Category Archives: Links

Rebecca Mott on the language of pro-prostitution advocates.

Rebecca Mott, who has always been a strong voice against prostitution, discusses the reframings used by pro-prostitution advocates to push their woman-hating agenda in this great interview.

We should also look at the way the sex trade has used feminist language to make itself look really radical and that it’s on the side of women. But trying to appropriate feminist ideas from the 70s is just a cynical act, it’s just a way to make more money ; what they really want is to open the market for women and younger people, they want these people to believe the language they speak. They also use the language of labour to make it look like it’s an ordinary job, that average jobs are just as dangerous. At a meeting that I attended, one of the « sex workers » kept saying that it was just an ordinary job—and it was really hard not to laugh—it’s ridiculous rubbish. I felt like saying : in how many jobs are you likely to be tortured ? In how many jobs is murder quite normal ? Anybody can think of any other job where that happens ? In other jobs –mining or fishing—, when people are killed, it’s usually an accident or it’s a human error and there is a huge inquiry about it. It’s not just something people consider normal, and when there is a mining disaster, there is not just an inquiry but people say : « we have to do something to make it safer, we have do do something so the manager takes responsability for what happened ». There is none of that in prostitution, what you get is that women disappear, they don’t have any rights and it’s normal. In prostitution, you don’t have « worker’s rights »…

Statistically, most prostitutes have no choice whatsoever, and even if they think they have choice, if you look to their whole life, you’d find something that shows that they didn’t have choice–whether it’s poverty, whether it’s child abuse, wether it’s being led on by people who say it’s not that bad. There are many varied reasons why people enter prostitution but none of them can be put down as free choice. It’s very rare that somebody wakes up one morning, who had a very good childhood and a very secure life, and think : « I will be a prostitute ». It’s not something that a happy child would even think about, it wouldn’t enter their mind because it wouldn’t be relevant to a happy child. When people talk about choice for these women, it’s like a sleight of hand, they say : « look at this hand, look at the women » and they make everything else disappear. And the thing they make disappear is that the only people who have full choice are the punters –and the people who profiteer from prostitution. No man has to buy a woman ever, it’s not part of evolution, it’s not part of any religion, every man who buys a prostitute can also make the choice not to buy a prostitute. They can walk out of it any time, they can NOT do it.

When men go to Amsterdam, they do not have to go to the Red light district, nothing forces them to go to there. It’s like men are hepless victims to a force when they are doing it. They are not, they are completely in control, it doesn’t matter whether they are drunk or whether they are very young, they still have control. It’s quite a conscious thing to buy a prostitute, even your are buying it on your computer, it’s conscious, you don’t just walk down a street and pay a woman money, it doesn’t happen like that, it takes time, you have to think about it, you have to conduct some negociation. It makes me really angry that people think of it as accidental…

An interview with Meghan Murphy.

Meghan Murphy is the most prominent radical feminist in Canada today. This interview is an excellent exposition of radical feminist theory and Murphy’s views.

5) Advocates of prostitution and porn call these Nordic reforms “anti-sex” and “moralistic” but it’s interesting to note that these laws are passed in countries (Sweden, Norway, Iceland) that are known to have the most open, relaxed and non repressive attitude about sex. Your comments on that?

M: Yeah that’s a funny one. I mean, if we’re talking about free sexuality and a real liberated vision of sex and sexuality, you’d think you’d be advocating for consensual sex. But prostitution isn’t about female desire or “enthusiastic consent”, which is supposedly what we’re touting in feminism these days. I mean, sure, sometimes a woman “consents” to letting a man have sex with her or agrees to perform other sex acts, in exchange for money, but she isn’t “consenting” because, you know, she’s really into this guy and really wants to sleep with him. If she did, she wouldn’t have to be paid to do it. That whole argument – the one that says that feminists who are critical of the sex industry are anti-sex, shows a real anti-intellectualism and lack of critical thinking.

I mean, as you say, the countries that have criminalized johns, banned strip clubs, and are considering banning pornography are the countries that are the most progressive and the most sexually liberated. The US isn’t a sexually liberated country. It’s completely saturated and obsessed with pornography while simultaneously having this huge faction of right-wing, religious groups who think sex should only happen in traditional, heterosexual, marriages for the purposes of procreation (which is, of course, about controlling women’s bodies and maintaining a patriarchal family structure). I find the whole idea that women who advocate for porn and prostitution are “pro-sex,” whereas feminists who advocate against objectification and exploitation and are positioned as “anti-sex,” kind of hilarious and, in many ways, embarrassing. I just picture the next generation of feminists looking back at the third wave with shame. I mean, all these ridiculous women parading around in stilettos and pasties, on stage, pretending they are advancing women’s rights. What a joke. That whole burlesque/sex work is empowering/feminist porn aspect of the third wave is making a mockery of the movement.

Amongst trans advocates’ crimes… the erasure of women from history.

Jonah Mix deplores, and for good reason, how trans advocates attack female figures from history by redefining them as trans men. It’s nothing more than another attempt by men to erase women from history. Woman-hating in its purest form.

This endless search backwards through time to find evidence of transgenderism relies on the most viciously conservative ideology possible, in which women displaying any form of intelligence, power, strength, and courage – you know, those personality traits that feminism exists to say are not inherently male – become evidence of manhood. Queers, either intentionally or not, aid the patriarchy by erecting incredibly rigid definitions of womanhood and manhood in a self-serving quest to catch as many people outside the boundaries as possible. It never seems to occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they can only sustain their community by reifying the “gender binary” they claim to hate so much.

This other article of his is also very relevant to the topic.

Matt Bruenig on transrace v transgender

Matt Bruenig weighs in on the whole transgender issue, pointing out that the arguments used against transrace equally apply to transgender.

