This is possibly one of the most irritating ideas I’ve seen in all the internets:
“…how does your primacy of feminism play out with other POC…and in the blogosphere, away from sites like this?” maggiethewolf
It doesn’t. I don’t even go there. It’s a waste of my time to concern myself with racism since sexism precedes it. Racism will only end when sexism, the root oppression, ends.
This reminds of that story about those blind wise guys who start fondling an elephant and then start argueing afterwards about what the elephant is like.
“it is like a bat’s wing!” declares the wise guy who’d been fiddling with the elephant’s ear.
“No, it is like a tree trunk – stout and cylindrical.” argues the wise guy who’d been fiddling with the elephant’s leg.
“You are both wrong, it is long and supple like a snake!” cries the third wise guy, who had been feeling up the elephant’s trunk, or something.
So too goes the endless discussion on which system of oppression is bigger, badder and needs to be tackled more urgently.
So this black guy, this poor guy and a middle class white woman see that rich white guys are always at the very top of all the systems of oppression.
So the black guy goes “You see, it is rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so racism is the ultimate system of oppression, we must deal with racism first and foremost.”
“No no, it is the rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so capitalism is the ultimate system of oppression, we must deal with capitalism first and foremost.” argues the poor guy.
“No no NO, you’ve got it all wrong, it is rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so the patriarchy is the ultimate form of oppression, we must deal with patriarchy first and foremost!” Cries the middles class white woman.
The black guys and the poor guy then look at each other and say together “shut up you stupid bitch.”
Now my point here is not to agree with the initial comment, but to rather disagree in a way that highlights my key point, and that point is that bullshit hiearchies are one of the major and universal methods that all systems of oppression use to oppress – they’re fundamental to oppressive system in fact, whites are better than blacks, who are better than “good” women, who are better than whores… and so on and so forth.
Now the most obvious thing to say about the exact arguement about which oppressive system is bigger, or whether any of the other systems even exist is simply: Why the fuck do you think it’s always Rich White Men who sit at the very top of the unquestionable hiearchy that unpins society? All three systems exist, and not only do they not exist in such overly simplistic universally homogenous forms as they would for one of those bullshit hiearchies of oppressive systems that they are so routinely slotted into, but they actively support and benefit each other.
Often times they do this by simply pulling a pansystem Three Card Mildred, racism gives way to patriarchy, or patriarchy gives way to capitalism, or all three give way to heteronormitivity.
Now the thing here is that, just because in many situations any given system will appear to be dominant or submissive to another, it does not actually mean that any of the submissive systems are losing out – it in fact means that, as long as people accept the idea of bullshit hierarchies, that people ignore the submissive system which in turn strengthens that system because people are not actually trying to attack that form of oppression because they’re buying some bizarre theory about trickle down liberation.
The idea that often goes with that is this notion that you cannot attack multiple systems of oppression all at once, when in many instances, doing anything less than attacking all the systems of oppression that are causing trouble will leave you unable to actually deal with the problem at hand at all.
A good example of this is prostitution, if you go by the radfem conception of prostitution, then the key problems with prostitution is that A) women are the designated sex class B) that whores aren’t “ladies” and therefore are classed as “asking” to be abused by skeevy johns and C) that men are taught from a young age that not only are they entitled to sex on demand irregardless of whether anyone wants to have sex with them, but that they have to have sex for reasons of power rather than mere sexual desire (or to clarify; Patriarchy creates the skeevy john).
Now on the other hand, some Marxist Fems are very clear about what’s wrong with prostitution; women are forced into prostitution as a byproduct of the class system, and are then made unable to leave due to drug addictions or similar things.
Also the way that women are made into just another commodity to be bought and sold is a bit of a problem.
Now all of the problems exist in prostitution, and need to be dealt with, economic and social solutions should go hand in hand, but because the idea that everything needs to be put into ascending and descending order of importance and superiority/inferiority, that huge sexblast we had a while ago tended to end up with two sides arguing over each other, agreeing in actual fact, but arguing over each other because the idea that both sorts of solutions not only were neccesary, but could be done at the same time and didn’t need to be prioritised or anything just was not registering with certain people.
