Is feminism a dirty word?

SeanW · 17-10-2014 11:47AM

I'm going by common sense in my primary assumption.

Your claim that the "new" laws, which so far as I know are still only feminist wet-dreams, are not discriminatory because "they will apply to everyone" is no different to claiming that gay people are not discriminated against by marriage law or that black people were not disenfranchised by Jim Crow laws on voting around the 1900s.

It is possible to write policy that appears to "apply to everyone equally" but is crafted to inflict injustice only/mainly on a segment. That's the entire purpose of the Swedish Model of sex work for example.

You appear to support this. Why?

Links234 · 17-10-2014 11:52AM

SeanW wrote: »

Assuming this is not a wind-up you are being seriously disingenuous here. The vast majority of sex work transactions (I don't have exact figures) presumably are men buying from women.

Thusly, the Swedish model (the buyer is always guilty of a crime regardless of any circumstance) is necessarily discrimination.

You do understand that many women in the sex trade are victims of human trafficking being forced into the prostitution against their will? Not criminalizing these women is a practical measure so that they won't fear their own incarceration if they go to the authorities, identify gang members involved, etc. Seriously, have a read of this: A woman trafficked into the sex trade in Ireland tells her story

SeanW · 17-10-2014 12:01PM

A pretext nothing more. The "Swedish model" in attributing guilt to a man, makes no distinction between a man who visits a sex-worker who has reason to believe is doing it of her own accord to make some money, vs. one who visits a trafficked sex-worker, whether knowingly or otherwise.

There is no distinction because combatting trafficking is not the objective. Just a nice pretext, and if successful, a positive side-effect.

Potatoeman · 17-10-2014 12:09PM

Links234 wrote: »

You do understand that many women in the sex trade are victims of human trafficking being forced into the prostitution against their will? Not criminalizing these women is a practical measure so that they won't fear their own incarceration if they go to the authorities, identify gang members involved, etc. Seriously, have a read of this: A woman trafficked into the sex trade in Ireland tells her story

I dont think anyone knows how many are trafficed. Its not something you can easily identify.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 12:12PM

SeanW wrote: »

I'm going by common sense in my primary assumption.

As someone who's name I can't remember right now once said -

"Assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups".

You're sense of what's common isn't really a helpful standard either tbh.

Your claim that the "new" laws, which so far as I know are still only feminist wet-dreams, are not discriminatory because "they will apply to everyone" is no different to claiming that gay people are not discriminated against by marriage law or that black people were not disenfranchised by Jim Crow laws on voting around the 1900s.

What we're talking about here in this thread is feminism. You've managed to turn it round to "what about men?", maintaining these are gender equality issues. As far as I'm aware, neither gender in this country is allowed legally to marry their same-sex partner. The laws apply equally to both genders.

The laws regarding sex work apply equally to both genders, regardless of which gender you think might suffer more because of their implementation.

It is possible to write policy that appears to "apply to everyone equally" but is crafted to inflict injustice only/mainly on a segment. That's the entire purpose of the Swedish Model of sex work for example.

You appear to support this. Why?

Huh? No, seriously, what are you actually trying to say here? You'll have to do an awful lot of clarifying on the above and how it relates at all to gender equality when you start throwing around words like injustice against segments in society and so on (the Orange Order perhaps? Sorry, couldn't resist :pac:).

I cannot support something if I don't understand what the hell you're talking about, so you'll have to break it down for me exactly what you're trying to say and how it relates to gender equality, discrimination, etc, because as far as I can determine, women will be prosecuted for the same offences as men under these new laws?

Links234 · 17-10-2014 12:22PM

SeanW wrote: »

A pretext nothing more. The "Swedish model" in attributing guilt to a man, makes no distinction between a man who visits a sex-worker who has reason to believe is doing it of her own accord to make some money, vs. one who visits a trafficked sex-worker, whether knowingly or otherwise.

There is no distinction because combatting trafficking is not the objective. Just a nice pretext, and if successful, a positive side-effect.

Wow. Just wow.

