Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Your overarching point seems to be about people working due to needing money. But you're skipping a step. Why do people need money? It's because they have certain unavoidable needs to survive, along with a very strong drive to survive.

Would a person living off subsistence farming stop doing all that backbreaking labor if they could get the food without it? Of fucking course they would. Does that make farming evil?




WTF was this for? He was engaged in good faith debate, what, he didn't agree with you so out of the hugbox?
For fucking negrating? Are you fucking serious?

Let's talk about the fact that discussions of anything to do with feminism need a heavy hand from the moderation to make sure the correct opinions are highlighted.

Surrogacy is something some women do voluntarily. Some women do it for money where it's allowed. Like ANY labor at all, it has permanent consequences. Do you think farmers are born with bent spines and aching knees?

Also, WTF is with the fact that @Terribleideas got threadbanned for "derailing and negrating", look at fucking @SourDiesel jumping all over the place and trying to completely control the entire conversation.

Also, not for nothing, this is a fucking bait thread started by Dynastia for bait purposes.
No, he was given a time-out not for disagreeing but for derailing. Every other post would be this guy taking 1500 words to say the same thing, contradicting himself and not doing the research he demanded of others.

I talked about porn. Someone challenged some examples I made that showed they had an understanding of the subject matter. I went to the cites that person provided and came back with analysis. Whereas TerribleIdeas when confronted with evidence simply dismissed it as unimportant or even "anti-porn" instead of looking into it and coming back with what he thought about it. He asserted, too, that he might be engaging a surrogate, then contradicted his own theses statement "women should be free to choose whatever" by stipulating that he believed an enforceable surrogacy contract should have an anti-abortion clause but provided few details as to what overall he would think fair in a surrogacy contract. He then started sperging about unrelated game characters.

He was time-outed for derailing. That's not censorship, that's putting someone on mute so that a discussion can take place.
 
Last edited:

Okkervils

Get your flu shot.
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
WTF was this for? He was engaged in good faith debate, what, he didn't agree with you so out of the hugbox?
For fucking negrating? Are you fucking serious?

Let's talk about the fact that discussions of anything to do with feminism need a heavy hand from the moderation to make sure the correct opinions are highlighted.

Surrogacy is something some women do voluntarily. Some women do it for money where it's allowed. Like ANY labor at all, it has permanent consequences. Do you think farmers are born with bent spines and aching knees?
It wasn't about negrating, I don't care about that. It was about the fact that he was the user I was getting repeated reports over and the conversation was getting extremely repetitive. However, if you want want a cooler explanation not based in reality... He was getting too close to the truth and we had to put a stop to it before he unveiled feminism's deepest darkest secret that would make all our work for nothing.
 
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
For everyone arguing that women's sexual and reproductive autonomy should be recognized for abortion, birth control, personal desire to be promiscuous (or not), but that same autonomy should be restricted in the cases of sex-work, prostitution, and surrogacy -

- Women have been coerced (by money and threat of force) into having abortions, but feminists aren't calling for that to be be banned.
- Money isn't the only method of coercion available, and coercion of the types they're talking about are already illegal.
- Prohibition of any phenomena has never reduced harms more than legalization and regulation of said phenomena - see pot, drugs in Portugal, guns in Chicago/Cali, Nordic Model, alcohol.
- It is absolutely exceptional to argue that women should have sexual & reproductive autonomy recognized for FGM, abortion, personal promiscuity, but their sexual & reproductive autonomy for sex work, prostitution, porn, and surrogacy is something that should be denied.
I agree. Sex work and surrogacy should be legal. Most second-wave feminists agree. These are extremely profitable industries with demand that will exist regardless of their legality, and not the kind of things that can be banned without driving them to the black market, where they'll cause even more damage to the people involved in them. There is a huge difference between saying 'These are grubby, exploitative industries and need extra government regulation' and saying 'I don't like this ; ban it.'. You want to compare it to drugs and guns and prohibition, I compare it more to subprime lending ; a filthy, exploitative business that eventually needed the government to swoop in and put a stop to it because it was ruining so many lives it crashed the economy.

- It is definitely exceptional as hell to argue for womens' liberation from a Marxist viewpoint, since no women are liberated under Marxism, they are compelled, coerced and exploited by the authoritarian Marxists that always seem to "lead the revolution", but never seem to "step back into the proletariat, to labour amongst their peers", in every single Marxist societal experiment ever conducted.
By "societal experiment" you mean "bloody, murderous revolution", right? Anytime democracy had a 'societal experiment' it also killed tens of thousands of people and continues to oppress the most vulnerable citizens, because that's what always happens when you violently overthrow a system.

Marxist theory is not necessarily revolutionary Marx-Leninism, and a person can be in favour of democratically voting in a social welfare system or nationalising vital industry without being in favour of mass-murdering the bourgeoisie.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
I agree. Sex work and surrogacy should be legal. Most second-wave feminists agree. These are extremely profitable industries with demand that will exist regardless of their legality, and not the kind of things that can be banned without driving them to the black market, where they'll cause even more damage to the people involved in them. There is a huge difference between saying 'These are grubby, exploitative industries and need extra government regulation' and saying 'I don't like this ; ban it.'. You want to compare it to drugs and guns and prohibition, I compare it more to subprime lending ; a filthy, exploitative business that eventually needed the government to swoop in and put a stop to it because it was ruining so many lives it crashed the economy.
What the government did was basically rescue banks that had engaged in this because those banks were determined essential to the economy. It was not a true ban, just as it wasn't in the S&L crisis in the 1980s. It's going on a decade, and I predict in another decade, decade and a half, the same shit will happen as everyone forgets.

AFA surrogacy, I can't endorse commercialization as it presently exists. It is bullshit to even posit that a contract can be enforced saying a woman can't abort when she wants or must abort if someone else wants, that if there's a car accident or something it's all about keeping her alive so that the fetus can be born for the employers.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: TerribleIdeas™

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
What the government did was basically rescue banks that had engaged in this because those banks were determined essential to the economy. It was not a true ban, just as it wasn't in the S&L crisis in the 1980s. It's going on a decade, and I predict in another decade, decade and a half, the same shit will happen as everyone forgets.

AFA surrogacy, I can't endorse commercialization as it presently exists. It is bullshit to even posit that a contract can be enforced saying a woman can't abort when she wants or must abort if someone else wants, that if there's a car accident or something it's all about keeping her alive so that the fetus can be born for the employers.
I'm kind of halfway between both views tbh. I entirely agree that full prohibition leads to things going further underground and more harm being done in the long run. At the same time, I'm certain I feel that way about prostitution but surrogacy is a bit of a different matter. I'm open to hearing evidence on this but it seems it would be much harder to sell babies on the black market in north america than it is to sell sex. There's paperwork involved in babies. You can't normally just "disappear" a baby and reappear with a bunch of cash nor can one suddenly come into possession of a baby with no legal attachment to it easily. I'm sure it could happen but it's not as easy as fucking in a motel or sucking dick in the back of a car. Either way, whenever there is a real danger of abuse in a legal system, there has to be regulations of some kind to attempt to prevent that. Certainly if surrogacy is too highly regulated in north america though, we see the industry move overseas to less developed countries. Unfortunately Canada or the US cannot create laws for other countries. Not sure what can be done about anything not happening at home. I'm torn about how do deal with surrogacy in a way I'm not torn about prostitution.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: adorable bitch
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
What the government did was basically rescue banks that had engaged in this because those banks were determined essential to the economy. It was not a true ban, just as it wasn't in the S&L crisis in the 1980s. It's going on a decade, and I predict in another decade, decade and a half, the same shit will happen as everyone forgets.
I was thinking less about the bailouts and more about the US government going back to actively regulating the financial sector. Any industry full of pimps, mercenaries or bankers is not an industry that can be trusted to self-regulate.

AFA surrogacy, I can't endorse commercialization as it presently exists. It is bullshit to even posit that a contract can be enforced saying a woman can't abort when she wants or must abort if someone else wants, that if there's a car accident or something it's all about keeping her alive so that the fetus can be born for the employers.
I think refusal to enforce certain contract stipulations is the best move here, as some states already do. Like the sex trade, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of trading a service for money, but the nature of that particular service is so open to exploiting the people involved that it needs extra limitations placed on it. Employee contracts in general need a hard line where the government says 'No, this has crossed over into contractual slavery', and there's no way that doesn't apply to a job you're working 24/7 with no way of stopping, and a product somebody else is legally entitled to sharing your bloodstream and immune system.

Certainly if surrogacy is too highly regulated in north america though, we see the industry move overseas to less developed countries. Unfortunately Canada or the US cannot create laws for other countries. Not sure what can be done about anything not happening at home.
Extraterrestrial jurisdiction is always an option. We already use it against child sex tourists and we could just as easily use it to prosecute overseas womb-farming.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Extraterrestrial jurisdiction is always an option. We already use it against child sex tourists and we could just as easily use it to prosecute overseas womb-farming.
This is a good point. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult either for a country to ask a returning citizen, "Hey, we notice you have a baby with you. Prove this is legally your baby. Show me the babies passport/birth certificate". You could flag hotspot countries for this treatment. It would be pretty easy to catch.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
I was thinking less about the bailouts and more about the US government going back to actively regulating the financial sector. Any industry full of pimps, mercenaries or bankers is not an industry that can be trusted to self-regulate.



I think refusal to enforce certain contract stipulations is the best move here, as some states already do. Like the sex trade, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of trading a service for money, but the nature of that particular service is so open to exploiting the people involved that it needs extra limitations placed on it. Employee contracts in general need a hard line where the government says 'No, this has crossed over into contractual slavery', and there's no way that doesn't apply to a job you're working 24/7 with no way of stopping, and a product somebody else is legally entitled to sharing your bloodstream and immune system.
For sure but let's remember how the post MBO (financial fall of 2008-2010) started to happen. Less cash rich people couldn't come up with the 20 percent down, it was seen as social injustice (ACORN). Well now in high-demand areas you have these immigrant Chinese buying shit for cash--it's also proof that they're rich enough for the L1 visa or whatever, so now if you want to get a home conventionally (20 percent down and a 15 year) that's a disadvantage toward the citizens who didn't benefit from overly exploitative processes overseas that weren't the Holocaust so no one will be prosecuted ever even though some people may have died. Because they're the new Carnegie, the new Ford and unlike the original models, the statutes written to oversee the abuses they inflicted never applied in their country.

So it bothers me that ppl are getting on the anti-JY bandwagon saying just because the providers aren't white they have an excuse for that when seriously most AAMP owners are Asian. That's why it's an AAMP. I don't think you have to be non-white or Sikh or whatever to have more of a case against waxing someone's balls. If you're a white native Canadian the same should also apply.

Oh, and some more rando shower thoughts. The second-wavers and derivative radfems argued powerfully for breastfeeding in public to become a thing. So when vacationing up in what happens to be BC many years back, some deaf chick pops out her tit and starts breastfeeding in the hot tub. Whatever your baby needs, you should have gone out and done that there, but due to oppression and politeness it was seen as fine that everyone else in there be exposed to her bodily fluids. It was as discourteous as jizzing or spitting in the tub for public health reasons. This was around 2004 when you could go to management and just say, look, I don't want to be exposed to her bodily fluids. Now? It would be all about her breastfeeding wherever she wants and that she was also deaf and how dare you.

You wanna breastfeed? Don't force others to be exposed to your bodily fluids. You wanna wax? Don't expect female women-only waxers to touch your dick and balls. You want discrimination toward whatever minority you are to cease? Don't contribute to the stereotype.
 
Last edited:
F

FI 665

Guest
kiwifarms.net
I'd mentioned "radical feminism has roots in marxism" wayyyy back, and since @Dynastia's mention of it again, I'd like to take a minute to clarify that for any interested onlookers that want a quick rundown. A really, really simplified version is the use of marxist class theory, specifically, women as a class. Women united. In this context, marxism is about following his dialectic philosophy towards class struggle, and doesn't need to extend to any kind of political or economic opinions. Marx predicted violent revolution as the inevitable failure point of unchecked liberalism or feudalism, not as a desirable outcome. Radfems are using class theory in place of antiquated gender roles when discussing power disparity, systems of oppression, and so on. Nobody's looking to storm the white house or bayonet congress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

one_time_user

liar. obviously
kiwifarms.net
I am halfway through reading this thread so if this got brought up in the second half of the thread, my apologies.

