One of the many benefits of being involved with the SlutWalk phenomenon has come in the form of new allies. But it’s not just allies I’ve met in real life and online. I’ve also had some vigorous discussions with folks who disagree with the very premise of the SlutWalk movement. Some of these conversations have revealed more heat than light. But some have been good, and I’m particularly pleased to have had the chance to meet Meghan Murphy, a graduate student in gender studies at Simon Fraser University who blogs with British Columbia’s F-Word Media Collective. Meghan also hosts the F Word Show on Vancouver’s Co-Op Radio, airing Mondays at noon Pacific time.
Meghan’s written a series of posts taking on SlutWalk, particularly around the willingness of some SlutWalks to form alliances with sex workers without a concomitant criticism of the sex industry itself. My views on SlutWalk are clear, and I’m currently developing a project in conjunction with sex worker advocates.
So in the interest of cutting through some of the rhetoric, Meghan and I decided to have a frank but civil exchange of views. She’d ask me five questions, and I’d respond; I’d ask her five questions, and she’d respond. What appears below the cut are her five questions to me and my responses. Jointly posted here and at the F-Word Blog, this will be followed on Wednesday with my questions and Meghan’s answers.
Meghan: 1) The role of men in feminism:
Stephen Heath wrote, in Male Feminism: “Men’s relation to feminism is an impossible one,” going on to say that “Men have a necessary relation to feminism” but “that this is a matter for women, that it is their voices and actions that must determine the change and redefinition. Their voices and actions, not ours: no matter how “sincere,” “sympathetic” or whatever, we are always also in a male position which brings with it all the implications of domination and appropriation, everything precisely that is being challenged, that has to be altered. Women are the subjects of feminism, its initiators, its makers, its force; the move and the join from being a woman to being a feminist is the grasp of that subjecthood. Men are the objects, part of the analysis, agents of the structure to be transformed, representatives in, carriers of the patriarchal mode; and my desire to be a subject there too in feminism—to be a feminist—is then only also the last feint in the long history of their colonization.”
So while men can and should, of course, be actors in the feminist movement, and need not be passive or voiceless, I feel that feminism is grounded in the experience, insights and perspectives of women. Do you agree? What role can men play in feminism? How can you speak about and to feminists without dominating the conversation? Where do you see yourself in this movement?
Hugo: Respectfully, I think Heath is wrong. Look, men have been part of the feminist movement since its inception (look at the many male signers of the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848.) When NOW was founded in the Sixties, it was designed to be the National Organization for Women, not the National Organization of Women. Gender identity happens on a spectrum; it’s not a binary which can be neatly divided into “subject” and “object.”
That said, men do have to be very careful to avoid taking dominant roles in feminism. I wrote a post last year called “Step Up and Step Back” in which I said the following:
“Step up” means that men who choose to identify as feminists (or, if you prefer, as “feminist allies” or “pro-feminists”) are called to take an active role in the anti-sexist movement. Building a genuinely egalitarian and non-violent society requires everyone’s involvement. Empowering women to defend themselves from rapists and harassers is important; raising a generation of young men to whom the idea of rape or harassment is anathema is also vital. We need men of all ages in the feminist movement to “step up” and commit themselves to embodying egalitarian principles in their private and public lives.
Stepping up means being willing to listen to women’s righteous anger. That doesn’t mean groveling on the ground in abject apology merely for having a penis — contrary to stereotype, that’s not what feminists (at least not any I’ve ever met) want. That means really hearing women, without giving into the temptation to become petulant, defensive, or hurt. It means realizing that each and every one of us is tangled in the Gordian knot of sexism, but that men and women are entangled in different ways that almost invariably cause greater suffering to the latter. Stepping up doesn’t mean denying that, as the old saying goes, The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (TPHMT). It means understanding that in feminist spaces, to focus on male suffering both suggests a false equivalence and derails the most vital anti-sexist work.
Stepping up means, of course, being willing to confront other men. I’ve said over and over again that the acid test of a man’s commitment to feminism often comes not only in terms of how he treats women, but also how he speaks about women when he’s in all-male spaces. Many young men are earnest about living out feminist principles when around women. But get them around their “bros” and their words change. Or, as is more often the case, they may not join in on sexist banter — but they fail to raise vocal objection to it. Stepping up means challenging the jokes and complaints and objectifying remarks that are so much a part of the conversation in all-male spaces. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a sine qua non of being a feminist ally.
Stepping back means acknowledging that in almost every instance, feminist organizations ought to be led by women. It means that men in feminist spaces need to check themselves before they pursue leadership roles. While that might seem unfair, arguing that biological sex should have no bearing on who wields authority in a feminist organization fails to take into account the myriad ways in which the wider world discriminates against women. Even now, we still socialize young men to be assertive and young women to be deferential. (Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but not enough to disprove that rule.) Part of undoing that socialization for women means pushing themselves to take on leadership positions even if they feel awkward about doing so; part of undoing that socialization for young men means holding themselves back from those same offices.
Stepping back doesn’t mean men should never speak up in feminist spaces. Stepping back is not about silently serving in the background. Stepping back is about the willingness to engage in self-reflection, to defer, and remembering that the most important job feminist men have within the movement is not to lead women but to serve as role models to other men. Stepping back is a way of renouncing the “knight in shining armor” tendency that afflicts many young men who first come to anti-sexist work. Women need colleagues and partners on this journey, not rescuers or substitute father figures.
2) One of the primary places of debate within feminist discourse lies in sex work; prostitution, pornography stripping, etc. How can a man retain credibility as a feminist and speak about these issues? Within a context of patriarchy and within a context wherein men are the primary buyers of sex and the primary audience for mainstream pornography (and the subjects of this pornography are, primarily, women and the sex that is being bought is, primarily, from women), is it even possible for a man, as an ally to feminists, to take a position that does not actively reject these industries? Do you actively reject these industries as part of your feminism?
Well, I think it might well be possible to do so, though I don’t. I don’t use pornography as part of my sexual life, and I don’t employ sex workers. Sex work is deeply problematic. At the same time, I’m confronted with the reality that a growing number of young women use pornography, and that there has been a concerted effort to create a genuinely feminist pornography – though the degree to which that’s a viable project remains a subject of contention. I reject porn use personally because it is incompatible with how I want to live my sexual life. I want my sexuality to be radically relational, where my arousal is inextricably linked to intimacy and partnership. I also want my sexuality to be congruent with my feminism, and for me personally, that means rejecting porn.
