Jump to content
IGNORED

for those who insist on liking Dan Savage


deelaem

Recommended Posts

Oh ffs Dee! This sounds like back-handed self-congratulation.

Did you even read the rest of the comments? It wasn't one undifferentiated howl of outrage at your brave sacred-cow tippingI

I really like most of what you post here but sometimes you remind me of Daffyd "the only gay in the village" on Little Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You know, as soon as I hit "Submit" I knew I'd regret posting this. Dan Savage is such a liberal sacred cow. I keep forgetting that my radical feminist perspective is so different from that of moderate feminists. I'll be kicking myself all day.

Yeah, you didn't read a single thing, did you? What a load of patronising bollocks.

The only way I can see that your "radical feminist" perspective differs from mine here is that I don't think it's acceptable to refer to other women as "fuck toilets". I'm very happy for that difference to remain. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to regret wading into this, but *I* took that phrase, "fuck toilets", to be descriptive of the way men who use women for sex view women. Like kind of a more crude way of describing men viewing women as receptacles (garbage cans). I did not understand that Deelaem was calling anyone that.

For the record, the only thing I know about Dan Savage is that he got the Santorum/Frothy thing going, so I don't know enough about him to defend or condemn him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right there is the problem. First of all, the amount of women who need a "clean, professional sex worker" is negligible.

Oh, so instead, we're supposed to fuck around with just anyone we meet at bars? Say what you will about male prostitutes for straight women, but they're a damn sight better than pick-up artists. Better to make it an honest transaction than to play games where, inevitably, women are not only the losers but the trophies.

Mostly Dan Savage is full of, well, santorum, but if he's advocating for the safe legalisation of prostitution, I can't see where he's wrong on that. Prostitutes gain the protection of the police--they'd be able to seek recourse for the crimes committed against them. Open discussions of the rights and regulations of this type of worker would be more possible in the US. Anything in that vein is better than the cesspit we currently possess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to regret wading into this, but *I* took that phrase, "fuck toilets", to be descriptive of the way men who use women for sex view women. Like kind of a more crude way of describing men viewing women as receptacles (garbage cans). I did not understand that Deelaem was calling anyone that.

I can see where you're coming from. But in the context of the whole paragraph:

Right there is the problem. First of all, the amount of women who need a "clean, professional sex worker" is negligible. So that means the workers will be women, and women certainly don't need men to use them as fuck toilets.

it seems like deelaem is denying the agency of any women who choose to be sex workers, and implying that the only way that transaction can come about it if women are being used as "fuck toilets". I know a few sex workers who would not take kindly to that view of their profession. It really rubbed me the wrong way. And then the follow-up just cemented that impression. :roll:

Also, as someone (Canadian Hippie?) pointed out, that is a very heterocentric paragraph. Which is quite a radfem way of doing things, as I understand.

ETA: I should be clear, I'm not arguing with you, Austin. I think we are just interpreting deelaem's words differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to regret wading into this, but *I* took that phrase, "fuck toilets", to be descriptive of the way men who use women for sex view women. Like kind of a more crude way of describing men viewing women as receptacles (garbage cans). I did not understand that Deelaem was calling anyone that.

For the record, the only thing I know about Dan Savage is that he got the Santorum/Frothy thing going, so I don't know enough about him to defend or condemn him.

Yes, the "fuck toilets" thing is from Twisty Faster. But I think Twisty is a little better at wielding it so it doesn't come across as endorsing the idea that sex workers are degraded or less than. Language like that is always risky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, as soon as I hit "Submit" I knew I'd regret posting this. Dan Savage is such a liberal sacred cow. I keep forgetting that my radical feminist perspective is so different from that of moderate feminists. I'll be kicking myself all day.

Oh, please. I don't know anything about Dan Savage except his redefinition of Santorum and some vague bits of info about It Gets Better, so I can't really defend him. Plenty of people on this thread agreed with you that he's a misogynist and has a number of lousy qualities, but didn't necessarily see what you saw in the column that you linked.

Now you've got a dozen or so people who probably agree with you on a lot of things, especially about feminism, telling you that they don't like how you came across. But of course that can't possibly be because you expressed yourself poorly, or even that they didn't understand what you were saying. Oh no, it's because, on this board of all places, you are the only True Feminist :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be the first to say that I am not educated about the internecine disagreements in the feminist community, and I don't know who is a feminist vs. a rad feminist vs. whatever. I am a feminist, and by that I mean that I believe women are endowed with every bit of humanity and agency as men are, and have as much right to self-determine. I judge if something is sexist or not by turning the question around, as in, "If someone said that to (about) a man, would the reaction be different?"

So I probably have no business wading into something with more nuances that I can comprehend at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to engage in the "Holier than thou" feminist argument, because to me the attitude is not much different than the fundies and the mainstream Christians. However, I do want to discuss prostitution divorced from the emotions.

Let's look at this with respect to another vice prohibition - alcohol. During the 20's, criminals had control of alcohol, so that in order to procure it, people had to engage with criminals. If someone screwed you over, you had no legal recourse. That's where prostitution is now. By making it a regulated industry (must be 18 or 21, only takes place under the direction of a licenced agency, ect) you are taking the control AWAY from pimps and giving it to the workers. There are examples of this working, such as in Australia where women have built sex worker co-ops. There will still be problems with underage trafficking, but there is a good chance if men have the choice of a safe, clean place? They will take it, just like most folks will go to the package store instead of buying moonshine.

Also, as women age and grow in ecconomic power, more and more do employ escorts. So there is a market for women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I'll "insist" on liking Dan Savage as long as I continue to like the majority of his work.

Yeah, sometimes he's a dick. Sometimes I am a dick, sometimes everyone is a dick. I have been reading his column pretty steadily for the past five years, though, and while there's been plenty of instances of dickishness, I am seriously failing to see a thread connecting them as proofs of his raging misogyny and [insert minority of choice]-phobia. And even when I disagree with him, and I do often (pitbulls, anyone?), I don't think that is a proof of him being an asshat. I just think he's wrong, especially when trying to push his pet issues - like legalizing sex work. But that does not negate all of his good writing.

A good (not perfect, but good) article summarizing my position would be [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/04/did_dan_savage_deserve_to_be_glitter_bombed_.html]this one[/link]. Of course, your mileage may vary, but I don't understand people insisting on demonizing him any more than people lifting him up as the gay coming of Jesus.

All of that to say: deelaem, I don't find post you linked to ignorant and offensive. Your own posts though, certainly, for reasons others have already pointed out.

I feel the same way about Savage. He can be a dick, but he is still doing some good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where you're coming from. But in the context of the whole paragraph:

it seems like deelaem is denying the agency of any women who choose to be sex workers, and implying that the only way that transaction can come about it if women are being used as "fuck toilets". I know a few sex workers who would not take kindly to that view of their profession. It really rubbed me the wrong way. And then the follow-up just cemented that impression. :roll:

Also, as someone (Canadian Hippie?) pointed out, that is a very heterocentric paragraph. Which is quite a radfem way of doing things, as I understand.

ETA: I should be clear, I'm not arguing with you, Austin. I think we are just interpreting deelaem's words differently.

I'm on the fence about "fuck toilet" I can see how deelaem probably meant it, but I can also see that the way it's being used is probably (hopefully?) not what she meant when she used it.

And yes, far to many radical feminists forget there are more than just straight people who identify as the gender the were born with out there.

And Deelaem, just because people have more respect for certain types of women that you doesn't automatically make them right and you wrong. Go back and read the actually comments. People have may some very important points in regards to the law and sex workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am for criminalizing the purchase of sex and decriminalizing selling sex. I used to think that legalizing prostitution would ultimately help sex workers, but after reading some research including http://www.amazon.com/Prostitution-Trafficking-Nevada-Making-Connections/dp/0615162053/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327945092&sr=8-1-fkmr0 I have changed my mind. At least in the case of Nevada, the legalization of prostitution has just made it easier to monitor the women who engage in prostitution for health issues with no monitoring of their customers, increased the acceptance of rape myths among men in the state, and created a demand for prostitutes that cannot be fulfilled without trafficking. The women live in isolation basically because they are social outcasts. The legalization doesn't get rid of the social stigma for these women and doesn't eliminate the physical risks they face because they are seen as needing state control but the johns are not. So any safety mechanisms that would make clients uncomfortable are avoided except for disease issues. But again the women are seen as the issue there.

I guess for me personally I don't see sex as a right or a need. You aren't going to die if you don't have sex and there are lots of ways of dealing with your desires if you don't have an available partner. I don't think buying sex makes men less likely to commit rape, but in fact reinforces the idea that they are entitled to sex.

I guess I would be for legalization with several caveats attached, namely that the johns are monitored, they have to show I.D., get tested, and there are serious safety precautions. Also the stimga need to be eliminated for the women. However, I get the sense that if all this was in place, the demand would go way down. I also think that the economic empowerment of women makes it less likely that women will engage in prostitution or at least alter how they engage in it. There is some evidence that men prefer prostitutes from outside the U.S. (see http://www.amazon.com/The-Johns-ebook/dp/B005KCYZ68/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1327946316&sr=8-11) because women here are less likely to perform in the way the men like. They are looking for what they refer to as the "girlfriend experience" where a woman asks as if they are in a relationship rather than just provides sex. Of course these men also use racialized narratives about women from certain regions of the world to justify their behavior, namely that these women are naturally more submissive, more sexualized, rather than more economically or socially marginalized. Prostitutes in the U.S. are more likely to behave as if it's just a transaction which doesn't all the men to pretend that it's more than that. Of course the "girlfriend experience" is much more one-sided than an actual girlfriend experience where a man would be expected to care about the feelings and perspective of a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself a feminist, too, but reading deelaems posts (and having read some of the links she posted from Rad Fem blogs) here makes me really glad I'm not a radical feminist.

Apart from the openly misogynistic fundie women (e.g. the Non-Thinking Housewife) they seem to be some of the most woman-hating women I have ever had to deal with.

Every woman who is not thinking exactly like them and agrees with them on everything is ridiculed, made out to be stupid and just not getting it, or even worse, responsible for keeping The Patriarchy alive today.

I am also becoming more and more convinced deelaem is making certain posts just to rile people up and feel good about having other posters defend her. She constantly posts something offensive - anything from saying it doesn't matter if men are raped to calling women "fuck toilets" and then acting like we all just didn't get what she meant - and then she disappears to let others explain for her why she didn't mean anything in the way it sounded.

Frankly, I don't buy that people have absolutely no time to check the controversial thread they started when fundies try to pull that stunt and I buy it even less when established posters do it.

Can't really say anything about Savage, since I only know he started the "It Gets Better" and the Santorum re-definition projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE deelaem, I totally didn't read her as saying the women WERE "fuck toilets" but that this was the way they were being looked at as being by some men. Who doesn't want a clean, safe toilet? But you only deposit what you have to in it, flush and walk away. I thought deelaem was making the argument those women are valuable, should be respected and should not be treated in such ways.

I am uncomfortable as someone who has very conflicting feelings on feminisms stepping into this, but...

Like if I say "He treated her as nothing but a piece of shit" I could be meaning "as she deserves" but more likely I mean "I am disgusted by his conduct towards her." The second is how I read the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, as soon as I hit "Submit" I knew I'd regret posting this. Dan Savage is such a liberal sacred cow. I keep forgetting that my radical feminist perspective is so different from that of moderate feminists. I'll be kicking myself all day.

I am a radical feminist, agree with you about Dan Savage to a point, but I think this post puts you into absurdity. You can be the whole Fourth Wave by yourself if you belittle other people like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, are we forgetting about the LBGT community on this thread. Ironic actually, considering the claims of straight white privileged among modern day feminists. For the record, I've known gay women and men who have paid for sex in their lives. I'd argue that gay men are the bigger market for male prostitutes, considering the prevalence in the community already. It's a big thing, it's just no one puts research into it.

Back to the main topic. I've listened to his podcast on and off for years, and I've never heard him give sexist advice when I've listened in. I've seen him say a lot of douchey things in print and interview. I think that behavior needs called out, but I'll admit he's like Howard Stern in my head. I have no expectation of him otherwise, because you know a percent of it he means and the other percent is just to get attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a radical feminist, agree with you about Dan Savage to a point, but I think this post puts you into absurdity. You can be the whole Fourth Wave by yourself if you belittle other people like that.

But Dee is the only radfem in the village!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the "fuck toilets" thing is from Twisty Faster. But I think Twisty is a little better at wielding it so it doesn't come across as endorsing the idea that sex workers are degraded or less than. Language like that is always risky.

I'm with Austin on this one, and agree with FloraPoste that the phrase came from Twisty. On her blog, she linked to this site-- http://whyihatefunfaq.blogspot.com/ --which explains my gut feelings about sex work far better than I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savage's "advice" here sucks because he assumes that this was all about sexual frustration.

Sexual frustration is not the match. A misplaced feeling of sexual entitlement combined with a sociopathic willingness to engage in mass violence was the problem.

Prostitution, therefore, would not have been the solution. Legal or not, prostitution exists pretty much everywhere, and he could have paid for it if that's what he was after. For that matter, if friction is all that someone wants, a hand and internet connection are easily available. Clearly, this guy wanted something else. He wanted, and felt entitled to, a relationship where some young hot girl would go after him. Paying for it wouldn't satisfy him.

Savage also ignores the rather obvious point that sociopaths who pay for sex tend to be sociopaths who beat or kill sex workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, I just learned something about myself: I'm not a Radical Feminist. (I support a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit, and be protected while doing so. Radfems apparently do not. In addition, I sometimes find Dan Savage's advice to be useful. Though not in this particular case.)

Thanks for helping me to clarify that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a radfem that doesn't have a problem with prostitution as a theory, but our social structure is way too problematic in terms of power differential between men and women, economic classes and puritan shame in sexual acts. Perhaps one day, we will be enlightened enough to manage.

Exactly. Structural factors can't be ignored.

Back to Savage, I do have issues with his discussion of women sometimes- he frequently refers to female genitalia as replusive, etc. Those who refer to male/male sex acts in such terms are decried as bigots by Savage (rightfully so), yet he fails to connect his statements with theirs. There is a HUGE difference between "I am not attracted to or interested in this sex or sex act" and "Ewww! This sex or sex act is disgusting!" As a sex columnist who works to enlighten others about sexuality, he should emphasize the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Austin on this one, and agree with FloraPoste that the phrase came from Twisty. On her blog, she linked to this site-- http://whyihatefunfaq.blogspot.com/ --which explains my gut feelings about sex work far better than I could.

Oh man Twisty...I used to read her but she lost me when she started policing women's sex lives and determining which sex acts past her feminist litmus test. oral sex isn't feminist enough. I think I read another radfem blog that was anti BDSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have learned a lot from Deelaem and appreciate her contribution here. Coming out of fundie-lite-ness some years ago, I am still working on many positions. I am always pro-woman, but admit that I dont always know what the pro-woman position is, and apparently that is not "settled" among feminists, but I appreciate Deelaem's point of view. I feel like she gives me room to grow. With some posters, if you were not born knowing the "right" position, you are a bad person forever, even if you are trying to understand. Yes, she is provocative and pisses people off sometimes, but I don't feel like that's always a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With some posters, if you were not born knowing the "right" position, you are a bad person forever, even if you are trying to understand.

Like Deelaem? To her, anyone that doesn't agree hates women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.