (how awful, a teenager is spray painting a train – quick, ban it!) and Google told him to go and get knackered, hence the reason why he’s spitting chips and defaming Google in every other interview he does. So already, the policy of blocking RC has failed miserably. Add in the fact that in the Enex trial it was found that the best filer could only stop 6 out of 37 attempts at circumvention of the RC blacklist. That’s pretty hopeless.
It’s also pretty hard for the pro-filter crowd when people and organisations like Save the Children, National Children’s & Youth Law Centre, Reporters Without Borders, Retired Justice Michael Kirby, and even Michael Flood are saying it’s a really bad idea. But I suppose they’re all part of the “defend-all-porn-at-all-costs brigade”, huh?
Birds Eye
You would get no argument from me that that some material is inappropriate in some contexts. I do, however, think there’s a lot more to this than is being presented.
Let me take a little aside here to explain my philosophy. I do not think governments should have the power to decide that legally produced material should not be available to its citizens. Books like the Peaceful Pill Handbook, images of aborted foetuses, films like Ken Park or Caligula, and video games like the US release of Left 4 Dead 2 should be available for any Australian who wants to experience them. Pornography, whether written, visual or in any other format, regardless of role play, fetishes or fantasy, should also be available as long as all involved in its creation were consenting adults. To have the situation otherwise is to say that government has the power to decide what ideas its citizens are allowed to entertain. That is a decision that is each and every person’s own to make. Governments claiming this power is a major reason, I think, the underprivileged have been so long (and continue to be) repressed. Whether that is women, homosexuals, transgenders, the disabled, racial minorities, or whatever. Further, I do not think that anyone has a right to not be offended or confronted. Indeed a world without confrontation would be boring to live in. (I also do not think that pornography is inherently harmful, or that only men enjoy pornography. Although that’s perhaps a longer discussion, my position is quite well researched though.)
There is certainly material that is age-inappropriate because it requires maturity to properly understand and digest. Pornography certainly fits into this category, but then so do many less contentious films, books and even music. Then there is material that is offensive because it assumes a homogeneous population that is simply not the case. Discrimination against homosexuals is an obvious example. So is saying the Lord’s Prayer before parliamentary sittings in a secular country when a substantial proportion of the population are not Christian, let alone Catholic. Then, there is a clear difference between the public and the private sphere. What someone chooses to experience in the privacy of their own home or among like minded individuals is vastly different to doing the same thing with a public audience. A women, already burdened with the terrible choice of having an abortion should not be forced to have anti-abortion material shoved in her face. More generally, when walking around cities, or experiencing passive entertainment (like television) we all have a reasonable expectation to not be unduly offended, at least at certain times.
So, with that framework, I look at the occurrence of Restricted material in convenience stores and a few thoughts come to mind:
The first is whether it is reasonable to expect that all convenience stores should be child friendly. For general purpose stores, I think that the answer is almost always going to be an unreserved yes. For petrol stations, I think the argument is harder to make. Children can’t drive, so they should have no need to be inside a petrol station store. For newsagents and bookshops it seems more grey to me. Certainly one should expect to be able to buy Unrestricted magazines from a newsagent, and any kind of book from a bookshop. Perhaps its enough to require that Unrestricted (Mature) magazines are always in a different location to more general Unrestricted magazines. As for Restricted material, I think this again depends on the kind of shop. I don’t really see a huge difference between pornographic Restricted material and non-pornographic Restricted material. Perhaps if it was available behind the counter?
The second is with regards to what the current laws / regulations are. This clearly is a State issue, not a Commonwealth one. That my experience around Canberra seems very different to what I experienced in Melbourne (and what you report) suggests that there must already be a difference. I do not know what the current regulations are, but the ACT seems to be doing a better job keeping age-inappropriate material out of sight of children than Victoria is. Is this a difference in the relevant regulations, or is it a local cultural phenomenon? If it is the former, then other states adopting the ACT’s regulations would probably be a good idea. If it’s the latter that suggests a lot more investigation is needed.
