Consider Your Audience? December 27, 2010Posted by FCM in health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, prostitution, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: debate, disability, rubble of empires, welfare
so, “rubble of empires” aka. the prostitution and sandwiches guy recently made an excellent point in the anti-prostitution video above. i am embarrassed to say that i have never considered the “connection” between state-run welfare and legalized prostitution, but there would be one if prostitution were legalized, wouldnt there?
for example, if prostitution is legalized and legitimized as a “profession” and eligibility for state-run welfare is dependant on ones attachment to the labor market and/or “ability to work” (and much if not all of it is, at least in the US) then in order to be eligible for welfare, women would have to try hooking, before they could collect their benefits. wouldnt they? or, if a woman were offered a “job” as a prostitute and turned it down, or tried it for a period of time and then quit, she would be guilty of refusing work. anyone who has ever collected unemployment benefits knows this is a problem.
furthermore, if a woman were disabled and couldnt work at all, meaning that she couldnt even sit at the movie theater and tear tickets, and couldnt be a walmart greeter, but she could still fuck, if prostitution were legal and legitimized as a “real job” she wouldnt get social security disability or supplemental security income, which requires that the applicant be disabled and unable to perform any work available in the national labor market, at all. look it up! undercover punk has blogged about eligibility criteria and problems accessing benefits before, and eligibility criteria for all state-run benefits programs is available online.
incidentally, have the pro-prostitution PIV-pozzies considered this, at all? just checking. sheesh.
anyhoo, as i have said here before, i think that anti-porn and anti-prostitution work is the ONLY good work that so-called pro-feminist men are doing. i thought this welfare-prostitution-connection business was an excellent point, so i asked rubble about it, and to expound on what he meant, and whether it was his idea or not. and heres what he said:
I guess my argument was that if you were to remove prostitution from the private market but still provide it (in the way I was suggesting that drugs be provided) you would need to have the government paying. There’s not really a source because it was an assertion. But I have found that one way to get people to sympathise (particuarly in Australia where welfare is more common) is to say ‘imagine if your welfare was connectd to prostitution.’
bolds mine. he seems to be saying that one needs to consider ones audience, when engaging in these “debates” AND that if you choose your words carefully, deliberately connecting your issue to something your audience cares about, or something that affects them, you can elicit the response you want. you can get them to see your point.
now, this isnt what i had initially intended to write about, when i started this post. i was just going to write about state-run welfare eligibility-criteria and legalized prostitution. and i did that. BUT. this is kind interesting too, isnt it? specifically, radical feminists have been producing PIV-critical work for over a century now, since before WWI. we have “said it” in every way possible, and repeatedly made our case against dangerous male sexuality, and the ways it is specifically and particularly harmful to girls and women. but even so-called pro-feminist men apparently cant get their minds around this one, or wont.
nope! i have not heard of a single allegedly pro-feminist man denouncing PIV, or resolving to not stick his dick into women anymore, because to do so is specifically and particularly harmful to girls and women, and that the trauma-bonding, medical events, and unwanted pregnancies and childbearing it creates is the root of womens dependence on men. and because denouncing and renouncing PIV is therefore critical to dismantling male supremacy, and to divesting oneself of ones male privilege. NO ONE, and i mean NO. ONE. is doing this, so far as i know.
in fact, i called rubble out on this very thing here, on this blog, (well actually it was less of a call-out and more that i was having a conversation with my own readers, on my own fucking blog) and he responded with an entire video, addressing the issue of the ”credibility” of male feminists generally, but completely ignoring my point about PIV. now, i am not trying to pick on rubble specifically, and i dont have a problem with him, and he was nice enough to respond to my question about the welfare-eligibility stuff. BUT.
just what the fuck are radical feminists supposed to do, when men, even allegedly “feminist” ones, cannot be manipulated by “consider your audience” debate tactics for the simple reason that men apparently do not care about girls and women, or about dismantling male supremacy, at all. if “consider your audience” as a debate tactic works, and i know it does, then all anyone has to do, as rubble described, is to find something your audience cares about, make them see that your subject affects them, or parallels something that does, and then watch as their perspective changes, as intended.
if you try this, and it doesnt work, you probably executed your strategy wrong. right? you didnt give your audience a reason to change their minds. you didnt hit on anything they care about, or feel connected to, at all. in this case, womens wellbeing, and our lives. which is the entire fucking problem with all men, in the first place. they DONT CARE about womens wellbeing or womens lives, and men (even feminist ones!) demonstrate this daily with their relentless, dogged insistence on PIV. (you bet your ass this is a feminist-litmus test. yes, for allegedly pro-feminist men, it absolutely is. and they all FAIL.)
now, to be clear, my point is not that radical feminists should focus our attention on women, and give up on trying to convert teh menz. this one is of course true, and kind of goes without saying. my point is that the debate-structure and debate strategy itself is set up in such a way that radical feminist discourse will never win. thats my point. just like every other fucking thing, its set up so that anything truly radical when it comes to womens wellbeing and our lives will always lose. its just another example of how existing structures and institutions arent conducive to feminist discourse, at all. and that we need to find another way.
remind me again why i dont allow mainstream comments on this blog!
