jump to navigation

Consider Your Audience? December 27, 2010

Posted by FCM in health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, prostitution, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

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.)

and there is NOTHING, and i mean NOTHING, that affects girls and women specifically, yet also parallels anything that men experience.  hello!  its completely different.  and mens reality isnt real.

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!

Comments

1. factcheckme - December 27, 2010

this will likely be the last thing i write this year. enjoy, and happy new year all!

2. thebewilderness - December 27, 2010

Happy Hollandaise FCM!

factcheckme - December 27, 2010

mmmmm, hollandaise. 😛

3. Sargassosea - December 27, 2010

Yesterday I saw a commercial on tv where ’dad’ is out working in the yard, he has dirty hands and has a choice of two items hanging on the clothes line with which to wipe them: a towel and a tiny white mini-skirt. Well, he chooses the mini-skirt and tosses it into the dirty clothes bin. Teenage daughter discovers mini-skirt!1!11! Runs to ’mom’; what to do?! Mom ‘fixes’ skirt with whatever fuck detergent. Daughter affectionately ruffles dad’s hair (nice try, dad!) on her way out the door. Close on dad looking worried/‘outmaneuvered’/chagrined.

This fairy tale that daddies are worried about their widdle gurlz makes me want to SCREAM. If they (of course, I’m talking about those ’good guy’ dads not the rapist dads, or the walk-away dads, the beat-the-shit-outta-ya dads, or the religious prophet dads, or the authoritarian/genius dads, or the sulking dads, or…) were really worried about them they’d be forming groups and marching in the streets demanding the end of PIV-as-pleasure because it is harmful to their daughters, right? I mean dads should know better than anyone, right? If dads really cared they’d be begging their daughters to stay right the fuck away from men at all costs and WHY it is so imperative that they do so and then supporting them all the way. But they don’t, do they?

When even our own ’dads’ would turn their backs on us and blame US (you were wearing that mini-skirt after all) so that they can continue to stick their dicks into other girls and women with impunity, it’s pretty clear that “existing structures and institutions arent conducive to feminist discourse, at all.”

We DO need to find another way.

factcheckme - December 27, 2010

yes thats the ultimate line of horseshit isnt it? that fathers care about their daughters? well. we have been trying to make this “connection” for them for awhile now…rape etc affects your wives! your mothers! your sisters/daughters/neighbors/friends etc. and the feedback we keep getting, of course, is that mens entitlement to PIV, to rape culture, to NOT paying child support, to sexually harassing female colleagues in the workplace and making more money than they do TRUMPS. EVERYTHING. ELSE. ALL men are are so compromised that they dont even care about their own daughters. which of course makes perfect sense. they DONT care about their wives either, and demanded mandatory PIV from them which is how almost all of them ENDED UP with children (daughters) in the first fucking place. DUH!

men know what other men do. men know what THEY have done, in their own pasts. they simply prefer to keep doing it, or to have the option to do it in the future, should they so choose. it really couldnt be more obvious.

4. Sargassosea - December 27, 2010

And, oh crap. I hadn’t thought about the possible reality of a pornstitution/welfare scenario. Now I’m worried because any time a dude brings up a ’hypothetical’ like that it eventually finds its way into ‘reality’.

Really, give it a few years and Phone Sex Worker will be accepted as a ’legitimate’ job in relation to welfare/disability – burger flipping, retail sales or remote prostitution, it’s all the same thing to the funfems already. But the funfems think you make waaay more money doing the ’sex work’. We’ve got news for them though; any time a traditionally female occupation becomes *legitimate* the wages go way, way down (or men colonize, but that won‘t happen in this case!). So far down in fact that one needs government assistance in order to eat. That there is a tidy little circle.

(I’ve been curious to know if any of you have seen this: http://theyshootstars.com/ It’s actually called “They Shoot Porn Stars Don’t They?” advertised as a journalistic piece thusly: “How the internet, recession, and Feds killed the porn industry.” It’s very disturbing, and having said “hypotheticals“ I was reminded of it.)

5. Loretta Kemsley - December 27, 2010

ROTFLOL. Oh, this would have ramifications far beyond what you or rubble seem to have considered.

Since the menz have insisted on gender-neutral laws so they don’t get left out of programs like DV shelters, they too would have to engage in prostitution if it was made a requirement to obtain benefits.

This means the homophobic would have to earn their living via homosexual prositution because there isn’t enough money to be made from women willing to pay for sex.

It would be this prospect that would keep it from ever becoming law rather than any concern for women.

factcheckme - December 27, 2010

hey loretta

i actually did consider that, and i think you are right: IF prostitution is never legalized, the reason it will never be so will have SOMETHING to do with teh menz. because EVERYTHING exists on a continuum of woman-hating, and NOTHING is ever done to benefit women, and disenfranchise men. can you imagine requiring men to prostitute themselves to other men, before they could get social security? HA!

BUT. i think that the prostitution-welfare bind would only ever affect women, and not men, if it came into play at all. this is why i think it needs pointing out. for one thing, the surest path to needing welfare in the first place is single motherhood. and i can just see them legalizing womens prostitution but not mens, citing some bullshit excuse. but even if they legalized it for everyone, as far as social security is concerned for example, and being able to do “any job available in the labor market,” there has to be a certain threshhold number of jobs in the economy before your “ability” to perform it would bar your eligibility for benefits. and there will ALWAYS be more jobs available for female prostitutes than male, as you said. this would guarantee that women would be more affected by the welfare-prostitution connection than men, even if it were legalized across the board. there simply is no way that this would ever work out for women. because nothing ever does.

factcheckme - December 27, 2010

also, i googled “public assistance and prostitution” and found a book that cites this exact problem called “liberalism and prostitution.” i cant believe i had never considered it before, but apparently, a few other people have. and i dont think that this was the exact connection rubble was talking about, based on his response to me. he seems to be saying that in a country where legalized prostitution would mean that the government would take it over (communism? socialism?) then the government would be poor womens pimps, instead of just giving them welfare. that wouldnt happen here (i dont think?) but there definitely would be a connection, as long as welfare-eligibility is connected to employment.

