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

[HG 400]

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.

Obviously if you're assessing your self worth by your attractiveness to the horned-up female gaze, that's just as bad. The obvious unhealthiness of basing your self-worth on how many people want to bang you transcends gender and sexual preference.

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.

I disagree with a lot of this. Demand for prostitution isn't driven by supply. A large part of it is driven by the darker parts of toxic masculinity ; by the fragility of male egos, by society's expectation of men to assert dominance and power over women, by insecure men measuring our self-worth by our virility and sexual potency. These are male liberation issues that feminists aren't in a good position to help solve, which makes it even more tragic that the men's lib movement has been largely overshadowed by the men's rights movement, who have no interest in self-improvement or introspection. Possibly an even larger part of the demand (and even some of the supply) is driven by simple human frailty ; by loneliness and insecurity and isolation and thanatos. I'm not sure these are issues that can be solved, by anyone, ever.

When it comes to supply, we're largely talking about marginalised women. Bored insta-thots aside, it's mostly teenage runaways, drug addicts, cluster-b personality disorders, desperate poverty, mental illnesses, trafficked immigrants, modern-day slaves. Choosing between legalisation or illegalisation is a simple choice of the lesser evil, to me. Legalising it absolutely hurts women as a class and normalises their objectification ; but it improves our ability to rescue, or at least improve conditions for the hundreds of thousands of prostituted and trafficked women and children who've fallen through the cracks. I will always choose the welfare of hundreds of thousands of marginalised women living in hellscape conditions over the dozens of trust-fund babies who'll get emotionally drained because soft whoring wasn't the adventure they thought it'd be, or the hundreds of reddit cat-ladies offended that it's a legal option.

As far as the Nordic Model goes, it's the best imperfect compromise when viewed through a feminist lens. It protects the welfare of sex workers as well as the dignity of women as a class. It's only when you pull back from that feminist lens that serious problems with it crop up for me. I won't go too much into it because I have little faith in the German or NZ models, so it's just bitching about something when I don't have any better ideas.

 

[Otterly]

I disagree with a lot of this.

I actually dont disagree with most of what you wrote there. I’m gonna be cynical and say that where it’s legalised, the ‘rescuing fallen women’ thing still doesn’t happen, and I think it’s a myth that women involved need it to be decriminalised in order to get help.

A few years back there was a series of murders of prostitutes in Ipswich in the UK. The resulting outcry made the police in that area get really tough on the sex trade johns but not the women (effectively the Nordic model.) A recent report shows that that ends up better than decriminalisation or tolerance. The women are more likely to be approachable in the tolerance zone BUT the tougher approach works to actually reduce prostitution overall and get women out.

Here’s the report overview https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/ipswich-prostitution-strategy-more-effective-16664906
Archive link: http://archive.md/44bYK

It’s a complex issue, No easy answers.

 

[Abortions4All]

I know prostitutes, current and former, who have worked in legal brothels in the United States, Germany, and New Zealand.

Do you know anyone who works in an industry like fast food? Maybe someone who is a cashier at a retail store, or who works the counter at a rental car place? How about a laundromat or a local diner?

These are all legal, heavily regulated industries. The tax man and OSHA have jurisdiction, and state departments of wage and hours as well. But if you know anyone who works in them, you probably also know that wage theft is rampant, and unethical, dishonest bosses and upper management are the rule, not the exception.

Employers of people at the bottom of the wage-earning pool are dickheads to their unskilled employees, because there are always more where those came from. If someone objects to an illegal practice, can 'em, most employment lawyers won't take a case unless they're likely to win a lot of money, and damages are usually limited to double the wages you'd have earned while unemployed because of the firing, so low-wage workers are SOL.

So when prostitutes in Nevada are kept on premises 3 weeks out of every month and fired every time they get their period, that shouldn't be legal according to everything about how independent contracting and employment law works (among other things, they shouldn't be able to be considered independent contractors because they're the core operation of the business, and they shouldn't have hours or customers dictated, but they do). The laws we already have in place to protect legal prostitutes aren't working. US prostitutes also are often required to pay inflated prices for brothel owners to get them supplies from the outside world during the time when they're not permitted to leave, and the independent contractor agreements also require them to pay rent for their rooms, so they can actually be kept indebted by pimps like they're miners in a company town.

Germany and New Zealand are much the same. Brothel owners being corrupt motherfuckers connected to organized crime hasn't changed in the wake of legalization, so they just violate the law and get off scot-free. Prostitutes are "encouraged" not to report violent customers or those who violate safety laws about condom use. Many are managed with access to drugs. Police are kept at bay with the usual organized crime bribes.

All legalization of pimping does is makes a class of legal pimps who can use the law as a figleaf for all the illegal and immoral activities they engage in.

 

[2nd_time_user]

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?

Sweden has the Nordic Model where Germany leans more toward just legalization, though that could be changing. Trafficking isn't exactly the same as pimping. The women who serviced Kraft were in their mid-40s and I believe 60, one being management at the massage parlor.

I know prostitutes, current and former, who have worked in legal brothels in the United States, Germany, and New Zealand.