But I work with allies, overwhelmingly female, who are sex workers or advocates for sex workers. Some are the stereotypically privileged few who are outside the norm, but some who claim enthusiasm about sex work are from working-class backgrounds where financial necessity was the driving reason behind why they entered the industry. Nothing could be less feminist than for me to tell them “No, you don’t like what you’re doing. Actually,you hate it and you’re being exploited.” The sine qua non of male feminism is the capacity to hear women’s lived experiences. And when it comes to porn (both in terms of production and consumption) and other forms of sex works, women don’t speak with one voice.
I am committed to being an advocate for sex worker rights, committed to avoiding participating in sex work as a consumer, and committed to listening.
3.) If I say to you: “Pornography hurts me, it hurts me deeply, and it hurts women”, how do you respond?
I hear you. I acknowledge it’s hurtful to you personally, and I acknowledge that porn has done tremendous harm to women. But not all porn is the same, and not everyone who works in porn experiences the same set of circumstances. We need to do more than say “porn bad”. We need to say, what is the long-term feminist response? Is it saying that women’s bodies on a screen or in a magazine can never be gazed at with desire because that action is inherently hurtful? I’m not ready to go that far.
I’ve had literally dozens of current and former sex workers as my students over the years. (The ones who have come out to me.) I teach at a community college a few miles from the heart of the commercial porn industry here in L.A. And I’ve heard stories of rape and abuse and exploitation, and also heard stories of empowerment (a term that for all its fluffiness we do well not to dismiss lightly) and pleasure. There just isn’t one narrative. That’s the mistake Bob Jensen made in his brilliant but ultimately one-sided “Getting Off”. Just as there’s more to the movie industry than what comes out of Disney or Warner Brothers, there’s more to porn than what comes out of Vivid Video or Max Hardcore.
Part of the problem is NO ONE seems to acknowledge nuance here. One side says “porn is harmless fun and really causes no problems at all”, while the other seems to say “all porn is bad, feminist porn is and always will be an oxymoron, and visual depictions of sexuality are inherently exploitative and can’t be redeemed.” That’s a hell of a false dichotomy.
4) You have said “Women are not commodities whose value is based on their own fluctuating sense of self-worth.” From my perspective, escort agencies, and really, the prostitution of women in any form, legitimizes the idea the women’s bodies and lives are for sale. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? As an ally to feminists, and to women, what action do you / have you taken in order to end this commodification of women, women’s bodies, and female sexuality? Do you see the commodification and objectification of women as tied to violence against women?
I too am deeply troubled by escorts. I cannot imagine paying for sex the same way I pay for, say, a back massage. My own instinct is to be drawn to the Nordic model, in which selling sex is not a crime (as long as it’s your own body you sell and not another’s) but buying it is. But I hear from many responsible sex worker advocacy groups I respect (SWOP, for example) who are critical of the Swedish model and who claim it has made things worse.
All rape and sexual violence is linked to a profound sense of male entitlement. Men rape and hit and abuse women because they’ve been led to believe that women’s bodies are male property. But the sense that men have that their desire gives them rights over women’s bodies is older than the porn industry. Indeed, as porn and other forms of sex work have become more ubiquitous, there has been no concomitant increase in rape. Countries that make porn illegal do not have demonstrably better conditions for women than those that permit it. Sex work can be a manifestation of the problem, but it isn’t the root.
5) You have been one of the primary organizers and spokespeople for Slutwalk LA and you have been very supportive of Slutwalks as a whole. While, generally, Slutwalks have claimed not to take a position on sex work, other than to stand as allies with sex workers, recently, Slutwalk Las Vegas presented this statement on their Facebook page: “Slut isn’t a look, it’s an attitude. And whether you enjoy sex for pleasure or work, it’s never an invitation to violence” Can you comment on this statement? .”
I feel that this statement narrows the conversation in a dangerous way. Framing prostitution as work, as a job just like any other job and as something that women enjoy, benefits men. Even framing prostitution as ‘sex work’ seems, to me, to take a position – would you say that Slutwalk LA does, in fact, take a position on ‘sex work’?
Well, as you probably know, the Toronto organizers “released” all the satellite SlutWalks to follow their own paths based on the local “facts on the ground.” So there is no official SlutWalk position on sex work. (Parenthetically, I’ll say I do what my friends in the sex worker community have asked, and that is use the term sex work to refer to the whole spectrum of sexual commerce from stripping to massage parlors to porn to prostitution.)
Are there women who enjoy doing sex work? I’ve known women, students and friends, who insist that they do. I’ve known other women, often former sex workers, who insist that it’s impossible for a sex worker genuinely to enjoy sex with a john. Again, I think we have to stay away from sweeping statements. But I’m perfectly prepared to say that the number of sex workers who do it for pleasure is dwarfed by the number who do it for survival.
SlutWalk LA, in its very explicit inclusion of the sex worker community, wasn’t only standing up for those women who “like what they do.” Sex work is with us, and will continue to be with us – it’s called the world’s oldest profession for a reason. So while we figure out what the best strategy is (legalization, decriminalization, Swedish model, New Zealand model, intensified criminalization) we need to meet the needs of real sex workers. Even a sex worker who doesn’t enjoy sex with johns distinguishes between a forcible rape by a client (or, as is frequently the case, a cop) and sex that has been negotiated and compensated. The difference is not insignificant. We can’t let a future best-case scenario (a world in which sex isn’t commodified at all) stop us from meeting the real needs of real women right now.
If SlutWalk LA has a position on sex work, it is that sex workers deserve the same legal and cultural protections against rape as everyone else. And getting them those protections requires bringing their work out of the shadows without stigma.
First and foremost, I want to be very clear that I understand and believe sex work and porn are damaging to women and encourage the things Ms. Murphy brings up. Absofreakinlutely.
However. There are some points we miss when we blanket all porn as “bad” and all sex work as “bad” – *in addition* to dictating what we determine “good” porn (e.g. “genuinely feminist friendly”) or sex work to be. To do so limits expressions of desire and sexual preferences. Some women have rape fantasies. Some women are “bottoms” in the BDSM world. Some women like gang bangs. Some women like being in porn. Some women (myself included) like to watch porn, including gang bangs. Where I draw the line is when those women are exploited, victimized, and/or abused. But, the important point remains – some women actually enjoy language and behavior other people might find reprehensible. AND, with respectful partners, can EXPRESS those desires safely and while still being independent, powerful women. Just because we don’t like it/understand, we don’t get to dictate that for them. Moreover, what is more pro-woman and anti-misogynistic than a space and [a] partner(s) where she can express a rape fantasy safely?
