The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Chessmistress]

It's the very opposite.
In example Clare Chambers: she think that "in a truly liberal society" breast implants should be banned.
I think that in a better society breast implants shouldn't be banned but there should be a campaign raising awareness founded with a taxation on breast implants.
Who is going more far? Me or her?

Given you're both trying to restrict women's choices on what they do with their bodies, I'd say both.

I understand your liberal position,and I give another example:
She's one of my preferred Radical Feminists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Schwarzer
But I do not agree with her position about male circumcision

She has written in favor of the continued legality of circumcision of male children.

I don't think a Feminist should approve an outdated and barbaric custom, even if it hurts male children not so much.
I don't even think male circumcision should be a Feminist issue: it's exactly one of the very few and littler issues males have under patriarchy - just compare it to the outcomes of FGM!

This is her article, I do not approve what she wrote, Feminists shouldn't support male circumcision, not being interested at all about it
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... &sandbox=1

The condemnation of male circumcision I think is a escapist political correctness. I am also, as Terre des Femmes, believes that religious arguments can not be a reason for the violation of the physical integrity of a child. And circumcision is undoubtedly such a breach. But: It is a very, very low - and it speaks for me especially hygienic reasons, regardless of religion and culture.

So it's really strange that the Cologne University Clinic occasion saw the display of the doctor who had the procedure performed medically accurate. And it's even more bizarre that the Cologne Regional Court has judged these. But now it's here: the legal uncertainty.

The Jewish Hospital in Berlin has already declared that it will no circumcision of young boys to carry out up to clarify more - as prescribed in Judaism for believers until the eighth day of life. The Koran does not prescribe circumcision while ago, but it is customary for Muslims between the third and eighth year. In the case in Cologne, it was the way to a four-year-old boy of Muslim parents.

Hospitals get much to see, the consequences of mental and physical violence against children and women. But they have very rarely. And courts often have to decide also about the consequences of mental and physical violence against children and women. But they said seldom clear or even severe judgments. So why this so utterly unrealistic and unnecessary ruling on circumcision of boys?

I think it's a stupid position: she's approving male circumcision on the grounds of hygiene instead of freedom of religion, in order to being sure that wouldn't fuel FGM approvation, but I think that, even with such reframing, is still likely to being used in favor of FGM.
I know her position is also due it seems that male circumcision is better for women

Decades ago, studies have shown that women of circumcised men have a lower incidence of cervical cancer significantly. And the WHO hoped alone in southern Africa within 20 years around three million fewer AIDS deaths thanks to the circumcision as male circumcision is. So how could such a judgment come?

But that's ridiculously heteronormative, I think.
In this passage she seems more a funfem than a Radical Feminist, like Naomi Wolf who is against porn because it makes males more selective towards the look of women.

[Galloism]

Given you're both trying to restrict women's choices on what they do with their bodies, I'd say both.

I understand your liberal position,and I give another example:
She's one of my preferred Radical Feminists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Schwarzer
But I do not agree with her position about male circumcision

She has written in favor of the continued legality of circumcision of male children.

I don't think a Feminist should approve an outdated and barbaric custom, even if it hurts male children not so much.
I don't even think male circumcision should be a Feminist issue: it's exactly one of the very few and littler issues males have under patriarchy - just compare it to the outcomes of FGM!

Let's also keep in mind that female genital mutilation was made illegal everywhere in the civilized world, while male genital mutilation is widely accepted and practiced.

And hygiene issues are not significant in the western world, although there MAY be sufficient cause to practice circumcision in places without access to sufficient hygenic resources.

I wouldn't support a smallpox vaccine on children if smallpox was completely eliminated. That hasn't yet occurred.

[Luminesa]

2. I don't need to because time and time again you have done it and at each subsequent step your conclusions and the ideas from which you grasp your conclusions are not just congruent, but your ideas take it a step further than they do but they didn't mean to take it that far.

