Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

A different form of sexism

  • 21-09-2012 06:00PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭


    So ive been reading through the thread on prostitution and started thinking about this attitude that female prostitutes need to be protected.

    It seems there is an attitude that if a woman is a prostitute/pornstar etc that she has been tricked or taken advantage of. Now while this may seem sort of noble on the surface i find it shows that these people think a woman is incapable of thinking for herself, that she needs to be protected from the big bad world.

    Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

    Without starting a debate on the sex industry does anyone else think this attitude may be more damaging to equal rights for men and women. Am i right in thinking this is a form of sexism?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    It is and it is all over the turn off the red light camp gain of which Ruhuma is the root and that was formed by the order of nuns who ran the Magdalene laundries so the philosophy of them being deluded, wayward women who are sexworkers and need to be saved is perpetuated through out the current discussion and how they slant their services.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    Yes.

    Was just reading this yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jul/26/india-sex-workers-female-empowerment
    Edit: This also: http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/happy-hookers/

    There is clearly an issue around people being forced into the work which needs to be looked at and also of people in unstable mental states being coerced into such activity.

    I think the attitude you mention though is interesting. That a woman would only have to be in an unhealthy state of mind to engage in such activity. Not only is it sexist from the perspective you mention but it also, in and of itself, makes little to no sense to me.

    I guess that we're in agreement won't deliver much discussion! :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Logically following from your position in a context where the sale of sex is illegal/semi-legal the prostitute should be facing a higher degree of legal censure than the punter similar to the situation of drug dealer vs drug possessor.
    I mean in any other case where the provider who makes a significant financial benefit from the illegal service sets out appealing advertisements of the service to entice users the provider would face much a much harder time.

    Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

    There's a fairly high degree of this attitude across the board, look at the portrayal of female sex tourists going to the Caribbean etc compared to Males going to Thailand or in an example closer to home the way female targeted strip shows are perceived. Or even on this site, I mean in the Ladies Lounge its a "who makes you drool" while on the male equivalent forum its "Easy on the Eye" the formers a much more objectifying title.
    Personally my main issue is the hypocrisy that female sexuality must be judged the on the same level as male e.g the female Slut/ the male Player being unacceptable while at the same time aspects of male behaviour that are considered negatively are judged "safer" or "more complex" when committed by woman two easy examples being the Cougar idea vs the creepy older man or the treatment of female sex offenders (or any of the examples mentioned previously).

    A lazy comparison I would make is that off heroin addicts, some users with stable backgrounds and attitudes who are financially ok have long uneventful lives (not underestimating heroins harms even to these people though), their may be a lot of these people but the focus is rightly on those people that are damaged vulnerable and at risk.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless.
    Is sexism, or any other kind of bias or prejudice ever 'deliberate'? Sure, we can come out with a sexist line to wind up a friend on purpose, only because you know it will wind them up, but you don't actually mean it. But if you really are sexist, do you even realize you are?
    I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.
    There's two groups that are principally interested in opposing the sex industry (be it prostitution, pornography, stripping, or whatever):

    Religious groups. Christian typically, but it depends on where they're based. These tend to still believe is more patriarchal double standards, which argue that men seek sex, while women must be tricked into it.

    Additionally, male prostitutes will tend to be overwhelmingly servicing the gay market, so I doubt if religious groups have much sympathy for such dirty, filthy sodomites.

    Feminist groups. Feminism seems to be split on this issue, but those who oppose it tend to see it as female exploitation by men and classify all sex for money to be rape. Men in prostitution are an afterthought, because they're really only interested in forwarding he interests of women, so will only pay lip service to men in the sex industry or dismiss them altogether because they make up a minority of the industry.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This has always interested me. If, say, a (perhaps "extremist") feminism group are so fervently against prostitution that they won't entertain arguments regarding its legalisation, are they not, in fact, being sexist? Is it not self-defeating, on a deeply ironic level?

    They argue that women should not have the option of becoming a prostitute available to them, and by arguing for the denial of this right — if you believe freedom to choose a lifestyle is a right — they're placing limits on what a woman is allowed to do. It reminds me of affirmative action, in many respects, but in a more blatant and perhaps extreme form; trying to defend women to the point of denying women their own rights.

    It's deeply ironic.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    gvn wrote: »
    This has always interested me. If, say, a (perhaps "extremist") feminism group are so fervently against prostitution that they won't entertain arguments regarding its legalisation, are they not, in fact, being sexist? Is it not self-defeating, on a deeply ironic level?
    Not all Feminism has this position - it does appear to be split on it somewhat.

    I'm actually not that pushed on the topic, ether way. My main opinion is that most of the 'studies' on it tend to be little more than propaganda pieces by interested lobby groups and what few independent studies that are out there tend not to come out strongly in favour or against legalization of prostitution. I'd be 'weakly' in favour myself.

    But, as one of the other threads here on the subject shows, some people are very passionately opposed to the legalization of prostitution. And when I say passionately, I mean irrationally, belligerently and, frankly, a little insanely.

    It does piss me off sometimes when it becomes clear that some of these people really wouldn't care about the issue except that it's women who allegedly suffer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    When you think about it - how different are the risks a sex worker takes to those of, say, a logger, a miner or a war correspondent?

    People do risky things to make money so why is it that sex work is so taboo?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    I do agree with OP there is sexual discrimination against males with regards to prostitution. It is discrimination not just from Feminism groups but from males too. I do not believe it is a different form of sexism. It is the same form but people will not admit it because they will always believe that women are always the victims and males are always the abusers.

    If a male get hurts or abused by a female he probably done something to deserve it.
    Males do not need protecting and deserve what the get for been weak.
    Males are the only one who abuses.
    All sexual contact by males is rape.
    These are common quotes I hear from feminism and other males. yet the last two are from mainly extreme feminism groups.

    Sexual Inequality goes beyond that, it is inherent in Irish Law and Courts, religions and society (religious or not). For example
    This woman who face charges of incest, sexual assault and wilful neglect deserves to have the same punishment as a man for abuses on her children but she got off very very lightly compare to the damage she did to her children. Her children have to live with the consequences of her varied abuses that most of us cannot understand, never mind comprehend in what her children have to live with due to neglect and never got what most families have a stable loved home.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0121/112976-roscommon/
    It seems abuse from a non-loving mother who sexual abuses her son and neglect to properly feed, care for clothes and send her multiple kids to school properly is not as bad a one father who rape his daughter. Yet society declare that the child is better off with an abusive mother than with an ok or brilliant father who is denied access to his children. The emotional trauma upon other abuse and neglect the kids have endured and have to live with those consequences that is not their fault for the rest of their lives. The State care less for them and it shows in our Laws and lack of resources even through the boom times of the celtic tiger. The State continues to fail children of abusive mothers with poor laws and consequences for their shameful acts. This sends the wrong signal for children especially teenagers of abusive mothers that the state do not care for them society in general do not care for them.

    Males are punish more than females for the same types offences such as child abuse and neglect and assaults on other adults. Males are more likely than females to be prosecuted for the above offences because in the minds of the Police and the State, that the male is more guilty than females. Only extreme cases for women who are prosecuted and that with a big fight from the victims and victims families not to let it lie and die.

    I witness a group of women beat a young teenager boy at night because the boy rejected the sexual advances of a drunk woman. He just said "NO WAY". The Police watched the women had their fill of punches and one fat women ran from a distance across the road at him and floored him to the ground and broke his arm. She the other women were not arrested for assault causing bodily harm. Guess, what they arrested the teenage boy for breach of the peace. He did not fight back. He put up his arms to try to reflect their punches away with palms out in front in a non threatening manner. He now have a record for refusing to have sex while the abusive women gets away scott free.

    Here a boy say no to a girl for sex and get assaulted and people especially females find it funny.