This is because the idea that everything must fit into some sort of hierarchy permeates all around the various oppressive systems, underpinning a whole shit load of concepts that make the systems oppressive, and thus permeates the thinking of people within the society that are subject to those oppressive systems.
Examples of this ranges from the way that it’s one thing to be black, but how dark your skin actually is is still important because lighter skinned blacks are obviously better somehow than darker skinned ones, irregardless of the fact that a black person, even a really really light one, will never be white, the idea that a light skinned black person is, at the very least, not as black as another black person is important.
The reason why this is so universal is because it’s doubley useful for the maintanence of the the oppressive systems, on the one hand it causes the oppressed masses to fight amongst themselves, and on the other hand, it causes the oppressed masses to fight amongst themselves in such a way that eveyrone who’s fighting ends up tacitly accepting the hierarchy that forms the opressive system itself.
So you’ll have gay men resorting to the same sort of misogynistic language and concepts that are used against gay men by heteronormitive straight guys against fem gay guys, and Bis are hated on because they’re not gay enough for the gay community but not straight enough for heteronormitive society, and of course there’s the homophobic and misogynistic concepts that goes along with the biphobia e.g. that there’s something inherently wrong with being on the recieving end of a funk filled bratwurst.
And no where is this more apparent than when sex of any kind is concerned, which is my way of segueing into a partial agreement-with-a-caveat with Twisty when she said:
A feminist gets off the only way a member of an oppressed class can get off: with extreme caution.
In other words, until the psychotic global system of dominance and submission gives way to a sane one that doesn’t fetishize oppression, there is no solution to the buzzkiller political problems inherent in all heterosexual boinking. That’s right. No solution. No happy ending. No scenario wherein prancing in a pink sportcorset can be construed as a politically neutral act. No ‘egalitarian sex’.
Sorry!
Now the only thing I can find wrong with that is that she of course puts the fetishisation of oppression as the root cause of the problems inherent to most heterosexual (because homosexuality is, of course, above criticism *sniggers* nothing politically charged about two women getting it on, duh) encounters.
but that is of course wrong, because it’s not mere oppression that is fetishised, it’s explicitly the oppression of women (and specifically designated feminized men) that is fetishised. Which of course begs the question; why? Because just oppression being fetishised would lead to there being a loud and powerful group of pro-matriarchy women, no, there needs to be something else going on so that the oppression of women is especially fetishised.
And that extra thing is of course the patriarchal hierarchy that puts women as the untermenschen, and manly men as their justifed and natural oppressors, and from there you end up with the oppression of women being something that occurs because it maintains the hierarchy, which maintains privelage, which allows men to further oppress women which in turn… and a feedback loop of oppression gets started up, all because the idea that, as far as sexual politics are concerned, the only way things can exist is that power imbalances are present, and while they can be worked around, the actual power imbalances are not questionable, to the point where people subject to the oppressive side of the hierarchy would sooner blame themselves for having a gag reflex than dealing with the problem at hand – the fact that, inspite of the fact that you have teeth touching cock in most every blowjob, the will to use said teeth as they should be used (e.g. as soon as you end up with a mouthful of KYed bratwurst) is absent more often than not.
Because inferiors don’t bite the cocks of their superiors, which is why cock sucking is a submissive act, not because of how much damage could be done, but because damage isn’t done when it should be purely as a result of the patirarchal hierarchy being accepted on a subconcious level, to the point where women will vomit first, blame later.
Now the heirarchies oppress by creating power imbalances between the oppressor and oppressed classes, this is not always forced upon the oppressor class because while that hierarchy is going unnoticed and uncriticised, it doesn’t need to be forced, the hierarchy states that people lower down the ladder are inferior and as long as members of the oppressed class accept that inferiority as a given, then they themselves create the power imbalance in which abuse occurs, by accepting that she is simply a chillli dog in need of chilli, and that her body is merely there for the enjoyment of men, that her sexuality is defined primarily by how she can please men as opposed to a paradigm whereby sex is either a mutually pleasurable and enjoyable activity for all involved – or it isn’t sex – she willingly gave up power that would have stopped her from being raped, all because the basic heirarchies that she accepted without question where not criticised, pointed out, highlighted and blamed until someone’s lobe fell off from exhaustion.