The third thing is how much of a problem this actually is. I do agree that sexualisation of children is a problem. Ten year olds shouldn’t have to care about how they look, or how attractive they are to the opposite sex. No question. However, I remain unconvinced that a child seeing the cover of these magazines in convenience stores is the primary cause of the problem. I’d have a much easier time getting behind a national education campaign for comprehensive, age appropriate, sex education. One that teaches not only the mechanics, but also intimacy, communication, and what it means to be in a partnership. It should also not be heteronormative, nor dismissive of alternative sexualities. I think such a campaign would go a lot further to ensuring the health and happiness of the next generation than anything else. That’s not to say that the availability of these magazines in some locations isn’t a problem, but I’m not convinced of its high priority.
Arved, with regards to just one point you made – when I am out and about with my children and have to stop for petrol, am I supposed to leave them in the car while i pay? Because it’s not only unsafe to do so, it’s also illegal. Laws were passed last year (or the year before, i’m not sure) saying that you cannot leave a person under 16 years old in the car alone. I am then left with the prospect of walking my children past a display of porno mags just to pay for petrol.
Even if I don’t have my children with me, just because I am an adult does not mean I consent to seeing this stuff when I pay for petrol. I don’t want to see it, I consider it sexual harassment as the material is by nature, degrading, objectifying and sexist.” Whether the women photographed consented and got paid is beside the point.
It is not illegal, as far as I am aware, to leave a child in a car, at least not in the ACT. This is laid out in the Crimes ACT: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1900-40/default.asp
Section 39 (3) seems to be the relevant paragraph:
“A person must not, knowingly or recklessly, leave a child unattended in such circumstances and for such a time that the child could suffer injury or sickness or otherwise be in danger.”
I think it would be a very difficult case for a prosecutor to make, that the 5 minutes the child spent in the car while the parent paid are circumstances and for such a time that the child could be in any real danger. Certainly this is something my parents often did with me. On the other hand, I am not a lawyer. If it is illegal in your state, then I certainly concede the point.
As to the second point, that is a much longer and more contentious debate, that I don’t think is appropriate here. I laid out my assumptions to show where my conclusions came from. If you disagree with some of the foundation, then obviously you will have a different conclusion. Suffice to say, I think this will depend on some common courtesy on the part of the petrol station. It should be possible for them to arrange the store in such a way that they are not in direct line of sight on the path to the register.
Yes, some people do leave their children in the car, but it is unfair to expect parents to have the choice between leaving their kids in the car and exposing their children to pornography. Even 5 minutes in the middle of summer can be dangerous because of the heat, particularly for small children.
“On a typical Australian summer day, the temperature inside a parked car can be as much as 30-40 degrees hotter than the outside temperature ie. on a 30 degree day the temperature inside the car could be as high as 70 degrees.
75% of the temperature rise occurs within five minutes of closing the car and leaving it. ie. on a 36 degree day, within five minutes the car will have reached 55 degrees.”
http://is.gd/brPJd
And then there is this danger also:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1039402/man-steals-car-with-girl-3-on-board
What bothers me with this issue is there seems to be limitless reasons expressed (not referring to yourself only, but in general) as to why things should remain exactly how they are. It is as though men’s access to degrading and objectifying images and text is of paramount importance. I would not settle for them being relocated in store, they should be removed. It is much easier for someone to purchase this crap from an adult shop than it is for parents to constantly try and avoid it.
“What bothers me with this issue is there seems to be limitless reasons expressed (not referring to yourself only, but in general) as to why things should remain exactly how they are”
And you’re arguing for their removal because you don’t want to leave your children in the car? Because your children might die of heat exhaustion or someone might steal the car with the kids inside? It looks like you’re getting to desperation point in trying to justify why the magazines should be removed from shops.
In response to your two points well for the first one, the greater majority of petrol stations in existence are under cover, so direct sunlight won’t be streaming into your car therefore they won’t boil, and second lock your car when you leave. Simple really. Oh, but you’ll just come back with some horror story that would befall your children if you left them in the car, despite the fact that it actually happening would be really improbable.
No one is saying “men’s access to degrading and objectifying images and text is of paramount importance” (though how images of naked women is “degrading”, I don’t know, I thought it was just fantasy, a fiction), but there seems to be a whole lack of negotiation coming the side which wants the stuff removed. And why it has to be removed now is strange too. You’ve had decades to remove these magazines. Now most of them are slowly going out of business as the internet has killed publishing to big degree.
Forever Malcolm Young,
“slowly going out of business”
Music to my ears. That’s fantastic. Thanks for sharing that. And yes, you’re quite right, the motivation for opposing a logical move to put porno mags back in adult shops, is “profits.” For all the sex industries talk of “choice” the real motivation is crystal clear: money.
The only reason they need to be removed from general stores is because they are sexist and degrading. If on display in a work place they constitute sexual harassment. I argue that their open display in a convenience store accessible by people of all ages, is sexual harassment, it is also sexualisation because children are exposed too.
Regarding kids in the car (child services really are full of it aren’t they?) I was simply arguing the suggestion that people should leave their children in the car as that was a solution proposed by someone above. This suggestion, is ridiculous. It is unfair to suggest that parents have the choice between leaving their children in the car and having them see “still f*&king – worlds oldest porn star” on magazines. I’m not trying to enter an adult shop with my kids here, I’m trying to pay for my petrol.
What is wrong with porn users that they can’t go to an adult shop?
“though how images of naked women is “degrading”, I don’t know, I thought it was just fantasy, a fiction”
You thought wrong. Those are actual, cosmetically enhanced, digitally altered “sluts” and “whores.” . At least that is how they are labelled. The magazines are real, not just your over active imagination. There is something seriously wrong with men that their fantasy is to treat women like rubbish. If you don’t consider those descriptions of women degrading, then we really have nothing to discuss.
I haven’t had decades to remove the magazines, I’m not that old. Yet activists have been working against pornography for decades. If only removing them was as simple as you make out! Feminists in the US used to go into stores and cover over the magazines with labels, such as “degrading to women.”
The current campaign is a response to research relating to the sexualisation of children. There is evidence of harm. I don’t negotiate with those who consider it ok to call women “sluts” “whores” or worse. Or who consider it ok for women to be dressed up as little girls posed sexually for men with pedophilic desires.
The only thing that is strange, is that it has been tolerated for so long. Now that we have evidence relating to the sexualisation of children and the signatures of over 30 child experts, advocates and educators, it really is time to take some action on the matter, rather than constantly trying to look the other way.
“For all the sex industries talk of “choice” the real motivation is crystal clear: money.”
Oh my god, businesses are in it only for the money? Wow, and I thought people in business did for the love of it and were always constantly in the red. Seriously, this is really weak argument. Every industry on this planet is designed to make money, even Melinda Tankard Reist (see bottom of the page; Copyright © 2010 Melinda Tankard Reist MTR PTY PTD).
“You thought wrong. Those are actual, cosmetically enhanced, digitally altered “sluts” and “whores.”. At least that is how they are labelled.”
Besides you labelling the women in magazines that, which magazines are calling them whores and sluts, which magazines exactly have put these labels on these magazines? Which men’s magazines digitally alter women? Only women’s magazines do that. Some men’s magazines such as Ralph do remove blemishes (quite a lot in some cases), but they don’t make them look thinner or anything like women’s magazines.
“There is something seriously wrong with men that their fantasy is to treat women like rubbish.”
Oh right, so all of the magazines treat women as rubbish? Don’t think so. But even if they do, I’m glad you’re here to tell every single man how to fantasise about women. Would you like all men to present their fantasies to you and you can give the go ahead to ones which are morally acceptable to yourself? What part of “fantasy” don’t you understand? Just because a man may buy a magazine that for example has some B&D fantasy in it, does it mean he’ll start trying women up against their will? Uh, no.
I think what disturbs me the most is not that you want these magazines removed, but the fact you want men to THINK about women in way that’s acceptable to your own morals. That’s really weird.
“I haven’t had decades to remove the magazines, I’m not that old. Yet activists have been working against pornography for decades.”
Yes, those wanting them removed are usually of the Christian right flavour. Melinda can pretend to by a feminist, but you can clearly see she’s in bed with the Christian right. See “Girl With A Satchel” post. See the actual blog she mentions. Scroll down to the bottom of the blog; lookingforgod.com.au. Add in the number of comments from those who have other themed Christian blogs on Melinda’s posts. Add in the fact Julie Gale’s website is featured on the Australian Christian Lobby’s website. And yes, haven’t the Church treated women and children well over the centuries, especially the Catholic church. I have no idea why feminists would want to associate themselves with these freaks.