# Apparently, Feminism is dead!!!



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2012)

> *Feminism – a spent force or fit for the 21st century?*
> 
> Feminism is dead, says Netmums. As feminist activists prepare to lobby parliament, we bring together a group of female thinkers to discuss the rights and roles of women – and men – in society
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/oct/21/feminism-fit-for-21st-century

As a woman, I appreciate being told.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 21, 2012)

The Netmums thing was interesting. It's worth noting it was a self-selecting 'study' of people who are members of or read/visit netmums, for a start. There were lots of questions about being a mum, and considering the platform for the study, it's hardly surprising that lots of them were going to say "issues around being a mum are important to me."

It highlighted how "feminism" is such a dirty word to a lot of people. There are plenty of women who want to see things like equal pay, equal choices, equal representation, and so on, but who don't think they are a 'feminist' nor want to be one, because of negative connotations attached to the word. Those negative connotations, by the way, don't all come from in-fighting between various types of feminism over the years; in large part they come from a rabid media that's made sure it has demonised the word as much as possible, along with plenty of commentators for whom it would be just great if women would stfu and just learn to fit in with the status quo.


----------



## XR75 (Oct 21, 2012)

Or because there's plenty of nutters in it.


----------



## Firky (Oct 21, 2012)

XR75 said:


> Or because there's plenty of nutters in it.


 
Can you provide an example?


----------



## Balbi (Oct 21, 2012)

Speaking as a netmum


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 21, 2012)

No flowers, presumably.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 21, 2012)

"Feminism is dead says Netmums" Is Netmums being ironic? As if a website which is a forum can be said to "say" anything.


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 21, 2012)

Urban75 says otherwise.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

Until I get a letter telling me it's dead, it isn't dead. It seems the media would like feminism to be dead so we can go back to the 1950s when women weren't independent and didn't have opinions and behaved like women should (housewives & secretaries).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2012)

If_ I_ receive such a letter I will of course bin it like I do all junk mail.


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Until I get a letter telling me it's dead, it isn't dead. It seems the media would like feminism to be dead so we can go back to the 1950s when women weren't independent and didn't have opinions and behaved like women should (housewives & secretaries).


It's not just the media ( although it mostly is), I'm noticing some very archaic attitudes from all over the place of late. It's almost as though a recession gives carte Blanche in some quarters to treat women like second class citizens. This makes the whole concept of feminism even more important than before. I sincerely hope that other women realise this.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 21, 2012)

> we bring together a group of female thinkers


What's a female thinker?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2012)

Apparently, women who think, as opposed to those who don't.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

XR75 said:


> Or because there's plenty of nutters in it.


feminism or net mums?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

Netmums 'survey' is a vile and sickening media exercise.






'Use a nanny to care for her kids' ... 'respected and supported'. 
Kids who've had their mothers work as nannies and cleaners will never respect and support it.

'Be a stay at home mum baking cupcakes' - what kind of nonsense stereotype is this? 
23% say it's acceptable to 'marry for money' (husband as lord and master) and 63% say 'topless modelling' (sexualised degradation for money) is acceptable. 
69% believe the major task is the reinstatement of the value of motherhood? Er, what?

'We've got the choice to have a career, but most of us have no choice' ... Again what?
And that's the fault of feminism, apparently 'a downside to its success'.

Apparently only 8% of 20-24 year olds regard themselves as feminists, according to Netmums. Any examination of the 20-24 year olds on netmums? No.

feMEnism. ME. The 'survey' is an attempt to attract advertising revenue from advertisers to their website. These are entrepreneur people making choices. Middle-class, anti-woman and anti-feminist.
Its research (sample and questions alike) is bogus and no newspaper should be accepting any of its conclusions or research as a starting off point for anything.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> It's not just the media ( although it mostly is), I'm noticing some very archaic attitudes from all over the place of late. It's almost as though a recession gives carte Blanche in some quarters to treat women like second class citizens. This makes the whole concept of feminism even more important than before. I sincerely hope that other women realise this.


 
Yep. It's not just the recession though. There's a kickback against women/feminism all over the place, particularly in the deepest, darkest recesses of the internet, but of course it's clear as well when you look at the 'war on women' in the US and so on. Part of it, I'm sure, is a last gasp of people who once could count quite squarely on their own power, as they have that certainty stripped away. They're going kicking and screaming. They're on the wrong side of history, and they know it. And they're damn sure they're going to make a hell of a lot of noise and won't go down without a fight.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

How can it be dead when a woman can display a belly button ring in public and nobody bats an eyelid?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Until I get a letter telling me it's dead, it isn't dead. It seems the media would like feminism to be dead so we can go back to the 1950s when women weren't independent and didn't have opinions and behaved like women should (housewives & secretaries).


 
Speaking on behalf of the media, we don't really care about your independence and opinions as long as you can be relied upon to buy stuff. There are certainly some consumer product categories which feminism might threaten, but independence is broadly helpful: it increases the number of people who need to be persuaded into choices.


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> How can it be dead when a woman can display a belly button ring in public and nobody bats an eyelid?


How is that feminism?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> How can it be dead when a woman can display a belly button ring in public and *nobody* _*bats an eyelid?*_


 
Because eyelids have rights too?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 21, 2012)

The "FeMEnism" thing makes me want to smash a large amount of all the things.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

If mums with daughters have daughters that aren't aware of feminism, then surely the mums at some point haven't explained what feminisim is. Now, it's not just down to the mums admittedly, but for a child to have reached teenage years and be completely devoid of any notion at all about feminism is quite an achievement - no television, radio, internet or reading materials of any kind in order for that to happen. Incredible.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The "FeMEnism" thing makes me want to smash a large amount of all the things.


With power tools


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The "FeMEnism" thing makes me want to smash a large amount of all the things.


 
"Biggest battle is to reinstate the value of motherhood". 
The clue is the '*re-',* they think the 'value of motherhood' has been lost, but implicitly was once there in sexist, classist Britain of the 19?0s.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> How is that feminism?


 

Woman are now free to participate equally in the Great Struggle Against Boredom, thus revealing along the way that their inner-vacuity is on a par with that of any man.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Woman are now free to participate equally in the Great Struggle Against Boredom, thus revealing along the way that their inner-vacuity is on a par with that of any man.


Inner vacuity? Do you think women are vacuous with nothing of interest to say?


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

I think there's a lot of a younger generation that have completely fallen for the media protrayal of feminism as uppity women demanding to be in charge of men. Young lad in class last week was happily telling me that feminism was a cause of discrimination, gave one example of a woman in a position in an acedemic department as proof that women didn't face a glass celiling in employment, and didn't actually believe  paygap existed. This is at the institution that was host to such delights as 'uni lad' whose assertions that men should rape for entertainment because women wouldn't report it, made national news. I was just astounded by how much he had bought into the perception that women asking for equality was wrong and how much some of the younger women in the class went along with it.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Inner vacuity? Do you think women are vacuous with nothing of interest to say?


 


Mostly, yes. Most men too.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> "Biggest battle is to reinstate the value of motherhood".
> The clue is the '*re-',* they think the 'value of motherhood' has been lost, but implicitly was once there in sexist, classist Britain of the 19?0s.


I can sort of understand what they're saying. Re: the drive to completely obliterate stay at home parenting completely unless you're very rich.
Once upon a time one wage was enough for a household to live on, now both parties struggle working fulltime... The relentless attacks on single mums/ benefits etc now there is no culture that staying home with kids is actually even a job at all, unless you're being paid to look after someone else's


----------



## revol68 (Oct 21, 2012)

I wish netmums was dead


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> I think there's a lot of a younger generation that have completely fallen for the media protrayal of feminism as uppity women demanding to be in charge of men. Young lad in class last week was happily telling me that feminism was a cause of discrimination, gave one example of a woman in a position in an acedemic department as proof that women didn't face a glass celiling in employment, and didn't actually believe  paygap existed. This is at the institution that was host to such delights as 'uni lad' whose assertions that men should rape for entertainment because women wouldn't report it, made national news. I was just astounded by how much he had bought into the perception that women asking for equality was wrong and how much some of the younger women in the class went along with it.



I want to weep when I hear this. I swear I have noticed a huge step backwards recently and this absolutely illustrates it. When I was a student 20 years ago, I can't imagine anyone saying anything like this. Have we moved on? Have we? I don't think so.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Feminism's greatest failing was in assuming that men have a great time most of the time.

More middle class women then gained the opportunity to discover what working class women had always known: that life in the workplace is usually as stultifying and hopeless as life confined to the home.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> I want to weep when I hear this. I swear I have noticed a huge step backwards recently and this absolutely illustrates it. When I was a student 20 years ago, I can't imagine anyone saying anything like this. Have we moved on? Have we? I don't think so.


 


What gives you the impression that things always 'move on?'


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> I want to weep when I hear this. I swear I have noticed a huge step backwards recently and this absolutely illustrates it. When I was a student 20 years ago, I can't imagine anyone saying anything like this. Have we moved on? Have we? I don't think so.


 
he's doing a masters, so apparently was smart enough to get a half decent first degree, in history. but still fell for this shite.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> What gives you the impression that things always 'move on?'


 
i wish you would move on.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 21, 2012)

Do you know someone called LLETSA, SlaveofSolitude?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I can sort of understand what they're saying. Re: the drive to completely obliterate stay at home parenting completely unless you're very rich.
> *Once upon a time* *one wage was enough for a household to live on*, now both parties struggle working fulltime... The relentless attacks on single mums/ benefits etc now there is no culture that staying home with kids is actually even a job at all, unless you're being paid to look after someone else's


 
When was this 'once upon a time'? Not disagreeing with you, btw.

I don't see a drive to obliterate stay at home parenting, instead a generalised drive to reduce the social wage (socialised childcare) and real incomes. As well as some women being forced into work unfairly like you mention, some are being forced back into domestic labour and drudgery due to zero childcare and little marginal income benefit once costs are taken into account and the male partner (fairly uniformly) still has higher-paying or more chance at higher paying employment.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Mostly, yes. Most men too.


So you came onto this forum to say what exactly?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

That netmum's research is hideous.

There's about 20 things I could rip into, but what really got me was how it was identified that women have too much pressure on them now to be perfect in all domains - yet this seemed to be _linked_ to feminism, rather than seen as being a reason why feminism is still much needed. It also seems particuarly sad/infuriating given the recent stories of Amanda Todd, research that eating disorders are on the increase, and increasing reports of sexist group behaviours at university freshers week (including "dress as a rapist" parties if memory serves correctly). Fucks sake. We're stepping back and at least some women seem to be calling for it


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Do you know someone called LLETSA, SlaveofSolitude?


 


Somebody called what? Is that even a name?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> So you came onto this forum to say what exactly?


 


To say what I've said, which is self-explanatory.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> To say what I've said, which is self-explanatory.


What, that people are vacuous with worthless opinions?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> i wish you would move on.


 


But what does give peple the impression that things always 'move on'? I suppose they do in a sense, but not always, or even usually, for the better.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Feminism's greatest failing was in assuming that men have a great time most of the time.
> 
> More middle cllass women then gained the opportunity to discover what working class women had always known: that life in the workplace is usually as stultifying and hopeless as life confined to the home.


Feminism never assumed that 'men have a great time' to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> What, that people are vacuous with worthless opinions?


 


Yes. Mostly. Is that not a valid point of view?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Feminism never assumed that 'men have a great time' to the best of my knowledge.


 

Good.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> When was this 'once upon a time'? Not disagreeing with you, btw.
> 
> I don't see a drive to obliterate stay at home parenting, instead a generalised drive to reduce the social wage (socialised childcare) and real incomes. As well as some women being forced into work unfairly like you mention, some are being forced back into domestic labour and drudgery due to zero childcare and little marginal income benefit once costs are taken into account and the male partner (fairly uniformly) still has higher-paying or more chance at higher paying employment.


I was just thinking of a post someone made on a thread ages ago about someone's relative who left school at 14 (?) got a factory job and the whole family could pay rent on the home on the back of that. 
(Back turn of the century??) Hardly a golden era for motherhood I'm sure, more the point a single wage could maintain a family.
Labour did make a big onslaught into getting women into work (ie no stay at home and help the family) What they failed to realise is where are the carers going to come from and how much is it costing.
Honestly, obsessed doesn't cover it.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Yes. Mostly. Is that not a valid point of view?


I find it strange that if you hold that viewpoint you would bother to join a forum known for its opinions, and would especially only join to contribute about a discussion on feminism, an opinionated subject.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Feminism never assumed that 'men have a great time' to the best of my knowledge.


 
exactly.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Good.


What's your point? You're now agreeing with me?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Feminism never assumed that 'men have a great time' to the best of my knowledge.


No, although _certain_ men who also fall into other priviledged camps, for example most of our current and predominantly white, male, millionaire cabinet, seem to be having a party.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> What's your point? You're now agreeing with me?


 
don't think it has a point, other than being a complete twunt


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> No, although _certain_ men who also fall into other priviledged camps, for example most of our current and predominantly white, male, millionaire cabinet, seem to be having a party.


A never-ending party at that.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I was just thinking of a post someone made on a thread ages ago about someone's relative who left school at 14 (?) got a factory job and the whole family could pay rent on the home on the back of that.
> (Back turn of the century??) Hardly a golden era for motherhood I'm sure, more the point a single wage could maintain a family.
> Labour did make a big onslaught into getting women into work (ie no stay at home and help the family) What they failed to realise is where are the carers going to come from and how much is it costing.
> Honestly, obsessed doesn't cover it.


 


My dad's mother got bysinosis (sp.) doing twelve hour shifts in the mills for most of her life.

A single wage was never enough for the working class.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> My dad's mother got bysinosis (sp.) doing twelve hour shifts in the mills for most of her life.
> 
> A single wage was never enough for the working class.


Course the conditions were shit. After seeing that doc about service, I can still see how it would still have been more appealing than that. Some choice though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Feminism's greatest failing was in assuming that men have a great time most of the time.
> 
> .


 
By that reasoning mens' great failing was to buy into and perpetuate hegemonic masculinity, which meant women felt/feel the need to fight for equality.


----------



## Riklet (Oct 21, 2012)

Nietzsch-mums is dead.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> What's your point? You're now agreeing with me?


 


The point: that maybe you're right and that most feminists didn't think men have a great time most of the time.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> No, although _certain_ men who also fall into other priviledged camps, for example most of our current and predominantly white, male, millionaire cabinet, seem to be having a party.


 
suppose it depends how class conscious you think feminism is. my assertion would be 'not nearly enough', but in most circles, class is another dirty word. pretend there is no such thing as a _working _poor and anyone whoe opinion 'matters' is middle class.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> By that reasoning mens' great failing was to buy into and perpetuate hegemonic masculinity, which meant women felt/feel the need to fight for equality.


 


I think you'll find that most men (and most women) didn't even think about any of it. As with anything else, the self-important chatterers drove things on.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

The Observer interviews are pretty dreary too.

This is the 'left-wing' trade union full-timer GMB's National Chief for its NHS sector: 'I've been fortunate. I've been to Haiti and I've seen first-hand how women are oppressed in the 21st century in the workplaces. I met a group of fantastic women in Sierra Leone at the first ever women's labour conference that they managed to organise after a decade of absolutely awful stuff, and those women said: "The only people who are going to be in charge of our destiny is us." The point that Melissa was making about the sisterhood is absolutely right. Because along the way we've moved in to different groups' internal discussion about right, left and centre and all the rest of it, rather than globally trying to eradicate injustice and have dignity.'

'globally trying to eradicate injustice and have dignity' means you shouldn't have 'internal discussion about right, left and centre'.

The rightist journalist says with the current situation "that's no good for men, because they are becoming emasculated."
The rightist journalist defending women: "if you burden employers with so much – very well-meaning – legislation designed to boost women, you are going to end up with some employers saying "I'm not going to employ a woman" because it's too much trouble."

The figure from UK Feminista is on point. But it's troubling to find out that her paid job is as 
'Fiona Ranford, Grassroots Activism Manager at UK Feminista'. WTF?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

More broadly I would call myself a moderate feminist, at least since my mid 20s. I do recognise that patriarchy can often be negative for men as well as women. I support women's individual choices to able to choose a more traditional lifestyle if they choose to do so, although I may be curious and gently challenging about what influences led to those decision.

However, if this goes on I am going to get to the stage of telling other women they're completely wrong. 

That comment about mothers thinking their daughters "would never know a world with inequality" really got me as well. Certain inequalities may be either closing or at least be less apparent, but there's a whole host of other inequalities getting worse. And if younger female adults are already having these sorts of views of feminism, what on earth are those daughters going to think when they grow up?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> And if younger female adults are already having these sorts of views of feminism, what on earth are those daughters going to think when they grow up?


 

They'll think what the dominant culture tells them to think, just like everybody else.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I was just thinking of a post someone made on a thread ages ago about someone's relative who left school at 14 (?) got a factory job and the whole family could pay rent on the home on the back of that.
> (Back turn of the century??) Hardly a golden era for motherhood I'm sure, more the point a single wage could maintain a family.
> Labour did make a big onslaught into getting women into work (ie no stay at home and help the family) What they failed to realise is where are the carers going to come from and how much is it costing.
> Honestly, obsessed doesn't cover it.


 
I don't think it's true that a single wage was enough - there was severe extreme poverty amongst families with fathers in work. It depends on the job and the social conditions. If you have a male with a skilled craft that is in demand and your family is lucky not to ever fall ill, then maybe you might survive at the turn of the century. If not you're in trouble. My family's background is not Britain, and at the turn of the century anywhere else a single wage was never ever enough. 

I'd say Labour didn't make enough of an onslaught - they let the women get attacked in the workplace because, as a capitalist party they profited from it. Grunwick's being the most important battle.
They were never committed to the socialisation of childcare and the abolition, as a concept, of the nuclear family.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> They'll think what the dominant culture tells them to think, just like everybody else.


You seem to be under the impression we're all mindless drones regardless of gender.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I don't think it's true that a single wage was enough - there was severe extreme poverty amongst families with fathers in work. It depends on the job and the social conditions. If you have a male with a skilled craft that is in demand and your family is lucky not to ever fall ill, then maybe you might survive at the turn of the century. If not you're in trouble. My family's background is not Britain, and at the turn of the century anywhere else a single wage was never ever enough.
> 
> I'd say Labour didn't make enough of an onslaught - they let the women get attacked in the workplace because, as a capitalist party they profited from it. Grunwick's being the most important battle.
> They were never committed to the socialisation of childcare and the abolition, as a concept, of the nuclear family.


I'm sure you're right about a single wage not being "enough" but the proportions of what used to be acceptable for housing out of overall income was about 25% as a rule of thumb. That's dramatically altered now.
I wish I could remember what exact year/ era the person who made this quote was. Or what the thread was...


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> You seem to be under the impression we're all mindless drones regardless of gender.


 


Why? Don't you need a mind to swallow wholesale what the dominant culture tells you to swallow wholesale?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Do you know someone called LLETSA, SlaveofSolitude?


 Good call.  Just about the most existential marvin-the-paranoid-androidism you can pack into a username.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Why? Don't you need a mind to swallow wholesale what the dominant culture tells you to swallow wholesale?


Because what you're peddling is that we don't think for ourselves, that we're 'swallowing wholesale what the dominant culture tells us to'.

And that's bullshit, frankly.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I'm sure you're right about a single wage not being "enough" but the proportions of what used to be acceptable for housing out of overall income was about 25% as a rule of thumb. That's dramatically altered now.
> I wish I could remember what exact year/ era the person who made this quote was. Or what the thread was...


 
To encourage the self-financing of housing now there is a mortgage system, which was not the norm back then.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Because what you're peddling is that we don't think for ourselves, that we're 'swallowing wholesale what the dominant culture tells us to'.
> 
> And that's bullshit, frankly.


 
And one would assume that, by implication, the only person capable of not doing that is SlaveofSolitude.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 21, 2012)

Or LLETSA.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And one would assume that, by implication, the only person capable of not doing that is SlaveofSolitude.


 
No SlaveofSolitude because he/she is a slave of solitude, is aware of the fact that they're doing this, which makes things OK, or not OK. Take your pick. 'Doesn't matter anyhow'


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Because what you're peddling is that we don't think for ourselves, that we're 'swallowing wholesale what the dominant culture tells us to'.
> 
> And that's bullshit, frankly.


 

Not everybody. I don't, for example, but most people I know or encounter do to one degree or another.

Just look at these boards, full as they are of self-styled revolutionaries and rebels, and yet every commonplace notion and cliche of the time is regurgitated constantly.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

If feminism's dead, how are we to understand the Savile thing?  'Steady on Jim, best if you wait till they're a bit older you cheeky monkey'!  'Oooh, the Beeb!  There was _all sorts of stuff_ going on in the Top of the Pops Dressing Rooms.  Take 'em back to your caravan Mr Shellsuit!'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Not everybody. I don't, for example, but most people I know or encounter do to one degree or another.
> 
> Just look at these boards, full as they are of self-styled revolutionaries and rebels, and yet every commonplace notion and cliche of the time is regurgitated constantly.


 
It must be really fucking awesome being you.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Just look at these boards, full as they are of self-styled revolutionaries and rebels, and yet every commonplace notion and cliche of the time is regurgitated constantly.


When did you develop this view of urban?  Over the last hour when most of your postings on the site were made?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It must be really fucking awesome being you.


 


It's really shit. Always has been.

But what can you do?


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

Wilf said:


> When did you develop this view of urban? Over the last hour when most of your postings on the site were made?


 



Long been a reader.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Long been a reader.


 
Looks like we've got ourselves a reader.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> It's really shit. Always has been.
> 
> But what can you do?



Cheer up love its a nice sunny day.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Cheer up love its a nice sunny day.


 

I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like we've got ourselves a reader.


 Like one of those flowers in the desert that blooms every 10 years.  Take heed, SoS is blooming!

Oh, and yeah, dubversion, biscuits and something or other. What are my manners like?


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> It's really shit. Always has been.
> 
> But what can you do?


 
well, you can fuck off and take your misery and shit somewhere else. then the rest of us can have a slightly more constructive discussion.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 21, 2012)

Netmums needs some free publicity.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Netmums 'survey' is a vile and sickening media exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok not read the whole thread so maybe repeating what others have said. But the acceptable activities for a feminist bit has pissed me of so much I don't know where to begin. No I do with the fact that includes having highlights and false nails and prostitution as though thay are each just some forms of life style choice.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> well, you can fuck off and take your misery and shit somewhere else. then the rest of us can have a slightly more constructive discussion.



Can't disagree with that. However, if you are Llletsa I'd like to say the permaban seemed a bit dispraportionate, even if you were (very much) out of order disbelieving Mrs M and others about disability hate crime. I was on your case and you desrved a serious kick up the arse over that. Permaban - no (though I don't know the 'previous' on which it was based, so equally I'm not really having a go at the mods).


If you ain't Lletsa, this will be _deeply_ confusing.  However Captain Hurrah's CSI Team have provided incontravertible linguistic analysis.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Ok not read the whole thread so maybe repeating what others have said. But the a acceptable activities for a feminist bit has passed me of so much I don't know where to begin. No I do with the fact that includes having highlights and false nails and prostitution as though that are each just some forms of life style choice.


 
an acceptable act for a feminist is tbh, whatever the fuck she wants to do. it's forced activities we should focus on. not things a woman chooseds to do. an attitude of 'you're letiing the side down' by choosing to wear what you choose to wear, as one example, is what drives young women away in some cases.

that isn't to say i think every choice is a feminist choice. i've chatted on the net to women who claim to have chosen to enter into marriages where they are submissive to their husbands. that is their choice, but ti's a long way from being feminist. but we need to explore why they have felt the need to make these dicisions rather than attack them personally.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 21, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Can't disagree with that. However, if you are Llletsa I'd like to say the permaban seemed a bit dispraportionate, even if you were (very much) out of order disbelieving Mrs M and others about disability hate crime. I was on your case and you desrved a serious kick up the arse over that. Permaban - no (though I don't know the 'previous' on which it was based, so equally I'm not really having a go at the mods).
> 
> 
> If you ain't Lletsa, this will be _deeply_ confusing.  However Captain Hurrah's CSI Team have provided incontravertible linguistic analysis.


 
The username is also a giveaway.  He's a Hamilton fan.

I don't think he should have been permabanned either, fwiw.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> that isn't to say i think every choice is a feminist choice. i've chatted on the net to women who claim to have chosen to enter into marriages where they are submissive to their husbands. *that is their choice*, but ti's a long way from being feminist. but we need to explore why they have felt the need to make these dicisions rather than attack them personally.


 
That's not simple "their choice", those "marriages" are entered into for the income security they provide. That's economic coercion. Who has ever attacked them personally? Feminism has never attacked 'wives' personally. It never attacked Miss USA personally etc etc.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 21, 2012)

What would would mumsnet know about feminism, sure they've already shown their willingness to collaborate with patriarchy and the colonialisation of their bodies. 

Children and the family are nothing more than a means of tying women to parochial idiocy and reproducing atomised social relations.

Smash Mums!


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> That's not simple "their choice", those "marriages" are entered into for the income security they provide. That's economic coercion. Who has ever attacked them personally? Feminism has never attacked 'wives' personally. It never attacked Miss USA personally etc etc.


 
i've seen people attacking them on a personal level. feminism may not personally attack anyone, but some people claiming to be feminists will.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> an acceptable act for a feminist is tbh, whatever the fuck she wants to do. it's forced activities we should focus on. not things a woman chooseds to do. an attitude of 'you're letiing the side down' by choosing to wear what you choose to wear, as one example, is what drives young women away in some cases.
> 
> that isn't to say i think every choice is a feminist choice. i've chatted on the net to women who claim to have chosen to enter into marriages where they are submissive to their husbands. that is their choice, but ti's a long way from being feminist. but we need to explore why they have felt the need to make these dicisions rather than attack them personally.


 well yes it was the only bit I had really looked at when I first posted because it annoyed me simply by being there. But I was really shocked to see they put both highlights and prostitution on the same list.
There is so much wrong with the whole thing I truly don't know where to start.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

not to mention the massively selevtive sample. netmum readers. yes,. those who are probably parents of fairly young children. hardly supprising childcare issues are high on the agenda. but not really as relavent to other groups of women.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 21, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Smash Mums!


 
Great slogan!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> The username is also a giveaway. He's a Hamilton fan.
> .


 Oh, _Patrick_ Hamilton, I've just spent 30 seconds trying to make links to Scottish lower league football.  (((( beerfog ))))


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> i've seen people attacking them on a personal level. feminism may not personally attack anyone, but some people claiming to be feminists will.


 
OK, I'll take your word for it. But this is leftist people attacking mothers on an individual basis simply for looking after their children, right?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> not to mention the massively selevtive sample. netmum readers. yes,. those who are probably parents of fairly young children. hardly supprising childcare issues are high on the agenda. but not really as relavent to other groups of women.


They should sample urban


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 21, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Oh, _Patrick_ Hamilton


 
We've talked about liking that particular book before (The Slaves of Solitude).


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

By taking choices away from women, you take choices away from women. That's pretty much the size of it. By criticising, underpaying, undervaluing, eroding self esteem, questioning choices, marginalising, preventing justice and disrespecting them, you take women's choices away. You have to keep your fucking eyes open to this - it can be very subtle. Being a mum may change your priorities but it shouldn't change your ideals with regard to equality - unless you want your daughters to grow up with no choices.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

Here is some more media comment about it.

This is Guardian neo-feminist Morwenna Ferrier being kind to feminists for their own good in Grazia magazine, the same firm also publishes Bella, Take a Break, TVQuick/TVChoice, Q, Kerrang! amongst others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/morwennaferrier


" A lot of what is written by traditional ‘feminists’ leaves me feeling so angry I want to tug on their armpit hair."

http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/conver...eminism-rules--ok-err--or-not-apparently-.htm

It's interesting, tells you something about the new generation of British journalists on liberal newspapers, 'negotiating the aftermath'.

"They’re usually the aggressive types who dictate the rules that you must abide by to be a part of the posse. Don’t shave your legs, don’t even think about waxing your pubes and, for god’s sake, don’t settle down and have children before you’ve bagged the top job – preferably from under a man’s feet. The idea that a hierarchy appears to exist in modern feminism (which it does) mocks the very essence of the cause. And it’s pretty annoying.

What they don’t realise is that there was a time when feminists needed to be aggressive; needed to act like men in order to equal them. But, to a great extent, it worked. So for me and my generation, feminism isn’t about fighting the battle but negotiating the aftermath.
We still want equal pay, an end to gender discrimination and sexism – we do. But for us sexism is less aggressive than it was. The men we’ve grown up around think of women as their equal - it’s all a normal part of the world we know. Think of us as neo-feminists.
In our world, men like shopping and buy their own exfoliator. In every relationship I’ve been in, my boyfriends have been verging on being higher maintenance than me in the grooming stakes. And cooking, and cleaning, come to mention it. They want to settle down and they’re not afraid to say it, and they don’t mind not being the boss."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> It's not just the media ( although it mostly is), I'm noticing some very archaic attitudes from all over the place of late. It's almost as though a recession gives carte Blanche in some quarters to treat women like second class citizens.


 
And because sexism is probably the most deeply-rooted issue after class, it's easier for business and the media to push a narrative where sexism can be seen as more acceptable than racism, ageism or ableism, for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The "FeMEnism" thing makes me want to smash a large amount of all the things.


 
I just read your post while "Smash It Up" by The Damned was playing. It's an omen!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Netmums 'survey' is a vile and sickening media exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've just read all that, and I personally feel like, in the context of the above, "the personal is political" has become "the political is personal", i.e. not something the respondents want to engage with collectively.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Here is some more media comment about it.
> 
> This is Guardian neo-feminist Morwenna Ferrier being kind to feminists for their own good in Grazia magazine, the same firm also publishes Bella, Take a Break, TVQuick/TVChoice, Q, Kerrang! amongst others.
> 
> ...


So Ms Ferrier's stance is basically "because I go out with somewhat vain but liberal boys who are happy to do cook a coq au vin, and because I am happy to go along with certain norms of conventional attractiveness, then there are NO more problems out there, kthxbai feminists whose work allowed me to work for writing publications starting with G".

Or more succinctly, "because I don't feel oppressed no-one else is". 

(please note that I am not opposing her _choices_ just her rather (IMO selfish) logic )


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> Feminism's greatest failing was in assuming that men have a great time most of the time.


 
I can't think of a single mode of feminism that made such an assumption.
The fact that men on the whole got a better deal than women in employment, in law and as social beings is historically-indisputable.



> More middle class women then gained the opportunity to discover what working class women had always known: that life in the workplace is usually as stultifying and hopeless as life confined to the home.


 
Hmm. Until the imposition of the concept of the "nuclear family", many working-class women weren't "confined to the home".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> he's doing a masters, so apparently was smart enough to get a half decent first degree, in history. but still fell for this shite.


 
Just makes me wonder how he got a half-decent first degree when he's obviously a stranger to reading different sources and then achieving a synthesis of those sources.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2012)

I guess the change to calling this nonsense idea feMEnism could be a good thing if it helps to distinguish feminism from the capitalist co-opting of certain ideas in order to shift product.

I love the idea that everything would be so great for women if there was equal representation in 'top boardroom jobs'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

SlaveofSolitude said:


> They'll think what the dominant culture tells them to think, just like everybody else.


 
No, you're definitely not LLETSA, definitely not.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> So Ms Ferrier's stance is basically "because I go out with somewhat vain but liberal boys who are happy to do cook a coq au vin, and because I am happy to go along with certain norms of conventional attractiveness, then there are NO more problems out there, kthxbai feminists whose work allowed me to work for writing publications starting with G".
> 
> Or more succinctly, "because I don't feel oppressed no-one else is".
> 
> (please note that I am not opposing her _choices_ just her rather (IMO selfish) logic )


 
I agree. She does identify with feminism, her neo-feminism - a liberal form of feminism. That's what liberalism does to things - makes them rubbish and self-centred.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I agree. She does identify with feminism, her neo-feminism - a liberal form of feminism. That's what liberalism does to things - makes them rubbish and self-centred.


 
By 'liberalism' do you mean 'capitalism'?


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can't think of a single mode of feminism that made such an assumption.
> The fact that men on the whole got a better deal than women in employment, in law and as social beings is historically-indisputable.
> 
> Hmm. Until the imposition of the concept of the "nuclear family", many working-class women weren't "confined to the home".


 
Radical feminism certainly did along with a shitload of other rubbish that sought to identify men as the enemy. Don't bother asking me for sources go find them yourself Mr know it all

What part of working class women have always known did you miss?

I'm assuming you're an old man with some memory problems. Even so you shouldn't presume to criticise others just because you can't remember shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> i've seen people attacking them on a personal level. feminism may not personally attack anyone, but some people claiming to be feminists will.


 
Yep, there are always some people in any "interest group" or adherents to any ideology who are exclusionary and/or elitist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Radical feminism certainly did along with a shitload of other rubbish that sought to identify men as the enemy. Don't bother asking me for sources go find them yourself Mr know it all


 
Was the poster talking about "radical feminism", knobchops? They were attributing the attitude to feminism _per se_, and even radical feminisms didn't say "men are having  great time", they mention the imbalance between gender roles and expectations.



> What part of working class women have always known did you miss?


 
None of it. The context of my reply was in the poster saying "have always known".



> I'm assuming you're an old man with some memory problems. Even so you shouldn't presume to criticise others just because you can't remember shit.


 
I'm assuming you're an arsehole who shouldn't presume to criticise others just because you don't understand shit.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 21, 2012)

Whoever put that survey together needs to check their privilege and possibly reach for the hemlock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> So Ms Ferrier's stance is basically "because I go out with somewhat vain but liberal boys who are happy to do cook a coq au vin, and because I am happy to go along with certain norms of conventional attractiveness, then there are NO more problems out there, kthxbai feminists whose work allowed me to work for writing publications starting with G".
> 
> Or more succinctly, "because I don't feel oppressed no-one else is".
> 
> (please note that I am not opposing her _choices_ just her rather (IMO selfish) logic )


 
I'm a bit fazed by any attitude that assumes that because you don't feel oppressed, that you're not being oppressed, and that in that case no-one can be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Whoever put that survey together needs to check their privilege and possibly reach for the hemlock.


 
Why grant them a Socratic end?


----------



## Balbi (Oct 21, 2012)

Im a whimsical capricious middle class white male who enjoys irony as much as my privilege lends me oppressive nature.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Im a whimsical capricious middle class white male who enjoys irony as much as my privilege lends me oppressive nature.


 
Dude, check your privilege!


----------



## Balbi (Oct 21, 2012)

*explodes from stupidity*


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 21, 2012)

Burning bras never happened. Trust Mumsnet to use that old myth as an introduction to their FeMEinism nonsense. Shabby.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> *explodes from stupidity*


 
How's the virus?


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Was the poster talking about "radical feminism", knobchops? They were attributing the attitude to feminism _per se_, and even radical feminisms didn't say "men are having great time", they mention the imbalance between gender roles and expectations.
> None of it. The context of my reply was in the poster saying "have always known".
> I'm assuming you're an arsehole who shouldn't presume to criticise others just because you don't understand shit.


 
You are now a fucking idiot who shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard without supervision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> You are now a fucking idiot who shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard without supervision.


 
And you, the mighty Arlarse have declared this!

Unsurprising how many of your posts play the man rather than the ball.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Whoever put that survey together needs to check their privilege and possibly reach for the hemlock.


The thing that gets me is that, most likely, at least some of the respondents (and quite possibly the person who put the survey together) will have found themselves at the receiving end of some form of sexism but will have dismissed it as sexism, iyswim. For example I’m sure _some_ of those women would have found themselves disadvantaged employment wise as a result of them becoming mothers, whether or not they personally made the choice to step away from their career. I’m sure a good percentage of them would have been subjected to unwanted sexual attention, to whatever severity, at some point, even if they didn’t interpret it as a sexist act. And given other (more scientifically rigorous) studies about body dissatisfaction, I’m sure that at least some of those women will have beat themselves up at some point over how they looked. At least there was a desire to stop airbrushing (and what is that but a feminist issue??)

So in regards to privilege, yes there is privilege for there not to be a perceived massively oppressive force or a personally repressive one. But, in at least some cases, I’d suspect there's also an internalisation of the patriarchal society which is being claimed to not be a problem. In a similar way, I bet there were housewives in the 50s who were pleased with their lot and wouldn't have considerd themselves oppressed at all...


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Burning bras never happened. Trust Mumsnet to use that old myth as an introduction to their FeMEinism nonsense. Shabby.


 
i think after the initial incident, which wasn't burning bras, the myth got spread and there were some poeple burning bras because they thought that was what you were 'supposed to do'.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a bit fazed by any attitude that assumes that because you don't feel oppressed, that you're not being oppressed, and that in that case no-one can be.


Yup. And I agree as a woman who, on some levels (i.e. fairly well paid career in a female dominated profession), is probably freer from oppression than most. I can still recognise the inequalities faced by others, in addition to those more subtle issues that permeates my own life on a regular basis, including my own cultural conditioning.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> How's the virus?



Burned it out with chili and water.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> i think after the initial incident, which wasn't burning bras, the myth got spread and there were some poeple burning bras because they thought that was what you were 'supposed to do'.


Actually I've got a few rather ouchy bras I'd be happy to burn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> i think after the initial incident, which wasn't burning bras, the myth got spread and there were some poeple burning bras because they thought that was what you were 'supposed to do'.


Yep and since the 1970s when feminism made the headlines, there's been a concerted effort on the part of the media and certain political parties to smear feminists as and when the need arises. It's literally a false memory that's been inserted into the mass subconscious and people like those at Mumsnet repeat it without asking any questions of it, possibly because they believe the false memory to be real. They may as well be demanding their own bondage fwiw.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Actually I've got a few rather ouchy bras I'd be happy to burn.


 
same here. but i'd be a lot more ouchy without one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Yup. And I agree as a woman who, on some levels (i.e. fairly well paid career in a female dominated profession), is probably freer from oppression than most. I can still recognise the inequalities faced by others, in addition to those more subtle issues that permeates my own life on a regular basis, including my own cultural conditioning.


 
It's such a mad assumption, though. I remember when Lorna Fitzsimmons (head of the First Division Association way back when) came out with some _schtick_ that was basically her saying "because I'm head of the union for upper-level Civil Servants, that proves that the Civil Service and trade unions aren't sexist". Loads of support from the liberal media, even though she would have known she was talking shite if she looked at the disparity in promotion for her membership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Burned it out with chili and water.


 
At least you didn't have to resort to actual fire!


----------



## revol68 (Oct 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep and since the 1970s when feminism made the headlines, there's been a concerted effort on the part of the media and certain political parties to smear feminists as and when the need arises. It's literally a false memory that's been inserted into the mass subconscious and people like those at Mumsnet repeat it without asking any questions of it, possibly because they believe the false memory to be real. They may as well be demanding their own bondage fwiw.


 
It shouldn't be surprising that in the face of financial insecurity, the removable of social services and the grim reality of a "career" etc that many women take a rose tinted view of patriarchal relations in the past, of the male bread winner, the stable nuclear family.


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And you, the mighty Arlarse have declared this!
> Unsurprising how many of your posts play the man rather than the ball.


 
Really maybe you could count how many of my posts do that and report back like a real little trooper. Do you think you can manage that?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It shouldn't be surprising that in the face of financial insecurity, the removable of social services and the grim reality of a "career" etc that many women take a rose tinted view of patriarchal relations in the past, of the male bread winner, the stable nuclear family.


Hey, in my darkest hours when I'm having a relapse and have still had to go to work else there literally wouldn't be food on the table, having a husband to be the main breadwinner has never looked so appealing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Really maybe you could count how many of my posts do that and report back like a real little trooper. Do you think you can manage that?


 
Better things to do with my time, thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Actually I've got a few rather ouchy bras I'd be happy to burn.


 
Just as long as they're not synthetic fibres!

Won't somebody think of the environment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Hey, in my darkest hours when I'm having a relapse and have still had to go to work else there literally wouldn't be food on the table, having a husband to be the main breadwinner has never looked so appealing.


 
In that case, it's a pity that employment demographics have pretty much nudged that stereotype into touch!


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's such a mad assumption, though. I remember when Lorna Fitzsimmons (head of the First Division Association way back when) came out with some _schtick_ that was basically her saying "because I'm head of the union for upper-level Civil Servants, that proves that the Civil Service and trade unions aren't sexist". Loads of support from the liberal media, even though she would have known she was talking shite if she looked at the disparity in promotion for her membership.


 
this is what twonk bloke tried to convince me of. any sign of female promotion should be taken as an indicator that institutional sexism was dead. but i think people want to believe this. they want to believe they aren't sexist, they want to believe they cn do it if they want to, not that they will do it if their face fits enough to be the token girl.


----------



## Thora (Oct 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Burning bras never happened. Trust Mumsnet to use that old myth as an introduction to their FeMEinism nonsense. Shabby.


This survey was done by Netmums, not Mumsnet.

I think actually the results of a Mumsnet survey would have been quite different, as the two sites seem to have quite different users.  And Mumsnet has a large feminism forum.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Hey, in my darkest hours when I'm having a relapse and have still had to go to work else there literally wouldn't be food on the table, having a husband to be the main breadwinner has never looked so appealing.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Hey, in my darkest hours when I'm having a relapse and have still had to go to work else there literally wouldn't be food on the table, having a husband to be the main breadwinner has never looked so appealing.


Given that I've been on short term contracts for the last 2.5 years (thankfully renewed ones so far), when the Crispy one and I have kids we'll almost certainly be forced into that unless I get something more stable. Which I have to say, won't be my choice. Despite what I said in my previous post about being relatively lucky regarding work from an oppression POV, it is an example of exactly how things change and become a bit more shit for women when kids enter the equation.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 21, 2012)

for every girl who wants a career and all that shite, there is a boy like me who just wants be kept by a rich women and indulged in my frivolous little interests.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

toggle said:


> this is what twonk bloke tried to convince me of. any sign of female promotion should be taken as an indicator that institutional sexism was dead.


 
In which case he doesn't know what "institutional sexism" is. There are female judges, but that doesn't mean the judiciary isn't still institutionally sexist. There are female Parliamentarians, but that doesn't mean that the practices of the members of the Commons and Lords aren't institutionally sexist. If institutional sexism were dead, we wouldn't forever see reminders that it's alive and kicking.



> but i think people want to believe this. they want to believe they aren't sexist...


 
Often because it's easier than challenging your own thinking, or accepting that your opinions might be based on prejudices rather than fact.



> ...they want to believe they cn do it if they want to, not that they will do it if their face fits enough to be the token girl.


 
And "face fits" is often too close to the truth for comfort in some employment situations.


----------



## SlaveofSolitude (Oct 21, 2012)

revol68 said:


> for every girl who wants a career and all that shite, there is a boy like me who just wants be kept by a rich women and indulged in my frivolous little interests.


 


Looking back, I wish I'd done that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Given that I've been on short term contracts for the last 2.5 years (thankfully renewed ones so far), when the Crispy one and I have kids we'll almost certainly be forced into that unless I get something more stable. Which I have to say, won't be my choice. Despite what I said in my previous post about being relatively lucky regarding work from an oppression POV, it is an example of exactly how things change and become a bit more shit for women when kids enter the equation.


 
My last stint as a union rep, issues with female members getting disciplinary grief because of sprogs came second only to issues with female members being sexually-harrassed.


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Given that I've been on short term contracts for the last 2.5 years (thankfully renewed ones so far), when the Crispy one and I have kids we'll almost certainly be forced into that unless I get something more stable. Which I have to say, won't be my choice. Despite what I said in my previous post about being relatively lucky regarding work from an oppression POV, it is an example of exactly how things change and become a bit more shit for women when kids enter the equation.