I've got a seriously hard time not characterizing MRAs as misogynistic conspiracy theorists when you lot come out with things like this. Criminalizing buying of sex has nothing to do with the horrors of human trafficking and hideous mistreatment of women and organized crime, that's just a pretext, it's really all about keeping the poor men down! Won't someone pleeeease think of those poor innocent men who're paying these gangs and creating the demand in the first place.

Sweet tapdancing christ that's unreal.

SeanW · 17-10-2014 12:51PM

Links234 wrote: »

Won't someone pleeeease think of those poor innocent men who're paying these gangs and creating the demand in the first place.

Thank you for proving my point - you characterise ALL sex work as being run by criminal traffickers, and ALL men who visit sex workers as vile rapists. There is no distinction, in your mind it seems, for those who operate independently and under no coercion, nor their clients. Like Swedish law/feminist thinking.

Let me be absolutely clear. I am against coercion. If there is significant levels of coercion in the sex work industry, I am in favour any reasonable measure to tackle it.

BrokenHero · 17-10-2014 01:15PM

When did term 'Men's Rights Activists' become a pejorative?

Links234 · 17-10-2014 01:18PM

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point - you characterise ALL sex work as being run by criminal traffickers. There is no distinction, in your mind it seems, for those who operate independently and under no coercion, nor their clients. Like Swedish law/feminist thinking.

No, I don't characterise all sex work this way, some women turn to sex work because of poverty for example. But if you don't want to see that there are serious, practical reasons for criminalizing the buyer but not the seller and claim it's all some feminist conspiracy to keep down the poor men, that's your prerogative. Still a ****ing barmy viewpoint.

In fact, I'm not even hugely in favour of the law you're talking about. I think the idea of some degree of legalized prostituion has it's merits too, in that if it were legal to buy sex from a legitimate business that payed taxes, had legal rights for sex workers etc.

jackofalltrades · 17-10-2014 01:39PM

Links234 wrote: »

You do understand that many women in the sex trade are victims of human trafficking being forced into the prostitution against their will?

What's this based on? AFAIK there have been very few convictions under the Human Trafficking act.

BrokenHero · 17-10-2014 02:03PM

Laughable how many comments on this thread keep making comments suggesting that the feminist "extremists" shouldn't be used to judge feminism.

What an absurd thing to say. Of course the feminists with the loudest voices over the past forty years should be used to judge modern feminism as they are the ones the feminists of today were influenced by. The very feminists that had the most impact in, and on, society. They set the tone and so of course they are the ones that should be focused on when passing judgement on feminism today.

The feminists that were lobbying governments held these militant women up as their heroines and still do.

You only have to look at Sweden to see that mainstream feminists do indeed mirror their extremist friends when they get into power.

Harriet Harman is a shining example of that. Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth before she was made equality minister and then as soon as she was in the door she was trying to bring in sexist legislation that would make it legal to discriminate against men:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7474801.stm

She labelled Gordon Brown a sexist many times, claiming he struggled to see women as being on the same level of men but yet her mask slipped a few weeks back when she slagged off David Cameron's holiday beach photos and said there was no chance of anyone mistaking him for David Hasselhoff:

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11119415/Harriet-Harman-mocks-David-Brent-like-David-Cameron.html

Can you imagine if David Cameron had referenced beach photos of her in a political speech and said that going by what she looked like there was no danger of anyone confusing her with Pamela Anderson? Feminists of course would have been up in arms saying that she was being objectified and judged on her physical failings merely because she was a woman. Guess it's okay when it's the other way around though.

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 02:19PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not been established yet, that the same is not true of the mens rights types - I'm sure there is lots of opposition to such stuff, among feminists on message boards, like there is for MRA's on that particular message board - we see it right here on Boards, so it seems logical that it would be even more prevalent on a forum dedicated to the topic.

So - what we are comparing here is mens rights types opposing extremists on message boards, so if we are not to have double standards, we need to compare that against feminists opposing extremists also on message boards - which they do seem to do.