6. Loretta Kemsley - December 28, 2010

The IRS seized the Mustang Ranch in 1990. They tried to run it, but failed. They then auctioned off the beds, etc before selling the real estate the brothel was on. Later on, they seized it again.

http://www.lasvegasmikey.com/mustang.htm

7. Loretta Kemsley - December 28, 2010

I agree that they would try to circumvent forcing men to work as prostitutes while forcing women to work as prostitutes if they could, but that would be challenged in court. I doubt the courts would allow it to stand.

However, you are right that more women are on welfare than men, so it would adversely impact women. I wouldn’t put it past them to use it to discourage women who desperately need help from even applying.

70% of women and children on welfare are trying to escape a violent marriage. Despite that, Bush put through a law taking money away from them and giving it to the fathers if they would attend a program on how to get their family to come home to them. They also tried to bribe the women in danger to return to their abusers by offering a hundred or two extra each month.

The Rabid Right has long thought that all women on welfare are sluts and cheats, so they would consider forcing them into prostitution as just punishment.

8. sam - December 28, 2010

If men wanted legal prostitutes they would have them. As pornography tells us behind the scenes and in front of the cameras, men don’t want clean, regulated, health-coded legal prostitutes nearly as much as they want dirty little whores they can hurt.

There are many people who support other people doing “sex work” but balk at the idea of unemployment benefits being attached to prostitution. Having to prostitute for food and shelter is unthinkable to them. It’s not unthinkable to them that they might one day need government assistance.

The question is irrelevant to women in countries without socialized safety nets, but many pro-pornstitution folks lack the empathy and/or imagination to care about what men force poverty-stricken women to do without the approval of governments.

The Royal College of Nursing supports “carers who arrange sexual liaisons for the disabled providing it is legal and does not undermine their patient’s health.” They never explain in the press release why nurses are unqualified to serve the sexual health of clients as part of their duties.

9. Sargassosea - December 28, 2010

Having had some first-hand experience being on, and dealing with, welfare I can absolutely imagine a scenario in which a woman would be ‘allowed’ welfare benefits while working as a *Telephone Companion* or some such – I know that had I been a single mother with kid/s and was working phone sex from home that I would have strenuously lobbied my case workers to accept *Telephone Companion* as legit (last I checked phone sex is not illegal) and they probably would have.

It would be more of an informal understanding rather than legalization or a government-run thing. In other words it would be like: I can’t find a job flipping burgers and my case worker mentions that some of their other caseloads are telephone companions and that it’s working out great for them because they can work at home. It’s easier to take care of the kids that way, right? Win, win. And before you know it word gets around and suddenly you have a great portion of a class of people (poor women) porn-stituting because given the circumstances, it seems like a pretty sweet set-up. Here’s the rub, though – the demand is constant but now that there are sooo many women supplying, wages go down and they are stuck in the same place they would have been in some other wage-slavery except that THIS slavery is sex-based.

10. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2010

I know I’m among the more gullible internet feminists, but I was totally worried about unemployment in Germany, where prostitution is legal:
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

11. Connie - December 28, 2010

I’ve been reading your blog pretty intensely for the past few weeks now. I am a feminist and a harm-reduction activist who works with street-level sex workers, many of whom are also users who are paid in their substance of choice. Also, many of the women I work with are trans. You and I would disagree about a lot (most?) things, but I had never seen the connection between legalization of sex work and its ties to the current welfare system and I thank you for sharing it. I had never fully gotten on the legalization-band wagon but hadn’t rejected it either; now reject it I do.

EXCEPT

I would argue that instead of the above hypothetical proving sex work is nothing but oppression and could never be considered “real work” (and I should clarify, I am speaking within the context of the USA specifically), it shows the current welfare system (which was signed into law by a democratic president, don’t forget) to be the truer oppressor. Even for those who are not going out to the corner to find dates, women are taking jobs which do not offer a living wage, benefits, or rights/protections for workers because of welfare “reform,” keeping them firmly in the grip of poverty. A government-funded support system and humane drug laws that are not entrenched in racist/sexist politics would do much more to allow women to cease engaging in sex work than any other tactic. All the women I work with got into sex work either directly or tangentially because of socio-economic reasons, but their views about what they do, why they do it, when they choose to do it, and if they want to stop are all different. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I wish people in your camp would be less anti-prostitution and more anti-poverty.

Thanks.

12. sam - December 28, 2010

re: Snopes, just because the German woman didn’t end up losing her benefits doesn’t mean she wasn’t pressured by the job centre to accept work in a brothel. A pregnant woman in British Columbia where prostitution is decriminalized was told by a social worker to accept a job in the sex industry, but when the woman refused they didn’t cut her benefits. The pressure is there even if punishment is not enforced, at least not yet.

Snopes also says there has never been any snuff porn. Myself and others have sent them proof of snuff porn, including an international ring busted in 2000, but they keep insisting no men would ever want to watch women or children be sexually brutalized to death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/01/ameliagentleman.philipwillan

Last week Italian police seized 3,000 of Kuznetsov’s videos on their way to clients in Italy, sparking an international hunt for paedophiles who have bought his products. The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse.

They seized a huge quantity of films and other pornographic material as well as lists of clients in Italy, Germany, America and Britain.

The police searched more than 600 homes and say they now have evidence against about 500 people.

The Naples newspaper Il Mattino published a transcript of an alleged email exchange between a prospective client and the Russian vendors.

‘Promise me you’re not ripping me off,’ says the Italian.

‘Relax, I can assure you this one really dies,’ the Russian responds.

‘The last time I paid and I didn’t get what I wanted.’

‘What do you want?’

‘To see them die.’

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

(last updated 2006)

Claim: Films are routinely made for entertainment purposes in which participants are murdered on camera.

Ststus: False

Origins: All the fretting aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found.

There’s also the case of BDSM pornstitute Natal King whose murdered body was found at the site of a porn filming still in bondage. The film from the shoot was never found, but ask yourself how likely it is that they lured her there, bound and gagged her, murdered her, DIDN’T film it, and didn’t produce the “consensual” film as proof she was alive at the end.

