Letters to the Editor
-
Isn't every argument being used to argue for outlawing men using prostutes a perfect echo
of every argument that feminists used in the 80s to try and outlaw all porn.
-
@acefsw
ITA. That's a great analogy to make to the exploitation of illegal labor also. I get so tired hearing TV pundits and hack pols rage on about illegal laborers in our country. Where I live, a host of clearly Mexican laborers make lawns and the local golf course manicured to a ridiculous degree. Restaurants are manned by an army of illegal workers. It's right out in the open. So why blame the folks trying to earn a (very poorly paid) living? We Americans who profit from this system are very much to blame for the situation as it stands right now.
-
@dick
I fail to see the connection since porn is legal and prostitution is not. I can see the difference quite clearly. Jenna Jameson didn't have sex with YOU, just with lots of other people who did NOT pay her. You pay to watch her performance.
It's funny really. The same people toss up the same points which are refuted by the evidence over and over again. Prostitution, legalized or not, carries with it a host of social problems. There have been numerous attempts to remedy this system. Despite being mocked, the Swedish government acted to reduce prostitution and has done so. Prosecuting pimps and johns heavily appears to be working. Legalization clearly does NOT work to reduce trafficking, the worst offense. If it did, other countries would be visiting the Netherlands to see how they make it work. Instead, they're visiting Sweden and the Netherlands is driving out brothels and generally making prostitution a less hospitable endeavor in their country.
-
in the 80s feminist argued that ALL PORN constituted by defintion an "act of violence" against women and SHOULD ALL be illegal
the same argument that is being made about prostitution now and laws were passed in some jurisdictions based on this view. A woman set herself on fire in an adult bookstore to make the point. About the time this was happening the internet was starting and as a result of its existence people have apparently given up trying to stop all men from looking at porn. I am curious if anyone knows or can know how much prostitution is really taking place in Sweden. If girls can, without penalty, set up online "communities" consisting of themselves and their customers I don't see why business can't be freely conducted on a large scale. Does anyone have reason to doubt this is happening or know the extent of it. I know that in the US authorities bust LOTS of girls using craigslist to hook.
-
on not insulting others
"If you just tend to write the way you normally talk, you might want to think about whether this contributes to the difficulties you have with relationships in other spheres."
But Amerigo doesn't insult people.
Since you have no clue about my other relationships, what are you writing that for, if not to insult me?
Fact is, Amerigo, I think you are deeply misogynist and a criminal. You have taken advantage of third world prostitution. You write a personal story in which you coyly state that you may have raped a woman, but "don't know for sure" (???!!!)
And then you go to every article on Salon that is about rape or prostitution or the suffering of women, and tell your stories and argue and argue to try to exonerate yourself.
And you think other people are screwed up?
Man, get some therapy if you're so guilt riddled, but don't just hang out here to tell other women they're crazy for coming to the obvious and inescapable conclusion that you are a toad.
Your passive aggressive bullshit does not hide your agenda, which was pretty clearly indicated when you said you wished one of the other women posters' partner would die. When you wish death on people you don't even know, Amerigo, you shouldn't be commenting on the emotional state of others.
And as for Melissa Farley, no, of course she's not impartial--why should she be? Nobody ever argued for her impartiality. I would think that 35 years of looking that beast in the eye would shape anybody's view, and possibly even make them quite passionate about abolition. You have no right to try to discredit her legitimate credentials because she happens to be an abolitionist--if she were in favor of legalization you'd be block quoting her like crazy.
You need to figure out what your real problem is, why you are compelled to hang out on these blogs and argue for the ongoing systemic degradation of women--don't tell us when you figure it out, we don't want to hear about it (unlike you I am not at all curious about the private lives of other posters). When you figure out where the hate is coming from maybe you can work on it in some constructive way.
Man, some creepy borderline types hang out on Broadsheet. Maybe they're bumped from the other blogs--I never see any quite so extreme there.
-
@ Fuck Dworkin
There hasn't really been the shift you suggest. The specific school of thought which believes in the abolition of all porn and prostitution is still very much alive, and like I said it is heavily Marxist influenced.
As we all know these are not the only feminists in the world--there are other schools of thought. Since its inception feminism has been splintering and re-inventing itself and now comes in many flavors. Overall I think this is a good thing.
The one thing true feminists have in common is a sincere belief in gender equality for everyone. The term "feminism" has been co-opted by many people who don't really believe in any such thing--Conservative Christian housewives who believe in Biblical submission cannot be feminists as they like to claim these days. Neither can Muslim women who believe a woman is shamed if she shows her hair and believes her husband has a Q'uran-based right to beat her if she disobeys him.
The term "feminism" becomes a useless oxymoron when used by such people.
We cannot say one school of thought is totally illegitimate and discredited when it is still very much alive and kicking (see Twister's blog and about a zillion others) just because you don't like what it has to say. Personally, I don't think all prostitution is rape like Twister says. I don't think it can be for legal purposes. I know that many traumatized former sex workers describe their experiences as a form of rape, and I think that's heartbreaking and tragic, but I think that prostitution is not the same as rape--as many have pointed out, it denies the woman all agency. I'm disturbed by the total lack of assignation of moral agency for the john--something others have also noticed ("when we talk about prostitution it's not a coincidence that we can never talk about the john"), but that doesn't mean that the woman has none.
As for porn--it's not an accident that the greatest internet porn traffic can be traced to sexually repressive countries where women are second class citizens--Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that porn is misogynistic. I also believe it ruins the lives of many young women, and that many who get into it are disturbed in many of the same way prostitutes are. So I can understand the ideology. I'm just less sure what ought to be done about it (I've seen porn--I used to have a boyfriend who wanted to try seeing it, so we did that--to be frank we both found it dull and after about the third movie it was totally boring). I think porn is better dealt with in terms of encouraging cultural change--what we have learned is that porn is very popular in societies with huge gender inequities. The more equality women achieve generally, the less porn will flourish--in theory at least. Erotica is something different; even women like erotica. Now the definition of erotica vs. porn is a whole other vigorous debate. I would argue that in erotica the woman is not objectified to the extent that she is porn. But who decides where that line is? Good question.
Prostitution has to be frontally attacked, however. It is a human rights tragedy that it would be criminal to ignore. The Swedes admit that part of their plan is to stigmatize the practice of going to prostitutes, so that "the next generation will consider this much less normal than they do today". You can't change attitudes by normalizing it and handing out licences.
Changing attitudes--now there's an idea. Judging from this thread it looks like we are still a long way from that.
Don't knock the abolitionists (and yes, they are called abolitionists, and yes, they did choose that name in reference to the slave trade) too much--if anything they provide a reference point for more nuanced, moderate points of view. It's an old tactic--if you want to pull people to the right, aim for the extreme right and the center will be dragged somewhat to the right just in the process of engaging the more radical discourse. The Repubs have been doing this for 8 years now. You shouldn't be surprised to find out that other people are capable of doing it also :)
Long live radical feminists!