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

[Abomination]

I think it's more of a criticism of the "movement" than the members. The definition of Feminism seems to be highly varied even between feminists. It results in the word 'feminism' holding less and less weight or opinion value due to just how varied it can be.

If it's a philosophy it needs to really define itself in a manner that everyone who follows it can agree upon, but that would require changing its name to something other than feminism and it seems the only thing every feminist can agree on is that they're NEVER going to change what they call themselves.

"It" needs to define itself? Feminism isn't a sentient being, nor is it a political party. It's a broad term that's used to describe a range of critical, philosophical, political and personal ideologies that pertain to gender and equality, and as such accommodates a multitude of different perspectives and opinions

It, the members of the movement, those who represent it. The members of a movement decide what it is called and what defines it, but you have multiple movements of feminism with differing beliefs, methods, goals, agendas and definitions for feminism.

All seek the same title for their particular philosophy, which can be incredibly varied. It does the overall movement no favours when the philosophy lacks consistency. I imagine that's why the feminist movement is having such a hard time gaining more "converts" (I guess? People who did not use to but now subscribe to feminism) or convincing others to change their point of view to be more in line with feminist ideals - because those ideals are not set in stone.

How can a philosophy gain traction when it isn't transparent or unified in its beliefs, goals and agendas?

 

[Frankster]

Depends what branch of feminism you subscribe to i guess, the way it was explained to me is sex positive schools of feminism and its variations are ok with it as its the womans body (so long as the woman isnt forced or coerced into this, unfortunately in practice this tends to be the case as prostitution is illegal and without checks and security measures), sex negative feminism and its variations would frown upon it very much.

 

[lacktheknack]

In theory no, in practice yes. While yes, there are women who voluntarily enter prostitution and soliciting these women isn't really anti-feminist, there are a lot of women who are involved prostitution only quasi-voluntarily. Especially when human trafficking is involved. And those women might enthusiastically proclaim their voluntary participation only because they need a John's money or to keep their "manager" off their back. So the John can't tell the difference between a genuinely voluntary sex worker and an unwilling sex worker who only consents due to some form of duress.

Unfortunately, what guys I've known who are okay with prostitution seem overly willing to just assume that they only hook up with the real volunteers, despite having precious little evidence that's the case. I guess very few people want to believe that they've contributed to a real human being forced to live under borderline slavery conditions just so they could get their rocks off.

I'm not sure I can "this" any harder than I am right now.

I just keep my nose out of it entirely. I'm not interested in gray areas.

 

[WaReloaded]

Not at all. If anything it could be considered as being supportive of the women's rights movement as it signifies you're acceptance of their decisions as human beings. However, this is assuming that they're prostituting themselves on their own behalf and not being forced into the industry by another.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Hey guys what's goin on in-...Oh boy...this again, right, let's sort this out before it gets into a giant bush fire:

Is it degrading to anyone to be forced into it? Yes

By their own free will? Well, depends on their boss and how they run things.

But no, it's not anti-feminist.

 

[norashepard]

Part of being in a group is having a quality shared by all but feminists don't have anything in common inherently is my point. If I were to say I am a gamer it means I like games, if I were to say I am a comic book fan it would mean I like comics. To say you are part of any sort of group means every one in that group much share at least one thing universally in common that defines the group. Feminists don't have anything that universally defines them to make them a group. You could say it is about equality but that isn't true because not all feminists have that in common some want superiority.

Well feminism isn't a group, any more than utilitarianism is a group. So criticising feminists for not being a proper group is kind of a misfire. That's like complaining about an egg because it's not a cabbage.

There are feminist groups, certainly. There are also feminists who don't belong to any group. Though for what it's worth, if we discounted the nutters over at radfemhub (their site has actually gone now anyway), feminism as a political ideology does have the single unifying concept of equality between the sexes. Judging all of feminism by radfemhub is like judging all religion based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

That last line: A+

And just as a side note, Feminism is really more about equality between all people, which is why you often see feminists groups go to town on racists or ableists, as well as misogynists. Possibly relevant to discussion, because there's a large, if kind of disturbing, market for "exotic" prostitutes of color. Is it any different in that situation?

 

[bananafishtoday]

I think it is more just that it is annoying to have a whole bunch of people identify with one philosophy, then deal with divergent views. If feminists can range from those who believe that women are innately good and different from men by birth, and that sex is demeaning to women, to those who believe men and women are exactly equal in all mental capabilities and that sex is a positive and liberating thing it tends to lead people to wonder why feminism is even a term when everyone who claims it has vastly different opinions on key issues.

Part of being in a group is having a quality shared by all but feminists don't have anything in common inherently is my point. If I were to say I am a gamer it means I like games, if I were to say I am a comic book fan it would mean I like comics. To say you are part of any sort of group means every one in that group much share at least one thing universally in common that defines the group. Feminists don't have anything that universally defines them to make them a group. You could say it is about equality but that isn't true because not all feminists have that in common some want superiority.

First off, I would argue that feminists who argue women are "innately good" represent an extremely small minority and that "sex is demeaning to women" is a vast oversimplification of one point of view.

Second, divergent views aren't really uncommon compared to many other schools of thought. Feminism isn't a political party with organized hierarchies, like the Democratic or Republican parties. It's more akin to their (and others parties') underlying "isms"--liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism, environmentalism, corporatism, non-interventionism, nationalism, etc. I'm sure you'll find just as wide a range of opinions among those who identify with those umbrella terms. (And, hell, the political parties themselves are a mess precisely because they're trying to enforce dogma. Look at the GOP: it's basically a coalition of 1) statist, moralist, hardcore Christians, 2) small-government fiscal conservatives, and 3) statist, ex-liberal, interventionist neo-cons. These are fundamentally very different worldviews.)

Third, although there has been a lot done to change this since the 90s, modern feminism emerged largely from academia. In that respect it's somewhat similar to other soft sciences like psychology or sociology (and indeed has a lot of overlap.) This, combined with its focus on inclusion, naturally leads to a spectrum of opinion. One of the reasons someone might call themself a feminist is to say that they are educated on and a participant in the ongoing debate, rather than an outsider to it.

Congratulations on winning the internet, here is a discount voucher for your next shopping trip.

:3c

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Part of being in a group is having a quality shared by all but feminists don't have anything in common inherently is my point. If I were to say I am a gamer it means I like games, if I were to say I am a comic book fan it would mean I like comics. To say you are part of any sort of group means every one in that group much share at least one thing universally in common that defines the group. Feminists don't have anything that universally defines them to make them a group. You could say it is about equality but that isn't true because not all feminists have that in common some want superiority.

Well feminism isn't a group, any more than utilitarianism is a group. So criticising feminists for not being a proper group is kind of a misfire. That's like complaining about an egg because it's not a cabbage.

There are feminist groups, certainly. There are also feminists who don't belong to any group. Though for what it's worth, if we discounted the nutters over at radfemhub (their site has actually gone now anyway), feminism as a political ideology does have the single unifying concept of equality between the sexes. Judging all of feminism by radfemhub is like judging all religion based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

That last line: A+

And just as a side note, Feminism is really more about equality between all people, which is why you often see feminists groups go to town on racists or ableists, as well as misogynists. Possibly relevant to discussion, because there's a large, if kind of disturbing, market for "exotic" prostitutes of color. Is it any different in that situation?

Wouldn't Equalist be a better term for it then? Feminist implies that it is concerned only with gender based discrimination, and specifically that against women. Honestly the amount of feminist groups with vastly differing opinions and the implications of the term are major reasons I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist, along with the lack of concern for some of the issues facing men that seem equally as relevant as those currently facing women.

 

[norashepard]

And just as a side note, Feminism is really more about equality between all people, which is why you often see feminists groups go to town on racists or ableists, as well as misogynists. Possibly relevant to discussion, because there's a large, if kind of disturbing, market for "exotic" prostitutes of color. Is it any different in that situation?

Wouldn't Equalist be a better term for it then? Feminist implies that it is concerned only with gender based discrimination, and specifically that against women. Honestly the amount of feminist groups with vastly differing opinions and the implications of the term are major reasons I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist, along with the lack of concern for some of the issues facing men that seem equally as relevant as those currently facing women.

I agree that the term Feminist certainly does cause problems, especially initially, when people just immediately assume it's about women and only about women. And it also does cause problems on the front of, say, male rape, which does happen and is just as terrible, but almost always ignored. Further still with trans* issues, which are often dismissed by more radical feminists because hey, "they're just men in skirts right?" Grinds my gears, I tell you what.

I'd still say that I'm a feminist though, even with all the negative implications it describes. I just have to hope the person I'm talking to knows to listen to what I'm saying rather than who I say I am. I would just say humanist, but that's already a thing.

 

[Abomination]

It, the members of the movement, those who represent it. The members of a movement decide what it is called and what defines it, but you have multiple movements of feminism with differing beliefs, methods, goals, agendas and definitions for feminism.

All seek the same title for their particular philosophy, which can be incredibly varied. It does the overall movement no favours when the philosophy lacks consistency. I imagine that's why the feminist movement is having such a hard time gaining more "converts" (I guess? People who did not use to but now subscribe to feminism) or convincing others to change their point of view to be more in line with feminist ideals - because those ideals are not set in stone.

How can a philosophy gain traction when it isn't transparent or unified in its beliefs, goals and agendas?

Is the feminist movement (and by this I assume that we're referring specifically to the political branch of feminism as opposed to the philosophical, critical and personal aspects of it) really having trouble gaining "converts", though? If it's just a fringe movement or a flash in the pan then it's being awfully pervasive. I would have thought that the fact that you can think in a feminist way without completely readjusting your life and beliefs and having to sign up to a monthly newsletter is sort of a selling point. I don't know, maybe feminism (the hive mind, that is) would "win" more "members" if it eliminated internal discourse and laid out a prescriptive dogma, but then again the second most viewed video on Youtube right now is 'Baby' by Justin Bieber, so numbers aren't everything.

Given what I understand one of the few agreed upon goals of every branch of feminism is trying to convince everyone to uphold their ideals - numbers do mean a lot to them, even if they're just "allies" or whatever. Unlike a simple counter next to a song on youtube that only represents the number of people who have viewed it, agreeing to feminism can actually effect the social development of a nation if enough people subscribe to it.

The best thing the Christian church did for itself is call itself Christianity as a form of umbrella but it never got rid of its denominations. Feminism needs more denominations and for people to recognise what line of thought a particular feminist has. The neo and traditional feminist movements opinion on prostitution is a significant philosophical difference between the two that highlights a major differing of stance on what it means to be an empowered woman.

If both sides call themselves feminists then what is a non-feminist to think if they heard the neo's opinion on it? They would think women believe prostitutes to be either literal or spiritual representations of the patriarchy and are either evil or unfortunate depending on the woman's reasons for being one. That could rub the wrong way with certain people's train of thought and consider feminists to be too extreme and not subscribe to the movement that identifies itself as such. I agree with SOME of the feminist movements and ideals but unfortunately some other aspects of it leave a sour taste in my mouth or make what I consider molehills into mountains - and in turn paint feminists or even women in a worse light for it, doing more damage to their cause than they know. Sort of like a woman who accuses a man of rape for brushing against her in a subway by accident, it undermines the legitimate claims of rape of women everywhere.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

No it isn't. It's a job that either gender can partake in. Might not have the greatest job security, but nevertheless. It is ultimately up to the person whether they choose to become a Prostitute (Unless they are a sex slave which is wrong) so they're only demeaning themselves.

 

[Sansha]

What I believe feminism to be is allowing all women to have complete control over their own lives, and all aspects thereof. So if a woman wants to be a prostitute, soliciting her for such a thing isn't demeaning in my opinion.

 

[Darken12]

Sort of like a woman who accuses a man of rape for brushing against her in a subway by accident, it undermines the legitimate claims of rape of women everywhere.

Yes, because that clearly happens all the time, while opposite situations (a woman being raped and keeping quiet, or a woman being raped and getting slandered and vilified in court so that her rapist can walk free) don't happen with nearly as much frequency. /sarcasm

While false claims exist and do undermine the real ones, they are a tiny minority of all rape claims, but the patriarchy wants you to believe the opposite.

Rape claims come pre-undermined.

 

[bananafishtoday]

Judging all of feminism by radfemhub is like judging all religion based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

That is a horrible example.

Yes WBC is a religion but they dont just call themselves...religion. There are many different religions all going with different names, themes, philosophies, stories, morals and the like. Yet they dont all just call themselves by one name They go with Buddhism, Wicka, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism. And that is even before you get into the fun little splinter groups...which the WBC is.

Where as 'radfemhub' shares the same name as 'feminist frequency' or whatever other silly site you might want to pick which is just...feminism, making things worse for the movment overall because the more intelligent and progressive feminists get mixed in with the femnazis and their ilk.

OT: Nope, not demeaning. If a woman wants to sell what she has to offer, that is her business, and there is nothing wrong with doing business with her on her terms.

They don't just call themselves "religion," but they do claim to be the one true Christian church. Is all of Christianity despoiled by the existence of the WBC?

Wouldn't Equalist be a better term for it then? Feminist implies that it is concerned only with gender based discrimination, and specifically that against women. Honestly the amount of feminist groups with vastly differing opinions and the implications of the term are major reasons I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist, along with the lack of concern for some of the issues facing men that seem equally as relevant as those currently facing women.

Feminism is about equality. Most feminists see the movement as working against sexist social/cultural norms and institutions that oppress and exploit women. These norms/institutions can harm men too, but in different ways--specifically, if you are a man who is willing and able to conform to society's image of maleness, you're in the driver's seat. One of the big things that separates second- from third-wave feminism is acknowledging that these systems of power harm men as well.

As for the tendency for feminists to fight racism/ableism/homophobia/transphobia/etc, that stems from another third-wave concept: intersectionality. Basically, that varying forms of oppression (race/class/sex/gender identity/sexual preference/etc) intersect to enforce social inequality.

But anyway, many people smarter than myself have written about these topics for decades. All I can really say is that there's a lot to it that can't really be explained in a simple forum post, just as one couldn't explain the whole of sociology or economics or what have you.

Edit:

Sort of like a woman who accuses a man of rape for brushing against her in a subway by accident, it undermines the legitimate claims of rape of women everywhere.

No. No, it does not, even if that were actually a thing.

 

[Abomination]

Given what I understand one of the few agreed upon goals of every branch of feminism is trying to convince everyone to uphold their ideals - numbers do mean a lot to them, even if they're just "allies" or whatever. Unlike a simple counter next to a song on youtube that only represents the number of people who have viewed it, agreeing to feminism can actually effect the social development of a nation if enough people subscribe to it.

The best thing the Christian church did for itself is call itself Christianity as a form of umbrella but it never got rid of its denominations. Feminism needs more denominations and for people to recognise what line of thought a particular feminist has.

Gonna stop you right there. Feminism doesn't need "denominations" and it certainly doesn't need to model itself on the Christian church.

Don't get me wrong, this is quite refreshing. Usually all I get are accusations of feminism being too dogmatic and brainwashing, mixed in with sweeping generalisation of "what feminists think". It makes a change to be told that feminism isn't dogmatic or brainwashing enough.

I'm not saying that feminism needs to operate the same as Christianity but it needs to have its sub-classifications in a more transparant manner and members need to identify themselves or their arguments as belonging to those sub-classifications.

Christianity had a problem that you couldn't get a Baptist and a Catholic to get along because according to both the other was a heretic. Christianity became the umbrella term that united their ideals while still allowing their differences. Feminism needs to do the opposite, keep its umbrella term but recognise the differing schools of thought in a more public and transparent manner.

The primary problem it encounters is due to some of its own members' extreme views which are included by virtue of there not being any denominations to classify those extreme views as. Terms such as feminazi have been coined by those OUTSIDE of feminism and that is dangerous as it'll likely be applied willy-nilly. Self-identification of the philosophies will give those who do not support feminism "in general" - due to extreme members of the movement - a handhold into assisting with gender equality societal change and will earn the feminist movement a far better reception.

Though this is getting into some seriously tangential stuff that would need its own thread.

 

[cerebreturns]

You are treating the woman's body as an object, you are not procuring a service, you are procuring using her body.

It is demeaning in the purest sense.

Now weather the woman feels offended by it or not is up to her.

But it is textbook definition of demeaning. Treating someone as an object.