Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Gauthier]

Again, wouldn't this ruin their livelihoods? It's a bit like criminalising buying medical treatment, but not selling it. If they work solely for themselves, earn a decent living, and like their work, why make it harder for them to do business?

Medical treatment is a tool of the patriarchy, so we can do whatever we want.

Shut up and accept it. It doesn't have to make sense - it fights the patriarchy!

Or something.

Alan Colmes was more of an actual liberal than this one is supposedly a feminist.

[Galloism]

Medical treatment is a tool of the patriarchy, so we can do whatever we want.

Shut up and accept it. It doesn't have to make sense - it fights the patriarchy!

Or something.

Alan Colmes was more of an actual liberal than this one is supposedly a feminist.

I stand by my designation as an Ostro-mirror Poe.

Of course the reason Poe's law is Poe's law, is it can be impossible to determine conclusively the existence of a Poe vs an actual extremist.

Edit: Of course, I've also toyed from time to time with the notion that Ostro is a long-running Poe...

[Chessmistress]

Medical treatment is a tool of the patriarchy, so we can do whatever we want.

Shut up and accept it. It doesn't have to make sense - it fights the patriarchy!

Or something.

Alan Colmes was more of an actual liberal than this one is supposedly a feminist.

That's adorable, you know?
You continue to come here just only to write I'm not a feminist.
Question for you: Mary Honeyball is a feminist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-honeyball/
Again
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... parliament

On Wednesday, 343 MEPs backed a report proposed by the London MEP and Labour spokeswoman for women in Europe, Mary Honeyball, which recommends the adoption of the "Nordic model" of prostitution that legalises selling sex but criminalises buying it. Some 139 MEPs voted against;105 abstained.

It's funny you pretend I'm not a feminist just because I share the same opinion of a feminist.
Logical fallacy, much?
What is your opinion about Mary Honeyball's thoughts?
I think she's right.
I think you'll never answer.
Are you a feminist?

I stand by my designation as an Ostro-mirror Poe.

Of course the reason Poe's law is Poe's law, is it can be impossible to determine conclusively the existence of a Poe vs an actual extremist.

Edit: Of course, I've also toyed from time to time with the notion that Ostro is a long-running Poe...

Even Mary Honeyball is an extremist?
Even the majority of EU Parliament is extremist?
Even the governments of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada and Northern Ireland are extremists?
Even the 18 nations that approved Convention of Istanbul?
Even "F!" Swedish party, 5.3% at the last European elections, a seat with Soraya Post in the EU parliament, is extremist?
Even Spanish Zapatero's government was extremist?
The list seems to me a bit too long...

I'm not an extremist nor a "Poe": indeed my opinions are pretty mainstream in Europe.
You're just negating a lot of evidences that is so: the links I provided.

My ideas are not supported just only by some anonymous Reddit posters.
My ideas are supported by the majority of EU Parliament, some national European governments, and so on.

[Kelinfort]

"Sex-negative"? No, I think that word is just a scam. A scam designed to hide the fact that the self-proclaimed "sex-positive" are not about sex or in favor of sex but in favor of prostitution and pornography - and pornography and prostitution are not sex. Fact check
Prostitution is a shame, it exploit prostitutes and it diminish all women.
Purchasing of prostitution is already outlawed in Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Canada. Since June, 1, 2015 it'll be even in Northern Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitut ... rrent_laws

Then UK and other countries will follow.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... parliament

Your thoughts are just against the future, IMHO.

Pornography will follow...you cannot stop women's rights.

Again, wouldn't this ruin their livelihoods? It's a bit like criminalising buying medical treatment, but not selling it. If they work solely for themselves, earn a decent living, and like their work, why make it harder for them to do business?

[Chessmistress]

Again, wouldn't this ruin their livelihoods? It's a bit like criminalising buying medical treatment, but not selling it. If they work solely for themselves, earn a decent living, and like their work, why make it harder for them to do business?

Are you really comparing buying medical treatment with prostitution?
Really?
Mary Honeyball about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 64025.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 49359.html

I'm using her articles because frankly I'm quite bored by the fact that people here continue to think I'm weird and extremist: these thoughts are mainstream in Europe.

I don't think feminism is about entertainment of males through exploitation of women.