Firstly, most MRA campaigns haven't had real-world impact so there's no fair comparison.
Secondly, check out the Feminism forum on Reddit, the same site I've been talking about in terms of the MensRights forum. Use the search feature, try and find any threads attacking some of the examples of feminist extremism I've outlined in previous posts.
I remember when the whole "Women Against Feminism" thing was doing the rounds, they refused to take anything other than a defensive and pejorative stance towards those espousing it. The MensRights forum on the other hand is generally willing to consider criticism and respond to it in a more comprehensive manner than by shouting "internalized misogyny" or any such BS.

The issue then, is why do newspapers select for the extremists among feminists? That's not necessarily a problem with feminists, it can just be newspapers trying to sell.

Who said anything about newspapers? I'm talking about campaigns which have succeeded in changing policies in various areas.

Him and his organization certainly seem to be part of the dominant/mainstream section of the mens right movement - it's very hard to Google/read-up on mens right stuff, without them being prominently featured.

The site itself, but not Elam specifically. Most regard him as a scumbag, but he's not the only contributor to the site and other articles on it can be valid.

Are there good examples of censorship from extremist feminists, that aren't small-scale like college campus things? It seems a really minor thing, to be criticizing all of feminism over.

I pointed out examples over the page, will source more later - banning t shirts from topshop over "misogyny" (where were they when "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts were all the rage? Crickets.), banning offensive Facebook pages and succeeding in changing Facebook's policy to be more restrictive (again, no comment on the massive amount of misandry on Facebook but that double standard is a separate issue), and a bunch of others. I posted a list a few pages back.

From my point of view, a large part of modern feminism involves imposing rules and restrictions on what opinions and words can be broadcast. This is something which, if it's only espoused by "extremists", is not being opposed in almost any capacity by the "mainstream". It's one of the most visible achievements of modern feminism, so it's entirely fair IMO to judge feminism based on these achievements.

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 02:24PM

S.L.F wrote: »

Have a read of this lovely feminist inspired pdf so you can see what they think of boys and men.

I challenge anyone to find a similar one about women from the European Commission?

If one was written, it would be censored as "hate speech" by the same people who published this. :mad:

KomradeBishop · 17-10-2014 02:25PM

S.L.F wrote: »

He writes a piece of satire and every person who wants to bash the MHRM has to dump him.

Compare that to the writings of Andrea Dworkin or any of the other horrors of the feminist movement and there is nothing but silence from people.

None of that was satire, and you can see in the comments after the post, that he is directly defending what he has said regarding such rape victims - nothing to indicate satire, plenty to indicate he is serious:

The women I am referring to in this post are dehumanizing themselves, or perhaps they are simply conducting themselves at their most humanly opportunistic worst. Either way, I will eat my hat if my description of them is unfair.

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 02:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

None of that was satire, and you can see in the comments after the post, that he is directly defending what he has said regarding such rape victims - nothing to indicate satire, plenty to indicate he is serious:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

So as SLF says, if it's ok to justs the MRM based on his bullsh!t, can we judge feminism based on Dworkin?
And once again, a point you continuously ignore, he is not in a position to affect major social change in the manner that extremists such as Harriet Harmen are. Why keep ignoring this point? Extreme feminists are causing harmful legal and social changes, extremist MRAs far, far less so.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 02:45PM

BrokenHero wrote: »

When did term 'Men's Rights Activists' become a pejorative?

You asked the above question earlier. Well, down below is your answer -

BrokenHero wrote: »

Can you imagine if David Cameron had referenced beach photos of her in a political speech and said that going by what she looked like there was no danger of anyone confusing her with Pamela Anderson? Feminists of course would have been up in arms saying that she was being objectified and judged on her physical failings merely because she was a woman. Guess it's okay when it's the other way around though.

When you care more about how David Cameron looks in swimming trunks, or how Harriet Harmon looks in swimming trunks, rather than serious issues that actually affect men on a daily basis, that's when people will begin to see you as bad as each other (both those people who identify as feminist, MRA, MHRM, or any other identity), and they will have no interest in being involved with such nonsense.

That's why most people have no interest in any of these movements, because the most vocal advocates are the same people spouting the most facepalm inducing nonsense.