13. Sargassosea - December 28, 2010

UP –

Ha! The link is perfect! That’s why I was imagining the scenario upthread because there is no physical contact which throws it into a sort of legal ‘gray area‘.

I find it interesting though that mr. rubble would choose an urban myth to support his anti-pornstitution arguments🙂

Connie –

Would it suit you if Our Camp (the fuck?) were to stop using “anti-prostitution” and say instead ‘anti-socio economic forces designed by men for men which make acceptable the practice of men paying to rape women’?

14. Sargassosea - December 28, 2010

(oops! Didn’t mean that to sound like rubble did such a thing consciously.)

15. zeph - December 28, 2010

“I wish people in your camp would be less anti-prostitution and more anti-poverty.”

Women are kept in poverty so that there will be prostitutes available to men. Just as peasants were kept in poverty to provide cheap labour and soldiers for their feudal lords.

16. kurukurushoujo - December 28, 2010

I think the facts that women are not having their benefits cut for refusing to work as prostitutes and that the German job centers refuse to advertise for brothel owners pretty much demonstrates that yes, prostitution is not a job like any other.
This is true even when you look at the German decriminalization bill: a john cannot sue for inadequate service or recompensation. I’m pretty sure you can do this for many other jobs.

Quck facts about prostitution in the wonderful liberal and “sex-positive” nation of Germany, for anyone that might be interested: more than half of the prostitutes working here come from other (often significantly poorer) countries, exit programs are rare, the decriminalization of aiding prostitution has made it very difficult to check up on the presence of trafficked women in brothels and apartments and not coincidentally Germany has become the biggest market for sex trafficking besides the Netherlands (who’s surprised about that).

17. sam - December 28, 2010

I didn’t know johns in Germany can’t sue for inadequate service. Thank you for that information.

Jenna Jameson has gotten a little bit of shit for refusing to prostitute with black men, No one said boo when she, a heterosexual woman, finally gained enough industry clout to refuse working with men altogether. If she never wanted to be penetrated sexually on camera by men but suffered it until she could make it stop, do those earlier porn films pictures count as her being financially coerced into unwanted sex?

A prostituted woman I used to work with told me she finally quit when her last trick was a very fat woman who wanted her to perform cunnilingus and she refused. At what point do anti-discrimination work laws override women’s theoretical right to choose their sex partners, and what does that say about prostitution as ‘work’?

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

ok hold the phone people. a few things about the snopes article (and thanks to those who have already pointed some of these out).

first of all, its listed as “false” ONLY because at whatever time the article was written, according to them, there werent any verifiable occurances of women actually having their benefits cut for this reason, AND SOMEONE REPORTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN VERIFIABLE INSTANCES OF IT. thats the part thats supposedly false. this is a problem of documentation, not a problem with the hypothetical being unrealistic, or flawed. its a very logical hypo actually, and is realistically based on the ways that welfare and the labor market ARE connected, and noone is saying its not.

I think the facts that women are not having their benefits cut for refusing to work as prostitutes and that the German job centers refuse to advertise for brothel owners pretty much demonstrates that yes, prostitution is not a job like any other.

YES! you read my mind. if you read the article, it clearly said that the welfare agencies had to CHANGE THEIR EXISTING POLICY regarding the welfare-labor market connection, to accomodate the situation of legalized prostitution, BECAUSE the very nature of hooking makes it unreasonably likely that a woman would be coerced into doing it. HELLO! this is excellent evidence that prostitution is NOT like other jobs, and its not even like ONE other job. they changed their policy regarding prostitution and prostitution only. its also evidence that this hypo is based 100% in reality, and we would see the exact outcomes we are discussing here if prostitution were legalized under the existing welfare rules.

also, as the article mentions, theres a difference between actually getting your benefits cut, which would be documented, and being coerced or pressured to drop out of the program yourself due to the prostitution-connection, or to never even apply in the first place, which would be impossible to prove.

AND i would reiterate that upon reflection, i do *not* think that any of this was rubbles point. i think his point was about the welfare-labor market connection that would come into play if prostitution were taken from being both illegal and privatized like it is now, to making it legal AND government-run, where the government literally ran the brothels and employed women as prostitutes. in this case, the government would be literally pimping women out when they could just be giving them welfare and leaving them the fuck alone. the way this would go down in the US would be different, and i imagine it would remain in the hands of private employers (pimps) like it is now.

thats all.

18. Connie - December 28, 2010

Let me apologize for the phrase “your camp.” I in no way meant it to be derogatory but I understand it is vague enough to be interpreted as such. What I should have said was: anti-prostitution/abolitionist/radfems (as that label seems to be defined within online feminist discourse). From the reading I’ve done this group does not support harm reduction measures, which I find incredibly, well, harm increasing, especially with women working on the street level who are the lowest paid and most vulnerable. Coming from a well-informed and passionate HR stance, I am not anti-sex work because that implies a judgement on women’s action, even if abolitionists proclaim not to judge the individual. (Hate the sin, love the sinner?) When it comes to getting women to “escape” from sex work, no one can do that; you can facilitate, but she is her own and only agent of change. Part of my job is to provide a connection to resources should anyone request it and I do so with enthusiasm – but I would never encourage her to change if she hasn’t expressed the desire explicitly. Street-level sex workers – though they may use drugs, have experienced abuse, come from an impoverished background, may not have graduated high school – are smarter than anti-Ps give them credit for. They don’t need anyone to tell them they’re oppressed, or in danger because of what they do. This is why I believe anti-poverty to be a better framework for eliminating the conditions which drive woman into sex-work. It is against the capitalist structure (as many men are also oppressed by poverty, especially men of color, that is a more accurate label than patriarchy) but not the women who are doing whatever they can to survive while under it.