Do you know anyone who works in an industry like fast food? Maybe someone who is a cashier at a retail store, or who works the counter at a rental car place? How about a laundromat or a local diner?

These are all legal, heavily regulated industries. The tax man and OSHA have jurisdiction, and state departments of wage and hours as well. But if you know anyone who works in them, you probably also know that wage theft is rampant, and unethical, dishonest bosses and upper management are the rule, not the exception.

Employers of people at the bottom of the wage-earning pool are dickheads to their unskilled employees, because there are always more where those came from. If someone objects to an illegal practice, can 'em, most employment lawyers won't take a case unless they're likely to win a lot of money, and damages are usually limited to double the wages you'd have earned while unemployed because of the firing, so low-wage workers are SOL.

So when prostitutes in Nevada are kept on premises 3 weeks out of every month and fired every time they get their period, that shouldn't be legal according to everything about how independent contracting and employment law works (among other things, they shouldn't be able to be considered independent contractors because they're the core operation of the business, and they shouldn't have hours or customers dictated, but they do). The laws we already have in place to protect legal prostitutes aren't working. US prostitutes also are often required to pay inflated prices for brothel owners to get them supplies from the outside world during the time when they're not permitted to leave, and the independent contractor agreements also require them to pay rent for their rooms, so they can actually be kept indebted by pimps like they're miners in a company town.

Germany and New Zealand are much the same. Brothel owners being corrupt motherfuckers connected to organized crime hasn't changed in the wake of legalization, so they just violate the law and get off scot-free. Prostitutes are "encouraged" not to report violent customers or those who violate safety laws about condom use. Many are managed with access to drugs. Police are kept at bay with the usual organized crime bribes.

All legalization of pimping does is makes a class of legal pimps who can use the law as a figleaf for all the illegal and immoral activities they engage in.

Another thing to note is that the Nevada model fails on economics. There are less than half the number of legal brothels now than 25 years ago. Even at the famous ones that remain (Moonlight Bunny Ranch that was on HBO for example), many women make less than they would at a $15/hour shit job after paying $1,200/mo to live there, plus paying for mandatory weekly STD checks and costs for their beauty routine. And this is where men typically pay about $800 for a gloved suck and fuck, the former being especially financially unpalatable for their customers.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks? I know this seems like a silly "gotcha!" but it really seems like an awful political double-standard to say biological differences can be discussed only when doing so gives advantage to women.

EDIT: disregard this, not only is this answered right below, but it was even talked about previously ITT.

 

[brainlent]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks? I know this seems like a silly "gotcha!" but it really seems like an awful political double-standard to say biological differences can be discussed only when doing so gives advantage to women.

They're not equally capable athletically, but being able to run fast or lift heavy shit has no application even in most blue collar work. An electric drill doesn't care if you bench.

 

[HG 400]

and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks?

Nobody believes that, it's stupid.

 

[2nd_time_user]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks? I know this seems like a silly "gotcha!" but it really seems like an awful political double-standard to say biological differences can be discussed only when doing so gives advantage to women.

Radfems absolutely do acknowledge that there's a difference. Where it gets shakier is in their insistence that women then be given a lower test on physicality than men when it comes to jobs demanding physicality. If you're the one needing to be carried out of a burning building, it's not about feels, it's about who can physically carry you out. If your job is to physically pick up 150-pound glass panes with your partner, you need to do that. If you're a woman who can you should not be discriminated against.

 

[SourDiesel]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks? I know this seems like a silly "gotcha!" but it really seems like an awful political double-standard to say biological differences can be discussed only when doing so gives advantage to women.

They don't simultaneously believe those things is how. Maybe you're thinking of third wave feminism? I don't think anyone here would argue men and women don't have differences. Most blue collar jobs though are not so physically demanding that women are by default excluded though. Men are "on average" stronger than women. That is a fact of life, but many people hear "on average" and interpret that as "always" when it's really not nearly always. It's actually a lot more common than people think for any given woman to be stronger than any given man if you chose one man and one woman at random off the street. So it's not about ensuring everyone had an equal outcome, it's about ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity.

Nobody believes that, it's stupid.

Or this. This is a far more efficient answer tbh.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

They're not equally capable athletically, but being able to run fast or lift heavy shit has no application even in most blue collar work. An electric drill doesn't care if you bench.

Nobody believes that, it's stupid.

They don't simultaneously believe those things is how. Maybe you're thinking of third wave feminism? I don't think anyone here would argue men and women don't have differences. Most blue collar jobs though are not so physically demanding that women are by default excluded though. Men are "on average" stronger than women. That is a fact of life, but many people hear "on average" and interpret that as "always" when it's really not nearly always. It's actually a lot more common than people think for any given woman to be stronger than any given man if you chose one man and one woman at random off the street. So it's not about ensuring everyone had an equal outcome, it's about ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity.

Or this. This is a far more efficient answer tbh.

In my experience, being stronger has helped a lot more than I think most people realize when doing blue collar type work. But, regardless of that, if 2nd wave, '60s and '70s-style feminists don't believe that, I'll withdraw my objection, take any 'dumb' votes you chose to dish out, and be very pleased. I had been under the impression that they were pushing "inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity"-type philosophies.

 

[SourDiesel]

In my experience, being stronger has helped a lot more than I think most people realize when doing blue collar type work. But, regardless of that, if 2nd wave, '60s and '70s-style feminists don't believe that, I'll withdraw my objection, take any 'dumb' votes you chose to dish out, and be very pleased. I had been under the impression that they were pushing "inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity"-type philosophies.

I've mentioned this in the past in this thread but I work in an undisclosed male dominated industry where physical strength is important. You are absolutely not wrong about it being an asset in some jobs to be strong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's mandatory in some industries. I just believe that more women are capable of many of these jobs than people generally believe and many men are less capable than many believe. But you're totally right it's necessary to be strong to perform certain tasks. No doubt.

 

[2nd_time_user]

I've mentioned this in the past in this thread but I work in an undisclosed male dominated industry where physical strength is important. You are absolutely not wrong about it being an asset in some jobs to be strong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's mandatory in some industries. I just believe that more women are capable of many of these jobs than people generally believe and many men are less capable than many believe. But you're totally right it's necessary to be strong to perform certain tasks. No doubt.

ITA. The OSHA requirement in my state is to be able to lift 40 pounds unassisted so they use this as a unisex. But realistically many jobs in the trades require additional strength. It's not about the sex, it should be about whether the person can carry it out. And sometimes things can get murky.

One example: Joanne Hayes-White was until recently in charge of the whole SF Fire Department. And from a radfem perspective that would be correct as anyone's job at that level is basically supervising the supervisors who supervise minions and making friends with politicians. But at some point, Joanne had to take a test involving physical dexterity that was physically dumbed down for her and barely passed. Anyone working with her in those days would say nope, I hope this lady isn't my partner should I have to run into a fucking burning building and drag someone out of a building. Which happens rarely in firefighting, but having those skills is largely why firefighters get paid.

So then you add to it that these firefighters hired in the '80s get paid 95 PERCENT of their salaries plus benefits for life if they do their 20 or 30. Lots of flabby men who'd get their ass beaten by female Crossfitters in this category so why not them.

The solution is abundantly clear: Make everyone retest every other year. If they don't make the cut, they do something else. But it never will happen given the pol/union presence in places like SF.

 

[WW 635]

This is why women belong more in the high paid intellectual jobs and make the decisions while men can work the low tier blue collar jobs where they can use muscles instead of brains

 

[2nd_time_user]

This is why women belong more in the high paid intellectual jobs and make the decisions while men can work the low tier blue collar jobs where they can use muscles instead of brains

Anyone would prefer sitting at the top of the pile. But in certain industries you have to prove you can do the job to even get there.

Blue-collar work is actually pretty lucrative, esp if you get on with a union. I know someone going for a $140K job that he'll probably get.

 

[SourDiesel]

This is why women belong more in the high paid intellectual jobs and make the decisions while men can work the low tier blue collar jobs where they can use muscles instead of brains

Nah smart people belong in leadership and strong people belong in the trenches and frankly I don't care what's between your legs if the job is getting done right.

 

[AnOminous]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks?

They don't because that's not a radical feminist belief. Radical feminism believes that the injustice of sexism is at least partly derived from the exploitation of physical differences between the sexes and that these biological differences actually exist. Hostility towards women is, in fact, at least in part because they are the one sex who can bear children and because of the exploitation of males of their greater physical strength to dominate women and enforce patriarchy.

 

[FI 665]

In my experience, being stronger has helped a lot more than I think most people realize when doing blue collar type work. But, regardless of that, if 2nd wave, '60s and '70s-style feminists don't believe that, I'll withdraw my objection, take any 'dumb' votes you chose to dish out, and be very pleased. I had been under the impression that they were pushing "inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity"-type philosophies.

nah man you’re fine. I have nothing radfemmy to add to this particular discussion because it’s been answered above far more eloquently than I ever could, but thanks for asking respectfully.

 

[gobbogobb]

I love that this thread has gone 19 pages and people still don't get that feminism isn't a hivemind.

 

[brainlent]

I love that this thread has gone 19 pages and people still don't get that feminism isn't a hivemind.

It's really extremely common to believe that. I believed it too, until transgender activism forced me to learn the difference between libfem and radfem.

You'd think it would be more obvious. From a male perspective, "feminism" is the advancement of women. Advance where? Sex work? Abortions? Into politics? Back into the home? I don't remember humanity deciding conclusively which direction is best for women to advance, do you? Even the men that frankly declare that women should be oppressed can't decide what constitutes oppression.

At any rate, men don't care, and just assume feminism is "women trying to advance in the direction I think they're advancing in" and assign whatever baggage to that they have stored in their balls. And pretty much every woman who seeks a life that isn't sucking shit out of a gutter is a feminist, even if she hasn't self-categorized or been categorized yet.
And yes, even "egalitarians" are feminists. That's just libfem with a man-friendly hat.

 

[gobbogobb]

That's all very true but I was more thinking of how it was explained quite clearly in the first post of the thread.