    I have seen a man publicly ridicule with loud shouting and abuse in a pub one night by a number of females over a similar issue with an issue with a protection of young barely teenage boys from their aggressive mother who drinks heavily and abuses her boys. One I have known as a child of a very natural quite boy, the mother claims is too timid and she want to toughen him up. He refuses to steal for her and gets punished for refusing to steal. The other son played hurling for the local club and is good at it, but problems at home force him to emigrate to the US when he was 18 where a relative (most assume the father who was a US citizen) brought him to come over to get away from the abuse. The same mother encourage her daughters to publicly ridicule and beat their brothers even in public. That was in the late 80's. The younger son committed suicide in his late teens. Today females are far more aggressive in public and assertive in open society and males are less likely to defend themselves because then they are accused as causing the breach of the peace and more likely arrested than females for assaults.

    There been too many stories of mothers who aggressively defend their husbands who sexual abuses his daughter/s. and the denails and attacks from her damages the abused daughter lives even more.

    Males get a raw deal when it comes to separations when kids are involve. Irish Law and courts and society favours women to look after children
    Society members often thinks males at home looking after children is strange when the woman is work and the bread winner and thinks he is weak and deserves to be threaten badly with abuse because she wears the pants therefore the boss.

    Here a female teacher beat a her male student and the laughter of the other kids is highly noticeable in the background is loud female kids laughing.

    Kids grow up thinking abuse from females is ok as long it towards the males. I remember as a kid in the 80's an old woman roar at a man to beat his wife because she consider was disobedient and had different views to the old woman and her husband. All she wanted was equal rights and true fairness and respect.


    Here is a set-up by a ABC news to test females and public reaction when abuse happen when reverse roles when a woman is beating a man in public.


    So after things I mentioned above, If you want male prostitutes who are manipulated and sexually taken advantage by randy women to have the same protection under law as female prostitutes, then you probably have to leave this country with embarrassment probably Antarctica. The people (both equally males and females) will laugh at you and think you are a misguided individual and probably need to go to see a shrink.

    I am fully in favour in equal rights and same punishments without regardless of sex, age or race or status in Irish Law and Courts. But that is dream that will never come to reality on my part and children will be the real victims and have to live with the consequences of our inactions and denials that the woman is always right and can do no wrong and that the man is always at fault and should be punished.

    Look how long it took females groups to get politicians to admit domestic abuse from husbands should be a criminal offence and to get the Gardai to investigate them. It took a very very long time. I very doubt that more female wife abuser will be charge with domestic abuse. In that contexts and stories I mentioned above and videos, you are not likely to get any protection for male prostitutes who are sexual abused by females.

    Statistics gathers is skewed and is flawed from an early stage due to people lying and miss-interpretation and actions. There are too many flaws and interpretations due to skewed view when looking at data. I look at data and looks for faults. I look for the initial reasons for collecting the data to check for skewed errors in logic for collecting or omissions of data collection that would effect the data collected. If you look at the data collected for sexual encounters, Women are knowingly lie how many sexual partners she has. She downplays the number to save public embarrassment. Quite frankly it no other people business as long it is not rape. But data collected from her may have disastrous consequences if use especially when it comes to rape.

    This is a view from a Canadian who country is far more liberal than here
    over many decades and her analysis of their gender inequality legislations and in the courts (Judges).

    She feel the system is unfairly bias towards females, not males, which makes male prostitutes need for protection far down the arse of the barrel of problematic list that needs to be resolved.

    It is the same here in Ireland, we have the same gender inequality intertwined in our law and Justice system and in the fabric of our society. Male prostitutes who are sexual abuse by randy women are less likely to be punished than women who rape young boys or assaults men in the balls who refuse to have sex with them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Morag wrote: »
    It is and it is all over the turn off the red light camp gain of which Ruhuma is the root and that was formed by the order of nuns who ran the Magdalene laundries so the philosophy of them being deluded, wayward women who are sexworkers and need to be saved is perpetuated through out the current discussion and how they slant their services.

    Nonsense. Can you substantiate any of this? I see from social media campaigns that the "turn off the red light" campaign is being promoted by the Immigrant Council of Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    So ive been reading through the thread on prostitution and started thinking about this attitude that female prostitutes need to be protected.