I FULLY COMPREHEND this is a VERY FINE LINE – but it’s one we need to admit, acknowledge, and more importantly, attempt. In my opinion, one of the innate challenges of both the feminist and sex-positive movements is to walk this line: to fight against the things that are hurtful to women, while allowing and embracing sexual expression in ALL of its forms, less we shame people anew and create new “bad” sex stereotypes.
Finally, I’d like to make the point that this discussion brings sex work in as something that may or may not damage women. While I understand the context here is feminism, men engage in sex work as well. And, I hazard the guess that we’re *more* apt to believe men can enjoy providing sex for money than that women can – whether we want to admit that gut reaction or not. What does that alone say about our inherent opinions about men and women and sex? And our knee-jerk reaction to tell them “you don’t like that”? Shouldn’t that have some bearing in how we view sex work?
Meghan, I read your questions with much interest. One could substitute the word “marriage” for pornography in your third question, and it would be equally as true for large numbers of women worldwide (and a fair number of men, too.)
I used to believe, as you did, that pornography was degrading to women. Then I met people in the industry – nice people, people who wrote scripts, did makeup, technical crew or yes, people who worked as talent in the adult film industry. Many of them are very proud of their work and find it highly empowering. Does everybody in adult entertainment love their job? No, but neither does everybody in banking or anything else.
By portraying all women as victimized and objectified by sex work, you yourself are objectifying women, as if they are not smart enough or capable enough to choose that profession of their own free will. (Granted, some are NOT able to do so, but are forced/coerced into sex work. However, many girls are also forced/coerced into marriage and childbirth – should we seek to eliminate marriage because it can be abused? Good luck on that one.)
If your goal is to eliminate porn, because then the world will be a better place… not gonna happen. (Straight) men like to look at women, men become aroused by looking at women – and most women enjoy being admired by men. Does that mean that women want to be assaulted, or that men can’t help assaulting them? Of course not.
We all know (or SHOULD know) that RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. So babbling about pornography or prostitution in connection with sexual assault, as if the first inevitably leads to the second, simply muddies the water and adds to the myth that rape IS about sex. It’s part of the whole victim-blaming mindset that lets rapists get away with it.
What SlutWalk is about, is raising about the conscious awareness of the general public that NOBODY deserves to be sexually assaulted. Not coeds who’ve had a little too much to drink, not 80 year old grannies, not altar boys, not sex workers of any kind – NOBODY.
Hugo,
“Nothing could be less feminist than for me to tell them “No, you don’t like what you’re doing. Actually,you hate it and you’re being exploited.””
Yet that *is* the axiomatic background and practical political result of all structural explanations for the status quo, isn’t it? I don’t think lack of “nuance” is really the crux of the matter. The main issue is that one either accepts female agency and female expressions of free will or one doesn’t. It’s not that nuance isn’t important to identify actual problems and opportunities, but at some point nuance won’t solve the problem, as it’s an axiomatic one. You either accept female agency or not, you either believe their word or you don’t. I’ve never understood how radical feminists square their denial of female agency with their own claim to enlightenment (and female epistemic privilege) in gender matters: It’s mutually exclusive and self-defeating. If the actions and decisions of a sex worker aren’t considerd free willed in patriarchy (as they are the actions of women), how could the actions and decisions of feminists be considered any different? Talking about nuance isn’t going to solve the problem, because the problem is ultimately about choosing one side of a mutually exclusive dichotomy – one side of which is logically self-defeating, but that never mattered in politics.
I saw articles about the use of ‘slut’ in the Slutwalk, Why was it chosen this way ?
The term is irrespectful for women, prostitutes or not.
Sam: If I can summarize your argument, would this be fair: “If prostitutes can never be free-willed under patriarchy, neither can radical feminists.”
But radical feminists would likely say that this is a rather banal statement. Of course radical feminism exists in relation and reaction to patriarchy, and is not a free-willed response to patriarchy. That is in itself the very point of radical feminism—that women exist in a condition that gives them no free-willed response to patriarchy, because the social order has not been formed to the collective relative benefit of women.
Now if you are suggesting that this makes all perspectives equal—because they are equally un-liberated—well, that’s another matter…
Mandos,
“Now if you are suggesting that this makes all perspectives equal—because they are equally un-liberated—well, that’s another matter…”
Sort of. I’m saying that it’s logically impossible to claim an epistemic privilege on behalf of *some* women. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by suggesting that not all perspectives are equal – what criteria are there to determine what’s a more admissible perspective that aren’t dependent on accepting the axiomatic structure and thus aren’t defeated by the “rather banal statement”?
Sam: This quickly becomes a snake-eating-its-own-tail kind of debate. You’re arguing that radical feminists are claiming some kind of “epistemic privilege”, even as their ideology itself exists in reaction to the hegemonic discourses of patriarchy. I don’t see why these things are in opposition to one another. One can have relative levels of ignorance or knowledge of the extent to which your actions are constrained. You can know—or not know—that you are a prisoner of external social systems. What you seem to be suggesting is like saying that there’s no difference between someone in a cage with their eyes shut and someone in a cage with their eyes open.
The best thing men can do is confront other men on their womanhating attitudes. I don’t want to work with men in feminist groups, and am proudly a separatist. I want to interact with women, listen to women, and find out how we can create power for ourselves without men interfering with this process of political development. So when men are in all male groups— government meetings, board rooms, golf courses etc., they need to confront each other, to step up and yell loudly when NO or almost no women are being hired in male dominated industries … like Wall Street. They need to stop other men from using abusive sexualized terms for women, and they need to ostracize any man who buys a prostitute, exposes himself on the internet or is charged with rape, child abuse or woman battering. If men would do this, I’d be amazed. But I can honestly say, that in all the outrage and all the times I have heard men use aggressive demeaning sexist words at women, and I hear men use “b—-” ALL the time… I have never seen another man stand up and call the offender out, never. I see men in silence all the time. And I’m tired of dealing with this. My work is with women, and I don’t believe men belong in the type of feminist groups and lesbian groups I am a part of. All women should have the luxury of having massive amounts of well paid all women spaces, free of men. Men should never say anything, and just listen to men and confront other men. The truth is, if men don’t confront other men on their womanhating rape stories and jokes, it means men are cowards. And day in and day out, I see no male outrage at the horror that is male supremacy worldwide, and I find liberal men just as evil as conservative men. Radical feminists have condemned this site, we know the drill, we know the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Men can’t change. I believe they are forever damned but I do believe women can and do change, that we created this massive international non-violent movement known as feminism. Men need to step up against each other and leave us alone to do our radically serious woman affirming politics.
Mandos,
“What you seem to be suggesting is like saying that there’s no difference between someone in a cage with their eyes shut and someone in a cage with their eyes open.”
No, what I’m saying is that there is no way of telling whose eyes are open and whose eyes are closed from *within* that cage without requiring a priori acceptance of axioms that are themselves dependent on the existence of *that* cage.
There’s a pretty easy test for that actually: “Are you or are you not in a cage, and would you rather be free?”
Mythago,
alas, it’s not that easy… how do you know you’re actually in a cage? In real life, there’s no red pills for that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps
(Red/Blue Pill Scene from “Matrix”)
Hello Plop, here is a good source to answer your question:
http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/why
Sam:
But it’s still a false dichotomy. It’s only true if each and every radfem political axiom is dependent on that cage. But there are things that are really actually outside that cage, such as the material allocation of resources. Radical feminists must draw their conclusions *through* (ie, in reaction to) a logical and political structure that has been defined by patriarchy, but that doesn’t mean that the observations come from nowhere. These may be shadows on the wall, but they’re still shadows OF SOMETHING.
Let’s unpack the implications of what you are saying. You are saying that the perceptions of radical feminists (or those who advocate for radical black liberation, anticolonialism, etc, ie, any movement that takes a systemic view of mass injustice) that women are oppressed as a class is a statement that is itself made without that oppression. Consequently, its epistemic status is…doubtful for that reason?
I’m failing to see the logic here.
If women really were oppressed, and radical feminist’s observation of that oppression were made from within that oppressive, pervasive framework, that would make…their claim doubtful somehow? And if women were not really oppressed, then …?
I think the analogy to the Matrix scene is deeply flawed. The point of the entire Matrix series is that no matter which pill Neo takes, his choices are constrained by the Matrix. Either he lives outside the Matrix (hegemonic discourse) and therefore spends his life running from its minions, or he lives inside the Matrix as a slave. Radical feminists have taken an oppositional stance but not one that exempts them from the perceptual limitations of patriarchal culture, because such an exemption has been rendered impossible.
You can’t draw the conclusion that because their claims are dependent on the existence of a patriarchal system, their claims are so entirely ungrounded as to be inarguable.
This seems to me like an elaborate exercise in defining oppositional/liberatory discourses out of existence when they criticize systemic injustice.
In real life, Sam, you find that when you try to go somewhere else, there’s this barred thing in the way.
This seems to me like an elaborate exercise in defining oppositional/liberatory discourses out of existence when they criticize systemic injustice.
*ding ding ding*
Mandos,
“But there are things that are really actually outside that cage”
Absolutely. A lot of systemic criticism is not dependent on adherance to any specific axiomatic system. And while specific observations from within the cage may well be the shadow of “something”, they only get their specific importance and meaning from the axiomatic assumptions that define the cage.
“Radical feminists have taken an oppositional stance but not one that exempts them from the perceptual limitations of patriarchal culture, because such an exemption has been rendered impossible.”
My point exactly. Without the epistemic privilege accorded by the red pill their epistemic position is the same as either everyone’s or, in their understanding of patriarchy, every woman’s. If their definition of that framework is that it does not allow for female agency then by definition their agency is removed as well. If not, then the women who are holding different positions (as, say, sex workers as per above) cannot be declared to be lacking agency *based on their existence within the framework*.
“If women really were oppressed, and radical feminist’s observation of that oppression were made from within that oppressive, pervasive framework, that would make…their claim doubtful somehow? And if women were not really oppressed, then …?”
Again, if the definition of the framework is that it removes female agency, then of course their claims would be doubtful. Their positions could not be considered free-willed. Why would being oppositional accord agency any more than any other position if the true nature of the framework cannot be understood from within?
“You can’t draw the conclusion that because their claims are dependent on the existence of a patriarchal system, their claims are so entirely ungrounded as to be inarguable.”
I’m not arguing that. Their claims dependence on the patriarchical system is mainly limiting with respect to other women, as explained above. The statement “Pornography hurts me, it hurts me deeply, and it hurts women” logically always has the same epistemic value as the female sexworker’s reply “Your feminism hurts me, it hurts me deeply, and it hurts women”. Either both are statements of a person with agency, or both aren’t.
“This seems to me like an elaborate exercise in defining oppositional/liberatory discourses out of existence when they criticize systemic injustice.”
Only to the extent that these discourses attempt to gain credibility by unjustifiedly according themselves ungrounded epistemic privilege.
We can’t let a future best-case scenario (a world in which sex isn’t commodified at all) stop us from meeting the real needs of real women right now.
Well ain’t that the thing of it! You’re talking about harm reduction. Radfems are battling for the “best-case scenario” of women not being products to buy and sell. Can’t figure out why more feminists aren’t fighting for the same thing.
After reading the above all I can truly say is that if feminism and feminists is remotely captured by what has been written above then it is entirely divorced from the principles of humanism and is a form of bigotry that can only breed further division if followed.
I’m sorry Hugo but if you are genuine in your desire to see more unity and harmony between the sexes then you are wasting your time trying to convert extremists – a wise chef would not try to “save” a poisoned dish by trying to adjust the flavourings and spices. He would just discard it and start with fresh ingredients.
Sam: You’re equivocating on the meaning of “agency”. “Agency” is not exactly the same as “privileged access to external reality”. Radfems are not claiming that they are unconstrained by patriarchy—ie, they have an agency “deficit,” whether its the same as a liberal feminist, etc, is another matter—but they have access to better perception of the cage. This is verifiable if the constraints on their agency more closely match what they claim the constraints to be, which as mythago pointed out can be observed.
Considering that radical feminism overlaps heavily with (left) anarchism in its aspirational underpinnings, it becomes possible to verify whether what they say women cannot do en masse happens to be objectively true.
So no, I don’t think that lack of agency accords them the same epistemic footing in itself. This can’t be defined away in advance.
I would like to take a part of what you (SheilaG) said above from a male perspective.
Until we as men are committed to ending violence against women in a serious way we will continue to “support women” tokenly, attending events like SlutWalks as individuals, speaking where it is “safe” for us and perhaps “doing good” one-on-one work (or perhaps not).
When we as men are really committed, we will recognize that:
1.) Doing what we’ve been doing is token and not effective,
2.) We need to work within ourselves and reach out to other men to dramatically change things in good ways.
3.) Working with other men seriously is difficult work and takes a tremendous amount of time, energy and commitment,
The rewards of becoming committed as I’ve described above are NOT the thanks from women that we get as the “feminist man” in (primarily) women’s space as a man (where we are seemingly welcome).
The rewards of becoming committed are doing the right thing because it is “right”.
Only then will we be able to end the violence, emotional isolation and domination that hurts and kills many women and girls. We also then will realize that ending the violence also will help end the sexual abuse of boys (1 in 6), the rape and abuse of us men and how numbing “masculinity” frequently is for many of us. Thanks!
Len,
There are unchanging commonalities between allies, enemies and others: our humanity and all that encompasses. That leaves a door always open to a fresh view.
We are not dishes that, once compromised, cannot be altered, but lives of shifting views, moods and attitudes. We can all be swayed, provided the argument, experience and empathy.
Geo, as someone who teaches men and masculinity and has been doing “men’s work” since before Iron John hit the bookshelves, I reject the notion that pro-feminist men can’t work with men and with women. We need a “both/and” not an “either/or” approach. Separatism is generally a train wreck waiting to happen.
And Len, as Andrew said, I think dialogue matters. I learn more from honest criticism than I do from enthusiastic agreement, and I doubt I’m alone in that. I have great respect for Meghan, and she’s taken flak from some radical feminists for engaging with me. I appreciate her openness and her civility and her candor.
Hugo,
It’s great to have an ally so deeply enmeshed in mainstream feminism. But your responses to the last two questions really bothered me.
The demonization of clients of sex workers goes hand in hand with stigma against sex work. Clients get a bad rep for being pathetic, abusive, mean, or somehow perpetuating rape and slavery. While this is less so the case for customers of the porn industry, this is highlighted when it comes to those who patronize prostitutes. And it is deeply problematic. I don’t believe that more shame and more criminalization should be considered feminist options. It seems antithetical to the other stated goals of (most) feminists and especially of SlutWalk.
And it is painful for me to read someone refer to themselves as an ally to sex workers but in the same piece claim to be deeply troubled by escorts. Sex work is a broad field, but the hierarchy of troubling/untroubling types of sex work, reflected by what is legal/illegal, is divisive and harmful. When I was escorting, I never considered it selling either my body or my life, anymore than I would consider a professor to be selling his or her mind. I have yet to meet an escort who thought of it that way. We provide a service for a negotiated price. Just because this service can be more intimate than a back massage does not change the basic tenets of exchange. And like any other industry, the more marginalized and less privileged the workers involved are the less power they are going to have to negotiate. This does not necessarily mean they sell their bodies or souls or womanhood or whatever either. I won’t contradict someone claiming that was their experience, as I can easily see how it would feel that way (especially with so many feminists laying it out as such!). But as you said, sex workers do not speak with one voice. Not all of us are victims. And not all of us are empowered by our work. Some of us are just WORKING. And work can be tedious, upsetting, and unpleasant, without being victimizing.
There has been a lot of time and effort in the sex workers rights movement to distinguish between those who choose sex work, whether for empowerment, pleasure, or because it was the least harmful choice available, and those who are forced into it. I find it disgusting that people insult the victims of trafficking or rape by treating their situation as equivalent to all those in the sex industry.
That said, these are important conversations. I’m glad we can agree on some basic tenets of human rights instead of solely arguing about the end goals and how people should behave sexually. Too often the discussion disintegrates into vitriolic nonsense that is far removed from the actual goals. So thank you for trying to keep that focus.
-Jessie Nicole
Jessie, thank you for this. The “troubled by escorts” bit ought to have read “I am troubled by the thought of paying for sex the same way I pay for other services.” We’d still disagree, but that would put the problem on me rather than universalizing from it.
Meghan and I are going to continue the dialogue and I’ll work in what you’ve written here as part of my response. Thanks for weighing in.
Big ups for Jessie for pointing out the obvious. Sex Work is objectifying, but so is ALL wage labor. That’s how capitalism works. That’s why we talk of “labor markets” and “human resource” departments. Capitalism treats people as commodities and forces them to sell themselves for a paycheck. If yall don’t realize that than you’ve got rocks in your head.
Now, is Sex Work different from most wage labor? Well yeah, but just because it’s different doesn’t make it qualitatively worse. For many women sex work is a relatively lucrative, relatively portable, and relatively recession proof way to make a living without a higher education or some other specialized skill. And while they are objectified, so are burger flippers down at McDonalds. So what’s the difference between the two? Well, sex workers typically make a whole LOT more than burger flippers, have MORE job security, and if it’s done right, no boss.
The big problems with sex work today have little to do with the work itself and everything to do with it’s marginalization, and the drug trade’s prohibition. Because they can’t go to the police, women are forced into protective partnerships with pimps. Further, many “hyper exploited” sex workers are addicted to drugs. Due to prohibition those drugs are artificially expensive, and dangerous to procure. Once you’re addicted you’re treated as a criminal instead of sick person, making it difficult to get treatment.
If sex work was legal and drug prohibition lifted, women could form brothels openly and employ their own security. The threat of pimps, street violence and sadistic johns would plummet. Women forced into sex work to cover a habit would pay much lower prices for said drugs and would be able to get the treatment they need when they need it. The Nordic model doesn’t offer this. The Nordic model still keeps sex workers marginalized by criminalizing the johns. Thus, if the women want to make a dollar, they have conduct their business in secret, where there’s little protection.
Sex Worker associations have been saying this for YEARS. But of course the radfems don’t listen. They keep saying “No really. You’re exploited. You just don’t understand yet.” That dogmatic refrain has been the hallmark of every strain on the totalitarian left. There’s no way to penetrate it logically, you just gotta hope that no one takes it seriously.
Mandos,
“Sam: You’re equivocating on the meaning of “agency”. “Agency” is not exactly the same as “privileged access to external reality”.”