One more thing. I know this comment is long, and I thank FCM and this community for letting me share some points I feel are missing from the debate. Can anyone direct me to literature which acknowledges the process “escaping” to be really fucking difficult, maybe even painful? I work with two women who have taken such a path and they in no way regret changing their lifestyle, but they miss parts of it too. Namely, the community. A community bourn of oppressive circumstances but a strong, and sometimes only, source of support nonetheless. That they depend on one another and miss their sisters once they’ve stopped working the streets, or that some do not want to change because of that, does not make them brainwashed by patriarchy. Within radfem circles, there is obviously an understanding (at least broadly) of the dangers of sex work and the forces that can lead to women choosing it. What I don’t see is a respect for that community nor attempts to understand and accept that not everyone wants to or is ready to leave sex work.

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse.

sam this shit it chilling. it really fucking is. and “dying during abuse” is a pretty creative euphemism for what they are really talking about isnt it? its like they just cant be honest about any of this, even when its right in front of their eyes. they just cannot name it. its stunning.

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

connie, what the fuck are you even talking about? noone here judges prostituted women for being prostituted. and YOUR camp just cant resist coming into radical feminist space and making (MAKING UP) parallels between radical feminists and conservative fucking christians!? gtfo. read more, post less. thanks.

19. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2010

Easilyriled has written quite a bit about her distaste for harm reduction, actually. It has seeded some new thoughts for me…still germinating.

FCM, please post or pass these links on to your newest fan:
http://easilyriled.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/addiction-and-being-wrong-some-thoughts/

http://easilyriled.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/harm-reproduction/

20. Connie - December 28, 2010

1. Never compared anyone here to conservative christians, never would. Where did you get that from?

2. The very phrase “prostituted woman” makes her passive and removes agency. That in itself is a judgement. Some woman may feel that way (prostitut-ed), others don’t. Your position seems to speak for every single woman engaging in sex work. I think that’s simplified, ignorant and ultimately unproductive.

3. The “your camp” thing? I apologized for that and I was sincere, there’s no need to throw it back in my face.

My fault for trying to engage in actual discussion. I’ve only been introduced to the concept of radfems recently and I while I disagree with much of what’s said in this blog and other spaces, I was hoping to gain a better understanding through dialogue. Instead I’ve been told to “post less, read more” because you disagree with me. I’ve never encountered a feminist space so unreceptive to discussing opposing viewpoints. Let’s compromise: I’ll post less AND read less! And since I can’t see this non-discussion ever advancing, I promise to post no more and let you have the last word. Call me whatever names you want.

Discourse on the internet, I’m beginning to discover, is bullshit. To win the argument all you have to be is the loudest in the room.

21. sam - December 28, 2010

Connie, the Swedish model makes your whole post moot. Decriminalizing prostitution but not john’s predations put the choice of if or when to leave in each prostituted person’s hands.

My experience is that many women who get out of the life often have a strong desire to help their sisters get out. Peer counseling is the entire point of the SAGE Project. Just last week I heard the story from an exited women who is returning to school in order to become a substance abuse counselor.

That woman, and the survivor-majority volunteers of SAGE, are utterly ignored by “sex worker rights activists.” Lest you think I’m exaggerating, in 2008 I organized a public panel about prostitution in Portland that included survivor Jeri Williams. In response, the Sex Work Outreach woman from the local “harm reduction” group Portland Women’s Crisis Line not only protested my forum by handing out pro-john leaflets at the door, she went on the radio and said my forum was biased because it did not include any sex workers.

!

Some members of Genderberg helped me transcribe the radio broadcast and we gave it to Jeri so she could decide what to do about it. She was pissed, and decided to set up a meeting with a conflict negotiator and the liar from PWCL, who brought her boss to the meeting. Jeri got an apology, and I don’t think that woman will be saying survivors are not sex workers in the media anymore.

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

(Hate the sin, love the sinner?)

mmkay? now take your whining and crying (and misrepresentation) elsewhere. thanks.

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

oh, and this:

I’ve never encountered a feminist space so unreceptive to discussing opposing viewpoints.

read the post you are commenting on! ITS ABOUT THIS VERY THING. duh.

22. sam - December 28, 2010

I don’t believe someone who is earnestly feminist and critical of socio-economic pressures on women would prefer to refer to people suffering under the basest cruelties of capitalism as “workers” instead of “women.”

People before profits. We are people first, always.

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

good point!

factcheckme - December 28, 2010

Women are kept in poverty so that there will be prostitutes available to men. Just as peasants were kept in poverty to provide cheap labour and soldiers for their feudal lords.

YES. i think we need to keep this one in mind, always. its womens vulnerability that gets men hard, across time and place. we are spending all of our disposable income (and more) on “fuckability mandates” but men have been sticking their dicks into “toothless bawds” (dworkins term) and homeless street-prostitutes for centuries, millenia. they dont need women to be beautiful, they need women to be BROKE. there are many ways to accomplish this, and men have a handle on ALL OF THEM. the social-safety net being more hole than net INDUCES BONERS IN MEN. its DELIBERATE, and deliberately-designed for mens sexual pleasure. we have to consider this, always. we have to consider that everything sick and wrong that is done to women that keeps us poor, is done to induce boners in men. and that men care about their boners more than they care about women, even their own daughters. i mean really. its pretty clear isnt it?

23. Loretta Kemsley - December 29, 2010

Connie wrote:

The very phrase “prostituted woman” makes her passive and removes agency. That in itself is a judgement. Some woman may feel that way (prostitut-ed), others don’t. Your position seems to speak for every single woman engaging in sex work. I think that’s simplified, ignorant and ultimately unproductive.

The same could be said the other way around. We have a huge network of forces sexual slavery both in this country and around the world. The term “prostituted women” is applicable to them. I would add “girls and boys” to that category also.

You accused those here of “speaking for all” while you seem to be doing the same and ignoring the reality of sexual slavery even as our children are being kidnapped right off our streets and sold into prostitution or pediophile rings.

There is not any single term that will embrace all circumstances, but demanding that enough terms be used in a post that would encompass all circumstances only contributes to confusion. We all know there are a variety of circumstances. We don’t need to repeat each and every one of them. To demand that we do results in hindering the flow of discussion.