Fathers are being denied access to their children, and your biggest gripe is worrying about what someone might say if David Cameron took a childish swipe at Harriet Harmon?

These people are supposed to be running a country ffs, and that's what you should be concentrating on rather than expecting people should take sides when the country's leaders behave like children firing petty insults at each other.

If that's your best example of discrimination against men, then you really, really don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on when you complain about people being unable to take you seriously.

BrokenHero · 17-10-2014 03:31PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When you care more about how David Cameron looks in swimming trunks, or how Harriet Harmon looks in swimming trunks, rather than serious issues that actually affect men on a daily basis, that's when people will begin to see you as bad as each other (both those people who identify as feminist, MRA, MHRM, or any other identity), and they will have no interest in being involved with such nonsense.

That's why most people have no interest in any of these movements, because the most vocal advocates are the same people spouting the most facepalm inducing nonsense.

Fathers are being denied access to their children, and your biggest gripe is worrying about what someone might say if David Cameron took a childish swipe at Harriet Harmon?

These people are supposed to be running a country ffs, and that's what you should be concentrating on rather than expecting people should take sides when the country's leaders behave like children firing petty insults at each other.

If that's your best example of discrimination against men, then you really, really don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on when you complain about people being unable to take you seriously.

What in the name of all that is good and pure and you ranting about?

What I said about Harriet Harman's comments about David Cameron was not supposed to be an example of discrimination against men in society, it was (quite obviously) supposed to be an example of what a hypocritical bint the woman undoubtedly is and my further pointing out how she had attempted to bring in legislation which would have made it quite legal to discriminate against men over women when in the arena of employment, was to unequivocally show how "gender equality" is the furthest thing from her mind. It clearly far from motivates her.

This is after all a celebrated feminist we are talking about here. One would expect better from her, given her constant ramblings about sexism down the years, especially in the area of gender discrimination but it turns out she is just as sexist and discriminatory as those she leveled her charges at. Of course, given that she never had a basis for much of those accusations, she has in fact, revealed her self to be a shining example of precisely the type of person which she pretended to be opposed to.

Yurt2 · 17-10-2014 03:37PM

Prostitution is another area where feminists look to be on another messianic crusade. The vast vast majority of women in the sex trade are not trafficked here. It's a tactic of the Turn Off the Red Light campaign (self appointed spokespeople for sex workers) to conflate trafficking with the mutually consensual sex trade. This isn't about making things safer for the women, its about eradicating the profession. (And just before anyone jumps in and says it, no I don't pay for sex)

Still cant post links but there's an article from The Guardian stating that 98% of NI sex workers oppose Nordic style sex laws. It also makes the very salient point that feminists in the South are now unlikely bedfellows with the Catholic moral right.

There's also a brilliant blog I came across a few months ago by a highly articulate Irish escort who tears strips off the official feminist narrative of TOTRL campaign and really cuts them apart for daring to try to speak on behalf of sex workers, infantalizing and patronizing them and generally accusing them of putting them even more in harms way. I'll try to dig it out because it really is well worth a read.

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 03:51PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Prostitution is another area where feminists look to be on another messianic crusade. The vast vast majority of women in the sex trade are not trafficked here. It's a tactic of the Turn Off the Red Light campaign (self appointed spokespeople for sex workers) to conflate trafficking with the mutually consensual sex trade. This isn't about making things safer for the women, its about eradicating the profession. (And just before anyone jumps in and says it, no I don't pay for sex)

Still cant post links but there's an article from The Guardian stating that 98% of NI sex workers oppose Nordic style sex laws. It also makes the very salient point that feminists in the South are now unlikely bedfellows with the Catholic moral right.

There's also a brilliant blog I came across a few months ago by a highly articulate Irish escort who tears strips off the official feminist narrative of TOTRL campaign and really cuts them apart for daring to try to speak on behalf of sex workers, infantalizing and patronizing them and generally accusing them of putting them even more in harms way. I'll try to dig it out because it really is well worth a read.

