|
Enough money in America can short-circuit basically any -ism, which is why you have gay Republicans and Ben Carson.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I'm not saying that people aren't loving over women when given a financial incentive to do so; I'm saying people will gently caress over women even when there are financial incentives to not do so. Even if you can show airtight proof that hiring women who have not ruled out having a child or maternity leave policies are 100% net goods for efficiency in both the short and long term, women will still often get hosed over because employers will favor their deep-seated ideas about how parenting and work should work over their own financial interest. I concede the point - I was overly hasty and flippant. I suppose that does lead into a broader question about how different systems interact to cause increasing (or at least unique) problems, but Colin Mockery's already posting some interesting stuff on that and anyway I'm too tired and not well enough informed to have much to contribute. Rush Limbo posted:Surely, my friend, you have spent enough time in the UKMT to know that there's no particular reason why it can't be both a cost/benefit analysis and an ideology. This is fair enough as well. Or perhaps another way to state it would be that the ideology can be a formidable part of the cost/benefit analysis; I'm reminded of how stores in the Deep South would often find it economically unwise to cater to black customers, even though their dollars are as good as anyone's, because you could incur boycotts (or worse, like outright arson) from your white customer base by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Could anyone point me towards some recent, or heck, even basic foundational, work on gender abolition as it relates to trans issues? The concept of gender abolition is one of those things I grapple with; it's one of those ideas that I think has so much value as both a theoretical framework and as praxis for reforming society into something less crappy, but practically it can be hard for me to engage with because the discussion as been so soured by some very bigoted (and hypocritical) people. I know Dworkin was, at least initially, supportive of access to trans medical care, even though I strongly disagree with her about gender abolition removing the concept of transgender people entirely. I've seen concepts like "people with estrogen, either endogenous or not; people with testosterone, endogenous or not, and etc." thrown around, and I think that may be a way forward, but I'd really like to brush up on my fundamentals and see where the conversation is at now, outside of random blog posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
Man some of the grossest sexist stories I ever heard were coming out of biglaw...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
HEY! Hey! Friends! Have I got some primo stuff to just unload on this thread.  In advance, I hugely apologize for the inevitable wave of tantruming baby men who are going to storm in on this. SO, some guy just posted on Reddit about his enlightening experience after being pegged. Basically he had a loving feminist awakening because he realized sex is more of an investment for women because they are invaded and it can be uncomfortable. ANYWAY REDDIT NUKED IT. But I am a hero and I saved what I could. Check this poo poo out! https://np.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/5kuevt/pegging_i_23m_never_really_understood_why_women/dbqz02m/?context=3
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Jenner posted:HEY! Hey! Friends! Have I got some primo stuff to just unload on this thread. Burn down the internet and castrate all the men; it's for the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Burn down the internet and castrate all the men; it's for the best. Thats my fetish! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Burn down the internet and castrate all the men; it's for the best. Not all men. Just the ones that call themselves "egalitarians".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I've seen concepts like "people with estrogen, either endogenous or not; people with testosterone, endogenous or not, and etc." thrown around, and I think that may be a way forward, but I'd really like to brush up on my fundamentals and see where the conversation is at now, outside of random blog posts. This sort of discourse runs up hard against non-binary experiences and trans experiences in poverty, though. If you present androgynously or don't present in a consistent way, you don't fit into that sort of system. Similarly, not every trans person can or wants to seek HRT, and this framing leaves no place at all for children or anyone on puberty blockers. It's also super funky for intersex folks who have completely different hormonal situations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This sort of discourse runs up hard against non-binary experiences and trans experiences in poverty, though. If you present androgynously or don't present in a consistent way, you don't fit into that sort of system. Similarly, not every trans person can or wants to seek HRT, and this framing leaves no place at all for children or anyone on puberty blockers. Absolutely. I was trying to frame it in a way that is non binary but me no words good. I still think there's value in a sort of way of describing and of acknowledging the validity of different bodies and identities while erasing the walls of gender we've created, but at the same time I'm not supporting anything that is dismissive of nonbinary people, intersex people, or transgender people who don't follow the stereotypical trans narrative. Again, this is a thorny issue for me. Thanks for bringing that up, and I'd love to read work that addresses these criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I've seen concepts like "people with estrogen, either endogenous or not; people with testosterone, endogenous or not, and etc." thrown around, and I think that may be a way forward, but I'd really like to brush up on my fundamentals and see where the conversation is at now, outside of random blog posts. Yeah, those don't work at all. Everyone has some level of estrogen and testosterone, and it's reductionist as gently caress to begin with. Like there are a lot of cis women with testosterone higher than the average cis man, and vice versa. The way I've seen it put, and I agree with this a lot, is that the issue isn't gender itself (being a man, woman, or whatever you identify as), but rather the gender roles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Anecdotally, I've noticed a lot more young people (< 30, basically) identifying as non-binary while not actually having the advanced, radical feminist background that seems necessary to really understand the feminist concept of "gender abolition" as it was originally framed. These folks generally consider their identity to be a part of the trans* experience (with the very existence of the asterisk indicating their acceptance within the community) and I've noticed very little pushback (if any) over it. For most non-binary people I've met, their opinions tend to stop at "this is my gender" without commenting on "what someone else's gender should be" (which might be why a cursory skim random blog posts seems to indicate that the relation between gender abolition and trans issues appears to be "they're in conflict"). It almost comes across like they're walking the walk (rejecting gender roles and the gender binary on a personal level, which... seems like what gender abolitionists would want?) without being able to (or interested in?) talking the talk (participating in the academic discourse around gender abolition as an end goal). But I really don't know enough about it to have a good understanding of the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Transfeminism seems much more focused on abolition of gender binarism and biological essentialism than abolition of gender full stop. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on academic feminism though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
I have a question! I know that the legalization of sex work used to be a thorny issue, with sex work advocacy groups being in favor and (at least a good number of) feminists opposed. How is the consensus these days? Is there one? It's somewhat difficult for me to gauge this sort of stuff from a different continent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
botany posted:I have a question! I know that the legalization of sex work used to be a thorny issue, with sex work advocacy groups being in favor and (at least a good number of) feminists opposed. How is the consensus these days? Is there one? It's somewhat difficult for me to gauge this sort of stuff from a different continent. you don't have feminism on your...continent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Look! A Horse! posted:you don't have feminism on your...continent? Presumably their continent is not one where legalization of sex work is even being tackled?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Sex work is legal where I'm from (Germany), which means the debates are different. Instead of "should we legalize" it's more "which additions to the current laws are good / bad". I'm interested in the state of the US debate. Sorry if I was unclear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:For additional reading, I would recommend Model View Culture, which describes itself as "A magazine about technology, culture and diversity." They also provide a reading list here, for people who might not know where to start. I'm not sure I could read or recommend Shanley's blog to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
botany posted:I have a question! I know that the legalization of sex work used to be a thorny issue, with sex work advocacy groups being in favor and (at least a good number of) feminists opposed. How is the consensus these days? Is there one? It's somewhat difficult for me to gauge this sort of stuff from a different continent. I'm really glad you asked that because that's maybe the issue I feel least certain about. There are glib "obvious" answers pointing in both directions. "Of course men shouldn't be able to buy women" "Of course women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies." I think people debating the sex industry have a bad habit of clinging really strongly to the happy hooker fantasy. Maybe somewhere in the world there is a woman or two who just "really likes sex" and isn't coerced physically, socially, or economically, whose clients don't degrade her or threaten her, who can pick up and drop the work whenever she wants, but even then at the bottom of it all you've got a really invasive, tiring, sticky customer service job, and customer service jobs suck. Throwing sex workers in jail does not make their lives or our society better, so right off the bat I think I at least support decrim. But people who know more about these things than me have told me that total legalization can come with a rise in sex trafficking, because demand skyrockets but the supply of local women who want to do the world's shittiest customer service job is pretty small and stays pretty constant. And I don't think I like living in a society where sex and women's bodies are commodities. (Yes there are male prostitiutes, but not as many, and: Feminism thread, focusing on women here) Also personally, perhaps selfishly, I've had infuriating conversations with men who insist there's no such thing as a woman who's in unavoidable poverty, because "women can always just turn tricks." If prostitution were universally legal in the US that attitude would be a lot more common, and gently caress that. So... as you can see I have no conclusion here. I'm pro sex-worker and anti-John. I want sex workers to have freedom from persecution, porn-industry-level STD avoidance, legal recourse in instances of rape or violence... all things that a legalized, regulated industry would provide. But best-case scenario only for some sex workers, because there will always be some customers who want things that are illegal, and demand for legal sex workers can outpace local supply. I also want there to be as few sex workers in the world as possible, because that job loving sucks, and women deserve better than jobs that loving suck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm really glad you asked that because that's maybe the issue I feel least certain about. There are glib "obvious" answers pointing in both directions. "Of course men shouldn't be able to buy women" "Of course women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies." There have been quite interesting A/T threads by sex workers talking about these issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The sweetest little red text! Thanks guys 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Transfeminism seems much more focused on abolition of gender binarism and biological essentialism than abolition of gender full stop. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on academic feminism though! Can we just call it feminism, please instead of giving everything their own unique category.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:A group of bad actors came and made the whole goddamn thing about being clueless of housework in an attempt to drive it into the ground. They succeeded. If I get the time this weekend, I'll make a new thread with a much more specific topic and set of rules. That would be great. It was a good read while it lasted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I'm not sure I could read or recommend Shanley's blog to anyone. https://modelviewculture.com/authors ...Okay, but which one is Shanley? I don't regularly read the site myself so I'm not going to go to bat for a specific person I don't know, but it seems a little weird to say "here's a source with a bunch of articles directly relevant to the thing I was talking about" and get back "someone I don't like who you've never heard of is involved somehow so everything must be poisoned".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
MageMage posted:Can we just call it feminism, please instead of giving everything their own unique category. It's a huge subject touching on a huge number of human experiences. Makes perfect sense for there to be schools of thought within it specialising in promoting certain aspects in order to ensure they get the detailed attention they deserve and don't fall by the wayside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
MageMage posted:Can we just call it feminism, please instead of giving everything their own unique category. It matters in this case because many people who are feminists also have hateful stances on trans people, especially trans women. Colin Mockery posted:https://modelviewculture.com/authors Shanley Kane is one of the two founders of MVC, and the sole owner after forcing the other founder out. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:There have been quite interesting A/T threads by sex workers talking about these issues. That's great, got any links?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I'm not sure I could read or recommend Shanley's blog to anyone. So instead of throwing this out there and vanishing could you maybe give some indication why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It matters in this case because many people who are feminists also have hateful stances on trans people, especially trans women. Then they need true feminism. We don't need to separate ourselves from feminism because of one bad apple and call it something else. "Oh, there is feminism, and then transfeminism". Give me a break. The trans community is already heavily segregated, and putting us into an additional category isn't going to help. Feminism has helped me in many ways, and I'm not going to abandon it for some made up word because some feminists "just aren't that nice".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
As you can see, being put into a separate category is what gave me my red title in the first place. Putting trans people into "trans feminism" already makes it sound like some exclusionary terminology invented by TERFs, or by reactionaries that make it sound like we want our own special word to sound like special snowflakes like, "oh, we get this feminism and you get your own special feminism". That's not how I would like to believe how it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Just so everything's clear, I do hold that trans women are women, and as such are subject to the structural oppressions of women in general in addition to ones specific to being trans. That said, it is a fact that feminism, especially historically but also currently, is often hostile to trans women's needs and difficulties. I'm also aware of, and reject, the TERF narrative that trans women are illicit infiltrators into women's spaces, and their use of "trans advocate" to mean both anyone sympathetic to trans people and also all trans people by default - and thus imply that simply wanting to live as a trans person is some sort of controversial, debatable issue. What do you suggest we call academic feminists whose main areas of interest are trans or NB issues? (I was using "transfeminist" to mean this in particular, as it's the label I've seen self-applied by said academics, whether or not they themselves were trans.) Similarly - and less aimed at MageMage in particular - the fact remains that many feminists do not consider trans women to be women. What do you suggest we call the people who do when emphasizing their acceptance of trans women?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Having your own corner of a wider movement that focuses on the issues specific to your identity is perfectly fine and normal. Trans feminism is a thing, afro-feminism is a thing. It's all good. It's pointless to worry about what the reactionaries will think because if there was a magic combination of words that would make them act like decent people they wouldn't be reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Trans friendly feminism is the norm, perhaps we need a term for trans-hostile feminists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Trans friendly feminism is the norm, perhaps we need a term for trans-hostile feminists? TERFs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Also partial to bigoted fucksticks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Part of the problem of the sex work conversation is that we don't really have a way of reconciling sexual consent with work, mentally or culturally. Every single one of us can name days, probably a lot of them, when we didn't want to go to work. But we had to go, because we wanted to pay the rent. And that brings up a lot of really difficult consent questions I don't think most people know how to answer. I think that's one of the reasons we stumble around the conversation. Edit: That's not getting into sex slavery, etc. I'm talking about the by-default coercive nature of employment, but still assuming at least "voluntary" employment to the level of any job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm really glad you asked that because that's maybe the issue I feel least certain about. There are glib "obvious" answers pointing in both directions. "Of course men shouldn't be able to buy women" "Of course women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies." For what it's worth I really think prostitution is a very bi polar situation where there are a large contingent that I don't I'd characterize as liking it because of some sort of extreme libido but more along the lines of "it's a job and it pays a poo poo ton", and another much larger half that are essentially slaves being raped. The first situation is perfectly fine and the second should be fought with everything we can bring to bear and I'm not sure how to reconcile that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Part of the problem of the sex work conversation is that we don't really have a way of reconciling sexual consent with work, mentally or culturally. Every single one of us can name days, probably a lot of them, when we didn't want to go to work. But we had to go, because we wanted to pay the rent. And that brings up a lot of really difficult consent questions I don't think most people know how to answer. I think that's one of the reasons we stumble around the conversation. Yeah great point! I mean poo poo, I definitely don't have an answer. And if you dive into it it's not long before you start to look at the flirtation and implied sexual availability that's a big part of waitressing and jobs like that, and suddenly the conversation gets very big in scope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:There have been quite interesting A/T threads by sex workers talking about these issues. Seconding the link request. I looked and I found a short thread by a male sex worker serving men, which was very interesting but not what we're discussing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Here's what I found through Google, fyi. All require archives. Ask me about the sex industry (and being a stripper) (12 pages) Confessions of a Porngrapher: 15 Years in the Adult Industry (31 pages) That's Extra: Ask Me About Managing A Legal Brothel (4 pages)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:44
|
|