Poll: Is soliciting a prostitute an anti-feminist act/demeaning to women?

[Darken12]

I'd argue that in many cases, the radical differences in approach between various members of such ideological movements is a key flaw. They fight for hearts and minds, an act that fundamentally requires the production, dissemination and finally acceptance of some core message. Offering wildly differing approaches to this all while disagreeing on what the message itself should be undermines undermines the effectiveness of the effort.

While people in the feminist movement may have different opinions on specific issues, they must have something in common, and that something is what made them identify as feminists in the first place. Feminism does have a core message, and it's not about abortion, objectification, rape culture or anything specific (and you will find that feminists disagree on the specifics, not the generalities. You cannot be a feminist and simultaneously disagree with the core tenets of the movement), it's about addressing the problems women face as a consequence of sexism, solving them and achieving gender equality.

That is what needs to be produced, disseminated and accepted, not the individual stances of this or that feminist on this or that topic.

The difference is that some guy making comments that some women should get back to the kitchen is a world away from feminutters in government,universities and numerous other areas pushing their harmful nonsense onto the rest of society.

We do not live in the same world, perceive the same realities or have absolutely anything to say to each other. I have absolutely no way of engaging you in a way you can possibly understand me, and I am actually glad I'm beginning to tell the difference between "misguided" or "uninformed" and "completely opposed in ideology". I will save us both an endless debate and defuse it before it even started.

Amusing. But are you disagreeing with his actual statement? Because things like the Dear Colleague letter, the U of T protests regarding Warren Farrel, and the fact that there is a US law that explicitly states in it's text that anything receiving funding from it is required to serve women, but projects under it also may discriminate with respect to actual or perceived gender (hmm, if one must serve women, but can discriminate with respect to gender, I wonder who it is we're discriminating *against*?) would seem to follow his perspective nicely.

That sounds dangerously close to MRA talk. Someone who is unable to see the difference between "helping a marginalised gender" and "giving unfair advantages to a gender that doesn't need it" is not someone I can actually comprehend (or who can comprehend me back).

 

[Carpenter]

I don't want to sound mean but your question is a bit silly. No it's not demeaning to all women nor would it be demeaning to all men if roles are reversed. It could only really be demeaning to the person you are trying to pay and even then you are not doing the "demeaning" if they are actual prostitutes.

This whole "demeaning to women" thing is something that gets tossed around by people that don't really understand what "demeaning" is and how an entire gender, race, or religion can be demeaned. Slavery was demeaning to Chinese, Irish, Africans, and any other race that happened to be chosen. Those people (mostly Africans I think) were literally dehumanized. No, women were not "dehumanized" or "demeaned" by that offensive movie scene or video game trailer, they were being demeaned when they were not allowed to vote, they are being "demeaned" in places where they can be tortured, beaten, or killed for not covering themselves or leaving the home without a man.

Again, not trying to sound mean, you are just caught up in the social hive mind that thinks paying a women for something that she has chosen to do for money is a complicated moral issue. Think for yourself, you will find most of these "tough moral questions" have very obvious solutions.

Bottom line, there's parts of the world right now where people are unable to leave, a military force does thinks to their people (especially women and children) that I would be banned for naming, and land mines places around their village when the whole thing is over just in case some escapees think of returning to their home for whatever reason.

Yup, say the line people, "Oh so because bad stuff happens we are not allowed to talk about anything else"
Yeah it's inevitable.

No, you are allowed to talk about everything else as all of you demonstrate every day, it doesn't mean we have to pretend that any of it matters.

Our country dropped two nukes on a country slaughtering countless japanese civilians and to this day people in my country will even joke about it, because "they had it coming" when their military, which the civiess do not control, attacked our military.

Remember when a country killed much less of our own people in retaliation of countless atrocities committed by our own military? Remember how ever year we still have to act like it was somehow worse than anything we have ever done?


Yeah I'm ranting maybe, my point is perspective. All in perspective. It's fine to pay a woman for sex, just don't slaughter her people or slowly poison her with toxic waste and you will be on much higher moral ground than the people that keep this world "running"


Darken, women are not a minority, they are a majority. Giving a majority rights over a minority is something I thought we as a culture realized was wrong, but I guess there are always young people to carry on the backwards psychotic thinking that I so hoped would die out with old age.
How are women marginalized? Do you understand what that word means? Couldn't it be argued that all of us are marginalized in some way or another?

Bottom line, you defend this silly notion that one gender should have more rights than another or be "served by" another because nobody in this country of zombies has any real problems to deal with, so you create some.

You just claimed that if a rapist is white, middle class, and male, he will suffer no consequence from a rape conviction. That is so delusional that I have to wonder if you are actually doing a very subtle parody of some "social crusader" white knight archetype.

 

[Darken12]

Darken, women are not a minority, they are a majority. Giving a majority rights over a minority is something I thought we as a culture realized was wrong, but I guess there are always young people to carry on the backwards psychotic thinking that I so hoped would die out with old age.

Just because a group is not a minority doesn't mean that it's not marginalised. There have been many societies in the past where a wealthy elite marginalised an oppressed majority. That was one of the reasons why the French Revolution happened (though I understand like all historical events, it was a complex affair with many different factors and I don't want any history buffs to think I'm oversimplifying a complex event).

Also, whenever the percentage of women in a given city/state/country is 49% or less, women are a minority. It might be a large minority, but it's a minority nonetheless.

EDIT: Also, I have literally no idea what you're saying when it comes to "giving rights to a majority over a minority." I find that to be so distanced from the discussion I was having that I am wondering if you aren't confusing me with someone else.

How are women marginalized? Do you understand what that word means? Couldn't it be argued that all of us are marginalized in some way or another?

Yes. Most of us (though not all of us) are marginalised in one way or another. It's the kyriarchy theory, to which I subscribe. Most of us are marginalised because of our gender, race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality, gender identity and religion. The fact that other groups suffer the same fate does not invalidate valid complaints levied about the state of one group. Just because people of colour and LGBT people are also marginalised doesn't invalidate the struggle of feminism.

Bottom line, you defend this silly notion that one gender should have more rights than another or be "served by" another because nobody in this country of zombies has any real problems to deal with, so you create some.

I have never defended or held such a ludicrous belief. Please, do point out where I state that one gender should have more rights than or should be served by another. The very idea is anathema to my ideological beliefs.

You just claimed that if a rapist is white, middle class, and male, he will suffer no consequence from a rape conviction. That is so delusional that I have to wonder if you are actually doing a very subtle parody of some "social crusader" white knight archetype.

The fact that you're using the word "conviction" instead of "accusation" proves you probably didn't read (and definitely didn't understand) what I actually wrote. The idea that anyone will not suffer consequences from a conviction is completely illogical. The conviction itself (and the jail time/bail/economic compensation associated) is a consequence.

What was being argued was that the very accusation (or suspicion) of rape will somehow irrevocably ruin a man's life forever, and I argued that due to the ingrained racism, classism, ethnocentrism, ageism and shallowness in society, that such ruination would only take place if the accused fit the public bias.

 

[Kal-Adam]

Just so long as you pick up a male prostitute, for the sake of keeping things equal, then it's all good.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Fine. Then I present to you the MRA movement. Do you need me to go find you actual quotes, or do you take my word that there are some extremely misogynistic men involved in the movement? Are the misogynists making the movement look bad? Because if we're going to let the misandrists ruin feminism, I want the right to automatically call someone a misogynistic douchebag whenever they advocate men's rights.

The difference is that some guy making comments that some women should get back to the kitchen is a world away from feminutters in government,universities and numerous other areas pushing their harmful nonsense onto the rest of society.

Suddenly you are everywhere on the forum. I like you. You can be my pet misogynist, and I could feed you and brush you and let you sleep at the end of my bed. Then when we went out you could bark angrily at women and I would have to yank your leash and say to the women "I am sorry. Don't worry about him, he is more scared of you than you are of him" and then we would all share a laugh except for you because you would be angry. I think this would be a good way for me to meet women, are you interested?

Amusing. But are you disagreeing with his actual statement?

Actually I'm mocking the fact that he seems to be doing nothing more than popping into topics and posting misogynist opinions before running away again without responding. On top of the one quoted above, we've got this gem from a topic on the EU potentially banning porn on gender equality grounds;

Misogynists? oh you mean anyone with an ounce of common sense and that ammunition you speak of is like tossing a couple of rounds on the mountain of ammo feminazis have given everyone already.

And then again from a thread on sexual education;

Sex ed is one thing when they are of age but using as it as an excuse to push certain ideologies is not, which is what this looks like it may do.

Having seen his other hit-and-run posts, care to take a guess what he means by "certain ideologies"? Given that he describes equal rights as "harmless nonsense" being "pushed on society" by "feminutters", and has in other posts used the word "feminazi" without a hint of irony, I really don't think there's any point in posting a serious rebuttal to his ideas; he's clearly an ideologue with no interest in actually defending his position, just in making sure that people know what that position is.