    It seems there is an attitude that if a woman is a prostitute/pornstar etc that she has been tricked or taken advantage of. Now while this may seem sort of noble on the surface i find it shows that these people think a woman is incapable of thinking for herself, that she needs to be protected from the big bad world.

    Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

    Without starting a debate on the sex industry does anyone else think this attitude may be more damaging to equal rights for men and women. Am i right in thinking this is a form of sexism?

    Yes there is that attitude. I would also have that attitude too, particularly to run away girls or rent boys.

    But I would also have it towards the slave labour migrant workers in Dubai and other parts of the world.

    Yes I believe all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated.

    Is that a patronising stance? Maybe it is. I don't know, but it is what I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Yes I believe all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated.

    Is that a patronising stance? Maybe it is. I don't know, but it is what I believe.
    I wouldn't be so worried about it being patronizing as it being irrational.

    The question is why do you believe that all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated? Or how are those who are in Dubai relevant to those in a Western nation, where attitudes and law are drastically different? Or if there are some, most or even all who are vulnerable and get manipulated, why is prohibition the best way to deal with the issue?

    The thing that I find most disturbing about this topic is actually how such views are often held almost like articles of faith, backed up by often transparently biased and manipulated 'academic' reports that invariably are not taken seriously by anyone other than others who share the same articles of faith. It's become an ideological, almost religious (literally so for some), crusade rather than a genuine attempt to manage a social phenomenon.

    Whenever one finds that they 'believe' in something without really being able to articulate why or relying upon only the evidence that supports this belief, should warning bells be ringing in the mind of any rational human being?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    The OP did not specify western women so I assumed this was a global position.

    Nonetheless, there are weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world. That is why we have legislation.

    OP asked if it was a sexist position. Well it might be in some cases and not in others. Hard to say.

    I'm just saying where I am coming from when I have the attitude that these people need protection.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    The OP did not specify western women so I assumed this was a global position.
    They did, although you may not have been aware of it, as they were citing another thread discussing the moves to criminalize the clients of prostitution in Ireland.
    Nonetheless, there are weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world. That is why we have legislation.
    Actually legislation is not simply for the weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world - it's for the benefit of everyone. Many have lost sight of this nowadays.
    OP asked if it was a sexist position. Well it might be in some cases and not in others. Hard to say.
    It is and for the reason I cited above - where support for such legislation, as above, is coming from; both demonstrably sexist groups.
    I'm just saying where I am coming from when I have the attitude that these people need protection.
    Totally agree; just as everyone needs protection. The question is what type of protection and who; and this is the bone of contention.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    They did, although you may not have been aware of it, as they were citing another thread discussing the moves to criminalize the clients of prostitution in Ireland.

    Actually legislation is not simply for the weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world - it's for the benefit of everyone. Many have lost sight of this nowadays.

    It is and for the reason I cited above - where support for such legislation, as above, is coming from; both demonstrably sexist groups.

    Totally agree; just as everyone needs protection. The question is what type of protection and who; and this is the bone of contention.

    Ok well if the legislation is only around patroning female prositututes than yes it is sexist, because rent boys need protection too. But if it's also protecting rent boys, than I think that is fair enough. And they should be protected.

    Of course the underside of this is the very hard to cite and document the classicism in the Irish judiciary. But I guess that falls out the sexist cataogory and into something else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Ok well if the legislation is only around patroning female prositututes than yes it is sexist, because rent boys need protection too. But if it's also protecting rent boys, than I think that is fair enough. And they should be protected.
    Yes, but that does not mean that the law is not also sexist because the group it principally benefits is principally of one gender.

    For example, the 'automatic' nature of the cohabitation act's rights for assets and maintenance from a partner are also on the surface gender neutral, until you look at family law and realize that those who will benefit are overwhelmingly of one gender.

    Just because something is gender neutral on the surface, doesn't mean it is in practice.
    Of course the underside of this is the very hard to cite and document the classicism in the Irish judiciary. But I guess that falls out the sexist cataogory and into something else.
    Presently this has little to do with the Irish judiciary - it's still in the realm of lobby groups and their agendas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Well, it's no secret there have historically been gaps between de jure and defacto laws, but de jure is a start isn't it?