Yes, you have shown that you have moderate opinions, but I don't believe that is necessarily why you are criticized IRL, if I can be honest.

It's the very opposite.
In example Clare Chambers: she think that "in a truly liberal society" breast implants should be banned.
I think that in a better society breast implants shouldn't be banned but there should be a campaign raising awareness founded with a taxation on breast implants.
Who is going more far? Me or her?

Errrr...banning breast implants?...I mean, on some celebs they do look pretty stupid...
like Kim Kardashian (probably)...but I mean...there's probably more important things that this feminist should probably be worried about...

[Geilinor]

Nothing justifies justified abolishing "innocent until proven guilty".

Fixed
But it was done with SB 967, and 59% people approve.
I think life as we know will continue even after that, it's not the end of the world.

California hasn't done what you think it has.

[Galloism]

Fixed
But it was done with SB 967, and 59% people approve.
I think life as we know will continue even after that, it's not the end of the world.

California hasn't done what you think it has.

Chessmistress thinks that college policies are basically the same as criminal law.

[Librica (Ancient)]

It's the very opposite.
In example Clare Chambers: she think that "in a truly liberal society" breast implants should be banned.
I think that in a better society breast implants shouldn't be banned but there should be a campaign raising awareness founded with a taxation on breast implants.
Who is going more far? Me or her?

Errrr...banning breast implants?...I mean, on some celebs they do look pretty stupid...
like Kim Kardashian (probably)...but I mean...there's probably more important things that this feminist should probably be worried about...

They don't look that bad. I'm not Kanye.

[Tahar Joblis]

Feminist Frequency was funded by (and continues to be endorsed and defended by) a wide segment of the feminist movement. Feminists voted Sarkeesian into TIME's 100 most influential people of the year. She was just talking at the UN. Feminist Frequency has been getting a steady drumbeat of promotion and positive coverage from feminists (leading in turn to a drumbeat of steady promotion and positive coverage in most mainstream media outlets).

Sarkeesian (and McIntosh, her scriptwriter and idea man who comes up with things for her to say) are representative of the modern feminist movement. Their videos are actually being used as instructional materials in women's studies classrooms.

Pretty much every time someone criticizes feminism, they are accused of being ignorant of what feminism is really about, whether or not that accusation can be remotely defended. Here, as is often the case, the one illustrating ignorance is you. Feminist Frequency is entirely mainstream within the modern feminist movement; the perspectives and tactics of Feminist Frequency are not at all unusual compared to feminist organizations or professional feminists.

If you think that Feminist Frequency is some obscure fringe outfit that isn't in the mainstream of the movement and isn't relevant, wake up. Major funding from Intel? TIME 100 most influential persons? UN invitations? Google Ideas? This is not a fringe outfit, and it would not be able to operate like this if it did not hold the collective approval of the feminist movement.

Don't worry, zootman525 and DemonTomatoDave have made powerful videos disproving the claims, and both Instig8iveJournalism and DarthMalak1000 are on the case.

Edit: Seriously tho, combatting online harassment (which is why they're getting that attention) shouldn't be a feminist issue. It should concern us all, and it's perfectly understandable that the feminist movement supports and approves of that idea. In fact, so should the men's rights movement.

You're ducking the point.

You claimed:

And what you're doing the classic fallacy, no true Scotsman. Who are you say that radical feminists aren't feminists?

I'm actually not saying that. I'm saying that Dalcaria has no knowledge of what feminism is, and has not bothered to do his homework. His reference to Sarkeesian and random Youtube personalities shows that he's only encountered feminism in a very narrow field, namely in the context of Gamergate and video games.

I'm also saying that his deflection, the assertion that you cannot criticise Paul Elam because Sarkeesian raised a lot of money, is invalid, and that Sarkeesian in no way can be seen as the authority on feminism. Note that I'm not saying she isn't a feminist.

