I don't disagree that modern relations between genders continue to be tragically and negatively affected by patriarchal mindsets and influences, and of course there's the violence that often goes hand in hand with patriarchy. I do however believe that a problem exists as well within Feminism when some of the self declared spokespersons come across like an updated version of Julius Streicher, one fixated on a new target and demographic. When people like that reach for a certain virtriolic level in their discourse, they all begin to sound the same imo. At the same time, from the little I know about men's rights outfits, I find the premise to be just plain silly. I do support dialogue that challenges strict interpretations and dogma wherever it raises it's ugly head, and that includes gender based discussion. In principle I don't support 'safe discussion spaces,' but only that if safe spaces have been declared that they be managed on an equal basis.
Decriminalization of sex work might reduce victimization and unsafe practices.
Well voice for men use that ridiculous "feminazi" slur with the same ease you seem to (google it), so perhaps its not surprising you aren't quite so critical of them. Maybe you can enlighten us about how many tens of thousands the feminazis have slaughtered, and where they are keeping their prison camps.
Again, is the point of this conversation the decriminalization of prostitution, or something else?
Well, right now we're having to deal with your nonsense. No one is a 'feminnazi,' or whatever that is supposed to be, because they advocate for rights and equality and constructive gender relations. I think what sometimes tries to pass itself off as constructive advocacy and opinionating only winds up making an inhuman spectacle out of itself. Sorry, but the historical mistake is in not challenging narratives of that sort.
Oh. I didn't know you meant Julius Streicher the plumber. Don't know why I assumed you meant that other fellow executed at Nuernberg.
Obviously you weren't comparing them to nazis.
Who is this 'them' that you're referring to?
Oh for heaven's sake.
I do however believe that a problem exists as well within Feminism when some of the self declared spokespersons come across like an updated version of Julius Streicher...
Why do you say shit like that at all if you are going to try and weasel out of it and pretend you meant something else when called on it?
Of course you aren't calling them nazis. You just mean that some of the people who claim to speak for them sound like a nazi leader executed for crimes against humanity. Or maybe Julius the plumber.
How could anyone assume you were calling them nazis?
But then you're suggesting that all opinions which are declared feminist are to be treated as canonical utterances, making it into a heresy to question, even though the opinions in question attempt to outline certain characteristics that are inherent to half of humanity. That just doesn't make sense. But you know, we have a wealth of history. Is there another era we might draw from?
Really? I thought I was just questioning why you are calling them nazis. And I made it pretty clear I don't agree with some of those ideas.
But if we are actually talking about decriminalizing sex work, and not just using it as a foil for something else:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/01/rentboy-online-brot...
The prosecution of Rentboy is only one symptom of law enforcement’s far larger and more insidious efforts to criminalize people in the sex trades’ networks of mutual support and safety. The latest e-raid on Rentboy is nothing compared to the daily street sweeps of street families, the Swat-team raids on massage parlors and shared apartments where we gather to increase our security, the constant interrogation and arrest of people who are or are profiled as trading sex for carrying condoms and the targeting of people of color for prostitution-related arrests and prosecutions every day, everywhere.
You and others seem to feel that when negative characteristics are being broadly attributed to a large swath of the population, to challenge such narratives with dialogue only reinforces said characteristics. Those shoes have been tried on before. It's not my fault for noticing the tactics being employed.
Dear Sineed,
please keep your abolitionist crap out out of the forum which explicitly is for discussing sex work from a sex workers rights perspective. the "feminist" forum has plenty of room for your blind ideology.
while i have tried to not post here out of respect for sex workers who called for a complete ban of rabble, it's hard for me to stand by and watch people regurgitate the same old bullshit over and over.
i am grateful that amnesty international did broad consultations, examined the FACTS and came to the inescapable conclusion that any kind of criminalization puts sex workers at risk, including criminalization of the places where we work our customers and our employers.
maybe babblers who who believe otherwise should do the same.
at the very least babblers who do not support decrim should stay out of the only safe space for sex workers on babble.
sincerely
Generally I come from the perspectives of both empowerment of the disempowered and of harm reduction. So I favour decriminalization. I first came to the feminist forum when the Bedford decision came about, feeling that striking down provisions of the Criminal Code which made sex workers' lives unsafe was a good thing, and wanted to share and discuss this empowering story. I was quite astounded at what I found there. Bewildered, actually. Many were judgemental and condemning, unhappy about the decision. Some were cheering on Harper and his Bill C-36. This is Rabble's chat forum Babble?