I always assume the reader understands the general concepts being discussed and inserts her own knowledge into whatever I write. If she doesn’t have that knowledge, she can ask for an expansion of the original idea but should not criticize the author for not writing it in the terms she would use.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

We don’t need to repeat each and every one of them. To demand that we do results in hindering the flow of discussion.

thanks loretta. now, i am kind of a shrew, but i believe this tactic is deliberate, and that people INTEND to hinder the discussion when they employ it. just in case i am wrong, and they are merely ignorant of the fact that this IS a tactic with predictable consequences, i appreciate you breaking this one down. incidentally, i purchased “how to supress womens writing” at your recommend. i am looking forward to reading it.

24. Loretta Kemsley - December 29, 2010

I think you’ll like that book. One of the ways that are used to silence women’s writing is to criticize how they wrote it. This is what we are discussing here. Quite often, it is deliberate. It throws the entire discussion off-stride. That’s why I call it out. It really doesn’t matter if the person did it on purpose or unwittingly, it needs to be called out. If they didn’t do it on purpose, they can learn how to engage in the dicussion in a better way. If they did do it on purpose, they get the message that their tactic won’t work. Either way, the problem is solved.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

regarding “exiting” and it being difficult…NOT THAT IT EVEN COMPARES, BUT…when this happens to men, the bonding under extreme circumstances, they are called “war buddies.” when one of them goes home, he often feels extreme anxiety and guilt about leaving his war buddies behind. if he lives and the others die, he feels “survivors guilt.” WHEN THE WAR IS OVER, and they ALL go home, they ALL miss each other, and have a difficult time assimilating, and being alone, and being without each other. even when they have nothing else in common, the war experience bonds them, forever. everyone knows this. this is NOT a reason, and has NEVER been used as a reason, not to bring soldiers home from a fucking war. so what are we really talking about here? OF COURSE IT WILL BE HARD. god. its like any fucking excuse imaginable for these pro-pornstitition people isnt it? what is their fucking point? do they even have one?

25. thebewilderness - December 29, 2010

The umbrella term “sex worker” serves to conflate the traffickers and pimps with the trafficked and pimped.
It is bullshit.
The words matter.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

i imagine the PIV-pozzies also like the term “sex worker” because its sex i mean gender-neutral!!111!1! just like prostitution itself, right? right.

26. calliope - December 29, 2010

Connie, AS IF most prostitutes, sorry, “sex workers” ever even had any choice in the matter. Jeez. All this “progressive language” is making my head spin. We’re talking about women who are pressured or forced into selling their bodies to live. The fact that there exists some women have internalized misogyny enough to voluntarily “choose” this slavery does not mean we should have to walk on eggshells when talking about it – quite the opposite in fact. Those women need help too. They don’t need BS about sex work somehow being “empowering” that will lead them further into harm’s way. That’s downright negligent if you’d ask me..

27. sam - December 29, 2010

Research consistently shows upwards of 90% of prostituted people want out but can’t leave. I’m going to quote Tracy Clark-Flory as evidence of just how strong industry propaganda is that even when feminists have the facts, they still defer to the industry’s public relations lingo.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/12/22/annie_lobert/index.html

“I can’t say my position has changed, but seeing the scars and tears firsthand makes the issue appear infinitely more complex. Too often, I have focused on the best-case scenario: the “high-class” hooker who is a free agent. These women, and men, do exist, but they are not the majority.”

She acknowledges that the majority of prostitutes are being sexually abused and exploited. We have a word for when people are coerced or forced into sex they do not want and which harms them. That word is not “sex”, of the work kind or any other.

40% of Cambodia’s prostitutes are children. We have a word for when children are sexually used in any way by adults. That word is not “sex”, and yet we keep hearing about Cambodia’s “sex workers” as if sex has much of anything to do with prostitution in Cambodia from the prostitutes’ perspectives.

Not by a slim margin, the majority of prostitutes are being raped repeatedly and still these blinkered feminists call it sex, sex work, sex industry, transactional sex, survival sex. But it is not sex.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

i personally feel empowered when i play in traffic. NO not human traffic you nasty feminists, just the regular kind. dont tell me what to do.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

Not by a slim margin, the majority of prostitutes are being raped repeatedly and still these blinkered feminists call it sex, sex work, sex industry, transactional sex, survival sex. But it is not sex.

well done. EXACTLY. from WHOSE PERSPECTIVE is any of this SEX? hello! this is only SEX from the perspective of MEN. in the same way that PIV = SEX = PIV and non-piv-centric sex is considered ABSTINANCE, and in the same way that radical feminists who have been talking about PIV and rape and STDs and human trafficking and pedophiles and orgasms and bodily fluids AND FEMALE PLEASURE for a century, before it was even acceptable for women to speak of such things at all, are…prudes.

this is a male-centered discourse people. EVERYTHING IS. get a handle on this one, and the rest of it falls into place. seriously.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

I thought I’d mention that this post is getting a ton of hits, but I can’t tell where most of it is coming from. I figure either rubble has a veritable army behind him, or the pornstitution piv-pozzies have gotten ahold of it and are passing it around. I would really like to know if a single fucking one of them are well-versed in benefits-eligibility stuff, and can intelligently discuss it, or if any of them have ever even considered it at all?

Are we truly supposed to believe that they would accept THEIR OWN MOTHERS having to attach themselves to the prostitution labor-market to get their social security, if they became unable to work? Oh sorry I forgot. All their mothers are fine, because all their daddies are good men with jobs, so none of this benefits stuff applies to any of THEM, PERSONALLY. Therefore its unimportant.

28. FAB Libber - December 29, 2010

I apologise in advance for backtracking, have been off-blog for a few days. I just wanted to revisit the social benefits/employment scenario.
Sargassosea said:
Now I’m worried because any time a dude brings up a ’hypothetical’ like that it eventually finds its way into ‘reality’.

We very nearly had ‘reality’ in the UK, in the form of ‘thin edge of the wedge’ (well, radical feminists saw it that way).

