….40 times a day ??
I just listened to the ’supply’ side again. Use of one’s vagina to that extent is punishment, surely? Even for the yahoos? I sincerely believe that those women who actually do service men to that extent – your bog standard prozzie without internet acess and the self obsessed, self destructive ’support’ of the “sex-poz” internet community for example – are in the majority.
And this is a feminist blog.
“We have to act. We have to end this apalling abuse of women (and children)”.
Act, my sisters. Get out there and make your truths known. Men couldn’t do 40 times a day could they? What’s their agenda there then..?
ACT.
21 responses so far ↓
Sis // October 26, 2007 at 4:50 am |
I did three feminist actions today. I got response about one.
Not this one.
The one that had a trace of racism with the misogyny.
The racism was “very upsetting.”
Laurelin // October 26, 2007 at 8:57 am |
Exactly. Nail on head as usual, Witchy. The women who are abused the most by the rape industry are not the ones able to blog about because they live in fear for their lives. 40 rapes a day. It’s an unconceivable hell. We have to oppose this abuse, and not waste our time listening to happy sex-poz stories about what gets them off, how great pole dancing is and how feminism does not involve any self-criticism. it’s easy to laugh with the sex pozzes, because they make one’s vanities seem acceptable, and make patriarchal beauty standards feel powerful- if one fulfils them. It’s feminism that doesn’t change anything because it refuses to see the blatantly obvious connection between the sexual subordination of women and their social and economic subordination.
Before the abolition of slavery, there were always tha apologists saying that so long as it was done nicely it was okay. It depended upon having the right master, though…. It’s the same pattern of reaction we see today, espcially among the johns. We must not accept these comprimises, these apologies for women’s subordination. It is absolutely vile that the subordination of women has been made sexy, because that renders it harder to fight from within ourselves.
I try not to waste too much time on the sex pozzes, but it is hard as their wilful ignorance and sometimes blatant cruelty (some of them, that is, not all), and the mememeism of it all (says Laurelin in a paragraph entirely about herself :p ) is so destructive. They ‘why can’t we all get along’ stuff was well-meaning, but I have to admit I cannot ally with people whose views I find repugnant. People who I sometimes disagree with, sure. There is a big difference between those two things.
The women being raped 40 times a day are the ones who need the change. Just because the status quo benefits some of us, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. Feminism may be personal, but it’s not all about oneself.
Anyway that’s my rambling for today. Hope some of it made sense
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 26, 2007 at 10:56 am |
But 40 different men can do it once a day right? That’s more men than I actually know, including my own 7 yr old.
Shit that’s loads. That’s a BIG number. That made me blink and go *woah – that’s put a scale on it that I hadn’t let myself think about.*
Thanks, I think.
Ethically Speaking :: 40 :: October :: 2007 // October 26, 2007 at 1:00 pm |
[...] lovely Witchy Woo is making me think again! ….40 times a day ?? Men couldn’t do 40 times a day could [...]
L.M. // October 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm |
But here’s the part where a prostitution apologist charges in and goes, “But you’re being judgmental, because there are *some* women who enjoy servicing forty anonymous men every day!”
jennifer drew // October 26, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
No, it is not perceived as abuse or punishment because women ‘choose’ to be penetrated by more than 40 men each and every day!! So deniers of male violence say. Apologists – they are all collaborators in male supremacy over women. Refer to them to dvd Not For Sale. As Laurelin said ‘do not accept excuses, denials or justification.’ Male sexual abuse is rampant. The truth is always hard to accept but more so when it is about male violence against women.
L.M. // October 27, 2007 at 2:44 am |
Hah, Jennifer Drew read my mind
I’ll also add that the above “but some women enjoy/choose to/blah blah blah” argument puts the onus on the radical feminist/anti-prostitution activist to offer evidence of the sexual preferences of every single woman in the world. Conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many women who don’t enjoy the work, who were forced or otherwise coerced into it, and want out. But we can’t talk about them, we have to prove we’re not judgmental first.