I need to clear something up about 2nd wave feminism wrt the difference between choices for abortion, choices for porn and choices for surrogacy etc. I am just going to say, it's not going to NOT piss people off tho.

2nd wave feminism does not care about individual choices. it does not care about the outliers who would choose to do xyz. It only concerns itself with the 'what would be best for all'. It would be best for all women if prostitution and porn were not socially acceptable or legalized. are there women who, individually, would benefit otherwise? Sure. we don't advocate for the individual choices, just the whole. I may not be describing this the best so someone else can certainly jump in.

Are there individuals who could make an informed choice to benefit from surrogacy? yup but on the whole, if any woman is for sale, all women are for sale.

3rd and 4th wave feminism are all about individuals. they're called choice feminism for a reason. if i wear makeup, its a feminist choice on my part and means wearing make-up is feminist. if I choose to suck dick on camera and say I am a feminist tyen that means sucking dick on camera is a feminist move for everyone. etc.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
I am halfway through reading this thread so if this got brought up in the second half of the thread, my apologies.

I need to clear something up about 2nd wave feminism wrt the difference between choices for abortion, choices for porn and choices for surrogacy etc. I am just going to say, it's not going to NOT piss people off tho.

2nd wave feminism does not care about individual choices. it does not care about the outliers who would choose to do xyz. It only concerns itself with the 'what would be best for all'. It would be best for all women if prostitution and porn were not socially acceptable or legalized. are there women who, individually, would benefit otherwise? Sure. we don't advocate for the individual choices, just the whole. I may not be describing this the best so someone else can certainly jump in.

Are there individuals who could make an informed choice to benefit from surrogacy? yup but on the whole, if any woman is for sale, all women are for sale.

3rd and 4th wave feminism are all about individuals. they're called choice feminism for a reason. if i wear makeup, its a feminist choice on my part and means wearing make-up is feminist. if I choose to suck dick on camera and say I am a feminist tyen that means sucking dick on camera is a feminist move for everyone. etc.
Exactly. Radfems generally believe that even if an individual is engaged in behavior they believe is harmful to all women, that that person still have basic protections but be curtailed from expansion. The Nordic model (punish the buyers/pimps but not the seller) is favored largely so sellers can more easily report bad actors to PD AND to discourage providers/performers from becoming producers/pimps of behavior/content that radfem maintains harms women as a class.

Where their class v. individual arguments tend to fray is with the FTMs. They all agree that she be given gyno care and abortion/pregnancy care without respect to whatever she's identifying with even as the "men can get pregnant" argument REALLY pisses them off even as a lot of them endorse pronouns so that the woman won't be triggered or feel welcome or whatever. To be consistent, the view should be that taking T, having non-cancer mastectomies etc. is bad for women as a class. Indeed, this is supported by the fact that the trans-school cases all feature FTM students wanting to use the boys' restrooms/lockers/programs so that the opposite may also apply. But there's a sizable number who believe that because women are oppressed, this would be a natural reaction.
 
Last edited:

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Radfems are using class theory in place of antiquated gender roles when discussing power disparity, systems of oppression, and so on
Try using class theory for anything these days. You’ll be shouted down by a screeching mob of IdPOL adherents. Class theory is dangerously close to allowing people to unite around a cause which benefits others, not just themselves, and so is dangerous. A cynic might say that’s one reason why idpol is encouraged by government. It fractures previously coherent groups into tiny, warring tribes and prevents any kind of collective action. We see this when we try, say to do something for women’s rights and get ‘but what about transwomen!’ Or try to increase educational attainment of white boys in poverty in the north (what about the girls/minorities etc!) intersectionality is killing class analysis dead and I dont think that’s accidental.
 

garakfan69

Mentally Enabled Schizoposter
kiwifarms.net
No one has presented the converse either. What’s clear from Germany is that the number of women who are willing to service the demand isn’t enough when demand is unfettered, and so trafficking increases. We need to ask what legalisation says about us as a society. It says that bodies are for sale and women are chattel, and for fucking.
What are you referring to? Per capita there's less cases of sex trafficking in Germany than in Sweden.
Are you working from that ridiculous 40k number that turned out to be complete bullshit that was a huge outrage years ago?
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
What are you referring to?
Archive: http://archive.md/8y3zB

I’m not sure what the 40k figure you’re referring to is, but I’d be extremely wary of comparing figures for any sex crime from Sweden to anywhere else. The way they record such crimes is unique (as I understand it every incidence of a crime is recorded as a separate one, so if you’re raped by one individual over a period of years then the estimated number of rapes are charged as individual incidents, rather than as set numbers as other countries do.) this makes it very difficult to compare to other countries, and also to estimate crime rises from before they started this.

The number of men who want to buy sex in a western economy outstrips women who want to sell it, because women generally have other choices and frankly, being fucked by multiple men a day in the grubbier end of the industry isn’t an attractive choice. It being illegal AND stigmatised by society does reduce the number of men openly doing it - we’ve seen that in Leeds. When you decriminalise the buyer demand rises. There aren’t enough women willing to service that demand (would you want to? I wouldn’t) and so trafficking occurs.

There probably isn't a nice easy solution to the whole issue. Any approach can only ever be harm reduction.
 

garakfan69

Mentally Enabled Schizoposter
kiwifarms.net
This only uses estimates. And all these are wild guesses that differ wildly from other organisations guesses.

Actual confirmed cases of human trafficking are 671 in Germany and 212 in Sweden in 2017. And Germany has 8 times the population of Sweden.

Human trafficking is also not the same as sex trafficking and includes stuff like people forced to steal or beg.
And most statistics I can find say that forced labour trafficking is what's rising the most, not forced prostitution.
So I don't know what trying to find a correlation between that and prostitution laws is supposed to accomplish when it's a much more general problem.
 

Umaibae

kiwifarms.net
There is no best tit size. Even if we insist on viewing boobies through a lens of male gaze, all men have different tastes and preferences and you should focus on being happy with your body for yourself. If you insist on objectifying yourself for the pleasure of men then regardless of your cup size or shape there are plenty men out there who would consider your breasts perfect. Unless they're the saggy pointy torpedo kind. Gross.
If this is the radfem thread, then you're being a heteronormative meanie for not acknowledging that lesbians and bi women also enjoy boobs. Lesbian erasure, and all.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This only uses estimates. And all these are wild guesses that differ wildly from other organisations guesses.

Actual confirmed cases of human trafficking are 671 in Germany and 212 in Sweden in 2017. And Germany has 8 times the population of Sweden.

Human trafficking is also not the same as sex trafficking and includes stuff like people forced to steal or beg.
And most statistics I can find say that forced labour trafficking is what's rising the most, not forced prostitution.
So I don't know what trying to find a correlation between that and prostitution laws is supposed to accomplish when it's a much more general problem.
I guess I just don't understand what your point is in nitpicking these specific trafficking statistics? What are you trying to prove? Do you not believe in harm reduction or do you not believe prostitution is harmful or like, what are you trying to argue here beside just being contrary? Honestly I'm trying to figure out why I care whether there's more trafficking in Sweden or Germany when who wins that battle really has no bearing on whether sex work regulations help or hurt women. What's your argument?
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Sex work harms women, that’s my view. Even the high end stuff, like starlets ‘on a yacht in Dubai’ (for which read: high end escorting) drives demand. Even the very few happy hookers willingly doing it drive demand because there are not enough of them. Those individual women may benefit financially but the demand they drive extends down to the end of the industry where it’s not really a choice because you’re hooked on drugs, in debt to a pimp, of outright trafficked. All of it is bad for women.

Will we ever get rid of it? No. Be realistic. It’ll always happen. Should we legalise? No, because IMO that sends a message that society is Ok with it. Societal opprobrium and shame is a powerful force. It does act as a brake.

To me the question is how we manage it to reduce harm as much as possible. The Nordic model seems to be Ok. Of course what would really work is for no woman ever to be in a position where she needs to sell sex so that anyone who is doing is doing it as freely as you ever can be free in our world. But that would require eradicating poverty in the west, and eradication of poverty, war and slavery in the grimmer bits of the world.
 
Tags
None