The job/benefits agency in the UK, the JobCentre Plus started allowing vacancies at the legal end of the ‘sex work’ scale – pole dancing, stripping, lap dancing – to be advertised through their centres. Thankfully the JCP are no longer allowed to advertise these ‘jobs’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299677/Job-centres-banned-advertising-strippers-lapdancers-topless-barmaids.html

Although the initial years of these JCP advertisements specified 18+ and they may have mentioned that it was not mandatorily tied into loss of benefits if claimants refused to interview for these positions, given time, RFs did fear this connection may have been lost and benefits would be tied into accepting these ‘jobs’.

It was also very exploitative of the JCP/government. The under-25s are the most likely age-group to be unemployed, and this was targeting young women with few employment prospects, to go into the ‘sex industry’. Most of these ‘jobs’ were actually on a self-employed basis rather than full employment. Also, all of these jobs were for females, I am not aware of any similar vacancies being available for males.

All of these things start as thin edge of the wedge. I think that is where the fun-fems miss the point, they see the relatively harmless start (or are desensitised later in the cycle) and never ever see where it is going. It is almost as if they are in-the-present obsessed, without any concern for the future.

29. Loretta Kemsley - December 29, 2010

Research consistently shows upwards of 90% of prostituted people want out but can’t leave.

We can only legitmately call it a “choice” if the women have several other legitimate choices and still pick prostitution. I’ve never met a prostitute where this was true. They “chose” prostitution because they had no other means to survive at even the most basic level. And that’s the women who weren’t beaten into it.

from WHOSE PERSPECTIVE is any of this SEX? hello! this is only SEX from the perspective of MEN.

Unfortunately, too many never even stop to think about men’s “right” to define sex, let alone challenge it. Of course men are going to define the most degrading acts they do as “normal sex.” There is nothing normal about abusing another human being, but our society is not yet ready to admit that.

30. Sargassosea - December 29, 2010

RF 101 Interlude:

“…as many men are also oppressed by poverty, especially men of color,…” – Connie

It is not women’s concern that men (of any color) are “oppressed by poverty”, or anything else for that matter, because the societal structures limiting their freedom are created and enforced by men for the benefit of men ONLY. Not every single man reaps every single benefit of male supremacy, true, but at the end of the day a man may be poor or non-white or disabled, but he can still use members of the sex class for pleasure whether he has to pay for it or not; it‘s his one sure right as a man – that ONE right no man would keep from another no matter how disadvantaged he may be.

factcheckme - December 29, 2010

have any of you seen this?

Oklahoma man says wife’s death was sex fantasy accident

(CNN) — Arthur Sedille was up-front with police: He would often put a gun to his wife’s head during fantasy sex play at their Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, home.

But Sedille said he didn’t know the gun was loaded when he pressed it to his wife’s head and pulled the handgun’s slide back during sex on the night of December 21.

Now Sedille, 23, is facing the possibility of a murder charge in Canadian County, Oklahoma, in the death of his wife, 50-year-old Rebecca Sedille — who died when the handgun went off in their bedroom.

According to a probable cause affidavit filed by Oklahoma City police, Sedille said the shooting was accidental. He called 911 afterward, according to police.

Investigators decided to arrest and jail Sedille on suspicion of first-degree murder out of an abundance of caution, said Oklahoma City police Master Sgt. Gary Knight. However, as of Tuesday afternoon, formal charges had not been filed in the investigation, which is ongoing, Knight said.

He declined to comment on investigators’ findings so far.

Although a Canadian County judge found that probable cause exists to hold Sedille on the murder charge, assistant district attorney Paul Hesse said Tuesday he has yet to receive a report from police on the case. As a result, formal charges have not yet been filed, Hesse said.

Sedille remained jailed Tuesday in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Police in Oklahoma City — which spans five counties and 700 square miles — book all of their prisoners into that county’s jail, Knight said.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=164876&provider=top

31. FAB Libber - December 30, 2010

The “sex games gone wrong” seems to be a growing trend. It has been used before (but not with a gun, usually strangulation).

I am curious how the sex-pozzies will defend this latest trend of femicide. I guess they will take their old fall-back position of calling us prudes that are denying the murder victims agency or something?

factcheckme - December 30, 2010

it is so clear that men are deliberately expanding what we call “sex” to include all manners of abuse and violence, so that they can abuse women sexually and get away with it. DUH.

32. FAB Libber - December 30, 2010

I think the violence and abuse (as part of ‘sex’) has been there for a long long time. Prostituted women would probably verify that. The ‘shock’ element for some people comes when this ‘expanded definition’ gets applied to non-prostituted women. Most RFs are not surprised, because it is the logical conclusion to the proliferation and level of violence in porn.

2003 UK: Teacher Jane Longhurst strangled. Her murderer claimed it was a “sex game gone bad” – but she did not have any prior sexual relationship with him (she knew his girlfriend) and it was likely he tricked her into going back to his flat, raped and murdered her, and called it ‘kinky sex game’. Coutts was obsessed with strangulation porn, and he kept her body in a storage locker for five weeks afterward for the purpose of necrophilia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3424267.stm

I think these types of excuses will become more common in the future, and there is a huge danger of juries believing that women consented to this type of thing, just as they do now in rape trials (the “she liked it rough” defence).

33. FAB Libber - December 30, 2010

There is more detail about the sort of stuff Coutts was into, which really shows the connection between porn and acting out what men see in porn.

Trigger warning on the link
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/c_sex_killers/a_graham_coutts/crime_vaults/

factcheckme - December 30, 2010

sorry, but i think “trigger warnings” are redundant and unnecessary here, and on radfem blogs generally, and i am sure there are others here who feel the same. as far as i am concerned, all of this shit is fucking triggering, or none of it is. i mean really. womens lives need a trigger warning! i WOULD HOWEVER always appreciate a NSFW warning on links, if applicable. AND that people dont confuse the two. thanks.

factcheckme - December 30, 2010

but thanks for the links!

34. FAB Libber - December 30, 2010

Yes, you are right, all of it is disturbing.
Just habit. I never link to NSFW within comments.