 
Feminism in working life is rife, especially when you have kids. My job is part time to fit in with the kids, which is great. However, some of my colleagues who are less experienced, less qualified and frequently come to me for help because it's quite a technical job in a male-dominated industry are 'technicians' whereas I am a 'secretary'. I very much doubt they get paid the same pittance that I do - they are men. But of course we have TOTALLY different jobs, because they are technicians and I am 'just' a secretary 

Also, every fucking group email I receive begins with the word 'Gents' and every fucking letter starts 'Dear Sir' even when they know my name. Sorry, as you may have guessed, this has been irking me for some time. I know I'm having a total sense of humour failure but if one more person mistakes me for a receptionist they really might end up with some technical drawings and a selection of brightly coloured felt-tips up their arse.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

Didn't particularly feel it was appropriate to "like" your post given you're sharing shitty experiences, but I did like this bit...



Poot said:


> if one more person mistakes me for a receptionist they really might end up with some technical drawings and a selection of brightly coloured felt-tips up their arse.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> Feminism in working life is rife, especially when you have kids. My job is part time to fit in with the kids, which is great. However, some of my colleagues who are less experienced, less qualified and frequently come to me for help because it's quite a technical job in a male-dominated industry are 'technicians' whereas I am a 'secretary'. I very much doubt they get paid the same pittance that I do - they are men. But of course we have TOTALLY different jobs, because they are technicians and I am 'just' a secretary
> 
> Also, every fucking group email I receive begins with the word 'Gents' and every fucking letter starts 'Dear Sir' even when they know my name. Sorry, as you may have guessed, this has been irking me for some time. I know I'm having a total sense of humour failure but if one more person mistakes me for a receptionist they really might end up with some technical drawings and a selection of brightly coloured felt-tips up their arse.


I get the 'Gents' thing in emails too. It grates, mainly because it's endemic laziness not to look at a list of names before writing a greeting. I usually gently point out their error, but I have been known to be a bit more forceful about the issue of it's the same person repeatedly doing it.

I get letter written to Ms or Mrs EG, even though I am neither and correct title is always displayed at the end of my emails.

Guess who fixes the photocopier too...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Hey, in my darkest hours when I'm having a relapse and have still had to go to work else there literally wouldn't be food on the table, having a husband to be the main breadwinner has never looked so appealing.


Probably small consolation to you, but in my busiest weeks when I've ended up running on caffeine and adrenaline, the idea of having somebody else (be they male or female) to do my running around for me has never looked so appealing.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2012)

over the last 5 years, iv'e gone from ebing the stay at home partner, ot having a stay at home partner. thre's a ot of other factors that are different about this relatiohship, but i'm much more comfy with the later role.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 21, 2012)

how repersentative is mumsnet of all women in the uk ,surely even when your of any age feminism still applies


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> how repersentative is mumsnet of all women in the uk ,surely even when your of any age feminism still applies


It's not the only source suggesting that younger women are increasingly more likely to dissociate themselves with feminism 

Be interesting if that effect would be seen on here, however. I suspect it wouldn't, although certainly in the past there have been female posters who would not call themselves feminists.


----------



## Thora (Oct 21, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> how repersentative is mumsnet of all women in the uk ,surely even when your of any age feminism still applies


This survey wasn't done by Mumsnet.


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> It's not the only source suggesting that younger women are increasingly more likely to dissociate themselves with feminism


This makes me so cross... There are a bunch of youngsters at work who say they aren't feminists- but they have proper jobs, they can keep them when they marry, they can choose whether to marry or not, they can keep their own property if they marry, they can shag who they want before they marry, they can have children outside marriage.... They owe all of this to feminism. And yet they say 'oh, feminists were all really angry and didn't like being feminine and having fun- that whole burn your bra thing' (paraphrasing but the gist of a conversation I had).... WTF?


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Didn't particularly feel it was appropriate to "like" your post given you're sharing shitty experiences, but I did like this bit...


 
You should have seen what happened to the colleague who waved the kettle at me because he wanted a cuppa...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2012)

If feminism is declared dead on the basis not just of what mums (and no other women) say, but also on the basis of what only mums on Netmums say, then that's riddled with far more statistical/methological flaws then your average opinion poll.

To say the least.

Apols if the same point has already been repeatedly made earlier up, but I came to this thread very late.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> You should have seen what happened to the colleague who waved the kettle at me because he wanted a cuppa...


What did happen to him?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2012)

Manter said:


> This makes me so cross... There are a bunch of youngsters at work who say they aren't feminists- but they have proper jobs, they can keep them when they marry, they can choose whether to marry or not, they can keep their own property if they marry, they can shag who they want before they marry, they can have children outside marriage.... They owe all of this to feminism. And yet they say 'oh, feminists were all really angry and didn't like being feminine and having fun- that whole burn your bra thing' (paraphrasing but the gist of a conversation I had).... WTF?


It's a bit dangerous to put such things down to a single cause like that. I think the single biggest factor in changes in sexual attitudes, for instance, is a technological change - the pill. For the first time really, women could take charge of their own contraception.


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> You should have seen what happened to the colleague who waved the kettle at me because he wanted a cuppa...


I was in a meeting where the man running looked at me and said 'coffee?'

I said yes please, white, and went back to setting up my laptop ;-)


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> What did happen to him?


 
Nothing.  But in my head he ended up with a kettle up his arse. I'm just not very brave, that's why I end up seething and writing about it on here. He was visiting my office to visit 2 of my male colleagues. I didn't feel like I could say anything, after all I am the secretary.

In fact, when you think about it, tea and coffee making in the office is also a feminist issue in a way.


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a bit dangerous to put such things down to a single cause like that. I think the single biggest factor in changes in sexual attitudes, for instance, is a technological change - the pill. For the first time really, women could take charge of their own contraception.


But would any of it have happened without feminism? We forget how bad it was when a woman wasn't even allowed a bank account without her father or husband standing guarantor... When the pill was first released, it was not available to married women who had children- that attitude was what feminism challenged


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 21, 2012)

Poot said:


> Nothing.  But in my head he ended up with a kettle up his arse. I'm just not very brave, that's why I end up seething and writing about it on here. He was visiting my office to visit 2 of my male colleagues. I didn't feel like I could say anything, after all I am the secretary.
> 
> In fact, when you think about it, tea and coffee making in the office is also a feminist issue in a way.


Yep, and also the fact that girls are conditioned to _not_ assert their needs, feelings and rights. Which isn't to say that no women don't, or that no men find this difficult (individual factors have a part to play), but as a general trend I think it's acurate. Even some apparently quite outspoken women I know will sometimes let things like this slide because they don't feel as though they can speak up.


----------



## Poot (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Yep, and also the fact that girls are conditioned to _not_ assert their needs, feelings and rights. Which isn't to say that no women don't, or that no men find this difficult (individual factors have a part to play), but as a general trend I think it's acurate. Even some apparently quite outspoken women I know will sometimes let things like this slide because they don't feel as though they can speak up.


Yeah, I'm quite confident and outspoken irl but a group of men can - and have - frequently left me feeling as though if I assert an opinion I would end up becoming a laughing stock. Sometimes it's easier just to keep your gob shut. I could hear my inner feminist shouting as I typed that, but it's true.


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> . Even some apparently quite outspoken women I know will sometimes let things like this slide because they don't feel as though they can speak up.


F*ck yes.... Women I work with, hugely impressive, experienced, clever and no nonsense, can face down the board of an international company....is emotionally bullied by her husband. It's almost like she's compensating for being 'unfeminine'


----------



## Thora (Oct 21, 2012)

Sometimes I am glad to work in an all female workplace


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2012)

Thora said:


> Sometimes I am glad to work in an all female workplace


I went to all girls school. I never want to end up in an all female environment again....  It isn't men per se that are the issue, just a bunch of social stuff, some men, some assumptions etc


----------



## Greebo (Oct 21, 2012)

Manter said:


> I went to all girls school. I never want to end up in an all female environment again.... It isn't men per se that are the issue, just a bunch of social stuff, some men, some assumptions etc


FWIW having gone to a mixed sex school where some subjects were single sex for the first few years, a lot of the time there was less overt sexism from the teachers than from other pupils, but when it was there it was extremely noticeable.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 21, 2012)

Netmums who ran this survey (and chose this god-awful fucking font - they should be shot for that alone) is largely populated by women who like sparkly things and have tickers saying that it's 3 years 2 weeks and 4 days since they got married/had a baby/last had a shag.

I think feminism makes a lot of women feel massively uncomfortable because it challenges everything that their world is built around. The fact that the system you favour is absolutely undermining you is a pretty difficult concept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 22, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Netmums who ran this survey (and chose this god-awful fucking font - they should be shot for that alone) is largely populated by women who like sparkly things and have tickers saying that it's 3 years 2 weeks and 4 days since they got married/had a baby/last had a shag.
> 
> I think feminism makes a lot of women feel massively uncomfortable because it challenges everything that their world is built around. The fact that the system you favour is absolutely undermining you is a pretty difficult concept.



I think that in some cases it's easier to denigrate feminism or minimize the role it played and plays in "real life" than to acknowledge how my h you owe it. Fuck, it's less than forty years ago that equal pay (hah!) was legislated, and yet how many of these fluffy pink non-feminists acknowledge that?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 22, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Netmums who ran this survey (and chose this god-awful fucking font - they should be shot for that alone) is largely populated by women who like sparkly things and have tickers saying that it's 3 years 2 weeks and 4 days since they got married/had a baby/last had a shag.
> 
> I think feminism makes a lot of women feel massively uncomfortable because it challenges everything that their world is built around. The fact that the system you favour is absolutely undermining you is a pretty difficult concept.


 
the kind of people whose only posts on facebook are about their snot nosed kids, as if anyone gives a fuck.

maybe I'm a bad person but I really couldn't give two shits about your sprogs, or if "your man" is taking you away to some shitty spa, post about something outside the banal private realm please, something other people can engage with. I'd rather your thoughts on xfactor than hear about what your little shit had for dinner, christ I even find photos of your cat more interesting.

as you can tell I'm just filled with paternal instincts.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2012)

*stifles the urge to head for the decontamination shower after agreeing with revol68*  I don't hate children, what I hate is being expected to know where the nearest softplay area is just because I've got ovaries.  What are they - sat nav combined with the yellow pages?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 22, 2012)

Here's a timely reminder of why feminism isn't dead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20015793

Also women are much more likely to find themselves dependent on their partners during periods of unemployment, due to being far more likely to work in part-time, low-waged jobs and not earning enough to pay contributions therefore being unable to get JSA in their own right.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 22, 2012)

revol68 said:


> the kind of people whose only posts on facebook are about their snot nosed kids, as if anyone gives a fuck.
> 
> maybe I'm a bad person but I really couldn't give two shits about your sprogs, or if "your man" is taking you away to some shitty spa, post about something outside the banal private realm please, something other people can engage with. I'd rather your thoughts on xfactor than hear about what your little shit had for dinner, christ I even find photos of your cat more interesting.
> 
> as you can tell I'm just filled with paternal instincts.


 
Why be facebook friends with people you don't like?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2012)

Thora said:


> This survey was done by Netmums, not Mumsnet.
> 
> I think actually the results of a Mumsnet survey would have been quite different, as the two sites seem to have quite different users. And Mumsnet has a large feminism forum.


Bloody confusing if you ask me.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Why be facebook friends with people you don't like?


Because FB friends aren't necessarily the same as RL friends, the same as messageboard friends and foes (the way some boards label people you PM a lot or have put on "ignore") aren't RL friends and foes.  *this message was sponsored by the blindingly obvious*


----------



## Thora (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm only facebook friends with people who are actually friends - or at least people I like!  I find it a bit weird when adults have 300 random "friends" they don't really know.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 22, 2012)

My manager at work is like that with the 'friends.'


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2012)

Thora said:


> I'm only facebook friends with people who are actually friends - or at least people I like! I find it a bit weird when adults have 300 random "friends" they don't really know.


Oh I know all of mine.  But I'd hardly call godchildren (who are mine by dint of being the partner of somebody who's officially godfather to the eldest of half a dozen, and godfather to the rest out of fairness) friends.  Even if they are the children of friends.  Well maybe not so much friends as people who can call on me in an emergency and that goes both ways.  *FFS stop digging!*


----------



## Teepee (Oct 22, 2012)

I went out with an asian woman who was an ardent feminist. She made me think about my opinions and what I was saying more than any girl before or since and I still miss her for that. As a middle-class white man, I was frankly oblivious to the huge amount of prejudice that women like her experience daily. I paid lip-service to it of course, but she helped me *get* it. That said, I don't doubt that I can ever be anything but mostly oblivious to it even now, as a pure accident of birth. Feminism should be taught to guys in school imo, as I'm ashamed to admit that before I learned about it, my preconceptions of feminists were of the Valerie Solanas testicle-slasher sort, not of the intelligent, informed, not-going-to-take-shit-from-the-system sort. Blokes - go out with a feminist, you won't regret it.


----------



## dooley (Oct 22, 2012)

yeah - i always paid lip-service to feminism having grown up involved in the uk punk and hc circles, but as a dude you really have no fucking idea what it's like. whether i transition or not the insight it's given me (albeit slight) is something i'll always be grateful for.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> *stifles the urge to head for the decontamination shower after agreeing with revol68* I don't hate children, what I hate is being expected to know where the nearest softplay area is just because I've got ovaries. What are they - sat nav combined with the yellow pages?


Surely your fuzzy feminine brain can't be expected to navigate?? 
(This is actually true in my case)


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Surely your fuzzy feminine brain can't be expected to navigate??
> (This is actually true in my case)


I can navigate alright (including orienteering in the dark), I've just got next to no sense of direction. This makes finding north at the start of certain exercises interesting, to say the least. Unless I remember to take a compass.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I can navigate alright (including orienteering in the dark), I've just got next to no sense of direction. This makes finding north at the start of certain exercises interesting, to say the least.


 
So you do have a sense of direction, just no internal compass (as is the way with humans).


----------



## seeformiles (Oct 22, 2012)

Teepee said:


> I went out with an asian woman who was an ardent feminist. She made me think about my opinions and what I was saying more than any girl before or since and I still miss her for that. As a middle-class white man, I was frankly oblivious to the huge amount of prejudice that women like her experience daily. I paid lip-service to it of course, but she helped me *get* it. That said, I don't doubt that I can ever be anything but mostly oblivious to it even now, as a pure accident of birth. Feminism should be taught to guys in school imo, as I'm ashamed to admit that before I learned about it, my preconceptions of feminists were of the Valerie Solanas testicle-slasher sort, not of the intelligent, informed, not-going-to-take-shit-from-the-system sort. Blokes - go out with a feminist, you won't regret it.


 
When I was 18 I went out with a stidently feminist lass of 28 who certainly changed my viewpoint at the time. At the same time (mid-80s) I must say that I did also come across a few women who fell very much into the separatist, green boiler suit, short, back and sides stereotype. I was backing this lass - a great singer - on guitar and her friends (as described earlier) really hated me being around when we rehearsed. Lots of nonsense about "invading a safe women's space" and the like plus overtly anti-male comments (esp. when I sang a very sad French tune about Louis 16th and his mass hanging of political opponents in his orchard they said "Men hanging from the trees - sounds like paradise!") - but they were very much in a minority and a bit crackers really.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 22, 2012)

> *How to be better: on intersectionality, privilege and silencing*
> 
> By stavvers
> It’s been brewing for a while. The backlash is on, and this time it’s coming from inside what is nominally “our” camp. The problem? Some people, it seems, just don’t get intersectionality. They hate it when they’re called out on privilege, and they try their best to shut down or derail any of the discussions. It’s hard to work out where it started, but I think it’s something to do with the festival of rightful criticism thrown at Mehdi Hasan (thinks he has a right to peek into our uteruses) and Caitlin Moran (more on her later). Those with the double whammy of privilege and platform have all closed ranks, and entered onto the offensive.
> ...


More here:

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/...on-intersectionality-privilege-and-silencing/


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Oct 22, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> It's not the only source suggesting that younger women are increasingly more likely to dissociate themselves with feminism


I find it utterly depressing that my fellow undergraduate students are so readily dismissive of feminism. Not just depressing but disappointed, worried, alarmed and cross that young women say they would rather 'laugh it off' when women are objectified and patronised because its more socially acceptable to be passive than it is to object to sexism.
It's not fashionable, there is still an impression that to be a feminist is to be a cantankerous frumpy woman who hates men. I also wonder if other political movements seem more appealing as they don't present a gender divide (though I am not saying there should be a gender divide, just that there is the assumption of one) and focus on unity and shared purpose. I also believe that womens' rights have been lumped in with other political views so that feminism idoes not speak to young people today in the same way that other civil rights movements do.

Anyway, that's probably not a useful contribution as I don't have time to elaborate so i apologise but I have noticed since starting uni that both makes and females are dismissive and derisive of feminism and I am taking it either as blind ignorance of history and politics or a great cause for concern. Or both.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2012)

Nods. only met one of the younger lasses who described herslef as a feminist. had opinions coming out of her ears (cause most of them wouldn't know an original opinion if it bit their arse), massively passionate about the history of suffragism and apologised wheneve she disagreed with a bloke or even an older woman.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

One of the problems with the history of feminism, is that it's tainted as a middle/ruling class female pursuit. I have found that this "taint" can form the basis for dismissiveness of the movement.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 23, 2012)

Manter said:


> F*ck yes.... Women I work with, hugely impressive, experienced, clever and no nonsense, can face down the board of an international company....is emotionally bullied by her husband. It's almost like she's compensating for being 'unfeminine'


 
Plenty of men like that.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Intersectionality is bullshit and I say that not as a way of dismissing experiences of sexism, racism, homophobia etc but rather because it treats these things as discreet things that kind of simply add on to each other. It also completely misunderstanfs class as another -ism, just another form of oppression and privilege rather than the structuring substance of society, through which sexism, racism and such are always already mediated through.

The fact that critiques of Intersectionality are often dismissed as little more than the expression of privilege makes it especially problematic. In short intersectionality multiplies identity politics rather than really cutting across them and dissolving them.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 23, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Plenty of men like that.


 
That's ambiguous; either way it's probably true though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Intersectionality is bullshit and I say that not as a way of dismissing experiences of sexism, racism, homophobia etc but rather because it treats these things as discreet things that kind of simply add on to each other. It also completely misunderstanfs class as another -ism, just another form of oppression and privilege rather than the structuring substance of society, through which sexism, racism and such are always already mediated through.
> 
> The fact that critiques of Intersectionality are often dismissed as little more than the expression of privilege makes it especially problematic. In short intersectionality multiplies identity politics rather than really cutting across them and dissolving them.


I'd describe our society as patriarchal capitalism, and that it's structured accordingly i.e. according to class and gender.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'd describe our society as patriarchal capitalism, and that it's structured accordingly i.e. according to class and gender.



I think patriarchy misses the fluid nature of gender and sex, rule of men or the father doesnt describe the last century very well, capital on one hand removes women from being the property of individual men and makes them property in general. Capitalism has done more than any other system to undermine patriarchy yet on the otherhand to degrade women, though now as simply free economic actors, abstractly equal bodies on the market.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I think patriarchy misses the fluid nature of gender and sex, rule of men or the father doesnt describe the last century very well, capital on one hand removes women from being the property of individual men and makes them property in general. Capitalism has done more than any other system to undermine patriarchy yet on the otherhand to degrade women, though now as simply free economic actors, abstractly equal bodies on the market.


I don't think capitalism as a system undermines patriarchy. Its success is underpinned by competition, in whatever form. Encouraging dominance (which brings with it, conversely, oppression). I don't think women are free abstractly equal bodies on the market, yet.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Netmums who ran this survey (and chose this god-awful fucking font - they should be shot for that alone) is largely populated by women who like sparkly things and have tickers saying that it's 3 years 2 weeks and 4 days since they got married/had a baby/last had a shag.
> 
> I think feminism makes a lot of women feel massively uncomfortable because it challenges everything that their world is built around. The fact that the system you favour is absolutely undermining you is a pretty difficult concept.


Exactly, hence the neologism (if that's what it is) "FeMEnism".


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't think capitalism as a system undermines patriarchy. Its success is underpinned by competition, in whatever form. Encouraging dominance (which brings with it, conversely, oppression). I don't think women are free abstractly equal bodies on the market, yet.


 

Pound-for-pound like-for-like employers prefer a young male who will not become pregnant to a young female. 
From the employer point of view, a woman is deficient - always will be (becoming ill for around a year sometimes longer when the production of a child is required). Once a child emerges the responsibility is still placed upon women.
As long as childcare remains in the private family sphere- and is not communalised- this is capitalism's way.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Pound-for-pound like-for-like employers prefer a young male who will not become pregnant to a young female.
> From the employer point of view, a woman is deficient - always will be (becoming ill for around a year sometimes longer when the production of a child is required). Once a child emerges the responsibility is still placed upon women.
> As long as childcare remains in the private family sphere- and is not communalised- this is capitalism's way.


(absent rather than ill, though)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

"production of a child" ugh.


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 23, 2012)

Over here in the 'developing' world,  it's gender experts with their gender analyses who are busy trying to take over from feminists.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

purves grundy said:


> Over here in the 'developing' world, it's gender experts with their gender analyses who are busy trying to take over from feminists.


How does that work, then?


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> How does that work, then?


They analyse - at a hefty daily rate and using tools and algorithms they've been trained in - a specific sector or a problem, see how women are excluded or marginalised or given less than their worth, then make recommendations. Women or groups with radical leanings are encouraged to join workshops and make stakeholder contributions. They might be given funding to monitor or evaluate successes, and ever so deliberately the sting is drawn from feminist networks. It's quite amazing!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I find it utterly depressing that my fellow undergraduate students are so readily dismissive of feminism. Not just depressing but disappointed, worried, alarmed and cross that young women say they would rather 'laugh it off' when women are objectified and patronised because its more socially acceptable to be passive than it is to object to sexism.
> It's not fashionable, there is still an impression that to be a feminist is to be a cantankerous frumpy woman who hates men. I also wonder if other political movements seem more appealing as they don't present a gender divide (though I am not saying there should be a gender divide, just that there is the assumption of one) and focus on unity and shared purpose. I also believe that womens' rights have been lumped in with other political views so that feminism idoes not speak to young people today in the same way that other civil rights movements do.
> 
> Anyway, that's probably not a useful contribution as I don't have time to elaborate so i apologise but I have noticed since starting uni that both makes and females are dismissive and derisive of feminism and I am taking it either as blind ignorance of history and politics or a great cause for concern. Or both.


 
Unfortunately, George Santayana's dictum has become so commonplace that people no longer take it seriously, which is a big mistake, because it's as true now as it was when he first said it 70+ years ago that "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Willful ignorance of and contempt for women's rights is allowing employers etc to not-so-surreptitiously turn back the clock.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

purves grundy said:


> They analyse - at a hefty daily rate and using tools and algorithms they've been trained in - a specific sector or a problem, see how women are excluded or marginalised or given less than their worth, then make recommendations. Women or groups with radical leanings are encouraged to join workshops and make stakeholder contributions. They might be given funding to monitor or evaluate successes, and ever so deliberately the sting is drawn from feminist networks. It's quite amazing!!


The sop of being consulted


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> The sop of being consulted


Oh yes, I know it only too well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> One of the problems with the history of feminism, is that it's tainted as a middle/ruling class female pursuit. I have found that this "taint" can form the basis for dismissiveness of the movement.


 
And the whole "feminism is a middle class issue" debate has been addressed, starting in the early '70s and continuing even now. The addressing of the issues of feminist identities that extended beyond "middle class white woman" was part and parcel of feminism in the '70s and '80s.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And the whole "feminism is a middle class issue" debate has been addressed, starting in the early '70s and continuing even now. The addressing of the issues of feminist identities that extended beyond "middle class white woman" was part and parcel of feminism in the '70s and '80s.


I know. But I often hear/see feminism being disparaged as a middle class issue, and usually in the context of equating feminism to identity politics. It's lazy analysis at the end of the day, but one needs to have a handle on the history of the movement in order to counter it.


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> The sop of being consulted


Who is consulting, and why do they have more power and legitimacy than those they are consulting? This is the madness of so-called participatory approaches to development, which allow voices to be heard, to give development back to the people... but which is lead by a team of experts in participation from Europe. The transformation of a political struggle into a series of expert technical recommendations.

Still, not a bad way to earn a living, get to see the world etc.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> One of the problems with the history of feminism, is that it's tainted as a middle/ruling class female pursuit. I have found that this "taint" can form the basis for dismissiveness of the movement.



It is often middle-(or even higher)-class-males doing the tainting.
These sorts of males dominate socialist groups (and sometimes organisations like anti-cuts groups they seek to leech from).
Instead of 'let's make feminism more working-class and solid by mobilising working-class women' they operate a 'let's actively disparage (or meaninglessly hamper) feminism so that (middle-class) women will be put off and join our organisation instead'.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

purves grundy said:


> Who is consulting, and why do they have more power and legitimacy than those they are consulting? This is the madness of so-called participatory approaches to development, which allow voices to be heard, to give development back to the people... but which is lead by a team of experts in participation from Europe. The transformation of a political struggle into a series of expert technical recommendations.
> 
> Still, not a bad way to earn a living, get to see the world etc.


It becomes an industry in its own right, feeding capitalism and ultimately not doing anything to properly address inequality/oppression.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> It is often middle-(or even higher)-class-males doing the tainting.
> These sorts of males dominate socialist groups (and sometimes organisations like anti-cuts groups they seek to leech from).
> Instead of 'let's make feminism more working-class and solid by mobilising working-class women' they operate a 'let's actively disparage (or meaninglessly hamper) feminism so that (middle-class) women will be put off and join our organisation instead'.


Their voices more readily heard.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> It becomes an industry in its own right, feeding capitalism and ultimately not doing anything to properly address inequality/oppression.


Agreed - I've seen this so often.  "We can't afford to give you the support you need, let alone make any changes, but at least we've pretended to listen to you, why aren't you grateful?"


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

The one things socialist middle-class males can not do is examine why their own organisations are so middle class.

Attacking feminism wherever and whenever possible

'Women in history and what men have done to them' by Dale Spender examines a little how the Suffrage movement is treated by male historians.

Centrist male historians trumpet achievements of male national or economic figures (Churchills, Brunels, look admiringly at national enemies like Napoleon) and don't dwell on their class background. But these same historians make a special point of mentioning the class background of the Pankhursts and others, mocking them for their pretension to speak for all women.
Implicitly, until the war, "Asquith spoke for 'the nation' the Suffrage movement just for a slither of rich women".

Revisionist history of Irish nationalism, instead of examining women's contribution to it, and examining how it was weakened by its sexism, concentrates on painting it as an anti-Protestant self-indulgent quasi-racist movement.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Agreed - I've seen this so often. "We can't afford to give you the support you need, let alone make any changes, but at least we've pretended to listen to you, why aren't you grateful?"


And also "look how much we've invested in this exercise, how can you say that we don't take <whatever> seriously. We haven't invested this much in the <dominant sector> you know, and they also deserve investment!"


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> The one things socialist middle-class males can not do is examine why their own organisations are so middle class.
> 
> Attacking feminism wherever and whenever possible
> 
> ...


Which illustrates not just the need to understand the history of feminism, but also feminist history. I'll order that book, thanks Sihhi.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Which illustrates not just the need to understand the history of feminism, but also feminist history. I'll order that book, thanks Sihhi.


 
I don't want to be blamed for an error. Dale Spender is now less radical than in the past in 1982 when it was written, most of the book is about women in literature and human thought in general, Aphra Benn, Mary Shelley etc - _the bit on the Suffrage movement is very short, _that was my thoughts on it. There's nothing on Irish history following Roy Foster.
But it made me think and go back to Mary Beard (always seen unfairly as the lesser of Charles&Mary Beard) and her work 'Woman as a Force in History' http://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm. 

I also don't like how Simone de Beauvoir is seen as a lesser to Jean-Paul Sartre. If anything she is superior, much easier to understand, more concrete as a guide for action, less of a poser and much less of a 'crypto-Stalinist' than he is. Nothing on de Beauvoir in Dale Spender's book.  

Simone de Beauvoir herself writes about how the medieval past contained women struggling for collective womens' rights and advancement like Christine of Pizan, and how it is wrong to see women monarchs like Elizabeth I as 'proto-feminist'.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

So is the Dale Spender book worth reading?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

Back to feminism, and this is a more controversial thing to pose but what damage has been done by middle-class feminists to the feminism movement?

For the past 20 years probably there have been meaningless (or outright vile) 'feminist' efforts by middle-class feminists. Feminist Julie Burchill's Diana published in 1998, feminist Bea Campbell's Diana Princess of Wales the blistering analysis "The Diana dialectic had arrived: she was both empowered and endangered." and stuff along the lines of: "By telling her story Diana joined the 'constituency of the rejected' - the survivors of harm and horror, from the holocaust, from the world wars and pogroms, from Vietnam and the civil wars of South America and South Africa, from torture and child abuse."

Natasha Walter's The New Feminism in 1997 welcomed a survey of teenage girls naming Elizabeth II and
Thatcher as their heroines. She says Thatcher "normalised female success" and hence is "the great unsung heroine of British feminism" who "allowed British women to celebrate their ability not just to be nurturing or caring or life-affirming but also to be deeply unpleasant, to be cruel, to be death-dealing, to be egotistic". A lot of feminism was on this basis 'we need all-women listings and quotas to drive through an increase to 50-50 in the ratio at the management level down to the bottom level. From the Fawcett Society to dozens of charities working on women's issues (probably the heart of feminism more than any political organisation) - that was the broad thrust.

By 2006 feminist Prof Alison Wolf attacked this sort of 'obsession' with women securing equality with men in all fields of social life, on (misplaced) different feminist grounds:



> "For Walter, it is so obvious that equality should be measured in terms of whether men and women are equally represented at all levels of every occupation that she sees no need to spell it out. One could interpret today’s feminist assumptions as reflecting the appetite of global capitalism for all talent, female and male, at the expense of the family. Certainly our current economic arrangements offer precious little support to family formation. On the contrary, they erect major barriers in its way. We all know by now that in most developed countries, birth rates are well below replacement level. Less recognised is the massive change in incentives to have children. In the past, adults had no tax-financed welfare state to depend on. Their families were their social insurance policies: children paid. Today, they expect the state to take care of their financial and health needs when ill or retired, regardless of whether they have six children or none.
> 
> The benefits we get are completely unrelated to whether or not we contribute a future productive member to the economy. [There is] the virtual disappearance of home-based, educated women (at least below the age of 60) has had an effect. A path once followed by able women across the developed world led to university, teaching and then motherhood, homemaking and voluntary work. Such women are now too busy. The average amount of time that today’s British citizen, male or female, devotes to volunteer activities is four minutes a day. The old unpaid female labour force is now otherwise engaged. Ask the Girl Guides if you doubt this. Scouting and guiding are themselves redolent of that vanished past. Yet Robert Baden-Powell understood exactly what excites and interests children, and the movement has them queuing, often vainly, at the door. What it lacks are adult leaders.
> 
> There is a chasm between the moral purpose voiced by female pioneers and the iconic female advertising slogan of today—”Because I’m worth it.” We could, I suppose, write off the beliefs of the former group as the opium of the educated female classes, developed to reconcile them to unequal lives. But then we should see our own obsession with female occupational success as an ideology too. As late as the 1940s and 1950s, education white papers were still imbued with the language of morality and idealism."


 
The 2 most recent feminist books are Guardian journalist feminist Ellie Levenson's The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism and Times journalist Caitlin Moran's How to be a woman.
Ellie Levenson talks about a new generation of "femininisn't"s, people who no longer really need feminism as a political force and so it is acceptable to count them as feminists, even though they explicitly reject calling themselves or being called feminists. Her non-ironic approach is summed up by her statement "Sometimes I walk past a building site and am annoyed if there are no wolf whistles".
Caitlin Moran's How to be a woman which I started recently is slightly more intelligent, she is correctly angry that people are still wolf-whistled, but it is clearly from a very specific middle-class female journalist perspective. It doesn't mention the structural failure of the capitalist economy to allow equality, it suggests the first step in overcoming sexism in Muslim majority countries is removing the veil, it has a moment where it says casual anti-foreigner statements are much less acceptable than casual sexist comments, it is in favour of burlesque nudity but not strip club nudity, it is in favour of body modification of any sort, including trimming of underarm hair except the trimming of pubic hair is bad, and basically encourages an individualistic go-get-em approach coupled with certain lifestyle approaches. It also has a disturbing tendency to want to make things need to be 'hot' - although this might be humour.



So where the conception of feminism when presented in a positive light has been like this for the past 20 years; I feel it's unsurprising that the media's negative emphasis on it will turn away many.

I don't have faith in Uk Femenista, the only sane one out of the 3in the Observer article, because who does it invite into its "The Feminist Lobby of Parliament takes place on Wednesday 24 October"?

It tells us



> The order of the day is as follows:
> Rally: 11:00-12:30, Church House, 27 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, SW1P 3AZ. Featuring talks by Yvette Cooper MP, Caroline Lucas MP and Amber Rudd MP, as well as a performance by the Olympic Suffragettes.
> Photo-call: 13:00-13:30, Parliament Square, City of Westminster, London. SW1P. Present at the photo-call will be Helen Pankhurst, the ‘Olympic Suffragettes’, supporting MPs and lobby participants.


1. Yvette Cooper's New Labour began a programme of cuts to ESOL well before official austerity, dismantles childcare provision in workplaces to replace with an inadequate Sure Start system, ends final salary pensions crucial for women, criminalises the Paulsgrove women, forces through parenting classes, fails to extend reproductive health into the 6 counties of northern Ireland, puts more women on No Access to Public Funds visas than ever before etc etc.
2. Caroline Lucas, despite the airy talk, from a Green Party able to endorse housing association control of housing in Sussex, slowly getting sucked into the system, and from a Green Party international, whose German wing seems on a mission to out-chauvinist its rightwing opponents by demanding all Muslim circumcisions of boys be made illegal. (Let's forget its cheerleading for NATO in Libya, or NATO over Yugoslavia for that matter - but that's the only path it can head towards as it grows on current trends).
3. Amber Rudd, a new 'Cameroonian' 'compassionate conservative' Tory MP, part of the most destructive assault on public spending, designed by their plans to last for another 8 years.
4. 'Olympic Suffragettes' sounds like an attempt to make the entirety of the suffragette experience national and British national at that - excluding the Inghinidhe na Eireann and Cumann na mBan.
5. Helen Pankhurst seems to be the major guest speaker simply because she is Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter and a successful professional academic.

If this is what feminism means - no wonder even those who hate the idea of going back to the 1960s - don't really see themselves as feminists.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> So is the Dale Spender book worth reading?


 
I wouldn't buy it unless it was very cheap because I can't afford it but it's worth reading.

But it is far ahead of modern British feminism in the shape of Caitlin Moran:




> "Personally, I feel the time has come for women to introduce their own Zero Tolerance policy on the Broken Window issues in our lives – I want a Zero Tolerance policy on ‘All The Patriarchal Bullshit’. And the great thing about a Zero Tolerance policy on Patriarchal Broken Windows Bullshit is this: in the 21st century, we don’t need to march against size zero models, risible pornography, lap-dancing clubs and Botox. We don’t need to riot, or go on hunger strike. There’s no need to throw ourselves under a horse, or even a donkey. We just need to look it in the eye, squarely, for a minute, and then start laughing at it. We look hot when we laugh. People fancy us when they observe us giving out relaxed, earthy chuckles. Perhaps they don’t fancy us quite as much when we go on to bang on the tables with our fists, gurgling, ‘HARGH! HARGH! Yes, that IS what it’s like! SCREW YOU, the patriarchy!’ before choking on a mouthful of crisps, but still.
> 
> I don’t know if we can talk about ‘waves’ of feminism any more – by my reckoning, the next wave would be the fifth, and I suspect it’s around the fifth wave that you stop referring to individual waves, and start to refer, simply, to an incoming tide. But if there is to be a fifth wave of feminism, I would hope that the main thing that distinguishes it from all that came before is that women counter the awkwardness, disconnect and bullshit of being a modern woman not by shouting at it, internalising it or squabbling about it – but by simply pointing at it, and going ‘HA!’, instead."
> "Personally, I don’t think the word ‘feminist’ on its own is enough. I want to go all the way. I want to bring it back in conjunction with the word ‘strident’. It looks hotter like that. It’s been so wrong for so long that it’s back to being right again. They have used it to abuse us! Let’s use it right back at them! I want to reclaim the phrase ‘strident feminist’ in the same way the black community has reclaimed the word ‘nigger’. ‘Go, my strident feminist! You work that male/female dialectic dichotomy,’ I will shout at my friends, in bars, whilst everyone nods at how edgy and real we are – the word thrilling us as much as champagne, handbrake turns and Helter Skelter. The fact that it’s currently underused and reviled makes it all the hotter – like deciding to be the person who single-handedly revives the popular use of the top hat. Once people see how hot you look in it, they’re all going to want to get one."


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 23, 2012)

"I want to reclaim the phrase ‘strident feminist’ in the same way the black community has reclaimed the word ‘nigger’."

Oh, for fukc's sake.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 23, 2012)

Her 'feminism' can die, like.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

So who, if any, would you say are decent modern feminist writers, Sihhi?


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> But it is far ahead of modern British feminism in the shape of Caitlin Moran:


 She's putting feminism forward as something that is useful in everyday life, and she's happy talking about class and patriarchy. I like it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

Random said:


> She's putting feminism forward as something that is useful in everyday life, and she's happy talking about class and patriarchy. I like it.


 
I haven't read the book, but from that passage, I don't really see that she's talking about class in any meaningful way there. It sounds empty, vacuous, and really quite weird. I can't suss her tone about all this 'hot' thing. I really can't work out what she's going for there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

She seems a bit obsessed about being fancied.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I haven't read the book, but from that passage, I don't really see that she's talking about class in any meaningful way there. It sounds empty, vacuous, and really quite weird. I can't suss her tone about all this 'hot' thing. I really can't work out what she's going for there.


Me neither. The quoted passage doesn't tempt me to reading the book.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> She seems a bit obsessed about being fancied.


Maybe she equates feminism with the undermining stereotypes that persist from the 70s.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

Random said:


> She's putting feminism forward as something that is useful in everyday life, and she's happy talking about class and patriarchy. I like it.


 
She's addressing it from a singular perspective, though. As sihhi said, the perspective of a middle-class female journalist, when feminisms aren't just about what Caitlin Moran wants, they're about (and *should* be about) all women, their issues and their needs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Maybe she equates feminism with the undermining stereotypes that persist from the 70s.


 
The seventies. The arse-end of the era of "dolly birds", sniggers about the girls of the typing pool, and the instant branding of any woman who did a traditionally-male job as a lesbian.

I miss it so!


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

All i know is my ex woukd throw things upon hearing the name Caitlan Moran, though she also threw things when playing Zelda,  but I dont think it was she thought link was a superficial middle class twat for middlebrow wankers.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Me neither. The quoted passage doesn't tempt me to reading the book.


 
she used to be a music journalist and it shows - and this is not a good thing.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

She's just a less obnoxious Julie Burchill.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> She seems a bit obsessed about being fancied.


 
It's something that came through in that netmums thing too. There was quite a bit of emphasis put on women finding it acceptable to vajazzle, get a boob job, and all the rest of it, and it seems like it's just an expression of being caught hook, line and sinker by the full acceptance of consumerism and individualism. We're the products. And we've got to package and market ourselves to be as desirable as possible (how we do that, of course, will depend on who we want to appear desirable to).

It's one thing to say, "I shouldn't feel ashamed about wanting to get my highlights done" but it's quite another to completely fail to make the link to the ways you're being positioned as the consumer of goods and a set of goods to be marketed yourself.


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2012)

while i'm no fan of moran, i think (hope?) that particular passage is a joke of some sort. certainly some women who's opinion i trust have found her book interesting.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

I like Nina Power, she writes with a nice withering contempt, also has her feminists writings grounded in proper theory.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> while i'm no fan of moran, i think (hope?) that particular passage is a joke of some sort. certainly some women who's opinion i trust have found her book interesting.


 
You hope.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's something that came through in that netmums thing too. There was quite a bit of emphasis put on women finding it acceptable to vajazzle, get a boob job, and all the rest of it, and it seems like it's just an expression of being caught hook, line and sinker by the full acceptance of consumerism and individualism. We're the products. And we've got to package and market ourselves to be as desirable as possible (how we do that, of course, will depend on who we want to appear desirable to).
> 
> It's one thing to say, "I shouldn't feel ashamed about wanting to get my highlights done" but it's quite another to completely fail to make the link to the ways you're being positioned as the consumer of goods and a set of goods to be marketed yourself.


That Molly Crabapple was having a right old tantrum about a piece that Kay <forgotten surname> had written, last week. I pointed out to MC that she'd missed the overarching point about the capitalisation and commodification of the sex industry in her rush to get angry about Kay not being entirely enamoured of porn.


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You hope.


 
i've not read the book 'cause i find her style irritating, so i don't want to assume either way tbf.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> while i'm no fan of moran, i think (hope?) that particular passage is a joke of some sort. certainly some women who's opinion i trust have found her book interesting.


You think the passage has been quoted out of context?

Edit, just seen your above post


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2012)

i hope it is, otherwise i'll have to lower my opinion of a few people...


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

What i find offensive is the notion that women should have anymore a homogenous attitude towards feminism as men have had historically to humanisn. For me its tied to a notion that the other, be they women, black, gay, irish or whatever else have a inherent tie to some identity. A black person or women is treated as an example of blackness or womanhood in the way a white man isnt, there is an assumption of a kind of shirt circuit between a singular woman and woman as an abstract category.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> That Molly Crabapple was having a right old tantrum about a piece that Kay <forgotten surname> had written, last week. I pointed out to MC that she'd missed the overarching point about the capitalisation and commodification of the sex industry in her rush to get angry about Kay not being entirely enamoured of porn.


 
I can't help but shudder at MC's name. Maybe that's just me being irrational though 

The porn thing is a fucking mine field. So many people, when trying to debate it, fall stupidly into the trap of thinking it's a black&white issue. That it's either totes liberating for women to be allowed to admit they like sex and sometimes like it rough and that they like watching porn and that it means they're dead cool and edgy and awesome; or you're a prude who wants to deny women their right to enjoy sex and be independent sexual beings, etc. There's no middle ground, and there's absolutely no discussion of the bad that comes with the good, no realisation that it's a nuanced issue. But then, that's the case with every discussion like this. No conception of the fact that good can exist with bad. You're either with us or you're against us. No wonder everything tears itself apart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's something that came through in that netmums thing too. There was quite a bit of emphasis put on women finding it acceptable to vajazzle, get a boob job, and all the rest of it, and it seems like it's just an expression of being caught hook, line and sinker by the full acceptance of consumerism and individualism. We're the products. And we've got to package and market ourselves to be as desirable as possible (how we do that, of course, will depend on who we want to appear desirable to).


 
So, consumerism *as* individualism, too, effectively. Show your individuality by engaging in your own particular combination of consumption behaviours!



> It's one thing to say, "I shouldn't feel ashamed about wanting to get my highlights done" but it's quite another to completely fail to make the link to the ways you're being positioned as the consumer of goods and a set of goods to be marketed yourself.


As with any acknowledgement of inconvenient truths, people will go quite a ways to avoid making such links.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> That Molly Crabapple was having a right old tantrum about a piece that Kay <forgotten surname> had written, last week. I pointed out to MC that she'd missed the overarching point about the capitalisation and commodification of the sex industry in her rush to get angry about Kay not being entirely enamoured of porn.


 
Poor Maureen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I can't help but shudder at MC's name. Maybe that's just me being irrational though
> 
> The porn thing is a fucking mine field. So many people, when trying to debate it, fall stupidly into the trap of thinking it's a black&white issue. That it's either totes liberating for women to be allowed to admit they like sex and sometimes like it rough and that they like watching porn and that it means they're dead cool and edgy and awesome; or you're a prude who wants to deny women their right to enjoy sex and be independent sexual beings, etc. There's no middle ground, and there's absolutely no discussion of the bad that comes with the good, no realisation that it's a nuanced issue. But then, that's the case with every discussion like this. No conception of the fact that good can exist with bad. You're either with us or you're against us. No wonder everything tears itself apart.


 
I sometimes get the feeling that we're becoming (have become?) a soundbite culture, increasingly dependent on pre-digested pundit-made bite-size opinions, to the detriment of subtlety and nuance. Commodification of the political, maybe?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Intersectionality is bullshit and I say that not as a way of dismissing experiences of sexism, racism, homophobia etc but rather because it treats these things as discreet things that kind of simply add on to each other. It also completely misunderstanfs class as another -ism, just another form of oppression and privilege rather than the structuring substance of society, through which sexism, racism and such are always already mediated through.
> 
> The fact that critiques of Intersectionality are often dismissed as little more than the expression of privilege makes it especially problematic. In short intersectionality multiplies identity politics rather than really cutting across them and dissolving them.


 






There's some good ones of these "Self-Important Anarchist" on meme-generator.

And yes btw this Intersectionality and Privilige Theory stuff is the road to ruin. Eurocommunism for anarchists. This way lies dogma of the worst kind. It's something that has existed on the US Anarcho-left for a while, and is probably one of the contributing factors why the US anarcho-left is so fucking awful, but it's increasingly coming over here too. And for the record I'll happily accept that at least theoretically there's worthwhile idea's behind it, however practically every time I've ever seen in in action it's just a pretext to arbitrarily dismiss criticism or bully people based on their gender, skin colour and sexuality. You could if you were feeling charitable say that this is an abuse of an otherwise decent worthwhile theory, but I'm not charitable.

Anyway this meme made me laugh. Might as well put it here rather than start a new thread.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> So who, if any, would you say are decent modern feminist writers, Sihhi?


 

I was hoping yourself or other female posters would be able to point me in the right direction. 

My perhaps wrong impression makes me think it's mostly in the Third World that feminism as a collective movement is most alive, so the probably the best writing comes from there.

Stuff that's relevant to Britain? Rosalind Gill about the structural failure of the education sector. 
Sheila Jeffreys is cutting and very analytical about the failure of the sexual revolution. Anna Davin is strong on social history. Joanna Burke's feminist analyses of 20th century wars are good, although sometimes quite 'academic' when it comes to conclusions. No Pretence the anarcho-feminist group who invaded the stage at an anarchist conference a while ago denouncing the ongoing discrimination in roles in the radical movement threatened to openly expose the problems in the movement, but then didn't. The London Pro-Feminist Men's Group was alive for a while but then just died off. 

http://londonprofeministmensgroup.blogspot.co.uk/

There's other groups the London Feminist Network and Object, but they too seem to operate on a charity model. 
There's hundreds other groups that do stuff but sort of on the basis of being a charity, not explicitly not rocking the boat. Like there are about 4 womens' charities locally - all run by women and catering to women - mostly for different ethnic groups - a Bengali one, a Turkish+Turkish Cypriot one, a Somali one and a general one. All of them were cut but none of them really put up more than a token of resistance because they feared they would be cut more otherwise. (I'm not blaming them. I blame Labour and their female-headed council) Some larger ones are explicitly very 'capitalist' or 'legalist' with lots of training sessions on how to get to the top of these organisations.

"07-Nov :Understanding the Effects of Domestic Violence and BME Women: Level 2 (and 8th)
: ImkaanLondon
21-Nov :Breaking the cycle: using civil and criminal remedies to protect women from violence
: ROWLondon
22-Nov : 09:30Social enterprise: understanding the basics : WRC"

As an outsider, it seems like a general charity model applied to women in need - either brutalised by men or left out of the economy.

The Selma James-is-our idol crew keep on going for 'wages for housework' seeking money to administer the atomised family, but thereby driving a wedge between some women who don't want to look after kids versus those who do. (Or is that unfair?)

It's very different to something like the Indian feminist lists that describe groups of balaclaved women punching up male gropers, womens' strikes that last up to a year, lone hunger strikes by single women who have been cut out of work, ruining the cars of drug dealers, womens' defence organisations providing self-defence lessons for women.

Men don't really care if there's no childcare somewhere- it's just not an issue on 80% of unions at the local level in my estimation, and it's totally absent from negotiation demands. 'There's always the assumption well women aren't gonna let their kids die are they, they'll find a way' The last major struggle in the childcare sector was in the 2004 'Scottish nursery nurses' strike but it's being further privatised and eroded in an extensive fashion. So that childcare is often further class-segregated so some (very few) hospitals that have creches will only accept children of doctors or senior nurses not lower nurses, HCAs, cleaners or domestics, in the same way that doctors will only get hospital accommodation.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> What i find offensive is the notion that women should have anymore a homogenous attitude towards feminism as men have had historically to humanisn. For me its tied to a notion that the other, be they women, black, gay, irish or whatever else have a inherent tie to some identity. A black person or women is treated as an example of blackness or womanhood in the way a white man isnt, there is an assumption of a kind of shirt circuit between a singular woman and woman as an abstract category.


Yes. Which ties with this notion of being able to appoint an <other> to speak on behalf of <group of others with same defining characteristic>. It doesn't bear much examination "how the fuck can she speak on my behalf, or even think she can" etc.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I like Nina Power, she writes with a nice withering contempt, also has her feminists writings grounded in proper theory.


 
On a general level so do I, but she was really against students trying to reign in the U.L.U.'s (London university's student's union) capitalist excesses and money-wasting. Someone I know and respect told me they hated her so I dunno.


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I haven't read the book, but from that passage, I don't really see that she's talking about class in any meaningful way there. It sounds empty, vacuous, and really quite weird. I can't suss her tone about all this 'hot' thing. I really can't work out what she's going for there.


I'm not basing my assessment on that passage; it's been posted up as an example of something someone doe not like. Take a look at the book, read the first few pages and decide whether you like it based on that. I found it very funny and fairly thought-provoking. If nothing else, it makes feminism a recognisable context out in the mass media, and sitting there on the bestseller lists might prompt some people to look for more thorough analyses of power; she namechecks Germain Greer a lot. Moran herself is a mainstream journalist, who describes herself as a radical liberal. But for all that I find her book useful in parts and readable.


----------



## toggle (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> The one things socialist middle-class males can not do is examine why their own organisations are so middle class.
> 
> Attacking feminism wherever and whenever possible
> 
> ...


 
and when suffrgism is exmined, it is done so in a terrible way. a freind did her research on force feeding of the suffragttes and found papers suggesting they enjoyed this.

thanks for the book recomendation.

eta; i can recall discussing how some of the revisionist histories describing parts of the early nationalist movement as sectarian were discredited.


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> On a general level so do I, but she was really against students trying to reign in the U.L.U.'s (London university's student's union) capitalist excesses and money-wasting. Someone I know and respect told me they hated her so I dunno.


We're not going to find a writer that no one hates. All we can do is find writers who we can learn something from, without falling into the trap of thinking we need to wholly accept or wholly reject their work or their political activity.


----------



## love detective (Oct 23, 2012)

No one hates Ellen Meiskins Woods


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2012)

love detective said:


> No one hates Ellen Meiskins Woods


A quick google shows that she not only took a prize named after trotsky-zionist Isaac Deutscher, but also became a member of the imperialist monarchist-lickspittle Royal Society of Canada. Hate her!


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

Random said:


> We're not going to find a writer that no one hates. All we can do is find writers who we can learn something from, without falling into the trap of thinking we need to wholly accept or wholly reject their work or their political activity.


 
That's a good point and on that basis only here is Caitlin Moran's book in text form

http://www.sendspace.com/file/76p046


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> That's a good point and on that basis only here is Caitlin Moran's book in text form
> 
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/76p046


Like I said, I thought it was funny, and I liked how her own experience growing up on an estate in Wolverhampton was brought into the analysis, rather than staying with a liberal-feminist view of meritocratic opportunities. Regarding being "hot" a lot of her argument is that women waste too much time on their appearance and shouldn't have to do any more work on themselves than the average man.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> And yes btw this Intersectionality and Privilige Theory stuff is the road to ruin. Eurocommunism for anarchists. This way lies dogma of the worst kind. It's something that has existed on the US Anarcho-left for a while, and is probably one of the contributing factors why the US anarcho-left is so fucking awful, but it's increasingly coming over here too. And for the record I'll happily accept that at least theoretically there's worthwhile idea's behind it, however practically every time I've ever seen in in action it's just a pretext to arbitrarily dismiss criticism or bully people based on their gender, skin colour and sexuality. You could if you were feeling charitable say that this is an abuse of an otherwise decent worthwhile theory, but I'm not charitable.


 
I don't like it at all, because I think the concept of 'privilege' itself is rightist and opens the gate to wholesale deny immigrant rights. If immigrants are under-privileged here (as they by and large are), then "the door is open for them to go back home" when they will become by comparison with Britain fairly privileged. It's a road to doing rightists' work for them. 

My point remains: most in Britain are not homeless, do we call them habitation-privileged compared to the homeless? It's not a meaningful analysis and it will inevitable chip away at the poor male looking at the rich female boss (which rightists are eager to point out when it suits their agenda) or a white stay-at-home father looking at an Asian male business owner.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard is quite interesting. It's like a 21st century take on Faludi's Backlash


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard is quite interesting. It's like a 21st century take on Faludi's Backlash


Kat Banyard, that's her! The one Molly was getting so angry about.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Kat Banyard, that's her! The one Molly was getting so angry about.


Ah yes.

I think the row in feminism about porn is quite similar to the one between feminists and women-who-proudly-declare-they-are-not-feminists.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I don't like it at all, because I think the concept of 'privilege' itself is rightist and opens the gate to wholesale deny immigrant rights. If immigrants are under-privileged here (as they by and large are), then "the door is open for them to go back home" when they will become by comparison with Britain fairly privileged. It's a road to doing rightists' work for them.
> 
> My point remains: most in Britain are not homeless, do we call them habitation-privileged compared to the homeless? It's not a meaningful analysis and it will inevitable chip away at the poor male looking at the rich female boss (which rightists are eager to point out when it suits their agenda) or a white stay-at-home father looking at an Asian male business owner.



Yeah its essentially a zero sum game where identities are pitted against each other in competition for worthiness, you can see it in northern ireland where one atricity or injustice is set against another to be cancelled out or ranked. In the states it plays out in crazy shit like the OJ Simpson trial were it became a battle between race and sex, with all the fucked up entrenchment that led to.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Anyway sisters thats the last youll probably hear from me tonight, im off to flex my male privilege on Fifa 13, like a heteronormative cis fuck.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard is quite interesting. It's like a 21st century take on Faludi's Backlash


 
In case anyone doesn't know she is the founder of UK Feminista, that is bringing along Tory MPs to its rallies as part of the pro-women strategy.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> In case anyone doesn't know she is the founder of UK Feminista, that is bringing along Tory MPs to its rallies as part of the pro-women strategy.


I don't agree with her there but I think she's trying to broaden the appeal of feminism and make it relevant to everyone. And it *is* relevant to all women.

Perils of activism I'd say


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

sihhi said:


> In case anyone doesn't know she is the founder of UK Feminista, that is bringing along Tory MPs to its rallies as part of the pro-women strategy.


I had a quick snoop about her (because I'd never heard of her) when the MC rage broke out; it was very quick but the two things I remember are some kind of involvement with the Fawcett Society and that she's a "full time feminist" which implies it's a career.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I had a quick snoop about her (because I'd never heard of her) when the MC rage broke out; it was very quick but the two things I remember are some kind of involvement with the Fawcett Society and that she's a "full time feminist" which implies it's a career.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

I don't think her book is particularly well written and she's no academic but there is an absolute dearth of recent books out there afaik


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Here's the offending article, btw: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/14/kat-banyard-feminist-pornography-equality


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 23, 2012)

What does being a full-time feminist involve I wonder? And how does one go about applying? I've never seen that position advertised in 'Professional Engineering' or 'The Engineer' and you'd think those would be some of the target audiences.

ffs


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I don't agree with her there but I think she's trying to broaden the appeal of feminism and make it relevant to everyone. And it *is* relevant to all women.
> 
> Perils of activism I'd say


 a feminism relevant to all women is a feminism reduced to apolitical platitudes. politics precedes identity, women arent some sort of homogenous entity. Feminism of substance cannot appeal to both a devout cathtfolic housewife or lesbian atheist. And any argument that women should be women before they are catholics, atheists, muslims, tories or communists serves to reinforce the notion of women being a reductive other, as some sort of pre political being.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> which implies it's *a career*.


 
eek.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

it's more professionalisation of activism stuff no ...


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's more professionalisation of activism stuff no ...


Can you imagine on your CV:

<dates> 
<job title> Professional Activist; Proletarian Democracy, Cis-Women division (officer)
<duties> I demonstrated organisational and team building skills in the successful design, production and deployment of the workers'  bomb. I contributed to bringing the Proletarian Democracy aims and objectives to market, using a variety of platforms including but not limited to social and professional media networks. Using my proven verbal and written communication skills, I produced clear communicae (internal and external) together with press releases on a timely basis. I achieved excellent feedback throughout both 360degree exercises and 121 meetings. 
<reason for leaving> career progression


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

anyone want to try and infiltrate the guardian with that


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> anyone want to try and infiltrate the guardian with that


Go for it!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> a feminism relevant to all women is a feminism reduced to apolitical platitudes. politics precedes identity, women arent some sort of homogenous entity. Feminism of substance cannot appeal to both a devout cathtfolic housewife or lesbian atheist. And any argument that women should be women before they are catholics, atheists, muslims, tories or communists serves to reinforce the notion of women being a reductive other, as some sort of pre political being.


I can kind of see your point but then aren't you veering towards intersectionality?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 23, 2012)

I don't understand what the description *'feminism of substance'* is supposed to mean.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't understand what the description *'feminism of substance'* is supposed to mean.


As opposed to empty-headed, dizzy, ditsy feminism, perhaps?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> As opposed to empty-headed, dizzy, ditsy feminism, perhaps?




Seriously though, I dislike the implied 'hierarchy' of the description.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> As opposed to empty-headed, dizzy, ditsy feminism, perhaps?



More like the feminism is everything from Thatcher, mooncups, spicegirls and eating chocolate whilst pole dancing.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Seriously though, I dislike the implied 'hierarchy' of the description.



The hierarchy of feminism with political substance as being superior to fluffy platitudes, yeah i suppose that kind of hierarchy is ell krypto fascist.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I can kind of see your point but then aren't you veering towards intersectionality?


 
Well quite. There seem to be a lot of things levelled at the mere concept of intersectionality, things that have been discussed by people who've been advocates of intersectionality for a long time now. For example, as I mentioned on another thread a while ago, there are different models of intersectionality, like hierarchical, additive, and another I can't remember the name of at the moment (it's been a while). It's simply not true to say that "intersectionality is all about people trying to out-do each other in the 'woe is me' stakes." That _can_ be what it leads to, and that _can _be how it ends up being practiced by some people. But if you strip away all the 'bad practice' you end up with something that is precisely saying "there is no homogeneous "black experience" or "female experience" or "gay experience" because everyone is a messy combination of a whole host of different things that positions them in different ways, at different times.

This is one of the instances where the wiki article on intersectionality is actually reasonably decent. It also touches on Marxist-feminist uses of/for it, which may be of interest to some.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I can kind of see your point but then aren't you veering towards intersectionality?



Not at all, intersectionality cuts across some the category of women by cutting it through with more discreet identities rather than politics.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> More like the feminism is everything from Thatcher, mooncups, spicegirls and eating chocolate whilst pole dancing.


If there was manism, what do you think it would consist of?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> The hierarchy of feminism with political substance as being superior to fluffy platitudes, yeah i suppose that kind of hierarchy is ell krypto fascist.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> If there was manism, what do you think it would consist of?


Allowing male human beings to be what they choose to be and to do what they're good at, rather than having at least some of their life choices limited by their genitals.  Even now, a stay at home dad has a harder time than a stay at home mum.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

Despite how it might be practiced in certain corners, really I see the concept of intersectionality being a way of highlighting how there are multiple oppressions at work on people all at the same time. That it's not enough to say "I'm a woman" and have that explain how you experience oppression. If we take class within the capitalist framework as the overarching system of oppression, intersectionality would simply tell us that within that framework you'll see different things work in different ways on different people depending on various categories that society has marked out. A working class recent immigrant to this country might face different institutionalised difficulties than someone else, for example. It's not about saying "because I'm brown skinned I have it worse than you" but rather, as I understand it, a way of trying to understand the different ways a whole range of oppressions and categories work to maintain the system of domination as a whole. It's not about pitting people against each other, but uncovering the ways in which all these oppressions work in unison (and _try_ to pit people against each other, often).


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Allowing male human beings to be what they choose to be and to do what they're good at, rather than having at least some of their life choices limited by their genitals.  Even now, a stay at home dad has a harder time than a stay at home mum.


Yep. But it also might include dressing how they want and lifestyle choices.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yep. But it also might include dressing how they want and lifestyle choices.


I was forgetting about how limited men's choices are when it comes to clothing.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I was forgetting about how limited men's choices are when it comes to clothing.


Patriarchy


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Patriarchy


Not that matriarchies were perfect.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Not that matriarchies were perfect.


I don't think any system that's predicated on the dominance of a subset of humans is ever going to be perfect. Is it possible to achieve a perfect system though, and if so, what would it look like?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't think any system that's predicated on the dominance of a subset of humans is ever going to be perfect. Is it possible to achieve a perfect system though, and if so, what would it look like?


Good question.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I was forgetting about how limited men's choices are when it comes to clothing.


 
I'm somewhat envious. The last piece of clothing I bought was a big comfy jumper from the men's section. I suspect my discomfort comes from having a body shape that doesn't conform to how all the clothes in the women's sections hang on the mannequins or look in the magazines, or even look on a lot of other women. A pair of jeans or trousers will either be too big around my waist or too tight on my hips, and so a whole host of negotiations have to come into play, where I decide whether to trudge around looking for that mythical pair that will look more or less okay, or if I decide to buy whatever, and then trudge around looking for a top that will cover up the offending areas, whilst still matching, somehow. And that top has to be big enough to fit my wide back without gaping where my almost non-existent tits are. And then when we factor into the equation the types of clothing that are deemed as socially acceptable, whereby things like comfort are thrown out of the window for fear you be labelled unfashionable, a frump, or just downright ugly ... I'll keep shopping in the men's section.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> If there was manism, what do you think it would consist of?


 
I think the fact such a question isn't asked is evidence of sexism, no one would ask (well outside that dick from Sex and the City with the magazine column) in all seriousness "what do men want?" or hold one man as speaking for all men, or even entertain the idea of some sort "male" politics aprior to a political/ideological subjectivity. Generally white men aren't expected to prefix statements with "speaking as a white male" because the subtext is that white males speak from a position of universal reason, unattached to an identity, hence why the MOBO's would be unthinkable for white artists. The real racism isn't in the "favouring" of black artists (regardless of what Nick Griffin and co claim) but it is the undertone of white supremacy in the idea that the other is more attached to some primordial culture or community, whilst whites are cosmopolitans with a distance to culture. This is why I think identity politics are at their core reactionary, because they reproduce white male supremacy through the very mode in which they seek to oppose it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

We get nicer underwear though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> We get nicer underwear though.


 
pics or stfu


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> We get nicer underwear though.


Frequently less comfortable and durable too.  Those are the breaks.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> pics or stfu


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

oh and yeah men's clothes are boring compared to girls.

I often walk round topshop envious of the wonderful range of looks available to women. I swear if I was a girl I'd have run up about 20k in store card debt.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 23, 2012)

Teepee said:


> I went out with an asian woman who was an ardent feminist. She made me think about my opinions and what I was saying more than any girl before or since and I still miss her for that. As a middle-class white man, I was frankly oblivious to the huge amount of prejudice that women like her experience daily. I paid lip-service to it of course, but she helped me *get* it. That said, I don't doubt that I can ever be anything but mostly oblivious to it even now, as a pure accident of birth. Feminism should be taught to guys in school imo, as I'm ashamed to admit that before I learned about it, my preconceptions of feminists were of the Valerie Solanas testicle-slasher sort, not of the intelligent, informed, not-going-to-take-shit-from-the-system sort. *Blokes - go out with a feminist, you won't regret it*.


 
Bolded bit :  as fuck! 

The above _in general_ makes a lot of sense, and fits in with my experience too. I used to be scared of ouspoken feminists (back in the eighties there was *sometimes* good reason for that actually!) but things change over time and you learn! 

(If that's any help to this thread at all  )


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> oh and yeah men's clothes are boring compared to girls.
> 
> I often walk round topshop envious of the wonderful range of looks available to women. I swear if I was a girl I'd have run up about 20k in store card debt.


You're a man out of his time, revol. I can envisage you enjoying the attire of the Regency days.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 23, 2012)

he's a wee fop


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Bolded bit :  as fuck!
> 
> The above _in general_ makes a lot of sense, and fits in with my experience too. I used to be scared of ouspoken feminists (back in the eighties there was *sometimes* good reason for that actually!) but things change over time and you learn!
> 
> (If that's any help to this thread at all  )


Were you as scared of outspoken feminists as you were of outspoken men?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> he's a wee fop


Clothes used to be way better for men and women though, till the Victorians got their paws on fashion


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> You're a man out of his time, revol. I can envisage you enjoying the attire of the Regency days.


 
Except I'd have been a dirt poor Irish peasant living under an anglo ruling class.

[Identity Politics XP +4]


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Except I'd have been a dirt poor Irish peasant living under an anglo ruling class.
> 
> [Identity Politics XP +4]


You might have been away with the Pilgrim Fathers to the land of the free


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> You might have been away with the Pilgrim Fathers to the land of the free


 
Not great clothes for the pilgrims though


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


>


 
it should say well rather than ell, was typing on a phone.

What's not to get?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not great clothes for the pilgrims though


Didn't they have those broad brimmed hats, and cloaks?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Didn't they have those broad brimmed hats, and capes?


 
I don't want to dress like V or Chris Knight, thanks very much.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Were you as scared of outspoken feminists as you were of outspoken men?


 
Exactly what a strange thing to say, how many men were denied jobs, or physically or sexually assulted by outspoken feminists?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Didn't they have those broad brimmed hats, and cloaks?


 
A fair point, Ichabod Crane was pretty dapper


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I don't want to dress like V or Chris Knight, thanks very much.


They've expropriated hats and cloaks


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Exactly what a strange thing to say, how many men were denied jobs, or physically or sexually assulted by outspoken feminists?


 
I know of one lad who did have to sit outside on the stairs whilst an all feminist female collective decided whether he was worthy of volunteering in their bookshop, they eventually accepted him in as some sort of neutered eunuch. I don't care how much it might of impressed lefty girls at parties, I'd have told them to go fuck themselves when they told me to sit outside whilst they overcome their reactionary essentialism.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A fair point, Ichabod Crane was pretty dapper


Full length cloaks are pretty cool too. Like the one worn by the woman in the Scottish Widows ad.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I know of one lad who did have to sit outside on the stairs whilst an all feminist female collective decided whether he was worthy of volunteering in their bookshop, they eventually accepted him in as some sort of neutered eunuch. I don't care how much it might of impressed lefty girls at parties, I'd have told them to go fuck themselves when they told me to sit outside whilst they overcome their reactionary essentialism.


But would you have been scared of them?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Full length cloaks are pretty cool too. Like the one worn by the woman in the Scottish Widows ad.


 
Love a girl in a cape!


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> But would you have been scared of them?


 
No, I'm only scared of girls I fancy, then I turn into a total drippy mute.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Love a girl in a cape!


Capes are good on men too!


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> No, I'm only scared of girls I fancy, then I turn into a total drippy mute.


Maybe that's what William meant. Outspoken feminists being so fanciable that they made him nervous.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Capes are good on men too!


 
You say that, but in reality it makes you them look like a total mental.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You say that, but in reality it makes you them look like a total mental.


Noooo! The highwayman look!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> They've expropriated hats and cloaks


In terms of practicality, cloaks are overrated; try running for the bus or tube in one.  Actually don't, the drag factor is huge.  Lovely as blankets on late night trains though.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Maybe that's what William meant. Outspoken feminists being so fanciable that they made him nervous.


 
As much as I'd like to gain some right on PC points, I simply can't bring myself to agree that outspoken feminists are really fanciable, in general I find them as attractive as outspoken anarchist/lefties, ie not at all, seeing as most of them are posturing idiots with no depth to their sloganeering shite.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> As much as I'd like to gain some right on PC points, I simply can't bring myself to agree that outspoken feminists are really fanciable, in general I find them as attractive as outspoken anarchist/lefties, ie not at all, seeing as most of them are posturing idiots with no depth to their sloganeering shite.


I'm trying to visualise what you would consider outspoken, here . . .


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

Aren't you an outspoken leftie, revol? Of a particular kind, of course.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Full length cloaks are pretty cool too. Like the one worn by the woman in the Scottish Widows ad.


Got one like that, except that it's a bit motheaten.  And it doesn't quite sweep the ground.  I've seen the state of cloaks worn outdoors where they swept the grass.  It's a good look, as long as you ignore the things often found in the grass of public spaces.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm trying to visualise what you would consider outspoken, here . . .


 
The sort who use lefty politics as an identity, you know the posturing muppets who join the SWP in uni.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> In terms of practicality, cloaks are overrated; try running for the bus or tube in one.  Actually don't, the drag factor is huge.  Lovely as blankets on late night trains though.


Good point. I suppose they'd be OK if you had transport there and back, and no running required. I was going to mention their benefits for shoplifting too, but I suppose there'd be too much attention for that to work.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Aren't you an outspoken leftie, revol? Of a particular kind, of course.


 
Gobby online, quite reserved in person actually.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Got one like that, except that it's a bit motheaten.  And it doesn't quite sweep the ground.  I've seen the state of cloaks worn outdoors where they swept the grass.  It's a good look, as long as you ignore the things often found in the grass of public spaces.


My mum's got one too, somewhere. Tends to overwhelm her a bit being as she's only a dwt.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You say that, but in reality it makes you them look like a total mental.


You need the right cut and the right attitude to carry it off.  I've seen some people look better in cloaks than in their normal stuff, while others look like prats in fancy dress.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Gobby online, quite reserved in person actually.


 
I'm just curious as to why a trait you value in yourself (albeit online) is something you don't value in others (specifically, in this case, women).


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You need the right cut and the right attitude to carry it off. I've seen some people look better in cloaks than in their normal stuff, while others look like prats in fancy dress.


 
Being a short arse isn't a good start to cape wearing.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> My mum's got one too, somewhere. Tends to overwhelm her a bit being as she's only a dwt.


dwt?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> dwt?


It's a Welshism (she's Welsh) for small of stature.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't think any system that's predicated on the dominance of a subset of humans is ever going to be perfect. Is it possible to achieve a perfect system though, and if so, what would it look like?


 
What'd it look like? Bout eight inches in legnth? Pink on the end? Yeah, we know what comes next.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Being a short arse isn't a good start to cape wearing.


FWIW I look taller in mine, even barefoot, but it's cut to taper more steeply than one for a taller person.  And it's mostly worn for some types of working, not fashion.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm just curious as to why a trait you value in yourself (albeit online) is something you don't value in others (specifically, in this case, women).


 
Oh I like gobby online in other people, and even like gobby amongst the friends or in the right context.

I was less thinking of actually lefties and feminists and more thinking of the posturing wankers you meet from time to time who think it makes them really interesting. Y'know Laurie Penny types.

I like a girl who can be gobby but it's backed up by a quiet, determined thoughtfulness, and some shyness.

Fuck that sounds awful, like a dating profile. In truth I dunno, I find weirdness attractive, not affected shite, just someone who looks a bit out of step with the world. I don't like people who seem driven or have their shit together.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Oh I like gobby online in other people, and even like gobby amongst the friends or in the right context.
> 
> I was less thinking of actually lefties and feminists and more thinking of the posturing wankers you meet from time to time who think it makes them really interesting. Y'know Laurie Penny types.
> 
> ...


I was just about to say a/s/l when I noticed you'd added that  I know what you mean, that's a good way of describing it. Unconventional but not in an affected/studied way.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Good point. I suppose they'd be OK if you had transport there and back, and no running required. I was going to mention their benefits for shoplifting too, but I suppose there'd be too much attention for that to work.


Unless male and wearing the type of cloak favoured by RC priests with buttons right down the front and armholes.  While, of course, radiating an attitude of absolute entitlement.  It has to be seen to be believed.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Unless male and wearing the type of cloak favoured by RC priests with buttons right down the front and armholes.  While, of course, radiating an attitude of absolute entitlement.  It has to be seen to be believed.


Like the ones in the Spanish Inquisition sketch?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Like the ones in the Spanish Inquisition sketch?


In plain black. Worn without a hat. And without the extra capey bit over the shoulders. But identical apart from that.  I've even seen the smug git pull while wearing it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> In plain black. Worn without a hat. And without the extra capey bit over the shoulders. But identical apart from that.  I've even seen the smug git pull while wearing it.


Sounds as though it could be quite a good look. I'd also like a full length (or at least long calf) black leather trench.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Sounds as though it could be quite a good look. I'd also like a full length (or at least long calf) black leather trench.


To be fair, the wearer had more charisma than most people I've ever met.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I don't agree with her there but I think she's trying to broaden the appeal of feminism and make it relevant to everyone. And it *is* relevant to all women.
> 
> Perils of activism I'd say


 

Inviting Tory MPs can only broaden feminism in the wrong direction. Not a peril of activism. A specific conscious choice.

I don't welcome Kat Banyard and the Fawcett Society's collaboration with feminist women employers.

For a while the Fawcett Society worked with the head of BT's Human Resources Caroline Waters, even producing a report called Corporate sexism in 2009 or 2010, largely about city firms using lap dancing clubs and firms not having stringent enough anti-pornography filters on office workplace computers. (Those aren't bad targets but the absence of any attack over employer provision of childcare is visible).

And then by 2011 Caroline Waters becomes chief advisor of the government's red-tape cutting initiative on 'equalities and disabilities'.
http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/new...red-tape-review-focus-diversity-equality-june

She is blessed in this role by Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, clean as a whistle on expenses, but also someone who already has a Highgate mansion and was until she became an MP, an heir or director of a publishing firm with millions-worth of profit. She has accumulated her wealth and since 2005 has been sitting happy on her MP's wage.

Tory and liberal feminism can only give equality to women by ramping up other forms of inequality, principally class inequality. The costs to business of any female-friendly provision, when provided on their terms, will be met by intensified surplus extraction from the base workforce (female and male). (Exploiting female workers abroad will be part of the equation too.)

Kat Banyard's whole career (others have noted the importance of) is liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is perfect for those interested in a career in 'feminist advocacy' or 'feminist charity work'. Why? Because liberal feminist equality (broadly a 50-50 male-female split in all grades of the workforce, and hence the 'closure' of the 'pay gap') will never be achieved by liberal methods. Instead you will continue to churn out for Faber & Faber books like 'The Equality Illusion' to explain with a hundred different statistics to middle-class women the fact that the inequality is still continuing.

(Charities incidentally are one sector of the economy where virtual liberal feminist equality has been achieved, the figures from 2009 show 47% of charity chief executives as women and a higher proportion of charity senior management are women compared to men. Yet anyone with any experience of this sector knows the rampant class division behind it, and the blackmail tactics used against any class-based activity within it.)

UK Feminista has a leftist sounding name being the Spanish word for feminist (with all the Latin American associations of that -ista suffix ... Sandinista, Guevarista etc), but its political program is slow-burn poison for working-class people of both genders.
***

Also, as 'intersectionality' was mentioned and so it not to be assumed I am having a go at just women, liberal anti-racism faces exactly the same problem. As soon as liberal anti-racism begins to have success in incorporating some immigrants into the state (black and Asian people from the old colonies), so it springs up new forms of chauvinism. 'Britain is one of the most tolerant, diverse places on earth (far better than those horrid south European places, never mind north Africas)'. 'Would you want to be foreign in Britain or in Morocco?'. 'Nothing against black people, but immigration as a whole has got to be halted, it's damaging the life chances of the second-generation poor'. The idea of foreign-ness or non-citizenship is never faced down, the 'foreign' are never seen as indispensible allies in the struggle of a 'British' working-class. Eventually as economic claims made for immigration turn sour, parts of the poor become an the alien entity within 'the nation' and they are marginalised, maligned like non-citizen immigrants once were.

(Sometimes this is done by criticising the poor's 'failure' to incorporate immigrants, sometimes by how they dress, sometimes their general existence, daring to be poor and have children. Sometimes new (old) enemies like travellers or whole foreign states like Greece or France or China are thrown up instead.) You can see this happening in Scandanavia and in Denmark aswell as in Britain.

In Germany, having imported the human produce of its adopted labour colony Turkey, the debate is about what do you do with them, now they are retiring? So pension rights are reduced in Germany for all on the explicit basis that 'we expected them to go home, but they didn't'. You achieving liberal anti-racist success (allowing the once guest-workers to stay) on the back of increasing class oppression.

There has got to be a 'foreign' in capitalism, there is no working without it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

Great to see you back sihhi - some great posts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 23, 2012)

Was with you until this point:



> There has got to be a 'foreign' in capitalism, there is no working without it.


 
Can you expand a little on that please sihhi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Was with you until this point:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expand a little on that please sihhi, I'm not sure I understand what you mena by it.


 
I imagine he means populst bollocks about"foreign capitalists" dunno tho!


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Was with you until this point:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expand a little on that please sihhi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.


I imagine "foreign" as in "other". Capitalism doesn't work without competition.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I imagine "foreign" as in "other". Capitalism doesn't work without competition.


 
That's how I understood it. It's a bit like when they say that _anyone_ can become successful (be it boss of a company, or president of the US) if they work hard enough, while they're dead wrong on that, what it highlights is that not _everyone_ can, because the system relies on there being people who _aren't_ successful in order for it to function at all.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's how I understood it. It's a bit like when they say that _anyone_ can become successful (be it boss of a company, or president of the US) if they work hard enough, while they're dead wrong on that, what it highlights is that not _everyone_ can, because the system relies on there being people who _aren't_ successful in order for it to function at all.



But the twist in the tail is the ability to pursue class based politics without being anti-capitalist. So, one has to be quite clear what type of class based politics people espouse because not all of them are left. Cf the BNP, EDL etc.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Exactly what a strange thing to say, how many men were denied jobs, or physically or sexually assulted by outspoken feminists?


 
As I understood WoW's point, if you've grown up in a strongly patriarchical society or sub-section of it, then the mere thought of being put right by a woman (or being shown how to do a man's job by a woman, or having a woman explain something simple) in the presence of other men can be intimidating. It's not the woman at all, it's the weight of sexist men judging you as a cissy.

It's like being in a car a male is at the wheel driving driving you and other males to a wedding, and a woman is crossing the road and he says to the other men and the woman can't hear 'you've got an **** like a **** I'd like to rub, but hurry up we're late'. It's sexist you want to challenge it but everyone else is going to make a point of blaming you, judging you a "killjoy" 'there's no harm, she can't hear us anyway'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> But the twist in the tail is the ability to pursue class based politics without being anti-capitalist. So, one has to be quite clear what type of class based politics people espouse because not all of them are left. Cf the BNP, EDL etc.


 
Well, of course. I don't think I was suggesting they were, was I? And in terms of your examples, one can't help think they could do with a dash of intersectional critique


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, of course. I don't think I was suggesting they were, was I? And in terms of your examples, one can't help think they could do with a dash of intersectional critique


I didn't think you were! I was just picking up the point and running with it ... mainly to illustrate that whilst feminism without class politics is roundly criticised, so indeed can class politics without feminism.

Sihhi, yes that's how I understood William's comment too but I suppose I wanted him to analyse/explain it


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> I didn't think you were! I was just picking up the point and running with it ... mainly to illustrate that whilst feminism without class politics is roundly criticised, so indeed can class politics without feminism.
> 
> Sihhi, yes that's how I understood William's comment too but I suppose I wanted him to analyse/explain it


 
Aha! Okay, I was a bit confused


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Aha! Okay, I was a bit confused


It comes back to the ongoing question of why the Left is fractured, I believe.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Was with you until this point:
> 
> Can you expand a little on that please sihhi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.


 
Capitalism needs an explanation other than itself to explain its failures.

So yes it could be foreign competition, in the 1930s it was 'Japan' that put the mill-workers of Lancashire out of work (not capitalist overproduction and public underconsumption). In the 1970s it was Poland that put shipworkers out of work. Today it's 'India' and 'South Africa' taking over call-centre work, and 'China' putting manufacturing workers out of work. Within Britain's borders it's Poles putting unskilled Britons out of work, its asylum seekers and NHS tourists draining resources for hospitals, its their children weakening the effectiveness of schools. Foreign criminals draining the prison service (Any question of taking back British people in Australian prisons?) It's 'the EU' making Britain poor because it wants to, because we give money to them so they can give it to (lazy) Greece. Gordon Brown's 'there will be British jobs for British workers' (What is a British job?) Adverts in the 1950s "Is Your Pencil British?". An independent Scotland is a bad idea - 'we are a strong economic unit'. UNITE's campaign for jobs at Rover with English flags at half-mast. PCS arguing for more staff at Heathrow on the basis that our European competitors offer a quicker service and attract investment as a result (ie if a well-staffed, well-run Heathrow didn't attract investment - get rid of us - ie get rid of the twats in Prestwick); and fewer workers would mean shorter immigration interrogations. Strikes damage confidence in British industry. 
On your guards against your class brothers and sisters from far off. The standard stuff.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> It comes back to the ongoing question of why the Left is fractured, I believe.


 
Absolutely.

It was stated elsewhere (not in this thread I don't think, possibly in the manarchism thread), that there may be those who think that once the business of class division has been dealt with and a fairer and more equal system than capitalism instituted, then other things like racism, sexism, etc., will naturally just fall away - but what that ignores is the way in which those things are all used to help prop up the current system and need addressing right now as well. It also ignores the ways in which, as you say, some people on the left might themselves actually be supporting systems of racism/sexism; just as they themselves might be quick to highlight where some feminists/civil rights activists and campaigners might be reinforcing class-based divisions and discrimination.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Capitalism fails without competition. A completely fair society cannot be achieved in a capitalist regime - the most that can be achieved are measures of fairness, and always at the expense of someone else.

Eta: I just cross posted with yours, VP


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2012)

So, this begs the question I suppose: if you can't have a completely fair society under capitalism (because it relies on systems of domination, and one person always being exploited so another can flourish), how can a fair society with something that _isn't_ capitalism be achieved while sexism, racism etc., still flourish?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2012)

For example, if we follow the idea that capitalism could be overthrown through a workers' revolt, and something like socialism put in place (on the road to communism, or perhaps something else entirely), and that requires a critical mass of a large, mobilised section of the country's (or world's) population working together be it for a forceful, violent uprising or by more peaceful methods - if racism and sexism and homophobia etc., are still rife within certain sections of that large mobilised section of workers, what will this new, "fair" society look like?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Capitalism fails without competition. A completely fair society cannot be achieved in a capitalist regime - the most that can be achieved are measures of fairness, and always at the expense of someone else.
> 
> Eta: I just cross posted with yours, VP


 
Shut it hippy, I want rid of capitalism, not being able to rub losers noses in it when I thump them 6-0 at FIFA even when they are cheap fucks who choose Barcelona.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> So, this begs the question I suppose: if you can't have a completely fair society under capitalism (because it relies on systems of domination, and one person always being exploited so another can flourish), how can a fair society with something that _isn't_ capitalism be achieved while sexism, racism etc., still flourish?


I don't think it can. Hence my earlier question of what a fair society would look like, and if/how it's achievable. For a start, hierarchical structures (in any context) would have to go.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Shut it hippy, I want rid of capitalism, not being able to rub losers noses in it when I thump them 6-0 at FIFA even when they are cheap fucks who choose Barcelona.


Hippy?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> For example, if we follow the idea that capitalism could be overthrown through a workers' revolt, and something like socialism put in place (on the road to communism, or perhaps something else entirely), and that requires a critical mass of a large, mobilised section of the country's (or world's) population working together be it for a forceful, violent uprising or by more peaceful methods - if racism and sexism and homophobia etc., are still rife within certain sections of that large mobilised section of workers, what will this new, "fair" society look like?


 
It's not even a matter of that, for things to get to such an uprising the ideologies of racism, nationalism and even sexism must have failed to maintain their role in upholding capitalisms hegemony.

My fear isn't so much a revolution upholding racism, nationalism and sexism, it's that racism and sexism etc act to forever delay such a possibility as we all descend into a shit spiral of recrimination, as various competing identities fight over a smaller and smaller cake.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> For example, if we follow the idea that capitalism could be overthrown through a workers' revolt, and something like socialism put in place (on the road to communism, or perhaps something else entirely), and that requires a critical mass of a large, mobilised section of the country's (or world's) population working together be it for a forceful, violent uprising or by more peaceful methods - if racism and sexism and homophobia etc., are still rife within certain sections of that large mobilised section of workers, what will this new, "fair" society look like?


The revolution will come from the petit bourgeoisie not the workers.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> The revolution will come from the petit bourgeoisie not the workers.


 
shopkeepers, architects, kitsch deli owners and other such assorted historical flotsam?

will it fuck!


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It's not even a matter of that, for things to get to such an uprising the ideologies of racism, nationalism and even sexism must have failed to maintain their role in upholding capitalisms hegemony.
> 
> My fear isn't so much a revolution upholding racism, nationalism and sexism, it's that racism and sexism etc act to forever delay such a possibility as we all descend into a shit spiral of recrimination, as various competing identities fight over a smaller and smaller cake.


And yet (and I know it's unpalatable) it's far easier to mobilise via identity.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> shopkeepers, architects, kitsch deli owners and other such assorted historical flotsam?
> 
> will it fuck!


No. The way society is moving is towards self employment where there's greater freedom for action.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It's not even a matter of that, for things to get to such an uprising the ideologies of racism, nationalism and even sexism must have failed to maintain their role in upholding capitalisms hegemony.
> 
> My fear isn't so much a revolution upholding racism, nationalism and sexism, it's that racism and sexism etc act to forever delay such a possibility as we all descend into a shit spiral of recrimination, as various competing identities fight over a smaller and smaller cake.


 
It's important to distinguish where the blame lies, and to not conflate the fact that the -isms act to help reinforce a system of domination, with people reacting to that and focusing on the identity politics you hate so much. It's far more constructive to see where people identify oppression and encourage a nuanced analyses that recognises the system as a whole, than it is to join in with the bickering over who is doing it right and ending up conflating the issues so as to dismiss the importance of feminist (or whatever) critique _within_ politics as a whole.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

In the case of feminism, it's the 'immigrant male' problem.

