|
I'm curious whether people think sex work itself is inherently misogynistic, or just represents a point where misogyny in society/economics bubbles to the fore in an extreme way. Basically does the happy whore have a place in ideal world. I'm also curious about how/why porn is treated differently. The constitutional reasons for porn's legality seem rather irrelevant to an analysis done through the lens of feminism yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of popular support for banning it the way there is for prostitution (even in a "we wish we could" sort of way).
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm also curious about how/why porn is treated differently. The constitutional reasons for porn's legality seem rather irrelevant to an analysis done through the lens of feminism yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of popular support for banning it the way there is for prostitution (even in a "we wish we could" sort of way). porn production is definitely illegal in most jurisdictions in the us and is currently facing legal challenges in california - the condom law which is ostensibly and likely a health regulation for porn actors but it will kill the california porn industry stone dead and move it to las vegas
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Patriarchy's already a thing too, bro. To what extent sex and thus sex work is a commodity is a thing and to what extent patriarchy is a thing is very different. My intent of saying, "Too late/Too bad" wasn't to also imply a shrug and a "do nothing about it/deal with it" response. Don't misunderstand me. I, like you, want women to not be a commodity. And I, like you, would like to end the patriarchy. The patriarchy is a thing in that it is a social/cultural/economic system. (This is very simplified. Patriarchy is much more complicated/nuanced.) We dismantle the patriarchy by changing and challenging those social/cultural/economic/etc things. Women being a commodity is a thing in that people (men) are willing/want to pay for sex. They do this [pay for sex] for many reasons which I do not have an exhaustive list of or a thorough understanding of. But, in general, if you want/need sex you have to work for/earn sex and even then it is not a sure thing. Paying for sex is less work and a sure thing. Buying sex is a surefire sex now. So to address the commodification of women in this way we have to address this, I guess. We have to address that men want/need guaranteed sex and will pay for it. I guess the way to go about this is to change the socialization of men so that they no longer feel like they need to have sex. If men no longer think they need sex then maybe they won't pay for sex so they can get sex and instead go through the more traditional ways of "earning" sex that they still want and enjoy. I don't know. That's just my perception. The way I see it guaranteed sex has value and is thus a commodity and in order to not make it a commodity you need to make it unimportant or "valueless." That's how I understand it. See but this is very much a Man Thing and this thread is not about talking about man things. Getting in a loving debate/argument about the need for sex is going to start a derail about a largely Man Thing. That's not what this thread is about. I'm not even sure the "value" of sex is male-removed enough for this thread. Again, I would love to talk about this. I have quite a bit to say about the "need" for sex but I'm just not sure this is the right thread/place for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The Swedish system makes sex worker unions illegal, for what it's worth. That's awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Jenner posted:To what extent sex and thus sex work is a commodity is a thing and to what extent patriarchy is a thing is very different. Males do not only have a generally higher sexdrive than females simply because of socialization, it is a very fundamental biological effect of hormonal differences between the sexes, as anyone who has taken androgen therapy can attest. Socialization gives the basis how it can be expressed but a significant relative difference in sexdrive levels are "set in stone" unless you decrease it via medical means. Same as with aggression and body size, nature is kind of an rear end with that. Zudgemud fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Let me just point out that these differences are in aggregate over the whole population and any given man's body size may be smaller than a given woman's, and a specific woman's sex drive may be higher than a specific man's, and please lord god don't anybody get any biotruthier than this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Jenner posted:To what extent sex and thus sex work is a commodity is a thing and to what extent patriarchy is a thing is very different. Firstly, I don't think the ability to buy sex, guarantees that you can always have sex. For one you might simply not have the money, and more importantly, sex workers should still be free to refuse a client for whatever reason. Secondly, am I the only one that finds talk about "earning" sex really creepy, even if you put scare quotes around it? Lastly, the male thread seems to be open again, perhaps this discussion could be moved over there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Men... females Also, don't do this. Not in a feminism thread. Female humans are called "women."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Let me just point out that these differences are in aggregate over the whole population and any given man's body size may be smaller than a given woman's, and a specific woman's sex drive may be higher than a specific man's, and please lord god don't anybody get any biotruthier than this. I assumed this was obvious yes. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Also, don't do this. Not in a feminism thread. Female humans are called "women." Woops, editing to males then, it's what it should have said as more I was describing sex and not gender, and the usage woman is more ambigous in clarity right? (I'm not a native English speaker)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:I assumed this was obvious yes. That's right, thanks 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
OH THANK GOD I finally found it. The tweet I wanted that is. So here is like, #masculinitysofragile ground zero. How does patriarchy hurt men? by policing their actions so hard they can't even put their hands over their face without it being disgusting and feminine. Under patriarchy a woman is the worst thing you can be. Ergo, the worst way you can insult a man is by saying he is like a woman. Gentlemen, regardless of your sexual orientation, it must be exhausting to have to live every day navigating a constant minefield of whether your actions are "masculine" enough to avoid ridicule and ostracizing. Like, not even being able to wear certain colors because they're too "gay." Or moving your hips too much when you dance. Witch Hammer up there is in a social situation that must cause him constant anxiety, that even the smallest mistake can mean he is no longer masculine and acceptable. That's no way to have a healthy society. e: oh wait gently caress I posted this in the regular thread. Should I delete it or post it also in the other one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:OH THANK GOD I finally found it. The tweet I wanted that is. Post it there, they must be tired of listening to the logical man's guide to strip club patronage by now
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Post it there, they must be tired of listening to the logical man's guide to strip club patronage by now (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:update: I'm finding it personally liberating to not give a gently caress about the quality of that thread. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
On the topic of sex work: IMO thats a compound issue of objectification and sexism, which depends on how you feel about objectification moreso than sexism (at least for the question of "is this inherently bad"). If you oppose objectification then there isnt a scenario where sexual interaction as a commodity is acceptable, whereas if you accept objectification as a natural method of compartmentalization in our minds then its easy to make the argument that sexism is what poisons sex work rather than sex work being inherently regressive. Like, it's entirely possible for women and men to enjoy sex to a degree that they are willing to sell their body. IMO its our negative attitude towards and lack of regulation that makes it a sexist trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:On the topic of sex work: IMO thats a compound issue of objectification and sexism, which depends on how you feel about objectification moreso than sexism (at least for the question of "is this inherently bad"). If you oppose objectification then there isnt a scenario where sexual interaction as a commodity is acceptable, whereas if you accept objectification as a natural method of compartmentalization in our minds then its easy to make the argument that sexism is what poisons sex work rather than sex work being inherently regressive. You make great points, so this isn't a rebuttal of what you're saying, just something that occurred to me: That "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" motivational poster crap is pretty untrue in reality. I know a lot of people who've tried some version of that and putting money into the equation just soured their hobby for them irreparably. I'd hate to think how that would feel if your own sexuality was on the auction block.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You make great points, so this isn't a rebuttal of what you're saying, just something that occurred to me: That "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" motivational poster crap is pretty untrue in reality. I know a lot of people who've tried some version of that and putting money into the equation just soured their hobby for them irreparably. I'd hate to think how that would feel if your own sexuality was on the auction block. Thats true, and there's at least a few interviews where a pornstar or prostitute have talked about how little their sex drive exists outside of work. Considering the most successful male pornstars have thousands of roles in 2-3 years, I can imagine that it rings true for both genders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Thats true, and there's at least a few interviews where a pornstar or prostitute have talked about how little their sex drive exists outside of work. Is that really true? I know the stereotype is there for female stars (a billion sitcom jokes about a porn star shooting 37 movies that afternoon, har har), but I saw a thing saying in reality the typical actress only does a dozen or so films in her career.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Is that really true? I know the stereotype is there for female stars (a billion sitcom jokes about a porn star shooting 37 movies that afternoon, har har), but I saw a thing saying in reality the typical actress only does a dozen or so films in her career. At least from the little i've seen on the topic of male performers (mostly Louis Theroux documentaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux's_Weird_Weekends) the industry recruits specifically for the ability to maintain an erection on camera for very long periods of time, and the ability to orgasm on command. Not many men are actually suited to performing under those circumstances, so the group of male performers is much smaller than the amount of women performers. Also apparently the companies making the movies often send the women performers to marketing events, picture signings, and other assorted things to boost sales rather than having them filming nonstop. Also hello thread. I'm glad to see feminism threads are allowed in the forums once more, and hope that i'll have more to add than random details I know about the adult film industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Is that really true? I know the stereotype is there for female stars (a billion sitcom jokes about a porn star shooting 37 movies that afternoon, har har), but I saw a thing saying in reality the typical actress only does a dozen or so films in her career. Well, for rings true for both I meant the "sex drive drained" part, not the "thousands of roles" part 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Well, for rings true for both I meant the "sex drive drained" part, not the "thousands of roles" part Haha I know, I was just curious. Dude porn work sounds awful. I don't know much about it but I can easily see how that kind of pressure would take the fun out of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:OH THANK GOD I finally found it. The tweet I wanted that is. Sorry if this point might sound a little pedantic but I don't agree that the male chauvinist criticizes that gesture because he thinks being feminine is bad in itself (although he probably does think femininity is inferior in some way). He'd probably also criticize a woman if she were to perform some perceived 'male' gesture. The point is that from that perspective each gender is at it's best when conforming to their predetermined gender role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Fados posted:He'd probably also criticize a woman if she were to perform some perceived 'male' gesture. The point is that from that perspective each gender is at it's best when conforming to their predetermined gender role. I don't think this is true, actually. Of course there are occasions when women are criticized for not conforming, but it is much less strenuously policed, and in many cases actually admired. Women eventually managed to wear trousers as a normal thing, while men still face ridicule or worse if they wear skirts. A woman can be described as 'one of the lads', for example, and this is usually meant to be a good thing. The claim that gender roles are separate but equal was always a lie; most of the time, masculine is thought better, even for women. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
An interesting read I found a while back - a condensed document of a thread on metafilter about emotional labour and male privilege. The original thread can be found here. I remember reading this document the first time and thinking "Wait, what the gently caress? People expect their wives/SOs to do WHAT?". TZer0 fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems pretty clear that though clear delineation of gender roles is a big deal for some people, 'woman' is always considered inferior to 'man'. A lot of homophobic language is rooted in misogyny, where the repulsive thing to some people is a man acting like a woman. Also see the differing attitudes among the transphobic to trans men and trans women. It's like they can totally understand why a 'woman' would want to be a 'man', but the opposite is horrifying and baffling, because why degrade yourself? I find it hard to watch Scrubs back these days because the huge running joke is that Dr Cox calls JD by a girl's name. That's the whole joke. He's a girl! Imagine if he were a woman! Ha ha!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I'm not sure I could read or recommend Shanley's blog to anyone. Crane Fist posted:So instead of throwing this out there and vanishing could you maybe give some indication why? Shalney's a ticking dramabomb, and because of poo poo like this https://www.google.com/search?q=shanley+weev (and many others) I have to question her authenticity and sincerity. Now if any of her MVC authors have a track record away from that site then I'm down with them using any soapbox they can get on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Fados posted:Sorry if this point might sound a little pedantic but I don't agree that the male chauvinist criticizes that gesture because he thinks being feminine is bad in itself (although he probably does think femininity is inferior in some way). He'd probably also criticize a woman if she were to perform some perceived 'male' gesture. The point is that from that perspective each gender is at it's best when conforming to their predetermined gender role. Sure, we might have gotten to a place where some people consider being "violent" a negative trait but one look in the other thread and we see way more ways society defends (male) violence as good and desirable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
TZer0 posted:An interesting read I found a while back - a condensed document of a thread on metafilter about emotional labour and male privilege. Thank you for linking to this; it's enlightening to see just how lovely some guys are, and it's also helping me hone in on areas I'm probably not doing my best as well. I struggle with understanding the attitude that simultaneously holds emotional labor is women's stuff so we don't really need to care about it, but that it's so intensely difficult and terrible and why won't the mean women just let us alone? I mean one or the other, yeah, but it's a special synthesis of privileged and  right here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I imagine that sex workers who are in the field voluntarily and because they enjoy it (or enjoy the money) are probably not even close to a majority. Sorry to jump on this but it annoys me when people "imagine" rather than doing any research. You may in fact be right and a quick search shows some sources that support this but there is definitely pushback as well. For example the government here in Canada has been funding research on sex work in the context of the active debate here around legalization: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/irsc-cihr/MR12-11-5-2015-eng.pdf If someone is familiar with the academics on this I'd be interested to hear more, I'm not really qualified to evaluate the work and I would suspect the situation varies a lot by country. Belteshazzar fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Small pet peeve: it's not "the" patriarchy, it's just patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a unitary object of analysis, it's a social condition that manifests in a multiplicity of ways. There isn't "a" white supremacy, and there isn't "a" patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Small pet peeve: it's not "the" patriarchy, it's just patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a unitary object of analysis, it's a social condition that manifests in a multiplicity of ways. There isn't "a" white supremacy, and there isn't "a" patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Delving into the stuff women are expected to do that goes unrecognized a bit more, I just came across this interesting article that really highlights just how much of a burden those chores can be, not just in and of themselves, but in the sheer time they take up and in the way they break up the day for women and create a situation where even if, over the course of a day, a woman could reasonably be said to have two hours to 'herself', that it comes in ten minutes here, fifteen there, and is always contingent on some other issue not arising. To say nothing of the fact that much of what is supposedly personal time is still, in fact, devoted to someone else, be it the husband, the kids, whatever. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/wellbeing/brigid-schulte-why-time-is-a-feminist-issue-20150309-13zimc Here's the part that stood out particularly to me; quote:I came to learn that women have never had a history or culture of leisure. (Unless you were a nun, one researcher later told me.) That from the dawn of humanity, high status men, removed from the drudge work of life, have enjoyed long, uninterrupted hours of leisure. And in that time, they created art, philosophy, literature, they made scientific discoveries and sank into what psychologists call the peak human experience of flow. It's a factor I'd never really considered. I mean, we think of anything prior to the 20th century as unending drudgery for almost all, but the few who did manage to escape that were almost entirely men, so of course now when we look back it's men who are the historical figures in almost every field. We're the only ones ever afforded the opportunity to pursue those things. And then that becomes ammo for misogynists today, to claim men have been the achievers, women the supporters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
It fits nicely with a Marxist critique that it's not the people at the top who deserve the glory but the legions of people who put them there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
patriarchy is rule by fathers. this is an important distinction
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Fados posted:Sorry if this point might sound a little pedantic but I don't agree that the male chauvinist criticizes that gesture because he thinks being feminine is bad in itself (although he probably does think femininity is inferior in some way). He'd probably also criticize a woman if she were to perform some perceived 'male' gesture. The point is that from that perspective each gender is at it's best when conforming to their predetermined gender role. Women aren't often criticized for acting like men, but the same kind of attitude seen in that tweet often extends to seeing women as a threat to the free expression of masculinity--ie a man is "whipped" or considered lost and to be mourned if he prefers to spend time with his wife rather than his friends, or if he refuses to see heterosexual romance as some kind of necessary burden, or relationships with women as inevitable distractions from accepted same-sex masculine things like aggressive drinking or enthusiastically watching sports. Think about commercials for beer and marketing for poo poo like "man caves" from a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
I really hate the term "man cave", like having a hobby room is something to look down on, or exclusively a man thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
I had a buddy who ironically referred to his vagina as a man cave, so y'know, that's my experience with the word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It fits nicely with a Marxist critique that it's not the people at the top who deserve the glory but the legions of people who put them there.  There're over 80 monuments glorifying him in Moscow alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:patriarchy is rule by fathers. this is an important distinction
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Both are valid. You're discussing patriarchy, the idea of a society ruled by men, and the patriarchy, the group of men and system in question. It's the same thing with discussing oligarchy vs. the oligarchy. I think it's maybe a quibble worth making. "The patriarchy" is more confrontational. It's a set of people. Talking about how the patriarchy does this or that ascribes agency and motivation to members of the patriarchy that are almost certainly not there because it's not some kind of Man Club that has membership and an agenda - it's a short hand concept to describe the effect of a complex set of social conventions and historical dependencies that add up to a society in which men and women are often treated differently. "The patriarchy" is a great framing for activists because it implies there is an identifiable oppressor to fight against. But in reality that oppressor (as such) doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 13:15
|
|