The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[The Grene Knyght]

I wouldn't call it classist. I'd call it misandrist, because it promotes the idea that only women should be protected from perceived exploitation.

It protect prostitutes who are exploited by buyers of their bodies.
At a larger extent, more important, it protect all women from being diminished by the existence of an horrible patriarchal relic like prostitution is.

women who go into prostitution because they have no other choice are exploited. Women who are forced into prostitution are exploited. Prostitutes who have no freedom to choose their clients exist in a patriarchal relic of prostitution.
Women who have no freedom to use their bodies the way they want to are oppressed, in whatever way that manifests itself.

[Galloism]

I wouldn't call it classist. I'd call it misandrist, because it promotes the idea that only women should be protected from perceived exploitation.

It protect prostitutes who are exploited by buyers of their bodies.
At a larger extent, more important, it protect all women from being diminished by the existence of an horrible patriarchal relic like prostitution is.

Chess, being evicted from your home because of your job is not being protected. Even the government itself admits this law is targeting prostitutes and making their lives harder.

Posts do not disappear because you go away for a day or two.

From you link


That's exactly what I meant when I said that prostitutes are punished due they infringe other laws, not due the Swedish Model.
If you are a prostitute and you also have cocaine within your home or you're an illegal immigrant, you'll face the law for the latter two, not due the Swedish Model.

Like renting a home, for instance - as the vast majority of people do, prostitutes being no exception. You can wind up evicted if you rent a home because the homeowner can be prosecuted under laws intended to prosecute pimps.

Renting a home is not illegal for the prostitute. However, knowingly renting a home to a prostitute IS. Ergo, it makes prostitutes homeless unless they can afford to go into home ownership.

That's the original link regarding the claim of the head of Sweden's anti trafficking unit
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2014/01/20/va ... nadsgatan/

First, worth noticing:


Sweden's women's shelters are massively supporting the Swedish Model: would you really say that ROKS are anti-women?

Yes. It punishes women for making a choice they don't agree with.

But, however, stop digressing:


Now it's in its full context, and it sounds different...

Not really. "This hurts women who are sex workers." "Irrelevant if true, but if it is, we like that part."

In context it sounds the same as out of context.

I'm, though, not surprised that the writer of the first article, constantly using "sex work" instead of "prostitution", have been unfair at citing it outside its context...

Sounds like the same in and out to me.

Even more, about "the stigma":


It's natural that there's still the stigma, and it's a good thing: the stigma against such practices is required, because, as ROKS said:

Funny part is - by doing what they're doing, they're increasing prostitutes risk of being victims of violence. They're increasing prostitutes risk of being homeless. They're increasing prostitutes risk of contracting a disease.

As the antitrafficking head said:

that’s also some of the effect that we want to achieve with the law

Good job guys.

[Chessmistress]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

That was a particularly horrible episode.
Very recent article by Feminist Current about it, explaining that such kind of episodes are just only the top of the iceberg of misogyny:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... ains-norm/

[Frenline Delpha]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

Do you have a point to make? Because dancing around it is undiginified if you are trying to say something.

[Costa Fierro]

It protect prostitutes who are exploited by buyers of their bodies.

This displays the rather ignorant attitude your kind has towards prostitution and towards employment in general.

Firstly, you don't "buy" someone. Buying indicates ownership and last I checked, prostitutes are not for sale. Not only that, most countries make it illegal to buy and sell other humans. You "hire" a prostitute, that is you pay money for a set amount of time. What you pay is what they earn in terms of wage. In that respect, it is no different to another person agreeing to do a job for cash in the hand, because you are paying someone to do something for you, essentially "hiring" their body. In that respect, should that be banned too?

Secondly, now that we have established that you cannot buy a prostitute, what makes them worthy of feminist attention in the first place? Why are women prostitutes worthy of protection over men? Why are feminists concentrating on one industry that does have its dangers, but is no more dangerous than a police officer or other job that can result in occupational injuries or death? Why are feminists not calling for greater protection of female police officers, for example?

This screams like an obsession with controlling sex and controlling male sexuality. Radical feminists don't actually care about the women they are supposedly protecting, otherwise they would advocate for legalized, regulated prostitution where sex workers can unionize and demand rights and protections.

[The Grene Knyght]

It protect prostitutes who are exploited by buyers of their bodies.

This displays the rather ignorant attitude your kind has towards prostitution and towards employment in general.

Firstly, you don't "buy" someone. Buying indicates ownership and last I checked, prostitutes are not for sale. Not only that, most countries make it illegal to buy and sell other humans. You "hire" a prostitute, that is you pay money for a set amount of time. What you pay is what they earn in terms of wage. In that respect, it is no different to another person agreeing to do a job for cash in the hand, because you are paying someone to do something for you, essentially "hiring" their body. In that respect, should that be banned too?

Secondly, now that we have established that you cannot buy a prostitute, what makes them worthy of feminist attention in the first place? Why are women prostitutes worthy of protection over men? Why are feminists concentrating on one industry that does have its dangers, but is no more dangerous than a police officer or other job that can result in occupational injuries or death? Why are feminists not calling for greater protection of female police officers, for example?

This screams like an obsession with controlling sex and controlling male sexuality. Radical feminists don't actually care about the women they are supposedly protecting, otherwise they would advocate for legalized, regulated prostitution where sex workers can unionize and demand rights and protections.

With regard to the bolded point, I would argue that, like any illegal industry, those working in it are prone to abuse and exploitation by their bosses. Thats why this particular industry is more worthy of attention then say, the field of police work.

[Galloism]

With regard to the bolded point, I would argue that, like any illegal industry, those working in it are prone to abuse and exploitation by their bosses. Thats why this particular industry is more worthy of attention then say, the field of police work.

And the logical solution to that would be....?

[Costa Fierro]

With regard to the bolded point, I would argue that, like any illegal industry, those working in it are prone to abuse and exploitation by their bosses. Thats why this particular industry is more worthy of attention then say, the field of police work.

Well I am writing from the perspective of someone in a country where prostitution is legal and regulated. In any case, legal prostitution is not as dangerous as illegal prostitution. In the same way legal drugs are not as dangerous compared to when they were illegal.

[The Grene Knyght]

With regard to the bolded point, I would argue that, like any illegal industry, those working in it are prone to abuse and exploitation by their bosses. Thats why this particular industry is more worthy of attention then say, the field of police work.

Well I am writing from the perspective of someone in a country where prostitution is legal and regulated. In any case, legal prostitution is not as dangerous as illegal prostitution. In the same way legal drugs are not as dangerous compared to when they were illegal.

Ah right... Didn't realise prostitution was legal there

With regard to the bolded point, I would argue that, like any illegal industry, those working in it are prone to abuse and exploitation by their bosses. Thats why this particular industry is more worthy of attention then say, the field of police work.

And the logical solution to that would be....?

Legalisation.
Have I not made that very clear?

[Galloism]

Well I am writing from the perspective of someone in a country where prostitution is legal and regulated. In any case, legal prostitution is not as dangerous as illegal prostitution. In the same way legal drugs are not as dangerous compared to when they were illegal.

Ah right... Didn't realise prostitution was legal there

And the logical solution to that would be....?

Legalisation.
Have I not made that very clear?

Just like having people repeat the obvious for those who refuse to accept the obvious.

[Wallenburg]

Two things strike me: one is that hardly anyone noticed you writing "terrible life lessons all around".

Your mind reading powers are in need of extreme improvement.

[Giovenith]

I wouldn't call it classist. I'd call it misandrist, because it promotes the idea that only women should be protected from perceived exploitation.

It protect prostitutes who are exploited by buyers of their bodies.
At a larger extent, more important, it protect all women from being diminished by the existence of an horrible patriarchal relic like prostitution is.

Yes, let's just ignore every single rebuttal already given to those points and repeat them like a broken record, maybe then they'll suddenly be true and valid, that's how this works.

So quick little personal story:

One time, when I was a little kid, I was sitting in a living room watching Nickelodeon when my (slightly younger) cousin came in and got it into his head that it would be funny to start randomly acting like an asshole. He started calling me a "crybaby" for no reason (I had not recently cried) and threw in sexism for good measure, saying "girls are weak! girls are crybabies!" and just generally being a smug douche and not letting me do what I want in peace. I responded by throwing one of the light, fluffy couch pillows at him. It didn't even so much as knock him backwards, but he immediately started to cry hysterically as if I had mortally wounded him, then ran away to the kitchen to try and snitch on me to the adults watching us. They looked him dead in the eye and said, "You stop crying, boys aren't supposed to cry. Especially not because of something a girl did. Get over it."

Terrible life lessons all around, but you gotta admit, that's some sick karma.

Two things strike me: one is that hardly anyone noticed you writing "terrible life lessons all around".

The other is that you gave as good as you got. Now that USED to be one f the visions of feminism, and people had proposed that if women wanted to--the key word being wanted, they could challenge normal roles and do what they were capable of achieving. So your brother picked on you, you picked back. You didn't need a safe space, you didn't need to be wailing in public about how hurt you are.

Well that would have been rather counterproductive when being called a crybaby.