So if i’d been writing that maxim about feminist sexuality it’d look like this; “A feminist gets off the only way a member of an oppressed class can get off: with extreme caution and by first rejecting power imbalances within the relationship that exist as a result of the oppressive hierarchies that permeate the society the relationship exists in”
Now of course that isn’t me laying S&M and other safeword requiring forms of sexuality out as some form of extra specially bad form os sexuality, they deal expressly with the fantasy of a power imbalance rather than an actual power imbalance, and when you get right down to, RandomBird could have used a safeword (or safe-frantic-gagging-noise or something). But that doesn’t mean that I turn a blind eye to the way dominatrixes and female subs both end up wearing corsets – that goes beyond the mere illusion of a power imbalance and starts to empower the patriarchy by stating that yes, while she’s a dom, she’s also dressed like a sub in a device that halves her lung capacity purely because she’s a woman, and of course a woman can’t just dominate without also being slighlty mangled by her clothing – you might as well imply that women are equal to men or something!
And of course, while you‘re free to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing, there is no reason on earth why I have to unless I also want to, and yes I’ll blame the patriarchy in your sex life, if I can’t blame I might as well turn a blind eye also – and then the next thing you know another RandomBird is being raped because nobody in her feminist studies class remembered to point out that if you’re performing sexual acts against your will, the you’re being raped.
Which means that I can’t just let Twisty’s attempt to put lesbianism above feminist criticism for engaging in these bullshit hierarchies. sure they don’t then always lead to the sort of horrible physical abuse that such acceptance of those heirarchies does in heterosexual relationships, but there’s going to be the passive/aggressive assholes who’s entire sense of self worth is based around verbally and psychologically degrading the women they’re in relationships with because women engage in patriarchal abuse as well as men. And of course, when you accept without question oppressive hierarchies, you can easily figure out a way you fit into the hierarchy so that you are of course above and superior to those other, inferior, women who you’re free to oppress, because if you’re not oppressing someone, then you’re open to be oppressed.
And so the whole thing tesselates down hill, with oppressed groups subdividing again and again as people foolishly try to figure out how they better fit into the system so that they’re not stuck on the bottom rung and being shat on by everyone else, instead of rejecting the idea that they need to fit into any heirarchies at all.
But people still do it, because it appeals to peoples’ vain glorious streak, so that people will fight tooth and nail trying to set out who’s oppressors are more oppressive.
Fuck that crap, let’s get drunk and fiddle with each other’s orifices instead, just so long as we’re clear that my orifices are better than your orifices, ‘kay?
This is very semantically rich, and I suspect I agree with you over-all.
But the issue is not whether or not there are hierarchies; it is that their existence is purely subjective.
A poor black woman does not need anyone’s permission to rank the contribution of economics, race, and, gender to her oppression. And while she enjoys few advantages, not expecting huge empathy with the plight of affluent white feminists might be one we could grant her. The feminist movement remains intact.
I think the issue is not whether hierarchies are valid, but why agreeing on how we would objectively rank them matters to anyone.
well by ranking them into heirarchies we actively empower the lower ranked oppressive systems by ignoring them.
The only way to actually deal with them is to examine each situation and each problem, figure out which oppressive systems are at work in any given situation, then dealing with them all at once instead of fucking around putting things into hierarchies so we can feel like our favoritest system of oppression is the top dog and our suffering is most special.
Indeed. You’ll notice that I too looked askance at that exchange, but my interlocutor decided that it was silly to examine it, since it was self-evident that one need only talk about sexism to capture the entirety of human ills.
No rad fem would ever say this.
“…if you go by the radfem conception of prostitution, then the key problems with prostitution is {…} B) that whores aren’t “ladies” and therefore are classed as “asking” to be abused by skeevy johns…”
Never. Next theory?
I believe her point was not that radfems believe the non-”ladies” are “asking” for abuse, but that they are pointing out the attitude of the skeevy johns.
I read it the way I said it. Let’s hear R. Mildred.
For something congruent: http://thefreeslave.wordpress.com/
skeevy johns and the patriarchy, it’s an oppressive meme/paradigm/whatever that is used to make abuse against prostitutes acceptable for johns and other people outside the sex industry. And that’s what some RadFems focus on while ignoring the economic forms of oppression that fuck up the sex industry.
It’d be a pretty poor strawradfem due to the fact that it’s an actual view held by equity feminists.
yeah I broke mildred’s law (never post while not in full possession of your faculties) so my wording may suck more toast than a vacuum packed toaster in places.
Since those economic forms of oppression continue into unions and marriage, I’d say your analogy sucks heavy.
“A good example of this is prostitution, if you go by the radfem conception of prostitution, then the key problems with prostitution is that A) women are the designated sex class B) that whores aren’t “ladies” and therefore are classed as “asking” to be abused by skeevy johns and C) that men are taught from a young age that not only are they entitled to sex on demand irregardless of whether anyone wants to have sex with them, but that they have to have sex for reasons of power rather than mere sexual desire (or to clarify; Patriarchy creates the skeevy john).
Now on the other hand, some Marxist Fems are very clear about what’s wrong with prostitution; women are forced into prostitution as a byproduct of the class system, and are then made unable to leave due to drug addictions or similar things.
Also the way that women are made into just another commodity to be bought and sold is a bit of a problem.”
Actually this is a really bad example. Because (b) is not a radical feminist point of view. And because (c) isn’t exactly right either. And because the class analysis you attribute just to Marxist feminists is actually very much a part of radical feminist analysis too. As is an analysis of the way that racism also plays out in the sex industry. That’s how I came to radical feminism – it has thus far been the only political position I have found that does try to look at all systems of oppression together.
to add: i often see radical feminism getting trashed because it approaches the sex class argument/patriarchy as the top oppression, but this is not my perspective. radical feminism is woman centred, but that does not mean that radical feminists consider sexism to be The Baddest Oppression. it’s a complicated difference for me to explain, but it is a difference.
And when twisty faster blames the patriarchy that doesn’t mean she has forgotten or doesn’t care about other oppressions. it’s just that her thing, her particular area of expertise i guess, is the patriarchy.
i think when women prioritise women it is generally frowned upon and that is why feminists of all types get so much shit for being ‘feminists’ rather than ‘humanists’, maybe these ideas are all part of this.
“And that’s what some RadFems focus on while ignoring the economic forms of oppression that fuck up the sex industry.”
That just isn’t true. Radical feminists acknowledge the other systems of oppression that contribute to women ending up being prostituted but also notice that poor men or men of colour, are much less likely to end up as prostitutes than poor women or women of colour. That’s where Marxist feminism falls down, ascribing the problem to capitalism when it is merely a subset of a larger system of male supremacy.
i think when women prioritise women it is generally frowned upon and that is why feminists of all types get so much shit for being ‘feminists’ rather than ‘humanists’, maybe these ideas are all part of this.
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Only under patriarchy could equal rights for women, who unarguably exist under some sort of system of oppression, be construed as women prioritising women.
Which is my cutesy way of saying that it’s an anti-fem meme you’ve got there, drop it, it’s really stupid.
That just isn’t true. Radical feminists acknowledge the other systems of oppression that contribute to women ending up being prostituted but also notice that poor men or men of colour, are much less likely to end up as prostitutes than poor women or women of colour. That’s where Marxist feminism falls down, ascribing the problem to capitalism when it is merely a subset of a larger system of male supremacy.
Actually, according to marxist feminism, the struggle against patriarchy is just a subset in the larger class struggle that results from capitalism, as is racism, which means that they are still tackled, but economic solutions are used first of all, as radfems prioritise social solutions. It’s nice to see a strawmarxistfem for once though.
Anyhoo, you do realise that this means that the most interesting thing I said was the bit about the three blind wise guys, and I obviously didn’t write it well enough for people to get the basic message it was meant ot convey (that how we rank the various systems will be dependent upon our experiences of the various oppressive systems, and that it’s bullshit to bother putting them into those hierarchies at all because that just protects the systems that are deemed “less important” from being tackled as they need to be tackled) becasue I’m a putz. Fuck.
R Mildred…. I have a sneaking suspicion (just my take on this though) that you inserted the “i am different from rad fems and thus not a rad fem myself, in case you were wondering” bit into this post because by golly, you sure have been posting up a storm lately on pandagon, alas and here (on punkass) on all those dang ’sex work wars’ threads. And hell, nobody would wanna confuse YOU with THEM would they?
Considering you could have picked another example amongst the myriads of examples to choose from – you chose “sex work”… nice!
I jest… or do I?
I like the rest of your post though because being a south asian woman myself, I know those ‘lines are often blurred’. I.e. I’m verbally harassed by men of my race so it’s sexism, I’m chased down the street by some crazy white guy cause he thinks I’m a Paki terrorist and it’s racist etc… and I do often find myself in a myriad of binds “am a race-traitor for speaking out against violence against women in my community, am I white-washed cause I hate bollywood, am I ever going to get through to white feminists that ‘cultural oppression’ is something that happens in ‘individualist america’ too…
But oh well… keep on trucking with the sex work – you crazy rad fem You!
PS – just like ‘isms’ are fluid, rad feminism/socialist feminism/ third world feminism etc… overlap and are fluid. Hell, I don’t even know what the fuck to call myself anymore. So playing with those ‘hardlines’ is [quote]my cutesy way of saying that it’s an anti-fem meme you’ve got there, drop it, it’s really stupid.[/quote]
Oh I know about the “isms” already, I’m tempted to call myself a PoMo feminist just to confuse people (because I don’t fit into any of the pre-existing isms properly, I like aspects of radfeminism, and I lurve marxist theory to death, so what the fuck am I? Situationally Post Modern of course, with a blaming lobe that doesn’t stop with the patriarchy neither), but people keep sticking me into whatever box best allows them to fling strawfeminists at me, so I do occasionally try to pick my own box to shut them up.
And I end up blogging about sex alot is just because I really like sex, just be lucky I’ve not got my blaming on as far as ancient chinese internal alchemy focused ritualised sex goes “So mister ancient taoist guy, if you pinch you cock just before you ejaculate, you stop the women you’re fucking from absorbing your essence?”
For me, sticky hands ain’t just a wing chun training exercise.
Wear gloves. Practise safe sex:
http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2006/09/03/gloves-to-go-with-pink-wellieskinkykinky/
“Actually, according to marxist feminism, the struggle against patriarchy is just a subset in the larger class struggle that results from capitalism, as is racism, which means that they are still tackled, but economic solutions are used first of all, as radfems prioritise social solutions. It’s nice to see a strawmarxistfem for once though.”
Yes, that’s what I said, and you’re wrong. Oppression of women exists even where capitalism doesn’t, therefore capitalism is a manifestation of patriarchy, not its cause.
“Anyhoo, you do realise that this means that the most interesting thing I said was the bit about the three blind wise guys, and I obviously didn’t write it well enough for people to get the basic message it was meant ot convey (that how we rank the various systems will be dependent upon our experiences of the various oppressive systems, and that it’s bullshit to bother putting them into those hierarchies at all because that just protects the systems that are deemed “less important” from being tackled as they need to be tackled) becasue I’m a putz. Fuck.”
To be honest I ignored that bit because the example you used actually came from a woman of colour so it’s up to her if she wants to hierarchalise the oppressions she faces. I don’t really think it’s your place to tell her she’s wrong as she knows what goes on in her own life. From my point of view I’m not going to rank oppressions because even if sexism did come first, which is possible, the destruction that other oppressions cause is real so they need to be fought too.
It should also be noted that it’s only feminists who get accused of ranking oppressions. You’d almost think that there was an attitude going around that women are responsible for clearing up all the shit in the world.
It should also be noted that it’s only feminists who get accused of ranking oppressions. You’d almost think that there was an attitude going around that women are responsible for clearing up all the shit in the world.
I’ve actually been very good about getting pissed off about how so-called liberal bloggers like Ezra Klein, Neil the Ethical Werewolf and the mixed toolbags that are Jerome Armstrong and Kosimandius tend to place the disempowerment of democratic politicians as the worst form of oppression EVR. And how the deficit is of course the most important problem america faces today.
Seriously. It’s a fucking travesty how a bunch of guys go around declaring that a few hundred women/tens of thousands of Iraqis are an acceptable loss as long as their deaths mean the dems may, possibly, if the moons are right and mars is up uranus, get elected due to being hardcore right wingers. That this of course requires everyone turning a blind eye to how democrats have been working hand in hand with the repugs to further varius aims from the mass murder of POC to the mass murder of women, to the constant pissing on the poor is, of course, a freakish coincidence.
However, complaining about how upper middle class white guys go around pretending that racism, class and misogyny aren’t problems in modern american societies is a bit jejune, when all is said and done.
Now if I wasn’t a putz, the idea that the constant placing things into heirarchies of dom/sub, as though that’s the only sort of relationship anything could ever possibly have with other things – oppressive systems can’t cooperate and intermix with other oppressive systems of course because they must exist in the sub/com dichotomy – is itself bad because one of the few universals that exists in all the oppressive systems just happens to be the constant placing of things into sub/dom relationships, would have been expressed somewhere in there.
“However, complaining about how upper middle class white guys go around pretending that racism, class and misogyny aren’t problems in modern american societies is a bit jejune, when all is said and done.”
Indeed, what with them not being oppressed and all. I was thinking more along the lines of telling people fighting racism that they are hierarchalising oppressions because they choose to make their focus racism or saying similarl to the queer rights folks. Feminists are always being dismissed as white and middle class, as if the two latter items (for those of us whom the label fits) immunised us from sexist oppression. I’m not aware it’s done to other groups in the same way.
So I’m still not getting where the “constant placing things into hierarchies” is coming from. Like I said the example you used was from a woman of colour who has experienced both racism and sexism and has decided that one is more important to her to fight than the other. I’m still not seeing why she should be criticised for that.
I think what people see as “hierarchalising oppressions” is actually women saying that fighting sexism is *important*. It seems to get twisted around into us being too big for our boots or something. In the same way Twisty’s or other radical feminists’ social criticism gets twisted into “telling women what to do”. It’s a good way of shutting us up.
“Which is my cutesy way of saying that it’s an anti-fem meme you’ve got there, drop it, it’s really stupid.”
what on earth are you talking about?
“It should also be noted that it’s only feminists who get accused of ranking oppressions.”
Hunhwhat?
Backing the truck up for the moment…this is a damn fine post. One of the things that gets me the most about the “oppression olympics” as nubian calls it, is the way that piss-on-your allies gets institutionalized. I mean, one of the things most talked about in SexWars 2006 is that there was something wrong with blowjobs and anal. Well, pity the queer dude who walks into the middle of that…and despite the impoliticness (yes, it’s a word now) of saying “pity the dude” in the context of the fem-blogosphere… I dunno, maybe it’s too much to hope for that an analysis of harmful vibes (situational or essential, take your pick) going on in het relationships, that maybe there’s some way of not hitting queer relationships in the crossfire?
Back to the quote above. I’m really tempted to totally snark off here. There’s already a counter example in play here, but it strikes me as a serious failure of the imagination to not think to look around at other groups to see if that rhetoric is being used against them.
I don’t want to have to imagine that that rhetoric is being used against other groups, I’d like to see real examples, if they exist.
I see feminists or rather second wave or radical feminists getting accused of ranking oppressions all the time. I don’t see queer rights folks, or people fighting racism or Marxists getting accused of ranking oppressions, they may get other criticisms launched at them to shut them down, but not that particular one.