With the Coutts case, the BDSMporn lot were trying to claim no connection between violent/snuff-type porn and acting out – frankly, it is the logical conclusion because the continual ante-upping for thrill can ONLY lead to acting it out IRL.

And most (including Coutts) were trying to claim it was her idea (yet he was the one with that specific porn habit???). The moment that any court accepts this type of defence it will be the slippery slope like we have in rape trials. It is all about blaming women for the violence inflicted onto them by men.

35. calliope - December 30, 2010

FCM, amen to that.

the way they report these “accidental” deaths bothers me (understatement). seems like they’re saying that if it was the result of a psychopathic “sex game” somehow makes it less than murder..? not quite as bad..? Makes my blood boil.. And the whole idea that this could possibly be consensual is mindboggling.. men are physically stronger than women in most cases. if things get violent, can most women really escape? I worry for my straight friends. I hate to see them ending up with men, men that I would never feel safe around. I imagine it must be hell, literal hell, to be trapped under a man and unable to escape. Highly doubt that the average woman could overpower a man physically. If he had a gun, how can anyone even remotely imagine that a situation of consent took place? not a sex game. rape and murder. why do they insist on calling it a game? Why do the sex pozzies support this sadistic shit?

It is so blatantly obvious that to most men, sex = violence. Why else would they get off on vulnerability, submission, prostitution, pornstitution, strangulation..fucking guns to a woman’s head? It’s so painfully obvious, it’s aggravating. How does it just sail over so many women’s heads, when this kind of horror makes the back pages of the newspaper every single day..? it’s so common, it must take considerable effort to ignore.

36. thebewilderness - December 30, 2010

Here’s an example of how difficult it is for a six year old child to exit prostitution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-wells/a-mothers-worst-nightmare_b_802508.html

When her mother went to the police they refused to help and informed her that she was an angry and vindictive wife for reporting that her estranged husband was pimping out their child.
Once she proved that the little girl was physically damaged enough the police decided to look into it after all.

factcheckme - December 30, 2010

Zeph, you posted a comment yesterday about children as a (the) sex class, but it went to spam for some reason. Try posting it again, I’d hate to lose it, but I don’t approve anything from the spam folder even if it looks legit, its just not safe. Thanks.

37. FAB Libber - December 30, 2010

calliope:
Why do the sex pozzies support this sadistic shit?

If you dig around enough you will find that all the sex pozzies are into BDSM, and that the most vocal pro-porners are BDSM ‘people’ who push both the pro-porn and pro-BDSM agenda. The link between BDSM and porn is totally inseparable.

Which is another reason that the quest for ‘feminist porn’ is a completely futile one.

38. SheilaG - December 30, 2010

I’ve come across the BDSM crowd occasionally. And they are truly evil and demented people. What’s really creepy is how gay male sexual culture (if you can call it that) has also seeped into lesbian worlds, and lesbians got more involved with that sick garbage because of their association with gay men. Who are horrific sex addicts, porn addicts and female haters extraordinaire.
To see people fall into that world is scary, and it warps the minds of all those involved in it.

Let we forget that the origin of sadism is marquis deSade, who killed a woman and tortured others and wrote about it. Gay men love him btw. So any woman who support that garbage is most certainly not a feminist, and needs to be kicked out of feminist worlds entirely. I don’t go to a lot of lesbian events anymore because the BDSM crowd and transwomen have dumped too much garbage in the park. It’s truly horrifying.

39. zeph - December 30, 2010

When I grew up all the children (boys and girls) I knew were being abused by their fathers, most also pimped the children to their friends, just to be popular! Some children remember, some, due to PTSD have completely forgotten, and think butter wound not melt in their fathers mouths. Fathers, husbands, pimps, in many cases they are just different words for the same people. This goes on across all classes.

I honestly think the reason we are told not to speak of sex in front of the children, is to silence them, not to protect them, and that it is children who are really the sex class.

Thanks, factcheckme. I would have trigger warned it but didn’t because of the above conversation. So I will try again.

40. Sargassosea - December 31, 2010

There are many reasons it is considered taboo to talk about sex in front of children, let alone with children in the form of providing them factual information about their own bodies, and they all have their roots in male supremacy.

The grooming factor is #1 without a doubt. It’s much easier for men to elicit sexual ’compliance’ from children when they have no other frame of reference (ie, All little girls do this with their daddies…, Every girl thinks it’s fun when…) that is, at least when threats are not being used instead.

There is also an added bonus in that mothers are held to the fire (often by the children, always by society) for not stopping sexual abuses and/or being complicit in them when they had no REAL control over the men and boys who ACTED. This is one hell of a way to turn children against women; the girl children grow with their trust in women seriously, seriously compromised and the boys grow up to hate them.

41. Nelle - December 31, 2010

Loretta, I say we can legitamately call it a “choice” when the patriarchy is completely anihilated from our society, AND that women have a variety of options to choose from as far as work goes.😀

Racist bastards have tried to play the same “consider your audience” card with me in debating, and huffed that , if I don’t understand the plight of the White male,when racism is momentarily inflicted upon them, that they will NOT listen to anything I have to say anymore. Apparently, in this case, me(a)n’s hurt “FEELINGz” are more important than the liberation of women, and can’t seem to understand the basics such as “women don’t need to fuck you to get ahead in life”, “why prostitution is wrong”, “why porn objectifies women”. The mental gymnastics performed by femonade would probably send them into a clusterfuck of eternal Derptitude and confusion if you explained in detail WHY all of this is wrong. It’s not obvious to men because they don’t have to face it. What men don’t have to face, are a woman’s problem,and what men don’t have to face, they don’t care about it. Neither do the pozzie poniez because they roll in the patriarchy like a happy dog in a pile of shit.

And that article pissed me off. A “Sex game gone wrong” is somehow fucking sex positive,isn’t it, male fems? I’d rather sit on a cactus than engage in sexual intercourse with today’s men-even without PIV-I am sure they’ll find a way to kill me some other way in the bedroom. I assume strangulation porn means that women are being choked while having sex. So this is where this phenomenon came from. I’m going to start assuming whatever nasty sexual kink that dehumanizes women came from porn. I’m not even gonna guess anymore. Choking people is not fucking hot-it’s an act of violence. Mocking an act of violence against a woman during sex,one of the most vulnerable states to put a woman into, is pure unadulterated woman-hate. Men know this, they love it,they like it for this very reason.

factcheckme - January 1, 2011

The mental gymnastics performed by femonade would probably send them into a clusterfuck of eternal Derptitude and confusion if you explained in detail WHY all of this is wrong.

accusing someone of executing “mental gymnastics” is not a compliment. but i think know what you meant. and i LOLed at “clusterfuck of eternal derptitude.”

42. Loup-loup garou - January 1, 2011

Sheila G., I have mostly avoided lesbian events, never mind gay pride events, since the late nineties for the same reason. I’m sure we’re not the only ones. But if you so much as suggest that sadomasochism may not be 100% healthy, the apologists start up with their old whine, “but you’re juuuudging me, how can you be so haaaaaaateful, you must be a sex-hating PRUDE!!!”

FCM - January 1, 2011

i gave myself a makeover. the painless, free kind of course. happy new year all!

43. Nelle - January 1, 2011

Ah ok. I didn’t know it was an insult. Maybe mental karate-as in kickass intellectual ability? Sorry about that. Well at least I made you laugh. Happy New Year to all by the way!

44. Sargassosea - January 1, 2011

Happy!

45. FCM - January 2, 2011

“mental karate” is definitely more complimentary than mental gymnastics! although perhaps any or all of this would be better characterized as mental self-defense? i mean really. radical feminist discourse is a RESPONSE TO AGGREGATE MALE BEHAVIOR. most of us have other things we would rather be doing, UNLIKE the fucking fun-fems who are making a living and winning popularity contests with this shit. i just watched a jessica valenti clip that made me want to fucking throw up, courtesy of one of 9/2s readers who dropped this link. if she said “feminism” one more time with that huge shit-eating grin on her face, i wouldve barfed for sure. just, ew.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/17882

46. Miska - January 3, 2011

from the valenti vid

Question: Do you find breaking feminism into waves productive?

Jessica Valenti: I don’t find the wave model very productive, because I think it kind of serves to fan the flames of generational tension, or make it seem like there’s more generational tension than there actually is.

LOL. Her site has the subheading “YOUNG feminists blogging, organizing, kicking ass”.

Gotta make sure we keep the oldies out!

Anyway, isn’t valenti herself getting too old to call herself the face of young feminism? Everyone knows the feminist movement should be run by women not a day older than 23! Because men like these women best and feminism must APPEAL. TO. MEN. Above all else.

FCM - January 3, 2011

She’s also leaving out the FACT that the dick-pleasing pomo garbage she’s spewing is anti-feminist, and completely at odds in fundamental ways with BOTH the first and second waves, aka real feminism. And refusing to differentiate therefore serves to erase real feminism, and pretend like we don’t even need it anymore, and that the pomo shit is exactly what we do need, now. It’s all good! Except that its not. Damn she’s a fucking spin doctor isn’t she? A pretty effective one too apparently.

FCM - January 3, 2011

It’s also not GENERATIONAL tension you twit. It’s a fundamental tension between two oppositional viewpoints. She just can’t resist calling us old can she? And yes, she’s no spring chicken anymore, herself.

47. FAB Libber - January 3, 2011

ANY “feminist” site calling itself young/hip/new/contemporary – is completely full of pomo shit. And, on the off chance it’s not pomo, then it is all about pleasing one or other group of menz.

Just look for the (young/contemporary) ‘code word’. Not that hard. Makes filtering the rubbish sites quite efficient.

48. Loretta Kemsley - January 3, 2011

If she were a feminist, she would be appalled by anyone trying to classify a woman as “old” as if that makes her useless.

If she were a feminist, she would be proud of the distinction between generations rather than pretending that generations must compete with one another. Each generation has their unique ideas and unique accomplishments that deserve to be recognized.

If she were a feminist, she would be referring to the groundbreaking work of those who came before her and be proud of their work. She is trying to climb upon their shoulders to reach glory without acknowledging their importance. That’s not just tacky, it’s a lie she’s living.

It makes me laugh at all the people who want to claim they are a feminist while simultaneously trying to trash everything feminism stands for. They really need to invent their own term for their betrayal of women.

Just saying…which is now becoming an “old” term….LOL.

FCM - January 3, 2011

Ok fab libber, you are making me want to change my tagline thingie, because it says “cool.” How about “a nice dried out mouthful of sand, on a hot day.” Or…”a nice chocolatey can of ensure, with your hot flash”?

:p

FCM - January 4, 2011

Or, do I get a free pass because I state immediately that I hate men? A little of that goes a long way, seriously. That’s how I know anyone’s serious, or if they are just doing this shit for fun.

Also, has nobody watched the new years vids? It’s just me over there laffing to myself. Which is fine. The rue mcclanahan tribute was seriously emotional I thought, and kind of ended the whole thing on a quiet note. And the golden palace is horrible, obvs.

I did however watch the monty python clip like 6 times and lmao each time. Not for nothing, but I thought about all the dead prostitutes and dv victims left in fun-fem/pornstitutions wake when they sang the second verse of their song, which is of course “look on the bright side of death” with attendant jolly whistling and tapping of toes. And yes, I laughed. So sue me. I fucking HATE POMO.

49. FAB Libber - January 5, 2011

Ok fab libber, you are making me want to change my tagline thingie, because it says “cool.”

I wouldn’t worry too much about your “cool” adverb being applied to “sip”.

It’s only when it becomes an adjective for “feminism” that the alarm bells sound.

Besides, I don’t think I have enough gawd-like power to remove the word from the English language, so other uses outside of feminism are OK.😛

Nor would I recommend manz-hating as a pastime; just be completely indifferent to them. They aren’t worth the energy to ‘hate’.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry