When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free. – Charles Evans Hughes
Language changes over time; words come and go, and new words are used in place of older ones. One word which was common in my youth but has since declined sharply in popularity is “chauvinism”, meaning “blind and fanatical devotion to something”. A chauvinist is one who believes his own group, belief system or whatever is superior to all others and refuses to even consider the possibility that it is not so; usually, he is willing to use state violence to enforce his own views. So although we’ve devised a plethora of neologisms over the past several decades, usually ending in “-ism” or “-phobia” and often cumbersome, awkward or improperly derived, we actually don’t need any of them because “chauvinism” covers the whole spectrum without having to add yet another term to the ever-growing list. Furthermore, the word correctly places the stress where it belongs, on the bigot rather than on those toward whom his bigotry is directed, and thereby makes the behavior pattern far more obvious.
When one accepts at face value the excuses by which chauvinists justify their positions, the true connections between those actions may be obscured or even wholly invisible. But once attention is focused on the chauvinism itself rather than on its targets, the connections suddenly appear. Take, for example, the current moral panic over “human trafficking”, a term so nebulously defined that it is nearly impossible to make any valid factual statements about it at all. Looking at the various phenomena to which the label is applied – exploitative labor, arranged marriage, unorthodox immigration, usury, surrogate motherhood, sex work, even attempted rape – it’s difficult to understand how they’re connected other than the fact that most of them involve sex, travel or both. Furthermore, sometimes things which clearly seem to fit the popular definition aren’t called “trafficking” at all, especially when a government or multi-national corporation is the “trafficker”.
But if one stops listening to the claims of those who spread the hysteria, and instead looks for common factors, it soon boils down to chauvinism: every single one of the things called “trafficking” is a transgression against conventional middle-class white Western ideas of morality and propriety. Nobody is concerned about immigrants doing awful work that middle-class people don’t want, so this is rarely labeled “trafficking” even when it clearly fits the standard definition; but because sex work offends both conservative Christian and radical feminist notions about “proper” female behavior, it is labeled “trafficking” even when it clearly involves neither travel nor coercion. Once we recognize that Euro-American chauvinism has become widespread enough to maintain a xenophobic panic, one can also predict that other forms of institutionalized bigotry around issues of sex and travel should be popular right now, and indeed that is the case: In Europe we see persistent attempts to ban pornography and Muslim clothing, and in the US assaults on abortion rights and mass deportations. Superficially, these things may seem to be unrelated, but in actuality they are all motivated by exactly the same thing: the quest to purge from Western society everyone who is different from “us”. Our persons, practices and ways of life are assumed to be superior to everyone else’s, so obviously every nonconformity is a contaminant to be removed, by violence if necessary.
There is one exception, but it proves the rule. Gay rights was for a very long time an uphill battle, especially in the pathologically-prudish United States. Yet in the past few years, opposition to the cause has quickly withered and died with astonishing speed…astonishing, that is, to anyone who fails to take chauvinism into account. If one insists that the cause of opposition to gay rights is “homophobia”, in other words a particular aversion to homosexuals, the rapid turn of the tide makes no sense whatsoever. But when one realizes that the same hatred is dispensed to anyone who is outside the norm, the reason for the change becomes clear: same-sex marriage. While gay people were chanting “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”, progress was achingly slow. But once they started to stress how little different they were from heterosexuals – “Look, we even want to get married and form families like you do, see?” – opposition to granting them rights rapidly dissolved. Once the majority came to see gay people as sufficiently “normal”, their chauvinism was no longer an issue; the same can be said for European Muslims who adopt Western dress. The problem is not any specific form of bigotry against race, religion, sexuality or anything else; it’s a general bigotry against anyone who is viewed as the “other”. And that is why the chief purpose of my own blog is to demonstrate how typical sex workers actually are; once the majority realizes that we are not dangerous “outsiders” determined to bring down their culture, they will stop treating us like an infection to be eradicated or quarantined.
(This essay first appeared on Cliterati on April 7th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.)
//Gay rights was for a very long time an uphill battle, especially in the pathologically-prudish United States. //
Especially? You mean as compared to Iran, where they just go ahead and hang boys and young men like a string of dogs?
Agree with everything but that one statement. The US has hardly cornered the market on what you call “prudishness”.
I think she meant among countries that generally claim to support the rights of human freedom. Keyword being claim, of course. I don’t think Iran goes around claiming they stand for human rights and individual freedoms.
Bingo. It’s not hypocrisy when someone says “I am a repressive moralist” and then acts exactly that way. Apples and oranges.
I tend to see Iran as a real world version of Orwell’s 1984, a depressing nightmare where good people are crushed by the power of an insane state:
http://www.vice.com/en_se/read/vice-dj-mixes-vol-1
“As I was eating this girl out, I was very aware that I didn’t want to die. I’ve never had sex thinking I might be executed for it before, but I kind of trusted the hosts, because they were obviously so rich.”
It’s a pretty low bar to put the United States above that.
//I tend to see Iran as a real world version of Orwell’s 1984…//
From what I’ve been reading of Iran, even that doesn’t do justice to this real world nightmare. However, that said, a sizable portion of the population strongly supports the right wing, conservative and theocratic rulership. If you’re an authoritarian, theocratic, right-winger, then Iran is a kind of libertarian Utopia. You can make your own laws and murder those who disagree with you with absolute impunity. Religious fundamentalists never had it better than in Iran.
//I think she meant among countries that generally claim to support the rights of human freedom. //
Even in that regard, Maggie’s assertion holds no water. Just what countries are we talking about? If you Google LGBT rights, you’ll find that Wikipedia doesn’t back up her assertion.
I specifically state what countries I’m talking about; “Western society” and “Euro-American” are right there in the text.
Okay: A.) You’re right, It’s “right there in the text”. You did *not* use the catch-all phrases “Western society” or “Euro-American” in the same context (LGBT rights) as when you massively generalized about the US. B.) LGBT rights in the US actually were ahead of the curve in the US. Vermont granted civil unions in the year 2000, politicians in France (just this last week) are getting death threats because of their gay marriage votes over a decade later.
You assertions don’t hold water. The US is a big place. In some places (South) we’re as backward as the Taliban, in other places, we’re far ahead.
Well, golly, you’re right! Right after Stonewall, most states and the federal government all said, “Gee, gay folks, we’re sorry for treating you like freaks! We won’t do it anymore!” And by 1971, the majority of discrimination against gay people was gone. It wasn’t an uphill battle AT ALL; all that blaming them for AIDS, and taking their kids away in divorces, and stuff like that NEVER HAPPENED. Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003? A mere technicality, because none of those laws were ever ever EVER being enforced anyhow. So I’m wrong and you’re right, and you can be happy.
None of what you wrote has anything, whatsoever, to do with my own objection. If you want to pretend that the US is “especially prudish” (and if only we were as enlightened as that utopia known as Europe or Canada), that’s your business, but not all of your readers are going to buy into your own special brand of chauvinism.
You know, I guess it comes with the territory, Maggie. You’re a powerful voice and common sense one: you’re listened to; consulted; and have an important perspective. You’re outspoken. I guess it’s to be expected that you’re also going to undercut the seriousness of your arguments with stupid and vapid generalizations that serve no other purpose than to goad both readers and opponents. All pundits do it, and in that respect you share certain traits with individuals like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, O’Reilly. It’s why they’re listened to and why you’re listened to. It’s all so simple and black and white. If only…
You’re right, Will, I’m a pundit, and I make black and white generalizations; why, my writing is full of it! And here’s one: I’m heartily sick of your trolling.
I can feel the passion in this one, Maggie – but when you say …
I’m not sure I totally agree with that.
Kristallnact was coordinated by the Nazi party – and by Hitler himself in order to move public opinion against the Jews. It was a violent conspiracy.
Not sure you can assign that label to what’s going on here. Things aren’t nearly that coordinated and I think the motivations of some people are incorrect but many are simply expressing views they think are right.
Now – you keep mentioning assaults on abortion rights …
A strange thing has happened – it was predictable too. As medical technology has progressed – what WAS NOT a “viable fetus” in 1960 today very often is. The PROGRESSVE insistence of keeping late- term abortion protected has now MOVED the argument from ABORTION … to INFANTACIDE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtpdYlcbVRQ
Skip ahead to 2:50 on the video.