R. Mildred used an example of a feminist woman of colour to illustrate her example. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
“to illustrate her point”
Read the whole damn thread that I linked here. The money shot is ginmar claming that racism is less accepted than sexism because some dumbass got fired! Yea, because some dumbass getting fired for groping a woman means that sexism isn’t accepted either! Heck, according to men, just brushing up against a woman in the hallway gets you fired immediately, which is almost exactly like, but less common than, the claim of 99% of white people that one dude getting fired for saying niggardly totally makes a whole industry that depends on slamming black people OK.
White people- gotta hate ‘em.
I agree with you. Violet would have made that point better if she’d just said isn’t it outrageous that it is still acceptable for men to say stuff like this about women. It was wrong for her to use the comparison to racism and argue that racism is less acceptable these days, because it isn’t true. I didn’t actually see her ranking oppressions though and saying that sexism is a worse thing to suffer from than racism.
I don’t see queer rights folks, or people fighting racism or Marxists getting accused of ranking oppressions
So basically you actually want me to denounce lesbian trotskyism?
Don’t have time to piss on all your complaints delphyne, but this post is a spin off of another post I’ve got brewing about hijab (don’t worry, it’s just a jumping off point to mock rightwingers, this ghori does observe some level of decency), after I spotted a person whipping out the oppression olympics meme while strolling aorund IBTP. Yes I blame anti-racists for using the struggle against racism as an excuse to enable misogyny.
[...] Source: My system of oppression has a bigger cock than your system of oppression at PunkAssBlog.com [...]
Not being funny, but you’re ideas of prostitution come across as slightly naive
Women are not the only sex that are prostitutes, there are probably more of them, but rent boys, spring chickens, gigolos etc. are not thin on the ground in any city or town. I would also, next time you see an appearing female prostitute check for masculine features, an adams apple for instance.
Men are not the only *ahem* clients of prostitutes, though they are probably the most predominant. Interestingly, there has more recently been a sharp rise in the number of female sex tourists visiting poor countries and paying some “grateful” local man to do anything they wish.
Not all prostitutes are forced into it, though I would have thought it to be too common, and probably the biggest problem. This actually came as a surprise to me, I lived in areas where young girls were groomed by pimps as they walked to school, that’s pimp as in the dictionary definition, not the pimps that people claim to be as is the fashion of the day. I can only speculate as to why they choose to do it.
So, L.S. Perry, what is the proportion of men-for-women prostitutes, compared to women-for-men prostitutes? By the way, you forgot to mention that “some women” (what percentage, again?) are prostituted to other women. Also, mentioning all those female pimps might help you fantasize about prostitution as the only field where gender equality has been achieved. Let’s take “sex work” as the symbol of a patriarchy-free organisation!
What was that about the adam apple? You wouldn’t claim that transwomen are men now, would you?
How would you know?
“Young girls”, eh?
Well Jimmy Ho, getting statistics on the proportion of male to female prostitutes is a hard thing to do, what I meant is that it is not uncommon or even rare, and it wouldn’t take you long to find one if you looked in the right places. Of course statistics mean nothing anyway, especially when what I am pointing out is that the original statement was not 100% true. There are exceptions to the rule.
I don’t remember saying that women were prostituted to other women, though it happens, in these sexually liberated times. I was actually talking more generally about women who pay for sex.
I never claimed there was equality anywhere.
I’m not even touching the transsex debate, though some of the *ahem* “women” who walk the streets have bigger cocks than most men.
How do I know that not all prostitutes are forced into it ? I talk to them, they are after all human.
Basically you didn’t read my post at all, as you appear to have read things into it that I didn’t say.
If you believe that pointing out that the large majority of prostituted persons are women is irrelevant, I’d rather not hear your opinion on rape.
I also think that you sound very transphobic.
delphyne: “It should also be noted that it’s only feminists who get accused of ranking oppressions. You’d almost think that there was an attitude going around that women are responsible for clearing up all the shit in the world.”
Actually, it’s a big issue among marxists.