    I don't really know in practise, de facto, how much prosecution would actually take place against people, probably men, soliciting prositutes either male or female, except as the state purse starts to shrink and tighten they need more revenue so will look for more and more things to criminalise.

    Saying that criminalisation costs money, it means more judges, more legal aid, more enforcements costs.

    So this may all come to nothing in the end, but to re iterate my answer to the OP, it is sexist if it only protects female prostitutes and not rent boys, both need protection.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Well, it's no secret there have historically been gaps between de jure and defacto laws, but de jure is a start isn't it?
    I completely agree, but if we were to look at the case for introducing quotas in politics/business, I would imagine that those laws to address would be those that force women into sacrificing their careers for their family, not laws that leave the status quo and allow women to do both.

    Reform the law, but don't do so unjustly.
    I don't really know in practise, de facto, how much prosecution would actually take place against people, probably men, soliciting prositutes either male or female, except as the state purse starts to shrink and tighten they need more revenue so will look for more and more things to criminalise.
    If the Swedish example is anything to go by, very, very few will get anything other than a fine, but that's not really the point - the point is if it makes sense in the first place and this is quite questionable and there appears to be very little actual debate on the subject - apparently, the recent Dail committee set up to discuss this refused to allow Irish sex workers representation.
    Saying that criminalisation costs money, it means more judges, more legal aid, more enforcements costs.
    Actually, I think those would be the least of the potential problems.
    So this may all come to nothing in the end, but to re iterate my answer to the OP, it is sexist if it only protects female prostitutes and not rent boys, both need protection.
    But is that protection better served by regulation, prohibition or something else again?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I guess their thinking is if they cut off the money supply, which comes from the person looking for services, then they will eventually corrode the business.

    I'm not really sure how this works with other illegal things, like if you buy drugs or under the table cigarettes and booze, if it's the supplier or the consumer or both who get fined and or prosecuted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    I guess their thinking is if they cut off the money supply, which comes from the person looking for services, then they will eventually corrode the business.
    That was the idea behind the Volstead act too, and that didn't work out so well.

    My problem with the whole idea of the criminalization of clients is that there's practically no objective debate on the subject or the subject of prostitution in general. You keep on seeing 'reports' being published, strongly against the trade, which on closer examination use very flawed methodology and the authors (if you do a quick Goggle on them) invariably are linked to feminist or religious pressure groups with an ideological stance against prostitution. That it is almost always framed to exclude male prostitution or the repeated dismissal by such groups or reports of organizations that represent sex workers (and the rights they're actually seeking) further adds to my scepticism of such sources as being ideologically rather than scientifically motivated.

    Objective reports are hard to come by. When this debate started in another thread, I found it very difficult to find any that did not trace back to some interested party or other. One I did find (associated with the German Bundespolizei), largely concluded that trafficking did increase somewhat (due to demand increase outstripping supply) but that overall regulation also significantly improved the conditions and safety of sex workers.

    That's why I'd consider myself 'weakly' against decriminalization, because the positive of decriminalization may not merit the negative. Or not, because as I said, it's very difficult to get unbiased studies to compare this against.

    However, the criminalization of clients I certainly would oppose. It targets men overwhelmingly, which is not a surprising response by religious (as men are filthy sinners) or feminist (as men are not women) groups behind such demands. Many of these men go to prostitutes out of loneliness, disability or many other reasons (as attested by Dr Derek Freedman to the committee reviewing this) - it turns out there are men who are also 'vulnerable', who would be turned into criminals - a clear case of failing to give "protection from the big bad world" to those we are supposed to give it to. That is why we have legislation - remember?

    And for what? To drive it further underground (all that's happened in Sweden is that it's no longer visible), potentially making it even more dangerous for both client and sex worker?

    And what of the sex worker? It is unbelievably arrogant to believe that none of them choose to work in that industry; sure, they might be forced into it by economic circumstances, but what if they can't? Where will they earn their money? Or should we criminalize every occupation that is dangerous or unpleasant - or just those occupations dominated by women? Another hint at the sexist nature of this plan.