Why in the hell … if an abortion provider believes that she’s simply removing a piece of tissue … why does she send the remains of that “tissue” to a FUNERAL HOME? Why are the remains cremated and why is she so intent on telling women that the ashes will spread … “IN NATURE”??
Do you do that with a lump of cancer? Do you do that with a kidney stone? Clearly – this is proof positive that these people performing these abortions KNOW they are killing life – otherwise they wouldn’t take such steps to cover everyone’s consciences.
If you want to talk about Kristallnact – the Left’s support of late term abortion to me – is every bit as coordinated as what the Nazi’s did to the Jews.
I think abortion should be available – but it should be RARE. And I think Leftists need to start arguing from a position of good-faith in what they actually believe in – INFANTACIDE. Put the argument on truthful grounds and you’ll find most women will avoid late term abortions like the plague.
Just want to clarify – I WOULD NOT restrict late term abortions. I just want the real facts out there because smart women will avoid them if we start being honest in this discussion – smart women don’t want anything to do with the progressive eugenics agenda of acceptable infanticide.
For the women who do choose them – they can deal with Karma. I will tell you this – I have never met a woman who had a child express regrets about having that child. However – I have met SEVERAL women who’ve had abortions who later regretted it – and one I know is scarred for life.
This is the price of freedom of choice. The information was there, you cannot force them to understand it.
// I will tell you this – I have never met a woman who had a child express regrets about having that child.//
It’s called “adoption”. There are plenty of women who give up their children for adoption and have no desire to be contacted by them. Before you jump all over me, I’m not defending late term abortion or even, for that matter, abortion, but there are plenty of women who “regret” having a child. One mother, who was later contacted by their child, claimed the child had “ruined her life”. That comes from “Dear Prudence” on Slate Magazine. You can find hyperbole and extreme emotions on both sides of the issue.
The trouble is, the people who use late term abortions for propaganda are usually the same people who want to make sure teenagers cannot get access to the morning after pill until it’s too late.
I threw a funeral for a stuffed lobster than got blown off the boat while we were out at sea when I was little. Its doesn’t have to be alive, or even animate, in order for humans to form an attachment to it.
I know you have strong feelings about what is and is not murder, but your thinking is flawed.
1) Late term abortions will always be rare. Always. And they will usually have a damn good reason for them too.
2) The point is not about protecting the rights of what may or may not be a person. The point is that criminalization of abortion protects no one, and can only hurt women and unborn babies.
Legal proceedings cannot save an unborn child. Legal actions takes months, even years, and a baby can go from early to late trimester before the paperwork can even be processed. A pregnant woman may end up dieing because she could not get the permission she needed to have a life saving abortion. A child may loose a parent because of “attempted infanticide” in the form of “reckless endangerment” by eating blue cheese or having a glass of wine, or something absurd like that.
You cannot involve the justice system until after the child is a self sufficient individual (as in, they are alive without the help of the mother’s body. Not can be, ARE). Up until that point, you can only make things worse for every one, and put human rights on a slippery slope to women no longer owning their bodies if they happen to get pregnant.
First of all the term “rare” is meaningless to the individual who happens to be the “rare” exception. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument – you wouldn’t let me get away with saying … “Innocent deaths are very RARE in Capital Punishment” … so why should I allow you to get away with saying LTA’s are “rare”?
You might have a case for saying “rare” – if you could prove it. However, the CDC doesn’t keep statistics on abortions carried out late term past 20 weeks (this is another dishonest element of the Progressive Eugenicists – they don’t want you to know the precise body count). Because there’s no real data on this – every thing you and I say about LTA’s being “rare” or “frequent” is pure speculation.
You and I agree on Pro-Choice – I stated flatly I wouldn’t restrict them.
Look at this way – I’m a strong advocate for legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. However, I don’t do drugs – and I think they are disgusting. I laugh when people try to tell me that Marijuana has some kind of medical benefit (can liberals EVER be honest about their true motivations??). Sooo – if drugs are ever decriminalized you can expect for Krulac to “evangelize” frequently against their use. But I won’t step in the way of the dunderheads who refuse to listen.