I’d also note that there’s a crucial difference between marxist feminism and socialist feminism. Social feminism emerged specifically as a ‘little siter” to radical feminism and marxist feminism. Building on the critiques of both radfem and marxfem, socialist feminism sought to discard their weaknesses and also incorporate the critiques of thrid world women, white working class women and women of color.
Radfem, I think, is most unique in so far as it is a distinctively 20th century form of revolutionary theory and practice, whereas every other critical social theory and practice is rooted in earlier theories created first by men. Radfem is one created by women and for women, seeking to work primarily from the experience of women *as* women.
As V notes, radfem theorists were, themselves, the first to criticize their own internalized racism, classism, and imperialism.
yadda yadda.
Oh, and the diff b/t marxfem and socfem: Way back on the Twisty thread, Foolish Owl articulated in perfect encapsulated form a socialist feminism whicht doesn’t privilege economic analysis. Too lazy to look it up though.
Jimmy Ho, you are mixing issues, you are not reading what I am posting and once again you are reading things into what I am saying.
All I was trying to do was trying to broaden the outlook of this post by making statements of fact, in this case, pointing out that not all prostitues are women, and men are not the only ones who pay for sex.
I don’t know where transphobia comes into all of this, admittedly transexuals can be prostitues or pay for sex, I was actually referring to transvestites.
i have often been told that i prioritize race over gender issues or gender over sexual orientation issues or class issues. that i take racism more seriously than sexism. which is not true, but i have been accused of that enough times that i have developed automatic responses to it.
not all women are coerced forced into prostitution. i was a sex worker and it was a choice. but many women are violently betrayingly forced. the question is not whether women are forced but what is our response to a society that deems that certain people should be handed very few options for employment all of which can include violence and submission, including sex work. for those of us sex workers who had choices, there are those who are dead.
L.S. Perry, you’re gettng the john patter. I know you don’t want to believe it because that would interfere with your overblown idea of yourself. You think the girls are going to tell you how horrible it is to go down on cheesy sour smelly dicks all night long? You’re a john LS Perry, and you’re going be treated like a john, you’re going to hear how great their *choice* is. If they think you need a bit more, you might get a few sighs, about the really ick guys …
…NOT YOU.
Sigh.
Let’s hope he at least washes his dick before going on about women’s choices.
animeg, XOSSSSS
?? I sense you are making a joke, but I also don’t know what you mean.
XOSSSSS = Puking one’s gut’s out. I’m not saying anything against you, btw, just the situation. Hope that helps.
Oh I see now. It’s an emoticon. But yea, guys who don’t wash and still expect women to go down on them are pure evil.
And of course y’all know the one about the blind wise elephants discussing the nature of Man: (Guy, Persyn…no, actually, i like Man for this one)
“Man would appear to be flat, like a pancake.”
“I concur. Man is flat.”
“Yup. Flat…”
It is so unfortunate that all these comments have to break apart and therefore oppress the writer when the overall point is completely valid. WE ARE BEING BLINDED!! This system is straight fucked but all we can do is show how someone is not using a source correctly or isn’t a feminist in someone else’s mind.
YOU ARE ALL THE OPPRESSORS AND THE OPPRESSED. Think about it for a second. Actually think about the overall point made above. We can NOT continue to think within the system that has caused our oppression. We have to create an entire new ideology without the heirachy battle of who has been oppressed more then the other. These only again blind us from the combination of daily oppressions that are integrated in every aspect of this society.
But you already all know this because your super smart intellectuals that read and write and comment on blogs to give you something to do with your life that has been made worthless and petty by it all.
… Irregardless isn’t a word.
M, I’m afraid it is indeed a word. Look it up in Wikipedia. Irregardless consists of morphemes and has a phonetical value. That takes care of two of the three elements given in the definition. The other element – does it carry a meaning? – could be disputed. But I had no problems understanding the paragraph with irregardless in it, and leaving the word out would result in an incomplete sentence that would be difficult to understand. So I think it does have meaning, and this makes it a word according to the definition, qed.
Whether you like irregardless or not is another matter altogether. You’re entitled not to.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. My smart-arse gene took over