[The Alexanderians]

Are you really comparing buying medical treatment with prostitution?
Really?
Mary Honeyball about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 64025.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 49359.html

I'm using her articles because frankly I'm quite bored by the fact that people here continue to think I'm weird and extremist: these thoughts are mainstream in Europe.

Keep in mind "mainstream" doesn't automatically mean "right". Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it.

[Chessmistress]

Keep in mind "mainstream" doesn't automatically mean "right". Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it.

But democracy work so: it's the majority that decides.
Feminism is about raising awareness, it's so that majority is reached.
I'm not a dictatrix, I'm ready to exchange opinions and discuss what's wrong and what's right according different people: indeed I'm here just for that.
But I'm tired that persons keeping positions that I consider anti-women (like supporting prostitution and pornography) continue to write I'm not a feminist: I think they're the anti-women and anti-feminist ones.
Feminism shouldn't be about "selling women's bodies to the poor menz" - and Europe is beginning to wake up about that. USA seems very antiquated to me, without offense.
I'm pretty sure that Hillary will do something about that, at least, I hope.

[Galloism]

Alan Colmes was more of an actual liberal than this one is supposedly a feminist.

That's adorable, you know?
You continue to come here just only to write I'm not a feminist.
Question for you: Mary Honeyball is a feminist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-honeyball/
Again
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... parliament

On Wednesday, 343 MEPs backed a report proposed by the London MEP and Labour spokeswoman for women in Europe, Mary Honeyball, which recommends the adoption of the "Nordic model" of prostitution that legalises selling sex but criminalises buying it. Some 139 MEPs voted against;105 abstained.

It's funny you pretend I'm not a feminist just because I share the same opinion of a feminist.
Logical fallacy, much?
What is your opinion about Mary Honeyball's thoughts?
I think she's right.
I think you'll never answer.
Are you a feminist?

I stand by my designation as an Ostro-mirror Poe.

Of course the reason Poe's law is Poe's law, is it can be impossible to determine conclusively the existence of a Poe vs an actual extremist.

Edit: Of course, I've also toyed from time to time with the notion that Ostro is a long-running Poe...

Even Mary Honeyball is an extremist?
Even the majority of EU Parliament is extremist?
Even the governments of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada and Northern Ireland are extremists?
Even the 18 nations that approved Convention of Istanbul?
Even "F!" Swedish party, 5.3% at the last European elections, a seat with Soraya Post in the EU parliament, is extremist?
Even Spanish Zapatero's government was extremist?
The list seems to me a bit too long...

I'm not an extremist nor a "Poe": indeed my opinions are pretty mainstream in Europe.
You're just negating a lot of evidences that is so: the links I provided.

My ideas are not supported just only by some anonymous Reddit posters.
My ideas are supported by the majority of EU Parliament, some national European governments, and so on.

I'm not saying you're an extremist because of stupid ideas about prostitution. Stupid ideas are presented worldwide, and are not held by extremists alone.

It's more along the lines of the gender-essentialist crap and insistence that men are inherently inferior to women in certain key ways (which means men are either generally inferior to women, which is sexist, or men are inherently superior to women in other important ways, which is gender essentialist and antifeminist). Then, you turn around claim to be for equality.

It's contradictory, anti-feminist, and extremist. Also why I think you're a Poe.

[The Alexanderians]

Keep in mind "mainstream" doesn't automatically mean "right". Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it.

But democracy work so: it's the majority that decides.
Feminism is about raising awareness, it's so that majority is reached.
I'm not a dictatrix, I'm ready to exchange opinions and discuss what's wrong and what's right according different people: indeed I'm here just for that.
But I'm tired that persons keeping positions that I consider anti-women (like supporting prostitution and pornography) continue to write I'm not a feminist: I think they're the anti-women and anti-feminist ones.
Feminism shouldn't be about "selling women's bodies to the poor menz" - and Europe is beginning to wake up about that. USA seems very antiquated to me, without offense.
I'm pretty sure that Hillary will do something about that, at least, I hope.

Oh don't worry I know you're a feminist...which is one reason I'm not one. You do of course understand that legal prostitution is far more common in Europe right? And that porn isn't "anti-woman" as it's an act done by their will, or rather with their permission. If Pron is demeaning to women then what about men? what about gay porn? I'm sure a lot of women are oppressed by a video of two guys going at it.

[Chessmistress]

I'm not saying you're an extremist because of stupid ideas about prostitution. Stupid ideas are presented worldwide, and are not held by extremists alone.

It's more along the lines of the gender-essentialist crap and insistence that men are inherently inferior to women in certain key ways (which means men are either generally inferior to women, which is sexist, or men are inherently superior to women in other important ways, which is gender essentialist and antifeminist). Then, you turn around claim to be for equality.

It's contradictory, anti-feminist, and extremist. Also why I think you're a Poe.

An innocent citation of Barbara Jordan is really "insistence that men are inherently inferior to women" ?
I used it just for a nice answer to a user who said my ego is inflated - and I REALLY think a male cannot understand a relationship between two women. But that's not biological: that's due males are generally raised and taught to hide their emotions and to be insensible, dominant, violent. And I think that's bad for both men and women, and that should end.

[Susurruses]

Mm. Not sure how reflective it is of the wider community.. but I'll speak from the perspective of feminists & "social justice warriors" I know:
They absolutely talk about women that engage in abuse.
In fact there was a huge fucking uproar over Lena Dunham being a disgusting piece of shit.
(On top of that, I know quite a few people with abusive mothers. Some where the fathers are also abusive, some where thankfully they have one parent that isn't an asshole.
Trust me when I say these people recognise the fact that women can be disgusting abusive shitheads.)

I think the confusion stems from when individuals are discussing male-on-female abuse and someone else decides to throw in women being abusers too or men also being abused.
It's considered rude if the conversation was not already open to such topics, since it comes off as "Well I know you've suffered, but what about ME?" or "I know you've had awful experiences and are discussing them, but not ALL [insert group here] are bad".
Like, yeah. People know this. They are aware.

So maybe not so much the facts themselves as the way in which people decided to broach them sometimes.
(I have personally seen a couple instances of a man bringing up their abuse by a woman to a feminist or a group of feminists and receiving nothing but support and sympathy for what happened to them, along with condemnation of their abuser.
The lack of resources for men that have experienced abuse, particularly those whose abusers included women, is something that does concern at least a subset of feminists; largely those that subscribe to the idea of intersectionality.
The issue is, again, when these things are brought up in a way that it appears like a deliberate derailing or takeover of existing discussion. When those involved have had personal experience of such traumas, they seem more likely to respond poorly to a perception of such.)

<snip>

I suppose part of the problem is when the information is coming from a clearly biased source (ie: some of the things Ostro links, where it's even admitted by Ostro that they're not ideal sources), and it becomes that much easier to consider whatever is being conveyed to be 'tainted' and driven by a political goal.

Short version:
At least some feminists do, and no-one I know has ever suggested that women can do no wrong.
(Case in point: feminists vs TERFs.)

Well, I think part of the issues I take with your explanations--which I believe are being presented in the best of good faith by the way--is that while for instance you make points about derailing, bad examples of feminsm, and ignorance, that I would say this in response to that:

1. That the conversations I have been trying to take part in were about the general subject of abuse, often related to public information and so on--which tended to state domestic and sexual abuse as though they are entirely a problem suffered by girls and women inflicted by men and boys. So is me pointing out "it happens to males and by females too' derailing or is it actually trying to make the conversation fair?

Because I'll tell you how I feel about that to be blunt: I feel deeply outcast from such a conversation. I feel as though my own suffering is not part of the general social question, as though I would have to be schooled in non-abuse and as though my own desire for safety is just handwaved.

I keep hearing about people like you and your friends who talk about how they never tolerate the idea of abuse towards anyone. That's great--except I want to see public conversations that are the same. Is that too much to ask? Are you telling me NOT to be worried or offended when I see how one sided these public conversations are?

I don't get the impression that is what you are saying, but you seem to not see that there are no real public discussions in feminist circles I have ever seen that take into account female on female or female on male abuse.

2. The examples of ignorance and poor sources: in a way I don't care. Public statements by feminist leaders and activists that people take exception to and that other feminists brush aside or handwave by saying 'most feminists are good' is not good enough. Coupled with my concerns above, it contributes to my view that feminism is for women and men who support women.

Again--that's fair enough if that IS the case, but the problem is that all but the most radical of radical feminists essentially say that feminism is good for everybody.

.. and here we land upon an issue I can't actually argue.
You shouldn't have to carefully phrase your experience/s in order to have them validated & receive support.
.. and yet I feel like that's probably the 'trick' to acceptance & not getting some kind of backlash.
A lot will depend on the specific group involved and what the context is, but there does tend to be a knack to avoiding proverbial raised hackles.
(Obviously some groups will be awful regardless, but then their support generally isn't the best anyway.)
So yeah, that's a problem.

I don't believe it would be derailing, particularly if you're coming at it from the perspective of "Hey, I'm feeling like you're disregarding my experiences and pretending others like me don't exist".
The issue of 'erasure', whether explicit or implicit, is a pretty serious one when it comes to the likes of sexual assault etc.
(.. to be honest, my default suggestion would be to try that approach of "When you [thing], it makes me feel [thing] because [reasons]. Could you [suggestion for alternative]?" and hope that works.
For two reasons: That it's non-confrontational, & that language like that tends to work well in 'social justice' and feminist circles because of the personal empathetic nature and the concept of 'lived experience'.)
[Whether it actually works or not will vary based on relative paranoia of the group, which is unfortunately caused by some people shit-stirring in the past.]
{See also: Reasons why feminist & social justice-y types can come off as aggressive or blunt or rude. It's out of encountering so many people that refuse to listen in any way that their patience is just gone and they lapse into assuming ill intent and dropping civility. Bad habit.}

In regards to the question of public discussions:
Nope, not too much to ask at all.
The concern is warranted (& frankly I think a measure of anger would be warranted).
Is there an example of what you're referring to, just so I have an idea?
(I mean, I can only really speak for myself & those I know. So for that comparatively small group, I know inclusive language is important.
Gender neutrality seems the way to go. If genders are not specified, the issue of a 'male abuser, female victim' bias being explicit is at least excluded.
Whether it's still present as an implicit bias is another matter.)
Part of the issue may be that some people might avoid public discussions on purpose specifically because they don't want others coming in just to stir up trouble or derail conversation.
Perhaps it's also a case of where you're looking for these discussions?
(Prominent speakers are also not always the most reliable indicators of general opinion. There's a tendency for the systems in place to elevate a certain type of person/activist to such positions, and that's something generally criticised when it comes to intersectionality.
& then there's cherry-picking from the media in regards to who gets attention on top of that.)

In regards to the perception of feminism being 'for women and those that support women'..
I think that may be a fair assessment in some regards, but that there is a significant portion that subscribe to intersectionality and 'social justice' for whom the support of all genders is important.
(The general idea being that fair treatment and understanding is something to which everyone willing to accept those ideals is entitled to, or.. something in that conceptual area anyway.)
I mean, I've only seen like.. extreme fringe weirdos advocate for things like 'abolishing the male gender' (wow that was a fucking weird one) or insisting on.. well, the kind of thing Chess has been saying.
Unfortunately talking about things is frequently slow to propagate and often encounters opposition.
(Anyone any better ideas? I tend to believe that reaching out to those one knows personally and gently trying to promote understanding and cooperation is generally the best plan.)

[Chessmistress]

I mean, I've only seen like.. extreme fringe weirdos advocate for things like 'abolishing the male gender' (wow that was a fucking weird one) or insisting on.. well, the kind of thing Chess has been saying.

You're just misunderstanding. I never said "abolishing male gender", I said "abolishing male gender AND female gender" - that doesn't means I want kill people. Abolition of gender isn't about killing people.
It's just an extension of abolition of gender roles, widely accepted almost by everyone.
Queer theory, do you know what is?
I think human males are evil? No, they aren't. They're just humans.
I think male gender is evil? Yes, in certain ways it is: males are taught to be dominant, violent.
I think human females are better? No, we aren't. We are just humans.
I think female gender is weak? Yes, in certain ways it is: females are taught to be submissive and weak.
It seems to me you're not even an hint about what is Radical Feminism and gender abolitionism.
Let me explain, with two quotes from one of the greatest living women in this planet:

“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. They are gender abolitionists, and understand gender to provide the framework and rationale for male dominance. In the radical feminist approach, masculinity is the behaviour of the male ruling class and femininity is the behaviour of the subordinate class of women. Thus gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create."

― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Gender Hurts"

“Masculinity cannot exist without femininity. On its own, masculinity has no meaning, because it is but one half of a set of power relations. Masculinity pertains to male dominance as femininity pertains to female subordination.”

― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Unpacking Queer Politics".

[Glorious KASSRD]

I mean, I've only seen like.. extreme fringe weirdos advocate for things like 'abolishing the male gender' (wow that was a fucking weird one) or insisting on.. well, the kind of thing Chess has been saying.

You're just misunderstanding. I never said "abolishing male gender", I said "abolishing male gender AND female gender" - that doesn't means I want kill people. Abolition of gender isn't about killing people.
It's just an extension of abolition of gender roles, widely accepted almost by everyone.
Queer theory, do you know what is?
I think human males are evil? No, they aren't. They're just humans.
I think male gender is evil? Yes, in certain ways it is: males are taught to be dominant, violent.
I think human females are better? No, we aren't. We are just humans.
I think female gender is weak? Yes, in certain ways it is: females are taught to be submissive and weak.
It seems to me you're not even an hint about what is Radical Feminism and gender abolitionism.
Let me explain, with two quotes from one of the greatest living women in this planet:

“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. They are gender abolitionists, and understand gender to provide the framework and rationale for male dominance. In the radical feminist approach, masculinity is the behaviour of the male ruling class and femininity is the behaviour of the subordinate class of women. Thus gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create."

― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Gender Hurts"

“Masculinity cannot exist without femininity. On its own, masculinity has no meaning, because it is but one half of a set of power relations. Masculinity pertains to male dominance as femininity pertains to female subordination.”

― Sheila Jeffreys, from "Unpacking Queer Politics".

No it's not. You don't seem to realize this, but Sweden is not normal in its political views. On a global scale, Europe in general is pretty extremely left.

[Chessmistress]

Sweden was the first to introduce education based on queer theory in kindergarten, you know?
Now Germany is following, and it's mandatory. Germany's population is 9 times larger than Sweden.
Even France and even Italy are discussing the introduction, France is almost ready.
It's just a matter of time: when the first generation will grow, things will begin to change.
Do you really think that things like prostitution and pornography will survive to a new generation raised with real equality and without a stereotypised gender differentiation in their minds?

[New Skaaneland]

There is a lot more to Sweden than terrible politics, although I mostly love my home town and the culture it used to have.

[Galloism]

Sweden was the first to introduce education based on queer theory in kindergarten, you know?
Now Germany is following, and it's mandatory. Germany's population is 9 times larger than Sweden.
Even France and even Italy are discussing the introduction, France is almost ready.
It's just a matter of time: when the first generation will grow, things will begin to change.
Do you really think that things like prostitution and pornography will survive to a new generation raised with real equality and without a stereotypised gender differentiation in their minds?

Only if liberty and freedom survives.

Which I generally hope and think that it will.

[Kelinfort]

Are you really comparing buying medical treatment with prostitution?
Really?
Mary Honeyball about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 64025.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 49359.html

I'm using her articles because frankly I'm quite bored by the fact that people here continue to think I'm weird and extremist: these thoughts are mainstream in Europe.

I don't think feminism is about entertainment of males through exploitation of women.

If a prostitute enjoys her work, does it solely for herself, and is paid nicely, why would you restrict that?

FYI, it's called an analogy.

[Kelinfort]

I'm not saying you're an extremist because of stupid ideas about prostitution. Stupid ideas are presented worldwide, and are not held by extremists alone.

It's more along the lines of the gender-essentialist crap and insistence that men are inherently inferior to women in certain key ways (which means men are either generally inferior to women, which is sexist, or men are inherently superior to women in other important ways, which is gender essentialist and antifeminist). Then, you turn around claim to be for equality.

It's contradictory, anti-feminist, and extremist. Also why I think you're a Poe.

An innocent citation of Barbara Jordan is really "insistence that men are inherently inferior to women" ?
I used it just for a nice answer to a user who said my ego is inflated - and I REALLY think a male cannot understand a relationship between two women. But that's not biological: that's due males are generally raised and taught to hide their emotions and to be insensible, dominant, violent. And I think that's bad for both men and women, and that should end.

You're incapabable of understanding a relationship between two men, then.

Or are you?

[Chessmistress]

Are you really comparing buying medical treatment with prostitution?
Really?
Mary Honeyball about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 64025.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 49359.html

I'm using her articles because frankly I'm quite bored by the fact that people here continue to think I'm weird and extremist: these thoughts are mainstream in Europe.

I don't think feminism is about entertainment of males through exploitation of women.

If a prostitute enjoys her work, does it solely for herself, and is paid nicely, why would you restrict that?

FYI, it's called an analogy.

It's not a good analogy, I think, not at all.
Prostitution it’s not a free choice, it cannot be. At least for the greater majority of women.
Laws should be take care about the greater majority of women.
That’s exactly why in Europe the purchaser (the exploiter) is punished and the prostitute (the exploited) is not.

“If women really choose prostitution, why is it mostly marginalized and disadvantaged women who do? If we want to discuss the issue of choice, let’s look at who is doing the actual choosing in the context of prostitution. Surely the issue is not why women allegedly choose to be in prostitution, but why men choose to buy the bodies of millions of women and children worldwide and call it sex.

Philosophically, the response to the choice debate is ‘not’ to deny that women are capable of choosing within contexts of powerlessness, but to question how much real value, worth, and power these so-called choices confer.

Politically, the question becomes, should the state sanction the sex industry based on the claim that some women choose prostitution when most women’s choice is actually 'compliance’ to the only options available?

When governments idealize women’s alleged choice to be in prostitution by legalizing, decriminalizing, or regulating the sex industry, they endorse a new range of 'conformity’ for women.

Increasingly, what is defended as a choice is not a triumph over oppression but another name for it.”

Janice G. Raymond, from "Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade"

You're incapabable of understanding a relationship between two men, then.

Or are you?

Obiousvly, I cannot understand a relationship between two men.
Due the fact gender isn’t abolished.

[The Lone Alliance]

Without offense, I don't believe a male can understand how a relationship between women works.

You seem to act like you know my gender and sexual orientation.
So relationships between women require one woman to be an insufferable know it all?

Sweden was the first to introduce education based on queer theory in kindergarten, you know?
Now Germany is following, and it's mandatory. Germany's population is 9 times larger than Sweden.
Even France and even Italy are discussing the introduction, France is almost ready.
It's just a matter of time: when the first generation will grow, things will begin to change.
Do you really think that things like prostitution and pornography will survive to a new generation raised with real equality and without a stereotypised gender differentiation in their minds?

Queer theory will be rejected due to the fact that, despite what you believe, people aren't brainwashed that easily.

Forcing boring shit in schools isn't going to convince people anything, just like how most anti-drug programs in school barely have a real effect.

Besides, prostitution is never going anywhere, it's the second oldest profession for a reason.

-----
Also for related news about Gamergate, when a bunch of Anti-GG couldn't get a place to ban a meet up, someone decided to threaten to bomb the place instead!
Heroes of equality!

[Chessmistress]

Queer theory will be rejected due to the fact that, despite what you believe, people aren't brainwashed that easily.

Forcing boring shit in schools isn't going to convince people anything, just like how most anti-drug programs in school barely have a real effect.

Besides, prostitution is never going anywhere, it's the second oldest profession for a reason.

Queer theory is not about brainwashing.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/artic ... -education
Prostitution will go away, as result of the empowerment of women.

You seem to act like you know my gender and sexual orientation.
So relationships between women require one woman to be an insufferable know it all?

Who said I know all?
But I'm pretty intuitive...

[Kelinfort]

If a prostitute enjoys her work, does it solely for herself, and is paid nicely, why would you restrict that?

FYI, it's called an analogy.

It's not a good analogy, I think, not at all.
Prostitution it’s not a free choice, it cannot be. At least for the greater majority of women.
Laws should be take care about the greater majority of women.
That’s exactly why in Europe the purchaser (the exploiter) is punished and the prostitute (the exploited) is not.

“If women really choose prostitution, why is it mostly marginalized and disadvantaged women who do? If we want to discuss the issue of choice, let’s look at who is doing the actual choosing in the context of prostitution. Surely the issue is not why women allegedly choose to be in prostitution, but why men choose to buy the bodies of millions of women and children worldwide and call it sex.

Philosophically, the response to the choice debate is ‘not’ to deny that women are capable of choosing within contexts of powerlessness, but to question how much real value, worth, and power these so-called choices confer.

Politically, the question becomes, should the state sanction the sex industry based on the claim that some women choose prostitution when most women’s choice is actually 'compliance’ to the only options available?

When governments idealize women’s alleged choice to be in prostitution by legalizing, decriminalizing, or regulating the sex industry, they endorse a new range of 'conformity’ for women.

Increasingly, what is defended as a choice is not a triumph over oppression but another name for it.”

Janice G. Raymond, from "Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade"

You're incapabable of understanding a relationship between two men, then.

Or are you?

Obiousvly, I cannot understand a relationship between two men.
Due the fact gender isn’t abolished.

If a woman (or anyone) freely chooses to sell sexual services to another, not out of poverty, obligation, or reluctance, how are they being exploited? We need to minimise poverty and increase Human trafficking enforcement to end exploitative prostitution. But we needn't restrict it for those who are willing. For instance:

Some say what I do isn't very liberating. I think getting $20,000 for 10 minutes work is empowering.

-Dita Von Teese

Like prohibition, excluding consenting individuals from the market only leads to horrible side effects, such as increased human trafficking and rape.

---

So why are you trans exclusionary? Too "masculine" for you?

[Chessmistress]

If a woman (or anyone) freely chooses to sell sexual services to another, not out of poverty, obligation, or reluctance, how are they being exploited? We need to minimise poverty and increase Human trafficking enforcement to end exploitative prostitution. But we needn't restrict it for those who are willing. For instance:

Some say what I do isn't very liberating. I think getting $20,000 for 10 minutes work is empowering.

-Dita Von Teese

Like prohibition, excluding consenting individuals from the market only leads to horrible side effects, such as increased human trafficking and rape.

---

So why are you trans exclusionary? Too "masculine" for you?

Indeed, laws in Europe legalise prostitution, and criminalise the purchaser.
That's not against women, that's against exploiters.
Trans-exclusionary doesn't means "to be against transexuals", exactly like Radical Feminism doesn't means "to be against men". It means I think they cannot be feminists but just only allies, due the fact they don't share the totality of experiences of women. A transexual is born with male privilege, and even if he rejects it, he cannot be pregnant, and so on. Also, with some of their behaviors, they actually reinforce gender stereotypes. Also, without offense, regarding some transexuals, I don't think that someone who is unwilling to fully transition to woman should be label himself "woman": I respect him, like I respect men, like I respect all human beings. But I don't think he's a woman.

[Geilinor]

But I don't think he's a woman.

In other words, you think transgender people don't exist.

[Kelinfort]

If a woman (or anyone) freely chooses to sell sexual services to another, not out of poverty, obligation, or reluctance, how are they being exploited? We need to minimise poverty and increase Human trafficking enforcement to end exploitative prostitution. But we needn't restrict it for those who are willing. For instance:

-Dita Von Teese

Like prohibition, excluding consenting individuals from the market only leads to horrible side effects, such as increased human trafficking and rape.

---

So why are you trans exclusionary? Too "masculine" for you?

Indeed, laws in Europe legalise prostitution, and criminalise the purchaser.
That's not against women, that's against exploiters.
Trans-exclusionary doesn't means "to be against transexuals", exactly like Radical Feminism doesn't means "to be against men". It means I think they cannot be feminists but just only allies, due the fact they don't share the totality of experiences of women. A transexual is born with male privilege, and even if he rejects it, he cannot be pregnant, and so on. Also, with some of their behaviors, they actually reinforce gender stereotypes. Also, without offense, regarding some transexuals, I don't think that someone who is unwilling to fully transition to woman should be label himself "woman": I respect him, like I respect men, like I respect all human beings. But I don't think he's a woman.

Care to explain why you believe in queer theory, then? Why do you believe identities are fluid if you believe transwomen aren't really female?

See, this is why I think you are a Poe. The only Factbook page you boast has quotes that believe in male inferiority and female supremacy. Indeed, the region you hail from indulges in the same notions. And, while useful in the bedroom, these ideas are completely lacking in substance and further prove that you are no believer in equality. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You advocate for queer theory where you like it, but cannot accept transgender people. You say you're for equality, but the truth is completely the opposite. If you truly hold these opinions, then I suggest you reevaluate your positions, because they read as an incoherent mixture of radical feminism, female supremacy, and gender equality. I can't understand it.

Don't construe any of this to think I hold animosity towards you. If you do sincerely hold these positions, I just ask that you listen to some of the people on here.