Sorry, Fun-Fems, But Wearing High Heels Is Totally Ableist October 7, 2010Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, pop culture, rape, sorry!, thats mean, trans.
Tags: ableism, disability, high heels, injury, SRS, surgery
this pic just never gets old. okay, yes it does. but its not my fault that its relevant to almost everything i talk about. seriously. i just work here.
i think it was over on the footbinding thread that i was being all ableist. actually, i do it a lot. i did it on the developmentally disabled rapists thread too. i am shameless when it comes to being ableist, mostly because i dont think “ableism” exists. not really. or rather, i dont think that possibly offending minority men is ever a good enough reason not to discuss something that primarily affects women, and not men. like…footbinding, and developmentally disabled rapists. so i talk about them. get over it.
not everyone takes that tack though, and they do care about it. and its to those people i am currently speaking. or…speaking about, behind their backs. thats probably more accurate. although my stats are, like, sky-high and have been for some time, ever since a certain candyass reading-comprehension challenged male womens studies professor linked here about a dozen times, and some of his readers actually followed the links, despite his assertions that all my work was precisely and accurately summed up over at his place. and then those readers stayed. interesting! but i digress.
see, fun-fems think that “ableism” is a problem, and they try to avoid it at all costs. apparently, they frequently feel like they are oppressing each other with their gobs and gobs of (female?) privilege or something, and they bandy many such made-up terms about actually, that have something to do with “privilege” but they arent really sure what, just someone called someone out on it once and now its kinda like leprosy or something. OOPS! i said leprosy. was that ableist? oh well! luckily, i dont care about being ableist. not really. but the fun-fems do. and i think theres something they seriously need to consider.
see, i think its pretty obvious that wearing high heeled shoes is ableist. sorry! but it is. teetering around on sky-high heels that are thoroughly disabling in the moment, making you an easy target for predators and making even the most innocent looking stretch of sidewalk your worst enemy is dangerous, and could get you seriously hurt. thats why its stupid. but its ableist because you get to take them off, when its not fun anymore. okay? its ableist because differently-abled people (notice the gender-neutrality!) are legitimately confounded by innocent-looking stretches of sidewalk all the time. they are actually, in real life, limited or prevented from doing things that they want and need to do, by things like…high curbs. uneven pavement. garbage.
and when you wear high heels, so are you. but you think its fun. and if it ever becomes not-fun, you can just take off your shoes. viola! but not everyone can. and this is kind of a problem, to anyone who actually believes that being ableist is wrong. in fact, this kind of even offends me, and i barely even care about it.
and of course, high-heels are pretty much guaranteed to literally cripple you at some point, where you will need surgery to correct the damage, or will just have to live with being disabled. by your own doing. by your own choice. to teeter around on disabling footwear for years, decades even, being fucking ableist every time you do, and culminating in the most ableist event of all: permanently crippling yourself, when you had the choice not to. woo-hoo! now thats good ableism.
when some people were born with real, actual physical challenges, and have to struggle every fucking day just to get out the door and down the street. or, you know, they cant. and when some others were injured or took ill somewhere along the way, and their health and livelihoods were stolen from them by something they couldnt control.
you can control it, and you are choosing to disable yourself, for fun, AND you claim to care about such things. why is any of this okay with you? this is a serious question.
from there, i guess i would include unnecessary surgeries, including plastic surgery and sex-reassignment surgery too. i mean really. its like some people are so interested in faking their way through life, that they forget what life is about. and one thing life is about is risk. every day you are alive is another day that something seriously bad could happen to you. you might get sick. you might get injured. you might need necessary surgery, to correct something that has gone wrong with you.
because while every “elective” surgery you have could kill you, it doesnt mean that you wont also need necessary surgery too, down the line. one of each, and you are doubling your chances of complications. one of each, and you are doubling your chances of dying under anesthesia, or from a blood clot, or an infection, or medical malpractice, or any number of things that can go wrong with any surgery. and…you dont always die. what more frequently happens, actually, is that you end up living a good long time afterwards, with the disabling effects of surgical complications that dont actually kill you. and you did it on purpose.
also ableist! that is all.