2. Transracial people don’t have the lived experiences of other races.
According to this argument, the issue is that (for instance) a white person did not grow up as black or latino and therefore does not know what it’s like to be raised in that racial category and especially does not know what it’s like to navigate our racist society.

The problem here is that the same thing can be and is said about transwomen. Someone like Caitlyn Jenner has gone 65 years of life without knowing what it’s like to navigate the world as someone outwardly identified as a woman. The demeaning, the catcalls, the assumption of greater ignorance and lesser intelligence is as foreign to Jenner as stop-and-frisk is to a white person identifying as black or latino.

Capitalism does not reward risk

It is a common myth that capitalism has to be the way it is because we need to reward risk-takers in order to generate progress. Matt Bruenig uses his model of laissez-faire capitalism argumentation (how they switch between voluntarist, desert, and utilitarian frameworks) to dismantle the proposition that capitalism is better because it rewards risk.

1. “Capitalism should reward either hard work or risk-taking. Thus, both labor and capital income are justified.”

There are a lot of problems with this modification. The easiest problems to see are its omissions. First, it doesn’t deal with the problem that hard work in the form of wage labor is not compensated according to its personal productivity, but rather its marginal value to a firm, which is quite a bit different. Second, it doesn’t deal with the problem of those capturing the value of nature, which is not the fruit of hard work or risk-taking. This principle still is not able to reach a pro-capitalist position then, even if the modification helped some.

But the modification doesn’t help any. Capitalism does not reward risk-taking. This is easily shown. Suppose Noah and I each invest in ways that are identical in all regards with respect to risk. If capitalism rewarded risk-taking, then each of us would get an identical return. But we don’t necessarily. Suppose Noah’s investment leads to him receiving a large return, while mine leads to me receiving nothing and even losing what I put in. In that possible scenario, even though we behaved in a relevantly identical fashion, capitalism distributed us different amounts. Noah was rewarded for risk-taking. I was punished.

Pornographic sex is not loving.

Independent Radical wrote a great entry about the differences between pornographic sex and healthy sex.

For a sex act to be healthy and non-pornographic participants must enter into it with the intention of enjoying the act itself. In case this is not already clear, this enjoyment does not need to be purely physical. Those who have sex with people they love can experience emotional and, in some cases, intellectual enjoyment from their sexual activities. If one does not have affection for their partner, they should at least have positive feelings towards the sexual act. To pursue sex as a means to some other aim (e.g. economic resources, popularity, approval, self-esteem), like women in the sex industry do, is to increase the pornographic character of one’s sex life.

Opponents of the sex industry recognise that women who enter it often do so out of poverty and desperation, but economic concerns also influence sexual activities which occur outside the industry. Conservative men brag about how they provide money and other resources to their wives (who in turn provide them with sexual and domestic services), while mainstream culture promotes the gold-digger stereotype, as well as the belief that men who buy things for women are entitled to sex.Thus the view that women should trade sex for economic resources is not limited to the sex industry.

No law gives men the right to rape women.

No law gives men the right to rape women. This has not been necessary, since no rape law has ever seriously undermined the terms of men’s entitlement to sexual access to women.
No government is, yet, in the pornography business. This has not been necessary, since no man who wants pornography encounters serious trouble getting it, regardless of obscenity laws.
No law gives fathers the right to abuse their daughters sexually. This has not been necessary, since no state has ever systematically intervened in their social possession of and access to them.
No law gives husbands the right to batter their wives. This has not been necessary, since there is nothing to stop them.
No law silences women. This has not been necessary, for women are previously silenced in society—by sexual abuse, by not being heard, by not being believed, by poverty, by illiteracy, by a language that provides only unspeakable vocabulary for their most formative traumas, by a publishing industry that virtually guarantees that if they ever find a voice it leaves no trace in the world.
No law takes away women’s privacy. Most women do not have any to take, and no law gives them what they do not already have.
No law guarantees that women will forever remain the social unequals of men. This is not necessary, because the law guaranteeing sex equality requires, in an unequal society, that before one can be equal legally, one must be equal socially.

Catharine A. MacKinnon, Towards a Feminist Theory of State

Rachel Moran at FemiFest 2014

The entire text of Rachal Moral’s speech at FemiFest 2014 is available here.

The simple cruelty of the Liberal Feminist stance is something that also, apparently, escapes them. Their stance tells us sex-trade survivors that every rape we endured did not matter, that every sexual assault of every manner and variety were just occupational hazards, and that our gang-rapes would not have been gang-rapes had legislation just forced those men to use us one at a time. Well, I have news for them: flat rate brothels and gang-bang packages are all the rage in Germany now. For anyone who hasn’t heard these terms, a flat rate brothel is prostitutions answer to an all you can eat buffet. Men pay a one-off fee, a ‘flat rate’, and for this fee they can use the body, or bodies, of women for as long as they are humanly able, climaxing as many times as they want, or can. These are sometimes combined with gang-bang packages, whereby five or six or seven men arrive at the brothel together, pay their ‘flat rate’ and use the body of a woman until she can barely stand. I have had photographs forwarded to me from one such a scene from a German brothel. The girl being used by a half dozen men was nineteen years old, and seven months pregnant. This is the true face of the regulated sex-trade that Liberal Feminists fight for.

It has been claimed, in the midst of the campaigns against this conference, that I am endangering the lives of women in prostitution. It is telling how the depths of their incomprehension is revealed by the very charges they level against me. There was only one group of people who were ever responsible for endangering my life when I was in prostitution, and they most certainly were not abolitionists; they were sex-buying men; the same sex-buying men whose dicks will never be sucked by the Liberal Feminists who defend and uphold the rights of those men, to have their dicks sucked by other women; economically disenfranchised, educationally disadvantaged, socially deprived and racially marginalised women.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 435 other followers