Results 1 to 11 of 11
Great speech on Prositution.
Gets right the heart of the issue with no messing around by a genuinely radical feminist. Very moving, filled with empathy and righteous anger. As she points quite correctly that prositution is the heart beat of male supremacy.
+ YouTube Video
+ YouTube Video
+ YouTube Video
Dworkin? She and MacKinnon sold out canadian queers in the name of allying with right wing moralists.
It's trite platitudes from an establishment bourgeois feminist.
Yeah Dworkin really is mainstream and bourgeois. If you would listen to them you would hear the obvious emotion and sincerity. Though I guess she is too radical for some.
Sorry, I'm mostly deaf so I don't really pay attention to the sincerity of a person's tone.
Everyone of her solutions failed, and she has never paid attention to sex workers themselves. In fact, her favorite solution has made pimps more powerful.
Most of it is platitudes. Calling upon the whole "you're the child of a woman" is a ridiculous piece of gender essentialism. It completely ignores the class element, which is pretty strong. It's... yeah, trite is the word. Trafficking is a pretty horrible thing: but if it is, then why do you insist on making sex workers more likely to be victims of pimps and traffickers without recourse? Making it illegal to buy sex doesn't change the social conditions.
...since all prostitutes are women? But yeah...Dworkin...that basically says it all for me.
Her time as a "sex worker" gave her the insight to critique male supremacy radically. Funny how so called socialists are willing to defend turning the intimate of acts into a marketable commodity.
I think anybody can do with their bodies as they want to...and in the current system that includes selling it so long as its a voluntary act. I think her analysis is wrong because its one big generalisation of the sector and its also excluding a huge part of the prostitution sector. Its also wrong in a sense to ascribe this to purely to patriarchy instead to economic analysis.
I simply do not care for your moral code of what should be considered right behaviour (this also refers back to my posts first part).
Her time as a "sex worker" trumps mine or the time of the hundreds of people I've known who were? Because she says what you want to hear? What a ton of people want to hear? The mainstream position on sex work in fact.
Nice.
I know her story. If you were listening, instead of talking at us, you'd note that I don't want pimps, either, and that until the conditions that make sex work a fact are not around (and no, it's not just sexism, sorry), well that won't be ended by outlawing it, either by treating the prostitutes or the johns as criminals. Pimps are the result of lack of control. Brothels are the result of laws, again, giving a lack of control over themselves to sex workers. Trafficking is indeed horrible, but no amount of making prostitution illegal has ever stopped it. Society not acting like ostriches and actually studying it and helping sex workers is what does.
All we get from bourgeois feminists is pity, though. Not help.
Too conservative by half, I'd say. For all her bluster, her position is essentially liberal and idealist, not materialist, let alone socialist. Certainly no substantial class rhetoric- just look at how she launches into criticises the exchange of money for sex, as if wage labour was some horrifying innovation unique to the seedier end of the sex industry. She has some insights, but ultimately she offers very little to the far- left that the far-left has not been able to produce for itself. She's no Kollontai, Zetkin or Saornil, that's for damn sure.
Funny how others are willing to regard the commodification of sexual labour as a somehow fundamentally greater an infringement on human liberty than the commodification of labour in general.
I think R v. Butler and porn obscenity laws in general are problematic on just about every level, but you're blaming customs seizures on it? I can't tell, that's cryptic. But that's a bit of a stretch.
The customs seizures were justified and defended in court using R v Butler. And R v. Butler used homophobia to sell its bullshit.
EDIT - Not at you but to the OP - just so we're clear. I never said legalization is a panacea. It's only one part of a larger social program which must include the ability of sex workers to organize and collectivize, active community action to study and seek out victims and survivors trafficking, support to those who want to leave this environment, among other things.
Just as welfare doesn't magically end petty survival theft.