    There seems to be far too much social legislation being driven by ideologically motivated lobby groups and ideologues nowadays - just as the Volstead act once was. That's not a healthy situation for any democracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I think if you were going to do that and make it legal, then you would also need to loosen up gun control so that service providers could have means of self defence on the job and against their bosses who may force them to consent even in situations where they don't want to.

    You have obviously given this a lot of thought, way more than I have, as I haven't researched into studies, but I have seen young prostitutes and rent boys around bus stations and run aways and drug addicts, and they seem lost and vulnerable to me and a very sad life.

    I get what you are saying about pushing things underground, many prohibitions have back fired but then so has regulation too, so I don't really have an answer for you there. I can also see your points about why men would use prostitutes or rent boys. Though I find the idea of strolling around public toilets in a public park pursuing 16 year olds utterly reprehensible and that is something I don't think I can really accept as ok.

    But to again address the OP and also address your concerns, I don't think its a political malignancy to acknowledge vulnerabilities belonging to men or women by labelling them sexist in either direction. Obviously many disagree with that stance, that is my personal aberration. I still offer my seat to the elderly and don't fear being called an ageist or pregnant women without being yelled at that it's not a disability, so maybe I am not the right kind of person to answer the question. We all have our vulnerabilities.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    I think if you were going to do that and make it legal, then you would also need to loosen up gun control so that service providers could have means of self defence on the job and against their bosses who may force them to consent even in situations where they don't want to.
    I'm not convinced that legalization is the answer either. More correctly, that would have been my position before I read up a bit more on the subject and what that succeeded in doing is convincing me that it's too complex a subject for me to make a call on it; unless I really wanted to become a (more than Internet debating) expert on it.

    I get what you mean about street prostitution, and while I'd like to say this is a result of criminalization, the reality is that I've seen it in countries where it's legal and regulated. In such countries brothels do appear to have significantly better conditions and, I've certainly seen prostitutes on flights from eastern Europe travelling to cities like Frankfurt, Vienna or Zurich who are very definitely not being trafficked. Yet, I believe, even in regulated environments there are still problems.

    Then again, one thing that many people tend to forget is that there are a lot of jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous in the World. Few grow up with the intention of becoming sewage workers or bin-men, or consider them 'pleasant'. And a career as a miner or soldier is significantly more dangerous than prostitution.

    What pisses me off is no one seems to care unless the job has something to do with sex or is principally a female occupation. And that's why this topic is sexist, because it wouldn't even be a topic if it was men mainly doing this - no one would frankly care.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine



    Then again, one thing that many people tend to forget is that there are a lot of jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous in the World. Few grow up with the intention of becoming sewage workers or bin-men, or consider them 'pleasant'. And a career as a miner or soldier is significantly more dangerous than prostitution.

    What pisses me off is no one seems to care unless the job has something to do with sex or is principally a female occupation. And that's why this topic is sexist, because it wouldn't even be a topic if it was men mainly doing this - no one would frankly care.

    This is historical and tied up with class hierarchies. I will venture somewhat off topic for a minute. My sense is that all sorts of "honourable" attributes were and are tied into both a work ethic and the military to get young capable men to make a lot of money for old rich men, and inso doing risk their lives and their health and I personally call cobblers on that. It's preserving an old serfdom.

    However, prostitution transcends this because it's around women and sex and that has never been "honourable" but strictly moralised and controlled and pretty damned dirty. There is no "honor" in sex for women, other than withholding it. Historically too, and I'd have to dig out the books for this, Europe has turned an ambivalent eye on it, in order to keep the sewer out of the palace. I believe Aquinas came out with some statement about prostitutes being necessary so men don't go around raping the nice women. So prostitution also has it's roots in a type of misandry too along side a judgement on women.

