Time for

Scan page 12

Tion to forms of censorship as part of a mass anti-sexist movement.

The cases of D.H.Lawrence and Henry Miller are quite different. We can surely distinguish between a serious and honest attempt to describe personal relationships - albeit from a sexist viewpoint - and blue films and porno magazines.

On the question of 'patriarchy', Colin Foster is extraordinarily complacent. He takes as though there is some ready-made Marxist analysis of economic and social oppression of women - perhaps he could enlighten with a booklist.

As far as I can see the left has either ignored or jumped in opportunistically on the women's movement land not of course only on the women's movement!) Theoretically the recent contribution by Marxists has been virtually zero.

It is a question of listening, learning, and discussing in a comradely manner. As understand Les Hearn's letter, he was suggesting starting in this manner with the concept of 'patriarchy' as developed by the radical and revolutionary feminists. Colin Foster's clumsy dismissal is not helpful.

DAVE SPENCER, Coventry. COLIN Foster's reply to my letter, 'Weakness of Marxists' ' is headlined, 'How to deal with sexism?' Well, how indeed? No suggestion whatsoever is made by Colin. He starts with a muddled but nonetheless hurtful accusation of Stalinism because he thinks I want to repress people with reactionary ideas. In fact, I made no reference to such people (though I cannot say I lose much sleep worrying about their 'rights').

Since my original arguments are unrecognisable in Colin's reply, I had better repeat and clarify them.

•I said that the dominant left position on pornography was to regard the bourgeois liberal position of 'no censorship, free speech' as the last word on the matter. Colin offers no rebuttal of this allegation, instead, he assumes that i am therefore in favour of state censorship of porn.

He also manages to misread (?) sexists for sexism and racists for racism. l was comparing our response to racist publications with our response to sexist publications - in particular degrading visual images of women.

We don't call for state bans on racist literature, but neither do we sit idly by and preach on the evils of censorship to black people.

Many women feel that the open display of pornography is a slap in the face - when they themselves organise against porn, we should support them.

We should also be able to find ways of using our positions and influence as socialists and trade unionists to aid the fight against degrading. portrayals of women.

But above all, we should listen to what women themselves think of porn. How about inviting contributions to Socialist Organiser from feminists who have written on pornography?

The concept of 'patt¡archy' is one I feel we should examine to see if it is useful. What lessons other political currents draw from their interpretation of patriarchy is interesting but hardly relevant when we are suggesting that a Marxist interpretation be developed.

I would like to see discussion of this concept in Socialist Organiser, not just Colin Foster laying down the line.

LES HEAR.Y Southport.

Scan page 13

Socialist Organiser no. 67 January 7, 1982 Page 13