The problem I have – and the problem these new videos highlight – is we have a bunch of individuals who BELIEVE they are killing babies and have no problem with it. Again – why emphasize to a woman that her fetus’ ashes would be “spread to nature”? This is simply an attempt to smooth-over the woman’s trepidations about killing her child. Look at the latter part of the video – and the Abortion Services Worker actually uses the word “baby” quite frequently to describe what all Progressives tell me – is a lifeless hunk of flesh. Look at it – she’s saying “The baby doesn’t normally come out in one piece”.
All I’m asking for – is honesty – truth in advertising for what this really is.
Now – when Maggie talks about “attacks on abortions” – well, a lot of those attacks are fueled by people who recognize the argument is less than honest. They recognize that the argument has progressed from abortion to infantacide. And yet – the people who feel this way are still “slurred” with the label “control freaks”.
Let’s get this straight – the guys pulling Jews out of the concentration camps in Germany were NOT control freaks. They thought they had a moral duty to do it (they did have one in my opinion).
Those who oppose – especially late term abortions aren’t control freaks either – they believe they are doing a moral thing and protecting innocent life.
You will not win the Pro-Choice argument until you argue HONESTLY. All over the South – the issue of Pro-Choice is LOST. There is one abortion clinic in Mississippi – and the doctor that works there has to be protected by security. It’s about to close to.
Argue honestly – find the middle ground – you will have to do something distasteful – you will have to compromise with those you hate.
You brought up rare. I was assuming you meant statistically. Though you do make a good point about it being a dishonest argument, so is the whole “if it saves even one life!” argument your using to refute it. Also, I would let you use it to argue against “even one wrongly executed innocent invalidates the system”. Both are pointless and irrelevant. I’ll refute that statement now argument now, so I won’t keep being a hypocrite 😉
I read the “I wouldn’t criminalize it” blurb after I posted this, it being all separate. Sorry! 🙂
And, the active ingredient in marijuana does have medical benefits, just like morphine, and, you know, all drugs used medically. Hence why they use the same word- “drug”. However, I agree, its dishonest to use that as an argument for legalization.
Just say “you don’t have the right to tell people what they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own home/body” and be done with it. (Which is my abortion argument in a nutshell. Its the pregnant lady’s body. Its very sad if she kills a proto-baby that would have gone on to live wonderful productive lives, but also irrelevant to the law. Its equally sad when a kid dies because their parents got into a car accident.)
Also, I think the problem here is the dishonesty of pretending “if we just called it murder, everyone would agree its wrong” Not so. Hence self-defense laws.
Its not an easy decision to have an abortion. I’m SUPER careful so that I’ll never need to make that decision. If I did have too, I wouldn’t want some moralizing jerk-ass to come and start screaming at me about it. For either side of the argument. And I might just give it a funeral. I say sorry if I accidentally crush a ladybug crawling on my face, and that’s a hell of a lot less stressful than choosing to abort a baby.
I hear you- claiming “no, its not wrong! Its not really killing a person!” is a terrible! way to argue for abortion rights. Anti-abortionists who use this argument are pleased as punch when they hear it, because they know they’ve already won, the other side has admitted that they have the moral high ground.
Which is why I’ve never said whether I think its right or wrong, or even hinted at using that argument- all I’ve said is that you can’t stop it by making it illegal, and you’ve no right to anyway (because to do so is to clearly say that a woman does not have legal ownership of her body while she is pregnant. Which is so, so very wrong).
I mean, if the anti-abortionists where honest, they’d admit that is exactly what they want- woman to NOT have control over their own body while they are pregnant.
Not to mention, just because their intentions are good- they want to protect what they feel are little innocent pre-baby humans- doesn’t mean that the result their fighting for will actually protect anyone. In this case, it won’t protect anyone, or at least not without giving up irrefutable rights and putting millions of women in potentially mortal danger.
Lets be honest about what we are arguing for- we’re not arguing the right or wrongness of killing unborn babies, we’re arguing about the right or wrongness about the government seizing control of a woman’s body while she is pregnant in order to protect what may or may not be a viable human baby. Is it worth the cost of one life to safe one life (we’ll call it an even exchange, what with the not certainty of birth and the not certainty of maternal complications)? Is it worth the sacrifice of freedom to gain the security of survival.
I mean, I say “no, not worth it, duh”, I’m fairly certain you say no also, but the anti-abortionists had better get it through their moralizing skulls that they are saying yes. Which, you know, is their stupid right, I guess. Just please not in this country.
You don’t need to compromise to get the point across, you just need to argue what’s important.
It’s similar to Maggie’s “harm reduction” argument for the decriminalization of prostitution. She doesn’t argue whether its right or wrong to be a whore (in this case), she argues that it doesn’t matter whether its right or wrong because criminalization does jack to stop it, it only creates worse problems than its trying to solve, and violates individual rights of freedom too-boot. This is an argument that does not need to compromise (truly, to compromise here is to willfully give up rights of personal freedom, which I think is worth fighting for), and to argue against it is to be a willfully ignorant chauvinist.
(P.S. I know your pro-choice and all, and I get you feel the need to express your opinion about how vile you think abortion is, but right now there are to many anti-abortionists in this country for me too let any support, even indirect, for their oppressive cause to go unchallenged. Its a heck of a lot easier to prevent prohibitionist laws then to get them overturned, after all 🙂
Oh jeez, that was long. Sorry Maggie!
You need to argue HONESTLY with me. I never said that LTA’s should be restricted because “it will save a single life”. Hell – I never said LTA’s should be restricted.
Then let me blow up your “nutshell” dear.
It’s not an argument about numbers. It’s not an argument about privacy. It’s a philosophical argument about how far great civilizations should go in protecting their citizenry. And I’m sorry – but the Progressives have continually dodged the question. Why is it okay to ABORT a fetus 5 minutes before it’s born naturally after full gestation – but then KILLING it when it emerges is wrong? That position makes no philosophical or scientific sense. Now – you can say that’s a rare condition – and I’d agree. However, philosophically – you have to explain the position on this in order for everyone to get a good idea of exactly what you’re advocating with abortion as a whole.
Why did Progressives applaud when Michael Vick was sentenced to jail time? Mike Vick killed his own dogs – or those dogs of his friends who wanted them killed. The dogs he fought were his. Yet somehow – he’s the epitome of evil for killing these dogs?
But, meanwhile – there are abortion doctors who perform LTA’s on viable human fetuses (excuse me – let me use THEIR terminology from the video …”babies”) and PROGRESSIVES HAIL THESE PEOPLE AS HEROES.
That’s just the world turned upside down. In fact, even though I’m PRO-CHOICE, don’t believe that will ever stop me from punching an LTA abortion provider square in the nose should I ever meet one.
Woah. Okay, so you know no doctor would ever call a full term (as in more than 37 weeks) anything other than a fully grown baby? Realize that you sound ridiculous for using that argument. When does the abortion become infanticide? When they baby exists the mother and is alive with a reasonable chance of survival. Which means 24 weeks. Which is what the laws says.
You really need to stop ignoring what I say in favor of lumping me is with “progressives” or what even you label of choice is. Seriously.
Also, yeah, its about how far big government should go. And in order to determine that, you need to consider the numbers, the violations of personal freedom, and whether or not passing a law will actually do anything.
You know it won’t, I know it won’t, and we agree that the price is too high. And that’s the nutshell, still intact after your botched bombing attempt.
My dear Krulac,
As to your question about funeral homes, it is because increasingly hospitals are unwilling to dispose of biological waste they do not create, and funeral homes have ovens for cremation.
“Do you do that with a lump of cancer? Do you do that with a kidney stone?”
Probably not; but there are people (read: Irish priests) who want to be buried intact. So, if they have to have an amputation, the leg will be buried in their (eventual) grave, awaiting the rest of them.
Depends on the Hospital and circumstance. Medical waste IS medical waste. Storing body parts for long periods is at best problematical. Freezer burn, etc.
Yes, where I usually see this is when the US is confronted by some country (I’ve seen it with Japan and Brazil, but there are probably other examples) that have freer expression in certain segments of their societies then our supposedly “freest society in the Universe” or whatever superlative we use to describe our often self-censoring, occasionally Puritanical culture. (One comment that I read over and over again is, “If I wanted to see women who looked like that, I’d watch a porno movie,” this being freedom in America, kicking certain fully clothed depictions of the female form into the porn ghetto.)
This doesn’t mean that those cultures are actually freer than our, just that in some aspects of expression, they don’t practice as much reflexive self-censorship (or public shaming, if somebody didn’t get the memo about certain figures being unacceptable to draw) as we do here. It isn’t consistent either, because some forms of media are seen as for children only here, some are mainly for adults and some are held so sacred that they actually have large organizations willing to defend them (books mainly, which don’t have pictures).
An aside: When I was a child my love for women made me a “male chauvinist pig,” meaning that I supposedly felt men were superior to women, though I never quite got that logical leap. Shouldn’t it mean the opposite? Or at least be neutral?
Nowadays, though, as a middle aged man, when a woman makes my heart sing, it makes me a “misogynist,” meaning that I hate women. Again, the logic of the accusation escapes me, and it seems to be a big escalation from chauvinist.
Here’s a good example of the kind of chauvinism I mean, regarding Brazilian children’s show host Xuxa: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980220&slug=2735523
The pregnancy stuff is not the main thing I mean, but the first part of the article is basically “she’s too sexy to be a children’s show host” though not for Brazil, apparently.
Huh? What? Xuxa!? Let me read…
That’s from 1998. The belly bump turns fourteen in July. Yeah, the whole “she’s too sexy” thing is most of what killed her show here in the US. Complaints from parents. PARENTS, who are only parents because at some point in their lives, somebody found THEM to be “too sexy.”
CORRECTION
The belly bump turns 15.
The women I know who say that are usually filled with so much self-hatred and actual misogyny, that they can’t imagine someone loving women simply for being women. The men who say that are the lapdogs of those women and/or sexually repressed. I think that is the mentality held by those neofeminists who think drag queens and transwomen are male saboteurs/infiltrators out to destroy feminism by their very existence and that women who enjoy being women and being feminine are traitors.
I never understood this as a young girl and I definitely dislike it as a grown woman.
Yes, I agree with this. They are mainly interested in regulating the appearance, behaviour and depiction of women. Men are an afterthought unless they are artists creating forbidden depictions of women, or defenders of artists creating forbidden depictions of women.
(I think Transwomen count here, because they are usually trying to be as feminine as possible, thus creating a forbidden representations of women. We’ve probably all seen sexy transwomen at some point in our lives. Of course, my favourite transwoman is Danielle Bunten, may she rest in peace. Such a genius she was….).
I should point out that a significant, possibly majority, of these types I run into on the Internet are:
1. Men
2. Quite willing to shout down women who say, “You shouldn’t be telling me how to look, what to wear or what I should find attractive in other women.”
But that’s skewed because I mostly visit forums for male dominated hobbies.
“They are mainly interested in regulating the appearance, behaviour and depiction of women” – *who are hotter than they are*.
I’m reminded of one of those internet laws: the most heartfelt writings by women journalists are ones where she argues that come the revolution women who look like her will be seen as hot (fat acceptance, afro hair acceptance, um … tall acceptance. whatever).
(wish you could edit your replies)
And this, of course, is why the sex industry and those who work in it are unfailingly a target of these kinds of people. A sex worker is good-looking enough to actually be paid for sex (yes, I know it’s more than that – I’m talking from their POV).
Men are not an afterthought. Acquiring a provider-and-protector is the whole point, and their strategy is to make sex so difficult to get that a man will settle for one of them.
Well, like I said, in this case it’s men who are saying that depictions of women with big tits and hourglass figures are “sexist” or “degrading to women” or “misogynist,”
I’m sure your theory works in a lot of other forums where the male/female ratio is more equal and not something like 5 to 1 in favor of men, but in computer nerd forums if it wasn’t men complaining about “teh sexism” the complainers would be an insignificant minority.
I think in this case it might be more along the lines of “If I can’t have her, then no man can” or “If I’m a really good little White Knight and say all the right feminist things, someday a woman will put out for me” or “Actually I like that… *painful memory of electric shock*… no, that’s disgusting and wrong!”