I don’t. Agency is the ability to make assumed valid statements about one’s preferences (define ‘real’ and ‘true’ for oneself). It’s about saying, like Jessie does above, “I’m not a victim”, and not have that claim denied by references to Patriarchy Stockholm Syndrome. It is not, as you say, privileged access to external reality – that’s why these statements are *assumed* to be valid. But that is the same for *every* individual, woman or man, because we are all autopoetic systems and no one is able to define the cage from within. The difference between women and men only becomes relevant with respect to radical feminist assumptions about female lack of agency in patriarchy. And in *that* case, all my explanations about the logical fallacies involved stand.
“This is verifiable if the constraints on their agency more closely match what they claim the constraints to be, which as mythago pointed out can be observed.”
Everything that can be *observed* is legitimate subject to discussion. The problem is not observation, the problem is *a priori axiomatic denial* of observations, ie, working from the supposed answer to the observed phenomenon, rather than the other way around – usually in the form of explaining that individual positions like Jessie’s above as not actually true/real (because they cannot logically be true in the radical feminist axiomatic framework).
“Considering that radical feminism overlaps heavily with (left) anarchism in its aspirational underpinnings, it becomes possible to verify whether what they say women cannot do en masse happens to be objectively true.”
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, sorry.
@Mandos
Left anarchism and radfems have nothing to do with one another. If anything radfeminism is very similar to Maoism in it’s claims to privileged knowledge and it’s Manichean, absolutist worldview.
I always scratch my head a bit when people claim to be pro-sex worker but want to criminalize johns. Essentially, they’re advocating a position that puts sex workers at risk and threatens to eliminate their profession. It makes me suspect that they have a hidden agenda of ending sex work.
“Left anarchism and radfems have nothing to do with one another. If anything radfeminism is very similar to Maoism in it’s claims to privileged knowledge and it’s Manichean, absolutist worldview.”
As a left-internet web junkie I agree with this 100%. The Maoist and radical feminist posts and discussions I’ve read over the past few years have much in common (totalitarianism and a party line, mostly). That’s not to say that those discussions have nothing to offer those of us who are more socially liberal, though. I’ve learned a lot from reading Maoist-Third Worldist stuff, same goes for radical feminist works.
I was also left confused by the pro-sex worker/anti-procurer sentiments.
To have one without the other seems to be saying WalMart can sell all the low priced junk it wants, but if you buy it you can be arrested for supporting third-world anti-labor practices.
Can someone lay out the Nordic concept here simply, explaining the purpose behind the anti-john piece?
@SheilaG: your point is well-taken, but this:
“all male groups— “all male groups— government meetings, board rooms, golf courses etc. etc.”
Let’s just add: the back room of the liquor store, the pit at the jiffy-lube, the crawl-space under your apartment building, the back of the garbage truck, crouching behind a wall in Kandahar (I think you get the idea)…
You seem to equate “all male groups” with stereotypical meetings of the asshole powerful. You’re right to the extent that power is still mostly in the hands of men of a certain class, but homosocial workplaces and environments are more pervasive than that. And power dynamics are more complicated than that. Most all-male interaction takes place among relatively powerless men doing dirty or otherwise low-status work (Hugo’s NOKOP). Feminism has led to more women in these same workplaces (unequivocal yay!), but women are also now found in “government meetings, board rooms, golf courses etc.” even more commonly.
You’re not wholly wrong, but somehow this time I felt the need to request nuance.
Questioning the purpose behind the slutwalk support for sex workers strikes me as naive, particularly in a Canadian context. The basic premise of slutwalk holds that all women, in fact all people, whatever their lifestyle, manner of dress, or profession deserve at least the basic protection of the laws against rape and assault. I can hardly imagine feminists would find this notion controversial, but it doesn’t really matter. When decision makers in the legal system choose to take some assaults and other acts of violence against certain women less seriously than others, they don’t discriminate against actual sex workers. The police don’t have an infallible radar which tells them who does or has done sex work, and who doesn’t. The term sex worker, particularly its more abusive forms, simply stands in for vulnerable, marginalized woman. It justifies the public, the legal system, and police in doing little or nothing about violence against these women. As a result, the level of violence against indigenous women in Canada has long since turned into a national shame.
If it can ever matter, to the police or anyone else, what the person who suffered the violence did or does for a living, then police and prosecutors have effective permission to sort cases into two classes: the ones that count and the ones that don’t. And the record, at least in Canada and I suspect in most other Western countries, shows clearly that the legal system will make these decisions not on the basis of choices some feminists find “problematic”, but on the basis of deeply embedded racist and classist beliefs.
Can someone lay out the Nordic concept here simply, explaining the purpose behind the anti-john piece?
The thing about sex workers is that they run the gamut from quite thoroughly voluntary to very much coerced (presumably in varying proportions depending on the location and market you’re looking at). Johns, on the other hand, don’t have anyone forcing them to be customers. The more you look at prostitution from a “prostituted women” framework, in which some significant portion of the women aren’t in the sex worker job by choice, and it’s only the customer’s moral good fortune if he happens to get one of the women who is there by choice, the more a Nordic style legal distinction between customer and sex worker makes sense. (After all, those women who are trafficked are less likely to expect the legal system to be on their side if their own actions could be found illegal.)
(Note: I’m not arguing that the Nordic model is the best; I’m not even sure there is one single appropriate model of legalization/decriminalization, since different countries might, for all I know, be dealing with different circumstances. I’m just laying out how it can be a coherent position.)
But Lynn that doesn’t sound very coherent either. I mean, aren’t women coerced into the sex trade precisely because it’s illegal. If it was 100% above ground and you could thoroughly regulate it, you would have more difficulty getting trafficked women into the trade. Yet if you ran the Nordic model it’s quite easy because everything goes on behind the scenes.
It’s coherent in the sense that it explains why people would make a moral distinction between prostitutes and johns in the first place. After all, once you’ve considered the whole trafficking issue, decriminalizing at least the prostitutes seems like a no brainer.
I think also, in response to “aren’t women coerced into the sex trade precisely because it’s illegal,” that some people are thinking of sex work as something people are inherently unlikely to do unless coerced (so that non-coerced sex work is a sort of rare exception), while others are thinking of sex work as something that doesn’t intrinsically need coercion any more than any other kind of work, and is only coerced because it’s illegal.
