I've been trying to say this but never seem to get it right. This is exactly what I mean. Is it wrong for a woman to go into a bar and have a one night stand with no intent of ever speaking to the guy again, just because she wants sex? When it is a guy doing it and he simply hands her money instead of plying her with drinks and sweet talk for a few hours, why does it suddenly become wrong?
no matter how you mix the genders up in either scenario...i personally see no *wrong* in it per se.
what is *wrong8 with prostitution is obviously, right now, it IS illegal, and there ARe many who are used/abused/forced into this life. all the more reason why i personally think it should be made legal, so right there could be more protections put in place, for the 'benefit' of all involved.
the reasons people utilized prostitutes are myriad, as are the reasons different men and women choose to be prostitues. but as any marginalized group, especially with such health consequences, i can only see *good* come from legalization.
it's kinda like my view on legalized marijuana. more good than bad arises from such. i remember as a teen, my father, a MUCH older man, a republican, being all FOR legalization of maryjane for these reasons.
i think for prostitution it would be far better for all to be legal.
*btw - you mentioned earlier about men wanting to utilize prostitutes rather than have a commited relationship and i just have to point out, at least i am pretty sure...that the majority of men who utilize prostitues are in fact in committed relationships. so yea, there is 'more' to it than just easy sex, so much more......even in regards to men iring male prostitutes, women hiring prostitutes, etc.
Did you forget how to read when you left NYC. My post stated that their is unjust behavior towards women.
but that's exactly why i asked. you use a definition that states oppression is unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. you state that there is gender inequality. you deny that women are oppressed, even though there is inequality. so maybe you need to use a different definition of oppression to try and prove your point.
oh and i can read. you may want to edit your post to change "their" to "there."
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
you do not see the 'unjust' in a woman doing the same job for less pay? it IS unjust, thus part of opression. as i said earlier, you want to argue the degree of opression, fine...another point entirely, but to deny it is just, well, unjust.
inequality = unjust.
if YOU want to consider it ridiculous to use the term opression, certainly is your perogative. however, it doesn;t actually make it right either.
i personally use the term inequality, but this is one area where i will not disagree with the right of others to use the term opression if they so desire, b/c it does fit.
Funny, there's injustice towards men as well. I guess men are oppressed as well. Just in different degrees, you know.
but that's exactly why i asked. you use a definition that states oppression is unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. you state that there is gender inequality. you deny that women are oppressed, even though there is inequality. so maybe you need to use a different definition of oppression to try and prove your point.
oh and i can read. you may want to edit your post to change "their" to "there."
Fucking proof readers
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Funny, there's injustice towards men as well. I guess men are oppressed as well. Just in different degrees, you know.
i'll agree with that.
i just see mammasan 'arguing' over the use of the term 'opression' and then by the very definition he posts, it CLEARLY states that opression is an injustice. so HOW he can possibly say it is 'wrong' to use the term opression, is beyond me. it is not an 'opinion'...it is what it is. one wants to say it's disingenuous, fine....THAT is an opinion, but 'definition-wise'....it IS oppression.
as i said, i personally use the term 'inequality'....but i don't argue against correct word usage just b/c it is not my personal word choice to use.
what's 'funny' is the assumptions of intent with some posts.
i just see mammasan 'arguing' over the use of the term 'opression' and then by the very definition he posts, it CLEARLY states that opression is an injustice. so HOW he can possibly say it is 'wrong' to use the term opression, is beyond me. it is not an 'opinion'...it is what it is. one wants to say it's disingenuous, fine....THAT is an opinion, but 'definition-wise'....it IS oppression.
as i said, i personally use the term 'inequality'....but i don't argue against correct word usage just b/c it is not my personal word choice to use.
what's 'funny' is the assumptions of intent with some posts.
I agree with your use of inequality.
I'm glad you don't use a double standard and see men are being "oppressed" as well
i just see mammasan 'arguing' over the use of the term 'opression' and then by the very definition he posts, it CLEARLY states that opression is an injustice. so HOW he can possibly say it is 'wrong' to use the term opression, is beyond me. it is not an 'opinion'...it is what it is. one wants to say it's disingenuous, fine....THAT is an opinion, but 'definition-wise'....it IS oppression.
as i said, i personally use the term 'inequality'....but i don't argue against correct word usage just b/c it is not my personal word choice to use.
what's 'funny' is the assumptions of intent with some posts.
To me oppression is something far worse than inequality. I guess we just have a different understanding of the word. Oppression is what Jews endured under Nazi Germany. Inequality is not getting paid the same as your male counterpart.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm glad you don't use a double standard and see men are being "oppressed" as well
if you read my posts in this thread...i am on no *side* here, i am not looking at this as a gender issue per se, and i am certainly not addressing the issue for one specific gender only. i do not see prostitution in black/white, simplistic terms....and i think it will always exist, so might as well regulate it for the 'benefit' of all parties involved.
as to the 'oppression'...i think we could then enter into mammasan's 'arguement'...of who or what consitutes being 'more oppressed' and the 'rights' of using such terminology, etc. however, that really is of no personal interest to me. however, absolutely...discussing the definition of the term, there is no way i could argue against it's use for many differing groups, and certainly not only based solely on gender.
if you read my posts in this thread...i am on no *side* here, i am not looking at this as a gender issue per se, and i am certainly not addressing the issue for one specific gender only. i do not see prostitution in black/white, simplistic terms....and i think it will always exist, so might as well regulate it for the 'benefit' of all parties involved.
as to the 'oppression'...i think we could then enter into mammasan's 'arguement'...of who or what consitutes being 'more oppressed' and the 'rights' of using such terminology, etc. however, that really is of no personal interest to me. however, absolutely...discussing the definition of the term, there is no way i could argue against it's use for many differing groups, and certainly not only based solely on gender.
I have read your posts and agree with most of them.
what is *wrong8 with prostitution is obviously, right now, it IS illegal, and there ARe many who are used/abused/forced into this life. all the more reason why i personally think it should be made legal, so right there could be more protections put in place, for the 'benefit' of all involved.
That is sort of what I think. I brought up Porn stars earlier. Now that industry is legal and in turn it seems to take a lot of steps to make sure that everyone involved is old enough to consent, and that everyone is healthy. Both because of legal regualtions and because it makes good business sense. Prostitution on the other hand doesn't have any of that kind of protection.
*btw - you mentioned earlier about men wanting to utilize prostitutes rather than have a commited relationship and i just have to point out, at least i am pretty sure...that the majority of men who utilize prostitues are in fact in committed relationships. so yea, there is 'more' to it than just easy sex, so much more......even in regards to men iring male prostitutes, women hiring prostitutes, etc.
I think that kind of reinforces the point actually. They've got the relationship, they just want more sex or different sex or whatever. So they go to a prostitute so that they don't have to worry about the mess of potentially getting into a complicated affair with emotions and feelings involved. Now, the morality of cheating on a spouse is a whole different argument, but I think that really demonstrates that the men going to prostitutes aren't doing so out of some desire to stick it to women, they just want easy sex without any strings. I know women don't understand that because it's so easy for them to get that if they want it, but us poor men have a hard time finding that... and that is a grave injustice against men
I agree with the rest of what you said. I don't think it's inherently wrong to just want sex without any strings and I don't think that doing so necessarily equates to "objectifying" women in the oppressive or prejudicial sense. It's just like hiring a masseuse as far as I'm concerned. You're paying someone for their services and it's not an indication that you are objectifying the person offering that service. Sex and massages feel good, so if you want to pay someone to do those things and they're willing to accept money to do so, how is that wrong?
The concern here is how people end up in the field, and I think legalization is a good way to monitor and regulate that to minimize the potential for oppressive or coercive reasons.
To me oppression is something far worse than inequality. I guess we just have a different understanding of the word. Oppression is what Jews endured under Nazi Germany. Inequality is not getting paid the same as your male counterpart.
exactly...thus, an opinion.
as already stated numerous times, by your very own provided definition of the word oppression contains 'unjust' which most definitely encompasses inequality, unfairness, unjustness - is it a word?
so the point is my 'understanding' of the word is in fact BASED on it's definition.
as i already stated more than once...i do not personally utilize the term for the injustice/inequality that still exists in this country towards women, but i also do not argue agains the right of others to utilize the very same term since it does indeed fit the textbook definition. that's all.
bottomline - it IS oppression. just b/c at this point it is not as severe as it once was, nor is as severe as other heinous acts of oppression elsewhere in history, and even elsewhere right now, in no way changes the fact that it is indeed oppression. as i said, you want to discuss/argue the point of degrees of oppression or how it is far 'better' to use the term 'inequality'...i hear ya, and another discussion. however, to dismiss it's use as 'wrong'...is simply wrong. it has nothing to do with my understanding, and everything to do with the actual definition of the word. that's all.
I think that kind of reinforces the point actually. They've got the relationship, they just want more sex or different sex or whatever. So they go to a prostitute so that they don't have to worry about the mess of potentially getting into a complicated affair with emotions and feelings involved. Now, the morality of cheating on a spouse is a whole different argument, but I think that really demonstrates that the men going to prostitutes aren't doing so out of some desire to stick it to women, they just want easy sex without any strings. I know women don't understand that because it's so easy for them to get that if they want it, but us poor men have a hard time finding that... and that is a grave injustice against men
I agree with the rest of what you said. I don't think it's inherently wrong to just want sex without any strings and I don't think that doing so necessarily equates to "objectifying" women in the oppressive or prejudicial sense. It's just like hiring a masseuse as far as I'm concerned. You're paying someone for their services and it's not an indication that you are objectifying the person offering that service. Sex and massages feel good, so if you want to pay someone to do those things and they're willing to accept money to do so, how is that wrong?
The concern here is how people end up in the field, and I think legalization is a good way to monitor and regulate that to minimize the potential for oppressive or coercive reasons.
i agree with all your points, except the part i bolded.
sure, it may be 'easy' to think that...but it isn't necessarily true. and THAT is a whole other discussion as well.
That's kinda condescending, telling men what they can and cannot find offensive.
I am not at all telling anyone what they can and cannot find offensive. I'm saying to those who are offended because they think they were attacked: You are mistaken; you have not been attacked. No one is calling you a pig or saying all men are evil.
I generally agree with the rest of your points, but it's worth noting that people have not responded to anyone in this thread the way they have VG. To me, that indicates that VG is coming off as saying exactly what you describe above. It was confrontational, accusatory, judgmental, and aggressive. And people responded in kind. Maybe we misread it, but when several people misread the same thing the same way, that indicates that the problem lies with the one making the statement and how they made it, not that everyone else was wrong and should have read her mind.
Your posts indicate that you've just joined this board. Assuming that's true and you're not some reincarnated former board member, here's the background that informed my post: This conversation about feminism, the objectification of women, patriarchy, etc. has been going on since forever. It's always the same people saying the same things. We can all count on the fact that if person A, B, or C states any views at all that can be considered feminist views, person X, Y, or Z will misrepresent/misunderstand the point A, B, or C was trying to make and become defensive. It doesn't matter what the specific topic is, nor does it matter how those views were expressed. I was merely making the observation that this same scenario is playing out again with those people. (I was not referring to you.)
I would argue that perhaps people had not responded to anyone is this thread the way they had to VG because A, B, C, X, Y, & Z were not all here at the time, leaving A to deal with X, Y, & Z all alone.
But her post read like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe it was just poorly written, but it read like any many who visited a prostitute did so chiefly in a conscious manner to degrade a woman...
My defensive reaction wasn't to the idea that women are objectified or still treated unequally. It was to the idea that men purchase prostitutes maliciously to hurt them or that women or are actively and legally oppressed.
I can't speak for VG, of course, but I don't think this is at all what she was saying and I didn't read it this way.
as already stated numerous times, by your very own provided definition of the word oppression contains 'unjust' which most definitely encompasses inequality, unfairness, unjustness - is it a word?
so the point is my 'understanding' of the word is in fact BASED on it's definition.
as i already stated more than once...i do not personally utilize the term for the injustice/inequality that still exists in this country towards women, but i also do not argue agains the right of others to utilize the very same term since it does indeed fit the textbook definition. that's all.
bottomline - it IS oppression. just b/c at this point it is not as severe as it once was, nor is as severe as other heinous acts of oppression elsewhere in history, and even elsewhere right now, in no way changes the fact that it is indeed oppression. as i said, you want to discuss/argue the point of degrees of oppression or how it is far 'better' to use the term 'inequality'...i hear ya, and another discussion. however, to dismiss it's use as 'wrong'...is simply wrong. it has nothing to do with my understanding, and everything to do with the actual definition of the word. that's all.
Fine I consent, I'm tired of debating this.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Your posts indicate that you've just joined this board. Assuming that's true and you're not some reincarnated former board member, here's the background that informed my post: This conversation about feminism, the objectification of women, patriarchy, etc. has been going on since forever. It's always the same people saying the same things. We can all count on the fact that if person A, B, or C states any views at all that can be considered feminist views, person X, Y, or Z will misrepresent/misunderstand the point A, B, or C was trying to make and become defensive. It doesn't matter what the specific topic is, nor does it matter how those views were expressed. I was merely making the observation that this same scenario is playing out again with those people. (I was not referring to you.)
If you are talking about me, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. If not, continue
And maybe if the feminists weren't so focused on finding "oppression" in any tragedy that has to do with women, we would have a better chance of truly identifying the problems and trying to solve them. But I'm sorry, when you tell me that a businessman who hasn't had sex in month pays thousands of dollars to a woman who by her own admission willingly became an escort because it was an easy and safe way for her to pay for college on her way to a good job... when you say she is oppressed, and I read in the paper the next day that a woman was stoned to death in Iran for being raped, it's hard to take you seriously. Boy who cried wolf syndrome. And it means that the whole movement gets ignored and your complaints of unfair treatment are seen as probably meritless histrionics from someone who uses the same word to describe a woman winning a multi-million dollar harassment lawsuit that she uses to describe a woman killed under sharia law for holding a man's hand.
That IS interesting. Why? Because it indicates that prostitution is not some effort to oppress women. If objectifying women was all it was about, then why would anyone buy a male prostitute? It indicates exactly what many men have said here all along... guys are horny and are willing to pay for sex with their partner of choice rather than investing the time and energy to find a serious partner. Men going to a prostitute has little to do with oppression, or holding women down. It's essentially just a result of being tired of masturbating and wanting the real thing without the strings attached. So it's not sexist, because men objectify men AND women equally when it comes to sex. And I'm sorry, but that's millenia of biological urges at work and has nothing to do with trying to dehumanize anyone or truly believing women are objects or inferior. It's just that men are programmed that when they want sex, they should try to have it so they can get back to thinking
Z, is that you?
Once again, no one is saying that there's some conscious, male consipiracy to oppress women, so the defense against that accusation is futile.
But are you saying that purchasing someone's body solely to use it as an object to gratify your own sexual desire is not, by definition, objectifying?
Also, as I stated in your quote, men do NOT objectify men and women EQUALLY.
Well, I haven't fully thought this one through, so I'm open to other ideas.
My purpose in legalizing the sale of sex would be to protect the sex workers - give them health insurance, condoms, STD tests, police protection, living wages, etc.
What would be the purpose in legalizing the purchase of sex?
Well, I haven't fully thought this one through, so I'm open to other ideas.
My purpose in legalizing the sale of sex would be to protect the sex workers - give them health insurance, condoms, STD tests, police protection, living wages, etc.
What would be the purpose in legalizing the purchase of sex?
How else would the sex workers, who you just legalized, make any money?
I'd like to mention that the UK Home secretary Jacqui Smith was on TV this morning discussing her plans to criminalise the act of prostitution, whereas currently only activities that surround prostitution are illegal (pimping, soliciting etc).
What this means, and what she not only admits to but ADVOCATES, is the criminalisation of not just the customers but the women who sell sex because they are (a) Desperate and think it is their only remaining option, (b) being forced into it (c) emotionally disturbed. She actually said, as if it is some kind of lessening of the ridiculousness of her plans, that instead of jail, a £1000 fine might be a better punishment for prostitutes caught selling sex. What a great idea, give hefty fines to people because they are, as recognised by Smith as her reason for pushing this, morally degrading themselves in order to make money. Presumably she realises that the majority of prostitutes are not well off, high-class call girls and cannot AFFORD to pay a fine, if they could they wouldn't be having sex with strangers for cash. A crack-addicted prostitute would probably be better of getting some jail time rather than a fine. At least then she'd have a roof over her head and no pimp smacking her about if she doesn't open her legs to enough people every day. Or, you know, the government could actually try to help these people by taking steps to make prostitution safer.
Yeah, I read an article about this yesterday, which is what prompted me to start this thread.
i also disagree that girls/women today are 'taught' that their sexuality is their most powerful asset. i am no young woman, and *i* was not taught that, at all. sure, i know the *power* of my sexuality, but i know way was brought up to think, nor do i think if it, as my greatest power. i was tuaght that my mind is my greatest asset and tool, the strength of all my *power*....and while all the ills of society still exist, and absolutely girls/women are taught many mixed messages, objectification is still a huge big thing....i don't think it is nearly what it once was.
Well, I don't mean that we are actively/consciously taught this... just that we are socialized, primarily through the media, to be aware that, as women, our sexuality is one of our greatest sources of power. That's just reality. Of course all the postitive messages we more actively receive tell us otherwise, but the insidious negative message is huge.
It's interesting to consider whether or not it's as bad as it once was. I don't know. We're certainly more consciously taught that our minds are just as valuable as those of men. But at the same time, our culture/media seems to me to be sexualizing girls at such younger and younger ages. I mean, why do they make panties for 12-year-old girls that say things like "sexy" and "flirt"?
In a way, yes. But, I agree with mammasan oppression isn't the right word, imo.
By its definition men are oppressed as well. Do you agree with that? I don't. I'd say there are injustices and inequalities.
Could you answer this question for me, I asked it a few posts ago.
Are women so oppressed in the Western society that it is through inequal pay and employment discrimination that they are pushed or forced into a more lucrative business?
I will end my participation on this topic with this. As a hispanic male I face inequality in our society and not only that but I grew up poor which puts me at an even greater disadvantage. Not once in my life did I feel as I being oppressed because of the uneven playing field put before me. I probably had to work twice as hard as my white counterparts and the same applies to my counterparts who grew up in a better financial situation. I have been called a spick, wetback and ginker. I have had cops tell me to get my Puerto Rican ass, I'm Cuban by the way, out of their town because they don't want my kind there. I have endured racist remarks from teachers at the Catholic High School I attended and I would still say that I have not been oppressed. While racism and sexism can technically be defined as a form of oppression to me oppression is brutal submission. Even with all the inequality I have still had the same opportunities available to me as caucasians or people from more financially secure families. So I disagree with the use of the word to describe the the way our society treats women. That doesn't mean that i believe women are treated as equals or even fairly, but I will refuse to use the word oppression to describe the situation for them, or any other minority in this country.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I disagree. To me, oppression indicates intent. Neo-nazis oppress minorities because they feel they are inferior and they consciously intend to destroy them. Dictators consciously and actively oppress people. There are undoubtedly some people that feel that way against women, but such people will always exist.
The real problem is not intentional, it is latent, and far more difficult to address. This is the average male who truly believe women should have the same opportunities as men, but does not see how smacking his cute secretary on the ass prevents that. But that is not an intent to hold women down, it is ignorance that has the effect of holding women down.
Telling these people they are oppressors is pointless. For one, they're not. They don't hate women or want to keep them down, they just need an education on how their actions hurt women. For another, it makes them actively resist anything you say because you are calling them the same name they would tend to reserve for people like Hitler or the KKK and it makes them angry. You are not helping the situation when you throw around the word oppression because it doesn't apply to what's going on. We're not talking about an active conspiracy to demean people. We're talking about subtle prejudices and stereotypes that people cling to without even consciously realizing it.
I think this is an excellent point... although, in the end, I disagree. It's an excellent point because it illustrates what people are likely thinking when they get defensive. Like I've said before, they hear the words oppression, objectification, patriarchy, etc. and feel like they are being accused of participating in an active conspiracy to harm people.
But this is not the case; they are not being accused of any such thing because "oppression" does not indicate intent. As you stated, harm can be done without intent. The intention does not affect the outcome.
Let's look at mammasan's example of "real" oppression:
When at the age of 13 your genital are mutilated, or you have to cover your face and walk 10 paces behind your husband, or you are not allowed to pursue an education or leave your home without a male family member then come talk to me about female oppression.
Do you think the millions of people (men & women) who participate in these societies do so because they have an active hatred of women, an active intent to harm and oppress women? Or is this, to them, just a normal, acceptable way of structuring society?
If it's just a normal way of life and there is no conscious, intentional malice, does that mean these women are not oppressed?
Well, I haven't fully thought this one through, so I'm open to other ideas.
My purpose in legalizing the sale of sex would be to protect the sex workers - give them health insurance, condoms, STD tests, police protection, living wages, etc.
What would be the purpose in legalizing the purchase of sex?
fyi - legalizing prostituion in no way guarantees health insurance, condoms, STD tests, living wages, etc. about all i see guaranteed is some police protection and the HOPE of many of those things. i mean seriously, there are PLENTY of currently legal professions right now without health insurance or truly livable wages, etc. just sayin'.
and to me, the purpose of legalized purchase of sex is indeed to compliment legalized sale of sex. just makes sense, no? i don't know how you could be 'for' one and yet 'against' the other. if one can sell their body for sex legally, in turn the act of purchasing said body for sex should be lagal as well in all fairness. if you leave the 'stigma'...as in illegality on the purchase of sex, you leave the stigma attached to selling sex, even if it is 'legal' to do so.
Comments
no matter how you mix the genders up in either scenario...i personally see no *wrong* in it per se.
what is *wrong8 with prostitution is obviously, right now, it IS illegal, and there ARe many who are used/abused/forced into this life. all the more reason why i personally think it should be made legal, so right there could be more protections put in place, for the 'benefit' of all involved.
the reasons people utilized prostitutes are myriad, as are the reasons different men and women choose to be prostitues. but as any marginalized group, especially with such health consequences, i can only see *good* come from legalization.
it's kinda like my view on legalized marijuana. more good than bad arises from such. i remember as a teen, my father, a MUCH older man, a republican, being all FOR legalization of maryjane for these reasons.
i think for prostitution it would be far better for all to be legal.
*btw - you mentioned earlier about men wanting to utilize prostitutes rather than have a commited relationship and i just have to point out, at least i am pretty sure...that the majority of men who utilize prostitues are in fact in committed relationships. so yea, there is 'more' to it than just easy sex, so much more......even in regards to men iring male prostitutes, women hiring prostitutes, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
but that's exactly why i asked. you use a definition that states oppression is unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. you state that there is gender inequality. you deny that women are oppressed, even though there is inequality. so maybe you need to use a different definition of oppression to try and prove your point.
oh and i can read. you may want to edit your post to change "their" to "there."
cross the river to the eastside
Funny, there's injustice towards men as well. I guess men are oppressed as well. Just in different degrees, you know.
naděje umírá poslední
Fucking proof readers
I feel oppressed because as a man I'm not allowed to show, what are considered, weak emotions by society.
i'll agree with that.
i just see mammasan 'arguing' over the use of the term 'opression' and then by the very definition he posts, it CLEARLY states that opression is an injustice. so HOW he can possibly say it is 'wrong' to use the term opression, is beyond me. it is not an 'opinion'...it is what it is. one wants to say it's disingenuous, fine....THAT is an opinion, but 'definition-wise'....it IS oppression.
as i said, i personally use the term 'inequality'....but i don't argue against correct word usage just b/c it is not my personal word choice to use.
what's 'funny' is the assumptions of intent with some posts.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
oh, see, why did you have to go and change that? you were right the first time.
cross the river to the eastside
I agree with your use of inequality.
I'm glad you don't use a double standard and see men are being "oppressed" as well
naděje umírá poslední
Because men are editors, women are proof readers.
In the last three months I've lost over 120 euro just because I'm male and because I wanted to enter parties.
naděje umírá poslední
To me oppression is something far worse than inequality. I guess we just have a different understanding of the word. Oppression is what Jews endured under Nazi Germany. Inequality is not getting paid the same as your male counterpart.
if you read my posts in this thread...i am on no *side* here, i am not looking at this as a gender issue per se, and i am certainly not addressing the issue for one specific gender only. i do not see prostitution in black/white, simplistic terms....and i think it will always exist, so might as well regulate it for the 'benefit' of all parties involved.
as to the 'oppression'...i think we could then enter into mammasan's 'arguement'...of who or what consitutes being 'more oppressed' and the 'rights' of using such terminology, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I have read your posts and agree with most of them.
naděje umírá poslední
That is sort of what I think. I brought up Porn stars earlier. Now that industry is legal and in turn it seems to take a lot of steps to make sure that everyone involved is old enough to consent, and that everyone is healthy. Both because of legal regualtions and because it makes good business sense. Prostitution on the other hand doesn't have any of that kind of protection.
I think that kind of reinforces the point actually. They've got the relationship, they just want more sex or different sex or whatever. So they go to a prostitute so that they don't have to worry about the mess of potentially getting into a complicated affair with emotions and feelings involved. Now, the morality of cheating on a spouse is a whole different argument, but I think that really demonstrates that the men going to prostitutes aren't doing so out of some desire to stick it to women, they just want easy sex without any strings. I know women don't understand that because it's so easy for them to get that if they want it, but us poor men have a hard time finding that... and that is a grave injustice against men
I agree with the rest of what you said. I don't think it's inherently wrong to just want sex without any strings and I don't think that doing so necessarily equates to "objectifying" women in the oppressive or prejudicial sense. It's just like hiring a masseuse as far as I'm concerned. You're paying someone for their services and it's not an indication that you are objectifying the person offering that service. Sex and massages feel good, so if you want to pay someone to do those things and they're willing to accept money to do so, how is that wrong?
The concern here is how people end up in the field, and I think legalization is a good way to monitor and regulate that to minimize the potential for oppressive or coercive reasons.
exactly...thus, an opinion.
as already stated numerous times, by your very own provided definition of the word oppression contains 'unjust' which most definitely encompasses inequality, unfairness, unjustness - is it a word?
so the point is my 'understanding' of the word is in fact BASED on it's definition.
as i already stated more than once...i do not personally utilize the term for the injustice/inequality that still exists in this country towards women, but i also do not argue agains the right of others to utilize the very same term since it does indeed fit the textbook definition. that's all.
bottomline - it IS oppression. just b/c at this point it is not as severe as it once was, nor is as severe as other heinous acts of oppression elsewhere in history, and even elsewhere right now, in no way changes the fact that it is indeed oppression. as i said, you want to discuss/argue the point of degrees of oppression or how it is far 'better' to use the term 'inequality'...i hear ya, and another discussion. however, to dismiss it's use as 'wrong'...is simply wrong. it has nothing to do with my understanding, and everything to do with the actual definition of the word. that's all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i agree with all your points, except the part i bolded.
sure, it may be 'easy' to think that...but it isn't necessarily true. and THAT is a whole other discussion as well.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I am not at all telling anyone what they can and cannot find offensive. I'm saying to those who are offended because they think they were attacked: You are mistaken; you have not been attacked. No one is calling you a pig or saying all men are evil.
Your posts indicate that you've just joined this board. Assuming that's true and you're not some reincarnated former board member, here's the background that informed my post: This conversation about feminism, the objectification of women, patriarchy, etc. has been going on since forever. It's always the same people saying the same things. We can all count on the fact that if person A, B, or C states any views at all that can be considered feminist views, person X, Y, or Z will misrepresent/misunderstand the point A, B, or C was trying to make and become defensive. It doesn't matter what the specific topic is, nor does it matter how those views were expressed. I was merely making the observation that this same scenario is playing out again with those people. (I was not referring to you.)
I would argue that perhaps people had not responded to anyone is this thread the way they had to VG because A, B, C, X, Y, & Z were not all here at the time, leaving A to deal with X, Y, & Z all alone.
I can't speak for VG, of course, but I don't think this is at all what she was saying and I didn't read it this way.
Fine I consent, I'm tired of debating this.
If you are talking about me, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. If not, continue
naděje umírá poslední
Z, is that you?
Once again, no one is saying that there's some conscious, male consipiracy to oppress women, so the defense against that accusation is futile.
But are you saying that purchasing someone's body solely to use it as an object to gratify your own sexual desire is not, by definition, objectifying?
Also, as I stated in your quote, men do NOT objectify men and women EQUALLY.
Well, I haven't fully thought this one through, so I'm open to other ideas.
My purpose in legalizing the sale of sex would be to protect the sex workers - give them health insurance, condoms, STD tests, police protection, living wages, etc.
What would be the purpose in legalizing the purchase of sex?
How else would the sex workers, who you just legalized, make any money?
Yeah, I read an article about this yesterday, which is what prompted me to start this thread.
Well, I don't mean that we are actively/consciously taught this... just that we are socialized, primarily through the media, to be aware that, as women, our sexuality is one of our greatest sources of power. That's just reality. Of course all the postitive messages we more actively receive tell us otherwise, but the insidious negative message is huge.
It's interesting to consider whether or not it's as bad as it once was. I don't know. We're certainly more consciously taught that our minds are just as valuable as those of men. But at the same time, our culture/media seems to me to be sexualizing girls at such younger and younger ages. I mean, why do they make panties for 12-year-old girls that say things like "sexy" and "flirt"?
But maybe this is a different subject.
Is sexism not a form of oppression?
In a way, yes. But, I agree with mammasan oppression isn't the right word, imo.
By its definition men are oppressed as well. Do you agree with that? I don't. I'd say there are injustices and inequalities.
Could you answer this question for me, I asked it a few posts ago.
Are women so oppressed in the Western society that it is through inequal pay and employment discrimination that they are pushed or forced into a more lucrative business?
naděje umírá poslední
I will end my participation on this topic with this. As a hispanic male I face inequality in our society and not only that but I grew up poor which puts me at an even greater disadvantage. Not once in my life did I feel as I being oppressed because of the uneven playing field put before me. I probably had to work twice as hard as my white counterparts and the same applies to my counterparts who grew up in a better financial situation. I have been called a spick, wetback and ginker. I have had cops tell me to get my Puerto Rican ass, I'm Cuban by the way, out of their town because they don't want my kind there. I have endured racist remarks from teachers at the Catholic High School I attended and I would still say that I have not been oppressed. While racism and sexism can technically be defined as a form of oppression to me oppression is brutal submission. Even with all the inequality I have still had the same opportunities available to me as caucasians or people from more financially secure families. So I disagree with the use of the word to describe the the way our society treats women. That doesn't mean that i believe women are treated as equals or even fairly, but I will refuse to use the word oppression to describe the situation for them, or any other minority in this country.
I think this is an excellent point... although, in the end, I disagree. It's an excellent point because it illustrates what people are likely thinking when they get defensive. Like I've said before, they hear the words oppression, objectification, patriarchy, etc. and feel like they are being accused of participating in an active conspiracy to harm people.
But this is not the case; they are not being accused of any such thing because "oppression" does not indicate intent. As you stated, harm can be done without intent. The intention does not affect the outcome.
Let's look at mammasan's example of "real" oppression:
Do you think the millions of people (men & women) who participate in these societies do so because they have an active hatred of women, an active intent to harm and oppress women? Or is this, to them, just a normal, acceptable way of structuring society?
If it's just a normal way of life and there is no conscious, intentional malice, does that mean these women are not oppressed?
fyi - legalizing prostituion in no way guarantees health insurance, condoms, STD tests, living wages, etc. about all i see guaranteed is some police protection and the HOPE of many of those things. i mean seriously, there are PLENTY of currently legal professions right now without health insurance or truly livable wages, etc. just sayin'.
and to me, the purpose of legalized purchase of sex is indeed to compliment legalized sale of sex. just makes sense, no? i don't know how you could be 'for' one and yet 'against' the other. if one can sell their body for sex legally, in turn the act of purchasing said body for sex should be lagal as well in all fairness. if you leave the 'stigma'...as in illegality on the purchase of sex, you leave the stigma attached to selling sex, even if it is 'legal' to do so.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow