for those who insist on liking Dan Savage

[valsa]

Exactly. Structural factors can't be ignored.

The problem with this point of view is that prostitution already exists and making it illegal doesn't make it not exist anymore. Women are already selling their bodies and, by criminalizing it, they're left very vulnerable.

It's all well and good to say "Hmmm... prostitution should only be legalized if we live in a perfect world", but that closes the door on doing anything to help the women who are possibly being victimized today.

As for deelaem, I don't think she's actually a radical feminist at all. I think she's a radical misandrist. Her objection to prostitution doesn't seem to have as much to do with whether it's bad for women, as with the fact that it's something primarily men engage in and enjoy. She doesn't want to uplift women- she wants to punish men. That's not a feminist.

[Austin]

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

Well, clearly I was not referring to Deelaem. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if I just take a person differently than some of you guys, I think that's okay. I do appreciate her contribution, and no, I don't always agree with her (or even know what she's talking about, but that's how I get challenged, b/c then I start to look it up or whatever). She doesn't brook fools, as the saying goes, but I have found her willing to have a discourse about things.

Either way, I doubt seriously she is losing sleep over it! lol

[meda]

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.

Why does there need to be only one right pro woman position? It is possible for equally committed feminists to have divergent views, and still do considerable good work on the issue of gender inequality by tackling different aspects of the problem. I am pro the legalization of prostitution, but I am as horrified and disgusted as deelaem or anyone else by the issue of sex trafficking. It's a point of agreement that gets lost when I am accused of being a willing lap dog of the patriarchy because I don't think sex workers need to be universally shamed and pitied, and I think this attitude is a primary reason why women who engage in legal sex work such as stripping are more easily victimized by their employers. I think that economic empowerment tends to lead to equity, so I chose to engage on this issue by doing pro bono work representing several strippers in a wage and hour and and unemployment compensation dispute. Because my feminism tends to be more second wave does not make me less of a feminist.

[emmiedahl]

I appreciate the contributions of radical feminists to this board. I don't find them misandrist for the most part, and I enjoy having my preconceptions and word choices challenged. I usually look into what they are talking about, and I may or may not agree, but it is always educational at least.

[valsa]

Well, clearly I was not referring to Deelaem.

Well, clearly your condemnation of "some posters" applies to her as well.

I appreciate the contributions of radical feminists to this board. I don't find them misandrist for the most part

Neither do I. I'm not talking about all the radical feminists on this board (I actually consider myself boarding on fadical feminism, just not insanity), I'm talking about just deelaem. She is a misandrist, no one else.

[Witsec7]

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.

Provocative posts make my brain work. Threads like this help me gain information and perhaps eventually shift my own paradigms about things like prostitution and porn.

I've helped organize sex workers and in many respects I would like to see their work legalized. OTOH women have told me their stories about being exploited as sex workers and I cannot ignore those facts. So I read and weigh. I'm not a binary thinker, so I don't have any difficulty in changing my position on issues.

It took me years and much searching to find my own position on issues like gun control or the death penalty. I should think that formulating my position and opinion on sex workers can take me years as well. These aren't issues that are often addressed in my RW, so I welcome the different POVs offered and the fact that they lead me to question my own position on the subject.

[celestial]

I am pro the legalization of prostitution, but I am as horrified and disgusted as deelaem or anyone else by the issue of sex trafficking. It's a point of agreement that gets lost when I am accused of being a willing lap dog of the patriarchy because I don't think sex workers need to be universally shamed and pitied

Yes yes yes! Well put.

[CanadianHippie]

Neither do I. I'm not talking about all the radical feminists on this board (I actually consider myself boarding on fadical feminism, just not insanity), I'm talking about just deelaem. She is a misandrist, no one else.

And anyone who refuses to be a misandrist is a misogynist. That is basically the just of Deelaem's view point. You either hate men or hate women. My personal opinion is that she is not a true feminists because she doesn't give a rats ass about freedom to chose unless you chose what she thinks is right. It's not a vibe the other feminists on this board give off, only Deelaem.

[jaelh]

(I actually consider myself boarding on fadical feminism,

What, in your view, makes a radical feminist?

[Austin]

Why does there need to be only one right pro woman position? It is possible for equally committed feminists to have divergent views, and still do considerable good work on the issue of gender inequality by tackling different aspects of the problem. I am pro the legalization of prostitution, but I am as horrified and disgusted as deelaem or anyone else by the issue of sex trafficking. It's a point of agreement that gets lost when I am accused of being a willing lap dog of the patriarchy because I don't think sex workers need to be universally shamed and pitied, and I think this attitude is a primary reason why women who engage in legal sex work such as stripping are more easily victimized by their employers. I think that economic empowerment tends to lead to equity, so I chose to engage on this issue by doing pro bono work representing several strippers in a wage and hour and and unemployment compensation dispute. Because my feminism tends to be more second wave does not make me less of a feminist.

There does not need to be "one position". I did not word my thought completely; I should have said something along the lines of what position I'm going to settle on. I have reconciled myself to living with some cognitive dissonance while I figure out what lines up best with my values and sensibilities on any given issue. And my positions and thoughts on issues often evolve over time, as I imagine is true for most people.

And I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about prostitution as I see merit to the arguments on all sides.

[Austin]

Provocative posts make my brain work. Threads like this help me gain information and perhaps eventually shift my own paradigms about things like prostitution and porn.

I've helped organize sex workers and in many respects I would like to see their work legalized. OTOH women have told me their stories about being exploited as sex workers and I cannot ignore those facts. So I read and weigh. I'm not a binary thinker, so I don't have any difficulty in changing my position on issues.

It took me years and much searching to find my own position on issues like gun control or the death penalty. I should think that formulating my position and opinion on sex workers can take me years as well. These aren't issues that are often addressed in my RW, so I welcome the different POVs offered and the fact that they lead me to question my own position on the subject.

I should have read more thoroughly as you expressed this much better than I did.

[Austin]

Also, I guess since I know how passionately Deelaem loves her sons, I find it hard to believe that she is a "man-hater".

[Witsec7]

I should have read more thoroughly as you expressed this much better than I did.

And here I was thinking you did a more coherent job than I did. :clap:

[Austin]

And anyone who refuses to be a misandrist is a misogynist. That is basically the just of Deelaem's view point. You either hate men or hate women. My personal opinion is that she is not a true feminists because she doesn't give a rats ass about freedom to chose unless you chose what she thinks is right. It's not a vibe the other feminists on this board give off, only Deelaem.

Well, a lot of people have expressed that you are always the one whining "what about the menz". You probably do not feel that's fair, but that's the rap you have here with a lot of posters. So anybody can say someone else is this or that.

I think it's ridiculous to say that Deelaem is not a "true feminist". You may disagree with her, but that's really a bridge too far.

[Witsec7]

Hippy, are you now in charge of handing out the litmus tests for Feminists? I certainly missed that email in my in box.

[meda]

There does not need to be "one position". I did not word my thought completely; I should have said something along the lines of what position I'm going to settle on. I have reconciled myself to living with some cognitive dissonance while I figure out what lines up best with my values and sensibilities on any given issue. And my positions and thoughts on issues often evolve over time, as I imagine is true for most people.

And I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about prostitution as I see merit to the arguments on all sides.

I see what you mean, and I am probably being too touchy. I just think that bullshit turf wars and the need for ideological purity that seems to run rampant in feminist circles are a complete waste of time. And FWIW, I'm sure deelaem is a perfectly nice person who loves her sons and cute puppy very much, but that does not prevent her from coming across as the one and only True Feminist educator of the ignorant FJ masses.

[eohiken]

The problem with this point of view is that prostitution already exists and making it illegal doesn't make it not exist anymore. Women are already selling their bodies and, by criminalizing it, they're left very vulnerable.

hmm? I certainly can't deny that prostitution exists, nor that it's criminalization does shit all. I'm fine with prostitution being perfectly legal, as long as the buying of sex is not. But I absolutely do not buy into the idea that sex work is empowerful in the least.

That bit about the feminist (twisty faster style) policing of sexual practices is so often misconstrued. Really, do whatever you like in bed, get your rocks off five ways til Tuesday, but don't pretend it futhers the cause of gender equality. Mostly, the idea is to personally examine the rationalization and motivation of sexual relationships. The current pressure on women is to submit to anal and wax their genitalia bald, whereas 15 years ago it was BJs and wonderbras, why is that? It's a discussion about agency, how much of the sexual lives of women is of their own manifestation and how much is coercion (subtle or blatant)? So then there is the idea of compliance without agency, what is the significance of consent without (or reduced) power?

[Austin]

Well, clearly your condemnation of "some posters" applies to her as well.

No, she does not make me feel that way, and no, for me, it does not apply to her.

I was simply speaking for myself. If you don't agree, it's really not a big deal.

[valsa]

What, in your view, makes a radical feminist?

Good question. Wikipedia has a pretty good description "Radical feminists in Western society assert that their society is a patriarchy in which men are the primary oppressors of women. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy. Radical feminism posits the theory that, due to patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They also believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution."

I dislike most compromise (unless it's win-win) and I feel that more mainstream feminism, in many cases, has compromised its way into being ineffective. "Feminist" itself is used as a slur, even by young (non-fundie) women, and there's a high level of acceptance (and even emulation) when it comes to the casual sexism in many shows, movies, music, and other media. I consider that unacceptable and would like to see women advocate for changing it, without having the difficulty of men to accept such a radical change enter into the discussion.

Most women have been conditioned by society to compromise and/or give in, even when we're clearly in the right, to protect the feelings and comfort of the other party (when talking about feminism, the other party is usually (but not always) men) I think radical feminism involves fighting for equality without hand-holding men and misogynistic women or worrying about how equality for women is going to hurt their feelings (note: I say and mean equality here. I don’t want women to be held superior, just equal. And you’d be surprised how many women, even feminists, worry about how men could possibly handle such a big, bad, scary change as women being treated the same as them. I find that point of view insulting to women and to the men that it infantilizes)

[valsa]

Also, I guess since I know how passionately Deelaem loves her sons, I find it hard to believe that she is a "man-hater".

So, since Santorum seems to love his daughter, he's not a woman-hater?

[Austin]

So, since Santorum seems to love his daughter, he's not a woman-hater?

She loves them for who they are, not for some warped idea of who they should be.

[Kelya]

Good question. Wikipedia has a pretty good description "Radical feminists in Western society assert that their society is a patriarchy in which men are the primary oppressors of women. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy. Radical feminism posits the theory that, due to patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They also believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution."

I dislike most compromise (unless it's win-win) and I feel that more mainstream feminism, in many cases, has compromised its way into being ineffective. "Feminist" itself is used as a slur, even by young (non-fundie) women, and there's a high level of acceptance (and even emulation) when it comes to the casual sexism in many shows, movies, music, and other media. I consider that unacceptable and would like to see women advocate for changing it, without having the difficulty of men to accept such a radical change enter into the discussion.

Most women have been conditioned by society to compromise and/or give in, even when we're clearly in the right, to protect the feelings and comfort of the other party (when talking about feminism, the other party is usually (but not always) men) I think radical feminism involves fighting for equality without hand-holding men and misogynistic women or worrying about how equality for women is going to hurt their feelings (note: I say and mean equality here. I don’t want women to be held superior, just equal. And you’d be surprised how many women, even feminists, worry about how men could possibly handle such a big, bad, scary change as women being treated the same as them. I find that point of view insulting to women and to the men that it infantilizes)

Time for an Angela Davis quote! "Radicalism is simply grasping things at the root."

[valsa]

She loves them for who they are, not for some warped idea of who they should be.

Wow, I'm so glad that you have to ability to warp yourself into both deelaem and Santorum's heads to be able to make that determination.

When people hate a certain group, they're always capable of making exceptions for certain members of that group that they can somehow do the mental gymnastics to identify as "different than the rest of X group". It's just as likely that deelaem loves her sons for who she's mentally distinguished them to be, apart from the rest of the male gender.

I also find it interesting that this is exactly what was predicted. Deelaem made a ridiculous and sexist argument, then flounced, and here you are to protect her with the ferocity of a mama bear. Kinda reminds me of ConfusedJezebel and Elle.

ETA: By the way, when I was talking about Santorum, I meant his love for his 3 year old unlikely-to-live-to-double-digits daughter. I don't think he has a warped idea of who she should be.

[meda]

hmm? I certainly can't deny that prostitution exists, nor that it's criminalization does shit all. I'm fine with prostitution being perfectly legal, as long as the buying of sex is not. But I absolutely do not buy into the idea that sex work is empowerful in the least.

That bit about the feminist (twisty faster style) policing of sexual practices is so often misconstrued. Really, do whatever you like in bed, get your rocks off five ways til Tuesday, but don't pretend it futhers the cause of gender equality. Mostly, the idea is to personally examine the rationalization and motivation of sexual relationships. The current pressure on women is to submit to anal and wax their genitalia bald, whereas 15 years ago it was BJs and wonderbras, why is that? It's a discussion about agency, how much of the sexual lives of women is of their own manifestation and how much is coercion (subtle or blatant)? So then there is the idea of compliance without agency, what is the significance of consent without (or reduced) power?

Ok, define "pressure" in sexual relationships. I am assuming that we are talking about heterosexual sexual relationships. A request by a man to his partner to try a sexual activity in and of itself is not pressure, it's a request. Is the pressure economic? Physical? Is the assumption that the man holds economic power in the relationship and therefor the woman must comply with his sexual demands? What if a woman requests anal sex? Is anal sex an inherently disempowering act for a woman to engage in?

If the issue is about agency, then shouldn't the discussion focus on correcting power imbalances so that women can manifest any sort of sexual life she choses? I don't understand why is the focus on the analysis on particular manifestations of sexuality. I get that in many parts of the world, women have no agency over their bodies. I get that in first world countries, many women have reduced agency because of societal beliefs and economic inequality, but I don't understand why my sex life and the sex lives of other straight women of privilege require so much scrutiny.

[Austin]

Deelaem doesn't need me to defend her, but I would have just felt like a heel standing by while she was being trashed when I have respect for her. It was just an authentic response on my part, but I should not have waded in.

As for your other attacks, you can think what you want, Valsa. I know that a back and forth with you never ends, so I cede the argument to you. These are my impressions; that's it. If those are the sorts of things you think about me, have at it.