LOL – I love women!
But here’s the thing – every girl I go to visit dresses up in lingerie and high heels. Hell – they probably spend two hours putting themselves together for me. I keep telling them … “That shit doesn’t DO anything for me – dress normal” … yet, I walk through that door and … “Hello Fredericks of Holywood”.
I’m going to BREAK my ATF of this habit if it’s the last thing I do on the planet. Facial makeup doesn’t do crap for me either – so if the woman has good skin she doesn’t need it with me – and I prefer her without it.
Femininity isn’t so much how you dress (hell, I have a pair of purple shoes and I don’t feel feminine in them). Feminine is who a woman IS … it’s the look in her eye that says … “If you want me you need to work for me”.
If your ATF is at all big in the chest region, she’ll find that Frederick’s is one of the main places that caters to her physique.
As the sales lady told my wife, “Yes, we have clothes for real women here.” (We had just spent an hour in Victoria’s Secret with no luck.)
And you know how it is, they go over to pick up a bra and then she sees the cutest little thing, and “oh and it’s in multiple colors, can I get it?”
…and pretty soon you’ve spent an hour looking at ladies undergarments and replaying episodes of The Rockford Files in your head (or whatever you do when you are bored).
I accept ur explanation about chauvinim (we usually link it with the national feelings, but ok) and intolerance. There are some issues that touch deep beliefs and that many times are beyond rational discussion. Abortion, gay marriage (legalized in Spain, but still with some social sectors against it) or prostitution are clear examples. About human traffick, it’s wonderful how Donkey (do u remeber? the dutch guy, author of the blog fleshtrade) believes in it blindy altough he hasn’t found any real evidence. With traffick myth supports I have gave up, there is no way to convince with proofs to anyone already that trust in sth just by faith, without proofs.
But I can’t agree with ur diagnosis of the causes that u say that are behind the normalization of gay marriage and not prostitution. In spanish society visibilization of gays has clashed with our traditional, religious and conservative culture. They have not been “absorbed”. We have opened the society, achieving a more tolerant one in which differences are not seen as a reason of discrimination. I think that all pro-rights activists worlwide share this objective, right Maggie?
I remeber u that from the legendary protest at Saint-Nizier in 1975, prostitutes have tried to be accepted as normal, no troublesome people. Usually that has been a pointless effort bcause being prostitute (as homosexual) turned u into a social outcast. U could be an accepted person, loved by ur family and friends, successful at ur work, someone with a hig reputation in ur community. But then u are revealed as a prostitute or john and then u lost everything.
Change has been in law. It’s sad to say but many ppl think as they are told. If our laws (and politicians do them) say that gays can be now accepted, they are. But why prostitution is kept criminalized (both social and legally)? My answer is, I’ve already told u, by economic reasons.
Theorically, in our traditional culture prostitution could be accepted much easily than homosexuality. But this has not happened. What’s difference between both? The way gay activists fough for their rights? Hah! Let me to laugh. It’s impact has been minimal, specially in a country like mine. Usual behaviour of gays here were same as of prostitutes and johns: to hide to avoid reprisals.
Difference is in profits from prostitution. Not beign a sector or formal economy, the incomes from it can go undeclared. Just think on the millions that are not under legal taxation. We have a country with an unemployment of over 27% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate, sound as a joke but it is not), and our government is rasing all kinds of taxes continuously (no matter if they are socialists- like democrats- or populars -as republicans- bcause they are all collectivists), but hey not ever think on legalise prostitution. Why? Taxation they are already getting from it is much higher than they could get if it were legalized, moreover the money is not subject to any kind of fiscal control so can be spent freely.
I use to say that we are governed by a truly mafia.
The Spanish government does seem to be a mess lately, my condolences.
With “lately” u mean, hmmm, last ten years? (end of Aznar era, all of Zapatero’s and the Rajoy period)
Well, it didn’t get into the American news as much back then.
The ‘green monkey’ syndrome is present in most social/herd/pack animals, including humans. But I think you do the militant pro-gay rights people a disservice. Most social change comes from one group proposing reasonable changes to the status quo (MLK) and another group being belligerent and pushing the envelope in social encounters (Malcolm X). It takes both, because those benefiting from the status quo won’t change from a merely peaceful approach (cf civil rights in the late 40s); it takes presenting an alternative that seems far worse. (‘You can deal with us and our requests…or you can deal with ‘those guys’.”)