In the anti -asylum centres/ anti-asylum seeker dispersion campaigns of 2000-1, there were women making the claim against a centre in Dorset 'these men aren't used to seeing girls in short skirts, they're from the Middle East' (ie innately more liable to rape strangers. (Even though any infraction with the law would hurtle them back to where they were fleeing from). Toyah Wilcox joined in aswell on another centre one making a similar point.
In the 1970s the NF used to give a run-down of Jewish pornographers and Jewish publishers that printed pornographic magazines. Some supporters also did freesheets - anonymous not officially NF for deniability purposes - saying things such as 'JEWISH PORNOGRAPHY' 'the Jew is filthy through and through' noting how some Jews were punished for behaviour with children. The immigrant males are degrading women, stop them by deporting them or overthrowing the Z.O.G. system.
Now it's 'if Muslim men weren't in Britain at all, things like the Rochdale case would be much diminished.' Muslims see young white girls as 'easy meat', not "sexual abusers see young white girls as 'easy meat'" because no one listens to young girls of any colour. 'We need to stop any anti-racism efforts to monitor the police in order to better protect women.
On our citizenship and visa entry requirements, let us have a test just for Muslim men for us too see how non-sexist they are, before we ever let them in. A prime policy of the VVD in Holland, as endorsed by feminist 'hero' Ayan Hirsi Ali. 
Jamaican popular culture is so sexist and homophobic it needs monitoring by the state to restrict visas to foreign performers. (Are there performance permits for home grown homophobic white nationalist bands?)
Julie Burchill's defence of Israeli West Bank colonisation on the grounds that her teacher of Hebrew in Israel when she visited in 2005 or 2006 was a Jewish woman. 
The battle for equality in Britain has been largely won, let us fight the male chauvinists of Afghanistan and Pakistan (using weaponry that sustains a quarter of Southampton University's engineering research programmes and British jobs in weapons factories). 
Ours is a non-sexist army, hence pride in its activities (and oil tanker driver strike-breaking preparations) is logical. We mustn't let male tanker driver dinosaurs (all trade unionists become dinosaurs when action is threatened) sap resources away from the British Army that provides jobs for women.
'Foreign criminals' guilty of assaulting and punching women must be returned to their home country immediately.
We must struggle tirelessly against 'honour violence' with special outreach teams to preach against the deaths of women in immigrant communities. Anything involving white males killing or seriously assaulting females should be termed a 'crime of passion' - there's no structural sexist problem in British communities. Only British mentalists ever murder their partners, with immigrant communities it's a disease of the mind.
Immigrant men who traffick women are the real problem who keep women enslaved in prostitution, others do willingly. Let's rescue the women and return them back to their countries (regardless of whether they want to go or not).

We can't accept asylum seekers from places like Latin America, sexism may be bad there but it's not Middle-East levels.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> And yet (and I know it's unpalatable) it's far easier to mobilise via identity.


 
And I think it's reasonably obvious why. We're all products of our society, and we're groomed to be individuals, packaged and sold our identities, which we pick out for ourselves because there's fuck all else to bring us together. And the system continues to keep us packaged up in those neat(ish) boxes by pitting us against each other, creating hierarchies of which type of person is more worthwhile than another. It's hard to fight against that tide.

And precisely because we're packaged up and sectioned off, because it's on those issues of 'identity' that we face various discriminations most tangibly, it's those things that mobilise us. And because it's far easier to imagine being able to achieve equal pay for women, equal marriage for people of all orientations, that we feel able to take on those battles.

And class, capitalism, the structure that acts as the scaffold for it all - that's far harder to experience as something tangible. It just _is_. Apart from those right at the very top, all of us experience really boring issues to do with working out how much you have to spend on something this month, or being treated like shit by the boss, or whatever. While for a lot of people right at the very bottom these issues can be to the extent that they are actually life or death issues, for most we probably experience them with the mundane acceptance we've been encouraged to. They're just a really shitty part of life. But stuff around identity? We've seen things change there - little bits of legislation being passed to make it no longer illegal to be gay, or to make racial discrimination in the workplace illegal, and seen some attitudes slowly change as a result. That's tangible. It's really no surprise that's what many people will focus on so stridently, and I don't think it's always as simple a case as to say it's only the middle classes who are concerned with this stuff (e.g. a lot of the intersectional stuff that comes out of the US around race and feminism deals very specifically with class as it relates to poor women of colour).


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's important to distinguish where the blame lies, and to not conflate the fact that the -isms act to help reinforce a system of domination, with people reacting to that and focusing on the identity politics you hate so much. It's far more constructive to see where people identify oppression and encourage a nuanced analyses that recognises the system as a whole, than it is to join in with the bickering over who is doing it right and ending up conflating the issues so as to dismiss the importance of feminist (or whatever) critique _within_ politics as a whole.


 
But this treats identity politics, rather naively, as simply a reflex action by victims of racism, sexism etc, when infact it is much more than that, it is a political project with distinct goals, aims and vested interests and serves various sections of the ruling class very well. 

The fact that criticising identity politics can be seen as dismissing feminist critiques per se only goes to show it's fundamental dishonesty and true function.

And for what it's worth I find it interesting that some people seem to think identity politics are only really about anti racism, anti sexism or homophobia, they aren't, those are relatively harmless expressions of it's logic at present, marginalised as they are. The logic of identity politics shows it's real danger where I am in ethno nationalism, in the pitting of communities against each other. Identity politics isn't simply someone shouting someone down at an irrelevant meeting on whether or not males should sit down to pee or not, it's sectarian violence and real divisions, it's Saravejo not a gays only Stonewall march. 

I thought I'd put that out there because it seemed that some people think that the contempt many anarchists and communists have for identity politics is out of proportion, it really isn't.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol said:
			
		

> it [identity politics] is a political project with distinct goals, aims and vested interests



Is it? Where's that set out?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Is it? Where's that set out?


 
I mean various identities (or those pushing them) have distinct goals and vested interests.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I mean various identities (or those pushing them) have distinct goals and vested interests.


Ok. 

What's different about the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment, for it now to be identity politics? Or is that what it always was, now relabelled?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ok.
> 
> What's different about the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment, for it now to be identity politics? Or is that what it always was, now relabelled?


 
Well since it's moved from a quite explicit low level civil war to a politically managed settlement centred around cooper fastening two identities and narratives, which demand total parity of esteem and function within a zero sum game where a gain by one (privilege) is the oppression of the other, or as the famous saying goes "That lot get everything but the blame". What we have now is sectarian violence sublimated into cultural battles over street signs, language funding and the like. It's reduced the majority of northern irish politics to competitive victimhood.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Well since it's moved from a quite explicit low level civil war to a politically managed settlement centred around cooper fastening two identities and narratives, which demand total parity of esteem and function within a zero sum game where a gain by one (privilege) is the oppression of the other, or as the famous saying goes "That lot get everything but the blame". What we have now is sectarian violence sublimated into cultural battles over street signs, language funding and the like.


And do the inhabitants find it better or worse than at the height of the troubles?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

Also the St Columbus Day episode of The Sopranos is one of the greatest satires of identity politics you'll find.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Also the St Columbus Day episode of The Sopranos is one of the greatest satires of identity politics you'll find.


Never seen The Sopranos, I'll try and remember.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> And do the inhabitants find it better or worse than at the height of the troubles?


 
well the decrease in paramilitary violence is welcomed by most but the actual increase in sectarian attitudes and increase in peace walls isn't.

certainly it offers nothing for the working class as a class for itself.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Well since it's moved from a quite explicit low level civil war to a politically managed settlement centred around cooper fastening two identities and narratives, which demand total parity of esteem and function within a zero sum game where a gain by one (privilege) is the oppression of the other, or as the famous saying goes "That lot get everything but the blame". What we have now is sectarian violence sublimated into cultural battles over street signs, language funding and the like. It's reduced the majority of northern irish politics to competitive victimhood.


 
Do you disapprove of this kind of thing R68?

"Ulster Scots Agency Music and Dance Tuition grants

Open for Applications
Application Deadline: 26th October 2012 @ 12noon
Grant Value: not specified

Announced on the 1st October on their website The Ulster Scots Agency is seeking applications for Music and Dance Tuition Programme 2013. The programme closes to applications on 26th October 2012. 
To assist groups interested in making an application to this programme a series of Roadshows have been organised.

The remaining dates, including today's are listed below

Wed 3rd Oct  Desertmartin Orange Hall  
Wed 3rd Oct  Millbrook Lodge Hotel Ballynahinch
Thurs 4th Oct  Ulster-Scots Agency, Belfast  
Tues 9th Oct  Regional Office, Raphoe, Co. Donegal (drop in service 10am to 4pm)
All meetings will commence at 8pm. They have devised new application forms and guidance notes to assist groups applying."


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> well the decrease in paramilitary violence is welcomed by most but the actual increase in sectarian attitudes and increase in peace walls isn't.
> 
> certainly it offers nothing for the working class as a class for itself.


How long before a sharp increase again in para violence, do you think? Or will people continue to prefer to settle for *slightly* less oppression?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> No. The way society is moving is towards self employment where there's greater freedom for action.


 
You're right, but there's a big difference between those who are self-employed in a skilled trades or professions, and those in unskilled precious self-employment, such as cleaners who are self-employed and getting less than minimum wage, those in poorly paid cash-in-hand work, people who are underemployed part-time and so on, the so called "precariat".

Someone self-employed in possession of a skill has some degree of autonomy in how they work, chosing their own hours, setting their own terms directly with an employer. It's definitely better than wage-slavery. Someone who turns up at the back door of a pub kitchen in their chefs whites and a CV hoping for a shift is not in this position. It's like being cap in hand in front of the factory gates all over again.

And historically the self-employed, even the wealthier ones, have been quite militant. Especially when they undergo a sharp deteroriation in earnings or status.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Many of the precariat will mobilise more quickly than the waged, too.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

And if you want to change the status quo, and not just tweak it a bit; you need to use what works to change things, even whilst knowing you've got to change it again later.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Many of the precariat will mobilise more quickly than the waged, too.


 
Where has this happened?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where has this happened?


Disabled people via DPAC
The cleaners via the IWW/IWGB

Two recent examples. There'll be more as the cuts start to hit harder.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Disabled people via DPAC
> The cleaners via the IWW/IWGB
> 
> Two recent examples. There'll be more as the cuts start to hit harder.


 
Visteon and Vestas there will be more as the cuts hit harder


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Visteon and Vestas there will be more as the cuts hit harder


The more, the better. Direct action, not cuts, obv.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Visteon


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> The more, the better. Direct action, not cuts, obv.


 
I was pointing out that salaried workers are just as likely (or more pertinantly not take action) to take direct action.

The fact is in the UK right now there is no corelation between contract type and ability or willingness to take action, I don't droves of Starbucks or Pizza Hut workers taking action the same as I don't see droves of Norwich Union staff taking action


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


>


 
surely


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I was pointing out that salaried workers are just as likely (or more pertinantly not take action) to take direct action.
> 
> The fact is in the UK right now there is no corelation between contract type and ability or willingness to take action, I don't droves of Starbucks or Pizza Hut workers taking action the same as I don't see droves of Norwich Union staff taking action


You mean direct action via the unions, I take it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> You mean direct action via the unions, I take it?


 
I mean any sort

There are a handful of examples from non unionised or unionised workforces, contracted or casual over the last few years - neither of the groups you defined above is more or less likely to take action to improve their immeadiate circumstances


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I mean any sort


How can you measure correlation unless you've worked out what contract-types the people taking action via e.g. UKUncut are on?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> How can you measure correlation unless you've worked out what contract-types the people taking action via e.g. UKUncut are on?


 
You started it you tell me


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You started it you tell me


I didn't start it, Delroy did.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

Delroy answer her question please!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

Look my point is that there is no evidence people in precarious positions are any more likely to take meaningful and effective action than people who aren't in the UK at the moment.

If you or Delroy can provide a graph maybe that sets out type of action and the people who have carried it, and the results of said action I cannot believe otherwise.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look my point is that there is no evidence people in precarious positions are any more likely to take meaningful and effective action than people who aren't in the UK at the moment.
> 
> If you or Delroy can provide a graph maybe that sets out type of action and the people who have carried it, and the results of said action I cannot believe otherwise.


 
Proof! Without it, there's no way I could be right. Equally, there's no way that you and Delroy could be right, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Despite how it might be practiced in certain corners, really I see the concept of intersectionality being a way of highlighting how there are multiple oppressions at work on people all at the same time. That it's not enough to say "I'm a woman" and have that explain how you experience oppression. If we take class within the capitalist framework as the overarching system of oppression, intersectionality would simply tell us that within that framework you'll see different things work in different ways on different people depending on various categories that society has marked out. A working class recent immigrant to this country might face different institutionalised difficulties than someone else, for example. It's not about saying "because I'm brown skinned I have it worse than you" but rather, as I understand it, a way of trying to understand the different ways a whole range of oppressions and categories work to maintain the system of domination as a whole. It's not about pitting people against each other, but uncovering the ways in which all these oppressions work in unison (and _try_ to pit people against each other, often).


 
That's how it should be in my (obviously worthless to some!) opinion, but is rarely how it is, given it's deployment as excuse and/or justification rather than as a lens through which to view how individuals can be subject to unique combinations of oppressive force, and how communities that are outwardly "homogeneous" are in actuality heterogeneous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look my point is that there is no evidence people in precarious positions are any more likely to take meaningful and effective action than people who aren't in the UK at the moment.
> 
> If you or Delroy can provide a graph maybe that sets out type of action and the people who have carried it, and the results of said action I cannot believe otherwise.


 
Proof-Nazi!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Proof! Without it, there's no way I could be right. Equally, there's no way that you and Delroy could be right, either.


 
hang on I thought he was arguing the same as you??


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Proof-Nazi!


 
It's OK you're a man if you would like to make the same point as Cesare I will say "fair enough I see your point".


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> hang on I thought he was arguing the same as you??


Nah. #387 he introduced another "iat" the precariat and that the precariat wouldn't be as militant as the rest of the self employed.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Nah. #387 he introduced another "iat" the precariat and that the precariat wouldn't be as militant as the rest of the self employed.


 
Ah right - you're both wrong then.

Cheers.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah right - you're both wrong then.
> 
> Cheers.


A fiver (a whole five pounds!) on social unrest and increasing direct action coming via the likes of DPAC, UK Uncut etc rather than the unions?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> A fiver (a whole five pounds!) on social unrest and increasing direct action coming via the likes of DPAC, UK Uncut etc rather than the unions?


 
Most UK Uncut people I've met are certainly not in precarious jobs.

I wouldn't for a second claim social unrest and increasing direct action will come from the unions.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wouldn't for a second claim social unrest and increasing direct action will come from the unions.


 
Now you and me agree on that, and I bet Delroy doesn't.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 24, 2012)

Oops wrong thread


----------



## 8115 (Oct 24, 2012)

Feminism isn't dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20054049

It's only just getting started


----------



## emanymton (Oct 24, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Most UK Uncut people I've met are certainly not in precarious jobs.
> 
> I wouldn't for a second claim social unrest and increasing direct action will come from the unions.


In November last year around 2 million union members went on strike, UK Uncut has got some way to go before it organises any direct action on that scale.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

emanymton said:


> In November last year around 2 million union members went on strike, UK Uncut has got some way to go before it organises any direct action on that scale.


Did it work?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> Feminism isn't dead.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20054049
> 
> It's only just getting started


 
Yeah I read this story yesterday. It left me thinking about 'intersectionality' and 'perceived' class, wondering whether these women (on this scale) would have had to fight this case if they had been in supervisory/management roles etc.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah I read this story yesterday. It left me thinking about 'intersectionality' and 'perceived' class, wondering whether these women (on this scale) would have had to fight this case if they had been in supervisors/management roles etc.


 
I know.  And I was questioning it last night, thinking to myself, are the jobs really equivalent?  One of the women was on the radio, she said "they were hard jobs, we worked hard" or something like that, and I've done some catering and it *is* hard, especially getting up early.  The women were earning about half what the men were earning.  Amazing.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah I read this story yesterday. It left me thinking about 'intersectionality' and 'perceived' class, wondering whether these women (on this scale) would have had to fight this case if they had been in supervisory/management roles etc.


There's a fairly decent article here about this today: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...-equality-trap?cat=commentisfree&type=article


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 25, 2012)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...-equality-trap?cat=commentisfree&type=article



> It was a small point of law, well-spotted by the lawyers, but it may have changed the landscape – the equivalent of the cloud no bigger than a man's hand that grows into a storm. On Wednesday, the supreme court ruled that some out-of-time equal pay claims could come before the civil courts. It could, at last, be the moment when local authorities abandon the hopeless cause of resisting equal pay claims.
> 
> It is a critical victory, but it is not the end of the war. The new battleground is the private sector, where those women who escape from lower-paid jobs are, according to TUC research, penalised by a gender pay gap twice as big as it is in the public sector.
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Yes, that's the one.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes, that's the one.


 
Yeah I c & p'ed from the link you posted so all could read it.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

Basically, children are the new women?  Especially after all this shite about child benefit caps.  It makes me livid.  Second plus child is £13.40/ a week, it's not exactly a fortune.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Oct 25, 2012)

Belle du Jour on Caitlin Moran (amongst other things):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9629014/Feminism.-What-does-it-mean-anyway.html


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

It's like a never ending fucking stream of journos making money out of telling people how they should think/behave, and criticising other journos (in infinite fucking detail) for doing the same thing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

And Magnati has written a piece for the Guardian today, essentially a plug for her new book, saying that she "tried to give a shit" about maternity pay and all that stuff, but just can't. She no longer calls herself a feminist, and she thinks that if you are having problems with things like time off or pay, you should just get a new job (just as, if you are having problems with 'your man' not doing the washing up, you should do the same). She also said she's sick and tired of all the endless tomes dissecting feminism these days. Which is clearly why she's just written her own.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Did it work?


Has UK Uncut 'worked'?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Has UK Uncut 'worked'?


I've no idea.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Delroy answer her question please!


 
Who? What?

Luddites.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 25, 2012)

This is a better article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louise-pennington/netmums-reinvents-choice-_b_2008474.html


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And Magnati has written a piece for the Guardian today, essentially a plug for her new book, saying that she "tried to give a shit" about maternity pay and all that stuff, but just can't. She no longer calls herself a feminist, and she thinks that if you are having problems with things like time off or pay, you should just get a new job (just as, if you are having problems with 'your man' not doing the washing up, you should do the same). She also said she's sick and tired of all the endless tomes dissecting feminism these days. Which is clearly why she's just written her own.


 
I have to correct myself. I was too quick to attribute bits and bobs erroneously. What I read was an article written at the end of last year, but it came to my attention today.

But, it has since sparked a big old journo twitter war between her and Helen Lewis.

....while Rome burns.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 25, 2012)

W of W said:
			
		

> I used to be scared of ouspoken feminists (back in the eighties there was *sometimes* good reason for that actually!)


 


cesare said:


> Were you as scared of outspoken feminists as you were of outspoken men?


 
Come to think of it I doubt there was a major difference, couldn't say much of a boo to either goose or gander when I was a student.

But that *was* back in the eighties I was talking of. The 'good reason' I mentioned up there was as much, maybe more, about my own failings as about those of SOME of the the outspoken (then) to tell much apparant difference between wellmeaning/non arsehole blokes, and blokes who really were unreconstructed back then. There were plenty of those around of course, still are. But there were also blokes who could/can potentially be allies.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Maybe that's what William meant. Outspoken feminists being so fanciable that they made him nervous.


 
True in some cases. Others were just intimidating full stop!


----------



## ethel (Oct 26, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And Magnati has written a piece for the Guardian today, essentially a plug for her new book, saying that she "tried to give a shit" about maternity pay and all that stuff, but just can't. She no longer calls herself a feminist, and she thinks that if you are having problems with things like time off or pay, you should just get a new job (just as, if you are having problems with 'your man' not doing the washing up, you should do the same). She also said she's sick and tired of all the endless tomes dissecting feminism these days. Which is clearly why she's just written her own.


 

this is an old article and brooke has tweeted this about it:

Should also like to point out this piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/10/brooke-magnanti-belle-de-jour … was made up by a journo who never met me. Yes, I have complained. Many times.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 26, 2012)

ethel said:


> this is an old article and brooke has tweeted this about it:
> 
> Should also like to point out this piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/10/brooke-magnanti-belle-de-jour … was made up by a journo who never met me. Yes, I have complained. Many times.


 
As a later post of mine stated.

Magnati has also since been taken to task with her tweets about it. Twitter has all the links. It's far too tedious to go over on here.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

It's all about the commodification of feminism, folks!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's all about the commodification of feminism, folks!


 
Aye, that it is.

"I know what is best about feminism. Buy my book."

"I know what real women are. Buy my book."

"Aren't all these arguments about feminism silly? Buy my book."

Feminism's working for all of them. Everyone's buying their books.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 26, 2012)

Feminist protest.








This is the lobby inside Parliament:






This is Sylvia Pankhurst's great-granddaughter at the lobby inside


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Oct 26, 2012)

sihhi said:


> This is Sylvia Pankhurst's great-granddaughter at the lobby inside


 
_Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose._


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Dr Brooke Mangina - Never liked her. Virginie Despentes, now she knows a bit.


----------



## Edie (Oct 27, 2012)

What that Caitlin smug-face Moran wrote in her book about sex workers letting the sisterhood down was _well_ offensive. She can do one. What added insult to injury was that I then wrote her an impassioned fucking response (a long one, I gave it a lot of thought) and posted it on her shite message board AND IT GOT DELETED. She literally silenced me  (how DARE she lol). I aint got no time her at all. Or any other 'leading feminist' (or kabbes ) who tells women they shouldn't work their sex appeal. It's like partially disarming us in the bloody fight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2012)

Edie said:


> What that Caitlin smug-face Moran wrote in her book about sex workers letting the sisterhood down was _well_ offensive. She can do one. What added insult to injury was that I then wrote her an impassioned fucking response (a long one, I gave it a lot of thought) and posted it on her shite message board AND IT GOT DELETED. She literally silenced me  (how DARE she lol). I aint got no time her at all. Or any other 'leading feminist' (or kabbes ) who tells women they shouldn't work their sex appeal. It's like partially disarming us in the bloody fight.


 
Any halfway-decent strategist will tell you that you fight a war with *the weapons you have to hand*, so any feminist (or follower of any other ism for that matter) who suggests not using what you have to best advantage has got no strategic sense at all.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 28, 2012)

Moran's "Lap dancing bad/burlesque great" dichotomy is just plain weird. And actually quite annoying. No matter what she says about burlesque being more expressive of individual female sensuality, seems to me it's only more culturally acceptable because it's middle class. Not that I have seen much burlesque, but from what I've seen bar one very creative act, it's just slightly 60s/tongue and cheek stripping. 

And the issue of using sex appeal and the "sisterhood", it's complicated. Whilst my stance is as VP outlines above, I will also admit it is sad, frustrating and a little frightening that our culture seems to be statically staying, even perhaps slipping more towards "women primarily as sex objects". And that both those who play the sex appeal game and those who reject it ultimately risk being fucked over.  And so I guess a struggle for moderate feminists who are focused on these complexities and all the shades of grey (pun _really_ not intended) is how to hold the two together. 

I think it's a mistake to see it as us/them conflict though. I would definitely put myself on the side of "I do not want to rely on my sexuality to get ahead as a woman", yet that's certainly not to say that I haven't internalised ideas of what I should look like to be acceptable, and that I won 't sometimes purposefully enhance that. And I also imagine that many women in the most visual professions still sometimes  get frustrated at not being considered beyond that, or are annoyed that they have to do it. I guess it's not always "either/or", and people are full of contradictions. 

Which probably explains why, on a drunken night out recently, feminist that I am I swung myself upside down on a lamppost, pole dancer style, and then even had it as my Facebook profile picture for a while (though in my defence it was because I found it fucking hilarious!)

(edited to clear up an accidental "not")


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 28, 2012)

I also cannot believe I wrote all of that above on a bloody iPhone.


----------



## Edie (Oct 28, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Moran's "Lap dancing bad/burlesque great" dichotomy is just plain weird. And actually quite annoying. No matter what she says about burlesque being more expressive of individual female sensuality, seems to me it's only more culturally acceptable because it's middle class. Not that I have seen much burlesque, but from what I've seen bar one very creative act, it's just slightly 60s/tongue and cheek stripping.
> 
> And the issue of using sex appeal and the "sisterhood", it's complicated. Whilst my stance is as VP outlines above, I will also admit it is sad, frustrating and a little frightening that our culture seems to be statically staying, even perhaps slipping more towards "women primarily as sex objects". And that both those who play the sex appeal game and those who reject it ultimately risk being fucked over.  And so I guess a struggle for moderate feminists who are focused on these complexities and all the shades of grey (pun _really_ not intended) is how to hold the two together.
> 
> ...


Good post Sparrow, tidy iPhone typing skills too 

The feminists on this site are much fuckin cooler than Moran 


Moran watching burlesque, thinking she's all cool n that: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Moran on seeing strippers: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 28, 2012)

I guess Edie that those books that sell, at least those in the mainstream, are going to be more popularist, exciting and controversial than "there are many different opinIons on this, let's all consider them in fairness over a cup of tea". 

And as what was argued against me when I was criticising the ideas of Oliver James in Afluenza a few years ago, popularist books are going to be, by their nature, biased and even quite intellectually dishonest. At least with Moran she seems to be quite explicit that it's her opinions rather than a sociological treatise, and that it's as much as a personal memoire as a feminist text.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess Edie that those books that sell, at least those in the mainstream, are going to be more popularist, exciting and controversial than "there are many different opinIons on this, let's all consider them in fairness over a cup of tea"<snip>


Unless you take a carefully picked assortment of writers etc with differing opinions and experiences and give each of them one chapter.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Unless you take a carefully picked assortment of writers etc with differing opinions and experiences and give each of them have one chapter.


I think that would be an excellent idea, although I've usually only seen this done in academic texts. I do think it would make an interesting mainstream feminist book, which would probably be particularly helpful for younger girls who know less about the various different ideas. But you'd have to make sure you had a genuinely fair minded editor, otherwise it could be very easy to produce a "fair" biased account that could be more damaging.


----------



## Edie (Oct 28, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess Edie that those books that sell, at least those in the mainstream, are going to be more popularist, exciting and controversial than "there are many different opinIons on this, let's all consider them in fairness over a cup of tea".
> 
> And as what was argued against me when I was criticising the ideas of Oliver James in Afluenza a few years ago, popularist books are going to be, by their nature, biased and even quite intellectually dishonest. At least with Moran she seems to be quite explicit that it's her opinions rather than a sociological treatise, and that it's as much as a personal memoire as a feminist text.


Yes, this is true. But it seems to be a core principle of the new UK feminism. I read this article about Kat Banyard (dubbed Britains leading young feminist by the Guardian) where she was asked if she ever thought there could ever be an ok sex industry, she answers:



> "No. There can't. You can't commodify consent. The inherent harm at the heart of this transaction we see evidenced in the astronomical rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is a result of having repeated unwanted sex because you need the money. It's often argued that it's just like stacking shelves. That it is ordinary work, just like any other work. But if you're stacking shelves, is it a bit different if your manager says: 'Right, before you go at the end of your shift can you give me a blowjob?' Would you feel uncomfortable about that? It's the inherent harm of having repeated unwanted sex which lies at the heart of the problem."


 
And her group UK Feminista actively campaign against dancing clubs. Now cos I've had this argument to death on urban, I cba to argue it further. But it can't just be dismissed as Moran's individual viewpoint.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2012)

The problem is that she, and others, are trying to make big pronouncements about what should and shouldn't happen in some hypothetical lovely fluffy nation, and completely ignoring the material realities of people who go into sex work of one kind or another. If we had a lovely utopian society where money and patriarchy didn't exist, then there would be no need for any kind of sex work _as we currently understand it_ because such a society would not only not have money, but I expect ideas around sex would be totally different as well, and it wouldn't be 'sex work' - it'd just be sex. But is such a system going to happen? Any discussion about sex work that ignores the basic system of patriarchal capitalism is going to end up being nothing but a big nasty argument where both sides just continue telling women who end up having no voice in the debate what they should or shouldn't be doing, without offering any kind of solution to material and cultural conditions that set out the range of responses those women have at their disposal in the first place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Moran's "Lap dancing bad/burlesque great" dichotomy is just plain weird. And actually quite annoying. No matter what she says about burlesque being more expressive of individual female sensuality, seems to me it's only more culturally acceptable because it's middle class. Not that I have seen much burlesque, but from what I've seen bar one very creative act, it's just slightly 60s/tongue and cheek stripping.


 
Cultural acceptability seems to hold a lot of appeal for a lot of people (not only feminists by any stretch) who like to differentiate between mass culture (stripping) and what I suppose such people like to think of as "middle class culture", but which is actually just mass culture with a bit of spit and polish (and in this case a bit of Bettie Page-ish glam).



> And the issue of using sex appeal and the "sisterhood", it's complicated. Whilst my stance is as VP outlines above, I will also admit it is sad, frustrating and a little frightening that our culture seems to be statically staying, even perhaps slipping more towards "women primarily as sex objects". And that both those who play the sex appeal game and those who reject it ultimately risk being fucked over.  And so I guess a struggle for moderate feminists who are focused on these complexities and all the shades of grey (pun _really_ not intended) is how to hold the two together.


 
I suppose it depends whether using your female attributes is a game, or whether it's a hard-headed tactic, as well as how *your* choices impact on the entire gender. I've seen a lot of column inches given to the "you can have it all" brigade, who ultimately strike me as _faux_-feminists because they don't tend to look at how their individual choices impact across their entire gender, especially if they're in "places of privilege" themselves - it's easier to be a working mum if you're in a relationship and have an above-average income (as many media pundits who punt "you can have it all" do) than if you're a single mother for whom childcare costs are the make-or-break factor in whther you work or not.



> I think it's a mistake to see it as us/them conflict though. I would definitely put myself on the side of "I do not want to rely on my sexuality to get ahead as a woman", yet that's certainly not to say that I haven't internalised ideas of what I should look like to be acceptable, and that I won 't sometimes purposefully enhance that. And I also imagine that many women in the most visual professions still sometimes get frustrated at not being considered beyond that, or are annoyed that they have to do it. I guess it's not always "either/or", and people are full of contradictions.


 
To be horribly old-fashioned for a moment, I think a large part of the problem with any "ism" nowadays is that many people are convinced, ironically by consumption capitalism, that they need to assert their individuality at the expense of collectivity. I say "ironically" because the usual route is touted as being through *consumption*. You're special because you use *this* product; you should use *that* product "because you're worth it". 
If you see individuality in terms of consumption, then issues of class, gender etc become meaningless in terms of how you identify yourself, they become in effect, sticks to beat yourself with, and that causes all sorts of internal contradictions between how you behave and how you *feel* you should behave.  I suspect that's part of what might lie behind women disavowing feminisms or buying into reductive analyses of them. 



> Which probably explains why, on a drunken night out recently, feminist that I am I swung myself upside down on a lamppost, pole dancer style, and then even had it as my Facebook profile picture for a while (though in my defence it was because I found it fucking hilarious!)
> 
> (edited to clear up an accidental "not")


 
As you say, we're all full of contradictions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess Edie that those books that sell, at least those in the mainstream, are going to be more popularist, exciting and controversial than "there are many different opinIons on this, let's all consider them in fairness over a cup of tea".
> 
> And as what was argued against me when I was criticising the ideas of Oliver James in Afluenza a few years ago, popularist books are going to be, by their nature, biased and even quite intellectually dishonest.


 
They're also, WAY too often, over-simplified from much more complex arguments. 



> At least with Moran she seems to be quite explicit that it's her opinions rather than a sociological treatise, and that it's as much as a personal memoire as a feminist text.


 
Whether it's opinion or a treatise, the same rules should apply: provide a substantive argument to support what you're saying.
Otherwise, all you're doing is farting in the wind and misleading people into thinking/assuming your view has some kind of ecological validity when it doesn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Edie said:


> Yes, this is true. But it seems to be a core principle of the new UK feminism. I read this article about Kat Banyard (dubbed Britains leading young feminist by the Guardian) where she was asked if she ever thought there could ever be an ok sex industry, she answers:
> 
> 
> 
> And her group UK Feminista actively campaign against dancing clubs. Now cos I've had this argument to death on urban, I cba to argue it further. But it can't just be dismissed as Moran's individual viewpoint.


 
It kind of hits me in the face, reading that, that she and those who think like her, haven't *experienced* the sort of twists and turns to their lives where sex work becomes a valid choice *for whatever reason*, and that they're projecting their particular view as encompassing everyone, rather than just her and people like her.  Makes me think of the stuff I've read about charities for "fallen women" in the UK and US at the turn of the century - middle-class dogooders looking down on working-class women and thinking they knew better when they didn't have a clue about the lives, histories or circumstances of such women.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The problem is that she, and others, are trying to make big pronouncements about what should and shouldn't happen in some hypothetical lovely fluffy nation, and completely ignoring the material realities of people who go into sex work of one kind or another. If we had a lovely utopian society where money and patriarchy didn't exist, then there would be no need for any kind of sex work _as we currently understand it_ because such a society would not only not have money, but I expect ideas around sex would be totally different as well, and it wouldn't be 'sex work' - it'd just be sex. But is such a system going to happen? Any discussion about sex work that ignores the basic system of patriarchal capitalism is going to end up being nothing but a big nasty argument where both sides just continue telling women who end up having no voice in the debate what they should or shouldn't be doing, without offering any kind of solution to material and cultural conditions that set out the range of responses those women have at their disposal in the first place.


 
^^^^This. Said so much better (and succinctly!) than I could.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2012)

Exactly. I think it's so simplistic and easy for women like all these mentioned to say 'say no to sex work' or 'burlesque is empowering but stripping is exploiting women'. These are complicated and emotive subjects, and in my opinion women should not be judged for being sex workers. I know nothing of their histories how and why they are in that situation. To pronounce judgements in the way that these women do does nobody any favours.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I disagree on all fronts.  Her decisions boil down to a willingness to prance around in her knickers.  Her dignity likewise.  She eventually left Ashley Cole after a protracted willingness to ignore him being a cunt.  She does not make good music.  And she's only a "strong" female character if you interpret "strong" as "being willing to dress up for the benefit of others".
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to persuade anybody.  I'm just pointing out that Cheryl Cole and her cohort have, far from being strong female role models, actually set back feminism by about 20 years.





kabbes said:


> To misquote a recent statement by Kaitlin Moran: I'll believe she's a strong female role model when she can turn up to work in a baggy cardigan if that's what she wants to do.


This is what kabbes says on the Girls Aloud thread about Cheryl. He's a feminist, and he's making feminist arguments. But listen to what he's saying. His lack of respect (and I don't mean for her music), his judgement that she has no dignity cos of how she dresses, how she uses her sex appeal. Sets back feminism 20 years. Yet who is he to say?

Who is Banyard, who is Moran? I feel I have no more in common with them than bloody kabbes! All this stuff about wearing baggy cardigans  That's not how strong women look to me. I think we could all take a leaf out of Dolly Partons book personally


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Who is Banyard, who is Moran? I feel I have no more in common with them than bloody kabbes! All this stuff about wearing baggy cardigans  *That's not how strong women look to me*. I think we could all take a leaf out of Dolly Partons book personally


not read the thread (New Posts addict), but I'm pulling you up on this again mate... strong women all look different, and I fucking love Dolly fwiw, but judging on clothes one way or another is fucked up.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

Biddlybee said:


> not read the thread (New Posts addict), but I'm pulling you up on this again mate... strong women all look different, and I fucking love Dolly fwiw, but judging on clothes one way or another is fucked up.


That's why I said 'to me' tbf (altho I take your point). Things is, I don't disagree with you! But it's not me saying how feminist role models should look. It's kabbes telling me how they definitely *dont look*.

Eta: Dolly! <3


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> I think we could all take a leaf out of Dolly Partons book personally


 
What, do a duet with Kenny Rogers?


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> That's why I said 'to me' tbf (altho I take your point). Things is, I don't disagree with you! But it's not me saying how feminist role models should look. It's kabbes telling me how they definitely *dont look*.


It's both of you


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

Biddlybee said:


> It's both of you


Fair cop I guess


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It kind of hits me in the face, reading that, that she and those who think like her, haven't *experienced* the sort of twists and turns to their lives where sex work becomes a valid choice *for whatever reason*, and that they're projecting their particular view as encompassing everyone, rather than just her and people like her. Makes me think of the stuff I've read about charities for "fallen women" in the UK and US at the turn of the century - middle-class dogooders looking down on working-class women and thinking they knew better when they didn't have a clue about the lives, histories or circumstances of such women.


 
"The law in its majestic equality forbids paupers and millionaires alike from sleeping under bridges."


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This is what kabbes says on the Girls Aloud thread about Cheryl. He's a feminist, and he's making feminist arguments. But listen to what he's saying. His lack of respect (and I don't mean for her music), his judgement that she has no dignity cos of how she dresses, how she uses her sex appeal. Sets back feminism 20 years. Yet who is he to say?
> 
> Who is Banyard, who is Moran? I feel I have no more in common with them than bloody kabbes! All this stuff about wearing baggy cardigans  That's not how strong women look to me. I think we could all take a leaf out of Dolly Partons book personally


You do realise that the whole point of feminism was to try to create the situation in which a woman had worth _other_ than just as a sex object, right?  And that objectification is bad both prima facie and also for the way that encourages a mode of thought for which the value of women generally becomes degraded?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> You do realise that the whole point of feminism was to try to create the situation in which a woman had worth _other_ than just as a sex object, right? And that objectification is bad both prima facie and also for the way that encourages a mode of thought for which the value of women generally becomes degraded?


The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want.


True enough.  I don't see that the points are incompatible though.  They amount to the same thing.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> True enough. I don't see that the points are incompatible though. They amount to the same thing.


They're incompatible insofar that some women don't agree with you.

Edit: i.e. if this is what they choose, if this is how they prefer to dress, if this is the sort of work that they want to do - it's up to them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want.


Isn't that a bit broad?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> They're incompatible insofar that some women don't agree with you.


Really? I don't see how any analysis that bears in mind historical and current social context, rather than a simplistic liberal "everybody can just choose for themselves!", could take it that way.

We still live in a world in which business meetings are conducted in strip joints, ffs. It's hard to be taken seriously when the prevailing social attitude is that looking young and beautiful is the most important thing in your life. If none of that were true so that free choices really _were_ free choices then you might have a point. But in the world as it actually is, it's nowhere near that simple.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that a bit broad?


How else would you define it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Edit: i.e. if this is what they choose, if this is how they prefer to dress, if this is the sort of work that they want to do - it's up to them.


I've followed this thread but not posted much as I don't feel qualified to comment on a lot of it, and don't know what I think exactly about other bits. But isn't this stress on choice, which was de Beauvoir's main point, the main reason certain kinds of feminism have seemed rather middle-class concerns - claiming the same freedom for middle-class women that middle-class men have, but not really talking too much to working class women?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Really? I don't see how any analysis that bears in mind historical and current social context, rather than a simplistic liberal "everybody can just choose for themselves!", could take it that way.
> 
> We still live in a world in which business meetings are conducted in strip joints, ffs. It's hard to be taken seriously when the prevailing social attitude is that looking young and beautiful is the most important thing in your life. If none of that were true so that free choices really _were_ free choices then you might have a point. But in the world as it actually is, it's nowhere near that simple.


It's the struggle for a free choice (and not one that's dictated by conscription or economic necessity, or by (for the sake of example) the moral objections of men rooted in religiosity) which is the point.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Edit: i.e. if this is what they choose, if this is how they prefer to dress, if this is the sort of work that they want to do - it's up to them.


Ah yes, choice.

And what happens tomorrow, when they want to dress differently?  The producers will be OK with that, will they?  In this world of free choice?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've followed this thread but not posted much as I don't feel qualified to comment on a lot of it, and don't know what I think exactly about other bits. But isn't this stress on choice, which was de Beauvoir's main point, the main reason certain kinds of feminism have seemed rather middle-class concerns - claiming the same freedom for middle-class women that middle-class men have, but not really talking too much to working class women?


It's not the stress on choice which is the main reason for that - but that the choices are more limited for working class women. That doesn't mean that we should dilute their right to choice by reference to "reality" which we struggle to change.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Ah yes, choice.
> 
> And what happens tomorrow, when they want to dress differently? The producers will be OK with that, will they? In this world of free choice?


 
You're missing the point, which is that choice is circumscribed - there is no "free choice".


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

And when these choices re-enforce the status quo, in which women struggle to be taken seriously as a result of being viewed for their sexuality first, and the effect is that millions of other women find themselves continue to be marginalised and ignored -- that's choice, right?

This isn't about whether or not Cheryl Cole has the right to do what she does.  It's purely about whether being dressed up like dolls and told that you have to dance in your knickers to make records acts to _advance_ or _retard_ the cause of feminism.  It's about whether or not she is a strong female role model.  Frankly, I think I hear generations of thoughtful feminists weeping at being told that a modern day version of Miss World is helping the feminist cause.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing the point, which is that choice is circumscribed - there is no "free choice".


No I'm not -- that precisely IS my point!   I think you're missing my rhetoric.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> No I'm not -- that precisely IS my point! I think you're missing my rhetoric.


 
Oh that! I fell asleep.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's not the stress on choice which is the main reason for that - but that the choices are more limited for working class women. That doesn't mean that we should dilute their right to choice by reference to "reality" which we struggle to change.


Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation.


Quite.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Quite.


So is Cheryl Cole a strong female role model?  Does she help the feminist cause?  Hinder it?  Neither?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> So is Cheryl Cole a strong female role model? Does she help the feminist cause? Hinder it? Neither?


Who's Cheryl Cole?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> And when these choices re-enforce the status quo, in which women struggle to be taken seriously as a result of being viewed for their sexuality first, and the effect is that millions of other women find themselves continue to be marginalised and ignored -- that's choice, right?
> 
> This isn't about whether or not Cheryl Cole has the right to do what she does. It's purely about whether being dressed up like dolls and told that you have to dance in your knickers to make records acts to _advance_ or _retard_ the cause of feminism. It's about whether or not she is a strong female role model. Frankly, I think I hear generations of thoughtful feminists weeping at being told that a modern day version of Miss World is helping the feminist cause.


 
What's your evidence?
I know there's an easy argument to be made w/r/t objectification, but objectification for whom? Sad men like sadken and milesy who like Girls Aloud, or the majority of female fans of Cheryl Cole who may not be looking at and judging the way Cole dresses as a male would? Is it in fact objectification in that case, or merely a case of assuming a character for a promo video and/or an album sleeve? Would Cole sell records on her looks/femininity/"sex appeal" alone, or does her voice and her material have something to do with her sales. Are her voice and her material in fact the greater factor in her sales?

I mean, I can think of better-looking female singers who tried the "hot bod" route and crashed spectacularly. You can't sell records on hips, tits, lips and Autotune alone!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Who's Cheryl Cole?


I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally.  But I digress).

So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with.  Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Quite.


So it's not quite as simple as 'if that's what you choose, it's up to you'. Our choices have consequences for the choices of others.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's your evidence?
> I know there's an easy argument to be made w/r/t objectification, but objectification for whom? Sad men like sadken and milesy who like Girls Aloud, or the majority of female fans of Cheryl Cole who may not be looking at and judging the way Cole dresses as a male would? Is it in fact objectification in that case, or merely a case of assuming a character for a promo video and/or an album sleeve? Would Cole sell records on her looks/femininity/"sex appeal" alone, or does her voice and her material have something to do with her sales. Are her voice and her material in fact the greater factor in her sales?
> 
> I mean, I can think of better-looking female singers who tried the "hot bod" route and crashed spectacularly. You can't sell records on hips, tits, lips and Autotune alone!


My evidence for what?  For the fact of the ongoing objectification in society?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation.


 
Choices are *always* circumscribed. That doesn't mean one should row back from making any purely because of *possible* outcomes, especially when choices fueled by the idea that "sex sells" are increasingly transparent to even the most freshman of consumers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> My evidence for what? For the fact of the ongoing objectification in society?


 
For whether her being "dressed up like a doll and told that you have to dance in your knickers" either advances or retards the cause of feminism, Mr. K.

BTW, feminism*s*, plural, and not feminism, singular. Do you hate women so much that you see them merely as a homogeneous mass?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So it's not quite as simple as 'if that's what you choose, it's up to you'. Our choices have consequences for the choices of others.


It's what I said before: "The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want"
It's not up to other women to dictate the terms of women's choices, and it's not up to men either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Who's Cheryl Cole?


 
A young north-eastern lady with anger management issues and dubious taste in men, who dresses like a doll and dances in her knickers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).
> 
> So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.


 
The water buffalo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's not up to other women to dictate the terms of women's choices, and it's not up to men either.


 
I don't agree. There is no absolute freedom like this. Where what you do affects others, they have a stake in, and perhaps a legitimate say over, what you do.


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Who's Cheryl Cole?


 
Ashley Cole's ex-wife.

If that's not objectifying her as a stupid pillock who makes appalling life decisions.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> A young north-eastern lady with anger management issues and dubious taste in men, who dresses like a doll and dances in her knickers.


Is she the one that hits black cloakroom attendents? If so, I'd rather have a go at her about that behaviour than about her dress and music sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Is she the one that hits black cloakroom attendents? If so, I'd rather have a go at her about that behaviour than about her dress and music sense.


 
Yep, she was the one that got done for slapping the black cloakroom attendant and hurling some racial abuse.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. There is no absolute freedom like this. Where what you do affects others, they have a stake in, and perhaps a legitimate say over, what you do.


There is no absolute freedom for *anyone*. But I will not agree that women's rights should be (a) dictated by men; and (b) diluted by reference to "reality" which is your shorthand for where conscription and economic necessity kick in.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of_ taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation._


 
Her explanation is getting things mixed up. Neoliberalism - the collapse in the rate of profit - is the steam-roller that is now forcing single mothers with young kids to seek work or lose benefits etc.
It's capitalism that forces women back to work after 6 months post-partum - not an effect of feminism. These things aren't effects of the feminist movement - intended or unintended.

The fight for work has been a feminist campaign far longer than since the 1970s, it had to be fought in the early Edwardian era to allow women entry into even the limited number of professions. 
Also the women who you describe will always be at the mercy of their potentially abusive male husbands, if they remain dependent on them.

Fay Weldon is - now - either an extreme liberal feminist or not a feminist at all. She fairly recently proposed sterilising all women until they reached the age of 20.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> There is no absolute freedom for *anyone*. But I will not agree that women's rights should be (a) dictated by men; and (b) diluted by reference to "reality" which is your shorthand for where conscription and economic necessity kick in.


Ok, 'dictated to' no, I agree.

We've both been conflating 'rights' with 'choices', which isn't helpful, I don think. I don't think the two are synonymous.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, 'dictated to' no, I agree.
> 
> We've both been conflating 'rights' with 'choices', which isn't helpful, I don think. I don't think the two are synonymous.


 
Shall we settle on autonomy?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Shall we settle on autonomy?


Yes, that's a good word.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).
> 
> So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.


My position is that your "objectification" position seems laden with judgment about the women, who you seem to be holding to a higher standard than the (for example) businesses that still hold meetings in strip joints.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> My position is that your "objectification" position seems laden with judgment about the women, who you seem to be holding to a higher standard than the (for example) businesses that still hold meetings in strip joints.


Why would you think that?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Why would you think that?


Mainly because of #469


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want.


Is she fighting patriarchy? Is she claiming to?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Is she fighting patriarchy? Is she claiming to?


Who?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

_Cheryl Cole_


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally.  But I digress).
> 
> So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with.  Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.


Sorry to inconvenience you by disagreeing  And I quoted you so you knew, just thought this thread was a more appropriate thread for it *shrugs*

So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game? 

There's power in sexuality kabbes. I think it's more than ok to use it, I resent being told otherwise. Men like to have this image of feminists of being lesbian cardigan wearers. Wonder why that is.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

emanymton said:


> _Cheryl Cole_


Oh, her. I don't know. I don't know much about her other than the cloakroom attendant incident, that her accent was too strong for the US, the hair product advert that she's on where it's got the tiny letters at the bottom saying that she's wearing extensions, and something about her husband/partner who's a footballer (the details of that unclear to me). I've not heard that she says she's a feminist, nor that she's any more of a role model for women than Ashley Cole is for men.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> Ashley Cole's ex-wife.
> 
> If that's not objectifying her as a stupid pillock who makes appalling life decisions.


Prick. She's no ones ex wife. Is Ashley just Cheryl's ex husband?

And fuck off with blaming her for Ashley's behaviour.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Sorry to inconvenience you by disagreeing  And I quoted you so you knew, just thought this thread was a more appropriate thread for it *shrugs*
> 
> So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game?
> 
> There's power in sexuality kabbes. I think it's more than ok to use it, I resent being told otherwise. Men like to have this image of feminists of being lesbian cardigan wearers. Wonder why that is.


And chaste! Don't forget chaste!


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Prick. She's no ones ex wife. Is Ashley just Cheryl's ex husband?
> 
> And fuck off with blaming her for Ashley's behaviour.


 
*slow handclap*


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> *slow handclap*


Why?


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Why?


 
_Really_?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> _Really_?


Yep, I don't really know why you suddenly popped up on the thread to take a pop at Cheryl Cole tbh.


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

It was supposed to be a dig by extension at Ashley Cole, as I rarely pass up an opportunity to ridicule the little bollocks, but I can see it's failed.

My bad, presumably.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> *slow handclap*


What's a slow handclap signify? If you want to make a point spit it out.

Otherwise stop saying a woman made a bad life choice cos her fucking HUSBAND kept playing away from home! Bloody men.


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> What's a slow handclap signify? If you want to make a point spit it out.
> 
> Otherwise stop saying a woman made a bad life choice cos her fucking HUSBAND kept playing away from home! Bloody men.


 
It's failed badly.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game?


I don't want to put words into anyone else's mouth but my thoughts are that she has not played men at their own game. She has done well in part by playing the role of male fantasy which is not the same thing at all. The choices she has made have advanced her own position but have done nothing to advance the position of women in society. I don't think she is personally responsible for damaging the position of women in society.

Going back to something that really annoyed me earlier in this thread, there is no contradiction between a women working as a stripper or prostitute and her being a feminist. But that is not the same thing as claiming her work is a act of feminism which advances the cause of women.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

What kind of job *would* be an 'act of feminism'? Out of interest.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

Cos business, politics they'd count would they? Or are they just playing men's games too?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

I'm some kind of ill-defined leftist but my job does nothing whatsoever to advance leftist causes. I wasn't saying she or anybody else had to advance feminism in her job, I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to claim that she was a strong female role model. It really does stretch credibility to breaking point. What's next, we say that Miss World is a bastion of female emancipation? Or are we back to the preposterous notion of Thatcher as a feminist?

Other than that, what emanymton said.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> What kind of job *would* be an 'act of feminism'? Out of interest.


And did anyone claim her job was 'an act of feminism' at all?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> What kind of job *would* be an 'act of feminism'? Out of interest.


Good point, very few. To me being a feminist like being a socialist is something you do within the framework of the job (and sometimes more outside your job) rather than the job itself being feminist or socialist. There is therefore scope for women working in the sex industry (never been completely happy with the term but don't know of another) to act as a feminist but not through her actual work.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> And did anyone claim her job was 'an act of feminism' at all?


I though you did in the post I quoted to be honest.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

I said she was a strong female role model, cos I think she is. She's done well for herself, if you check out her videos she's always in control of the men, she looks cracking and she left Ashley despite loving him.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Mainly because of #469


Please point out anywhere in 5 years of posting I may have given the impression that I would give anyone an easy time for holding a meeting in a strip club. To be honest, I'm actually quite insulted.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> I said she was a strong female role model, cos I think she is. She's done well for herself, if you check out her videos she's always in control of the men, she looks cracking and she left Ashley despite loving him.


Her videos are a work of fiction. Is it a work of fiction written by men about male fantasy and directed by men, I wonder?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

Is Miss World a strong female role model?

Is Thatcher a strong female role model?

What do we mean by those words?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I'm some kind of ill-defined leftist but my job does nothing whatsoever to advance leftist causes. I wasn't saying she or anybody else had to advance feminism in her job, I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to claim that she was a strong female role model. It really does stretch credibility to breaking point. What's next, we say that Miss World is a bastion of female emancipation? Or are we back to the preposterous notion of Thatcher as a feminist?
> 
> Other than that, what emanymton said.


Or me I would define myself as a socialist but I have ended up working for a bank, the only really connection between my work and my politics is in my role as a union rep.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Good point, very few. To me being a feminist like being a socialist is something you do within the framework of the job (and sometimes more outside your job) rather than the job itself being feminist or socialist. There is therefore scope for women working in the sex industry (never been completely happy with the term but don't know of another) to act as a feminist but not through her actual work.


Grr did not mean to like that lol.

Well thanks for telling me that sex work can't be empowering. Appreciate that.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

emanymton said:


> I though you did in the post I quoted to be honest.


I made a point about feminism, not about Cheryl Cole.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Please point out anywhere in 5 years of posting I may have given the impression that I would give anyone an easy time for holding a meeting in a strip club. To be honest, I'm actually quite insulted.


Then clarify what you meant by that post.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Grr did not mean to like that lol.
> 
> Well thanks for telling me that sex work can't be empowering. Appreciate that.


How did you mean it?
And my thoughts are not to well worked out in my own head but I think there can a difference between something that is empowering to an individual women and something that advances the cause of women as a whole. I would imagine Thatcher felt very empowered but she did nothing to help other women.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> I made a point about feminism, not about Cheryl Cole.


But you did so in a discussion that came out of a specific criticism of Cheryl Cole, in the context of a completely different argument. And that changing of context is, to be honest, half the problem here.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Grr did not mean to like that lol.
> 
> Well thanks for telling me that sex work can't be empowering. Appreciate that.


It's fine as long as you point out that no work can be empowering. And wait for them to tell you what work *is* empowering.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Then clarify what you meant by that post.


I think it's as clear as I can make it here and now. I have no time for expansion, hence the short and pithy posts.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> But you did so in a discussion that came out of a specific criticism of Cheryl Cole, in the context of a completely different argument. And that changing of context is, to be honest, half the problem here.


Sod Cheryl Cole. You said:



> You do realise that the whole point of feminism was to try to create the situation in which a woman had worth _other_ than just as a sex object, right? And that objectification is bad both prima facie and also for the way that encourages a mode of thought for which the value of women generally becomes degraded?


 
And everything I've said to you is in *that* context, not whatever you were discussing with Edie about Cheryl Cole.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 29, 2012)

How the state's Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is proceeding with its new inquiry into "Women in the Workplace"

http://www.publications.parliament....ct/cmbis/writev/womeninworkplace/contents.htm


The head of mostly women's business organisation 30% Club (company chairs voluntarily committed to bringing more women on company boards) is quite explicit about the drive for more women on boards "I am doing it because I believe that there will be better boards and better investment returns not just for me but for the economy. If companies choose to be listed here, they should respect the infrastructure of the country in which they are listed." (Oral evidence 23 July 2012)


According to the annual review of the Davies report on workplace inequalities, the number of women on FTSE boards is increasing now at 15.5% compared to 12%, 2 years ago. The basic idea behind this liberalism is that once it reaches 30% it will be enough momentum for it to snowball to be close to 50%, without the use of quotas.
Once this happens apparently the structural inequalities (under 4% of pilots women, 75% of cabin crew women) will be put right. So it's a lo-ong evolutionary road for workplace male-female equality, even before you take into account issues over maternity and pregnancy.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

Hmm, feminist jobs, eh? Not sure if I'd qualify. I hope that a good part of my work involves enhancing the emotional wellbeing of women and children, which is indirectly (and sometimes directly) empowering, and I very much keep my clothes on (in fact I'd be removed from premises pretty sharpish if I didn't ). But then it's also a caring role and therefore as gender typed as you get. So meh. 

Maybe I should become an actuary. I knows Mrs Kabbes does it but it doesn't strike me as a particularly female dominated profession 

Edit: or maybe the serious part of this post is that many feminists also fit certain feminine, gender typed ideals, and whilst I would be   at the idea of Cheryl being hailed a feminist icon, where do we start to draw the line? There's somethIng a bit dodgy about making clear rules for the club.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Her explanation is getting things mixed up. Neoliberalism - the collapse in the rate of profit - is the steam-roller that is now forcing single mothers with young kids to seek work or lose benefits etc.
> It's capitalism that forces women back to work after 6 months post-partum - not an effect of feminism. These things aren't effects of the feminist movement - intended or unintended.
> 
> The fight for work has been a feminist campaign far longer than since the 1970s, it had to be fought in the early Edwardian era to allow women entry into even the limited number of professions.
> ...


 

 Fay Weldon is a self-important windbag.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Is Miss World a strong female role model?
> 
> Is Thatcher a strong female role model?
> 
> What do we mean by those words?


 


The very concept of a role model is dubious for anybody aged more than about eleven.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Her explanation is getting things mixed up. Neoliberalism - the collapse in the rate of profit - is the steam-roller that is now forcing single mothers with young kids to seek work or lose benefits etc.
> It's capitalism that forces women back to work after 6 months post-partum - not an effect of feminism. These things aren't effects of the feminist movement - intended or unintended.
> 
> The fight for work has been a feminist campaign far longer than since the 1970s, it had to be fought in the early Edwardian era to allow women entry into even the limited number of professions.
> ...


 
My mum used to say something along the lines of "in the '50s you fought for the right to work, in the '60s and '70s you fought for equal pay, by the '80s you had no choice but to work because a single wage couldn't sustain a couple, let alone a couple with children".
Which pretty much sums up the effect that increasingly-unrestricted capitalism has had on "choice" for women.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> The very concept of a role model is dubious for anybody aged more than about eleven.


Speaks a man I betcha. A man so unconsciously surrounded by role models he don't even recognise they are. They are just normal men doing what men do. Run things.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> The very concept of a role model is dubious for anybody aged more than about eleven.


Oh I dunno. We certainly seem to develop most of our values in our childhood, and particularly our teens so older than 11, and we do often retain those values. But as was said earlier, no man (or women) is an island, and the way others act around us, particularly those whom we see connections with on some level, will influence us in some way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Sorry to inconvenience you by disagreeing  And I quoted you so you knew, just thought this thread was a more appropriate thread for it *shrugs*
> 
> So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game?
> 
> There's power in sexuality kabbes. I think it's more than ok to use it, I resent being told otherwise. Men like to have this image of feminists of being lesbian cardigan wearers. Wonder why that is.


 
And yet those same blokes get their rocks off over lesbian* porn!

*When I say "lesbian porn", I mean the frankly scary stuff where 2 women in expensive lingerie, with immaculate make-up and mahoossive nail extensions lick and finger each other. Why scary? There's no way I'd want 2 or 3 fingers with big old nails on them up me!!


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Speaks a man I betcha. A man so unconsciously surrounded by role models he don't even recognise they are. They are just normal men doing what men do. Run things.


 

A man, yes, but I have no power whatsoever and have never consciously modelled myself on anybody. The idea of role models implies conscious imitation.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet those same blokes get their rocks off over lesbian* porn!
> 
> *When I say "lesbian porn", I mean the frankly scary stuff where 2 women in expensive lingerie, with immaculate make-up and mahoossive nail extensions lick and finger each other. Why scary? There's no way I'd want 2 or 3 fingers with big old nails on them up me!!


I swear to god a disproportionate number of homophobic men want MFF. 

Anyway I get the feeling that I'm not really contributing to this debate in any kind of coherent way cos I'm just fucking angry so I should back out.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> A man, yes, but I have no power whatsoever and have never consciously modelled myself on anybody. The idea of role models implies conscious imitation.


What do you mean by power?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> I swear to god a disproportionate number of homophobic men want MFF.
> 
> Anyway I get the feeling that I'm not really contributing to this debate in any kind of coherent way cos I'm just fucking angry so I should back out.


It happens everytime on feminism threads  Bunch of bloody men turn up telling us what feminism is/isn't/should be 

Stick with it


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> A man, yes, but I have no power whatsoever and have never consciously modelled myself on anybody. The idea of role models implies conscious imitation.


Your an idiot.

You enter a debate of feminism stating that you are a man with no power whatsoever. And then that you don't see the point of female role models in positions of power.

Jog on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Fay Weldon is a self-important windbag.


 
You're as entitled to your opinion as she is to hers.

Personally, I don't think either of you have much behind what you're saying.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> A man, yes, but I have no power whatsoever and have never consciously modelled myself on anybody. The idea of role models implies conscious imitation.


But it's the unconscious modelling which is the most insidious and damaging


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> The very concept of a role model is dubious for anybody aged more than about eleven.


 
It's not something that's age-dependent, it's role-dependent, unless you're assuming that role model means "a child's idealised picture of an adult of their gender".


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Your an idiot.
> 
> You enter a debate of feminism stating that you are a man with no power whatsoever. And then that you don't see the point of female role models in positions of power.
> 
> Jog on.


 


Don't see what's idiotic. I didn't say I 'don't see the point of female role models in positions of power.' I said, rather, that the idea of conscious 'role models' is dubious. And what I meant is dubious as in infantile (and just plain wrong: if everybody has role models it implies there's a line of role models stretching back to an ultimate role model: it's clearly just another one of those straw clutching inventions  aimed at filling the void left by the absence of the great all-seeing creator.)

Nobody talked about 'role models' a few decades ago. Nor about 'sending out messages' and all the rest of the cod-psychological crap we're now subjected to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> I swear to god a disproportionate number of homophobic men want MFF.


 
My mate wants to know "what would it say about me if the only threesome I'd ever participated in was MMF"?


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> What do you mean by power?


 


Power over other people on a large or small scale. Like most other people, in reality I don't even have any power over my own thoughts let alone anything else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Oh I dunno. We certainly seem to develop most of our values in our childhood, and particularly our teens so older than 11, and we do often retain those values. But as was said earlier, no man (or women) is an island, and the way others act around us, particularly those whom we see connections with on some level, will influence us in some way.


 
^^^^This.
We also actively seek mentors for certain roles within our adult life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> It happens everytime on feminism threads  Bunch of bloody men turn up telling us what feminism is/isn't/should be
> 
> Stick with it


 
Sorry.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But it's the unconscious modelling which is the most insidious and damaging


 


You can't do much about what comes unconsciously.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sorry.


Do you know ... I walked away from the keyboard at that point, and just returned to it to say "except VP who doesn't actually undermine our own agency for change".


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> You can't do much about what comes unconsciously.


Apart from a) understand the process, b) consciously challenge the negative consequences, and c) try and change the original stimulus so it's not such a problem in the first place.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Power over other people on a large or small scale. Like most other people, in reality I don't even have any power over my own thoughts let alone anything else.


You are just unconscious of your power.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

Yeah VP, you're allowed. On feminist threads you can be an honoury lady!


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Apart from a) understand the process, b) consciously challenge the negative consequences, and c) try and change the original stimulus so it's not such a problem in the first place.


 


Perhaps. Unfortunately, most people have neither the time nor the inclination (not to mention the ability and opportunity)-which helps explain why the world is such a fucking horrible place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> A man, yes, but I have no power whatsoever and have never consciously modelled myself on anybody. The idea of role models implies conscious imitation.


 
Nope, it doesn't, unless you ignore all the developmental research that says imitation is also unconscious - that exposure is enough to promote behaviours, without a conscious choice on the part of the imitator.

Perhaps you know something that 80+ years of developmental psychologists haven't discovered, though!


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> You are just unconscious of your power.


 

I did once threaten to report a parcel delivery driver for tapping quietly on the front door and then putting a card through and trying to fuck off before I had chance to get downstairs and pull my kecks on.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Perhaps. Unfortunately, most people have neither the time nor the inclination (not to mention the ability and opportunity)-which helps explain why the world is such a fucking horrible place.


For those most oppressed by our patriarchal capitalist system, there is no choice but to fight it to survive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But it's the unconscious modelling which is the most insidious and damaging


 
Some of it is, and some of it is perfectly benign. Like any influence, we can be swayed by the good as well as the bad.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Perhaps. Unfortunately, most people have neither the time nor the inclination (not to mention the ability and opportunity)-which helps explain why the world is such a fucking horrible place.


 

Perhaps you could help here? You could model how it's done by going back up the thread to your post #546 and thinking about it in the context of what you have just agreed with. 



> a) understand the process, b) consciously challenge the negative consequences, and c) try and change the original stimulus so it's not such a problem in the first place.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, it doesn't, unless you ignore all the developmental research that says imitation is also unconscious - that exposure is enough to promote behaviours, without a conscious choice on the part of the imitator.
> 
> Perhaps you know something that 80+ years of developmental psychologists haven't discovered, though!


 



This isn't what the idea of conscious role models is about, though. The latter is a recent innovation, a media-driven concept aimed at turning us all into gormless drones who try uselessly to imitate those who earn more money in a day than we do in a decade.

I mean, David 'interesting' Beckham or Wayne fucking Rooney as 'role models? '


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

Can people stop posting so fast please. I'm playing scrabble and it's hard to do both!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Nobody talked about 'role models' a few decades ago. Nor about 'sending out messages' and all the rest of the cod-psychological crap we're now subjected to.


 
You're right. We didn't.

We used different names for those concepts. We talked about "father figures" and "body language" a few decades ago. Same wine, different bottles.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps you could help here? You could model how it's done by going back up the thread to your post #546 and thinking about it in the context of what you have just agreed with.


 


I could, but maybe I don't want to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> I could, but maybe I don't want to.


 
So you acccept your share of the responsibility for making the _world such a fucking horrible_ place then? 




			
				U.N. Arrator said:
			
		

> Perhaps. Unfortunately, most people have neither the time nor the inclination (not to mention the ability and opportunity)-which helps explain why the world is such a fucking horrible place.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're right. We didn't.
> 
> We used different names for those concepts. We talked about "father figures" and "body language" a few decades ago. Same wine, different bottles.


 



More insidious now that all kinds of oddballs, freaks, charlatans and lunatics are beamed into our homes day and night without end, and most of them pushed at us as supposed 'role models.' Even Jimmy Savile was a 'role model' in the eyes of many not long ago.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> So you acccept your share of the responsibility for making the _world such a fucking horrible_ place then?


 


Yes. So should you. It's something you can't do that much about.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Don't see what's idiotic. I didn't say I 'don't see the point of female role models in positions of power.' I said, rather, that the idea of conscious 'role models' is dubious. And what I meant is dubious as in infantile (and just plain wrong: if everybody has role models it implies there's a line of role models stretching back to an ultimate role model: it's clearly just another one of those straw clutching inventions  aimed at filling the void left by the absence of the great all-seeing creator.)
> 
> Nobody talked about 'role models' a few decades ago. Nor about 'sending out messages' and all the rest of the cod-psychological crap we're now subjected to.


Its idiotic because you don't even have the nous to appreciate that the choices, opportunities and support you get from society as a man afford you a power that women have to justify and fight for. That you cannot see how being surrounded by men in positions of authority, having decisions made for us (about us) by men, CONSTANTLY acts as a 'role model' to us all, whether you want to call it that name or not. Open your eyes.

Who was that prick in the news recently saying the abortion limit should be dropped to 12 weeks? How a fucking man thinks he has the right to say that I'll never fuckin know.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Yeah, and that Mehdi Hasan who wrote that pitiful piece about saying that you can be "left" and also pro-life.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Yes. So should you. It's something you can't do that much about.


 
How do you know I don't do anything/those things?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> This isn't what the idea of conscious role models is about, though. The latter is a recent innovation, a media-driven concept aimed at turning us all into gormless drones who try uselessly to imitate those who earn more money in a day than we do in a decade.
> 
> I mean, David 'interesting' Beckham or Wayne fucking Rooney as 'role models? '


 
It's not particularly modern. The idea of "positive role models" dates back to the 1960s, and it wasn't media-driven until the  '90s, before that it was an educational concept - present children with positive role models that they might aspire to imitate, be they sportspersons, artists, scientists or whatever.  The fact that the media attempt to use the idea that *every* person with the remotest _soupçon_ of celebrity is a potential role model is merely a mechanism by which the same media can then negatively or positively judge the behaviour of that person. It doesn't bear much actual similarity to the concept's proper meaning.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Its idiotic because you don't even have the nous to appreciate that the choices, opportunities and support you get from society as a man afford you a power that women have to justify and fight for. That you cannot see how being surrounded by men in positions of authority, having decisions made for us (about us) by men, CONSTANTLY acts as a 'role model' to us all, whether you want to call it that name or not. Open your eyes.
> 
> Who was that prick in the news recently saying the abortion limit should be dropped to 12 weeks? How a fucking man thinks he has the right to say that I'll never fuckin know.


 

Most men have no more power than most women. Most men don't even seek it. Most men are also ordered about by other men (and some women.) If others want to see those who make our decisions for us as some sort of 'role model,' that's up to them. Personally, I'd rather wake from the nightmare.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not particularly modern. The idea of "positive role models" dates back to the 1960s, and it wasn't media-driven until the '90s, before that it was an educational concept - present children with positive role models that they might aspire to imitate, be they sportspersons, artists, scientists or whatever. The fact that the media attempt to use the idea that *every* person with the remotest _soupçon_ of celebrity is a potential role model is merely a mechanism by which the same media can then negatively or positively judge the behaviour of that person. It doesn't bear much actual similarity to the concept's proper meaning.


Aye, even educational concepts can be hijacked in the pursuit of profit.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Who was that prick in the news recently saying the abortion limit should be dropped to 12 weeks? How a fucking man thinks he has the right to say that I'll never fuckin know.


 


I don't agree with him, but of course he has a right to say it. Anybody has the right to say more or less anything about anything, or to disagree. And even if restrictions are placed on that right, people will still say it anyway.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> How do you know I don't do anything/those things?


 


I'm sure you do lots of things. The world is still a horrible place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> More insidious now that all kinds of oddballs, freaks, charlatans and lunatics are beamed into our homes day and night without end, and most of them pushed at us as supposed 'role models.' Even Jimmy Savile was a 'role model' in the eyes of many not long ago.


 
Most people have the cognitive tools that render them able to sort the fiction on the idiot box from the reality of their everyday lives, and act accordingly.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not particularly modern. The idea of "positive role models" dates back to the 1960s, and it wasn't media-driven until the '90s, before that it was an educational concept - present children with positive role models that they might aspire to imitate, be they sportspersons, artists, scientists or whatever. The fact that the media attempt to use the idea that *every* person with the remotest _soupçon_ of celebrity is a potential role model is merely a mechanism by which the same media can then negatively or positively judge the behaviour of that person. It doesn't bear much actual similarity to the concept's proper meaning.


 


Yes-it's when dubious, crackpot hippy idealism went mainstream in alliance with neo-liberal economics.

That bald guy with the Tories on The Thick of It isn't there for nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Can people stop posting so fast please. I'm playing scrabble and it's hard to do both!


 
But A.S., you are STRONG, you are INVINCIBLE, you are WOMAN!!!


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most people have the cognitive tools that render them able to sort the fiction on the idiot box from the reality of their everyday lives, and act accordingly.


 

Perhaps most people do, but lots don't. Job done.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Most men have no more power than most women. Most men don't even seek it. Most men are also ordered about by other men (and some women.) If others want to see those who make our decisions for us as some sort of role model,' that's up to them. Personally, I'd rather wake from the nightmare.


This is absolute bullshit.

Men have economic and social power over women in pretty much all aspects of life. The most blindingly obvious examples being a mans ability to walk away from raising children with few repercussions, the fact he doesn't shoulder the economic burden of having time off work to care for children, the fact he can more easily reach positions of authority, and the simple fact he can punch harder.

Wake up.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Most men have no more power than most women. Most men don't even seek it. Most men are also ordered about by other men (and some women.) If others want to see those who make our decisions for us as some sort of 'role model,' that's up to them. Personally, I'd rather wake from the nightmare.


You say role models are not conscious (implying there are unconscious things at work), and then you say this? 

If you factor out other forms of power, like for like men will have more power than their matched female counterpart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Its idiotic because you don't even have the nous to appreciate that the choices, opportunities and support you get from society as a man afford you a power that women have to justify and fight for. That you cannot see how being surrounded by men in positions of authority, having decisions made for us (about us) by men, CONSTANTLY acts as a 'role model' to us all, whether you want to call it that name or not. Open your eyes.


 
Male "policing" of what it means to be a woman. It's not very savoury, is it? It's what leads to absolutely mindless crap like rape myths.



> Who was that prick in the news recently saying the abortion limit should be dropped to 12 weeks? How a fucking man thinks he has the right to say that I'll never fuckin know.


 
He has a right to hold his opinion, however stupid or rancid it is.
What he doesn't have is the right to enforce his opinion on others. Personally, I like idiots who show themselves up as idiots. it lets us know who to throw the bags full of rotten liver at.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This is absolute bullshit.
> 
> Men have economic and social power over women in pretty much all aspects of life. The most blindingly obvious examples being a mans ability to walk away from raising children with few repercussions, the fact he doesn't shoulder the economic burden of having time off work to care for children, the fact he can more easily reach positions of authority, and the simple fact they can punch harder.
> 
> Wake up.


 


Most men have enough of a conscience not to walk away from their families (and plenty of women do walk away from their families.) Lots of working class men share in the burden of raising a family out of sheer necessity.

Most men can't reach any position of authority, nor do they seek to. Most men do not punch other men, let alone women.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

Quite an impressive thread hijack actually. Perhaps in part the world is a horrible place because some people prefer to say stuff just to get a reaction and wind others up instead of listening and modifying their own behaviour?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yeah, and that Mehdi Hasan who wrote that pitiful piece about saying that you can be "left" and also pro-life.


 
It was only a page long, but it made me groan half a dozen times even though his intent wasn't malicious. You could just see all sorts of people using it as justification for pro-life arguments of a "look, even the left agree with us".


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Most men have enough of a conscience not to walk away from their families (and plenty of women do walk away from their families.) Lots of working class men share in the burden of raising a family out of sheer necessity.
> 
> Most men can't reach any position of authority, nor do they seek to. Most men do not punch other men, let alone women.


 
You have the air of a returner.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)




----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

Btw, I thought everyone might like to know I won the scrabble. For the sisterhood, natch.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This is absolute bullshit.


 
Total utter and complete.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You have the air of a returner.


 
You have the air of an airhead, but do you see us complaining?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Most men have no more power than most women. Most men don't even seek it. Most men are also ordered about by other men (and some women.) If others want to see those who make our decisions for us as some sort of 'role model,' that's up to them. Personally, I'd rather wake from the nightmare.


 
Men as a gender do, however, benefit, both directly and indirectly, from existing within a patriarchal society.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Most men have enough of a conscience not to walk away from their families (and plenty of women do walk away from their families.) Lots of working class men share in the burden of raising a family out of sheer necessity.
> 
> Most men can't reach any position of authority, nor do they seek to. Most men do not punch other men, let alone women.


Christ, your right. We do live in an equal world after all. My mistake.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You have the air of an airhead, but do you see us complaining?


 
whit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You have the air of an airhead, but do you see us complaining?


 
Fuck off, dwyer.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Oh, here we bloody go.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> You say role models are not conscious (implying there are unconscious things at work), and then you say this?
> 
> If you factor out other forms of power, like for like men will have more power than their matched female counterpart.


 


I don't think I said 'role models' 'are not conscious'. Didn't I say that the term, as understood now, implies something that is consciously adopted (or encouraged to be)?

'Like for like' that might be the case-but still most men do not have any power whatsoever, even (like most women) over what they think, say and do.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> whit?


 
I said: YOU HAVE THE AIR OF AN AIRHEAD, BUT DO YOU SEE US COMPLAINING?

Loud enough for you now?


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

An airhead. Not a phrase you hear directed against men ever I notice. Prick.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

(((men)))


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Oh, here we bloody go.


 
I didn't start it.  I never do.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> An airhead. Not a phrase you hear directed against men ever I notice. Prick.


 
I was being nice.

Once again: I didn't start this.  I neverdo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Perhaps most people do, but lots don't. Job done.


 
Most + lots = too many. Are you sure you don't mean "...most people do, but some don't"?


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Christ, your right. We do live in an equal world after all. My mistake.


 


Who said we live in an equal world?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

Comical really. Some of them seriously can't handle any space or evidence that we don't need them to tell us how to be/what to think and when to do it!

You are right Edie...never said to a man, never, ever. Obvious sexist, power seeking crap.

If it was anyone else I would point out the irony of that happening on this thread but seeing who it is I realise it's just plain sexist nastiness.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> An airhead. Not a phrase you hear directed against men ever I notice. Prick.


 


You do if you spend time with me.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

The whole nature of the power is that it can sometimes be obviously visable, but is often also internal and hidden. There are studies that suggest gender conditioning starts from infancy. How we learn to see ourselves and the world is going to influence how we interact with it and how much power we can ever have.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I didn't start it. I never do.


Why did you join the thread just to have a go at weepiper using sexist language, then? Bored?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I was being nice.
> 
> Once again: I didn't start this. I neverdo.


 
Nope, you just jump straight into the middle of the puddle, hoping to make a big splash and draw attention to yourself.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most + lots = too many. Are you sure you don't mean "...most people do, but some don't"?


 


Yes.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I said: YOU HAVE THE SIR OF AN AIRHEAD, BUT DO YOU SEE US COMPLAINING?
> 
> Loud enough for you now?


 
Alright, explain to me a) how you can tell I have 'the air of an airhead' from me expressing the thought that a new poster was suspiciously familiar b) the relevance of that opinion of me to, well, anything at all c) why you have gone straight in with the personal insults when I wasn't addressing you. Take your time.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

Tell you what Phil, why don't you pick a fight with me cos I'm in the mood. Alternatively, maybe you men could fuck off, and let us women discuss this without telling us what we are, how it is, and why we've got it all wrong.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Alright, explain to me a) how you can tell I have 'the air of an airhead' from me expressing the thought that a new poster was suspiciously familiar b) the relevance of that opinion of me to, well, anything at all c) why you have gone straight in with the personal insults when I wasn't addressing you. Take your time.


 
Taken to PMs...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

Hello LLETSA.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Comical really. Some of them seriously can't handle any space or evidence that we don't need them to tell us how to be/what to think and when to do it!


 


You do realise, I hope, that there is no 'we' in the sense that you mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> An airhead. Not a phrase you hear directed against men ever I notice. Prick.


 
Except Keanu Reeves, anyway.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> I don't think I said 'role models' 'are not conscious'. Didn't I say that the term, as understood now, implies something that is consciously adopted (or encouraged to be)?
> 
> 'Like for like' that might be the case-but still most men do not have any power whatsoever, even (like most women) over what they think, say and do.


Whilst all of us will find it hard to escape our conditioning, personal agency is much more part of the "male role" than it is for the "female role". And, for example, the earlier debate about using your sexuality or being used; it just doesn't even come up for men, cos it doesn't have to.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Taken to PMs...


Take it to PMs with me you cunt.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Taken to PMs...


 
Cop out. Nasty piece of work.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Taken to PMs...


 
Roughly translated "whoops I made a cunt of it again...."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Alright, explain to me a) how you can tell I have 'the air of an airhead' from me expressing the thought that a new poster was suspiciously familiar b) the relevance of that opinion of me to, well, anything at all c) why you have gone straight in with the personal insults when I wasn't addressing you. Take your time.


 
Look love, don't you think you should calm down, go and make a nice cuppa or summat?


<crips to the hills to hide from wrathful feminists>


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Taken to PMs...


 
Ok so phil has his knickers in a knot because I replied 'fuck off dwyer' to his oh-so-_sensitive_ and _hilarious_ thread about 'who is the vilest celebrity nonce' the other day.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Cop out. Nasty piece of work.


 
Alright, since you ask, I insulted Weepiper because she did exactly the same to me, unprovoked, a couple of days ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Ok so phil has his knickers in a knot because I replied 'fuck off dwyer' to his oh-so-_sensitive_ and _hilarious_ thread about 'who is the vilest celebrity nonce' the other day.


 
No knickers are twisted here.

But if you insult me, you must expect me to retaliate.  Anyone would, right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Who said we live in an equal world?


 
I bet "in the end we all die alone" is one of your favourite proverbs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

So he had it in for you then. Thought he'd put you in your place with a dose of sexism. Nice.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No knickers are twisted here.
> 
> But if you insult me, you must expect me to retaliate. Anyone would, right?


 


Rutita1 said:


> So he had it in for you then. Thought he'd put you in your place with a dose of sexism. Nice.


 
uh huh.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Ok so phil has his knickers in a knot because I replied 'fuck off dwyer' to his oh-so-_sensitive_ and _hilarious_ thread about 'who is the vilest celebrity nonce' the other day.


 
So he's bringing in cross thread moans?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> So he had it in for you then. Thought he'd put you in your place with a dose of sexism. Nice.


 
No.

I insulted Weepiper becuase she did the same to me.

I'd do the same to anyone.  _Anyone _would so the same to anyone.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Whilst all of us will find it hard to escape our conditioning, personal agency is much more part of the "male role" than it is for the "female role". And, for example, the earlier debate about using your sexuality or being used; it just doesn't even come up for men, cos it doesn't have to.


 
No-most men don't even have the 'choice' (the most insidious of all contemporary illusions: choice) of that route out of the depths of mediocrity and despair (not that it leads anywhere.)

'Personal agency' takes most men, like most women, precisely nowhere. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. Etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, since you ask, I insulted Weepiper because she did exactly the same to me, unprovoked, a couple of days ago.


 
How old are you? 12?

Bored too, since you are stuck in NY tonight.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> So he had it in for you then. Thought he'd put you in your place with a dose of sexism. Nice.


Innit. It's almost like he felt compelled to provide UN Otherprick with a real time example of how to exercise unconscious power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Take it to PMs with me you cunt.


 
I'm not sure phil is all that comfortable with assertive women, to be fair. He never did let Louloubelle punch him.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> How old are you? 12?


 
I'm on the internet.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, since you ask, I insulted Weepiper because she did exactly the same to me, unprovoked, a couple of days ago.


 
So you brought a beef from another thread onto this one?  Hypocrite as well as a liar then?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No.
> 
> I insulted Weepiper becuase she did the same to me.
> 
> I'd do the same to anyone. _Anyone _would so the same to anyone.


 
You're doing it in a random unrelated thread which I do believe is against board rules. I said 'fuck off' because you were belittling and turning into a joke something which is causing a lot of painful memories and feelings for a lot of posters on these boards with your stupid thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, since you ask, I insulted Weepiper because she did exactly the same to me, unprovoked, a couple of days ago.


 
"fuck off dwyer" isn't an insult, it's  request.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> The whole nature of the power is that it can sometimes be obviously visable, but is often also internal and hidden. There are studies that suggest gender conditioning starts from infancy. How we learn to see ourselves and the world is going to influence how we interact with it and how much power we can ever have.


 


Plenty of men see themselves, all their lives, as a pile of worthless shit.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "fuck off dwyer" isn't an insult, it's request.


 
and this.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> So you brought a beef from another thread onto this one?


 
Not really.

I thought Weepiper was being stupid on this thread.  So I said so.

I wouldn't have said so had we not had beef.  But since we had beef, instigated entirely by her, I did.

Not hard to understand Fed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You're doing it in a random unrelated thread which I do believe is against board rules. I said 'fuck off' because you were belittling and turning into a joke something which is causing a lot of painful memories and feelings for a lot of posters on these boards with your stupid thread.


 
Trolling, as per his style. For shits and giggles...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> and this.


 
Tell you what, why don't YOU fuck off?  You're really boring.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

Anyway he's just a dick so why don't we all ignore him then he'll get bored and stop derailing.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I bet "in the end we all die alone" is one of your favourite proverbs.


 


It isn't a proverb; it's a fact.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not really.
> 
> I thought Weepiper was being stupid on this thread. So I said so.
> 
> ...


 
No, you're simply as you're doing elsewhere with Brannigan acting the cunt aren't you Dafydd?

How long before you decide to tell people they're not wanted on this thread?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You're doing it in a random unrelated thread which I do believe is against board rules. I said 'fuck off' because you were belittling and turning into a joke something which is causing a lot of painful memories and feelings for a lot of posters on these boards with your stupid thread.


 
And I called you an airhead, because that's what you sound like here.

I'd have held my tongue with anyone else.  But I chose not to in your case, for obvious reasons.

As I say, this is not a hard concept to grasp.  For most people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

Liar.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You're doing it in a random unrelated thread which I do believe is against board rules. I said 'fuck off' because you were belittling and turning into a joke something which is causing a lot of painful memories and feelings for a lot of posters on these boards with your stupid thread.


 
It does speak loudly to his attitude to women, even though he protests that he'd insult *anyone* who insults him.
I mean, I'm sure phil sees himself as a feminist, but does he act like one?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Liar.


 
Twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Plenty of men see themselves, all their lives, as a pile of worthless shit.


 
And yet they *still* benefit from patriarchy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> It isn't a proverb; it's a fact.


 
So, the Captain was right. LLETSA once again blesses us with his presence.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet they *still* benefit from patriarchy.


 
Yes-worthlessly benefit. Just a different form of suffering from that of women.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Liar.


 
Frequently, especially to himself.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> How long before you decide to tell people they're not wanted on this thread?


 
Well I don't want Weepiper on here, that's for sure. I don't want her on the boards at all actually. Why would I?

And you're the hypocrite here. You're never slow to repond to an insult. I know you can't see this particular situation objectively though.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, the Captain was right. LLETSA once again blesses us with his presence.


 


I don't know who this LLETSA character is but I'm impressed. He seems able to strike at will, a bit like the Viet Cong.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

No I can see it clearly, you dragged something from another thread, something you have grassed others up to editor for in the past.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, the Captain was right. LLETSA once again blesses us with his presence.


LLETSA makes a lot of sense, on a lot of different subjects. But he's not great when he veers off into the realm of lived experience which isn't his own.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> I don't know who this LLETSA character is but I'm impressed. He seems able to strike at will, a bit like the Viet Kong.


 
Cong.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Well I don't want Weepiper on here, that's for sure. I don't want her on the boards at all actually. Why would I?


 
Oh I know you wouldn't, but then you're a mysogynist, so it's understandable.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Twat.


 
Troll on Phil. With a bit of luck your hotel will lose power soon and we'll be rid of you for a bit. 

Better still you could go out into the storm and take your misogyny out on mother nature instead.

I dunno, roar or something? Be the big lion that you seem to imagine yourself to be.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> I don't know who this LLETSA character is but I'm impressed. He seems able to strike at will, a bit like the Viet Kong.


 
you know what gives it away - double line breaks after the quotes


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> you know what gives it away - double line breaks after the quotes


 
And Perhaps at the start of a response.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Oh I know you wouldn't, but then you're a mysogynist, so it's understandable.


 
Sorry Fed, not going to take the bait.

I've got no problem with you.  You're standing up for your girlfriend.  I'd do the same.  But it doesn't make you, or her, in the right.  You're not.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Plenty of men see themselves, all their lives, as a pile of worthless shit.


This ain't Lletsa  No way would he come out with this self pitying crap on a thread like this. Mans got style.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> And Perhaps at the start of a response.


 
not that it's a competition, but i claimed him before you


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Troll on Phil. With a bit of luck your hotel will lose power soon and we'll be rid of you for a bit.