    And to go back off topic for a minute, this is why I find both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic, [not to mention ideologically continuing an intellectual gender apartheid] because you cannot exclude one gender class and race from the bigger pictures nevermind each other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    And to go back off topic for a minute, this is why I find both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic, [not to mention ideologically continuing an intellectual gender apartheid] because you cannot exclude one gender class and race from the bigger pictures nevermind each other.
    I'd completely agree there and add that masculinism is largely a reaction to feminisms increasing influence within society - when you have a movement that seeks to represent the rights and interests of only one gender, often at the detriment of the other, it is inevitable that the other gender will eventually defend itself.

    After all, we want to move away from being a patriarchy, but we don't want to instead become a matriarchy either, do we?

    Personally I see masculinism as a temporary thing. But unfortunately a necessary one because at this stage a counterbalance is necessary to feminisms influence today. Given time, my hope is that opposition between the two will eventually see people on both sides abandon their partisan movements and seek a third, inclusive, one.

    But for now you need that opposition, otherwise there's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for one to choose compromise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    What?

    That's like the KKK saying they need to stick around to balance the Al Sharpton's black radicals.

    No you don't it just creates more apartheid.

    And it's not just about rights -it's about dignity too but these equality fanatics seem to like to lower the bar, not raise it.These equality fanatics completely lose perspective.

    Also I don't like women activists who claim to speak for me, and I'm sure there are men who don't want male activists speaking for them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    That's like the KKK saying they need to stick around to balance the Al Sharpton's black radicals.
    No, you seem to be under the false belief that masculinism can be equated to the KKK or that it is only radical feminists who propose misandrist policies.

    While you'll find a lot of misogyny in many masculinist groups, it's frankly no more than the level misandry you find in feminist groups nowadays - judging all masculinism on the basis of a few idiot sound-bytes on the Internet would be exactly the same as judging feminism on the same type of sound-bytes you'll often find on the same Internet.

    And many of the 'radical' policies proposed by feminism are no longer simply being put forward by 'radical' feminists - the abolition of custodial sentences for women (a horrifically offensive and sexist idea) has been happily promoted by 'mainstream' feminists, not members of SCUM.
    And it's not just about rights -it's about dignity too but these equality fanatics seem to like to lower the bar, not raise it.These equality fanatics completely lose perspective.
    But these 'equality fanatics' are speaking from a position where there is absolutely no interest in government to do anything about even the most basic of human rights for men (such as father's rights), while resources are constantly being diverted in favour of human rights for women.
    Also I don't like women activists who claim to speak for me, and I'm sure there are men who don't want male activists speaking for them.
    Perhaps not, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation which is that men's rights are not even on the agenda, let alone being effectively addressed, as with women's rights. In such an environment, a backlash is inevitable and, as I said, probably necessary because otherwise things are going to get worse for men, not better.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I don't judge feminism on a few clips from the internet. For one thing, I have been around since before the internet and I do read three dimensional literature and was educated. I have seen, heard and read enough to make a judgement call. Many would disagree, but that is how I see it.

    Example: I don't appreciate girls being told they have to be lesbians to be free. I don't appreciate Gloria Steinem saying women need abortions more than they need smear tests. I really want no part of it.

    I've also heard feminists say you know we will have reached equality when there are many women on death row as there are men.

    Or even your example of custodial sentences. Why is this even a gender issue? Shouldn't prison reform be looked at anyway? We know it doesn't work, bringing gender into is a divisive distraction.

    Would you like to see boys told they have to be gay to be free from the women who are oppressing them?

    Are you suggesting that one of the concerns of the masculinist is that men will be targeted for patroning prostitutes? That the law of punishing the person doing the hiring is a sexist law since it's men who do the hiring? Well isn't that premise sexist itself, presuming that it's men doing the hiring? It probably is men doing the hiring but you can't complain about sexism and practise it yourself in your ideology. Also your examples of the lonely and the disabled man who seek out the prostitute, well this I can imagine easily, but what about the disabled and the lonely women, do they seek them out too or is there just not a service available or do we just not know about it?

    I can't see how masculinism wont also go down the same divisive sinister road. So no thank you.