[New Edom]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

That was a particularly horrible episode.
Very recent article by Feminist Current about it, explaining that such kind of episodes are just only the top of the iceberg of misogyny:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... ains-norm/

Yes, I wrote this in response to Vassenor and got no response.

Yes.The Montreal Massacre was a terrible tragedy. I am sorry that it happened, very sorry for those who must grieve for their losses. The response from part of the public was to form the White Ribbon Campaign, which is supporting ending such violence. I belonged to a men's resource center that supported it. It also supported men who were survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Lunatics fight for the environment and wise and thoughtful people fight for the environment. I think it is important to make the same distinction about people who are anti-feminist. Some have fought the hypocrisy and misinformation (while still wanting equality) and some have just blamed women and wanted to harm them. I hope more people can learn to tell the difference.

I despise Meghan Murphy's writing. She always writes in this polarizing way. No man ever does anything good for women' men just feel entitled to women's bodies. No other analysis possible.

Let me tell you something: people like Murphy make the work that others have done worthless and unimportant. All that matters to people like her is some great revolution. I'm sick and tired of hearing this kind of drivel. To read her work, the White Ribbon campaign was worthless, a waste of time. to read her work, organizations like the men's resource center where I live which try to prartner with sister organizations as well as support male survivors of childhood sexual abuse not only are wrothless but don't even exist, because talking about male problems at all diminishes female problems.

Totally unhelpful article. All men basically the same. I think Murphy is a vicious person beneath her veil of compassion.

[Hirota]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

[Philjia]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

Only if they are perpetrated specifically because of androphobia or gynephobia.

[Hirota]

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

Only if they are perpetrated specifically because of androphobia or gynephobia.

A phobia, by definition, is an irrational or extreme fear of x. Therefore it seems fruitless to try and rationalise something that is by definition irrational, or try to imply something is common when it is by definition extreme.

I understand some feminists try and spin it to argue that Marc Lepine was neither irrational or extreme, and use this as a thin justification that violence by men against women is common.

One could draw parallels to this and the cited examples of migrants in europe committing terrorist and/or sexual attacks. Those who argue that a handful of attacks by migrants is representative of the whole are accused of racism - yet those who argue that an attack by a half-caucasian male is representative of the whole male demographic are given a free pass and blindly accepted without accusations of bigotry. It doesn't take a genius (but it does take the capacity to avoid cognitive bias) to see the double standards at play.

[Jello Biafra]

I'd say the Marc Lepine example is useful in the sense that Lepine is arguably the most well-known anti-feminist and who has arguably had the greatest effect on the world - therefore he is the reason why we shouldn't judge movements based merely upon the level of fame and influence that any particular member has had.

[Giovenith]

I'd say the Marc Lepine example is useful in the sense that Lepine is arguably the most well-known anti-feminist and who has arguably had the greatest effect on the world - therefore he is the reason why we shouldn't judge movements based merely upon the level of fame and influence that any particular member has had.

Being well known isn't the same thing has having an influence. Valerie Solanas was a feminist who famously tried to assassinate Andy Warhol and wrote a raging manifesto about how she literally wanted the extinction of the male sex, but I think you and I know that most feminists aren't sitting back going, "Wow, she's really got a point!" but, "Wow, what a crazy bitch!" Similarly, you're going to be hard pressed to find someone critical of modern feminism that was in any way lead to their views by Lepine's actions. (Quick caveat: It's the internet. Of course there are going to be people out there supportive of Solanas and Lepine. Digging up random crazy fuck's blogs on Google for either is not evidence that either movement is strongly corrupted.)

Nobody is arguing that any random asshole who holds an ideology can be used to discredit the rest of the people in that ideology. However, it's another thing entirely if people are actually listening to said asshole and sincerely considering their ideas. I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but people do not loathe Anita Sarkeesian to the degree they do because she's a random person on the internet with poorly thought out opinions. They dislike her because she's a random person on the internet with poorly thought out opinions who is nonetheless being treated a foremost expert on women in the digital age, invited to do TED Talks, interviews on CNN, speak before the United Nations, and even design lesson plans to be used in public schools that push her opinions and interpretations as fact. People have tried to engage her civilly and debunk her ideas, but she dishonestly paints her opposition with the same brush and the people who give her all this fame and sympathy are frankly too old and too out of touch with modern digital culture to pick up when she says something dumb or when someone has a counterpoint. They just cluelessly smile and nod their heads as someone who has NO idea what she's talking about is suddenly handed the power to make profound changes to not only feminism but society as a whole. And yet, people are frequently mocked for being concerned about this, "omg stop being so obsessed with Anita, all she did was share her opinionsssssss!" No, that is not all she did, the minute you try to influence public policy is the minute you don't get to hide behind the OPINION wall anymore.