Whether the Nordic model actually works better than, say, the Netherlands model or the New Zealand model, in reducing trafficking, seems to me more an empirical question than one to reason from first principles. After all, these several systems have been tried, and presumably statistics have been gathered on what really happens to trafficking if you run the Nordic model. Here, for example, is an article in the Economist from several years back, that discusses several legalization/decriminalization models and winds up leaning toward the New Zealand model: http://www.economist.com/node/12516582?Story_ID=E1_TNVTGVRN
Geo, as someone who teaches men and masculinity and has been doing “men’s work” since before Iron John hit the bookshelves, I reject the notion that pro-feminist men can’t work with men and with women. We need a “both/and” not an “either/or” approach. Separatism is generally a train wreck waiting to happen.
————————————–
“Separatism” is your word, not mine. I never said that what you are doing is “wrong”. My points are that:
1.) Women have been doing serious work for decades and continue to struggle with their issues which include – sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking primarily by men and boys,
2.) Men have done and continue to do a miniscule proportion of the work (besides the Anti-Feminist Efforts – which are done seemingly “in our name” related to the loud male voices with little response from us “other men” as well as the “finding ourselves” “self-actualization” of many upper-middle class men some through Robert Bly, others through other means – which don’t focus upon helping end the violence in others particularly),
3.) Men oft times listen only to a limited degree to Women,
4.) Men generally need a lot more connection/understanding/caring than women do to both recognize the issues and to take action(s) in response to them because the issues are commonly perceived as “women’s issues”. We care “in the moment” but we easily “forget”, while women have constant reminders such as harassment, ogling, etc. that make forgetting impossible,
5.) Rape and other violence will only end – When Men take the issues much more seriously,
6.) Whereas others can reach women and do reach women – only we men seemingly Can reach our fellow Men in large numbers and deeply,
7.) Until – we Men – take serious responsibility – and connect much more seriously with Men – change will be slow, if positive at all.
8.) Separatism – is NOT the answer! Working with Men, while having coalitions with and supporting Women is the answer (to me).
This doesn’t mean Not working with Women. This does mean Emphasizing – and paying particular attention – “affirmative action” (in a different sense of the words) – towards us Men – because – “we need it”.
I believe that serious work with men is Much More Difficult than similar work (as a man) with women is. Many, many women appreciate and support your positive efforts, no doubt. Working with Men – includes: 1.) Working in support of Male Survivors – who are commonly silenced, 2.) Working to confront and help Male Perpetrators and 3.) Working with seemingly “normal men” who on the surface are not necessarily either 1.) nor 2.)
Reaching more men more effectively can be done, as I believe you do, working through church related actions for those who have organized religion in their lives. It can and is done through work on college campuses as you do. It can and is also done through community based organizations that focus upon domestic violence, child abuse and rape related issues.
I can not possibly know the “best way” or ways for you to reach Men. Perhaps how you do it is the best way for you. I would suggest in that case that it is necessary for more of the young men that you reach to learn how to and seriously work Much More with Men. It is our responsibility as men. Thanks!
@Lynn
Thanks for the article, from what I see it pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying. If it’s 100 legal sex workers have full control and are in less danger. They can refuse clients and work freelance. The problem with the Dutch model was that it gave too much power to brothel owners, many of them rich bastards who deserve to be expropriated. In my mind the safest system would be one where sex workers operate cooperative brothels that they own and run collectively, eliminating the need for a pimp and letting workers keep their earnings save what they pool to provide security, and other overhead.
Sam: Let’s look at it this way: if you could genetically engineer a conscious being that loves to have externally constrained opportunities, that expresses in human language that genuine desire, would that being be oppressed or not? What is the difference between that and cultural conditioning towards one preference or another? Could someone raised in an environment that encourages himself/herself to make materially less rewarding choices be considered to be oppressed or not oppressed?
I would say that oppression exists in these cases.
But radical feminists would say that we all (male or female) lack some amount of agency in patriarchy; it is merely that the lack of agency imposed upon women is of such a nature that as a group, women take a smaller share of the material pie than is their due. This particularly affects marginal women.
Which is the accusation here. The accusation is that yes, some women may e.g. very much like their lives as porn stars or whatever. The radical questions are:
1. Are they accepting materially less than what they could have had, because our culture inculcates certain tendencies in some women?
2. Even if not, can their enjoyment of their success be to the detriment of other women?
3. If so, is this something rectifiable post hoc (through some form of liberal compensation), or is the very thing they are enjoying contributing to a system that hurts others?
The radical answers “probably, yes, and not rectifiable”. Note that none of this denies that someone may be genuinely enjoying their lives; it simply acknowledges that their enjoyment can have larger consequences not only for themselves but for others.
That there are men who enjoy porn or prostitution or whatever has a set of parallel questions, but starting relative to a position of material ill-gotten gain…
But the denial is not axiomatic. The denial comes from a material definition of victim in a broadly economic sense of “net loser.
The radical feminist/anti-racist/whatever is saying that self-reports may be “true”, but not “useful” if we have in mind a larger notion of social justice.
What is at stake in this discussion is actually the legitimacy of having a notion of justice larger than the self-report of an individual. Which bring us, once again, to the questions I asked at the beginning of this post: can someone consent to oppression?
Mandos,
I agree with many of your points.
I would say that people cannot consent to their own oppression – oppression is built into economic and political structures…discourses…there is no opportunity for a social contract between the oppressed and these (historical) forces.
Of course, people do have agency within these limiting structures. I believe that we all have false consciousness to some degree or another…I do believe that Marxist theory is correct in the insight that our material conditions limit what it is possible for our minds to consider and conceive.
I tend to think we can consider certain forms of prostitution to be work…but I don’t any of us have a real “choice” under capitalism. Other forms of prostitution are indeed forms of slavery. Slavery continues in many parts of the world…and a number of industries employ workers that would fall on a continuum between labourers and slaves. For example, in “developing” countries many women and children who migrate from rural areas to urban centers end up enslaved in domestic work, under direct physical coercion. At the same time, many women migrate between countries and use domestic work as a means of securing permanent residency, funds for education, etc. Is there a difference between prostitution and other industries dominated by women? Maybe – I don’t feel entirely sure about this.
For certain – prostitution, domestic work, and social work – my own field – all reinforce capitalist patriarchy. One not need to pass moral judgment on the workers in these industries to make this argument.
I think men need to spend more time analyzing their own position under capitalist patriarchy – violence against men by men, heterosexism, militarization, imperialism…
Here is an article that considers some of these points: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Rethinking_Commodification_and_Prostitution__An_Effort_at_Peacemaking_in_the_Battles_over_Prostitution.pdf
Joanne, thank you for reminding me about that article which I’d read a long time ago. Love this bit from the conclusion which is helpful to all of us, I think:
Theorizing the commodity in prostitution as context-dependent allows space for the recognition of the contributions made on both sides of the debate and avoids a metanarrative of what prostitution “is,” as it can be many different things depending on the context.
Yup.
Thanks for the article, from what I see it pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying.
What I’m saying is that both the Nordic model and competing models like the New Zealand model are coherent and logically consistent if you accept their premises, and that the best way to test their premises is not to argue about what would happen but to examine what does happen in the real world. I am not saying that, when you do that, you will necessarily wind up seeing support for the Nordic model, and, as I said, the article I linked points against the Nordic model.
Sometime, I may write a post about how all approaches to prostitution are logically consistent if you accept the right premises, but in some cases, the premises you have to accept for the model to be justifiable really, really suck. But I have no time for that this week.
I would like to point out that I think one weakness of the article is that author fails to point out that industries that enslave women impact and gender ALL women. Similarly, consider the criminalization of “illegal” immigrants in Arizona – this process serves to racialize ALL Latinos (since obviously this is the target group). So, I am in agreement with Meghan, that someone liking their work does make their industry immune to criticism. From a socialist feminist perspective, we ALL live in contradiction…simply by participating in the world food system, I am screwing over other women every day who have lost their land and subsistence to corporations marketing goods to the developed world. I think when we OWN our contradictory and complex positions in global capitalism and are seen working to emancipate ourselves and not just working to “save” other people, we gain trust. I don’t think anyone can empower someone else – we have to work on our lives, challenge social structures and act as allies to facilitate change.
Mandos, claiming you can justify overriding someone’s choices because those choices made or make them an “economic net loser” simply imposes your own values framework on them.
Mandos,
One,
“What is at stake in this discussion is actually the legitimacy of having a notion of justice larger than the self-report of an individual. Which bring us, once again, to the questions I asked at the beginning of this post: can someone consent to oppression?”
if that notion of justice is requiring a priori axiomatic submission to certain answers to solve the epistemic problems imposed by subjectivity, then it’s legitimacy is indeed more than doubtful.
The answer to your question depends upon the premises – someone with complete information and rationality – someone who is aware of all consequences of his/her behaviour at all times, for all times, and completely aware of all contingencies – could certainly express the wish to be constrained. I wouldn’t call it oppression, in that case though.
“What is the difference between that and cultural conditioning towards one preference or another? Could someone raised in an environment that encourages himself/herself to make materially less rewarding choices be considered to be oppressed or not oppressed?”
The difference is fundamental: Cultural conditioning removes the (theoretical) ability to consider all contigencies equally.
Two,
“But the denial is not axiomatic. The denial comes from a material definition of victim in a broadly economic sense of “net loser.”
How is a “material definition of victim” not axiomatic? The focus on “material” is probably necessary for assumed observability, but its use as a proxy for some sort of logically impossible cardinal utility unit (especially *collective* cardinal utility unit) seems almost absurd.
“2. Even if not, can their enjoyment of their success be to the detriment of other women?”
Without the axiomatic assumption (justified by self-accordance of epistemic privilege), you could, as I already mentioned above, just as well say that successful radical feminist activism is hurting other women.
you don’t get around two things to keep the system internally consistent: a) a priori definition of individual utility based on b) assumed (though entirely unjustified) epistemic privilege of *some* women/people over others.
Oriscus, I’m not talking about the exceptions here, I’m talking about centuries of the rule. Law was created by men over centuries and eras. Women were excluded from making the law. Congress, Plato-s symposium, museum’s art collections, art schools, the green light for major Hollywood movies, the sheer economic power of a Warren Buffet. I am talking about the rule of male supremacy, and male only spaces… professional baseball, basketball, football, the Superbowl and its corporate box seats, the golf course at my company…. the t-shirts the males get for going to the almost all male corporate sponsored golf tournament… yeah, happens all the time.
Ever look at a construction site… pretty much all male all the time. So this set of rules and the ownership of law itself, and the idea of what constitutes crime… all of this is a male only affair. The exception to the rule is when women say, hey, we want male free places to do serious political work on our behalf. So if I have to deal with the sexist garbage day in and day out in my company, on my free time, I don’t want anything to do with the sexism, the put downs, the pretend ignornace of what kind of world men created and continue to rule at the expense of what is in the best interests of women. We actually don’t know what women would be like if they never had to live under men’s laws…. let’s watch how the “Supreme” male dominated court handles the Wall Mart class action suit. Just how many thousands of women have to be passed up for promotion and raises for a corporate to be pushed with a bone crushing multi-billion dollar cash settlement to all the women of the sex class at Wall Mart. If we find that rape is the issue, then why not keep all men off the streets after 9:00 PM, for example? Why not make large spaces women only for women’s freedom? After a hard day at work in the very belly of the beast, dealing with the shut down sexists who rule that place, believe me, I’ve about had it. If that power, and that history of the oppression of women over 1000 years isn’t enough for you, then you are in deeper denial about the real nature of male tyranny and oppression of women than any man could ever imagine. I don’t think men can even begin to comprehend how this looks to women who are so fed up with all of it. For women who like me have had to work so bloody hard, so that I can make a good living, so that I can be free of the evil that is the corporate male dominance of my work place. You’ll never ever get that. That’s why I commission all men who would be feminist allies to go after they guys, to show your outrage at the rapists, the flashers in congress, the rape threats on campus, the frat houses with their beer and rape parties. I commission you to forcus on male behavior in public, on campus, at a company like mine, where all those men rule with smug self satisfaction… and believe me they love every minute of their power, the exclusive golf tournaments, and all the women “support staff” have reported how sickening and awful it is to get stuck at those events, how deeply humiliating it is to be assigned “check in” for those male only cliches! Rage rage and more rage. Step up men…. you have a lot to answer for… stop letting those rapists and sex criminals off the hook, you march in the streets protesting those laws you’ve been writing for years, you take care of the children, you do the cooking and cleaning, you get out of the way of radical feminist analysis and it’s woman hating traditions and censorship. If the male is the problem, then it stands to reason that most men who are comfortable with male supremacy take a hard look at it. And also, take a hard look at any man who says after dealing with those white collar sexist men all day, that I shouldn’t want the company of women without having to deal with the mbs.
Pingback: Peregrination» Blog Archive » The Master and Margarita Gain Their Freedom