You'll find that a common feminist tactic when women reject their ideology is infantilizing and denial of agency to those who do. "You're just confused, poor thing" is the general reaction.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 03:57PM

BrokenHero wrote: »

What in the name of all that is good and pure and you ranting about?

What I said about Harriet Harman's comments about David Cameron was not supposed to be an example of discrimination against men in society, it was (quite obviously) supposed to be an example of what a hypocritical bint the woman undoubtedly is and my further pointing out how she had attempted to bring in legislation which would have made it quite legal to discriminate against men over women when in the arena of employment, was to unequivocally show how "gender equality" is the furthest thing from her mind. It clearly far from motivates her.

Yeah, I guess I kinda missed your point what with the whole mental image of David Cameron in swimming trunks thing (I dared not google Harriet Harmon after that :pac:).

This is after all a celebrated feminist we are talking about here. One would expect better from her, given her constant ramblings about sexism down the years, especially in the area of gender discrimination but it turns out she is just as sexist and discriminatory as those she leveled her charges at. Of course, given that she never had a basis for much of those accusations, she has in fact, revealed her self to be a shining example of precisely the type of person which she pretended to be opposed to.

Yeah I really don't know that much about her tbh, she doesn't sound like someone that has anything to say that I might be interested in hearing either, much like the extremists in any movement that come out with some oddball off the wall ideas that have the unfortunate effect of tarring the perception of a whole movement with the one brush.

A classic example being some of the former members of Fathers4Justice that dressed up as Batman and Robin and scaled the Houses of Parliament, throwing powder bombs at Tony Blair, plotting to kidnap his child, y'know, those sort of oddball ideas that nobody in their right mind would want to be associated with.

KomradeBishop · 17-10-2014 04:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Firstly, most MRA campaigns haven't had real-world impact so there's no fair comparison.
Secondly, check out the Feminism forum on Reddit, the same site I've been talking about in terms of the MensRights forum. Use the search feature, try and find any threads attacking some of the examples of feminist extremism I've outlined in previous posts.
I remember when the whole "Women Against Feminism" thing was doing the rounds, they refused to take anything other than a defensive and pejorative stance towards those espousing it. The MensRights forum on the other hand is generally willing to consider criticism and respond to it in a more comprehensive manner than by shouting "internalized misogyny" or any such BS.

You're assuming that subreddit is actually representative of feminists; that's not a well founded assumption - a quick Google shows that the moderators there are overzealous.

I really don't see how something that just amounts to an Internet forum, can be considered in any way representative of feminists overall? That's a really bad example, and especially bad, when all it takes is a bit of biased moderation, for a handful of people to affect the tone of the entire forum.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Who said anything about newspapers? I'm talking about campaigns which have succeeded in changing policies in various areas.

Ah, I think I was mixing that part up, with a discussion with another poster.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The site itself, but not Elam specifically. Most regard him as a scumbag, but he's not the only contributor to the site and other articles on it can be valid.

He's the founder/editor though, and everyone associated with that website, is happy to associate with him.

If we're to avoid double standards here, then if feminists are expected to distance themselves from the extremists, then non-extremist AVfM contributors should be expected to distance themselves from Elam/AVfM - and at the very least, to visibly criticize Elam in his own publication - otherwise the same implications made about feminists, who don't distance themselves from extremists, apply here too, such as tacit consent/support to Elam's views/editorial-stance.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I pointed out examples over the page, will source more later - banning t shirts from topshop over "misogyny" (where were they when "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts were all the rage? Crickets.), banning offensive Facebook pages and succeeding in changing Facebook's policy to be more restrictive (again, no comment on the massive amount of misandry on Facebook but that double standard is a separate issue), and a bunch of others. I posted a list a few pages back.

From my point of view, a large part of modern feminism involves imposing rules and restrictions on what opinions and words can be broadcast. This is something which, if it's only espoused by "extremists", is not being opposed in almost any capacity by the "mainstream". It's one of the most visible achievements of modern feminism, so it's entirely fair IMO to judge feminism based on these achievements.

Ok, but on the whole, these all seem to be fairly minor things - notable, yes, but still minor - so I can kind of see why it might fail to gain enough attention among other feminists, to generate enough opposition.

I don't think using that to generalize-to/judge the wider feminist movement, is all that fair really.

KomradeBishop · 17-10-2014 04:13PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So as SLF says, if it's ok to justs the MRM based on his bullsh!t, can we judge feminism based on Dworkin?
And once again, a point you continuously ignore, he is not in a position to affect major social change in the manner that extremists such as Harriet Harmen are. Why keep ignoring this point? Extreme feminists are causing harmful legal and social changes, extremist MRAs far, far less so.

As I explain a little in my post above, once we pin-down Elam as having abhorrent views, it's then fair to judge people associating with AVfM, and people who use AVfM to back their point (unless they change their mind, after having the problems with Elam/AVfM pointed out).

My point earlier stands as well, that AVfM seem to be a very prominent - I'd say close to (if not already) mainstream - element of the mens rights movement.

The political power that some feminists have is, I think, a much more complicated issue than it is being presented in these threads - and I think leaping to lay blame, especially when that generalizes to the whole feminist movement, is just unhelpful/uninformative - the more interesting/relevant question is how/why some of these feminists have the power or are able to achieve the things they do? (by learning that, it could easily turn out that the rest of the more-moderate feminist movement, may not have the adequate cohesion/power, to stop some of the problematic changes/policies mentioned in this thread - which would make laying blame on the whole feminist movement, counterproductive/pointless/inaccurate).

SeanW · 17-10-2014 07:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Huh? No, seriously, what are you actually trying to say here? You'll have to do an awful lot of clarifying on the above and how it relates at all to gender equality when you start throwing around words like injustice against segments in society and so on (the Orange Order perhaps? Sorry, couldn't resist :pac:).

OK, let me try to clarify.

It is possible to make laws and policies that target or are harmful to a group, without mentioning that group by name, when it is known that the policy will laregly apply to that group. Such laws and policies can even be defended as "not discrimination, because it applies to all equally." This can happen in any area of life.

I cited the laws against homosexual marriage as one example - nothing to do with gender BTW just an example of the principle. The same standard applies to everyone, so by your logic they cannot be considered discrimination, even though the practical effect is to place roadblocks on the potential for happiness on the large minority of people - sharing a specific attribute - whose chosen parters are (in terms of marriage) off-limits.

Likewise with many of the Jim Crow voting laws in the Southern U.S. around the 1900s. Laws intended to disenfranchise black people didn't say "No n*****s in the polling station" but were worded to have that effect. However, the standard that was applied by these laws were universal - for example, you had to pay a fee to vote and pass a literacy/knowledge test. Of course, if a person only recently escaped slavery, they wouldn't have much money or education and so were almost universally excluded. By your standard, this could not be considered discrimination since it did not explicity say "black people can't vote."

The Swedish model is the same - it claims to be an objective standard but like the above two, is nothing of the sort. It doesn't explicity say "men are the problem" but if - for the sake of argument - one accepts that the majority of 'Johns' are men, then the effect on that group is the same as the above two.

Links234 wrote: »

No, I don't characterise all sex work this way, some women turn to sex work because of poverty for example. But if you don't want to see that there are serious, practical reasons for criminalizing the buyer but not the seller and claim it's all some feminist conspiracy to keep down the poor men, that's your prerogative. Still a ****ing barmy viewpoint.

You mis-characterised my position, I don't think either party should be criminalised - what goes on between consenting adults is IMO nobodies business except the participants. I am also against all coercion. That includes the buyer - if a buyer has good reason to believe the seller is acting under explicit duress, he has a moral obligation to walk away.

If you think my position is "barmy" have a basic read of feminism and sexuality, because you obviously need to. When one considers the Swedish model as being a victory for feminism, one has to ask what was the objective?

Because if the objective was to sort out the problems of trafficking and coercion, the laws that followed would focus on trafficking and coercion, while staying out of other business. On the other hand, if one has wider opposition to sex work as being an evil unto itself, a mysogenistic symbol of the evil patriarchy that demeans and victimises women just by existing regardless of the level of trafficking - or the lack thereof - then the whole "the buyer is a scumbag regardless of the circumstances" begins to make more sense. Indeed, it's the only way that it does make sense at all.

