Woman’s narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty wherever she has political power. – Emma Goldman
I’ve often pointed out that marriage is closely related to harlotry; it’s one of the few points on which I agree with neofeminists. But while they consider that a bad thing, I think it’s a good and practical thing based solidly in human biological, psychological and economic needs (unlike neofeminism). But if one believes that marriage is no different from prostitution and also accepts the neofeminist/trafficking fetishist proclamation that all prostitution is “human trafficking”, one must inevitably conclude that marriage (especially among those unenlightened brown people who don’t pretend that all marriage is based on “love”) is a form of human trafficking. And of course, trafficking fetishists have now embraced this twisted logic; at first they only declared that mail-order brides are “trafficked”, but now they’ve apparently decided that the label applies to any marriage contracted for rational rather than irrational reasons, especially if at least one of the parties is non-white. Laura Agustín’s column of July 29th contains an analysis of this recent article about temporary marriages in Egypt; most of it is dedicated to exposing the contradictions and moralism inherent in such articles (and the incredible incompetence with which they are nearly always written), but it begins with this:
What is gained by using the one word, trafficking, to describe a wide variety of social phenomena? Campaigners will say that they want to show that everything they have decided is an improper way for women to live or get by must be named and shamed as violence (whether people went along with or initiated the activities or not, as we know). So we have seen how surrogate motherhood, sex tourism by lgbt people and marriage broking are all glossed as trafficking, with relationships reduced to exploiter and victim. In the article I’m considering here, several kinds of instrumentally motivated marriages are all called trafficking, and I see no benefit in it at all. When I hear about a phenomenon, I want the details of how it works: who does what and how those involved talk about what they are doing. If some so-called authority with an NGO and an agenda simply tells me here’s another bad thing to condemn and outlaw, give us more support so we can get rid of it I automatically wonder what else is going on. I am not sure the authority-figure is lying, no. But I see the moralising and the personal agenda and want to hear from others, too.
I think I can answer the rhetorical question with which Dr. Agustín begins her essay; what stands to be gained is simplicity. Crusades are not embraced by intelligent, broad-minded people whose minds are capable of complex and nuanced thought, but rather by “true believers” who want to reduce the entirety of human experience to a simple Manichean dualism which does not require judgment or thought. This is why the “liberal” vs. “conservative” myth remains so popular despite its total inability to describe the modern political landscape; it allows the simple-minded to boil everyone down to “us” vs. “them”, in-group vs. out-group, good vs. evil. The true believer belongs to whichever “team” indoctrinated him while he was impressionable or chooses the one which seems closest to his own primitive impulses, subdues those personal opinions which contradict his belief-system and labels everyone who disagrees with it as “evil”, “conservative”, “misogynistic”, “infidel” or whatever and either ignores the facts which contradict that simplistic classification or else indulges in tortured logic in order to force all of his enemies into that one ill-fitting box. In this specific case, the more human interactions can be lumped together as “trafficking” the happier neofeminists and their allies will be, because the simpler their system the more simple-minded people will embrace it. Of course, as we discussed yesterday the more thinly a term is stretched the more reasonable people will reject the usage, but fanatics aren’t interested in convincing reasonable people; there aren’t enough of them in the world to carry the fanatics to power, and even if there were it wouldn’t be the absolute power they crave.
One year ago today I wrote about how sexually-repressed middle-class white women derailed first-wave feminism and combined it with Protestant Christianity to create the “social purity” movement, which sought to impose middle-class Anglo-American Christian female notions of morality on everyone by characterizing everything which offended them as a “social ills”. As I have pointed out before, nothing has really changed except the details; the revived “social purity” movement is still a coalition of fundamentalist Christians and middle-class women who embrace a warped version of feminism, and it still attempts to characterize every form of human behavior of which its membership generally disapproves as “evil”. But while the purity crusaders of a century ago tried to sell sex as something which hurt everyone, their modern descendants have adopted Marxist tactics and now characterize it as exploitation, violence and oppression directed against one segment of society by another, with men as the malevolent “oppressors” and women as their passive, incompetent “victims”.
Maggie said:
“Crusades are not embraced by intelligent, broad-minded people whose minds are capable of complex and nuanced thought, but rather by “true believers” who want to reduce the entirety of human experience to a simple Manichean dualism which does not require judgment or thought. This is why the “liberal” vs. “conservative” myth remains so popular despite its total inability to describe the modern political landscape; it allows the simple-minded to boil everyone down to “us” vs. “them”, in-group vs. out-group, good vs. evil.”
Bravo Maggie! I have had this exact discussion with my more conservative friends. They swallow all of the cultural war & political chatter and automatically adopt is as their own views. Very simple, no thought necessary. I’ve had to embarrass some of them in social situations before when they spout trash that they simply heard from some talking head and assume that it’s true. I ask them why they don’t question things and accept everything they hear in the media or on the internet as “true”. Critcal thinking……. so many just don’t seem to practice it.
Sometimes it makes me think that the majority of our culture question nothing. They simply nod in agreement & follow like lemmings.
IMHO, critical thinking should be a required course in 5th grade and then again in 9th. Of course, that will never happen in public schools because the “authorities” don’t want people to think critically, but any private school with pretensions to classical standards of education should require such teaching.
I was required to take critical thinking in both 7th and 9th grades – and I was in public school. Back then, I don’t think it was unusual, but these days with the “no child left behind” policies, teachers can’t really educate their pupils with anything useful. Instead, they must devote most of their time to ensuring their students pass standardized tests. Teachers who have classes with low test scores cost the school funding and get in big trouble.
“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.” – H.L. Mencken
Oh, dear me, yes. This. ^^
If we were to study the current cultural landscape, we can see glaring instances of the lack of critical thinking. eg, the Texas Schoolbook Controversy. When the Texas BOE demanded textbook revisions to be more in line with “their point of view” regarding the nations history, they eliminated the likelihood of any student questioning the depiction. The result being unquestioning acceptance by the students, not an opportunity to examine, analyze, debate, or truly think critically in any way. They’re taught to not even consider alternative views or possibilities.
Consider the school boards that want creationism taught in lieu of evolution. Truly both views should be taught & discussed so that people can actually use their intelligence and decide for themselves what they really believe.
I just find it disturbing how many people don’t feel the need to actually use the brains they were born with…..
I don’t understand why “creationism” would be presented or discussed in any class outside a social science/world religions context. It is merely a part of Judeo-Christian mythology; teaching religious mythology as science is criminal.
I agree. Creationism belongs in a class on comparative religions, not a science class. If I were teaching a class on biology or geology and a student whose family adhered to “scientific creationism” wished to discuss it, I would set aside one class period to allow him to do so but I’d also hand out a copy of this and email them this link. The lesson in critical thinking would be well worth the time.
The argument that we should “teach both sides” appeals to American ideals of fairness, which is why the argument is made. But bullshit is not equal to fact, and there is nothing fair about pretending that it is.
It is exactly the same as teaching both that the Allies won the Second World War, and that the Axis Powers won the Second World War. Wouldn’t that be fair?
It goes even beyond that; if we teach the Judeo-Christian creation myth as a “possible theory”, we also have to teach the Hindu cosmology, the creation myths of every pagan religion and even the whole “Xenu” thing from Scientology. It’s simply not possible to give every single idea without a factual basis equal time, so why not simply stick with demonstrable facts and be done with it?
Agreed. Define science, then only teach things that fit that definition in a science class. Since the study of science specifically involves observation, experimentation, results, and facts, all “ideas about where the universe came from” simply don’t apply.
Something I might do, if I taught a high school biology course, might be to say, on the first day of class, something like this:
It is merely a part of Judeo-Christian mythology; teaching religious mythology as science is criminal.
Aye, there’s the rub. In the modern usage of mythology, the Judeo-Christian population objects to that being applied to their belief system. It’s not mythology for them, it is fact and should be treated equally with other facts, such as science. Of course, they never note that science has never been labeled mythology, nor do these folks ever understand what the word theory means in a scientific concept. They base their entire objection to evolution being taught in schools on their (usually deliberate) misunderstanding of scientific theory.
Further complicating the issue for them is that as soon as Judeo-Christian mythology is truly taken as such, then it puts it square in the realm of those other religions they so cheerfully disparage, especially ancient pagan belief systems.
It boggles my mind that in the 21st century, this is even an issue. We have modern medicine, space travel and the internet, yet religious mythology is taught as an equivalent, competing scientific theory. I guess the inmates are running the asylum. *sigh*
Mine too. This is the primary reason I do not get along with a full 1/2 of my family. They also believe, in their heart of hearts, that Harry Potter taught witchcraft to children. When I asked, “Where is the uptick in practicing witches and wizards among Generation Y?”, well, I had to tell the crickets to quiet down.
LOL!
There was a link to a related article on The Agitator last month.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=230183
I put religion in the same category as racism and homophobia- it’s just embarrassing that people believe in that crap. Is it still the Dark Ages?
I agree with the train of thought in this convo, but would also make a serious critical look at religions a required class. We have to face the fact that the Abrahamic religions have weaseled the way into the minds of too many people for too long, and also the effects that has had on the rest of the world. Without a proper knowledge of that, I wouldn’t call someone armed with science alone fully prepared, as they will have to deal with the forces of these religions trying to impose upon them. A working knowledge of these these “faiths” tenets and the effects they’ve had on the world(from the good to the completely disastrous which is often left out) is crucial to dealing with them.
*Not this doesn’t mean take any of them as valid systems, just appraising them as far as their origins(fact based origins not fantasy bull), tenets, and how they’ve drastically shaped the world
I live in Texas and have some knowledge of the Text Book War.
Briefly, I would say that the description of the situation offered here is almost entirely fact-free.
No, Creationism is not taught as fact; there only a mention of its existence. BTW, the largest research-medical-center in the world is in Texas.
And how, for example, is requiring that the US Government be described as a “Republic” rather as a “Democracy” put anyones mind in a straight-jacket? Since, it is like, demonstrably true. Just like it is true that Dell, Compact Computer, Tx Instruments, etc. began here. And the fracking technology that has revolutionized the world energy situation is entirely Texas based.
When it comes to Texas, way too many folks give in to the temptation to imagine a strange and backward place that somehow affirms their moral and intellectual superiority only because they live somewhere else..
People who indulge in this will continue to be baffled by the steady success of the 2nd most populus and most highly urbanized state in the country.
There. I feel better now.
I live in Texas myself, and while I don’t quite get why, this state has been moving backward lately. It hasn’t always been like this. Sure, Texas has always been the very buckle of the Bible Belt, but they also wanted to (and succeeded in) being at or near the top of the nation when it came to education, support for science and technology, and demonstrating that tradition and innovation don’t have to be mortal enemies. As you mentioned, Dell and Compaq were founded here, and Texas Instruments wasn’t named that because it was invented in New Jersey or Alaska. But over the last twenty years or so, things have been getting dumber in the Lone Star State.
I’m not sure why, unless it’s that older Texans with a bit of sense have been getting old and dying off while the worst that the Baby Boom generation has to offer has been moving here. I don’t know for sure if that’s the case, but it’s the best I can guess at. Today, we’ve got a governor who talks secession and can’t decide if he’s running for president or high priest. The rest of the country laughs at us, and not without reason.
If I were a richer man, I’d move out of this state. I have family here, and I can’t afford to live elsewhere and still see them as often as I would like, so I stay.
Not that I’m suggesting that divorce might be on your horizon, but Texas has I believe the best divorce laws for men (the least unfair) in the nation. I’m not a divorce lawyer but I’m quite interested in the unfairness to men of current divorce law and most family court judges.
Like many states Texas assesses 20% of a man’s income for child support=also stealth alimony for one child and 25% (on the low side compared to other states) for two, but that’s of his AFTER TAX income. In all other states I’ve looked into the assessments are of the man’s before tax income.
As well Texas strong disfavors alimony even in the case of long marriages where the wife hasn’t worked, and rarely grants it for more than three years.
I don’t really need to worry about divorce laws considering that I don’t dare marry. But it’s good for people to know about this stuff.
You forgot to ad the Texas is also holds the record for being the only group of people to lose to mexicans ina war
No one here even pretends to like the summer weather. Therefore, if some Texan can afford to spend those months in Aspen or Bridgeport – we say go for it.
I was born and raised here but I have ALWAYS had a kind of love/hate relationship with it. Yeah, it has Bible belt qualities and a lot of grating accents but deep down, the real attitude regarding sex has always been, “Just dont do it in the street and scare the horses.”
Houston now has an openly gay mayor. But in the 80s we had an obviously Lesbian mayor who went to the bars (but not to the media). She kept taxes down and the streets safe and no one gave a fuck what she did off the clock.
“Sodomy” was a serious crime on the books here for 40 years before anyone was actually charged with it – leading to the Supreme Ct. case overturning the statute.
The whore house (Chicken Ranch) in La Grange was before my time but it was by all accounts a well regulated, safe, indoors brothel run by adults with the support of the community and police. Until an idiot reporter got an idea…
The deep-Texan mind is not bothered by sex but by anarchy. There was way too much of it back in the Olde Days.
This rioting shit in London….
Maybe it is best I say no more…
All you say is true (it’s 11:00 P.M. and 99° F). But that was then, and this is now. I don’t know what happened. My Baby Boom hypothesis is really just a rectal estimate on my part. Throw in the so-called Gen-X (always hated that name). But I can’t think of anything else.
Here’s the new law in Illinois:
>Gov. Pat Quinn on Saturday announced a new law that will give victims of sex trafficking who have been charged with prostitution an opportunity to clear their names through court.
>“Sex trafficking is a truly reprehensible crime that preys on the most vulnerable. Victims deserve a chance to clear their records and rebuild their lives,” Quinn said.
>Illinois previously passed the 2006 anti-trafficking law and 2010 Safe Children Act, which helps support victims who were forced into the sex trade and have criminal records as a direct result of being trafficked.
So maybe everyone that’s ever been busted for prostitution ought to go claim to have been “Trafficked”, and have their arrest records cleared. I mean, the powers that be seem so desperate to believe in trafficking that they’d probably not oppose it.
Or would they? Would they pick and choose between the deserving victims and dirty whores? How?
Just more ill-thought out stupidity from the state house.
My column for tomorrow (August 11th) is on that very law; my attitude toward it can be discerned by its title, “It Looks Good On Paper”. 🙁
OT–
Maggie, I’m curious about something that I’ve rolled around in my head since reading (well after your posted it) your two part Q&A with your husband.
What percentage of escorts that you’ve known were married, with their husbands knowing about the escorting? Or in long term live together relationships?
I had had the impression from reading call girl blogs that it was tough to find a man that the girls is really attracted to, who’s ok with her continuing to do call girl work. Less so after she’s stopped or if she’s willing to stop.
I would say that percentage is pretty low. There are a few married escorts, but they’e in the minority. Obviously, I’m less certain about the number of married ex-escorts, but I suspect it’s fairly high.