The right to be respected is won by respecting others. – Vasily Sukhomlynsky
I never fail to be amazed by the cluelessness of some people. In this increasingly pluralistic world, increasing numbers understand that it is reprehensible for any group to spread lies about a minority, to dehumanize its members, to represent them as imbeciles and to advocate their legal persecution. Most hate groups recognize that they themselves constitute a minority, and look upon their own persecution as the inevitable result of their struggle to defend the Holy Truth revealed to them by their anointed leaders. But one such hate group, once very powerful but now slowly but steadily shrinking in size and influence in most civilized parts of the world, recently demanded the right to insult and attack others without being insulted and attacked itself; it “demand[ed] the right to exist, think and work from [the] perspective” of trying to deny another minority group the same “right to exist, think and work,” and furthermore declared it “unacceptable” that its hostile, violent rhetoric and political lobbying should be recognized as hostile and violent. I am not making this up; take a gander at this June 23rd “Letter to the Feminist Movement” called to my attention by the ever-vigilant Brandy Devereaux:
In the wake of a series of targeted attacks–sometimes subtle, other times blatant–aimed at abolitionist feminists, we call on you, as members of the feminist movement in Québec, to react. Abolitionist feminists address the fundamentally patriarchal but also racist, capitalist and colonialist nature of the institution of prostitution. The purpose of their…work is to equip feminists with information and tools to enable them to argue that the sex industry is illegitimate and must be eradicated. They also seek to ensure that women have the right to extricate themselves from the exploitative conditions inherent to this industry…They know that all feminists do not agree with their analysis. But they demand the right to exist, think and work from this perspective.
Abolitionist feminists are publicly denigrated, and, in diverse settings such as universities (including professors) and the social media (individuals’ and group Facebook pages, blogs, websites), are characterized as: “moralizing Christians; old, fat and ugly women who have nothing to do; crazies; sluts and Nazis”…Abolitionist feminists are explicitly combatting male violence, yet they are told they are “endangering women in prostitution,” and – the ultimate insult–that they are “committing violence against women in prostitution!” Feminists who take the risk of naming and denouncing men’s violence…are accused of committing violence against other women. Regardless of our past or our experience as feminists, we believe that it is always, and has always been, unacceptable to tolerate feminists’ use of tactics designed to silence other feminists, even when we are in disagreement…It is unacceptable to say that abolitionist feminists are committing violence against women in prostitution…
Did you catch that? They want to silence people who insult them on the grounds that it is unacceptable to silence other feminists, and it’s OK for them to denounce what they perceive as violence, but not OK for sex worker rights supporters to denounce them for what we perceive as violence. The trip down the rabbit hole continues:
In fact, for the last 20 years in Québec, it has been very difficult to find space in which to present abolitionist feminist analysis…abolitionist feminists…hope, through their actions, to enable increasing numbers of women to understand that abolitionist feminist analysis is most consistent with their principles of liberty, equality and solidarity, they respect the right of individual women and groups to arrive at their own position…we would nevertheless like feminists to exhibit feminist solidarity by opposing the tactics of denigration and boycotting. We reiterate our respect for the fact that some feminists do not share the analysis of feminist abolitionists. But to call abolitionist feminists names, to “study” them as a phenomenon of violence against women, and to call for a boycott of groups like the Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle on the pretext that abolitionist feminists are a danger to women far exceeds the threshold of fair and reasoned debate.
In other words, it’s acceptable for prohibitionists to seek to eradicate what they believe is a danger to women, but unacceptable for other feminists to seek to eradicate what they see as a danger to women. And it’s “fair and reasonable” for prohibitionists to “study” prostitutes, but not for sex worker rights advocates to study prohibitionists. Just making sure you’re following this watertight logic.
…This is why we are calling on you today to help put an end to these tactics so that we can debate freely…We are asking you to refuse to tolerate or endorse this denigration or to participate in any way in silencing feminist abolitionist discourse. Whatever the analysis of certain feminist groups or the issues at stake, we are asking you to act when these groups are treated as “crazy” or “violent”…
Even when they’re, like, crazy or violent. But wait; you don’t know the half of it yet. This letter claims that poor widdle neofeminists can’t find any soapbox from which to peddle their hate; they claim they’re being wrongfully ganged up on, insulted and marginalized and that all they want is “fair and reasoned debate.” They don’t have any actual evidence to back up these claims, such as reports of specific incidents at feminist convocations or anything, so we’ll have to seek it elsewhere; how about a report from Xtra! on the recent “Women’s World 2011” conference, which began in Ottawa (not so very far from Montreal on a global scale) just ten days after the date of the letter:
At the recent Women’s World 2011 Conference held in Ottawa, sex workers and their allies found themselves silenced and outnumbered by anti-sex-work groups and a controversial art exhibit entitled Flesh Mapping: Prostitution in a Globalized World…Designed to bring together researchers and activists on women’s issues, this year’s event unexpectedly highlighted a deep and painful fissure in the feminist movement, with hostile clashes at the sex-worker advocacy panels and in the common spaces over the course of the five days.
The week’s schedule included numerous panels arguing, from various angles, to end global prostitution. This movement, more commonly associated with an earlier generation of anti-pornography, anti-sex-work feminism, argues that sex work is inherently exploitative of women…In comparison, pro-sex-work groups at Women’s World were small in number…and…[argued] for safer working conditions, harm-reduction strategies and the option to choose their occupation. Together they support groups like Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), which has made significant grounds in arguing for decriminalization in Canada. The chasm between the two groups became obvious at the…Flesh Mapping [exhibit]…which… included 70 used bed sheets as canvases [to express] sentiments…“that denied our existence and our choice, that denied the existence of choice in the sex industry at all,” [one attendee said].
…Oral presenters at the two sex-worker advocacy panels were also harassed…After the presentations…one audience member suggested that the presenters were perpetuating not only patriarchy but also the “oppression of capitalism” with their choices [and] a group of anti-sex-work supporters stood up and cheered…then “stood congratulating each other…They were there to humiliate us, to silence us, to laugh at us, to yell at us,” [escort attendees said]…A representative for Women’s World shared her disappointment at the events: “We now recognize that pro-sex-worker activists felt unsafe at the congress. We take this very seriously and have plans to dialogue with representatives of that community about how to ensure the situation is not repeated at future Women’s Worlds and similar gatherings”…
Given the current state of Canadian law, the neofeminist rhetoric spouted at the recent prostitution law hearings in Ottawa and the omnipresence of the prohibitionist dogma in mainstream American media, which of these contradictory views do you feel more closely reflects the present situation in Canadian feminism? I know who I believe, though I certainly wish it were the other way around. Still, it’s inevitable that it will become so as third-wave feminists become the majority, and the “Letter” is a preview of the sort of delusional whining we can expect to hear a lot more of once the shoe really is on the other foot.
One Year Ago Today
“Q & A (Part One)” was the very first column in which I answered questions sent in by readers.
Their writing is bad enough that they’re tough to understand. I tried reading it in French but had no better luck.
They seem to have a hard time with the idea that the right to speak doesn’t include the right to be heard.
Second wave feminists are in a state of quiet panic because the younger generations are generally rejecting second wave sexual dogma, especially the second wave desire to suppress and punish any expressions of heterosexual male sexuality that don’t serve the interests of wives. This generational conflict has been in evidence since the 1980’s, and is now reaching a fever pitch as the second wave feminists are now in or near old age. They know they are now slowly losing, and it horrifies them.
Some later feminists have embraced second wave ideology, such as Ariel Levy (born 1974), author of “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture” (2005), a furious screed against any expressions of sexuality that violate upper middle class Jewish rules of conduct. Anti sex work femiists seem oblivious to the deep classism inherent in their viewpoint.
“Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture” (2005) by Ariel Levy. One reviewer who gave the book 1 star out of 10 wrote: “Though I share some of Levy’s concerns regarding the trivialization and sexualization of women, I am deeply suspicious of her unexamined prejudices. The worst of these is that sex can and should somehow be put in a nice little hygenic box where it is always and forever synonymous with satisfaction, desire, intimacy and love. Ironically enough, for a woman who accuses the sex-positive generation of young women to be “republicans in feminist clothing”, Levy’s views on human sexuality are as profoundly conservative in their own way as those of His Holiness, Herr Ratzinger.”
Ariel Levy is a sexual conservative in feminist clothing.
Bottom line though – is they are going to LOSE (they already have really)..
They are working to eliminate something that is FUN.
You can’t get anywhere with that – especially when the FUN doesn’t harm anyone. It’s like if I went out and made it my life’s mission to demonize and destroy Disney World, or Pepsi, or Midget Reality Shows like “Pitt Boss” …
Those things are FUN – and they don’t hurt anyone (with the possible exception of Pepsi if you drink too much!).
Like – I can’t point to a single time in human history that we’ve eliminated something that was FUN. Closest I can come to is those two balls connected on each of a string that we used to call “clackers” when I was in Elementary school. Man, those were fun … and they were pretty too! We got rid of those – but not until the balls came off at high speed and starting putting kids in the hospital.
Sex Work is Safer than “Clackers”.
I’m pretty sure anyway. So these gals, if they are really gals – some don’t look to me like gals – are barking up an empty tree.
I agree with both of you. I wrote a blog post just today about a kerfuffle over on a blog called Gender Across Borders. The schoolteacher who outed herself on Huffington Post last year or so wrote an article there about her experience in sex work and of course there was the usual chime in about sex trafficking and “how dare you not only talk about that” *eye roll**
But Marla, I especially agreed with what you said that these feminists are realizing that they are losing and that fact horrifies them. After I made my post I literally had a bit of Fridge Logic and said, “Death rattle”.
Fridge Logic, in case anyone reading this is unfamiliar with the term.
Quebec is not *informally* known for being strongly opposed to the sex industry. Montreal in particular. I grant you that my perspective as an Ottawan is limited by a lack of real familiarity with the politics involved, but Montreal has long had a reputation as Canada’s sin city among people in rural and eastern Ontario. I would be curious to know if this desperate-sounding rhetoric from the abolitionists is the product of feeling outvoted or outgunned by their immediate neighbours.
As for exploitation. Apparently none of these prohibitionist females have read Kant, who said that treating anyone as an object to an end is immoral. No one has ever refuted this. In this sense the modern world exploits us much more thoroughly and with more finesse that the old barons. But if I sat and moaned all day about how exploited I was, I’d probably starve. As for how this applies to whoring, fraud and violence against the ladies is indeed exploitation, which most people feel is a crime. The mutual conset of two or more adults to have sex even if money is involved is not exploitation, it’s a service for a fee. This is so old it is prehuman.
Long live the daughters of joy!
I don’t have access to the original article but back in the late 80’s when surrogate motherhood was just getting recognized, some DA in Oregon brought charges of coercion – I don’t recall under what pretext – against a childless couple who had hired a younger surrogate. What stuck out about this incident was what the DA said created the coercion…
You see, it was the fact that they were PAYING her for her services over and above the hospital and doctors bills that constituted COERCION. If they’d been only paying for the doctors and hospital and the surrogate was willing to donate 9 months of her life, then it wouldn’t have been coercive.
I never did hear the outcome of the case and I can’t find the newspaper clipping that I had kept. One would hope that the DA found himself neck deep but head down in his own bullshit. (That’s probably a vain hope.)
They’re still using that ridiculous argument; I did a column on it in January, and Laura Agustín has written about it as well.
I’m at a loss for words. OMG etc., don’t seem to be strong enough. I had no idea that surrogacy continued to be controversial. Blind spots all around, I suppose.
I didn’t continue to follow the issue because it seem so patently absurd. I thought the jackass in Oregon had to be an aberration and that even the sex-phobic 1xtians couldn’t possibly be against this – it being pro-life and all. I thought that they *might* insist on turkey basters instead of “live cover” but I guess I didn’t reckon on the sex-phobic feminists.
Thanks to the digital age, however, I was able to resurrect the letter to the editor that I sent in response to this news item. From April 12, 1989. (It wasn’t published.)
In reference to surrogate motherhood, the attorney general of Oregon
said: “the exchange of money made this choice involuntary, and rendered this contract unenforceable”. Let us examine the contradictions in the above statement.
First, there is no such thing as an ‘involuntary choice’. This is a contradiction in terms. Choice requires volitional activity on the part of the person making the choice. Involuntary is that which is done without volition, or against one’s will.
Second, it was the exchange of money for the service provided that
rendered “this choice involuntary.” The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that money is some form of coercion.
Therefore, the only way that this transaction could have been considered voluntary is by excluding money from the exchange. Accordingly, the principal of coercion in this context is decided by the presence or absence of money. Let us project this concept into other ‘transactions’ to analyze it’s absurdity.
Let us assume that a man decides to indulge in prostitution. Money is
exchanged. According to the above premise, since the prostitute accepted money, her action is now involuntary. The ‘doctrine of consenting adults’ cannot apply. Therefore, arrests should take place,
not for prostitution (an act of dubious jurisdiction for the state), but of the man involved, for rape.
Where does this place the man that engages in forced sexual intercourse? Since money has not changed hands, the action of the woman involved is apparently voluntary. It would be unjust to call him a rapist.
Under this same premise, a man who works for wages is under involuntary servitude. After all, it ‘was the exchange of money [that] made this choice {to work} involuntary’. We therefore ought to prosecute the employer for slavery. On the other hand, a person who forces men to work for him without pay is dealing in a voluntary transaction.
Having projected the attorney general’s concept into the real world, we see that he is guilty of a moral inversion. This comes from two sources: First, his unwillingness to grant to men and women the intelligence and ability to enter into contractual relationships of a voluntary nature, free of force or fraud. The corollary of this is that the contracts, freely entered into, must be enforced by the courts in order to avoid fraud by the breach of the contract.
The second fallacy that the attorney general indulges in is this: He
makes no differentiation between the power of money, and that of guns.
He maintains that to pay a person money is to force them to comply just as surely as to hold a gun to their head. Remember, “it was the exchange of money that made this choice involuntary.” So, there is no difference between a man who will pay you for your services, and one who mugs you in a back alley. A person who has such difficulty distinguishing between a criminal and an honest citizen should not be in the position of prosecuting criminals.
And, in accord with your post’s theme of “on the other foot” as well as long-standing points made about “he doth protest too much,” I offer this little gem from a formerly dry town in the South.
HARRISON, Ark. (AP) — Dee Gusewelle used to rail against the sale of alcohol, posting signs in her yard and encouraging neighbors and passersby to keep booze out of this patch of northern Arkansas.
But now that her county has dumped its ban on the sale of alcohol, she and her husband are doing something that would have been unthinkable — and illegal — just months ago: opening a liquor store.
Once again, I am speechless. As the foregoing clearly demonstrates 😉
1 sex-phobic is to considered descriptive, not exhaustive.
District Attorneys are paid, aren’t they? So, therefore he was coerced into bringing charges in this surrogacy case and we really can’t hold it against him.
I wonder if this poor unfortunate DA was ever rescued from his life of servitude.
I hereby call for an end to the legal profession, to rescue young, vulnerable legal eagles lured into a wretched life of servitude and selling themselves to any random person that comes along.
Ya know, I bet we’d have a VERY successful campaign with supporters.
Dear Orni and Aspasia,
Now THAT’s a rescue and prohibition movement I could really get behind. So long as we follow type and “rescue and prohibit” them behind bars. For their own safety, of course!
“…Oral presenters at the two sex-worker advocacy panels …”
^^I kind of giggled at that … kind of. 😛
One morning I woke up and realized I’m one of the most intelligent and mature guys on this planet. Then I immediately knew we were all screwed – because I’m not very intelligent or mature!
Where do these idiots come from?
But Maggie – I really think the problem with these folks is they are so stupid they just fall for anything. These people are beating up on sex workers, and then crying when sex workers respond to them – but in reality, they’d be just as “comfortable” protesting on behalf of just about any shallow, self-centered philosophy. I won’t mention any of those “philosophies” just in case someone here buys into one of them, but for crying out loud – even PETA uses nude women to lure men away from their prime rib – they don’t necessarily “demonize” the meat eaters. There’s some brain cells in that method.
I really think this can be blamed on DNA … I think we’ll find it in the human genome – the stupid gene.
Shit … what if I HAVE IT?!!!
Krulac, I think you’re not seeing the real goal of neofeminists: the greatest possible suppression of normal heterosexual male sexuality and the breakdown of normal gender relations in marriage and familial relationships.
These are not just stupid women who want to protest something and don’t care what it is. They have a well thought out agenda.
– even PETA uses nude women to lure men away from their prime rib
I don’t think there’s enough naked in this world for that to happen! And for me, there’s not enough diamonds, pearls, or other lovely material goods in the world for me not to eat meat either.
And we all have the stupid gene, Krulac, it’s just not expressing itself on this topic. 😛
I always have to laugh at the health nuts who insist that if I ate in the currently-fashionable “right” way I could add ten years to my life. I always reply that I’d much rather live for 80 years eating whatever I like than 90 years eating tasteless crap, and sometimes I ask them if they’ve ever tried to estimate how many hours of each day they waste reading about, worrying about and making calculations about so-called “healthy” foods.
Here, here! Enjoyment in life is the only way to live healthy. Exercise, don’t eat like a total hog and it’ll all work out. I have noticed among the vegetarians and vegans I know, there is a marked discomfort with flesh, be it on their own bodies, someone else’s, or that of an animal. The less flesh that surrounds them, the better they feel. Even those who swear up and down that they’re over their body issues. Right.
No, I don’t want it to be “like” bacon or “like” turkey. I want it to BE bacon! BE turkey! Sheesh. Most of that tasteless crap is air and materials we shouldn’t be injesting anyway, so how is that better?
Brilliant! I was just watching Futurama earlier. Love Bender.
There is Truth in what you write. My poor stepmother has pretty much lost her fight with Alzheimer’s. The dementia is so bad, she rarely has lucid moments. What is so deeply unfair about it is that she’s always been a “health nut” – ate heath foods, practiced tai chi, maintained a slender figure, took vitamins and supplements – everything.
Now when she should be enjoying her retirement with my father: dancing, travel, boating, car shows she sleeps most of the day away, shuffles like an ancient hunchback and recognizes only a handful of relatives.
My father and I joked bitterly that if we got her to start drinking and smoking twenty years ago, she’d be still partying like a rock star with her memories and mind intact.
I’m sorry to hear that, Tonja.
I’m sorry to hear it too. Drinking and smoking wouldn’t’ve helped. Some people just don’t have the genes to be a spry elder. My only living grandmother is starting to show signs, so I how unfair and frustrating it is. I hate that Alzheimer’s, and I’ll be so glad when they cure it. It’ll be too late for your stepmother and my grandmother, but still, I’ll be glad when they cure it.
Thank you for your kindness. I feel worse for my poor father who loves this woman so deeply. She has been his friend, lover and partner for 30 years. I feel terrible for her as well, but at least her disease shields her from the terrible frustration and bitterness my father is suffering. She raised three children of her own, devoted her life to a job for 40 years and paid her house off early. Tomorrow night, they should be out dancing after a nice dinner on a Friday night. Instead, she will be in her assisted living facility getting a bath from a nurse while my father eats alone in their empty house.
Alas, my own father is making his way down that staggered path too.
The scientific position is that the underlying cause is genetic, giving rise to protein folding defects in the amyloid and tau proteins in brain neurons.
While a small number of drugs and certain foods can mitigate the symptoms for a while, the underlying cause is untreatable, and the effects are inexorable.
Truly, tonja, you and your family have our sympathy too.
As Redd Fox said, all those health nuts are going to feel really stupid one day when they’re lying in a hospital dying of nothig.
If I die in a tragic accident I want my tombstone to say “Damn, I should of ate that Bacon Cheeseburger instead of bean sprouts.”
My tombstone is going to read:
AGE: 92
CAUSE OF DEATH: GUNSHOT
LAST WORDS: “Honestly, sir, your daughter told me she was eighteen.”
LOL! 😀
And if I remember correctly, you have said those words will be printed verbatim on your tombstone regardless of whether you live to be 92 or older.
And regardless of how I die.
My dads gravestone says ” I knew if I hung around long enough something like this would happen “. I love when you can find humor at the most odd places.
Yes, this is exactly what Dr. Dean Edell used to say when he had his radio show. Why would anyone want to just “live longer” for the sake of it? Those last 20 years are going to be spent in nursing homes and they’re not going to be fun.
The reason we’re tying together health food nuts, vegetarianism and the anti-sex brigade is because all the groups are made up of mostly women (and some pasty-faced men) and all have the Puritan view that pleasure is “wrong,” so they try to make it immoral or illegal for everyone else.
If we banned all meat, junk food, alcohol and sex, these people would simply find something else — like music or sports — to “ban” because of some perceived immorality and wickedness.
To be fair, one reason to “just live longer” is in hopes of living long enough to be around when medical science figures out how to restore youth.
That’s one advantage of believing in reincarnation; I don’t sweat stuff like that. I just live my life as I think best, and I’ll be young again next time I come back.
Yes, I can see the advantage in that. It’s exactly the same advantage as believing in Heaven. There is of course no way for me to prove, to the satisfaction of a non-believer, that either reincarnation or Heaven exists. There is absolutely no way to prove that either does NOT exist, of course. My own position is that I have doubts about Heaven, and even more doubts about reincarnation, but that’s just me.
If medical science ever does find a way to give people practical immortality,* religion is going to lose a lot of power. Nobody’s going to be worried about what happens after death if Death has been executed.
* “Practical immortality” means not so much that you live forever, but that you live for as long as you want to. If after a thousand years you just can’t take the boredom of being alive anymore (a common assumption which nobody alive today is in any position to know), then fine: die. If you never lose your lust for life, then fine: don’t die.
Reincarnation might be fun,and if heaven is anything like what christians describe I’d rather be in hell
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) have a fun variant: you get your own planet. That could be as much fun as Valhalla.
Mormons have another fun idea attributed to their founder. This may not be an exact quote.
“If we ever find ourselves in Hell then we’ll turn the Devil out and make a Heaven of it.”
And correct me if I’m wrong, Maggie, but doesn’t reincarnation also have the possibility of bringing you back as a lower life form? And that vegetarianism in Hinduism (and to a lesser extent, in Buddhism) is a means of avoiding the bad karma of cannibalizing what used to be an ancestor?
The only way to come back as a lower life form is by really, really screwing up your karma. As long as one keeps learning, one keeps ascending.
Yea but to get that ‘prize’ you have to make it to the fifth tier of heavean by being really, REALLY, boring for your entire life.
Mormon theology is an interesting amalgamation of half a dozen kinds of theological crap
Sailor,
I think that this is the same idea that Heinlein used to start “Time Enough for Love” where the oldest living man has finally decided he has nothing left to live for. And, thanks to the scheming of his descendants and one of Maggie’s former profession finds out how wrong he is.
I’ve got TEFL, but haven’t got to it yet. I’m going to give 1984 another try. Really. Pray for me. 😉
Have you read Heinleins’s Job: A comedy of Justice?
Nope. I’ve read Have Spacesuit, Will Travel , Glory Road , Stranger In a Strange Land , The Day After Tomorrow (aka Sixth Column) , Friday , and a collection of short stories including The Menace From Earth and By His Bootstraps. There may be others, but that’s all I remember.
I love Job.
The collection that includes The Menace From Earth is called The Menace From Earth. That makes it very easy to remember. 🙂
Which is probably why I remember the title. 😉 That and the fact that I loved the flying. Didn’t much care for the little bitch who relates the story.
Make sure your anti-depressants are up-to-date.
Re: Heinlein, I liked “Starman Jones,” “Citizen of the Galazy,” and “Tunnel in the Sky” among his juveniles and his “Future History.” Also, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.:
Out of nothing I came into being.
Into nothing I will go.
Out of nothing I may return.
Made me think of these women…
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/liquor.jpg
As I pop the top on another beer. 🙂
“Biggest collection of unkissable lips I ever did see. Pass me the Hootch” 😈
A lot of grown people don’t seem to understand that, “Man, I wish you wouldn’t say that” or even, “Good GOD are you an idiot!!” isn’t an abrogation of free speech. “Now that you’ve said that, here’s why I think you’re wrong” absolutely isn’t an abrogation of free speech.
Some people seem to think “right to free speech” actually means “right to speak unopposed,” and it just doesn’t.
Depends on the context. If your group hires a meeting hall and a group of your opponents march in and start shouting you down, I would definitely say they’re violating your right to free speech, and your supporters’ right to hear what they paid for as well.
OK, but there’s a difference between stopping somebody from speaking (or hearing) and offering a counterpoint to that speech. But yeah, stopping somebody from speaking is not generally a good idea.
I do think there are times when interrupting a speech might be a reasonable thing to do, but only in rare cases and only if the person interrupted still gets a chance to make his point.
How on earth did this sensible post turn into an anti-vegetarian rant? I know quite a number of sex-positive vegetarians (myself included).
I wouldn’t call Aspasia’s comment (or the replies to it) a “rant”, Wendy; I think it’s just one of those odd turns comment threads sometimes take. 🙂
For my own self, I don’t care what beliefs anyone follows (in diet or sex or anything else) so long as they respect my right to follow different ones.
Thank you, Maggie!
And if Wendy had cared to completely read what I wrote, which was, I have noticed among the vegetarians and vegans I know,. To re-emphasize, the ones I know. Not you, Wendy and it has nothing to do with you, so chill.
And as far as another part of response that you could convolute, No, I don’t want it to be “like” bacon or “like” turkey. I want it to BE bacon! BE turkey! Sheesh. Most of that tasteless crap is air and materials we shouldn’t be injesting anyway, so how is that better?, are you saying that eating mock food should constitute a diet? Because I don’t think it should. I have never understood the propensity of (read this part carefully) some vegetarians and vegans to eat mock versions of foods they claim to abhor. Any “food” created to mimic other food is indeed tasteless crap that is filled with air (to give it shape) and bad chemicals (usually MSG to mimic the taste).
I wasn’t singling out your comment.
Actually, you did. You pointed out, I know quite a number of sex-positive vegetarians (myself included). which was a direct reference to my comment about the vegetarians I know who have a lot of discomfort, revealed or not, around sexuality and body flesh. My comment was the only one that pointed this out.
Hey you, a very long time no talk. I had to have a name change several years ago and am now completely retired, but hopefully you remember Thais 😉
I just don’t see how Wendy’s response in any way confirms that mock foods should constitute a diet.
I myself have been increasingly moving towards vegetarian way of eating, and there is an immense variety of delicious whole foods and their combinations available in vegetarian and vegan recipes. That processed crap is not necessary at all. And the nut-based vegan chocolate desserts are some of the most sensual and yet the healthiest I’ve ever tasted, especially if you add some alcohol to the mix.
Here’s a good basic raw chocolate desert, any variations with added spices, ginger or cognac are also great:
http://www.choosingraw.com/raw-chocolate-cake-with-the-wannabe-chef/
I also currently have Apricot Ginger Balls in my fridge, for which I don’t have a recipe as they are store bought, but suspect you just throw the following into the food processor: dates, dried apricots, raw walnuts, cacao powder, and squeeze some orange and ginger, and keep adjusting until the result is to die for.
Dear Ingrid Nevin, thank you for this information! There’s more and more vegetarian options in grocery stores these days (including frozen foods…the horror…eyeroll) so a lot of progress has been made. I say give credit where it’s due like you’re doing here!
I remember you. 🙂 Drop me a line if you ever come through Chicago again! Hopefully with more time to visit!
Wendy didn’t give that response but as I said in mine, I was trying to forestall her attempt to again convolute what I said.
A lot of the time with a new invention and/or technology, it’s not the best when it’s new. This applies to foods also. A lot of progress has been made with vegetarian foods. People do the best they can with what materials, etc., they have when starting out.
Considering vegetarian foods and cuisines have been around for millennia, there was no need to invent mock versions of meat or animal by products (like eggs, for example). It has nothing to do with “making do” since vegetables and grains are not new to humanity, human diets or to the supermarket. It’s very easy to eat vegetarian as I do it especially when I can’t afford to buy meat. But, in my opinion, “mock” meats has everything to do with being a hypocrite. The only vegetarians I know who eat “mock” meat are the ones who are political vegetarians (although, those are the majority of the ones I know) and despite their convictions against eating animal flesh and wearing animal skins (except, curiously, leather for a lot of them– again, some hypocrisy at work) being strong enough to harass coworkers about meal choices or to throw red paint on a woman’s fur coat* or to make their carnivorous pets eat a vegetarian diet**, they still want the aesthetic look of a well-roasted but very dead turkey on a platter. I’m sorry but if the idea of killing and consuming an animal disturbs them so, why have the ultimate form of that “inhumane” (their words) act presented on a plate just because it’s made with materials not found anywhere in nature?
I know a lot of vegetarians, political and otherwise. Some are tolerable, a lot aren’t in my experience. The ones who are open-minded, however, tend to be older. The ones who aren’t usually tend to be under 30 years old, and still very set on ideologies learned in college that they’ve yet to apply to the real world interacting with people who don’t share their views.
*I asked two of my political vegetarian coworkers why they have participated in such acts before, which are always against women and older women at that yet will not do the same to, say, a biker covered head to toe in leather, they had no actual response but a lot of hedging.
**This one claimed that it’s “not natural” for animals to eat other animals.
Humans are omnivores who can get by on a vegan diet without dying (though without artificial dietary supplements or expensive, weird foods from the four corners of the Earth they’ll suffer malnutrition). And dogs are quasi-omnivores who, though they crave meat above all else, can get by on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet if they eat special chemically-fortified vegan dog food. But cats are obligate carnivores; though vegan pet food manufacturers insist that the yummy chemicals they add to their vegetable muck will satisfy cats’ nutritional needs, very few vets agree with this claim and point out that a cat deprived of proper food by its owner will simply hunt more birds, mice, etc when outside. While at my nail parlor a few months ago I saw a television show on Animal Planet where they had to seize several dozen cats from a woman who kept them trapped in her apartment and fed them only vegan pet foods; some were only slightly malnourished, others extremely ill and several had to be put to sleep because they had suffered severe brain and organ damage.
I support the right of every person to use, abuse, deprive or mutilate his own body as he sees fit, but he has no right to starve animals. Vegans who feel their dietary preferences should also apply to their pets need to keep herbivorous animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs or birds and leave the carnivorous pets to those who will feed them properly.
Sheila Jeffreys claims penis-in-vagina sex is unnatural. Some people are just so out of touch with Nature and reality it constitutes a psychosis.
Dear Wendy, thanks for speaking up! Yes, many vegetarians don’t fit the ###*** stereotype of the 1’s who literally order people around, attack people who wear furs, destroy property (like some in PETA), etc. If I’m reaching too far to also mention some of the animal rights people in connection with what you’re saying, please correct me. I personally see a connection between them and the vegetarians. Also, some people have physical health problems that are HUGELY affected by their diets. This is often through no fault of their own. The actress Halle Berry is an example of this (she has diabetes and is thin). Diabetes and heart disease are 2 diseases that are HUGELY affected by diet. There’s other diseases besides these hugely affected by the diets of the people who have them. An example is I have panic disorder and can’t tolerate many artificial sweeteners. I’ve tried them more than once to see if the effects have changed and they haven’t. They greatly aggravate the disorder. There’s many others with panic who have this same issue. Those who don’t have any health problems that aren’t affected by diet are very blessed. Many people have to watch what they eat/drink closely in order to manage their conditions as best as possible. I say thank God for those who have an open mind towards trying different foods, etc., to get better health, etc. This can be done without literally ordering anyone around. The 1’s who do this have the right to speak out about the benefits of their diets. It’s thanks to them that my life has been greatly helped by the natural sweetener called stevia. It has no calories, has no effect on blood sugar and is 100% natural. It doesn’t affect my panic disorder in any way. There’s room in the world for ALL in this area: those who need to eat certain foods for their physical health problems, those who want to eat a certain way because of how they feel about animals, ecology, etc., and those who don’t want any part of that. Thanks for listening.
I think it’s significant that these radical ‘feminists’ often refer to the Capitalist nature of prostitution as one of its evil qualities. They don’t even attempt to justify this indictment. They apparently see Capitalism as so self-evidently wrong that there’s no need to explain their reasoning. This shows how clearly isolated they are from mainstream American culture, as well as indicating the likely Marxian origin of their philosophical underpinnings.
Exactly so; one of the subject entries for this column is “Marxism”. I covered the Marxist objection to prostitution in my October 10th, 2010 column:
I’m reminded very strongly of certain figures among the Religious Right who have been complaining about being “oppressed” for being called out on things like anti-gay statements. The neofeminists, like the religionists, have had the podium so long, any contrary statement infuriates them.
This is another reminder than neofeminism really is a radical secular religion. And like many radical religions — secular or divine — the one thing they can not stand is apostates.
I’m always amazed when an American Christian claims that Christians in America are persecuted. In Vietnam or some parts of the Muslim world persecution of Christians includes being killed. In America, “persecution” consists of somebody with no power to do you any harm whatsoever calling you a dumbass. Not anybody with power, mind you — they wouldn’t dare. Too many votes to lose. In some parts of the world, being a Christian is illegal; in America, Christians get little cultural perks other religions do not (there’s arguments about “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but “one nation under Vishnu” was never there to begin with).
Sailor wrote:
“one nation under Vishnu” was never there to begin with
Loved this. If we had karma points you’d be +100
You might enjoy this handout from what I believe to be an ecumenical conference:
http://convention.myacpa.org/archive/programs/Boston10/Handouts/446/ChristianPrivilegeHandout.pdf
From your cited page.
I can have a “Jesus is Lord” bumper sticker or Icthus (Christian Fish) on my car and not worry about someone vandalizing my car because of i
One of my devout siblings complained about the “evolutionary” version of the Icthus and said they “stole” it from the Xtians. I asked, “Oh, you mean like the Xtians stole it from the Orphic mystery cults?”
My favorite version is this one:
OMG I nearly passed out laughing, do they acctually sell those? or is it just a photo?
Yep. You can buy yours from Arkham Bazaar, a site I highly recommend.
Or, if you happen to be a devout Pastafarian.
Wonderful, another Cthulhu fan!!!
Oh, definitely; Lovecraft was one of the few authors to whom I introduced my cousin Jeff rather than the other way around (another was, strangely enough, Fritz Leiber).
And speaking of CTHULHU…
My favorite bumpersticker in 2008 was,
CTHULHU 2008
WHY VOTE FOR A LESSER EVIL?
This handout caused me to laugh a lot (and I mean laugh to keep from screaming). While they make some good points, overall this could win an award for constant negativity, stereotyping, willfully ignoring persecution in the US, etc., towards Christians. Whoever wrote this is willfully in denial about the persecution that does go on in the US (which is the verbal/written kind). Of course, there’s no mention of the many Christians who DON’T fit these things. Of course not! That’s not “with it”. That’s not “in”. The wonderful world system tells us that any group that has beliefs that you hate to begin with is to be trashed at all times! Don’t you dare mention even a few who don’t fit the ###***! Can’t have that. We have to go along with: individuals don’t have power and don’t count and the same for small groups and either of these don’t change the “RULES” either! What’s hilarious is at least some of these “RULES” are made up by people who deep down want everyone to be just like THEM. These people are also in willful denial of the physical persecution that goes on outside the US. This is an example of why the real Christian preachers in the US (and there’s at least a few) see at least some in ecumenical movement as liars, etc., about Christianity. I’ve seen a lot of other stuff just like this thing, unfortunately. Their hate for the whole belief system to begin with is obvious and sad. I can only imagine what they’d write up about Islam! Wait…that would be a GOOD thing, wouldn’t it?
Dear Sailor B, the persecution in the US is the written/verbal kind. You get this mixed up with the PHYSICAL persecution in other parts of the world. It’s wonderful you’ve always shown an open mind towards this information. I love the 1’s who say “there’s no one being put in prison anymore for being a Christian. That’s from the “good old days”! There’s no one being tortured,etc.” RIGHT! All it takes to disprove this is to check out the organization Voice of the Martyrs. They have a ton of information on the persecution all over the world and thanks to their work have greatly lowered the amount of persecution overall. YES! There’s more work to be done, unfortunately, but this group keeps going no matter what ###*** they get. The written/verbal persecution in the US is disgusting. I’ve gotten it from some in my so-called “family” which isn’t rare, unfortunately. It’s more than just being called a “dumbass”. Believers get sworn at using other terms besides “dumbass”, lied about, stereotyped, etc., constantly. Words DO hurt people, but not physically. They hurt the inside of a person. Anyone who’s ever been verbally abused in any way knows this. What’s disgusting is in the US this ###*** is seen as strength and being “tough” and “above it all”. I’m very glad many Christians defend themselves against it (I’m 1 of them) and won’t let it ever stop them for speaking out, etc. This ###*** towards the Muslims in and out of the US is also just disgusting and evil. It’s gotten worse since 9/11, unfortunately. But, there’s many Muslims fighting back…YES! This stuff does hurt people inside, but it’s up to those who get it to work on healing it plus not letting it break them EVER. The worst kind of hurt comes from years of verbal abuse, especially from a parent and/or other close family members. But, again, it takes work to recover from this and it can be done which has been proven by many. The verbal/written ###*** that Christians and Muslims (and other groups) get in the US is on a lot smaller scale, but this doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. You say those in power choose not to do the physical persecution. Their reasons for that aren’t just the 1 you mention: they don’t dare. They also have the reason that they don’t want to treat people like ###*** and thank God for that reason!
The ones in power don’t dare do the verbal stuff, either. Christians are the only religion in the US with enough political power that politicians and high-ranking government employees feel a need to cater to them. They are careful not to actively offend Jews, Muslims (but see below), etc. But only Christians are catered to.
OK everybody, I swear it’s really me here. You’re about to doubt this because I’m going to say something nice about… George W. Bush.
Immediately after 9/11/01, there was a rash of violence and vandalism in the US directed at Muslims. George W. Bush showed the sort of leadership a president should show and and denounced that. When a lot of people wanted to blame Islam in general, Bush was the grown-up in the room and said that an entire religion should not be scapegoated for the actions of the very worst among them. Good on him.
Don’t expect me to praise him often.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I don’t think much of any U.S. president since Theodore Roosevelt, but I can find something good to say about nearly every one of them.
Laura,
There must be a clear distinction between words and acts if one is to maintain a civil society. If I disagree with you and say so in forthright terms, that does not constitute persecution. Even if I indulge in ad hominem, I may be guilty of a bad argument, but not of persecution.
When Sean Hannity accuses Harry Brown of being a pothead instead of attempting to answer Brown’s arguments about prohibition, he is indulging in ad hominem NOT persecution. That doesn’t change the fact that Sean Hannity is a s**thead. (That’s a statement of fact, not persecution.)
For an example of what real persecution looks like on this topic, take a look at Peter McWilliams, a case which Maggie has brought up before.
The attempt to define free speech, even offensive free speech as persecution is wrong on two levels. On the first level, it leads, inevitably, to the kind of “Political Correctness” that the left is so famous for. And, as Todd Gitlin points out, the religious right had their own version of “Political Correctness” in some of the Ivy League schools prior to the 1950’s. Note that both forms of “Correctness” stand in contrast to Truth.
Secondly, it trivializes actual persecution. You know, the ones where people are actually physically harmed by the initiation of force?
“Hate speech” is a dangerous false concept because it requires that the government, instead of protecting rights, to become the judge of what is appropriate speech and what is not. Look at the proceedings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on this topic if you want to see an embodiment of this false concept and how easily it will run amok.
Conflating physical assault with verbal assault – the first being actual and the second being a figure of speech – opens the door to a government that considers the appropriately forceful response to the first as also being valid to the second.
And that leads to instances where speech is met with violence and is considered justified. Look at the fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Danish cartoonists. Attempts to define speech as persecution will lead to more instances of actual persecution not less.
For an example of where that mindset leads, read this entry on Persecution. Notice how this organization is, in their own opinion, absolved of all possible charges of persecution whilst visiting it upon their opposition. Note that they also charge those who verbally disagree with them as persecutors. And the fact that their moral standards are not used to coerce others under color of law as another species of persecution.
Dear c andrew, thanks for your thoughts on this. I learned about Peter McWilliams years ago from Sailor Barsoom on here. Some of the news hosts I listen to have also mentioned him. I’m with you on many things you’re saying here. I also know how devastating true verbal abuse is (personal experience) and also true persecution of Christians and those in other belief systems is. When I talk about these things it doesn’t mean I want the people like Salman Rushdie arrested. I’m sorry if I give that impression. I’m just very tired of people being talked to like trash, lied about (like your example of Harry Brown), sworn at like they’re trash, constantly stereotyped, have no tact used towards them and this ###*** mentality that to do these things is not only OK but a sign of strength. I’ve found some examples of NON-written/verbal Christian persecution in the US (the 1’s I found involve actual physical violence and also arrest for handing out Bibles peacefully and only giving them to people who want them, etc.) and will post them. Thanks again for your thoughts and I have more to say on this and will do that when I can.
For all our talk about freedom, Americans are about the most authority loving and worshiping people around. We’re packed full of little fascists in lover with power over others, and authority.
Any tragedy and you’ll have some idiot bawling for yet another law named after a victim. Usually an intrusive and ineffective one.
The law-lovers are even more enthusiastic about laws intruding on private behavior and arrangements, even among consenting adults.They cannot rest until everyone likes, or is forced to like exactly what they do. Often, they use personal trauma as a club to back up their desire for more restrictions. “I’m a rape victim, how dare you watch porn!” If so, then don’t watch it. But don’t force the restrictions of your trauma on others.
I put it down to strong religious feelings here. Once you worship an ultimate authority in the sky, it’s so much easier to carry that to authorities down here.
I wrote a column a year ago, “The Love-Hate Relationship“, about the weird conflict between love of freedom and authority-worship in the American mind
I believe this is because, at least for a large part of our history, we’ve been the only country on earth with a written constitution that was mainly about protecting freedom of choice for individuals and was moderately effective in actually doing so.
I still hope it can be that way again. The only alternative, a civil war, would be pretty bad and I’m not at all sure the good guys would win.
Oh, the hypocrisy. Quote:
“But to call abolitionist feminists names, to “study” them as a phenomenon of violence against women”
Yet Melissa Farley can “study” prostitutes to her heart’s content.
Seriously, I am still waiting for the Ab-Fems to demand that Eliot Spitzer be tried on the Mann Act, and for Charlie Sheen to be hauled into court for “buying women in prostitution”. I wonder what’s holding them back?