Police list names of accused in prostitution investigation
Bill C-36 seems to be working as intended. Aside from the invaluable public service of putting names and locations to all the dirty old men hereabouts, the article also highlights how the local population has aged.
The average age is 61 years.
Progress on the (Scottish) horizon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-msps-plans-to-de...
On the appropriation of the terms "slavery" and "abolitionist" from the historical and ongoing black stuggle...
http://www.thefeministwire.com/2015/09/blacksexworkerslivesmatter-white-...
With respect, as much as some people might think they own certain words, the truth is a bit more complex than that, and the bottom line is, they don't. The fact there is a racial and a racist dimension to this doesn't make that argument any less spurious.
Abolition doesn't just mean abolition of slavery, black or otherwise.
And human trafficking is slavery.
Besides, slavery existed before its use with African people, and it still does.
I think it entirely appropriate that Angela Davis can use the term in reference to abuse of the U.S. prison system, and that it has historical resonance; she is not the person making the argument that it can't be used to refer to other kinds of slavery, or other practices - like sexual exploitation - which also had roots in black slavery. She is making the opposite argument.
And she isn't making the claim that she can choose how to use the word, and others can't.
Well voice for men use that ridiculous "feminazi" slur with the same ease you seem to (google it), so perhaps its not surprising you aren't quite so critical of them.
What's ridiculous about the feminazi slur? It's a colourful word to describe radical authoritarian feminism. Nobody says all feminists are feminazi.
With respect, as much as some people might think they own certain words, the truth is a bit more complex than that, and the bottom line is, they don't.
you mean like owning the words human trafficking and slavery and defining them as synonymous?
And human trafficking is slavery.
You mean like conflating prostitution and human trafficking?
You mean like defining the swedish policy on prostitution as decriminalisation?
I think Susan Davis and the other freedom fighters are correct. Under the circumstances conversation is quite impossible. Any attempt is counterproductive because you wind up getting drawn down into quickstand, where the festering sludge suffocates all attempts at movement. Better to chart a path around it and leave it standing as is.
you mean like owning the words human trafficking and slavery and defining them as synonymous?
Again, that was my point about the contradiction in that article. Angela Davis said nothing about African Americans owning words and others appropriating them. She said that one can draw direct connections between slavery and modern systems of systemic racism and abuse.
Modern U.S. prisons may not be built on a law of people as property, but there are aspects of them - particularly their racism and use in business, which are de facto slavery. So yes, one can draw those connections even without a textbook definition, and the sexual abuse of women was similarly a big part of the slave trade. That includes women who are under the control of other people for reasons of addiction, or being in a country illegally.
As for human trafficking, it is a form of slavery, Gustave. Real slavery, and just one of many. Or are you saying you think the practice died out with the old triangle trade?
And did I say that all prostitution is slavery? I think I have said the opposite a few times.
You know SJ, I didn't object to any points in that article about the actual issue; as I have said a couple of times it might be good to get back to that.
What I object to is the nonsensical claim that others are appropriating certain words (which apparently may only be used in one historical context) using an example which doesn't back up that smear at all.
It is nothing but an attempt to silence.
even tho these posts are a couple of months old, i wanted to quote and comment anyway, as well as report this one at least.
This person, Sineed, has no business in the sex worker's rights forum and should be banned. This post is a prime example of twisting the intent and comments of the one (s)he is quoting and pretending that they are in agreement. I find it disgusting and demeaning to sex workers, and very disrespectful to the one Sineed quoted and twisted.
NO one thinks the Nordic regime is a viable alternative to actual real decriminalization, especially the men and women currently working under it in Sweden, Norway, and Canada.
I'd thank the mods for removing and permanently banning this Sineed from this forum. It is people like Sineed who keeps actual sex workers away from here.
Sex work under duress is different from sex work by choice. Using your body to address issues of addiction and/or homelessness is sex work under duress and criminalizing it does nothing to assist those exploited for these vulnerabilities.Precisely. I become frustrated when the debate is framed as a woman's "choice" when in fact sex work is usually the last refuge of the truly desperate.
Criminalization does nothing to address, and actually exacerbates the issues of addiction and poverty.Agree. This is why I favour the Nordic model, where the sex workers are not criminalized. I totally can get how some guys would find it unfair that the (mostly female) sex workers are decriminalized while the (mostly male) customers are not. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that total decrim would make women safer.
What is being sold is a service performed physically, not the body itself and this can be applied to any person who offers a service performed by the body.I used to think this, but not anymore. Sex is qualitatively different from other activities in which we use our bodies to make a living, such as me standing on my feet all day, using my hands to prepare and dispense drugs. The article in the OP tackles many of the ways that sex is different from other kinds of work, which is why I selected it for discussion. There's also the matter of consent which she touches on in the section on sexual harrassment that I mentioned in the other thread. If sex requires enthusiastic consent, how can a sex worker consent enthusiastically? Is the fact that she is being paid constitute sufficient consent? Does economic coercion constitute enthusiastic consent?
I can't help but see total decrim as a tacit endorsement of rape culture.
fortunate! Good to see you. Happy holidays.
The fact of the matter is, total decrim has not been proven to make women safer.
The fact of the matter is that total decrim has been proven, investigated, researched, & holds up to all that. Amnesty international is a far more credible source that CATW, who is really dependent on the victim narrative in order to get that raise their director was so interested in receiving for all her 'hard work' in trying to take down Amnesty International's sex worker policy.
I think it is pretty disgraceful for you to be anywhere near this section, no wonder there is a ban/blockade for sex workers coming to rabble. Meghan Murphy & Sineed as her backup follower to post where she fears to post?
fortunate! Good to see you. Happy holidays.
happy holidays to you as well!!
i am rabbling around twitter these days, lots of fun. i wandered over here after seeing a link to an article, glad to see so many familiar faces even tho these are older posts
happy holidays to you and yours as well :)
We're fortunate to see you again.
no wonder there is a ban/blockade for sex workers coming to rabble.
There's no wonder about that for sure. They stay away to avoid being viciously attacked.
no wonder there is a ban/blockade for sex workers coming to rabble.There's no wonder about that for sure. They stay away to avoid being viciously attacked.
Agreed. It's this one area where Rabble and Babble has failed miserably. It's just not a place where advocacy of rights or safety of sex workers happens. Quite the opposite, actually. Sad really.
Hi fortunate. Please check your inbox.
Agreed. It's this one area where Rabble and Babble has failed miserably. It's just not a place where advocacy of rights or safety of sex workers happens. Quite the opposite, actually. Sad really.
I may be wrong, but I think the long discussion in the feminst forum about the "nordic" model, as a matter of fact the longest discussion in he whole feminist forum, turned out to be more helpfull than disadventageous for sex workers. The aim is not to convince those we discuss with but those reading the discussion. IMHO, we have helped some readers who are not familiar with the debate to make up their minds. The classic case was captain obvious. As he wrote, he did not know much about the debate, learned quite a lot, did not take a clear position but did find our side more convincing. The error would be to think of the readers as puppets falling for everything they read. If we polled every people like him who read the discussion, Id say we won the debate.
The left is incredibly ill informed on the subject for two reasons: the influence of radical feminism and the position of high profile journalists like Chris Hedges. BTW, I though this guy was a serious journalist, fact checking his data, a great figure for the left. Damn did he drop in my respect after that Vancouver presentation last march. He has adopted, since, the language of Rachel Moran, to tell you how far his shit went.
Nice to see you peak in, Fortunate. I wish you all the best for this year.
Hedges is first and foremost a theologian so that often clouds his writing and thought patterns.
I'd love to see the list of people whose thought patterns you don't think are clouded by something or other you don't agree with.
But don't you have to at least try to understand where people are coming from, and whether or not they are unduly influenced by certain elements of the surrounding culture? Or is it preferable to walk blindly in this world as you seem to do?
Trying to understand people's perspectives is not the same as assuming that they can't think for themselves.
Case in point: I'm blind and brainwashed. Like Hedges. Like those gun nuts in Oregon. Like everyone who dares open the NYT. Like anyone who doesn't share your values.
Yet you're not blind and your thinking isn't clouded by anything at all. And by some amazing coincidence people who agree with you also don't get told they can't think for themselves even though they read newspapers just like I do.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3