    If you tie yourself to one ideology you are onto a losing game.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    I don't judge feminism on a few clips from the internet. For one thing, I have been around since before the internet and I do read three dimensional literature and was educated. I have seen, heard and read enough to make a judgement call. Many would disagree, but that is how I see it.
    As do I, which is why I am questioning your assessment of masculism as being akin to the KKK any more than feminism is? If you're so well read, is Warren Farrell a misogynist, as he has been painted by many feminists? Or that many of the 'rights' now being demanded by feminism are in any way just, especially in light of the, frankly, basic rights of men that are still being ignored?

    If so, I'd have to question how well read you really are.
    Or even your example of custodial sentences. Why is this even a gender issue? Shouldn't prison reform be looked at anyway? We know it doesn't work, bringing gender into is a divisive distraction.
    I agree, but the problem is it is being sold as a gender issue, and what's worse it's not being sold by fringe, extremist feminists, but by the 'mainstream' ones who are part of our government.

    Faced with a situation where what was once considered extremist misandry is now becoming not only 'mainstream' but supported by the organs of the state, what exactly would you suggest that men - or women - do to deal with this?

    The answer, unfortunately, men seeking to represent ourselves - it's clear that feminism does not - so would you prefer we stay silent for fear of being labelled misogynists?
    Would you like to see boys told they have to be gay to be free from the women who are oppressing them?
    The frightening thing is that something like that is increasingly happening.

    Faced with a system that actively discriminates against us in family law, men are just avoiding going into that situation. In Ireland, we're no longer able to do this by not marrying - as even being in a relationship long enough makes you subject to those same discriminatory policies.

    As a man, living in Ireland, avoiding any serious relationship and getting a vasectomy - or simply becoming celibate - is your only option if you want to avoid the life-destroying consequences that can take place when a relationship ends.

    You can hardly deny that the number of men expressing such views have been increasing in recent years. Do you think it comes out of nowhere?
    I can't see how masculinism wont also go down the same divisive sinister road. So no thank you.

    If you tie yourself to one ideology you are onto a losing game.
    So what do you suggest? What is the alternative? Do you seriously think that feminism has any intention of not being gender-partisan? Or that a gender-neutral movement will magically come out of nowhere?

    It hasn't, it won't and now things have gotten to the point that it cannot be ignored any more. And it's likely going to get a lot uglier before we do finally cop onto ourselves and work together - regrettable, but at this stage it appears inevitable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    The only thing you can do is take things up with your legislators, who are men I believe, but this will all depend on how much state interference you want in solving your problems.

    Good luck with it all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    The only thing you can do is take things up with your legislators, who are men I believe, but this will all depend on how much state interference you want in solving your problems.
    Who is to take things up with the legislators then? That's why I asked you what do you suggest?

    You've stated that you find "both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic", yet as I've pointed out, where it comes to lobby-groups, government equality bodies and those legislators who have any interest in the subject, they are all gynocentric - regardless of their gender.

    If you can suggest a viable alternative for dealing with this sexism than a masculinist counterbalance, I'm all ears - but telling me "good luck with it" and doing a runner on the discussion just demonstrates that you cannot.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Who is to take things up with the legislators then? That's why I asked you what do you suggest?

    You've stated that you find "both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic", yet as I've pointed out, where it comes to lobby-groups, government equality bodies and those legislators who have any interest in the subject, they are all gynocentric - regardless of their gender.

    If you can suggest a viable alternative for dealing with this sexism than a masculinist counterbalance, I'm all ears - but telling me "good luck with it" and doing a runner on the discussion just demonstrates that you cannot.

    A lot of where one stands with this stuff will depend on where one stands with the role of the state in the first place [that is once one figures out the difference between what is oppression and what is just unfortunate] and how much state inference you want in these things.

    It will of course also depend on the characteristics of your government, how slow or fast they are to change things, the structures themselves, the functionality of the judiciary [not to mention those who legislate from the bench].

    I don't know what they are lobbying in there for women or for men, but if you really do see injustices than take it up with your legislators, and by that I mean YOU do it, issue by issue, rather than taking another partiality splinter group which reinforces more apartheid.


Advertisement