Trust me, I understand that; in fact, I wrote about it quite a while back using that very example.
Then the militant sex workers (which sounds strange to me, but never mind) are going to have to make more of an impact in the media and society, force more confrontations (‘Why aren’t we arresting johns for buying sex, when we arrest whores for selling it?’) and push those invested in the status quo into accepting some changes for the sake of less disruption. And, unfortunately, a lot of people will probably get hurt in the process. A Lysistrata is needed.
That “arresting clients” nonsense is definitely NOT what is needed; it’s the whole basis of the Swedish model, which redefines whores from “criminals” to “retarded children”.
The Swedish model is very bad, I’ll agree; but consider another consensual crime. Both the drug dealer AND the purchaser are subject to arrest. Under the War on Drugs, a proposal to arrest dealers while ignoring purchasers would be ludicrous. (Yes, I know, in reality it depends on who would be arrested; but that’s much the same for sex crimes as well. Well-off drug buyers can escape major penalities, but they don’t get to walk away without a scratch.) No one seriously claims that drug buyers are ‘retarded children’, and they certainly don’t claim this for drug dealers (the closest equivalent to whores in terms of crime committed). What the elities want is access to purchased sex, while regulating access to those lower on the totem pole. And this is what needs to be made uncomfortable; a group that is threatening (in some fashion) to deny that privileged access to the elites.
Johns are arrested. A common police tactic is to arrest Johns and use whatever leverage they have with them to turn them into confidential informants. Then use them to go after more call girls or the big prize, organized groups of call girls.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/11/TampaBay/Ruling_hurts_Web_sex_.shtml
It’s at the whim of the police, though, get arrested in Polk County, Florida, and expect no mercy from the Sheriff/”Prophet of the Lord” who rules there…
I hope that if this happens to anyone of u, u’ll never cooperate with authorities and become an informant of police. It’s a question of principles not to negotiate with terrorists 🙂
Oh, no worries on that score. (Police don’t tend to offer guys like me deals anyway.)
Bingo. People higher up instinctively loathe the idea that the lower orders are fucking. It’s instinctive. Polygamy is the natural state of humanity – alpha males with harems, all the other males with none.
The most successful polygamous human society that I can think of had a heavy reliance on eunuch’s to get any actual work done… … although come to think of it, that might not be such a huge problem in our modern American society after all.
IMO I find the swedish model really logical. Hey, it’s the work of any govt to make things harder for their citizens and to create problems where there weren’t. U can like it or not, but it has full sense. Like the job of a thief is to rob or the job of a terrorist is to kill ppl, the reason for any govt to exist if to fuck us very badly.
I agree very much with the notion of a right to be different, but having spent some time among conservatives (mostly trying to talk them out of their “social agenda”) I don’t buy your assertion that “normalization” explains the LGBT community’s increasing political success.
The explanation is much simpler. Those who contribute to the most prudish movements and organizations (especially churches) were nearly all born before 1945, and they have not convinced their descendants to agree with their agenda. So they are dying off, and their movement is dying with them.
While I would like to see the sex industry become accepted in the same way, the largest movement opposing that is what you call neofeminism, and so long as that bunch controls hiring at most of our “elite” universities, it will be able to maintain if not increase its numbers.
Perhaps we should try to generate opposition to continued federal funding of higher education, which has already driven the price of most college degrees far beyond their value in increased earnings. It surprises me that all those people featured in stories of the Occupy protests haven’t figured out that this waste of our tax dollars, and not private business, is the cause of their debt burden.
For evidence supporting my theory, see my column on Cliterati this coming Sunday (May 5th).
Marijuana reform and gay rights are advancing, abortion rights are getting squeezed, and whores are in the same place they were a decade ago, though some of the justifications for keeping them there have changed.
Naturally I’m hoping that sex worker rights this decade will more closely resemble gay rights than abortion rights. I’m also hoping that Xuxa will perform at the Opening Ceremonies of the 2016 Olympics.