Pawns of porn
Matthew Krouse’s article, “The money shot: Getting a rise out of the local porn industry” (Mail & Guardian, October 22), made me angry for days.
He says that “Porn — is also Proudly South African”. When I accessed the website he was promoting, I felt traumatised by the disembodied genitalia copulating mechanically.
In one case the faceless man is clearly hurting the faceless woman who tries to writhe away from him in the video clip titled “Pumping her pussy hard”.
The only human faces that look out have unfocused, slack-mouthed, lifeless expressions. “Tau Morena”, meaning lion king, stands surrounded by three hard-faced semi-nude women, posed to make one think they like him.
It was interesting to read the comments on the website. Two complained about the above-mentioned video clip, stating that the woman was clearly not enjoying herself, could not enjoy herself in that sexual position and that it was sexist. Another expressed anger about men’s selfishness and insensitivity. One could guess that these came from women.
The men’s comments were dehumanising and abusive, for example, “Oh give me that c**t”, “Clean that c**t before you photograph it”. They also use the site to solicit — “Any girl around — I’m a black male looking for sex”, “Looking for HOT ladies”, “My place has a venue for hire for discreet fun”.
The M&G claims to espouse a value system concerned with social justice and equality. But it is not consistent in analysing these pornographic images, which explicitly eroticise inequality. For example, there is a scene in the video where the two naked “maids” sexually service the “enormous stallion”, the “boss man”.
Krouse claims that the story behind local black pornography “is really the story of the new South Africa. Urban Africans have gained the means of production — even owning the pornographic image is ostensibly empowering.”
So industrialising black women’s vaginas is “empowering”? Our Constitution calls for people to be treated with dignity — what is empowering about being reduced to faceless body parts?
To cap it all, Mark Gevisser ends his interesting article, “What makes us South African?” (also October 22), by rejoicing in a photograph of a black woman in high heals and underwear staring sullenly at the camera.
He implies that this is the feisty new South African black woman and that her expression seems to be saying fearlessly, “Bring it on”! Bring what on — her PhD or some disembodied penis?
The slow advancement of women in academic and scientific research as a whole was noted in a science and technology supplement in the same edition. Female athletes, even when they are remarkable by world standards, such as Caster Semenya and Natalie du Toit, struggle to get adequate sponsorship, while others like Jennifer Kwela, the gymnastics silver medallist at the Commonwealth Games, fail to get the recognition that is their due.
Yet Tau Morena, the purveyor of images that exploit, degrade and demean women, is give free publicity. Where is the Film and Publication Board? The website is clearly unlawful! Why is the M&G promoting illegality and the degradation of women? — Anne Mayne, co-founder of Rape Crisis Cape, Constantia, Cape Town
Calland resorts to playing the man, not the issue
Richard Calland’s article, “Shooting the messenger won’t help“, (Mail & Guardian, October 8), makes for riveting reading. It says the idea of a media tribunal is “as yet unfleshed-out” yet it eloquently argues against it. It miraculously equates advocacy of media accountability outside current self-regulation with a denial of developmental challenges.
Only debate adjudged by Calland to be of quality must take place, hence his superior advice to Blade Nzimande: “Stick to your job, mate.” So Nzimande’s job has no room for his opinion?
Calland goes on to lecture Nzimande on starting to realise standards in the country’s universities before he advances “a progressive vision of democracy and development”. So debate unendorsed by Calland cannot raise standards in universities?
Those debates, it seems, should not interrogate the liberal media’s preoccupation with anti-ANC developments, which is popularly juxtaposed with a subliminal canonisation of Helen Zille, open-air ablutions and forced removal of the poor notwithstanding.
Calland has almost limitless research resources, so it is baffling that he plays Nzimande the man instead of the rationale behind a media tribunal — namely that media self-regulation is generally insufficient and legal recourse generally unaffordable for those maligned by the media.
Why should a media appeals tribunal be hyperbolically equated with the killing of media freedom? If media consumers must believe in legal recourse beyond the ombud, why shouldn’t the media also believe in the same justice system as protection from excesses of a media tribunal?
If the media believes it is doing an objective job, why should it be afraid of being challenged through the suggested tribunal? It did an excellent job during oppression why can’t it do it in an environment in which all rights and freedoms are constitutionally enshrined and protected?
Calland cites a survey in which respondents identified the 18 “most important problems facing the country”, with no mention of the media.
In a society dogged by historical economic inequality, unemployment, poverty, poor literacy and education, Calland conveniently forgets people’s primary and perfectly understandable preoccupation with economic survival and material wellbeing.
He also tells us that only 16% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the government should be able to close down newspapers that ran stories it did not like.
When has Nzimande ever called for such closure? Where is the real research on real media issues — such as the real experience of journalists at editorial meetings?
Is Calland also unaware of the models of media regulation — including those in Britain, his country of origin? Or is an ANC-led South Africa not mature enough to subject the media to accountability more independent than the ombud and more accessible than the courts?
Why should subjecting the media to easier challenge and greater accountability threaten South Africa’s image and possible investment when we remain a constitutional democracy with a free judiciary?
Calland speaks of “arrant nonsense”. He should recognise it — that’s what he has written. — Shakes Mapaya, activist
To be pro-government is to be pro-neoliberalism
Comrade Zwelinzima Vavi, I must correct you from becoming a political idiot and a demagogue. On your statement about the launch of this so-called “new UDF”, you made a very serious mistake: making me believe that you are now a centrist not a leftist because you said this new UDF was not anti-government but anti-neoliberalism.
Who is implementing and maintaining neoliberal capitalism in South Africa? It is clear to all leftists, particularly the young militants fighting the struggle against the privatisation of basic services and service delivery, that it is government and the business sector.
The municipalities did not just implement these wrongs without a policy that tells mayors and city managers what to do. The people evicted in Hangberg, Cape Town, by the Democratic Alliance-led city council are the same people who were evicted by ANC mayor Amos Masondo in Jo’burg. In Jo’burg they use “red ants” and the police.
City mayors and managers are responsible for installing pre-paid meters for water and electricity, leaving unemployed people without access to water most of the time while the bourgeoisie have unlimited access.
Tenderpreneurs thrived under Thabo Mbeki’s regime and now under President Jacob Zuma. We all know that the ANC is the ruling party for capitalists and the elite.
Therefore, Comrade Vavi, if you are really serious about fighting neoliberalism, you must fight the ANC. You need to break the alliance with the ANC and direct your struggle against its state and government. — Mhlobo G
Dog-fighting plain cruelty
The article that appeared in the Mail & Guardian (October 22-28) accurately points out that vicious-breed dogs have become the new must-have accessory among young people — and the quality photographs of on-trend young men with their dogs that illustrate the article will do nothing to help stop the scourge of dog-fighting in South Africa.
Is it that individuals who feel inadequate use vicious-breed dogs to boost their image and prowess? Celebrity culture has fuelled the problem, with hip-hop and rap stars frequently being seen out and about, or in their music videos, with dogs known to be used for fighting.
Animal welfare groups are daily faced with the cruel consequences of dog fights, including dogs bitten almost to death; small-breed dogs, cats or kittens being sadistically thrown into an enclosed space with vicious-breed dogs to “train” or “prep” them; dogs having their ears cut off to give them a more fearsome appearance; and female dogs being force-bred.
Dog-fighting is illegal in this country and promotes the theft of often valuable animals. It also supports illegal gambling — usually among people who can ill afford it.
There is evidence to show the link between human-on-animal violence in youth and human-on-human violence in adulthood.
Owning fighting breeds should not be glorified as cool, hip or adding to street cred, nor should dog-fighting be promoted as just another fun activity. It’s just plain cruel. — Christina Pretorius, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Cape Town. Cora Bailey, Community Led Animal Welfare, Jo’burg. Jane Levinson, Mdzananda Animal Clinic, Khayelitsha