To claim as you seem to be doing that the Swedish model has nothing to do with extremist feminism and is purely an anti-trafficking initiative is therefore, very strange.

In fact, I'm not even hugely in favour of the law you're talking about. I think the idea of some degree of legalized prostituion has it's merits too, in that if it were legal to buy sex from a legitimate business that payed taxes, had legal rights for sex workers etc.

I imagine most feminists would disagree with you. As would a wide variety of left-wing and feminist entities.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 08:21PM

SeanW wrote: »

OK, let me try to clarify.

It is possible to make laws and policies that target or are harmful to a group, without mentioning that group by name, when it is known that the policy will laregly apply to that group. Such laws and policies can even be defended as "not discrimination, because it applies to all equally." This can happen in any area of life.

...

The Swedish model is the same - it claims to be an objective standard but like the above two, is nothing of the sort. It doesn't explicity say "men are the problem" but if - for the sake of argument - one accepts that the majority of 'Johns' are men, then the effect on that group is the same as the above two.

I'm genuinely not trying to be disingenuous or argumentative here, so I snipped out the bits of your post that were irrelevant. SLF made a statement that we should look at the new laws in this country regarding sex work, so forget about Swedish models and all the rest of it.

This thread is about gender equality, or inequality if you prefer, so I'm just wondering how are the new laws that apply equally to both genders, and example of discrimination against one gender?

Do both genders engage in sex work?
Yes they do.

Do both genders purchase sex?
Yes, they do.

Will both genders be criminalised for the purchase of sex work?
Yes, they will.

Should men who purchase sex be treated any differently from women who purchase sex?
No, they shouldn't.

I ask you again, is this not gender equality in practice? Is this not what you want?

What exactly do you want?

SLF hasn't been back to the thread to clarify what he meant by mentioning the new laws with regard to gender discrimination, so I appreciate your helping me understand this one.

SeanW · 17-10-2014 08:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm genuinely not trying to be disingenuous or argumentative here, so I snipped out the bits of your post that were irrelevant. SLF made a statement that we should look at the new laws in this country regarding sex work, so forget about Swedish models and all the rest of it.

"Criminalise the buyer" is the essence of the Swedish model. BTW which new laws are these? Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein tried to enact this model in Ireland last year but thankfully were defeated.

BTW I explained the problem - you can make a law that "applies equally" to all groups but has a disproportionate effect on one sector.

As I said - just to demonstrate the general principle - laws banning gay marriage apply equally to both straight people (one groups) and gay people (another group). So it's true that the law is applied "fairly" and a straight person cannot have a gay marriage, but it would disingenuous to the point of absurdity to say that is not discriminatory, nor likely to affect one groups more than another.

The same is true of criminalise-the-buyer laws where - as I suspect - the vast majority of such transactions are men buying from women, and the feminist movement clearly frame the issue as such.

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 09:04PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I explain a little in my post above, once we pin-down Elam as having abhorrent views, it's then fair to judge people associating with AVfM, and people who use AVfM to back their point (unless they change their mind, after having the problems with Elam/AVfM pointed out).

My point earlier stands as well, that AVfM seem to be a very prominent - I'd say close to (if not already) mainstream - element of the mens rights movement.

Analogy time.
Mark Zuckerberg is found to be an unbelievable racist. He's captured on camera racially abusing someone. Everyone who uses Facebook as a platform can therefore be tarred with his racism.

That appears to be the point you're arguing here. AVfM is a platform, it's not Elam's personal blog.

The political power that some feminists have is, I think, a much more complicated issue than it is being presented in these threads - and I think leaping to lay blame, especially when that generalizes to the whole feminist movement, is just unhelpful/uninformative - the more interesting/relevant question is how/why some of these feminists have the power or are able to achieve the things they do? (by learning that, it could easily turn out that the rest of the more-moderate feminist movement, may not have the adequate cohesion/power, to stop some of the problematic changes/policies mentioned in this thread - which would make laying blame on the whole feminist movement, counterproductive/pointless/inaccurate).

That may be a fair point, but the fact remains that the mainstream feminist movement, assuming it doesn't support the things I've mentioned, is still almost totally silent about them. And people like Germaine Greer and Harriet Harmen are still held up by mainstream feminists as role models, even though they espouse many of the policies you're attributing only to fringe extremists.

I have never seen Elam held up as a positive role model in this manner, but feminists praise Harmen all over the place.

hatrickpatrick · 17-10-2014 09:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly do you want?

This wasn't aimed at me, but criminalizing consensual transactional sex is nothing more than moral legalism, the same as criminalizing anything consensual is. Once it's established that something is consensual, it shouldn't be illegal - IMO that should go for everything. Two people who agree to do something with their own bodies in private are not doing wrong, end of story.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 09:10PM

SeanW wrote: »

"Criminalise the buyer" is the essence of the Swedish model. BTW which new laws are these? Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein tried to enact this model in Ireland last year but thankfully were defeated.

Wait, you mean to tell me SLF was talking nonsense? Well colour me surprised. So there are no new laws regarding sex work being introduced at all then? I'm even more confused now!

BTW I explained the problem - you can make a law that "applies equally" to all groups but has a disproportionate effect on one sector.

Well the same could be said for any law surely? The idea of course is that they apply to everyone, but will naturally have a disproportionate effect on one sector. Whether that's an overall benefit or not to all sectors of society is what's debatable. I've tried to follow your argument, and you seem to be suggesting that the laws SLF seems to be referring to that don't seem to have happened, would have criminalised more men than women for buying sex?

Here's an idea - don't go breaking the law, and then more men won't get punished for it than women! Remember that common sense you referred to earlier? A child would understand that much.

The same is true of criminalise-the-buyer laws where - as I suspect - the vast majority of such transactions are men buying from women, and the feminist movement clearly frame the issue as such.

What 'feminist movement' is this? Because as far as I'm aware, there is no agreement between feminists on the issue of women in the sex industry - some feminists argue that women in the sex industry are being exploited, some feminists argue that women working in the sex industry are being empowered.

I haven't heard any comment from MRAs, MHRMs, etc regarding men in the sex industry and whether they are being exploited or empowered. Perhaps you or SLF if they come back to the discussion would care to offer your opinion from that perspective?

nokia69 · 17-10-2014 09:17PM

Links234 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

I've got a seriously hard time not characterizing MRAs as misogynistic conspiracy theorists when you lot come out with things like this. Criminalizing buying of sex has nothing to do with the horrors of human trafficking and hideous mistreatment of women and organized crime, that's just a pretext, it's really all about keeping the poor men down! Won't someone pleeeease think of those poor innocent men who're paying these gangs and creating the demand in the first place.

Sweet tapdancing christ that's unreal.

human trafficking is already illegal

the feminists in the last UK government did their best to bring in swedish style laws but first they needed to find some "trafficked woman"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/11/soho-police-raids-sex-workers-fear-trafficking

but the problem is they can't really seem to find many, the whole thing is more or less a myth

its pretty clear what the feminists are trying to do, they really just hate men

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

crockholm · 17-10-2014 09:21PM

Links234 wrote: »

No, I don't characterise all sex work this way, some women turn to sex work because of poverty for example. But if you don't want to see that there are serious, practical reasons for criminalizing the buyer but not the seller and claim it's all some feminist conspiracy to keep down the poor men, that's your prerogative. Still a ****ing barmy viewpoint.

In fact, I'm not even hugely in favour of the law you're talking about. I think the idea of some degree of legalized prostituion has it's merits too, in that if it were legal to buy sex from a legitimate business that payed taxes, had legal rights for sex workers etc.

Your second paragraph is pretty much "The Swedish model"-It's pretty much just a big bluff,some token gesture that appeases feminists yet still allows the horndogs to visit prostitutes.

They've really just stopped it being sold openly in the street is all.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments