A ‘Modest Proposal’ Touches a Nerve

In response to Robin Swicord’s column (“A Modest Proposal for a Sequel to ‘Larry Flynt,’ ” Counterpunch, Feb. 10), I say: Right on, Robin. You said it all.

But why is it always a woman who speaks up to point out the movies’ willingness to glorify pornography?

Who cares if the performances were great if the end result is another paean to smut and the degradation of women?

MARILYN TABOR

Newport Beach

I’m a feminist man and like to go with my wife to “chick flicks” like Swicord’s “Little Women,” which I enjoyed very much. Her elaborate conceit in analogizing slavery and pornography was pretty swift; by the end, I was ready to burn my porno magazines (if I had any) and, especially, everybody else’s.

But there are significant differences between slavery and pornography. With slavery, it’s pretty easy to see who the victims are; with pornography, it’s much more open to debate. And the problem with censorship has always been, who’s going to do the censoring? And by whose standard?

You know the analogy is a stretch when Abolitionists are equated with Jerry Falwell and the religious right. That’s offensive and does a disservice to those black and white Americans who fought and, in some cases, died for the abolition of slavery.

GARY M. JOHNSON

Pacific Palisades

*

Robin Swicord’s Swiftian parody of “The People vs. Larry Flynt” was creative, right-on, funny and altogether brilliant.

Since the Columbia/Phoenix publicity campaign is now paying for full-page ads accusing me, the National Organization for Women and anybody else who criticized the film of conducting “an orchestrated effort to hurt the film,” I should also say that Swicord (whom I’ve never met) wrote her piece without having read mine. Also, I just called Patricia Ireland, the president of NOW, and she has heard of no such orchestration.

So here’s my question: When is a $20-million-plus Columbia/Phoenix campaign evidence of sincerity, while a few voices raised in protest are “an orchestrated effort”? I think the answer is: When Milos Forman et al are on the receiving end of free speech.

GLORIA STEINEM

New York City

*

Swicord’s attack article on “The People vs. Larry Flynt” is just another example how she and people like her just don’t seem to get it. The “Larry Skinflynt” in her story is a slave trader--Flynt is not.

I have some late-breaking news for Swicord and her friends. The women who pose for Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, strip at clubs, whatever, do it for one reason: They make good money for relatively easy work.

If posing, stripping or sleeping with Flynt is what they choose to do, that’s their choice. And if they are exploited, that’s their problem. Maybe “The People vs. Larry Flynt” was a sanitized Hollywood version of the man, but it was not a sanitized version of the truth.

RICH LANG

Los Angeles