You claimed that Dalcaria is ignorant of feminism. Your basis for doing so was claiming that because he was primarily talking about Sarkeesian and YouTubers (actually, one of the people he mentioned is a Breitbart journalist, not a YouTuber, and another that you're discussing - Paul Elam - is a leader of a prominent modern MRA organization rather than a YouTuber), meaning that he only experienced feminism "narrowly."

Feminist Frequency has received very broad support from the feminist movement as a whole. (This is exhibited in the crowdfunding success, the TIME 100 voting, and being asked to address the UN.) Feminist Frequency has been recognized very broadly. Feminist Frequency is representative of the modern feminist movement; the FF videos are showing up in women's studies syllabi.

TBQH, you would have trouble picking someone more evocative of the contemporary movement. Sarkeesian's supporters harass and bully her critics online; Sarkeesian papers over male victimization as if it doesn't exist, both IRL (in terms of her fans harassing others) and in the video games she analyzes. Everything is due to and "proves" misogyny / patriarchy. She is a middle-of-the-road radfem in an era where radical feminism is the dominant strain within every organization and the most common alignment of every professional feminist.

Further, the critics you dismiss know a lot more about feminism than most feminists do... and Dalcaria's discussion of Elam's piece is quite correct.

I do believe Paul was satirizing Jezebel (or some other outlet) for promoting bashing violent men.

If you read the article, Elam is actually directly responding to a Jezebel article which describes (and mind you, celebrating more than condemning, in both the article and the comments) how the Jezebel team has a history of violent abuse towards male SOs.

He also closes by saying that men shouldn't actually "bash a violent bitch" even if it would be justifiable self-defense:

In that light, every one of those women at Jezebel and millions of others across the western world are as deserving of a righteous ass kicking as any human being can be. But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.

Oh, yes, that's very much a pointed response to the Jezebel article... and to the extant hypocrisy related to how female abusers are actually protected by the system more than male victims.

You were intervening in a dispute over whether Solanas or Elam was a parodist.

Valerie Solanas did everything possible to demonstrate that she sincerely hated men, up to and including attempting to murder three men. (She missed one. Andy Warhol was the most famous of the three.) She was demonstrably a nutcase.

Paul Elam, on the other hand, is very clearly deliberately provocative. He's an intellectual who is very deliberately trying to model himself after Malcolm X. He makes his article titles quite a bit more provocative than their content; and repeatedly switches out of invective mode to make more serious comments in mid-stream. He's not a Jonathan Swift, playing his satire absolutely straight-faced through the whole work; he's a blistering demagogue who alternates between vicious sarcasm and dead-serious practicality. He makes it perfectly clear that:

(A) He doesn't think "bashing a violent bitch" is in any way a good idea.
(B) He does think that self-defense justifies fighting back when a woman violently abuses a man (and vice versa).
(C) He thinks that Jezebel's writers are hypocritical and evil.

He has been interviewed in person. By all appearances - unlike Valerie Solanas - he appears to be unwilling to engage in personal violence, and appears also to be quite thoroughly sane in spite of his incendiary rhetoric. All of which point towards satire. In the mean time, there's no evidence that actually points towards Valerie Solanas being satirical as opposed to a genuinely gendercidal nutcase.

[Grenartia]

Nothing justifies justified abolishing "innocent until proven guilty".

Fixed
But it was done with SB 967, and 59% people approve.
I think life as we know will continue even after that, it's not the end of the world.

Again, I hereby accuse you of rape. I have proof, and you can't prove you didn't rape me. Therefore, by your own statements, you must be guilty, and you must be put to death.

[Grenartia]

-snip-

Paul Elam and his ilk are little different from your garden variety false feminist, such as Sheila Jefferys.

They both dox people with no regard for human life or safety. They both accuse the other of being basically Satan incarnate when they both are, more or less. They both advocate little more than enslavement for the opposite sex, they both only ever concentrate on rape statistics against their own gender, instead of rape as a whole, they both claim token members from the opposite sex as proof that their ideas aren't shitty, etc.

