And it seems to me that from the outside, anti-feminist male perspective Dw3t-Hthr, Ren, Amber, Lisa, Pony and Heart are pretty indistinguishable (i.e. life-support systems for pussies who haven’t learned to keep their mouths shut.)

Exactly!! Well said, figleaf.

Nicely put, Ren. One could make a case for considering overall gender impact instead of just on women (which, I do or I’d have *zero* interest in sticking my neck out,) just as one could make a case for overall impact of sex work (which, by the way, I also do.) But even then you’d want to give *way* more respect both to the pioneers and the people now on the front lines. And even if someone thought they didn’t have to there’s no way they can consistently say the first is valid but not the second.

figleaf

The metaphorical inch is still an inch. If you are of the mind that women need to be the key figures in feminism, and men should take a secondary position, or at lease listen more to women and work off that…well, I think it is odd to take a different stance as it suits towards sex work. The Sex Workers should be the people take cues from and hear first and foremost…the people doing it, no inches involved here, but actually are out there selling it, shaking it, being filmed doing it. If one wishes to combat trafficking and forced sexual labor…rock on. I’d call that a basic humanist aim that is gender neutral. (lest we forget, there are boys & men and what not involved in sexual trafficking and forced sexual labor as well.If in feminism, women need to be considered first, in sex work activism so on, well, the sex workers do too.

Yes, that.

I actually agree with this. I don’t necessarily equate secondary with subordinate. I’m willing to listen to men’s perspective on feminist matters; I just get really irritated when a man comes off as knowing more about feminism than, oh, women.

“And, to rotate this back to having some relevance in terms of our recent meltdown, it’s a problem when non-sex workers start talking at sex workers about the issues with sex work.”

I agree with this statement to some degree. However, I also believe that anyone at any real risk of being forced into sex work, or being harmed by pornography, has just as much of a right to speak as sex workers. For instance, I came within a metaphorical inch of entering prostitution. As in having the hotel room rented and the man waiting for me to arrive. Very little would have to change in my life even now for me to possibly wind up having to prostitute myself to take care of myself and my children. I’ve also been harmed by consuming porn and by being a victim of the misogyny that certain men have internalized from viewing porn. Sex workers are not the only ones who get to have a voice on sex work and the potential or definite harms and ramifications.

As I mentioned in my previous libertarian/feminism comment I don’t think that’s sufficient to toss over the whole shebang. But I don’t think she was suggesting that, just that she gets really sick of people who use their labels instead of their actions to justify themselves.

Also, I’m… pretty positive she doesn’t equate hairy legs and feminism. That leg-shaving thing has always been a red herring anyway. Early feminists also tended to be hippies, and hippies tend not to shave. Besides, stereotypes notwithstanding there have been “lipstick” feminists since before there was lipstick.

figleaf

But I wouldn’t bail on libertarianism just because the kook version ( has robbed us of more freedom on the margin than Ralph Nader and Catharine Mackinnon combined.

But given that, for instance, Lisa sees little contradiction between libertarianism and feminism why insist they’re incompatible?

Classic example of the contradiction, by the way: Peter Theil, blogging for Cato, says while he thinks everyone should be allowed to vote shouldn’t count for much because women, especially, keep voting in their own informed, enlightened self-interest. Which, last I heard, was about as libertarian as it gets. That doesn’t mean libertarianism is a terrible idea, it just means Peter Theil is a terrible libertarian. So… a handful saying women are bad if they have sex with men doesn’t mean feminism is a stupid idea, it just means people who say that are stupid.

But here’s the deal. Once I put it in those terms I totally get why people have a hard time standing up and identifying as feminists. Because I have a hard time standing up and identifying as a libertarian. But here’s the deal: in both cases it’s not because libertarianism or feminism is bad, it’s that the media keeps picking out the most extremist, monkey-butt, comic-book-villain examples (Ron Paul? Mary Daly? Puleeaaazzzee!) and saying “oh, you’re one of *them* eh?” When if they instead talked to someone in the *middle* of the distribution… of either feminism or libertarianism… they’d make perfect sense. Which, of course, wouldn’t be
“news.”

So… I can see saying one can’t call oneself a feminist if you also can’t call yourself a libertarian. I just balk at the idea that the (universal) existence of shitheels in organizations means one can simultaneously keep one identification but reject the other. I’ll be the first to admit this may be a personal lack of flexibility on my part. But that’s how it seems to me.

figleaf