 
Address any complaints to Weepiper.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> not that it's a competition, but i claimed him before you


 
No you didn't?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry Fed, not going to take the bait.
> 
> I've got no problem with you. You're standing up for your girlfriend. I'd do the same. But it doesn't make you, or her, in the right. You're not.


 
No, it's not bait, you're a grubby little mysogynist and a hypocrite who cries to editor when people do exactly what you have done.... By the way, given you're in New York are you going to meet that doctor who whispers into your ear again?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

Get started phil, you've got a lot of typing to do

http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/15191982/?q="fuck+off+dwyer"&t=post&o=date


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This ain't Lletsa  No way would he come out with this self pitying crap on a thread like this. Mans got style.


He bloody does you know, when he's doing his Eeyore bit


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> No you didn't?


 
Me: 48 minutes ago 

You: 23 minutes ago


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> not that it's a competition, but i claimed him before you


The Captain said "hi" on the Tibet thread, acksherly.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

You win this time.

Edit: so, is victory mine?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, it's not bait, you're a grubby little mysogynist and a hypocrite who cries to editor when people do exactly what you have done.... By the way, given you're in New York are you going to meet that doctor who whispers into your ear again?


 
I'm no misogynist.

I insulted Weepiper because she insulted me.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NOW?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> Me: 48 minutes ago
> 
> You: 23 minutes ago


Oh yes


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I'm no misogynist.
> 
> I insulted Weepiper because she insulted me.
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NOW?


 
You chose a female specific insult on a thread about feminism. How coincidental


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

It's not the first time you've used sexist insults and I doubt it will be the last.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You win this time.
> 
> Edit: so, is victory mine?


 
hmmm, not sure you gave enough information away to properly be credited with it!


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

You know what Phil, I kinda respected you before this. But you don't attack weeps like that, in that underhand way. Plus it's pissed me off that this now has nothing to do with us discussing feminism. It's just all about you again.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I'm no misogynist.
> 
> I insulted Weepiper because she insulted me.
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NOW?


 
I understand you're trolling, you're doing something yo0u grassed people up to editor for and again seeing that doctor who whispers medical secrets into your ear?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> It's not the first time you've used sexist insults and I doubt it will be the last.


 
1.  How is "airhead" sexist?

2.  Where have I used a sexist insult?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> You know what Phil, I kinda respected you before this. But you don't attack weeps like that, in that underhand way. Plus it's pissed me off that this now has nothing to do with us discussing feminism. It's just all about you again.


It started going downhill from the point that men decided to define feminism for us, tbh.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> hmmm, not sure you gave enough information away to properly be credited with it!


 
On the Tibet thread I thought it was a newly-registered troll, to be honest.  Didn't know if it was a returnee.  It wasn't until this thread, and the quick post style analysis, that I realised it was LLETSA.  So you win.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

You would not have said it to a man.

You have tried to insult me in this way before too (albeit using a different phrase) That's how I know.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> you're doing something yo0u grassed people up to editor for


 
Nope. 

I AM INSULTING WEEPIPER BECUASE SHE INSULTED ME.

Do you understand that _now?_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This ain't Lletsa  No way would he come out with this self pitying crap on a thread like this. Mans got style.


 
You must have missed a lot of LLETSA's posts, Edie, because the guy used to do some heavy-duty self-pitying "woe is me!" crap when the mood took him.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Nope.
> 
> I AM INSULTING WEEPIPER BECUASE SHE INSULTED ME.
> 
> Do you understand that _now?_


 
Cross thread beefs and abuse, you are a grass and now you're bleating about it. Grass and hypocrite.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> You would not have said it to a man.


 
I most certainly would.



Rutita1 said:


> You have insulted me in this way before too.


 
Liar.  Prove it or stand publically exposed as such.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Quite an impressive thread hijack actually. Perhaps in part the world is a horrible place because some people prefer to say stuff just to get a reaction and wind others up instead of listening and modifying their own behaviour?


 

So when somebody puts forward an opinion you don't agree with, it's a thread hijack?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Nope.
> 
> I AM INSULTING WEEPIPER BECUASE SHE INSULTED ME.
> 
> Do you understand that _now?_


 
I didn't insult you. I told you to fuck off. With good reason, on another thread.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> He bloody does you know, when he's doing his Eeyore bit


Oh god I find that really disappointing. I remember this ace post he did about how being born working class was like winning the lottery of life  I kinda loved him for that. I can't be doing with all this self pitying bullshit, especially by a man on a thread about feminism. I pity him. I also thought he had more intelligence. In fact I'm not convinced its him.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> It started going downhill from the point that men decided to define feminism for us, tbh.


This. Prob my fault for quoting kabbes mind you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Get started phil, you've got a lot of typing to do
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/15191982/?q="fuck off dwyer"&t=post&o=date


 
Only 40 pages? I'm disappointed.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Cross thread beefs and abuse, you are a grass and now you're bleating about it. Grass and hypocrite.


 
Not rising to it Fed.

You're standing up for your girlfriend. Good lad, right thing to do etc. Although I'm sure she'd say she doesn't need your help.

But once again, the fact of the matter is that I AM INSULTING WEEPIPER BECUASE SHE INSULTED ME.

Now, I _know _you do understand that. And I think you've made your point here. If she has anything to say, she can say it herself from now on.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> On the Tibet thread I thought it was a newly-registered troll, to be honest. Didn't know if it was a returnee. It wasn't until this thread, and the quick post style analysis, that I realised it was LLETSA. So you win.


 
i'll admit i went out on a limb and took the plunge purely on the word 'Strictly' - but the double spaces after the quote on here confirmed it

edit: can't believe how dull our discussion is


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only 40 pages? I'm disappointed.


 
40 pages is the maximum amount a search will show


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oh god I find that really disappointing. I remember this ace post he did about how being born working class was like winning the lottery of life  I kinda loved him for that. I can't be doing with all this self pitying bullshit, especially by a man on a thread about feminism. I pity him. I also thought he had more intelligence. In fact I'm not convinced its him.


 
Well, if it's not him it's someone who does a similar line in woe-is-me and how awful for menz


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2012)

It is him. He's usually better than this though tbf.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You must have missed a lot of LLETSA's posts, Edie, because the guy used to do some heavy-duty self-pitying "woe is me!" crap when the mood took him.


Oh. Must of I guess. Oh well.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> I didn't insult you. I told you to fuck off.


 
Brilliant.

Do you mind if I steal it?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not rising to it Fed.
> 
> You're standing up for your girlfriend. Good lad, right thing to do etc. Although I'm sure she'd say she doesn't need your help.
> 
> ...


 
c'mon then, get on with insulting the other hundreds of posters who've told you to fuck off. I'm almost flattered by the special attention.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> This ain't Lletsa  No way would he come out with this self pitying crap on a thread like this. Mans got style.


 


It isn't self-pitying. I never said that was how I think of myself. But you must surely know that plenty of men (and women) do think of themselves in this way, especially those at the bottom of the pile.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Brilliant.
> 
> Do you mind if I steal it?


That is actually quite good


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not rising to it Fed.
> 
> You're standing up for your girlfriend. Good lad, right thing to do etc. Although I'm sure she'd say she doesn't need your help.
> 
> ...


 
Npo, she insulted you elsewhere, told you to fuck off here, not an insult an unpolite request. now off you pop grass.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> You have tried to insult me in this way before too (albeit using a different phrase) That's how I know.


 
I see you've sneakily gone back and edited now.

My challenge still applies.

Prove this or stand publically exposed as a liar.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

No Fed, you've got it backwards.  Check your facts and start again.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I see you've sneakily gone back and edited now.
> 
> My challenge still applies.
> 
> Prove this or stand publically exposed as a liar.


 
What about being a grass and a hypocrite, much better moral high ground eh?!


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> It isn't self-pitying. I never said that was how I think of myself. But you must surely know that plenty of men (and women) do think of themselves in this way, especially those at the bottom of the pile.


All of your posts are dripping in oppression, tbf.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> It started going downhill from the point that men decided to define feminism for us, tbh.


 


Who has done that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> 40 pages is the maximum amount a search will show


 
Phew, I was worried there that Fridge had culled half my "fuck off, dwyer"s from the board!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

love detective said:


> i'll admit i went out on a limb and took the plunge purely on the word 'Strictly' - but the double spaces after the quote on here confirmed it
> 
> edit: can't believe how dull our discussion is


 
I've had a bottle and a half of red wine tonight.  I'm in a pretty good mood, even for dull shit.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2012)

I'm going to bed. Bloody men.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Who has done that?


Read the thread, and you'll find out.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> All of your posts are dripping in oppression, tbf.


 

Only of my inner self.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No Fed, you've got it backwards. Check your facts and start again.


 
Nice edit grass.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> What about being a grass and a hypocrite, much better moral high ground eh?!


 
You're the one being a hypocrite here, the number of times I've seen you pile into your board enemies on unrelated threads.

If this wasn't your girlfriend, you wouldn't have said a word.  I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

I sorta hope it's not Lletsa, he alsways rather eschewed the woe is me stuff.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You must have missed a lot of LLETSA's posts, Edie, because the guy used to do some heavy-duty self-pitying "woe is me!" crap when the mood took him.


 



Again, it isn't self-pitying to claim that, ultimately, we're probably all fucked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> c'mon then, get on with insulting the other hundreds of posters who've told you to fuck off. I'm almost flattered by the special attention.


 
It wouldn't be so bad if he were good at it. You'd expect something better from a person with a doctorate in 17th-century English literature, but you don't bleeding well get it.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You're the one being a hypocrite here, the number of times I've seen you pile into your board enemies on unrelated threads.
> 
> If this wasn't your girlfriend, you wouldn't have said a word. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.


 
The thing is Phil i've not grassed people up for it, you have. Sinking in yet..... You bleat and grass people for doing the very same thing you've done here..... Still not sunk in grass?

No phil, this grassing and hypocrisy of yours started years ago as well you know....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I most certainly would.


 Liar.





> Liar. Prove it or stand publically exposed as such.


 
No Phil. I will not waste my time trawling through past threads and the fact that I will not does not make me a liar.

You don't get to tell me what to do and when to do it. You have made sexist comments before just have you have tonight. I know this because you made one to me at some point in the past and since that point I have had nothing to do with you. The only person exposing themselves is you.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> ultimately, we're probably all fucked.


 
Classic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Who has done that?


 
Men, apparently. Can't you read?


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> I sorta hope it's not Lletsa, he alsways rather eschewed the woe is me stuff.


 


There hasn't been any woe is me. I haven't said anything about 'me.'

I wish somebody would explain about this LLETSA (or is it Lletsa)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> ...the number of times I've seen you pile into your board enemies on unrelated threads.


 
And here, students, we have a classic example of the psychological phenomenon known as "projection".


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oh. Must of I guess. Oh well.


 

Panda, like most on here, just reads what he wants you to have said, not what you have said.

Take him with a pinch of salt.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> No Phil. I will not waste my time trawling through past threads and the fact that I will not does not make me a liar.


 
That is _exactly _what it makes you.

You are a liar, and everyone can now see it.



Rutita1 said:


> You have made sexist comments before just have you have tonight. I know this because you made one to me at some point in the past


 
Liar. Prove it, or be publically branded a DOUBLE liar.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That is _exactly _what it makes you.
> 
> You are a liar, and everyone can now see it.
> 
> ...


 
It's dwyer bingo....


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The thing is Phil i've not grassed people up for it, you have.


 
No I have not.

So you are also a liar.


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Panda, like most on here, just reads what he wants you to have said, not what you have said.
> 
> Take him with a pinch of salt.


How would you know?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

Publically branded?

By you?

HIllarious!


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oh god I find that really disappointing. I remember this ace post he did about how being born working class was like winning the lottery of life  I kinda loved him for that. I can't be doing with all this self pitying bullshit, especially by a man on a thread about feminism. I pity him. I also thought he had more intelligence. In fact I'm not convinced its him.


 

Once again, there hasn't been any self-pity because I haven't once commented on myself (except to say that, like most men and women, I have no power.)


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No I have not.
> 
> So you are also a liar.


 
No, you grassed me up for it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, you grassed me up for it.


 
He doesn't seem to have a good memory when it comes to his own deeds...Likes to hold a grudge against others though.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, you grassed me up for it.


 
No idea what you're on about, sorry.

Anyway, I'm not going to take a dislike to you because of anything you say on this thread, because I know you're doing it for chivalrous motives.

I liked Weepiper too, before she went off on me.  Actually I _still _like her.  But I like arguing on the internet more.

Now I have to go and wave at people over on the Hurricane thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The thing is Phil i've not grassed people up for it, you have. Sinking in yet..... You bleat and grass people for doing the very same thing you've done here..... Still not sunk in grass?
> 
> No phil, this grassing and hypocrisy of yours started years ago as well you know....


 
Given how many posters he's actually gone to the mods about (just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen: Me, nino, Roadkill, longdog, butch, brasic. I'm sure there are many more), in order to have posts edited/removed, he can't really not know.


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

killer b said:


> How would you know?


 


From the way he answers you. As with others, half the time it has nothing to do with what you've said.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No idea what you're on about, sorry.


 
Yes you do.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Publically branded?


 
Publically exposed and branded.

You are a LIAR.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Yes you do.


 
No I fucking don't.

We don't all remember internet grudges from years back you silly old mutton-chop overgrown elderly skinhead nutter idiot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Publically exposed and branded.
> 
> You are a LIAR.


 
Says the sexist who can't own up or at least apologise for being so....


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No I fucking don't.
> 
> We don't all remember internet grudges from years back you silly old mutton-chop overgrown elderly skinhead nutter idiot.


 
Going by vp's posts you don't seem to remember any of the times you have grassed folk up, funny that....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That is _exactly _what it makes you.
> 
> You are a liar, and everyone can now see it.
> 
> ...


 
Repetition does not confer veracity, and being "publically" [sic] branded a liar by you carries no weight, not even on Urban, where posters are all too familiar with your tactics and your posturing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

U.N. Arrator said:


> Panda, like most on here, just reads what he wants you to have said, not what you have said.
> 
> Take him with a pinch of salt.


 
Hmmm, and you're able to make a meaningful content and context analysis on the basis of a couple of dozen posts?

How very interesting.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Going by vp's posts


 
Let me stop you right there.

Now, you know sometimes grown-ups might say things that arenb't quite exactly what really happened?  Well...

Oh bugger it.  I'm off to wave.  Weepiper, I forgive you.  Go forth and sin no more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Going by vp's posts you don't seem to remember any of the times you have grassed folk up, funny that....


 
Selective memory is quite common in people with a well-developed sense of self-regard, fed. 

E2A: Especially academics.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2012)

ooh I've been forgiven, lucky lil me. Can we get back to discussing feminism now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> ooh I've been forgiven, lucky lil me. Can we get back to discussing feminism now?


 
Is feminism actually feminism? Isn't it, at the end of the day, peopleism, in terms of attempting to achieve equality in all spheres between women and men?


----------



## U.N. Arrator (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is feminism actually feminism? Isn't it, at the end of the day, peopleism, in terms of attempting to achieve equality in all spheres between women and men?


 


Are you the next Viz classic character?


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2012)

already one on the thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> ooh I've been forgiven


 
But not forgotten.


----------



## YouSir (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Selective memory is quite common in people with a well-developed sense of self-regard, fed.
> 
> E2A: Especially academics.


 
Hell with you, the sins of Dwyer are not the sins of academia.


----------



## YouSir (Oct 30, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But not forgotten.


 
Unlike yourself, who within a matter of years will be but a whisper on the winds, all forgotten but desperately clinging to a sense of relevance.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

Cesare, I find one part of your stance unhelpful.

You seem to think that as a man, I can have no stake in feminism, no understanding of it and can have nothing to offer in the attempt to identify, define and fight for it.

I think you're wrong on all counts. I have no right to attempt to control it, sure. But to shut 50% of the population from contributing is exceedingly unhelpful, counter-productive and even naïve.  Any future for feminism will directly affect 50% of my nearest and dearest and include on the journey the other 50% in order to succeed.  It isn't about shutting others out of your club, it's about the kind of society we are striving for. We all have a stake in that.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Kabbes, I don't object to men having opinions and a stake in feminism. I do object to men attempting to undermine women's own agency for change, and attempting to define what feminism is/should be. I make no apologies for this stance.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Further, Kabbes, I have not "shut out 50% of the population" and your attempt to misrepresent me in this manner is dishonest and misrepresentative.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

And lastly, Kabbes, have a nice day


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Fuck knows what some of these men would feel like if presented with some proper radfem politics 

Edit: talking of which, this caused a shitstorm this year: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

So opinions are fine so long as we keep them to ourselves? We have a stake but can have no agency despite that stake?

This isn't an academic exercise for me just because it is my wife, mother and sister directly affected instead of me. I see and feel the injustice of those who matter most to me.  This isn't the oppression of a segregated minority.

And as regards your last point: I bet I grew up in a much more radfem household than you did. But is comparing the size of our radfem really the level you want to descend to?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

You can voice your opinions from the rooftops Kabbes, and present your "I bet I grew up in a more radfem environment than you" credentials as much as you like 

Would you deign to give us your opinions on the cause of the radfem conference shitstorm?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

You must be joking. I'm not touching that and especially not on here.

I'll tell you this though: the radical feminists I grew up surrounded by would have been incredibly pissed off at the claiming of Cheryl Cole as a female role model, strong or otherwise.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

I should clarify that I am not aware of which shitstorm you are talking about, but I'm not touching any feminist shitstorm on this message board. I have resolved to have a lighter touch on this place.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

kabbes said:


> You must be joking. I'm not touching that and especially not on here.
> 
> I'll tell you this though: the radical feminists I grew up surrounded by would have been incredibly pissed off at the claiming of Cheryl Cole as a female role model, strong or otherwise.


Well fuck the radfems then, whoever they may be.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Here is not a particularly feminist place, Kabbes. You might get a couple of views that are a bit stronger than yours, but you can relatively easily shut them up (look at how easy it is for you to convert my stance into one of denying 50% of the population of their opinions, for example). 

And now faced with being asked for an opinion on radfem politics, from someone that grew up "in a much more radfem environment" you're reluctant and just offer again your opinion that you and your family don't think much of Cheryl Cole as a role model. Well, fine. Don't have her as one, then.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> Well fuck the radfems then, whoever they may be.


Have a look at that link I provided for an insight. There's some very unpleasant stuff at the heart of what's emerging (in my view).


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

kabbes said:


> You must be joking. I'm not touching that and especially not on here.


 From what I can see, it seems to be a split between different feminist groups/websites due to the RadFem conference only allowing born-women to attend. What's the unpleasant development you're talking about, cesare? The feminist non/acceptance of trans women has been an issue for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

They don't accept trans women?! How far up their own arses are these clowns? They're so fucking radical there must be about 5 of them!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> From what I can see, it seems to be a split between different feminist groups/websites due to the RadFem conference only allowing born-women to attend. What's the unpleasant development you're talking about, cesare? The feminist non/acceptance of trans women has been an issue for as long as I can remember.


Yes, the trans women acceptance has been an issue for a long time. But it seems to be getting far more vitriolic. Also, opinion seems to be polarising around the sex industry argument. There's also the "privilege" discourse, which seems to be gaining traction. And also this retreat into "safe spaces". So, off the top of my head, it's a number of factors which combine to make quite unpalatable reading at first glance. There's more to all of these on analysis, but I'm mainly observing about the cumulative effect.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> They don't accept trans women?! How far up their own arses are these clowns? They're so fucking radical there must be about 5 of them!


Many more than 5  And their conditions preclude intersex people too.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

And just to summarise my own position on sex workers and feminism. If you think that sex work is demeaning to the women involved, if you think they're being abused and you think it's damaging to women in general, then your move should surely be to support those workers, to find out what you can do to make their bargaining position stronger. Otherwise you're simply piling on the pressure on those people who're already facing a hard time.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

I wish Steph hadn't decided to take a break


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> And just to summarise my own position on sex workers and feminism. If you think that sex work is demeaning to the women involved, if you think they're being abused and you think it's damaging to women in general, then your move should surely be to support those workers, to find out what you can do to make their bargaining position stronger. Otherwise you're simply piling on the pressure on those people who're already facing a hard time.


And also some people do it from choice and not from conscription or economic necessity. And they shouldn't be demeaned for doing so. Far worse to become a copper out of choice!


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> And also some people do it from choice and not from conscription or economic necessity. And they shouldn't be demeaned for doing so. Far worse to become a copper out of choice!


Thank you


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> And also some people do it from choice and not from conscription or economic necessity. And they shouldn't be demeaned for doing so. Far worse to become a copper out of choice!


But, if you believe sex work is damaging to women as a whole, why would you not criticise women who choose to be involved in it?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> Thank you


The root of why many people don't approve of genuinely chosen sex work can probably be found in religion. They even call any such sex workers the "handmaidens of patriarchy". Why else would that imagery even occur to them?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> But, if you believe sex work is damaging to women as a whole, why would you not criticise women who choose to be involved in it?


I suppose it depends on what you think "women as a whole" should be.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I suppose it depends on what you think "women as a whole" should be.


I'm not sure I understand that


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure I understand that


To form an opinion that genuinely chosen sex work is damaging to "women as a whole" one would first need to have an opinion on what "women as a whole" should be like, surely?


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> To form an opinion that genuinely chosen sex work is damaging to "women as a whole" one would first need to have an opinion on what "women as a whole" should be like, surely?


Ah I see.  I guess the argument is that women as whole shouldn't be viewed primarily as sex objects whose own enjoyment of sex is secondary to a man's, who shouldn't be bought and used, and whose purpose isn't to serve men.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Ah I see.  I guess the argument is that women as whole shouldn't be viewed primarily as sex objects whose own enjoyment of sex is secondary to a man's, who shouldn't be bought and used, and whose purpose isn't to serve men.


I can see where that argument comes from, but I imagine that genuine sex workers consider their bodies to be their own, to do with as they please. And that the act of selling sex doesn't make them a sex object, because it's one act/series of acts rather than an expression of who they are as a person (for instance, I do not view my work as me in my entirety). 

It's also a short leap from that argument against autonomy, to others of a similar nature eg pro-life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

YouSir said:


> Hell with you, the sins of Dwyer are not the sins of academia.


 
I haven't accused academia.
You can't really contest the fact that some academics come complete with selective memories, esecially when recalling where ideas originated?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see where that argument comes from, but I imagine that genuine sex workers consider their bodies to be their own, to do with as they please.


 I'll just make a LLETSA-style interruption here to say that a lot of people in the modern world don't have real control over their bodies, and this kind of "genuine" autonomy is always subject to a tight web of social pressures and economic demands.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see where that argument comes from, but I imagine that genuine sex workers consider their bodies to be their own, to do with as they please. And that the act of selling sex doesn't make them a sex object, because it's one act/series of acts rather than an expression of who they are as a person (for instance, I do not view my work as me in my entirety).
> 
> It's also a short leap from that argument against autonomy to others of a similar nature eg pro-life.


Yes, you can argue that a woman should be free to do whatever they want with their body, but that does not mean that it isn't damaging (to herself or others).  Feminism doesn't mean doing whatever you want with no consideration of the impact on others, does it?


----------



## love detective (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Ah I see. I guess the argument is that women as whole shouldn't be viewed primarily as sex objects whose own enjoyment of sex is secondary to a man's, who shouldn't be bought and used, and whose purpose isn't to serve men.


 
women as a whole, not women as a hole

see what i did there


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> I'll just make a LLETSA-style interruption here to say that a lot of people in the modern world don't have real control over their bodies, and this kind of "genuine" autonomy is always subject to a tight web of social pressures and economic demands.


Agreed. However, why should sex work be any worse than other work?


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Agreed. However, why should sex work be any worse than other work?


Is sex work the same as any other work?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, you can argue that a woman should be free to do whatever they want with their body, but that does not mean that it isn't damaging (to herself or others).  Feminism doesn't mean doing whatever you want with no consideration of the impact on others, does it?


Same as the pro-life argument when it comes down to it. The needs of the unborn, the rights of the father etc.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Is sex work the same as any other work?


Capitalism has made a huge industry of it. But I would sooner blame Capitalism than the individuals who make their choices within it.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

I think what I am trying to say with the choice thing is, an individual woman can make any decision she wants but just because it is a woman making it doesn't make it a feminist choice.  If your choices are harming other women then they are not feminist actions (even if they are autonomous decisions).  I think sex work is damaging, both to many/most of the women involved and to society, so if a person is making a true choice to be involved in it then that is something that could be criticised.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Same as the pro-life argument when it comes down to it. The needs of the unborn, the rights of the father etc.


I don't see the link, unless you are saying abortion damages women?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I think what I am trying to say with the choice thing is, an individual woman can make any decision she wants but just because it is a woman making it doesn't make it a feminist choice.  If your choices are harming other women then they are not feminist actions (even if they are autonomous decisions).  I think sex work is damaging, both to many/most of the women involved and to society, so if a person is making a true choice to be involved in it then that is something that could be criticised.


How does a sex worker that services housebound disabled men, harm women? (For the sake of example).


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Capitalism has made a huge industry of it. But I would sooner blame Capitalism than the individuals who make their choices within it.


Are all individuals blameless, whatever they do within capitalism?

I wouldn't blame, say, individual factory workers making missile parts, but I would criticise someone who has lots of opportunities available to them but chooses to work in the arms trade for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Fuck knows what some of these men would feel like if presented with some proper radfem politics
> 
> Edit: talking of which, this caused a shitstorm this year: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/


 
Some interesting views there!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I think what I am trying to say with the choice thing is, an individual woman can make any decision she wants but just because it is a woman making it doesn't make it a feminist choice. If your choices are harming other women then they are not feminist actions (even if they are autonomous decisions). I think sex work is damaging, both to many/most of the women involved and to society, so if a person is making a true choice to be involved in it then that is something that could be criticised.


 
Just musing on this.  Do you think a woman chosing to work in a menial minimum-wage job rather than doing sex work is more, or less, damaging to women "as a whole"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Have a look at that link I provided for an insight. There's some very unpleasant stuff at the heart of what's emerging (in my view).


 
There's definitely a tension between being either implicitly or explicitly "anti-fundamentalist", and having views that are, to all intents and purposes, fundamentalist.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't see the link, unless you are saying abortion damages women?


Abortion can be damaging to women, both physically and emotionally. But not always. And in any event, I believe that it's the woman's right to choose. Sex work can also be damaging to women. But not always. And if a woman decides that's what she wants to do, it's as much her right to choose that as any other potentially damaging job.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> How does a sex worker that services housebound disabled men, harm women? (For the sake of example).


Doesn't it get a bit arbitrary if you start trying to find lines between good and bad sex work?  I am leaning towards any form of buying or selling women for sex being damaging to women in this society.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Are all individuals blameless, whatever they do within capitalism?
> 
> I wouldn't blame, say, individual factory workers making missile parts, but I would criticise someone who has lots of opportunities available to them but chooses to work in the arms trade for example.


I see no reason not to extend the same arguments against Capitalism to sex work. I don't see why it should be viewed as special, or an exception.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Doesn't it get a bit arbitrary if you start trying to find lines between good and bad sex work?  I am leaning towards any form of buying or selling women for sex being damaging to women in this society.


It's as arbitrary as finding lines between any kind of acceptable work, for men or women.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I see no reason not to extend the same arguments against Capitalism to sex work. I don't see why it should be viewed as special, or an exception.


I do think it is exceptional.  There is a difference between, for example, having sex with someone and cutting their hair.  Certainly most people in this society do view sex as somewhat different to other everyday activities.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I do think it is exceptional.  There is a difference between, for example, having sex with someone and cutting their hair.  Certainly most people in this society do view sex as somewhat different to other everyday activities.


Incidentally, sex workers aren't confined to having sex. Is it just the actual act of sex that's the problem for you? How about chat lines?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> They don't accept trans women?! How far up their own arses are these clowns? They're so fucking radical there must be about 5 of them!


 
They don't accept trans women because most trans women aren't born with ovaries.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Incidentally, sex workers aren't confined to having sex. Is it just the actual act of sex that's the problem for you? How about chat lines?


Is talking dirty to someone on the phone just the same as cutting their hair then?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> And now faced with being asked for an opinion on radfem politics, from someone that grew up "in a much more radfem environment" you're reluctant and just offer again your opinion that you and your family don't think much of Cheryl Cole as a role model. Well, fine. Don't have her as one, then.


I can only remind you that I didn't choose to enter this thread, I was dragged into via a cross-post from another thread.  A thread that was about Girls Aloud, which made it directly relevant to talk specifically about Cheryl Cole. A thread in which a claim was made about Cheryl Cole that I disagreed with. I had no intention for that to be presented in this thread as if I thought it was an important point to make about feminism generally.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I can only remind you that I didn't choose to enter this thread, I was dragged into via a cross-post from another thread.  A thread that was about Girls Aloud, which made it directly relevant to talk specifically about Cheryl Cole. A thread in which a claim was made about Cheryl Cole that I disagreed with. I had no intention for that to be presented in this thread as if I thought it was an important point to make about feminism generally.


It was completely your choice about *how* you chose to enter the thread, even if you present Edie name checking you as in itself a position of being forced to respond.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Is talking dirty to someone on the phone just the same as cutting their hair then?


My point is that sex work encompasses more than just the actual act of sex.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> It was completely your choice about *how* you chose to enter the thread, even if you present Edie name checking you as in itself a position of being forced to respond.


Yes, and I entered it as I saw fit. But it's a bit rich of you telling me not to talk about Cheryl Cole when I am only here as a result of a refutation I made about a claim concerning Cheryl Cole.  Within the context of this thread, there is no way I would ever have brought her up, so you can keep your patronising "just don't have her as a role model then" to yourself, thank you.

And thank you too, Edie, for your context-free cross-post.  I really needed this.  Thanks for the "bloody men" rhetoric when I dared to respond too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes, the trans women acceptance has been an issue for a long time. But it seems to be getting far more vitriolic. Also, opinion seems to be polarising around the sex industry argument


 
Again.
I'm not sure it's wise for anyone, female or male, feminist or male chauvinist to be either proscriptive or prescriptive about the sex industry, except insofar as it might put the power (mostly economic and social) in the hands of the workers, not just the consumers and middlemen



> There's also the "privilege" discourse, which seems to be gaining traction. And also this retreat into "safe spaces".


 
That's been going on for a while now though, hasn't it? I'm aware it has its' roots in the idea of safe havens for women, but generally applied to women suffering from intrafamilial violence up until the '80s when it started being used by a few activists across the activist scene as a formula for exclusion. Nowadays things seem to have flipped, with exclusionary intent being to the fore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> And just to summarise my own position on sex workers and feminism. If you think that sex work is demeaning to the women involved, if you think they're being abused and you think it's damaging to women in general, then your move should surely be to support those workers, to find out what you can do to make their bargaining position stronger. Otherwise you're simply piling on the pressure on those people who're already facing a hard time.


 
There's always been a current in feminism which is as disapproving of sex work, and as contemptuous of sex workers, as is your average Catholic priest, unfortunately. It's not a powerful current presently, but it's there all the same.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Yes, and I entered it as I saw fit. But it's a bit rich of you telling me not to talk about Cheryl Cole when I am only here as a result of a refutation I made about a claim concerning Cheryl Cole.  Within the context of this thread, there is no way I would ever have brought her up, so you can keep your patronising "just don't have her as a rile model then" to yourself, thank you.
> 
> And thank you too, Edie, for your context-free cross-post.  I really needed this.


I didn't tell you not to talk about Cheryl Cole. Again with your misrepresentations. And if you can't handle being patronised, here's a tip - don't do it yourself.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2012)

The point about prostitution is that it can't be abolished.  Many anthropologists believe that it actually precedes unremunerated sex, historically speaking.  It has always existed everywhere.  We can safely assume that it always will.

So given that, the aim should be to make it as harmless as possible for all concerned.  Which can't be done through prohibition.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> My point is that sex work encompasses more than just the actual act of sex.


It does, does that make a difference though?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

Kabbes, I think you're taking a lot of this too personally. Maybe you should just leave it for a bit?


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's always been a current in feminism which is as disapproving of sex work, and as contemptuous of sex workers, as is your average Catholic priest, unfortunately. It's not a powerful current presently, but it's there all the same.


I have never met anyone who is contemptuous of sex workers - or at least the majority of sex workers.  Most feminists who disagree with sex work do because it generally involves women who have the fewest choices and least power in society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> But, if you believe sex work is damaging to women as a whole, why would you not criticise women who choose to be involved in it?


 
Depends on the basis for the belief, I'd have thought. Conceptually, you could make a case for the actions of sex workers (a minority of women) damaging the mass of women, but realistically you'd be building your castle on sand. Women are heterogeneous, effects are going to be diverse and uneven.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's been going on for a while now though, hasn't it? I'm aware it has its' roots in the idea of safe havens for women, but generally applied to women suffering from intrafamilial violence up until the '80s when it started being used by a few activists across the activist scene as a formula for exclusion. Nowadays things seem to have flipped, with exclusionary intent being to the fore.



Yes, it has. But it seems to be gathering pace. For example, I saw someone complaining (in response to a separate incident of chauvinism) that the Bookfair didn't have "safe spaces". For me, it's not just the exclusionary aspect but also the act of petitioning/demanding ... From who? All spaces should be safe unless it's clear that there's a dangerous element for example the risk of being arrested.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends on the basis for the belief, I'd have thought. Conceptually, you could make a case for the actions of sex workers (a minority of women) damaging the mass of women, but realistically you'd be building your castle on sand. Women are heterogeneous, effects are going to be diverse and uneven.


The actions of most sex workers are not freely made choices though are they?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> It does, does that make a difference though?


Well, that's my question really. Is it the act of sex itself that's the problem ie anti-chosen-prostitution, or is it an argument against all sex work?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> I have never met anyone who is contemptuous of sex workers - or at least the majority of sex workers. Most feminists who disagree with sex work do because it generally involves women who have the fewest choices and least power in society.


 
I can only say "you're lucky". I've heard some quite vicious stuff about local prostitutes from women who call themselves feminists, and some pretty revolting "debate" back in the '80s about "stupid junkie sluts dragging the cause down"


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Well, that's my question really. Is it the act of sex itself that's the problem ie anti-chosen-prostitution, or is it an argument against all sex work?


Sorry, I'm not following you - I thought we were talking about sex work as in sexual performance for money.  Do you mean some forms of sex work should be considered separately?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> The actions of most sex workers are not freely made choices though are they?


 
I don't know enough about what you class as sex work, or what you class as choice to answer you on that score.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Kabbes, I think you're taking a lot of this too personally. Maybe you should just leave it for a bit?


I am taking it personally. I feels pretty personal, to be honest. Cesare said that I would let those having meetings in strip clubs off lightly and backed it up with lots of "men shouldn't be posting about this anyway" stuff, which after five years of me posting about feminism feels like a slap in the face. And Edie chose to quote a post of mine from a completely different thread and then start up with her "bloody men" rhetoric when I defended it. It's fair to say that my feelings are hurt.

Tell you what, I'll just put both of them on ignore and be done with it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Sorry, I'm not following you - I thought we were talking about sex work as in sexual performance for money.  Do you mean some forms of sex work should be considered separately?


It's in response to you providing the two examples of selling sex to cutting hair. I was suggesting that there's a lot between those two positions.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's in response to you providing the two examples of selling sex to cutting hair. I was suggesting that there's a lot between those two positions.


What is sex work if not selling sex/sexual performance?  Hairdressers are not providing a sexual service.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> What is sex work if not selling sex/sexual performance?  Hairdressers are not providing a sexual service.


I'm asking if working on a chat line (which is selling sex) is worse than cutting hair? And if so, why?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2012)

Is it safe to come back in here yet?

I have been a bit put off by the recent manifestations of some overgrown males doing the equivelant of demanding to still be breast fed because mummy will always _belong_ to them! Damn her and any like her that put their foot down at some point to take ownership back/enforce boundaries over their bodies and their narratives/identities.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm asking if working on a chat line (which is selling sex) is worse than cutting hair? And if so, why?


Yes, because sex work damages women.  As an industry in damages women.

I don't doubt that some women, in positions of relative power with many choices available to them, choose to do sex work in a safe and enjoyable way.  But I also think this legitimises buying/selling woman for sex - so it is fine to buy a woman off the street because look at Belle Du Jour - she loved being a prostitute!


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I am taking it personally. I feels pretty personal, to be honest. Cesare said that I would let those having meetings in strip clubs off lightly and backed it up with lots of "men shouldn't be posting about this anyway" stuff, which after five years of me posting about feminism feels like a slap in the face. And Edie chose to quote a post of mine from a completely different thread and then start up with her "bloody men" rhetoric when I defended it. It's fair to say that my feelings are hurt.
> 
> Tell you what, I'll just put both of them on ignore and be done with it.


Sorry, I should have written that as a PM. By all means take stuff personally!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> What is sex work if not selling sex/sexual performance? Hairdressers are not providing a sexual service.


 
They *may* be facilitating it, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, because sex work damages women.


 
Please quantify!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, because sex work damages women.


Sex work *potentially* damages women. But not always.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Sex work *potentially* damages women. But not always.


Potentially damages individual women.  Is damaging to women as a social group.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Thora said:


> Potentially damages individual women.  Is damaging to women as a social group.


Unfortunately, whatever people's moral feelings on the matter, as Phil pointed out you can't get rid of prostitution unless you go down the prohibition route. Would you advocate that?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Unfortunately, whatever people's moral feelings on the matter, as Phil pointed out you can't get rid of prostitution unless you go down the prohibition route. Would you advocate that?


 
Seems a bit mixed up.

Never heard of prostitution being eliminated by prohibition...


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Unfortunately, whatever people's moral feelings on the matter, as Phil pointed out you can't get rid of prostitution unless you go down the prohibition route. Would you advocate that?


No, I don't think prohibition (or legalisation) would help matters.  I do think giving vulnerable women more power and more options would help though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> Seems a bit mixed up.
> 
> Never heard of prostitution being eliminated by prohibition...


I suppose that if you morally disapprove of prostitution, then you would want to get rid of it? Which is impossible unless you go down a prohibition route (which as pointed out doesn't necessarily eliminate it). Alternatively just take the line of harm reduction whilst disapproving.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I suppose that if you morally disapprove of prostitution, then you would want to get rid of it?


 
I wouldn't want to make legal changes that would make it massively more harmful and have little effect on its prevalence.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> I wouldn't want to make legal changes that would make it massively more harmful and have little effect on its prevalence.


Moral rectitude doesn't make it go away, either ( a general observation, not pointed at you).


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Moral rectitude doesn't make it go away, either ( a general observation, not pointed at you).


 
I'm not really sure what that's meant to mean tbf - are we just making a list of things which won't make prostitution go away?

In which case I'm adding truffles to the list.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> I'm not really sure what that's meant to mean tbf - are we just making a list of things which won't make prostitution go away?
> 
> In which case I'm adding truffles to the list.


I'm not sure that truffles add anything to the debate about the increasingly polarised position between (a) feminists that disapprove of sex work because they say that any kind of sex work damages all women, and (b) feminists that don't disapprove of sex work for whatever reason


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm not sure that truffles add anything to the debate about the increasingly polarised position between (a) feminists that disapprove of sex work because they say that any kind of sex work damages all women, and (b) feminists that don't disapprove of sex work for whatever reason


 
I didn't realise there was such a simple polarisation, but I've not been following micro-movements in feminist positions too closely.

Went to a feminist festival type thing a year or so back and was quite surprised by the presence of burlesque dancers.   Got the impression that there was general tolerance if a little discomfort from some quarters.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> I didn't realise there was such a simple polarisation, but I've not been following micro-movements in feminist positions too closely.
> 
> Went to a feminist festival type thing a year or so back and was quite surprised by the presence of burlesque dancers.   Got the impression that there was general tolerance if a little discomfort from some quarters.


The discussion arose out of radical feminism and positions emerging or become more polarised/fundamentalist/exclusionary as illustrated by: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/

I don't think there's a simple polarisation, because you can hold many views between the extremes.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't think there's a simple polarisation, because you can hold many views between the extremes.


 
Ok. I thought from your post before that there was an emerging 'split' into the two camps when you mentioned an 'increasingly polarised position between (a) feminists that disapprove of sex work because they say that any kind of sex work damages all women, and (b) feminists that don't disapprove of sex work for whatever reason'.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> Ok. I thought from your post before that there was an emerging 'split' into the two camps when you mentioned an 'increasingly polarised position between (a) feminists that disapprove of sex work because they say that any kind of sex work damages all women, and (b) feminists that don't disapprove of sex work for whatever reason'.


In the context of radfem politics, there may be (hence the link).


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

The social conditions that cause sex work (whether it's done by web-cam sessions, telephone or live) must be ended. Capitalism and its sharp end - sex work - the commodification of your mental being and your body itself - degrades women. I see pornography and sex work as a continuum.
Sex work and pornography by its very nature divides women - into those who men pick to ejaculate into and those who they avoid. It drives wedges within women and men.

I look forward to a future where we will not have to endure even the concept of sex work, whether it is live or pre-recorded (pornography). Its existence weakens social struggle, and promotes the concept of payment for inter-personal relations - a vile concept. Some pro-sex-worker efforts might mean strengthening rightist forces that want girlfriend-experience escort services as in Japan or Korea, friend-purchasing as happens in the U.S. paying people to spread good words about others on the internet, and child-selling as happens across the third world (What does a two year old know what happens to it?). Once you allow sex work, its strengthens arguments in favour of markets for kidney sales, 'legalised, hospital-based healthy kidney extraction would limit the side effects of the organ trade' (legalised brothels would stop the STDs argument).

As pornography continues its encroachment on mainstream culture, those who market sex are driving to popularise fetishism and kinks (more market). They are also happy to have sex work be rebranded as a new version of pornography - about 'choices' and female 'economic empowerment' and self-determination. They are also out to cover every medium possible - hence the saturation of internet sex-shows, from pay-per-view dogging events to personalised 'custom' mutual masturbation sessions across computer cameras. All while television and phone line sex work continues. The sex industry naturally wishes to colonise any new space available. Arguing for further decriminalisation for johns, and legalised brothels via an end to laws against brothels, pandering and acting as a pimp - could be hijacked by profit-seeking elements into 'normalcy' for sex work, as appears to be the case for pornography.

The alienation around the nuclear marriage (limited socialised childcare, assumptions about responsibilities within it and high divorce rates, something happening across all classes) provides the consumers (usually middle-aged men, very many divorcees who believe sex should be theirs by right of a wallet). The ongoing neoliberal assault on the working-class provides the workforce (usually _young_ working-class _women_). As long as both trends continue sex work and pornography will continue. 

Having said all this, I don't believe giving the capitalist state power to control pornography or sex-work is necessarily the way forward. I respect a lot of what Andrea Dworkin and US radical feminists did, but the anti-pornography ordinances she wrote and were secured in states like Oregon simply allowed them
to target gay and lesbian bookshops that sold erotica first - these bookshops were also 'radical' spaces. 
Massive resources went into court cases to defend the bookshops, reducing the movement's social programmes.

Anti-sex work measures that do not criminalise sex workers but do criminalise johns have been partially successful in Norway, Sweden and Iceland, but they won't succeed without generalised social struggle and economic opportunities for working-class people including women.
One dangerous result has emerged with state application of anti-sex trafficking legislation are the deporting of sex workers, ostensibly 'rescued' but forced to leave the country by G4S/BA removal at the same time.
The prospects for struggle in the sex work sector remain grim, to my knowledge neither the IUSW branch of GMB and nor the English Collective of Prostitutes have concentrated on trying to hold a strike of those they have gathered. I think they are wholly unable to enforce any kind of picket line. It doesn't  do anyone any favours to suggest that further measures to protect johns, would change the situation. It hasn't done so in New Zealand, where prostitution has been decriminalised in 2003 and now has a very liberal regime where anyone can 'freely' purchase sex from a brothel. 

The measures in both Norway criminalising johns and decriminalising sex workers, and in New Zealand decriminalising both - _appear_ to have had positive results for women being able to report assaults and have had positive effects on prostitute safety.
In practice in Norway few johns are arrested by police hunting them, it is an easier legal mechanism for when a sex worker reports a crime of direct assault or sexual behaviour under threat of direct violence, for that john to be successfully prosecuted.

In New Zealand some claim that the legalisation has made no difference at all to efforts to stop prostitution of children: 





> They ask “Why is it that there have been no prosecutions of buyers of under age sex since the law was introduced in mid-2003? Some 60% of these children and young people were identified by Police as being involved in street prostitution and therefore visible. The men who take advantage of them are also visible. A majority of these public transactions are taking place in one Police District. If the law was taken seriously then one would expect to see these predators appearing before the courts.”


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0504/S00256.htm

There was a international survey of johns in about 2002 which found something like a fifth saying they prefered under 18s and four fifths saying they prefered under 25s, and child sex abuse is still continuing within the sex industry.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

There's no real evidence that the legislation has done anything progressive in Sweden. The police say they're happy with the results, but all they can point to is that street prostitution has declined.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> There's no real evidence that the legislation has done anything progressive in Sweden. The police say they're happy with the results, but all they can point to is that street prostitution has declined.


Higher reporting rates for rape/assaults though. But conviction rates don't seem to be much higher?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Higher reporting rates for rape/assaults though.


 Since the criminalisation of sex buying?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Since the criminalisation of sex buying?


That was my understanding. Am I wrong?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> There's no real evidence that the legislation has done anything progressive in Sweden. The police say they're happy with the results, but all they can point to is that street prostitution has declined.


 
Street prostitution appears to have increased in New Zealand, going the opposite direction from Sweden.
The police in New Zealand say they are happy with the results because the street prostitution only occurs in areas that have the legalised brothels in them. Street prostitution cuts out overheads, a bit like unlicensed back garden cider selling, so it has increased or just become more visible where once it was hidden or dispersed and spread at a low density over a large area.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> That was my understanding. Am I wrong?


I took a look at the situation a while ago and I didn't see that. Can you point me to that info; sorry for missing it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> I took a look at the situation a while ago and I didn't see that. Can you point me to that info; sorry for missing it.


It's ages since I looked at it. However, Sweden does have a very high level of rape/assault reporting, which may not be linked to criminalising the buying of sex of course. It may always have been high. I'm not sure.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's ages since I looked at it. However, Sweden does have a very high level of rape/assault reporting, which may not be linked to criminalising the buying of sex of course. It may always have been high.


It's been high; since well before the sex-buying legislation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

I find the Swedish approach incredibly patronising, tbh. Men are criminalised for buying sex and sent on reeducation courses to show them how wrong they were if they're caught. If anything, this smacks of something akin to patriarchy to me - women selling sex being told by society that they are victims whether they consider themselves victims or not.

Perhaps more seriously, such criminalisation leaves women who are still prostitutes with no protection, doesn't it?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> It's been high; since well before the sex-buying legislation.


I think I've also read something to suggest that rape reporting is recorded differently in Sweden e.g.  every incident which would have the effect of showing increased figures of eg domestic rape compared to eg the UK where (as I understand it) reporting of domestic rape is one incident per victim.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find the Swedish approach incredibly patronising, tbh. Men are criminalised for buying sex and sent on reeducation courses to show them how wrong they were if they're caught. If anything, this smacks of something akin to patriarchy to me - women selling sex being told by society that they are victims whether they consider themselves victims or not


 
How is that like patriarchy? Men are being re-educated not women.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find the Swedish approach incredibly patronising, tbh. Men are criminalised for buying sex and sent on reeducation courses to show them how wrong they were if they're caught. If anything, this smacks of something akin to patriarchy to me - women selling sex being told by society that they are victims whether they consider themselves victims or not


It certainly seems unpopular with prostitutes.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find the Swedish approach incredibly patronising, tbh. Men are criminalised for buying sex and sent on reeducation courses to show them how wrong they were if they're caught. If anything, this smacks of something akin to patriarchy to me - women selling sex being told by society that they are victims whether they consider themselves victims or not


There is now no word for "prostitute" in official use in Sweden. The word instead used refers to "someone who has been prostituted". Not the the old words were anything but insulting, but the recent change in terminology reflects an official attitude informed by both Lutheranism and also a strand of feminism.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> There is now no word for "prostitute" in official use in Sweden. The word instead used refers to "someone who has been prostituted". Not the the old words were anything but insulting, but the recent change in terminology reflects an official attitude informed by both Lutheranism and also a strand of feminism.


That's interesting. Even the language changing ... you cannot be a prostitute, you can only be someone who has been prostituted.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's interesting. Even the language changing ... you cannot be a prostitute, you can only be someone who has been prostituted.


Yes, that's it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's interesting. Even the language changing ... you cannot be a prostitute, you can only be someone who has been prostituted.


A change from active to passive. Taking women's autonomy away from them, no? Denying the possibility of their agency?

I'm not trying to deny all the insidious power relations that are involved in prostitution, but aren't the worst excesses of these tackled by ensuring that _pimping_ is cracked down on?

Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Yes, that's it.


I can see why you said it was informed by Lutheranism.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?


 It's no more illegal than female prostitution http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexköpslagen


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can see why you said it was informed by Lutheranism.


It's almost the same as the official attitude towards drugs.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A change from active to passive. Taking women's autonomy away from them, no? Denying the possibility of their agency?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny all the insidious power relations that are involved in prostitution, but aren't the worst excesses of these tackled by ensuring that _pimping_ is cracked down on?
> 
> Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?



Talking of pimping, I recently read a piece that purported to give the Marxist perspective. One of the key points was that the sex industry has moved from the realms of the petit bourgeois pimps to employer relationships on a grand scale.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> It's almost the same as the official attitude towards drugs.


And alcohol. "It was the drink that caused the problem!" I even read that suggestion put to Assange in those witness statements, however he didn't pick up on that clue in his response.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A change from active to passive. Taking women's autonomy away from them, no? Denying the possibility of their agency?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny all the insidious power relations that are involved in prostitution, but aren't the worst excesses of these tackled by ensuring that _pimping_ is cracked down on?
> 
> Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?


 
Nasty encounters with a john, or a forced penetration beyond agreed terms - rape - suggest pimping is not the cause of the worst excesses, rather a manifestation of the general male-female inequality.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Talking of pimping, I recently read a piece that purported to give the Marxist perspective. One of the key points was that the sex industry has moved from the realms of the petit bourgeois pimps to employer relationships on a grand scale.


Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid arrangements so that they have protection. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid _*arrangements so that they have protection*_. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.


 
Can you explain this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Can you explain this?


A woman working on her own is incredibly vulnerable to abuse. A woman working as part of a group who are all looking out for each other is more protected. I admit that I don't have the evidence to back this up. Someone who knows more might be able to comment.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A woman working on her own is incredibly vulnerable to abuse. A woman working as part of a group who are all looking out for each other is more *protected*. I admit that I don't have the evidence to back this up. Someone who knows more might be able to comment.


 
Protected from rape or mental and psychological harm?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Protected from rape or mental and psychological harm?


Protected from rape, yes. Their clients know there will be consequences if they misbehave.

As for psychological harm, hard to say. To an extent, though, yes, in that all of us are happier if we have a sense of autonomy and control in what we do.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid arrangements so that they have protection. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.


There is a labour movement for sex workers. Just some general info here, I haven't looked into the provenance of the author. 
http://inthesetimes.com/working/ent...r_the_oldest_profession_sex_workers_organize/


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Protected from rape, yes. Their clients know there will be consequences if they misbehave.
> 
> As for psychological harm, hard to say. To an extent, though, yes, in that all of us are happier if we have a sense of autonomy and control in what we do.


 
Obviously it's a better situation than what we have at present if the sex industry were to become all-women, but given the reality of sex workers and johns, all-female brothels with protection afforded by women would be undercut by lone possibly trauma-survivors or former abuse victims or hard drug addicts working in single situations. Providing that extra security, an extra two women to the sex worker performing the sex act, means pushing up prices or devaluing the rate of your work/increasing the hours you work.
The situation you describe occurs, I believe, in some red light districts of India where women are forced to operate a system of housing their children in lower rooms looked after by sex workers off duty, while in the upper rooms the sex acts take place. It basically means committing your life to aspects of the trade, either enduring the sex act or providing defense for others doing likewise.

(Most men feel less dirty, by as much 'action' or 'experience' as they can get for as little as they can pay. The less money they pay the better they can feel about having degraded someone.)
For the situation you describe to make sense a social revolution would have to have occurred, where no weak and poor women would undercut the brothels. And if a social revolution does occur sex work will be swept away.

Alternative female employment should be opened for women - that's the only long-term way to struggle against the ills associated with sex work; the current decriminalisation or criminalisation debate is something of a red herring. Having said that, something inside me does believe men who are johns should have (at the very least) their income and assets seized and handed out to poor women including single mothers, abuse victims and former or current sex workers, pornography workers - but that's only going to come as a result of mass social struggle and/or social revolution. This would at least undermine those who say criminalisation is a bad thing in and of itself. The criminalisation in Sweden is not done properly or harshly enough, if we are going to argue over reform measures.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Sex work existed before Capitalism, what makes you think it wouldn't exist after it? (Sihhi)


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Sex work existed before Capitalism, what makes you think it wouldn't exist after it? (Sihhi)


 
Because the social revolution being fought for should be a feminist anti-capitalist one.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Because the social revolution being fought for should be a feminist anti-capitalist one.


First get your feminists agreeing then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Alternative female employment should be opened for women - that's the only long-term way to struggle against the ills associated with sex work; t


In the meantime, isn't the reality that many women can earn far more from prostitution than from any other kind of job open to them. The choices open to them may be earning 1k a week, perhaps, from prostitution or 200 a week from Tesco. This is one of the reasons why I'm uneasy with the approach that sees all prostitutes as victims. In purely monetary terms, they may be making more than their clients, and if they don't see themselves as victims, who are we to tell them that they are?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> There is a labour movement for sex workers. Just some general info here, I haven't looked into the provenance of the author.
> http://inthesetimes.com/working/ent...r_the_oldest_profession_sex_workers_organize/


 
Virtually all the unions for sex workers mentioned are advocacy organisations led, most commonly, by former sex workers who get their resources from other groups. It doesn't change anything for them to be labelled one way or another, but it is worth remembering that they don't function in the way most unions (are supposed to) function i.e. they don't receive subs from members, don't have any kind of structure operating from the base to supposedly represent the interests of their members, and don't attempt to organise industrial action.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Virtually all the unions for sex workers mentioned are advocacy organisations led, most commonly, by former sex workers who get their resources from other groups. It doesn't change anything for them to be labelled one way or another, but it is worth remembering that they don't function in the way most unions (are supposed to) function i.e. they don't receive subs from members, don't have any kind of structure operating from the base to supposedly represent the interests of their members, and don't attempt to organise industrial action.


Are you suggesting that they're pointless?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> The criminalisation in Sweden is not done properly or harshly enough, if we are going to argue over reform measures.


Problem with criminalisation of an activity is that it means that those who continue to engage in that activity can have no protection from the law. As with the illegal drugs trade, in which the very illegality of the activity means that you may be sold dangerously cut drugs by unscrupulous dealers. Criminalising prostitution potentially leaves prostitutes in a very dangerous position.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the meantime, isn't the reality that many women can earn far more from prostitution than from any other kind of job open to them. The choices open to them may be earning 1k a week, perhaps, from prostitution or 200 a week from Tesco. This is one of the reasons why I'm uneasy with the approach that sees all prostitutes as victims. In purely monetary terms, they may be making more than their clients, and if they don't see themselves as victims, who are we to tell them that they are?


 
I haven't used the v-word. I'm not telling anyone what they are; however the johns aren't simply consumers of a service like a haircut.

With all respect, LBJ is your point about working at Tesco meant to change the overall social importance of ending the sex-work relationship? People who sell a kidney of theirs on the black market will earn above what they can get working in a supermarket for a whole year. Cannabis dealing is far more lucrative as a simple economic equation for a teenager to do rather than £40 a week on an apprenticeship. Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless. Drug gangs, organ sales and sex work will need total social change to sweep them away.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem with criminalisation of an activity is that it means that those who continue to engage in that activity can have no protection from the law. As with the illegal drugs trade, in which the very illegality of the activity means that you may be sold dangerously cut drugs by unscrupulous dealers. Criminalising prostitution potentially leaves prostitutes in a very dangerous position.


I think you'll find that anything short of revolution, is reformist for Sihhi. Therefore if reformist (ie adapting current system) measures are to be suggested, then they must be done harshly/properly otherwise they'd be liberal.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless.


 
This. I don't think either is helpful. Too black and white a view of something really complex.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> With all respect, LBJ is your point about working at Tesco meant to change the overall social importance of ending the sex-work relationship?


I'm not sure this is a realistic aspiration, tbh. And if it isn't a realistic aspiration, then harm reduction becomes the most important thing, imo.

I favour the decriminalisation of all drug use. Not because I think drug use is good, but because I think criminalisation of drug use makes a bad situation much worse. I have pretty much the same position wrt sex work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless.


Criminalising prostitution - at least in the way it has been done in Sweden, namely criminalising men who pay for sex - _is_ labelling sex workers victims.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are you suggesting that they're pointless?


 
No. Where have I even said anything even remotely on those lines?

Pembe Hayat the organisation mentioned draws funding from: Mama Cash Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Fund, Global Fund for Women, HIV Young Leaders Fund, UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, Finnish Embassy, HIV Thematic Trust Fund, Transgender Europe, British Embassy, Swedish Consulate, Soros Foundations Network, Movies That Matter and others. None of that means it doesn't do important work such as sexual health advice and protests against the Turkish legal system that allows sometimes allows a leniency tariff reduction in cases of murder for travesti 'transvestites'.

Recently their leader received a short prison sentences over resisting police harassment, in connection with their campaign against the police intimidation. Some details here:
http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/16429

I merely pointed out that the name might cause a misunderstanding of who they are and what they do.
Because of their funding sources they are not able to link up with the "anti-capitalist" womens' movement in the country and struggle explicitly for alternative employment. That women's movement operates in a different way largely by helping women shift from brothel or sex work into womens' shelters to engage to do training in something else (as well as a range of other stuff).
In my estimation, neither should really be termed a sex workers' union, but the funding for Pembe Hayat would definitely dry up if they went on a plan of action to attack foreign business interests and organise women workers there.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Criminalising prostitution - at least in the way it has been done in Sweden, namely criminalising men who pay for sex - _is_ labelling sex workers victims.


 
Random will know better than me but very few men in Sweden are ever criminalised or brought to book just for transacting sex from a sex worker.

I state: describing "sex workers" as "victims" does as much good as describing them as (non-victim) "autonomous agents".


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> No. Where have I even said anything even remotely on those lines?
> 
> Pembe Hayat the organisation mentioned draws funding from: Mama Cash Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Fund, Global Fund for Women, HIV Young Leaders Fund, UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, Finnish Embassy, HIV Thematic Trust Fund, Transgender Europe, British Embassy, Swedish Consulate, Soros Foundations Network, Movies That Matter and others. None of that means it doesn't do important work such as sexual health advice and protests against the Turkish legal system that allows sometimes allows a leniency tariff reduction in cases of murder for travesti 'transvestites'.
> 
> ...


Pembe Hayat was just one of the organisations mentioned in that article, but your original point was a *general* one about how the labour movement is organised for sex workers. Thanks for explaining about this particular aspect.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Random will know better than me but very few men in Sweden are ever criminalised or brought to book just for transacting sex from a sex worker.
> 
> I state: describing "sex workers" as "victims" does as much good as describing them as (non-victim) "autonomous agents".


The language now describes sex work as something that is done to them. How does that infer autonomy?


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Obviously it's a better situation than what we have at present if the sex industry were to become all-women, but given the reality of sex workers and johns, all-female brothels with protection afforded by women would be undercut by lone possibly trauma-survivors or former abuse victims or hard drug addicts working in single situations. Providing that extra security, an extra two women to the sex worker performing the sex act, means pushing up prices or devaluing the rate of your work/increasing the hours you work.
> The situation you describe occurs, I believe, in some red light districts of India where women are forced to operate a system of housing their children in lower rooms looked after by sex workers off duty, while in the upper rooms the sex acts take place. It basically means committing your life to aspects of the trade, either enduring the sex act or providing defense for others doing likewise.
> 
> (Most men feel less dirty, by as much 'action' or 'experience' as they can get for as little as they can pay. The less money they pay the better they can feel about having degraded someone.)
> ...


Look I'm sorry but your just talking out of your arse.

First, no one calls punters johns here  Punters, service users, clients, bookings. Not johns. That's american.

Second, a lot of brothels _are_ female run. You see, brothel is a wide term. It basically means any indoor work, where there two or more working girls. So this can mean everything from a fairly well established sauna, with multiple wg's working shifts (these I grant you are most often owned by men, but not _always_, lot of madams out there too); an agency incall flat, used for incall bookings but used by all girls from the same agency (at different times obv); right down to two working girls working out the same incall flat (by FAR the most common set up in terms of 'brothels').

A fact for you: in Leeds about 600 working girls working as independents and on top of that about another 200 agency-only wg's. There are about 40 (most) girls who work street.

And yes, you say in India that shock horror prostitutes swop childcare, well guess what! They do here too (although thank christ conditions are better and it's not in the same building, it's babysitting swops). And wg's look out for each other too, pool resources for flats security, act as buddys (where you ring to check in before/after punts), or tour together. As it should be.

You saying that anything that pushes up prices (such as it costing more to get security) will be undercut by street, shows that you have NO real understanding of the industry. Yer sure, some punters want as cheap as they can get. And those are the fucking scum (and believe me you will NEVER hate them as much as me) who use street girls, who almost always have drug problems and abusive pasts and presents. But a lot of punters don't just want cheap. There is an entire section of punters who don't pay below £100/hr (even if they are reverse booking). And a whole lot of punters who treat wg's with respect, before during and after a booking.

Finally, decriminalisation/criminalisation is not a red herring. You scorn what happened in New Zealand. Lemme tell you, that has been welcomed with open arms by prostitutes there, it has increased their access to healthcare, increased their security, lessened the stigma. Sure they still have a problem with street. But it is a very well supported (by NZ society) legislation, that has been challenged yet upheld each time.

There are enormous problems associated with sex work. The biggest of which is the danger of working alone. *Views like yours endanger working girls.*


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

And to the person who PMd me asking why I was banging on about sex work and feminism again, let me tell you this... I don't bring it to feminisms door, they bring it to mine. Every fucking time I read a piece about 'the new feminism' the 'leading feminist' ALWAYS spouts of views about prostitutes. They stand outside fucking clubs. And they tell us we're letting the sisterhood down.

Frankly I would be glad not to have to defend sex workers rights from feminists (it seems so utterly insane that I do that I despair), but they are one of the major groups (with religious people) making working conditions more dangerous and actively promoting stigma against working girls.

That said cesare is doing a better job than I can cos it's all too emotive for me, as we all know lol.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

FFS Edie you're entitled to 'bang on about' whatever you like. They're your opinions and you have just as much a place in the debate as anyone else!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> FFS Edie you're entitled to 'bang on about' whatever you like. They're your opinions and you have just as much a place in the debate as anyone else!


Absolutely.

Edit: I can't do a better job than you, Edie. I don't know enough about the realities.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> FFS Edie you're entitled to 'bang on about' whatever you like. They're your opinions and you have just as much a place in the debate as anyone else!


The irony is, I bet if you asked 20 Mums in the playground what they considered to be the most important objectives of feminism, hardly fucking anyone would say 'abolish prostitution'. It'd be so far down the list it wouldn't be worth a mention, yet for some reason the middle class bloody "feminists" that write the books and give interviews ALWAYS go on and on about it!

I mean jesus fucking wept.

Equal wages
Better maternity and fair split with paternity
Women having the chance to choose not to work and bring up their kids, income support to reflect this in it's support of single mothers
Caring work paid better
More women in government
More women writing the media, on the tele

I could go on. Just fucking pick one of them and leave sex work out of it. No one cares about your bigoted views you bunch of patronising bitches. And Moran. Buy some fucking straighteners, you look like a badgers fucking arse.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Pembe Hayat was just one of the organisations mentioned in that article, but your original point was a *general* one about how the labour movement is organised for sex workers. Thanks for explaining about this particular aspect.


 
The situation for PH, which I know best, is similar to that for AMMAR in Argentina.

As for Britain's IUSW 

It posts up this claims at the top: 
"There is no evidence that most purchasers of sexual services wish to buy services from the unwilling. In fact, clients can be part of the process of identifying trafficking. In Turkey the government set up a well-publicised hotline for reporting trafficking, across all industries. In the six months to January 2006, 3/4 of the tip offs came from sex workers’ clients. Here, cases have come to court after clients paid tens of thousands of pounds to free women from slavery."

That comment fails to recognise that in many who reported coercion in Turkey did so as 'clients' who were very bravely playing the role but allied with womens' organisations, sent to uncover the reality of the extent of the abuse. Women can't get into to brothels unless they become sex workers, so it was working-class men, mostly leftists I believe, doing it.



The problems with the IUSW accepting pimps and other managers into its ranks are detailed here, there's other stuff elsewhere.

IUSW then goes on to encourage lobbying by all sex worker and john alike, instead of industrial action, against the Scottish government enacting some form of legislation similar to Sweden.
http://www.iusw.org

By asking 


> Are you a sex worker, a client or an individual interested in human rights and safety for sex workers? Politicians need to know the realities of sex work, so let’s tell them!


 
and then giving some of these absurd (where not grossly disablist) pointers:




> If you see disabled clients who would otherwise never experience the joy of skin to skin contact, SAY SO.
> 
> If you feel that making it illegal for your clients to pay you is not going to tackle trafficking or ‘reduce demand’ but deprive you of a living, SAY SO.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

> _If you see disabled clients who would otherwise never experience the joy of skin to skin contact, SAY SO._
> 
> _If you feel that making it illegal for your clients to pay you is not going to tackle trafficking or ‘reduce demand’ but deprive you of a living, SAY SO._
> 
> ...


Yay for the IUSW 

Punters and working girls alike don't like trafficking. One of the most common (almost ubiquitous) FAQs on AW is 'Are you British: YES I AM'. Cos as a working girl you are CONSTANTLY  asked it. Trafficked girls get bad field reports, punters don't like it. And all major boards (saafe, punternet etc) encourage instant reporting to the police of any suspicion of trafficking or underage.

It goes on. I'm not gonna say it doesn't. Legislation would make it MUCH harder for bait n switch to happen.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

So, Sihhi, your criticism isn't that the labour movement is pointless (sorry for misunderstanding that, and thanks for clarifying) but one of *how* they've self organised?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

> You saying that anything that pushes up prices (such as it costing more to get security) will be undercut by street, shows that you have NO real understanding of the industry. Yer sure, some punters want as cheap as they can get. And those are the fucking scum (and believe me you will NEVER hate them as much as me) who use street girls, who almost always have drug problems and abusive pasts and presents. But a lot of punters don't just want cheap. There is an entire section of punters who don't pay below £100/hr (even if they are reverse booking). And a whole lot of punters who treat wg's with respect, before during and after a booking.


 
So 'girlfriend experience' means good money for those young and suited for their johns to provide it.
Where does it leave those who hate the thought of being penetrated, those who are old and un-desired by 'punters'/johns? The only answer from your perspective is 'sex work is not for them'... as meaningless as telling people who refuse to sell their children to adoption agencies it's not for them. 
Do £100-an-hour sessions invalidate the wider social reality? Seeing as you mentioned your experience as an attempt to declare New Zealand but not Sweden the way forward, I will have to explain mine. 
I know (not very well) but enough only (via my mother) one woman who 'worked' out of necessity/circumstances at a 'massage parlour'. But the memories of pain are so great that writing about or talking about them are so severe, that many ex-workers do not wish to return to discuss them.
(It was only shared very carefully with my mother, and in particular circumstances and conditions).
As my mother explained it, to her, it wasn't the fear because these were places apparently well controlled by security guards, (the workers needed to be in good condition for 'clients' to choose them) but the life itself that was horrible. But as far as I understand it was good money.
Also I can mention one other thing: a long time ago, on a Friday evening when I was a teenager waiting for friends at a specific location, I was approached by a woman English offering oral sex in a public toilet just across the road for "a tenner". (I sort of shook my head terrified and tried to walk away, and I didn't tell anyone for a long time  afterwards but explained it to someone many years later who explained that yes people  would go in cars looking for oral sex in their vehicles down that road and it was common, but everyone around was afraid of the johns and/or drug dealers  so nothing happened until the place became renovated and more people began using the stretch)



> Finally, decriminalisation/criminalisation is not a red herring. You scorn what happened in New Zealand. Lemme tell you, that has been welcomed with open arms by prostitutes there, it has increased their access to healthcare, increased their security, lessened the stigma. Sure they still have a problem with street. But it is a very well supported (by NZ society) legislation, that has been challenged yet upheld each time.


 
Decriminalisation/criminalisation for johns not sex workers. Sex workers themselves should not be prosecuted, I said it to LBJ and I'll repeat it again here - criminalisation of sex workers and criminalisation of groups of sex workers working from one location must be overcome. But the NZ model is no superior thing compared to  scorning it, it's other people in NZ explaining that under-18 females are still being abused as prostitutes in one district of Auckland within the sex industry. That's not street - decriminalisation of johns - without any wider effort remains stuck. 
Those in favour of the Norway approach also say that access and take-up of health has increased because of the decriminalisation of sex workers. But criminalising johns in Norway has not stopped the wider reality of the sex trade still going on.



> There are enormous problems associated with sex work. The biggest of which is the danger of working alone. *Views like yours endanger working girls.*


 
Where have I suggested that people should do sex work alone? I'm saying that forming collective arrangements amongst those able to do so will not prevent lone sex work. How does that endanger a sex worker? Sex workers like other workers should be together to act collectively of course, that's true for them as it is for any other worker.
So I encourage agglomeration and bigger units and collective self-defense. But willing it won't make it happen, and even where it does happen, lone sex work still emerges under capitalist pressure. That's been the experience of Mumbai.
Re:Childcare. If I'm in favour of socialised childcare for the whole of society, then I am I'm favour of it for sex workers too. (I'd prefer it if johns were doing their share of childcare, instead of paying £100 an hour)


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> So, Sihhi, your criticism isn't that the labour movement is pointless (sorry for misunderstanding that, and thanks for clarifying) but one of *how* they've self organised?


 
That's Cath Elliott's criticism, IUSW organising with "punters" and "pimps" and "managers of escort agencies" means it is not as effective, not as accurate a voice.
It's a standard point for the labour movement, when you accept managers and those outside of the field of emotional labour or itself, the managers' perspective, slightly modified, wins - that's absolutely the case be it GMB or UCU or UNITE.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> The irony is, I bet if you asked 20 Mums in the playground what they considered to be the most important objectives of feminism, hardly fucking anyone would say 'abolish prostitution'. It'd be so far down the list it wouldn't be worth a mention, yet for some reason the middle class bloody "feminists" that write the books and give interviews ALWAYS go on and on about it!
> 
> I mean jesus fucking wept.


 
In my opinion, the way prostitution is viewed by feminist academics can be very quite...well, not narrow-minded, but focused on the "shame and stigma" aspect, rather than taking on board that the "shame" and "stigma" are external values (usually religious) projected onto sex workers. I've got more time for women like Sheila Kitzinger, who does research into womens' attitudes to issues like sex-work and rape, than I do for someone like Caitlin Moran, who's basically a gobshite.



> Equal wages
> Better maternity and fair split with paternity
> Women having the chance to choose not to work and bring up their kids, income support to reflect this in it's support of single mothers
> Caring work paid better
> ...


 
Thing is, I don't think that feminism, especially that espoused by the middle-classes - that censorious and restrictive feminism that's all about "do as I say", not "how can I help?", can bring itself to let go of the sex work issue. Who would such feminists have to look down on, if they had to leave sex-workers alone?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> That's Cath Elliott's criticism, IUSW organising with "punters" and "pimps" and "managers of escort agencies" means it is not as effective, not as accurate a voice.
> It's a standard point for the labour movement, when you accept managers and those outside of the field of emotional labour or itself, the managers' perspective, slightly modified, wins - that's absolutely the case be it GMB or UCU or UNITE.


I understand the standard point for the sex workers labour movement, but this is a wider point for the *whole* traditional labour movement. And also unions have managers of their own. And also unions modify the workers voices to the employer. All valid criticisms. I'm not sure that I can add anything more than the sex worker labour movement certainly isn't alone in this, so I'm not too sure if it adds anything in the context of feminisim.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> And to the person who PMd me asking why I was banging on about sex work and feminism again, let me tell you this... I don't bring it to feminisms door, they bring it to mine. Every fucking time I read a piece about 'the new feminism' the 'leading feminist' ALWAYS spouts of views about prostitutes. They stand outside fucking clubs. And they tell us we're letting the sisterhood down.
> 
> Frankly I would be glad not to have to defend sex workers rights from feminists (it seems so utterly insane that I do that I despair), but they are one of the major groups (with religious people) making working conditions more dangerous and actively promoting stigma against working girls.
> 
> That said cesare is doing a better job than I can cos it's all too emotive for me, as we all know lol.


 
Johns are so fixed an unchangeable part of your assumptions here that you've not even identified not the male consumer wing, the "punternet" crew as a major group making working conditions dangerous but feminists effectively lumping them politically with religious people. 

I don't know whether I see feminists actively promoting stigma against sex workers or making working conditions dangerous. Even liberal feminists like Caitlin Moran, who is hypocritical about the division between burlesque or strip clubs, don't encourage stigma against the workers of strip clubs but the men and the city banker firms who use them. I appreciate your posts, but that's just a outrageous against feminists. It's creating stigma against feminists.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

It's legal to exchange and buy sex for money in the uk. It is ALREADY decriminalised. The law currently protects punters, whilst making sex workers vulnerable. But I think we probably agree on that 

Just fwiw, the myth that all sex workers are young, is just that. A *myth*. Most sex workers are in their 20s and 30s, but a substantial number are in their 40s, and there are women up to the age of 71 working in West Yorkshire. Most of these will offer GFE.

£100 is a standard incall cost in the north of England. Standard outcall is £120-150. That is not the priviledge "high class" call girl. That is the AVERAGE. I'm just saying this so you can arm yourself with the actual facts 



> I know (not very well) but enough only (via my mother) one woman who 'worked' out of necessity/circumstances at a 'massage parlour'. But the memories of pain are so great that writing about or talking about them are so severe, that many ex-workers do not wish to return to discuss them.


 
Yes. Some women are very traumatised by sex work. I acknowledge that.

A lot aren't though  : http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=10226.0

edit: 


> When you are about to book that hair appointment and tell yourself
> 
> "Say_ blow__*DRY*_!"


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I understand the standard point for the sex workers labour movement, but this is a wider point for the *whole* traditional labour movement. And also unions have managers of their own. And also unions modify the workers voices to the employer. All valid criticisms. I'm not sure that I can add anything more than the sex worker labour movement certainly isn't alone in this, so I'm not too sure if it adds anything in the context of feminisim.


 
CE's point was the IUSW's supposedly authoritative voice for sex workers was being drowned out by including male escort agency bosses as members. That's a feminist argument as much as a radical labour argument.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi are you a man or a woman?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

GFE?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

Since the law was changed in 1999 there have been over 4100 men charged with buying sex http://mobil.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14170109.ab


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> CE's point was the IUSW's supposedly authoritative voice for sex workers was being drowned out by including male escort agency bosses as members. That's a feminist argument as much as a radical labour argument.


Then it's a feminist point for all women who belong to a union where the union admits membership of male bosses (including their own internal FT structure). It's not specific to sex workers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> and then giving some of these absurd (where not grossly disablist) pointers:
> 
> *If you see disabled clients who would otherwise never experience the joy of skin to skin contact, SAY SO.*


 
Not sure that's "grossly disablist" so much as realism informed by working contact with disabled punters. It's always been an issue (with both male and female disabled people) that for some, buying sex to relieve the physical and emotional need is rational behaviour. It means they can do things on their own terms, with "no strings".
And yeah, some disabled people do worry that they'll never experience sex. Square normals may not approve of crips fucking, but that's tough shit for them.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> £100 is a standard incall cost in the north of England. Standard outcall is £120-150. That is not the priviledge "high class" call girl. That is the AVERAGE. I'm just saying this so you can arm yourself with the actual facts


 
I didn't mention "high class", price demands do vary widely, as you know.
As you know, girlfriend experience doesn't necessarily mean "high class".


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Johns are so fixed an unchangeable part of your assumptions here that you've not even identified not the male consumer wing, the "punternet" crew as a major group making working conditions dangerous but feminists effectively lumping them politically with religious people.
> 
> I don't know whether I see feminists actively promoting stigma against sex workers or making working conditions dangerous. Even liberal feminists like Caitlin Moran, who is hypocritical about the division between burlesque or strip clubs, don't encourage stigma against the workers of strip clubs but the men and the city banker firms who use them. I appreciate your posts, but that's just a outrageous against feminists. It's creating stigma against feminists.


Stigmatising punters is stigmatising sex work is stigmatising sex workers. And please stop calling them johns. It just sounds so weird


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I didn't mention "high class", price demands do vary widely, as you know.
> As you know, girlfriend experience doesn't necessarily mean "high class".


You don't seem to know that much so I was just tellin you what the average was as you said


> Do £100-an-hour sessions invalidate the wider social reality?


which I thought ment you considered 100 on the hour to be not representative. It was just a point on fact


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not sure that's "grossly disablist" so much as realism informed by working contact with disabled punters. It's always been an issue (with both male and female disabled people) that for some, buying sex to relieve the physical and emotional need is rational behaviour. It means they can do things on their own terms, with "no strings".
> And yeah, some disabled people do worry that they'll never experience sex. Square normals may not approve of crips fucking, but that's tough shit for them.


Yep. Blind, deaf, skin conditions, LDs. Had all them.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> And please stop calling them johns. It just sounds so weird


 
Hear, hear.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not sure that's "grossly disablist" so much as realism informed by working contact with disabled punters. It's always been an issue (with both male and female disabled people) that for some, buying sex to relieve the physical and emotional need is rational behaviour. _It means they can do things on their own terms, with "no strings"._
> And yeah, some disabled people do worry that they'll never experience sex. Square normals may not approve of crips fucking, but that's tough shit for them.


 
I can see we're not going gonna agree.
The idea of what you're writing, that of there being some kind of right to sex is exactly 'a nonsense on stilts' as whoever it was said. I understand why it happens and I believe a less anti-disabled society must be the aim, not a buying-sex dependent society. No strings? Strung up all over.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> You don't seem to know that much so I was just tellin you what the average was as you said
> which I thought ment you considered 100 on the hour to be not representative. It was just a point on fact


 
No, it's social effect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's interesting. Even the language changing ... you cannot be a prostitute, you can only be someone who has been prostituted.


 
"Abolitionist" Feminists tend to use the term "prostituted woman", while many pro-prostitution (and/or "harm reduction") Feminists prefer to talk about "sex workers". Both are highly ideological in intent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I can see we're not going gonna agree.
> The idea of what you're writing, that of there being some kind of right to sex is exactly 'a nonsense on stilts' as whoever it was said. I understand why it happens and I believe a less anti-disabled society must be the aim, not a buying-sex dependent society. No strings? Strung up all over.


 
I haven't written, or even implied that there's a "right to sex" of any kind, so please don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken. All I've done is state, based on my own receipt of anecdote from other disabled people, that for *some* disabled people, buying sex relieves their physical and emotional needs where otherwise they might have to rely on being in a relationship (not an option for a significant minority of disabled people). Any idea what it's like to be in a position where you're unable to even masturbate? Somehow I doubt it, or you wouldn't be spouting your Utopian _spiel_.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Abolitionist" Feminists tend to use the term "prostituted woman", while many pro-prostitution (and/or "harm reduction") Feminists prefer to talk about "sex workers". Both are highly ideological in intent.


What's the non-ideological feminist position?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Abolitionist" Feminists tend to use the term "prostituted woman", while many pro-prostitution (and/or "harm reduction") Feminists prefer to talk about "sex workers". Both are highly ideological in intent.


 
Of course they are, what else *could* they be?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> What's the non-ideological feminist position?


 
Sitting dead in a chair is about the only position a feminist could be in and be non-ideological.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> What's the non-ideological feminist position?


 
I'm not sure that there's such a thing as a "non-ideological" feminist, nor a "non-ideological" position. Which doesn't change that the language used in this debate is roughly as political charged as that used in debates about Northern Ireland (Ulster, Six Counties). You can very reliably predict what someone is going to say as soon as they mention one of those labels.

Sihhi's long post a few pages back was an interesting exception, in that the language of "sex work" was used without assuming the conclusions which normally flow from it.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> You don't seem to know that much


 
You insult me, but you haven't factually denied what I've written, except where you've twisted it to state I'm scorning the decriminalisation of sex workers in New Zealand.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Abolitionist" Feminists tend to use the term "prostituted woman", while many pro-prostitution (and/or "harm reduction") Feminists prefer to talk about "sex workers". Both are highly ideological in intent.


pro$$ies


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> You insult me, but you haven't factually denied what I've written, except where you've twisted it to state I'm scorning the decriminalisation of sex workers in New Zealand.


That's not an *insult* lol   You have hardly any knowledge of the UK sex industry, and no experience at all. That is obvious and not particulrly insulting. Your a man whose only first hand contact with a working girl is a mate of your Mums and an offer of a tenner suck.

Not your fault, of course. And you are entitled to your opinions 

I'm out of this anyway.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> Stigmatising punters is stigmatising sex work is stigmatising sex workers. And please stop calling them johns. It just sounds so weird


 
I guess we are going to disagree. "Stigmatising punters is stigmatising sex work is stigmatising sex workers."

Re:Johns/Punters.


> Punters and working girls alike don't like trafficking. One of the most common (almost ubiquitous) FAQs on AW is 'Are you British: YES I AM'. Cos as a working girl you are CONSTANTLY asked it. Trafficked girls get bad field reports, punters don't like


 
This suggests you approve of the term. People who want the GFE hence use punternet desire someone British to play as a "girlfriend" with.
Doesn't the mindset of people asking 'Are you British?' suggest something extra pathological?
Should we Muslims go into a corner shop and ask 'Are you Muslim?' before we buy any fruit there.

Many people dislike the use of the term "working girl". That sounds far weirder to me from my history. Girls don't work, they study at school. Women work.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 30, 2012)

What would £23.71 get me and would it include cuddles afterwards. A cocoa, maybe a dvd and some popcorn?

*Scarpers


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2012)

friedaweed said:


> What would £23.71 get me and would it include cuddles afterwards. A cocoa, maybe a dvd and some popcorn?
> 
> *Scarpers


I'll let you fondle my bum for that. I'll chuck in a cuddle if you buy the drinks.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> I'll let you fondle my bum for that. I'll chuck in a cuddle if you buy the drinks.


Ok I've just had my tea and im feeling well fat so the bum fun's probably not going to needed. Can we just have a long cuddle and some of my homebrew?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I guess we are going to disagree. "Stigmatising punters is stigmatising sex work is stigmatising sex workers."


 
It's like saying that stigmatising employers is stigmatising employment is stigmatising workers. Or that stigmatising muggers is stigmatising people who are mugged. Disapproving of one parties role in a social relationship, or of the social relationship itself, does not necessarily imply disapproval of the other party to the relationship. It depends on _why_ you disapprove.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could spend even a few minutes on a "punters" website without coming away with a strongly felt, if not necessarily coherent or politically useful, desire to see the lot of them swinging from lamp posts.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 30, 2012)

I used to be a bit more definite on this issue, i.e. a) sex work should definitely be decriminalised or legalised as the safety of the workers is paramount, but as Thora said earlier, b) there are wider implications in regards to gender relations, and c) arguments that it is equivilent to shelf stacking are flawed.

Actually I probably still feel the same, but in a softer way and with less idea of what could/should be done.

a) I _do_ think the safety and wellbeing of sex workers has to be upmost priority, and that will only be possible in a society that can't arrest you for selling sex. The idea of criminialising punters has always sounded a sensible way forward, but if cesare is right and there's a suggestion that it could increase violence to workers then that's obviously not acceptable. Likewise I do acknowledge Edie's comment about it still leading to the work being stigmitised, with negative impact on workers. I would also very much like there to be proper repercussions for the more dodgy punters she mentioned earlier. 

b) Wider implications - I still can't get over the fact there's something that angers me and makes my skin crawl about most sex work being gender biased in a particular way, with the traditional oppressers buying off the traditionally oppressed. However, given the point above and not wanting to get into "us and them" battles with other women, I'm not sure at this stage what the bloody hell to do about it. I guess it _partly_ depends on whether female sex work for men props up more general objectification. I'd suspect it does but I'm aware there's no real definite evidence on either side, and my gut is that page 3/lad mags/airbrushed adverts etc. are probably more important within the wider public consciousness.

Which brings me on to
c) the question of whether sex work is like any other form of work, and what insidious effect it has on the worker. Which is a bit like "how long is a piece of string", given that some workers blatently are fine and some blatently are not, and there's probably a lot of people who fall somewhere in between. I would suspect that many worker's own OKness with it will vary at different time points too. And I have to hold my hands up - I haven't worked with sex workers as a group. However, from working with various people where negative sexual experiences have been some sort of issue in their lives, I would hasten an educated guess that sex work has the _potential_ to fuck someone up more so than, say, hairdressing or stacking shelves.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *It's like saying that stigmatising employers is stigmatising employment is stigmatising workers. Or that stigmatising muggers is stigmatising people who are mugged.* Disapproving of one parties role in a social relationship, or of the social relationship itself, does not necessarily imply disapproval of the other party to the relationship.


That's not the way I read what Eids was saying at all. I think you've made an amazingly stupendous massive leap there


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Re:Johns/Punters.
> 
> 
> This suggests you approve of the term. People who want the GFE hence use punternet desire someone British to play as a "girlfriend" with.
> ...


No, you don't understand. It's a way of filtering for trafficked wg's. It's not some ethnic filter, the punters can see what you look like afterall. LOTS of Asian women also put British up here in Yorkshire (cos they are, even if their working name is AsianPrincess or IndianWhore or whatever they have).

Look as an example, I know this lass. *Note she puts "I am a British Indian"*

edit: PM for link actually


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not sure that there's such a thing as a "non-ideological" feminist, nor a "non-ideological" position. Which doesn't change that the language used in this debate is roughly as political charged as that used in debates about Northern Ireland (Ulster, Six Counties). You can very reliably predict what someone is going to say as soon as they mention one of those labels.
> 
> Sihhi's long post a few pages back was an interesting exception, in that the language of "sex work" was used without assuming the conclusions which normally flow from it.



Sihhi's language does inform his position. Maybe you mean his use of terminology?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

friedaweed said:


> That's not the way I read what Eids was saying at all. I think you've made an amazingly stupendous massive leap there


 
I'm not sure how else that sentence could be read other than as a statement that hostility to one participant in the prostitution exchange or to prostitution itself is necessarily hostility to the other participant. In reality, I think that most people who are neither fans of prostitution nor religiously motivated moralists distinguish to varying degrees between prostitutes and punters.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Sihhi's language does inform his position. Maybe you mean his use of terminology?


 
What distinction are you drawing between a "use of language" and a "use of terminology"? I don't see one in this context.

Of course Sihhi's language "informs his position". What's unusual is that he's using a terminology usually used by people with a very different position. ie, When someone starts talking about "sex workers", 99 times out of 100 they are going to be advocates for the efficacy of unionisation, of the opinion that prostitution is basically just another form of work other than in the problems created by criminalisation, etc.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> That's not an *insult* lol   You have hardly any knowledge of the UK sex industry, and no experience at all. That is obvious and not particulrly insulting. Your a man whose only first hand contact with a working girl is a mate of your Mums and an offer of a tenner suck.
> 
> Not your fault, of course. And you are entitled to your opinions
> 
> I'm out of this anyway.


 
I have some personal knowledge of a particular sub-section within the UK sex industry.
I didn't mention it because it's not about sex work directly, but I've been a witness to women being  threatened by newspaper people. Why?
The protest was against London's Turkish language newspapers including escort and sauna adverts.
The testimony of some of those women, former sex workers, is not direct, they are not friends unlike my family neighbour's (mum's friend) so I didn't mention it, but not all feminist and non-sex worker- using/non-close-observers of sex-work males is stigmatist, factually inccurate, based on nonsense or deluded. 
I didn't want to weigh this all down with heavy extensive reports so only linked to articles.
As I stated at start of thread I'm male so I'm not a sex worker and have no experience, nor are males much requested in job opportunities around sex work - that's to be expected since most sex workers are women and the people best able to relate to them.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What distinction are you drawing between a "use of language" and a "use of terminology"? I don't see one in this context.
> 
> Of course Sihhi's language "informs his position". What's unusual is that he's using a terminology usually used by people with a very different position. ie, When someone starts talking about "sex workers", 99 times out of 100 they are going to be advocates for the efficacy of unionisation, of the opinion that prostitution is basically just another form of work other than in the problems created by criminalisation, etc.



Ah, right. I thought (obviously mistakenly) that you were commenting on ends of scale ideology by use of terminology/language. I'm still not sure what else you'd call sex work if you don't feel strongly about either extreme.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm still not sure what else you'd call sex work if you don't feel strongly about either extreme.


 
Prostitution.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> No, you don't understand. It's a way of filtering for trafficked wg's. It's not some ethnic filter, the punters can see what you look like afterall. LOTS of Asian women also put British up here in Yorkshire (cos they are, even if their working name is AsianPrincess or IndianWhore or whatever they have).
> 
> Look as an example, I know this lass. *Note she puts "I am a British Indian"*
> 
> edit: PM for link actually


 
"Trafficked" or debt-bondaged sex workers don't normally use 'punternet'.
They are just one step deeper in the economic coercion compared to the other "non-trafficked" sex workers.
The idea that responsible john thinks on the lines of 'great I'm doing my bit for women, by asking if they are British'. It's just part of a situation where the sex industry just carries on as if it's a normal industry just ferreting out the illegal immigrants. That's really the problem here.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

There was a debate on the issue at an SSP conference back in 2006, I think, nigel irritable, random, where to, cesare and butchers, may remember it prompted a thread over the road. It sorta came a few years an 'experiment' in Leith where there was a toleration zone and a study based on what came out of that evidence wise. One thing that was shown was A total of 111 incidents were recorded last year (2003) by support group Scotpep, compared with just 11 in 2001, the last year of the old "non-harassment" zone. That statistic alone was worth looking at and seeing if enhanced access to support/outreach workers, better approaches by law enforcement agencies and charities working with the women could reduce it even less?
Sadly the SSP position was 'eradication' of prostitution which according to many in the party, meant that we had to oppose 'tolerance zones' even if they were shown to have reduced violence against the women and enabled more women access to the services that may, if they wish, give them a road out.
One of the things that annoyed me about the SSP position was the opposition of 'unionisation' 'self organisation' of the women, as if that would be a tag of legitimacy. We would somehow be accepting their position. Imho it effectively meant we demanded poeple be too horrified and that these people were being too abused to help in that way. Some, I repeat some, of the most abused, vulnerable men & women in our society, were effectively labelled as too 'abused' to be helped in a manner that might well have given them the very choices they had hitherto been denied. One thing that irked me then and still does now was the claim that tolerance zones, do not contradict the goal of eradication. No one has offered any evidence to why that was the case. And frankly the debate at that conference descended into confusion at the end anyway. Afaic, there's no contradiction between the two. If anyone can show me how reducing the risk to women in a tolerance zone and allowing her to access the very measures needed alongside being fought for a generalised political campaign around the issues that affect our class make our aim of eradication invalid then i'd love to have heard it, even these years later it's not been proffered.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Prostitution.


 
Seeing as this is all getting close to the bone, I'll say that 'prostitute' - at least in its Turkish variation - does trouble former sex workers (I don't call them working girls). There's no way the family old neighbour would have tolerated fahise. My mum once described her to me as 'kaderine mahkumdu' 'She was a prisoner to her fate'.

I hope none of this debate has put anyone off the struggle for women's equality in the economic sphere. If women were equal, this issue wouldn't be an issue within feminism, but it's not, so it is and the language has to be sensitive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I'm male so I'm not a sex worker...


 
Because being one, you can't of course be the other!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Prostitution.


Not all sex work is prostitution, though.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> One of the things that annoyed me about the SSP position was the opposition of 'unionisation' 'self organisation' of the women, as if that would be a tag of legitimacy. We would somehow be accepting their position. Imho it effectively meant we demanded poeple be too horrified and that these people were being too abused to help in that way. Some, I repeat some, of the most abused, vulnerable men & women in our society, were effectively labelled as too 'abused' to be helped in a manner that might well have given them the very choices they had hitherto been denied. *One thing that irked me then and still does now was the claim that tolerance zones, do not contradict the goal of eradication.* No one has offered any evidence to why that was the case.


 
Do you mean this or something else?

I support unionisation efforts and grouping together for support/defence/increasing prices/etc and have nothing against tolerance zones, and am certain that women shouldn't be arrested.
But in NZ, where as I understand it, crudely, the prostitution reform act means total decriminalisation and tolerance zones; men are involved in profiting from the new version of brothels that replaced the old set-up of front desk appointment payment and back room tip. It hasn't changed the fact that still sex work lodges women as something different to men. Nor has the reality of economic coercion changed with the onset of the crisis in 2009, 6 years after the act passed. Nor are the underage children subjected to ongoing abuse, necessarily being assisted.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

The word not is a mistake, imho support for and agreement with tolerance zones are not a de facto contradiction of what was SSP policy. They were simply an aim at lessening the effects in the here and now whilst looking at how 'eradication' could be achieved.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> One of the things that annoyed me about the SSP position was the opposition of 'unionisation' 'self organisation' of the women, as if that would be a tag of legitimacy. We would somehow be accepting their position.


 
Who was opposing what? Was it women in the SSP? Or women outside?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Who was opposing what? Was it women in the SSP? Or women outside?


 
SSP policy was in 2006, after a conference vote, for eradication and opposed tolerance zones and opposed an amendment supporting unionisation/self organisation of women/men in that sphere. Some of those who opposed this policy were men some were women.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> SSP policy was in 2006, after a conference vote, for eradication and opposed tolerance zones and opposed an amendment supporting unionisation/self organisation of women/men in that sphere. Some of those who opposed this policy were men some were women.


 
OK, I see where you're coming from now.
What did the SSP practically do against tolerance zones? 
Was there some kind of campaign?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> OK, I see where you're coming from now.
> What did the SSP practically do against tolerance zones?
> Was there some kind of campaign?


 
Nothing much, it simply opposed a move, I think by Margo McDonald MSP, to re-introduce them.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Nothing much, it simply opposed a move, I think by Margo McDonald MSP, to re-introduce them.


 
Well yeah that's what I was thinking how would practically work against it? 
The thing people outside could practically do would be to try and make contact with the women in those zones to offer something else instead.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Well yeah that's what I was thinking how would practically work against it?
> The thing people outside could practically do would be to try and make contact with the women in those zones to offer something else instead.


More money, not to do it? A better paid job? A different lifestyle? Are you thinking along the lines of incentives?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Fuck knows what some of these men would feel like if presented with some proper radfem politics
> 
> Edit: talking of which, this caused a shitstorm this year: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/


I see what you mean, there's some really nasty anti-women stuff coming out


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> More money, not to do it? A better paid job? A different lifestyle? Are you thinking along the lines of incentives?


 
Support services for women, advice on setting up a joint brothel, money - a pooled effort from others.
In terms of jobs obviously the struggle must be for jobs in the economy first, so the government is condemning thousands to sex work, by cutting benefits and jobs and the same time. They must be held to account.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

http://www.soca.gov.uk/about-soca/library/doc_download/402-nrm-statistics-april-to-june-2012

Human Trafficking stats April to June. Most confirmed cases not in sex industry.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> There was a debate on the issue at an SSP conference back in 2006, I think, nigel irritable, random, where to, cesare and butchers, may remember it prompted a thread over the road. It sorta came a few years an 'experiment' in Leith where there was a toleration zone and a study based on what came out of that evidence wise. One thing that was shown was A total of 111 incidents were recorded last year (2003) by support group Scotpep, compared with just 11 in 2001, the last year of the old "non-harassment" zone. That statistic alone was worth looking at and seeing if enhanced access to support/outreach workers, better approaches by law enforcement agencies and charities working with the women could reduce it even less?
> Sadly the SSP position was 'eradication' of prostitution which according to many in the party, meant that we had to oppose 'tolerance zones' even if they were shown to have reduced violence against the women and enabled more women access to the services that may, if they wish, give them a road out.
> One of the things that annoyed me about the SSP position was the opposition of 'unionisation' 'self organisation' of the women, as if that would be a tag of legitimacy. We would somehow be accepting their position. Imho it effectively meant we demanded poeple be too horrified and that these people were being too abused to help in that way. Some, I repeat some, of the most abused, vulnerable men & women in our society, were effectively labelled as too 'abused' to be helped in a manner that might well have given them the very choices they had hitherto been denied. One thing that irked me then and still does now was the claim that tolerance zones, do not contradict the goal of eradication. No one has offered any evidence to why that was the case. And frankly the debate at that conference descended into confusion at the end anyway. Afaic, there's no contradiction between the two. If anyone can show me how reducing the risk to women in a tolerance zone and allowing her to access the very measures needed alongside being fought for a generalised political campaign around the issues that affect our class make our aim of eradication invalid then i'd love to have heard it, even these years later it's not been proffered.


I lived in Edinburgh at the time, the zone itself was in the most unsuitable place possible - a deserted industrial estate, only in use 9-6pm. The surrounding area was mostly industrial with a few residences nearby, whose occupants complained when the women would work near their residences. 
The original area where the girls worked had been (and I believe still is) a 'red light area', for want of a better phrase, for as long as anybody knew, being conveniently close to Leith docks. The thing is, Edinburgh doesn't have a large street girl population compared to some cities. Since a horrific murder of a working girl in the 1980s, a lot has been done to reduce violence against working girls. Most of the girls work out of licensed saunas and are off the streets. I'm not saying their lives are perfect or easy but at least they're not at the mercy of some random on the street in the freezing cold and driving rain, in some godforsaken deserted industrial estate.

I lived two doors down from a sauna, nicest neighbours I ever had. I would have gladly replaced the pub across the road with another one.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

I had a fight with an arsehole at work today because he said that women can't do the same jobs as men. I told him my cousin in bomb disposal would love to discuss that with him, and he just said 'yes but the infantry have to go and protect her, if she gets shot they're biologically determined to look after her first before a male soldier.' Cock.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I lived in Edinburgh at the time, the zone itself was in the most unsuitable place possible - a deserted industrial estate, only in use 9-6pm. The surrounding area was mostly industrial with a few residences nearby, whose occupants complained when the women would work near their residences.
> The original area where the girls worked had been (and I believe still is) a 'red light area', for want of a better phrase, for as long as anybody knew, being conveniently close to Leith docks. The thing is, Edinburgh doesn't have a large street girl population compared to some cities. Since a horrific murder of a working girl in the 1980s, a lot has been done to reduce violence against working girls. Most of the girls work out of licensed saunas and are off the streets. I'm not saying their lives are perfect or easy but at least they're not at the mercy of some random on the street in the freezing cold and driving rain, in some godforsaken deserted industrial estate.
> 
> I lived two doors down from a sauna, nicest neighbours I ever had. I would have gladly replaced the pub across the road with another one.


 
The point about the ending of the 'toleration' was the immediate rise in attacks against women. Tolerance zones are not, imho, and end in and of themselves. But they allowed other work/interventions to happen, they kept violence against women down as compared to when it was ended. Thos realities alone made them worth lookig at in combuination with other agencies to give the women support, advice and if they requested/needed it help out.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

Most cities have unofficial tolerance zones. Most of them are in isolated, very scary industrial estates. Holbeck in Leeds for example. Fuck me


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The point about the ending of the 'toleration' was the immediate rise in attacks against women. Tolerance zones are not, imho, and end in and of themselves. But they allowed other work/interventions to happen, they kept violence against women down as compared to when it was ended. Thos realities alone made them worth lookig at in combuination with other agencies to give the women support, advice and if they requested/needed it help out.


I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Not all sex work is prostitution, though.


 
Exactly. The term tends to elide the differences between prostitution and other forms of "sex work", many of which are significantly closer to other jobs in important social and strategic respects even if they share some of the problematic aspects of prostitution.

To put it another way, there are some rather fundamental problems inherent to a strategy based around "organising" prostitutes which don't really exist when it comes to phone sex operators.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> Most cities have unofficial tolerance zones. Most of them are in isolated, very scary industrial estates. Holbeck in Leeds for example. Fuck me


Aye the one in Edinburgh was maybe a mile away from my flat at most. Like a different place. Just a long road of deserted carpet warehouses, car showrooms and panel beaters. It was dark and windswept being right next to the Forth. And not far from a sewage plant too.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Exactly. The term tends to elide the differences between prostitution and other forms of "sex work", many of which are significantly closer to other jobs in important social and strategic respects even if they share some of the problematic aspects of prostitution.
> 
> To put it another way, there are some rather fundamental problems inherent to a strategy based around "organising" prostitutes which don't really exist when it comes to phone sex operators.


We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!


I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.


 
It can be a bit 'have you heard about a man called Trotsky?'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.


 
What sort of areas would be better?

Residential areas would obviously be safer, but having lived in a tiny "red light district", I think you'll have a lot of trouble getting residents of a proposed toleration zone not to flip their shit entirely. It was an odd experience: There were genuinely pretty unpleasant anti-social aspects to having a few prostitutes operating on the corner of the road, but there was also a disproportionate hostility from residents focused on the prostitutes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!


 
You are talking a bunch of communists here. Thinking that everybody needs organising comes with the territory.

It can be a bit problematic when it comes to prostitution because for lots of leftists their first impulse when they see people getting a raw deal is to start thinking about how they need a union. But prostitutes are notoriously difficult to unionise for a whole bunch of reasons.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It can be a bit 'have you heard about a man called Trotsky?'


The radical left are ready to save you, ladies. If only you'd let them.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.


 
They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> The radical left are ready to save you, ladies. If only you'd let them.


 
That's entirely incorrect re the SSP, as their position was clearly that 'help' wasn't acceptable, simplistic, imho, eradication was.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What sort of areas would be better?
> 
> Residential areas would obviously be safer, but having lived in a tiny "red light district", I think you'll have a lot of trouble getting residents of a proposed toleration zone not to flip their shit entirely. It was an odd experience: There were genuinely pretty unpleasant anti-social aspects to having a few prostitutes operating on the corner of the road, but there was also a disproportionate hostility from residents focused on the prostitutes.


Well, in Edinburgh one of the reasons the area was moved was because an area close by was redeveloped and became fancy flats. The new owners of these flats then complained about the working girls nearby.

It's not their fault the yuppie owners didn't do their research properly before moving into the area - the area had been used for that purpose for years, decades even.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho


 
No, as eg's said it was moved when the area round the Shore got redeveloped and sold off for expensive penthouse flats.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.


 
The flip side is you can't even talk about it, you can't discuss the issue because to do so is de facto patronising and controlling. Which one is it to be?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho


Complaints from the nearest residents if menory serves me correctly. There was an Edinburgh Evening News article on it. That stretch was never as big an area as the Coburg Street area though.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> No, as eg's said it was moved when the area round the Shore got redeveloped and sold off for expensive penthouse flats.


 
It was moved a very short distance, deliberately because it remained in the same area. The women knew the 'geography' and the ways in and out, rightly that was seen as an element of safety that was important.
That the bank balances of the new flat buyers took precedence also tells it's own tale


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Well, in Edinburgh one of the reasons the area was moved was because an area close by was redeveloped and became fancy flats. The new owners of these flats then complained about the working girls nearby.
> 
> It's not their fault the yuppie owners didn't do their research properly before moving into the area - the area had been used for that purpose for years, decades even.


 
Where I was living wasn't notably yuppified and that didn't stop the neighbours from complaining (although it might possibly have made people in authority less likely to listen to their complaints). To be blunt about it, it's not unreasonable for people to have problems with used condoms and syringes on the little green around the corner, nor for women to seriously object to getting curb crawled on their way home.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/3298006/No-stopping-here-for-the-red-light-area.html


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Complaints from the nearest residents if menory serves me correctly. There was an Edinburgh Evening News article on it. That stretch was never as big an area as the Coburg Street area though.


 
Aye, the complaints about their ability to sell their flats at a later date, their concern about wanting to be in a nice area, even though that area was already 'well known' as well as it can be if you get me, for that part of life.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/3298006/No-stopping-here-for-the-red-light-area.html


 
"The battle between tarts in stockings and developers in sharp suits "


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Edie said:


> We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> "The battle between tarts in stockings and developers in sharp suits "


 
well it is a Torygraph article


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Aye, the complaints about their ability to sell their flats at a later date, their concern about wanting to be in a nice area, even though that area was already 'well known' as well as it can be if you get me, for that part of life.


 
I agree entirely, but that wasn't the big concern of those in Leith, it was, overwehlmingly, concerns about their new neighbourhood, a nice re-developed beighbourhood, being so terribly besmnirched, and their house prices falling.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> I agree entirely, but that wasn't the big concern of those in Leith, it was, overwhelmingly, concerns about their new neighbourhood, a nice re-developed neighbourhood, being so terribly besmirched, and their house prices falling.


Aye, it was very much 'we'll have none of your sort round here'. And as for Salamander Street being well lit, never heard such bollocks. It's a horrible dark street.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Aye, it was very much 'we'll have none of your sort round here'. And as for Salamander Street being well lit, never heard such bollocks. It's a horrible dark street.


 
It's a bloody industrial estate through-road. Coburg Street was right by the docks, almost public. Much safer for the women I'd have thought.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

So did the SPP get their wish of eradication?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> So did the SPP get their wish of eradication?


 
Strange question.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Strange question.


You said that was their policy. I was wondering if it worked.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> You said that was their policy. I was wondering if it worked.


 
You weren't really.

But as rhetorical questions go, it doesn't have much impact as the SSP were never anywhere near power and so their position, good, bad or indifferent, was never tested. It makes as much sense as asking "did it work" when some left group advocates decriminalisation.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> You said that was their policy. I was wondering if it worked.


You're wondering if prostitution has been eradicated? Do you really need me to answer that? And even if it is a policy does the fact that said policy hasn't been acheived after 6 years mean it's to be criticised or eschewed simply on the basis that it hadn't yet been achieved?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I had a fight with an arsehole at work today because he said that women can't do the same jobs as men. I told him my cousin in bomb disposal would love to discuss that with him, and he just said 'yes but the infantry have to go and protect her, if she gets shot they're biologically determined to look after her first before a male soldier.' Cock.


 
Tell him that biological determinism is the last refuge of idiots, eugenicists and, in this case, people who don't understand how the military functions. Infantry do what they're designated to do. If they were ordered to stand to while a female BDO worked they'd stand to. Simple as that.
Fuck, can't believe anyone who gets beyond GCSE biology can buy into biological determinism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It can be a bit 'have you heard about a man called Trotsky?'


 
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Aye, it was very much 'we'll have none of your sort round here'.


 
I'm sure that we're all united in our general willingness to tut-tut at gentrifying yuppies, but in my experience, horny handed sons and daughters of toil probably aren't any keener on living in a red light district. Albeit their complaints are less likely to be listened to.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm sure that we're all united in our general willingness to tut-tut at gentrifying yuppies, but in my experience, horny handed sons and daughters of toil probably aren't any keener on living in a red light district. *Albeit their complaints are less likely to be listened to*.


 
Absolutely


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You weren't really.
> 
> But as rhetorical questions go, it doesn't have much impact as the SSP were never anywhere near power and so their position, good, bad or indifferent, was never tested.


I was actually. I'd have been surprised if the answer was yes, granted, but if it's completely impossible surely they'd have just been laughed at for even advocating it.

I know nothing about the SPP or whether or not they've ever been in power. It was just a question.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> You're wondering if prostitution has been eradicated? Do you really need me to answer that? And even if it is a policy does the fact that said policy hasn't been acheived after 6 years mean it's to be criticised or eschewed simply on the basis that it hadn't yet been achieved?


No need to answer it. Nigel has.

Edit: I had a look just now, there were three separate conversations over the road btw, and I didn't post on any of them  No idea why. Good to refresh my memory of the discussions though.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It's a bloody industrial estate through-road. Coburg Street was right by the docks, almost public. Much safer for the women I'd have thought.


It is - there's more police cars driving by, more traffic, more chance of witnesses if something were to happen. A very different environment to Salamander Street.

It's not so much about yuppies and gentrification, it's more about not showing respect for the area one is moving into. And that includes the working girls - they were there first.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tell him that biological determinism is the last refuge of idiots, eugenicists and, in this case, people who don't understand how the military functions. Infantry do what they're designated to do. If they were ordered to stand to while a female BDO worked they'd stand to. Simple as that.
> Fuck, can't believe anyone who gets beyond GCSE biology can buy into biological determinism.


He claims his mate works on bomb disposal also, and that's where he got his information from. 

I've had much more sensible discussions with former armed forces people, those who actually know how things work and why, for example, there were no female submariners until very very recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16088431


----------



## weepiper (Oct 31, 2012)

Everyday Sexism's response to the Netmums' survey here, btw

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...re-are-more-of-us-than-you-think-8254767.html


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Everyday Sexism's response to the Netmums' survey here, btw
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...re-are-more-of-us-than-you-think-8254767.html


I saw that earlier ... those comments! The "coddled sex".

Edit: just looked at the link again and many of the more unpleasant comments have been removed.


----------



## Edie (Oct 31, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Everyday Sexism's response to the Netmums' survey here, btw
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...re-are-more-of-us-than-you-think-8254767.html


From the poster "Mens Rights"



> Regarding your belief that getting up early in the morning and cooking for your brother constituting a kind of privilege for him shows your utter ignorance about the other side of life as to how men are made and forced to protect and provide women and societies, pay alimonies and maintenance to women.​


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 31, 2012)

cesare said:


> No need to answer it. Nigel has.
> 
> Edit: I had a look just now, there were three separate conversations over the road btw, and I didn't post on any of them  No idea why. Good to refresh my memory of the discussions though.


 
Yeah, one is linked in the debate I was referring to.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Yeah, one is linked in the debate I was referring to.


Yep, apologies, I was well tired last night and still struggling with this bug. I left it till this morning and went to have a look.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 31, 2012)

No probs at all.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 31, 2012)

I think my Adblock is blocking the comments cos I can't see any  by the sound of things maybe I should leave it that way


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2012)

Been doing a bit of digging to see if there is decent info about the results of Sweden's anti-punter law, and it doesn't seem that there is. Rather worryingly, the authorities seem to simply point to the reduction in the number of street workers as a result of the law and not to have bothered themselves with much beyond that. That strikes me as the worst kind of populist politics - look at our lovely prossie-free streets, aren't we great. There does appear to be evidence, however, that prostitution has simply switched over to the internet. And this is what I find most disturbing about the new law:



> Pye Jakobson leads the National Alliance for Sex and Erotic Workers, which has lobbied for sex workers' rights and campaigned internationally against the Swedish model recently adopted by Norway and Iceland. She says the Swedish approach puts prostitutes in danger and pushes them further toward the margins of society.
> Antipimping provisions make it illegal for prostitutes to share apartments, which would increase their safety, Ms. Jakobson says. Compared with other European countries, there is also a marked absence of other harm-reduction measures, such as distributing condoms and deploying outreach workers in red-light areas.
> "The whole attitude is that harm reduction would mean recognizing prostitution," she says. "But this law violates sex workers' human rights – their right to earn a living and to safe, healthy working conditions.


 
Source

This seems to me to be the inevitable consequence of the 'prohibitionist' stance - it's illegal, you shouldn't be doing it, and so we don't provide any support to people doing it because they shouldn't be. It's very analogous to the futility of the 'war on drugs'. It doesn't take people as they are, but as you think they should be, and when they fail to live up to that ideal, what is the response? All too predictably, the response has been a call for tougher laws and longer prison sentences. Just as with the 'war on drugs', the laws aren't working, so you toughen the laws. The new tough laws don't work either, so you toughen them again. And again the laws don't work... And the tougher the laws, the more stigmatised and vulnerable people involved become.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2012)

I have the following articles from 2010-2011 on .pdf:

_'Attitudes and perceptions about legislation prohibiting the purchase of sexual services in Sweden'_. European Journal of Social Work
_'Gender Equity and Prostitution-An Investigation of Attitudes in Norway and Sweden'_. Feminist Economics
_'Sweden's prohibition of purchase of sex-The law's reasons, impact, and potential'_. Women's Studies International Forum
_'The Swedish Law that Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services'_. Swedish Ministry of Industry, EMployment and Communications.

If anyone would like copies, PM me an e-mail address. Total size is about 1.1mb.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2012)

Ta for those vp. Just read the abstracts of the first two. I'm slightly dubious of the following in the first one:



> When it comes to the purchase of sex, the responses indicated that the number of customers has, as a result of the legislation, decreased somewhat.


 
Fewer than half the questionnaires they sent out were returned, and given that paying for sex is now a criminal act, I would suspect that some men would be reluctant to admit to it. However, it wouldn't surprise me if these laws had led to a reduction in prostitution. That doesn't mean they have led to a reduction in harm, of course.

The second survey is interesting in that it confirms the unlikely alliance that has been created on this issue between conservatives and a certain strand of feminism:



> Findings include that men and sexual liberals of either gender are more likely positive toward prostitution and men and women who are conservative or support gender equality are more negative.


 
This:


> Holding anti-immigration views correlates with more positive attitudes toward buying, but not selling, sex.


 
simply confirms what I would expect - that many anti-immigration types are ignorant bigots.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> simply confirms what I would expect - that many anti-immigration types are ignorant bigots.


 
And also the converse: That people who think it's ok to buy sex are more likely to anti-immigrant bigots.


----------



## Edie (Oct 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Been doing a bit of digging to see if there is decent info about the results of Sweden's anti-punter law, and it doesn't seem that there is. Rather worryingly, the authorities seem to simply point to the reduction in the number of street workers as a result of the law and not to have bothered themselves with much beyond that. That strikes me as the worst kind of populist politics - look at our lovely prossie-free streets, aren't we great. There does appear to be evidence, however, that prostitution has simply switched over to the internet. And this is what I find most disturbing about the new law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for that lbj  xx

VP I'd like em. I'll PM you x


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And also the converse: That people who think it's ok to buy sex are more likely to anti-immigrant bigots.


You missed out a bit. There is as correlation with thinking it's ok to buy sex but disapproving of selling sex. Of course, correlation does not equal causation, but I'd suggest that the tendency towards this particular attitude - ok for men to buy sex, not ok for women to sell sex - is caused by bigoted attitudes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You missed out a bit.


 
No, I didn't. Thinking its ok to buy sex correlates with anti-immigrant prejudice. Thinking its ok to sell sex does not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2012)

There's also, not surprisingly, a correlation between sexual conservatism (prudishness) and disapproval of prostitution. From reading the statements by proponents of this law, who stress the moral aspect and state categorically that prostitution is an act of violence towards women by men, which is the justification for the criminalisation of buying sex, this confirms the impression I have that many people's views on this are influenced by a certain feeling of disgust they feel towards prostitution. There does seem to be a rather _Christian_ attitude here towards saving fallen women (whether they want to be saved or not!).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2012)

Meanwhile, looking at New Zealand, from what I'm reading there definitely does appear to have been some improvement. And interestingly, legalisation hasn't resulted in an increased number of prostitutes, suggesting that criminalisation may not have much effect on the amount of prostitution that takes place.

This article covers a report on the results of legalisation. As you'd expect, it hasn't led to paradise but it has led to improvements in the conditions for the (unchanging number of) sex workers. But there are cautious statements of optimism from sex workers themselves. Such as:



> Other findings included that the majority of sex workers felt the act could do little about violence that occurred, although a significant majority felt there had been an improvement since the passing of the act.


 
However, this seems important:



> More than 60 per cent felt they were more able to refuse to provide commercial sexual services to a particular client since the enactment of the law.


 
In other words the act has empowered the women involved.

As Edie said, surely New Zealand's experience here is very important. Legalisation doesn't lead to any noticeable increase in prostitution, but it does help those involved in it. This has to be the way forward, imo.

There is a crucial difference here between Sweden and New Zealand. We know how prostitutes in New Zealand are treated. It can be monitored. We don't know how prostitutes in Sweden are treated. It cannot be monitored. Sod Swedish puritanism. Regardless of your views on the morality of prostitution, the Swedish approach stinks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's also, not surprisingly, a correlation between sexual conservatism (prudishness) and disapproval of prostitution. From reading the statements by proponents of this law, who stress the moral aspect and state categorically that prostitution is an act of violence towards women by men, which is the justification for the criminalisation of buying sex, this confirms the impression I have that many people's views on this are influenced by a certain feeling of disgust they feel towards prostitution. There does seem to be a rather _Christian_ attitude here towards saving fallen women (whether they want to be saved or not!).


 
Of course, the whole "feeling of disgust" toward prostitution is an issue in itself, born as it often is from individuals manifesting an internal conflict between their moral imperatives and their sex drives.


----------



## Random (Nov 1, 2012)

Just in: a case that further illustrates the Swedish state's attitude towards prostitutes. Several Romanians were deported a while ago for prostitution. Now since selling sex isn't a crime, there's no real legal basis for this. One of the women complained to the Ombudsman for justice and the decision came out a few minutes ago: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=104&artikel=5332363

"EU:s så kallade rörlighetsdirektiv ger kvinnan rätt att vistas i Sverige och det är inte olagligt att sälja sex, men JO menar att kvinnans sätt att försörja sig förutsatte att andra skulle begå brott och att avvisa henne kan därför ses som en brottsförebyggande åtgärd."

Meaning that although the women are free to enter Sweden, due to EU freedom of movement laws, and it's not illegal to sell sex, the Ombudsman says that the way the woman is financially supporting herself depended on other people committing a crime, and so deporting her could be seen as a crime prevention measure.

This clearly shows that laws that target sex-buyers are also very easy to use to victimise sex-sellers.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There does seem to be a rather _Christian_ attitude here towards saving fallen women (whether they want to be saved or not!).


 
I don't think many opponents of prostitution consider themselves Christian these days.  I suspect most of them consider themselves atheists.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> You're wondering if prostitution has been eradicated? Do you really need me to answer that? And even if it is a policy does the fact that said policy hasn't been acheived after 6 years mean it's to be criticised or eschewed simply on the basis that it hadn't yet been achieved?


 
No.  But it is certainly to be criticized and eschewed on the basis that it is completely impossible.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think many opponents of prostitution consider themselves Christian these days. I suspect most of them consider themselves atheists.


Perhaps. It's quite possible to be an atheist but also to be suffused in an essentially Christian sense of morality/guilt complex.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. It's quite possible to be an atheist but also to be suffused in an essentially Christian sense of morality/guilt complex.


 
Not sure why you single out Christianity though.  Of all the major religions, it goes out of its way to embrace prostitutes--Magdalen and all that--and originally at least it did so in a remarkably radical and progressive manner.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. It's quite possible to be an atheist but also to be suffused in an essentially Christian sense of morality/guilt complex.


And it is in the context of Sweden. Not big on church going/professed faith, but quite high on Lutheran attitude.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not sure why you single out Christianity though. .


Because Sweden is a country with a Christian history. And many Swedes, whether they are believers or not, will have attitudes that reflect that.

I might be overstating its importance in this, but reading some of the statements by those who made this Act happen in Sweden, the moral justification strikes me. Prostitution is morally wrong, and so it must be banned regardless of the consequences of banning it. It's the kind of approach to law that a certain kind of hang em/birch em British Tories have.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> originally at least it did so in a remarkably radical and progressive manner.


How many Christians actually believe what Jesus is said to have believed, though? I don't want to generalise too much, but I'll quote Kurt Vonnegut on this - 'I have no problem with Jesus; it's Christians I take issue with'. Christianity has been a vehicle for patriarchal, conservative sexual mores for centuries.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not sure why you single out Christianity though. Of all the major religions, it goes out of its way to embrace prostitutes--Magdalen and all that--and originally at least it did so in a remarkably radical and progressive manner.


If I'd have been Magdalen I'd have been fucking livid that they hadn't included my gospel and wrote my apostleship or whatever it's called out of history.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2012)

Random said:


> This clearly shows that laws that target sex-buyers are also very easy to use to victimise sex-sellers.


That's depressing but not surprising, really. You can't say it's ok to sell something but criminal to buy it. That's an inherently ludicrous position in the end - either the transaction is legal or it isn't. And Sweden does seem to be edging towards criminalising selling sex too now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You can't say it's ok to sell something but criminal to buy it.


 
Yes you can. If you regard a transaction or interaction as exploitative, or in some other way unbalanced, it is entirely possible and logically consistent to make acting as the person on one end of the transaction illegal only. It's not necessarily a good idea, but there's nothing inconsistent about it, nor is it unique to prostitution.

There are an incredible number of disingenuous arguments in this thread. There's another above from someone saying that "it's impossible" to eradicate prostitution, which whether true or not is about as relevant as saying that it's impossible to eradicate murder or assault, as if the rate at which either happened couldn't be influenced. Again, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea to try.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes you can. If you regard a transaction or interaction as exploitative, or in some other way unbalanced, it is entirely possible and logically consistent to make acting as the person on one end of the transaction illegal only. .


 
But in doing that, you are basically infantilising one half of the transaction. In this context, I find this rather objectionable. If an adult has sex with a minor, quite rightly, it is the adult who is breaking the law, but not the child. This law treats women in the same way as the law about the age of consent treats children. It does the opposite of the New Zealand approach - it disempowers the women involved.

It is ludicrous, imo, unless you treat the women involved as helpless victims, which is unbelievably patronising. But as that judgement Random quoted above shows, the law in Sweden isn't quite treating the women involved as helpless victims - it's actually being used as a stick with which to beat immigrants.

I didn't have particularly strong feelings about this either way before I started looking into it. Now, I do - I think this is nasty stuff that ought to be vigorously opposed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But in doing that, you are basically infantilising one half of the transaction.


 
It can be infantilising, certainly, but it is not inherently infantilising to do so. Is it infantilising to make it illegal to purchase a kidney but not to sell one?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> If I'd have been Magdalen I'd have been fucking livid that they hadn't included my gospel and wrote my apostleship or whatever it's called out of history.


 
That cunt Peter would probably have patted you on the head and asked you to go make a cup of tea, then have tried to sneak into your boudoir on account of how if you were good enough for Jesus...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not sure why you single out Christianity though. Of all the major religions, it goes out of its way to embrace prostitutes...


 
For all those who ever wondered why dwyer sticks up for Christianity...


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That cunt Peter would probably have patted you on the head and asked you to go make a cup of tea, then have tried to sneak into your boudoir on account of how if you were good enough for Jesus...


It was that cunt Peter that had the hissy fit about her being elevated, iirc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> It was that cunt Peter that had the hissy fit about her being elevated, iirc.


 
Typical act of a bloke who's failed to score with his dead mate's missus. What a petulant wanker, eh?


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Typical act of a bloke who's failed to score with his dead mate's missus. What a petulant wanker, eh?


He just wanted to be in charge, I reckon.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> If I'd have been Magdalen I'd have been fucking livid that they hadn't included my gospel and wrote my apostleship or whatever it's called out of history.


 
It didn't make it into the Bible, but it certainly wasn't written out of history.  The Gospel of Magdalen is a key text of Gnosticism, and well worth a read too:

http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> He just wanted to be in charge, I reckon.


 
Not enough bottle to be the "big man" when it meant having the courage of your convictions, though.

How many times did he deny Jesus, again?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

From the Gospel of Magdalen, chapter 9:

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It didn't make it into the Bible, but it certainly wasn't written out of history.  The Gospel of Magdalen is a key text of Gnosticism, and well worth a read too:
> 
> http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm


I know about the gnostic gospels (although probably not as much as I should). But her gospel not making it into the Bible had the same effect as writing her out of history in terms of her non-heretical religious importance ... And hence what is commonly taught to most Christian believers.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not enough bottle to be the "big man" when it meant having the courage of your convictions, though.
> 
> How many times did he deny Jesus, again?


Thrice, I think.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> I know about the gnostic gospels (although probably not as much as I should). But her gospel not making it into the Bible had the same effect as writing her out of history in terms of her non-heretical religious importance ... And hence what is commonly taught to most Christian believers.


 
Yes, but Gnosticism always remained an underground influence, both inside and outside the official church.  And within that tradition, Magdalen was always vitally important.

As an aside, most orthodox Christians (at least Catholics) don't grasp the extent to which Peter is a villain even in canonical Christianity.  He makes a twit of himself in the debate with Paul about the need to adhere to Jewish ritual law, among other things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> Thrice, I think.


 
What a cowardly arse-covering wanker he was.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, but Gnosticism always remained an underground influence, both inside and outside the official church.  And within that tradition, Magdalen was always vitally important.
> 
> As an aside, most orthodox Christians (at least Catholics) don't grasp the extent to which Peter is a villain even in canonical Christianity.  He makes a twit of himself in the debate with Paul about the need to adhere to Jewish ritual law, among other things.


Aye well, it really wouldn't suit the Church for them to know/grasp/question/veer into heresy.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And Sweden does seem to be edging towards criminalising selling sex too now.


 Don't say that based on cases like the one I've posted up. The state approach to prostitution is heavily influenced by one strand of feminism, and is ostensibly about protecting women; any move to criminalise "the prostituted" women would meet heavy opposition from elements of the establishment.


----------



## Edie (Nov 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But in doing that, you are basically infantilising one half of the transaction. In this context, I find this rather objectionable. If an adult has sex with a minor, quite rightly, it is the adult who is breaking the law, but not the child. This law treats women in the same way as the law about the age of consent treats children. It does the opposite of the New Zealand approach - it disempowers the women involved.
> 
> It is ludicrous, imo, unless you treat the women involved as helpless victims, which is unbelievably patronising. But as that judgement Random quoted above shows, the law in Sweden isn't quite treating the women involved as helpless victims - it's actually being used as a stick with which to beat immigrants.
> 
> I didn't have particularly strong feelings about this either way before I started looking into it. Now, I do - I think this is nasty stuff that ought to be vigorously opposed.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2012)

http://m.scotsman.com/news/crisis-o...nburgh-s-saunas-must-renew-licences-1-2613497

Most of Edinburgh's saunas' licences up for renewal this week . . .


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> http://m.scotsman.com/news/crisis-o...nburgh-s-saunas-must-renew-licences-1-2613497
> 
> Most of Edinburgh's saunas' licences up for renewal this week . . .


Interesting - I'd be very surprised if they weren't renewed though. It's all very well saying 'women shouldn't be for sale' but that misses the point spectacularly in my opinion. I wonder if the men only-sauna's licence is also included in the renewals.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Interesting - I'd be very surprised if they weren't renewed though. It's all very well saying 'women shouldn't be for sale' but that misses the point spectacularly in my opinion. I wonder if the men only-sauna's licence is also included in the renewals.


Not sure, I came across this earlier and thought others may know more ...


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Not sure, I came across this earlier and thought others may know more ...


I'll keep an eye on the local news up here, see if anything is reported.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I'll keep an eye on the local news up here, see if anything is reported.


It'd be particularly interesting to get a handle on whether the men only ones are treated the same.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> It'd be particularly interesting to get a handle on whether the men only ones are treated the same.


As far as I know there's only one men-only (gay) sauna in Edinburgh. A friend of mine did some cash-in-hand work there handing out towels, manning the cafe bar etc for a year or so and said it was definitely an interesting experience.


----------



## cesare (Nov 7, 2012)

There's a bit of a storm brewing in California (and wider across the US) about the controversial Proposition 35 (Prop 35) legislation which targets sex work/trafficking. This article explains why it's so unpopular:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/01/prop-35


----------



## Greebo (Nov 7, 2012)

cesare said:


> There's a bit of a storm brewing in California (and wider across the US) about the controversial Proposition 35 (Prop 35) legislation which targets sex work/trafficking.<snip>


Listing sexworkers as sexoffenders, WTF?  How the hell does that make it easier to leave that line of work later on?


----------



## cesare (Nov 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Listing sexworkers as sexoffenders, WTF?  How the hell does that make it easier to leave that line of work later on?


Exactly - also it seems that the legislation might be retrospective opening possibility of criminalisation/sex offenders register for "offences" decades old. Also conflating labour traffic with sex traffic.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 4, 2013)

Rather than start a brand new thread, this seems a reasonable place to link this:

http://gyzym.tumblr.com/post/39004853136/just-shut-up



> We can argue for media that doesn’t push the horrible shit we need to unlearn as a society to get to a healthier place, or we can point out the flaws in our preexisting media, or we can do both. But “Just shut up,” isn’t an option. “Just shut up,” can’t be an option, because we can’t keep playing the “Nobody told me because nobody told them,” card. Nothing will ever get better that way. Nothing will ever improve if we keep _not telling people this shit_.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Rather than start a brand new thread, this seems a reasonable place to link this:
> 
> http://gyzym.tumblr.com/post/39004853136/just-shut-up


 
A raw and impassioned conclusion that merits consideration, and not just in the context of this blog entry:-

" _Yes, it’s easier not to engage with this stuff. Yes, as always, “Not learning things,” is the easier option. And if you don’t want to learn things (or unlearn them, as the case may be), that’s your right. That’s your call, and nobody can stop you from making it. It’s entirely possible to like and even love problematic media while consuming it critically, while acknowledging its flaws, but if that’s not something you wish to figure out then that’s that, and there ain’t shit anybody can do about it. But for the love of god, stop arguing that people should be quiet, should stop pointing this stuff out, should stop engaging with something in a way you don’t want them to. For one thing, you’re wasting your breath—again, it’s the age of the internet. People are going to use their platforms as they please. But for another thing, there’s a huge difference between saying, “I don’t feel like dealing with this problem,” and saying, “I don’t feel like dealing with this problem and therefore no one else should either.”_​_ _​


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 4, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Listing sexworkers as sexoffenders, WTF? How the hell does that make it easier to leave that line of work later on?


 
that's what happens to women in the UK.  i have plenty of clients who are in this situation.


----------



## Random (Jan 8, 2013)

Here's an article by a sex worker in a Swedish feminist magazine, saying why the Swedish law isn't working http://feministisktperspektiv.se/2013/01/08/vad-vet-val-en-hora/

Not read it fully myself, will be happy to translate bits.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 8, 2013)

if i understood google translate properly... it doesn't really say much except that it's not on to deny someone agency, which is fair enough, although some would suggest that legitimising the sale of sex really just codifies the unspoken social agreement that women's bodies are for sale and that they are happy with this.


----------