The both of them have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I hereby condemn their leaders to be used as sun cannon ammo. May God have mercy on their souls.

[Kelinfort]

-snip-

Paul Elam and his ilk are little different from your garden variety false feminist, such as Sheila Jefferys.

They both dox people with no regard for human life or safety. They both accuse the other of being basically Satan incarnate when they both are, more or less. They both advocate little more than enslavement for the opposite sex, they both only ever concentrate on rape statistics against their own gender, instead of rape as a whole, they both claim token members from the opposite sex as proof that their ideas aren't shitty, etc.

The both of them have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I hereby condemn their leaders to be used as sun cannon ammo. May God have mercy on their souls.

Even if people like Elam are being satirical, it is neither funny nor apparent.

[Chessmistress]

-snip-

Paul Elam and his ilk are little different from your garden variety false feminist, such as Sheila Jefferys.

???
Comparing that woman and True Feminist
http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/ ... erson14541
to Paul Elam is simply ludicrous!

And you cannot say she's not a Feminist, you can say you do not agree with her ideas, that's okay, but saying "she's not a Feminist" is absolutely false, because the reality is:

Professor Sheila Jeffreys teached Sexual Politics at University of Melbourne, every year a lot of young women have been taught about her ideas and principles about

Female-to-male transsexualism; Gay pornography; Feminist critiques of queer theory; Queer political agenda; International sex industry. (Western beauty practices as makeup, high heel shoes, cosmetic surgery, as well as pornochic; Misogyny in fashion and transfemininity.)

Now, she has been enforced to leave, mainly due false propaganda against her
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/radic ... h7g1c.html

"Universities will never appoint someone like me again," Sheila Jeffreys says.

The radical lesbian feminist, one of only a handful still teaching in Australia, has begun packing up her office after 24 years at the University of Melbourne.

During this time she has taught thousands of students about feminism, male power and the construction of sexuality.

But that efforts against her, even if hurting at an individual level, are useless on the whole: as said, during 24 years, she had already taught her principles and ideas to a lot of young women within her university.
Indeed

But she says the "tide of feminism" that went out in the early noughties is coming back in.

Her work, which includes nine books that focus on the sexual oppression of women, is resonating with a new generation.

Young women are responding to "cruelty and the influence" of the pornography industry, she says.

"It is creating so many problems including sexual harassment...I think there is a lot of anger in young women."

And, naturally, she's still fighting for women's rights and women's empowerment outside the university
Sheila Jeffreys is a leading member of CATW - Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
http://catw-ap.org.ph/network.html

CATW-AUSTRALIA
Center for Philippine Concerns – Australia
Project Respect
Carole Anderson
Sheila Jeffreys

CATW is currently fighting a very important battle against Amnesty International, in order to promote Nordic Model (criminalisation of purchasers of sex) against the reckless and harmful position of Amnesty International
http://www.catwinternational.org/Home/A ... pen-letter

Sheila Jeffreys is a member of Women's Studies International Forum Editorial Board
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/womens ... ial-board/

Sheila Jeffreys
University of Melbourne, Victoria, New South Wales, Australia

Sheila Jeffreys is cited in countless Feminist sites as preminent Feminist
http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/jeffreys.htm
That's just the first I find, there are plenty
And as example of Feminist by other preminent Feminists, like Julie Bindel, in very important newspapers
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/j ... andsociety
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... -sex-trade

[The Nuclear Fist]

I feel like if you ever find yourself at odds with Amnesty International, you're probably not the hero in that story.

[Mialla]

I feel like if you ever find yourself at odds with Amnesty International, you're probably not the hero in that story.

Why?
Even the Swedish government is against Amnesty International
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... stitution/

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom told Agence France-Presse that she was inviting Amnesty officials to study the Swedish policy on prostitution. "They've lost a lot and not gained very much by [promoting decriminalization]. There are a lot of people who have left Amnesty," Wallstrom said. "We think there is good reason for Amnesty to come here and look at our system."

[The Nuclear Fist]

I feel like if you ever find yourself at odds with Amnesty International, you're probably not the hero in that story.

Why?
Even the Swedish government is against Amnesty International
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... stitution/

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom told Agence France-Presse that she was inviting Amnesty officials to study the Swedish policy on prostitution. "They've lost a lot and not gained very much by [promoting decriminalization]. There are a lot of people who have left Amnesty," Wallstrom said. "We think there is good reason for Amnesty to come here and look at our system."

And the Swedish government is wrong. The Nordic Model is flawed, and inferior to decriminalization.

7. Why doesn’t Amnesty International support the Nordic model?

Even though sex workers are not directly criminalized under the Nordic model, operational aspects – like purchasing sex and renting premises to sell sex in – are still criminalized. This compromises sex workers safety and leaves them vulnerable to abuse; they can still be pursued by police whose aim is often to eradicate sex work through enforcing the criminal law.

In reality, laws against buying sex mean that sex workers have to take more risks to protect buyers from detection by the police. Sex workers we spoke to regularly told us about being asked to visit customers’ homes to help them avoid police, instead of going to a place where sex worker felt safer.

Sex work is still highly stigmatized under the Nordic model and contributes to the discrimination and marginalization of sex workers.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to ... x-workers/

[Gauthier]

Why?
Even the Swedish government is against Amnesty International
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... stitution/

And the Swedish government is wrong. The Nordic Model is flawed, and inferior to decriminalization.

7. Why doesn’t Amnesty International support the Nordic model?

Even though sex workers are not directly criminalized under the Nordic model, operational aspects – like purchasing sex and renting premises to sell sex in – are still criminalized. This compromises sex workers safety and leaves them vulnerable to abuse; they can still be pursued by police whose aim is often to eradicate sex work through enforcing the criminal law.

In reality, laws against buying sex mean that sex workers have to take more risks to protect buyers from detection by the police. Sex workers we spoke to regularly told us about being asked to visit customers’ homes to help them avoid police, instead of going to a place where sex worker felt safer.

Sex work is still highly stigmatized under the Nordic model and contributes to the discrimination and marginalization of sex workers.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to ... x-workers/

Oh boy, it's like Sweden wants a news story where they find a stack of dead prostitutes in some guy's home.

[Mialla]

Nordic Model works fine.
Amnesty International is lying.
http://catwinternational.org/ProjectsCa ... Redefining

Redefining Prostitution Law

CATW advocates for strong laws and policies on local, national, and international levels to prevent women and girls from becoming victims of human trafficking.
CATW supports the Nordic Model, the world's first law to recognize prostitution as violence against women and a violation of human rights. It criminalizes the purchase of commercial sex and offers the exploited an exit strategy.

CATW presents standing room only panels on sex trafficking related issues, policies, and strategies as part of the annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), held at the United Nations in New York. CATW presents joint NGO statements to government delegates and other participants as well as oral interventions condemning policies and practices that tolerate and profit from the sexual commodification of women and girls.
GOALS:

To create the cultural, political and legal conditions where human trafficking is no longer tolerated.
To create a shift in engagement towards a greater public understanding that prostituted women and girls are not criminals but are the most exploited among us.
To challenge acceptance of the sex industry, normalization of prostitution as work, and counter legalization initiatives throughout the world.
To strengthen anti-trafficking laws and policies by: 1) making the connection between prostitution and sex trafficking; 2) countering the trend to legalize/decriminalize sex industries; 3) promoting legislative, criminal justice and NGO efforts to discourage the demand for prostitution.
To develop an action alert response that allows CATW and partner NGOs to intervene in public forums on legalization initiatives, and to consult with and educate legislators who may be the process of voting on prostitution law reform bills.

Among the leaders of CATW there are preminent Radical Feminists like Gunilla Ekberg, Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition ... omen#Views

CATW is rooted in a radical feminist point of view. Its definition of 'trafficking' includes all forms of selling or buying bodies of women or children. CATW opposes a distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution as it sees all forms of prostitution as a violation of the dignity of women and violence against them. In this regard, it is strongly opposed to the perspectives of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and the sex workers' rights movement. Aside from prostitution, CATW is opposed to "pornography, sex tourism, and mail-order bride selling."[1] On its website, CATW categorizes sexual exploitation as including sexual harassment, rape, incest and battery. CATW was set up in 1988.

The coalition’s proposed solution to the problem of human trafficking and sexual exploitation is to decriminalize the selling of sexual services while criminalizing the buying of sexual services, pimping and trafficking. This approach, sometimes referred to as the "Swedish model" or "Nordic model", has been implemented in Sweden, Norway and Iceland,[2] partly as a result of lobbying by CATW-affiliated activists in those countries. CATW views these laws as successful in combating prostitution and human trafficking and lobbies for the replication of such legislation elsewhere.

CATW also claims to “reject state policies and practices that channel women into conditions of sexual exploitation" … and “provide education and employment opportunities that enhance women’s worth and status”.

In 2007 CATW and the Swedish authorities, especially Gunilla Ekberg, had success in blocking the legalisation of prostitution in Bulgaria
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world ... ed=2&_r=1&
And in 2014 thanks to the efforts of CATW (especially Gunilla Ekberg) a slighlty modified version of Nordic Model was adopted in Canada.

I think Amnesty International will lose.

[Tahar Joblis]

Paul Elam and his ilk are little different from your garden variety false feminist, such as Sheila Jefferys.

They both dox people with no regard for human life or safety. They both accuse the other of being basically Satan incarnate when they both are, more or less. They both advocate little more than enslavement for the opposite sex, they both only ever concentrate on rape statistics against their own gender, instead of rape as a whole, they both claim token members from the opposite sex as proof that their ideas aren't shitty, etc.

The both of them have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I hereby condemn their leaders to be used as sun cannon ammo. May God have mercy on their souls.

Even if people like Elam are being satirical, it is neither funny nor apparent.

Funny is quite debatable. Apparent, though, is quite clear. Elam makes it transparently obvious that he wants some things to be regarded as sarcasm and satire; nor does he advocate "enslavement for the opposite sex." Even in the article discussed earlier, he repeatedly hits on equal treatment as a goal.

(As far as doxxing goes, I'm guessing you're thinking of this case, where AVFM was accused of doxxing a particularly hateful feminist protester, when in fact they had not done so. Mind you, the whole "Register-Her" idea did revolve around doxxing; it's just that most accusations of doxxing leveled at AVFM are, in fact, false accusations.)

Elam has said some objectionable things; but at no point has he reached the level of sexism in, say, Robin Morgan's statements, much less Valerie Solanas's.

Who, again, appears to have been purely and simply unhinged. There is, again, no evidence that points towards Valerie Solanas being on the satirical side of Poe's Law, and plenty of evidence pointing the other way.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I find it interesting that Amnesty International gave actual criticisms of the Nordic Model and your response was just to list people who support it, as if I care aboutcany of those shrieking harpies.

Really shows where your priorities lie, Chess.

[Mialla]

I find it interesting that Amnesty International gave actual criticisms of the Nordic Model and your response was just to list people who support it, as if I care aboutcany of those shrieking harpies.

Really shows where your priorities lie, Chess.

I didn't merely post a list.
The main point is that

CATW opposes a distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution as it sees all forms of prostitution as a violation of the dignity of women and violence against them.

This is the main point, the Radical Feminist tought: due social pressure and coercion there's no such thing as "voluntary prostitution".
This point of view is currently widespreading and endorsed by the official position of governments and laws of Sweden, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland, also by the official position of EU Parliament, that voted for adoption of Nordic Model in all European countries on February 2014.

That basically means that EU Parliament is against Amnesty International, and Canada is against Amnesty International, too.
And that's my answer to your assertion that being against Amnesty International is being against the good.

I'm not the only one here who think Amnesty International sucks

The problem could simply be that legalization proposed by Amnesty International, the way they are going about it, is shit.

Wouldn't surprise me. Generally Amnesty International isn't well received because of its nigh-anarchistic views at times.

[Des-Bal]

This is the main point, the Radical Feminist tought: due social pressure and coercion there's no such thing as "voluntary prostitution".
This point of view is currently widespreading and endorsed by the official position of governments and laws of Sweden, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland, also by the official position of EU Parliament, that voted for adoption of Nordic Model in all European countries on February 2014.

That basically means that EU Parliament is against Amnesty International, and Canada is against Amnesty International, too.
And that's my answer to your assertion that being against Amnesty International is being against the good.

I'm not the only one here who think Amnesty International sucks

Right, we need governments to make women's choices because their gullibility and weak wills make them incapable of making meaningful choices.

[Valyrian Freeholds]

I find it interesting that Amnesty International gave actual criticisms of the Nordic Model and your response was just to list people who support it, as if I care aboutcany of those shrieking harpies.

Really shows where your priorities lie, Chess.

I didn't merely post a list.
The main point is that

CATW opposes a distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution as it sees all forms of prostitution as a violation of the dignity of women and violence against them.

This is the main point, the Radical Feminist tought: due social pressure and coercion there's no such thing as "voluntary prostitution".
This point of view is currently widespreading and endorsed by the official position of governments and laws of Sweden, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland, also by the official position of EU Parliament, that voted for adoption of Nordic Model in all European countries on February 2014.

That basically means that EU Parliament is against Amnesty International, and Canada is against Amnesty International, too.
And that's my answer to your assertion that being against Amnesty International is being against the good.

I'm not the only one here who think Amnesty International sucks

The problem could simply be that legalization proposed by Amnesty International, the way they are going about it, is shit.

Wouldn't surprise me. Generally Amnesty International isn't well received because of its nigh-anarchistic views at times.

Really? I'd be a fucking prostitute. If you're talking about "Economical situations coercing these poor womyn" give me a fucking break, half of us have shit jobs but we do them because there's no other way to pay the bills.

[Galloism]

I didn't merely post a list.
The main point is that


This is the main point, the Radical Feminist tought: due social pressure and coercion there's no such thing as "voluntary prostitution".
This point of view is currently widespreading and endorsed by the official position of governments and laws of Sweden, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland, also by the official position of EU Parliament, that voted for adoption of Nordic Model in all European countries on February 2014.

That basically means that EU Parliament is against Amnesty International, and Canada is against Amnesty International, too.
And that's my answer to your assertion that being against Amnesty International is being against the good.

I'm not the only one here who think Amnesty International sucks

Really? I'd be a fucking prostitute. If you're talking about "Economical situations coercing these poor womyn" give me a fucking break, half of us have shit jobs but we do them because there's no other way to pay the bills.

You poor slave you. Since you're working a job you're coerced into working by economics, you're a slave.

I intend to lock up your employer. This will help you.

... somehow.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I find it interesting that Amnesty International gave actual criticisms of the Nordic Model and your response was just to list people who support it, as if I care aboutcany of those shrieking harpies.

Really shows where your priorities lie, Chess.

I didn't merely post a list.
The main point is that

CATW opposes a distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution as it sees all forms of prostitution as a violation of the dignity of women and violence against them.

This is the main point, the Radical Feminist tought: due social pressure and coercion there's no such thing as "voluntary prostitution".
This point of view is currently widespreading and endorsed by the official position of governments and laws of Sweden, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland, also by the official position of EU Parliament, that voted for adoption of Nordic Model in all European countries on February 2014.

That basically means that EU Parliament is against Amnesty International, and Canada is against Amnesty International, too.
And that's my answer to your assertion that being against Amnesty International is being against the good.

I'm not the only one here who think Amnesty International sucks

The problem could simply be that legalization proposed by Amnesty International, the way they are going about it, is shit.

Wouldn't surprise me. Generally Amnesty International isn't well received because of its nigh-anarchistic views at times.

I'd suggest to not put words in my mouth.

I never said Amnesty International sucks I just said it generally isn't well received because of some of its solutions.

Kind of like how I don't think you're schizo but the things you propose are.

[Ostroeuropa]

Really? I'd be a fucking prostitute. If you're talking about "Economical situations coercing these poor womyn" give me a fucking break, half of us have shit jobs but we do them because there's no other way to pay the bills.

You poor slave you. Since you're working a job you're coerced into working by economics, you're a slave.

I intend to lock up your employer. This will help you.

... somehow.

Let's make the market unregulated and make it so prostitutes have reason to fear reporting rape, abuse, or assault to the authorities (Or indeed, lack of payment for services rendered), as well as ensure a lack of proper health precautions, while also locking up prostitutes clients and pushing them further into destitution instead of allowing market forces to raise the amount of money they charge for a service due to abundance of clientele. We'll also make it so the consensual adult prostitution industry is no more and no less available and funded than the sex slave trade and underage prostitution, as well as incentivize for criminal gangs to engage in these practices because, hey, it's illegal anyway and this way we can squeeze the prostitute for all they are worth.

On top of that we'll be condescending as fuck to these people and imply they should feel violated and exploited and if they don't they've just internalized a view of themselves as crap or whatever, AND we'll make a constant special pleading argument around sex to imply it's different or somehow special compared to other consenting adult activities, and signal boost the idea that if two people are having sex, one male and one female, the female is being degraded by this. (Don't consider maybe it's your view of the woman being degraded that's the problem.) Oh, and while we're at it, we'll gynocentralize the discussion and be completely oblivious to male prostitutes, demonstrating the sexist rationales for our position since we only seem to think the women are degraded by the act and worth talking about, as well as gloss over male vicitms of the sex slave trade and male prostitutes victimized by a system that does not allow them to have redress for grievances against other people as well as it could if it was legal and such. Throw on some pissing tax money up the wall and failure to collect proper taxes, and we've got a killer policy here.
It'll help.
For realz.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

You poor slave you. Since you're working a job you're coerced into working by economics, you're a slave.

I intend to lock up your employer. This will help you.

... somehow.

Let's make the market unregulated and make it so prostitutes have reason to fear reporting rape, abuse, or assault to the authorities (Or indeed, lack of payment for services rendered), as well as ensure a lack of proper health precautions, while also locking up prostitutes clients and pushing them further into destitution instead of allowing market forces to raise the amount of money they charge for a service due to abundance of clientele. We'll also make it so the consensual adult prostitution industry is no more and no less available and funded than the sex slave trade and underage prostitution, as well as incentivize for criminal gangs to engage in these practices because, hey, it's illegal anyway and this way we can squeeze the prostitute for all they are worth.

On top of that we'll be condescending as fuck to these people and imply they should feel violated and exploited and if they don't they've just internalized a view of themselves as crap or whatever, AND we'll make a constant special pleading argument around sex to imply it's different or somehow special compared to other consenting adult activities, and signal boost the idea that if two people are having sex, one male and one female, the female is being degraded by this. (Don't consider maybe it's your view of the woman being degraded that's the problem.) Oh, and while we're at it, we'll gynocentralize the discussion and be completely oblivious to male prostitutes, demonstrating the sexist rationales for our position since we only seem to think the women are degraded by the act and worth talking about, as well as gloss over male vicitms of the sex slave trade and male prostitutes victimized by a system that does not allow them to have redress for grievances against other people as well as it could if it was legal and such. Throw on some pissing tax money up the wall and failure to collect proper taxes, and we've got a killer policy here.
It'll help.
For realz.

Someone's bitter!!!