You shouldn't judge a movement by notoriety of individual members, but you absolutely should judge it by the influence of those members, because people who have influence "make the rules" and advise the actions of others. This should be obvious. Nobody is running around trying to fulfill Valerie Solanas' dream of a male-less future, but a concerningly high degree of people are running around thinking "there is no such thing as sexism against men, everything is racist, everything is misogynistic, if I think I see it it must be there..." because of people like Sarkeesian. And she's just an internet star. Let's not even start on all the crap taught in prestigious university classrooms that you paid for and is being presented as quality education.

[Jello Biafra]

I'd say the Marc Lepine example is useful in the sense that Lepine is arguably the most well-known anti-feminist and who has arguably had the greatest effect on the world - therefore he is the reason why we shouldn't judge movements based merely upon the level of fame and influence that any particular member has had.

Being well known isn't the same thing has having an influence. Valerie Solanas was a feminist who famously tried to assassinate Andy Warhol and wrote a raging manifesto about how she literally wanted the extinction of the male sex, but I think you and I know that most feminists aren't sitting back going, "Wow, she's really got a point!" but, "Wow, what a crazy bitch!" Similarly, you're going to be hard pressed to find someone critical of modern feminism that was in any way lead to their views by Lepine's actions. (Quick caveat: It's the internet. Of course there are going to be people out there supportive of Solanas and Lepine. Digging up random crazy fuck's blogs on Google for either is not evidence that either movement is strongly corrupted.)

Nobody is arguing that any random asshole who holds an ideology can be used to discredit the rest of the people in that ideology. However, it's another thing entirely if people are actually listening to said asshole and sincerely considering their ideas. I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but people do not loathe Anita Sarkeesian to the degree they do because she's a random person on the internet with poorly thought out opinions. They dislike her because she's a random person on the internet with poorly thought out opinions who is nonetheless being treated a foremost expert on women in the digital age, invited to do TED Talks, interviews on CNN, speak before the United Nations, and even design lesson plans to be used in public schools that push her opinions and interpretations as fact. People have tried to engage her civilly and debunk her ideas, but she dishonestly paints her opposition with the same brush and the people who give her all this fame and sympathy are frankly too old and too out of touch with modern digital culture to pick up when she says something dumb or when someone has a counterpoint. They just cluelessly smile and nod their heads as someone who has NO idea what she's talking about is suddenly handed the power to make profound changes to not only feminism but society as a whole. And yet, people are frequently mocked for being concerned about this, "omg stop being so obsessed with Anita, all she did was share her opinionsssssss!" No, that is not all she did, the minute you try to influence public policy is the minute you don't get to hide behind the OPINION wall anymore.

You shouldn't judge a movement by notoriety of individual members, but you absolutely should judge it by the influence of those members, because people who have influence "make the rules" and advise the actions of others. This should be obvious. Nobody is running around trying to fulfill Valerie Solanas' dream of a male-less future, but a concerningly high degree of people are running around thinking "there is no such thing as sexism against men, everything is racist, everything is misogynistic, if I think I see it it must be there..." because of people like Sarkeesian. And she's just an internet star. Let's not even start on all the crap taught in prestigious university classrooms that you paid for and is being presented as quality education.

Maybe it's just because George Sodini was from near here that I see Marc Lepine and his ilk as being more influential than Anita Sarkeesian. Confirmation bias, I suppose.

[Galloism]

The wife has decided not to identify as anything, regarding feminism, for the foreseeable future. She's incredibly pensive. I don't think I've seen her have this kind of reaction towards feminism before.

[Giovenith]

The wife has decided not to identify as anything, regarding feminism, for the foreseeable future. She's incredibly pensive. I don't think I've seen her have this kind of reaction towards feminism before.

Maybe you should change her litter box to help her feel better.

[Galloism]

The wife has decided not to identify as anything, regarding feminism, for the foreseeable future. She's incredibly pensive. I don't think I've seen her have this kind of reaction towards feminism before.

Maybe you should change her litter box to help her feel better.

I can assure you that her litter box is spotless.

[Vassenor]

And since it flew under the radar, today is the 27th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, where 14 Canadian women were murdered by a man who screamed he was "fighting feminism."

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

In what way is a massacre perpetrated by a man who claimed that his motivation was fighting against feminism irrelevant to this thread?

[Balkenreich]

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

In what way is a massacre perpetrated by a man who claimed that his motivation was fighting against feminism irrelevant to this thread?

Meh.

[Frenline Delpha]

Oh, are we starting to list massacres that disproportionately affect one gender more than the other now?

In what way is a massacre perpetrated by a man who claimed that his motivation was fighting against feminism irrelevant to this thread?

You play innocent really well, Vasenor.