Gayle // October 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm |
“Conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many women who don’t enjoy the work, who were forced or otherwise coerced into it, and want out.”
Most of them don’t enjoy the work. But this majority doesn’t have the luxury of time and money, safety and access, to blog. Even if it did, who would listen?
The on-line pro-prostitution lobby is classist to its core.
Laurelin // October 29, 2007 at 7:32 pm |
Exactly, Gayle. No matter how much protesting they do about the availability of the internet these days, it does not change the fact that it is a privilege that few prostituted women have. The explosion of porn on the ‘net hardly proves that prostituted women have access to the media either- this is dominated by men, who are making a replusive amount of money out of this exploitation. The top end of the sex trade exists because the sex slavery at the bottom exists. If there wasn’t the unglamorous and ‘dirty’ *world of street prostitution, there would be no market for the ‘glamourous’ call girl, such as Belle de Jour etc. (If Belle de Jour is real, that is. A genuine question, she may be, she may not. But men have written more than their fair share of so called female voiced popular literature, which is why I am suspicious).
*By ‘dirty’ I am referring to the patriarchal conception of sexual behaviour as dirty, without which pornstitution would have no lure for johns.
Laurelin // October 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm |
Just to add- part of feminism involves recognising one’s own privileges that other women don’t have. For example, our privilege to blog. I am incredibly fortunate that I can just post up whatever I want to say. But it’s the duty of the privileged to challenge privilege and put their access to media to good use. That’s why we blog, and act, and are feminists. And the realities of women raped daily will not change with ‘woman-friendly pornography’ (a contradiction in terms), or with lengthy descriptions of one’s sexual preferences under the banner of liberation and sex positiveness, or by acting out eroticised power relations. (Of course the act of antiporn blogging does not in itself change this either, but it does spread awareness, promote action and display resistance).
Z // October 29, 2007 at 10:11 pm |
“The on-line pro-prostitution lobby is classist to its core.”
I agree with you completely, Gayle. Very well said.
I think it is so brave of prostitutes and ex-prostitutes to speak out and say ‘I didn’t like it; It was rape and abuse!’ and it is also extremely important work they are doing.
The media doesn’t seem to like the ‘unsexy’ reality of prostitution. The internet is a great place to speak out against abuses.
simply wondered // October 31, 2007 at 12:41 pm |
i can’t even blog once a day – what hope is there for me? certainly no future in the sex industry.
L.M. // October 31, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
“Use of one’s vagina to that extent is punishment, surely?”
Not to mention that johns often refuse to use condoms (or else pay desperate, poor and/or enslaved women more for it), the extent of STIs and the fact that prostitution is all about the client’s pleasure and comfort, the woman’s body is just a means for his release.
Fanny Blood // October 31, 2007 at 4:52 pm |
40 men a day?! It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it?
I always ask male friends of mine … “Would you like 40 different cocks in your arse every day, even if you earnt shit-loads of money, would you?!” The answer is NO.
If this is such a great profession why aren’t we all doing it?! Why aren’t men doing it?!
I think we know the answer to that.
Vile.
Laurelin // November 2, 2007 at 8:49 pm |
Slightly off-topic, but hey…Reading comments from the sexpoz boys on such blogs is at once a fascinating and depressing experience. They speak so much misogyny in so few words, revealing so much about their disdain for women who don’t conform to their sexxxay ideal. At least one uses the word ‘ladies’ to address radfems, even though it takes very little Feminism 101 to know why that is a misogynistic use of words. *duh*. Their wilful ignorance is itself astounding, and I find them a very useful gateway into the reactionary brain.
sparklematrix // November 2, 2007 at 11:51 pm |
Absolutely Laurelin. Talking of ’reactionary brains Flynt/Hefner? (They tend to meld into insignificance) said “these chicks [radical feminists] are our natural enemy”
Oh, I wonder why? *snort*
witchywoo // November 3, 2007 at 12:22 am |
“Their wilful ignorance is itself astounding, and I find them a very useful gateway into the reactionary brain.”
I agree Laurelin. I also find some of the sexpoz women’s responses to posts like this one of mine pretty telling too.
Like asserting that, because sex work has provided them with enough money to buy a computer (and all the other blogging/internet active sex pozzes online) then how ridiculous is it to suggest that they’re somehow in the minority? As if all prostitutes could use the fruits of their labours to extoll the virtues of prostitution to the rest of us via the internet if they so chose.
I get slammed for my assumed ‘economic privilege’ too which, I have to say, makes me laugh for more reasons than I have the time (or the inclination) to list.
And then there’s the oft repeated snide suggestion that women like me – radfems, obviously – are all talk and no understanding. Like no radfem ever gets involved in actually working with the women we write so much about; like no radfem could ever have any understanding of what it’s like out there; like radfems must all be so condescending and shit that women would be fucking insulted by our analysis of the politics that put them where they are and that radfems have our heads so far up our sanctimonious, privileged arses that there’s no way we could actually do anything anyway. All nicely followed by a list of what the aforementioned sex poz wonder-woman has done for those less fortunate than herself recently and asking if I (we) can match that.
Even if I felt that my feminist creds depended on providing a list of the work I do with women escaping prostitution and pornography I’d never publicise it. Never in a million years. It’s enough for me that I’m professional and hugely successful in my field. The online pro-prostitution lobby can diss that till the cows come home but they can’t change it.
I agree that the online pro-prostitution lobby is classist. I’d go further and say it’s racist too.
L.M. // November 3, 2007 at 2:56 am |
“I agree that the online pro-prostitution lobby is classist. I’d go further and say it’s racist too”
I certainly will – one particularly awful pro-prostitution argument I’ve heard is that only Western white middle-class women oppose prostitution, as if non-Western, nonwhite, non-middle class are all “bred” to love it! Basically sounds like the same garbage about “all black slave women are lascivious” to excuse white slave masters raping them.
Also, I can’t see what’s *not* racist about African, Asian and Eastern European women who are often trafficked, providing “sexual services” for white Western European men from wealthy countries.
L.M. // November 3, 2007 at 2:57 am |
Too lazy to look for the cites now, but isn’t it almost universal that the great majority of prostitutes in European countries with legal prostitution are usually immigrants or foreign?
Laurelin // November 3, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
Their characterisation of radfem theory betrays either a basic lack of reading comprehension, or some quite fantastic ignorance. So many radical feminists have been in the sex trade, which is what brought them to radical feminism in the first place. I always want to point the morons in the direction of such women, except that I am well aware of how abusive some ’sexpozzes’ can be towards them. Two of the sexxay boys immediately come to mind… their disdain for the suffering of women at the hands of their gender is blatant, and I find it hard to believe that sexpozz women don’t see it. I think Dworkin’s analysis in Right Wing Women is very useful here- they are aware of the realities of male power in this world, and thus make alliances with its apologists, rather than fight it. There are upsides to capitulation, after all. (I’m thinking of our more spiteful detractors here, not trying to generalise). We all know that, when we compromise, because after all, we all do it in various ways- it’s a matter of survival.
it’s the pathetic male brats of sexpozz fame who bug me most, I’m afraid. They are much more offended by a perceived slight on their masculinity (poor babies!) than they are by the abuse which radfems are united in condemning. Any suggestion that refering to women as ‘ladies’, or saying how much they like ’sexy’ women is sexist, or that threatening, browbeating and speaking down to women they disagree with is unacceptable misogyny is ignored. They do not even try to understand our arguments because it is not in their interests to do so. They do not think that they, as liberal, sex-radical, nonsexist (stop laughing everyone) males should ever be criticised or take any of the blame for the pandemic of violence against women. They are part of the problem, and they know it. But their pathetic egoes mean more to them than the suffering of the vulnerable.
Laurelin // November 3, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
actually- scratch the comment about male sexpozzes not ‘trying to understand our arguments, I’m wrong. They do understand, and therefore cannot accept them. They may be cowards, but they ain’t stupid.