Boys will be boys
And assholes will be assholes if no-one tells them to stop being assholes
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Definitely was wrong about prostitution. Withdraw all previous comments. While I would rather it didn't exist (for all the violence and coercion it entails), shame and guilt aren't going to help. Probably better to be above ground, legalised, strictly monitored. Though I still think it shouldn't exist.
MANCESSION
Quickly, feel sorry for all the men, for they are being persecuted by economics!
Yes, this is the story that men are bring downgraded in the employment stats, almost to the level of women! By 2008, less than 1% separated men and women on US employment statistics.
Unemployment rates:
Men
Women
So stories like this may be somewhat misleading. Why are redundancies concentrated amongst men? Because employment is concentrated amongst men. Whilst it may be true that certain industries are taking more of a hit than others, and it may also be true that women are less likely to work in those industries, can this account for the 82% of job losses being men's? It doesn't seem sufficient. What about women earning on average 20% less than men? I know which employee I'd cut...
Women are more likely than men to work part time, as they are more likely to share their career with family chores. This means they tend to do different jobs - with lower wages, security and benefits. Such jobs are less likely to face large-scale cuts. Having said that, women are not 'safe' because they're all working as primary school teachers for the state. 39% of employed women work in management, professional and related occupations and they account for 51 percent of all workers in such roles. As we have already seen, unemployment is actually hitting the sexes fairly evenly, in terms of the rise of unemployment as a percentage within each gender. So why focus on the percentage of job losses by gender, instead of the percentage of job losses within each gender? For the narrative. Shocking figures are an excellent way to make stories like this look factual, nay scientific, when in fact they are pure commentary. By spinning the story as a patronising congratulations, it is easy to discuss, and thereby reinforce, gender roles. When we talk about a Mancession, we can talk about Men's Jobs and Women's Jobs, we can say that women aren't doing as much about the home as they used to (and men are incompetent), we can raise childbirth and the impossibility of choosing between kids and a career. Hey, we can make it 1994 again! Before you know it, we'll be back in the nice cosy 50s.
Well, that's one way you can spin the narrative anyway.
Yes, this is the story that men are bring downgraded in the employment stats, almost to the level of women! By 2008, less than 1% separated men and women on US employment statistics.
This terrifying situation has caused an outbreak of consternation amongst the media, who have labelled this gender-disparate trend 'The Mancession'. While characterising one of the most significant recessions of the western world (by this I mean the USA and Europe) as if it only affected men, this term perpetuates patriarchal hegemonies by obscuring facts to perpetuate misleading narratives.
The graphs below show that while male unemployment works with slightly larger numbers than women's (presumably due to a much larger number of women being designated housekeepers and thus not actively looking for work, though there are probably a wide range of factors that contribute to this), the overall trends within each graph are pretty similar. Unemployment rates across both genders have roughly doubled.
Unemployment rates:
Men
Women are more likely than men to work part time, as they are more likely to share their career with family chores. This means they tend to do different jobs - with lower wages, security and benefits. Such jobs are less likely to face large-scale cuts. Having said that, women are not 'safe' because they're all working as primary school teachers for the state. 39% of employed women work in management, professional and related occupations and they account for 51 percent of all workers in such roles. As we have already seen, unemployment is actually hitting the sexes fairly evenly, in terms of the rise of unemployment as a percentage within each gender. So why focus on the percentage of job losses by gender, instead of the percentage of job losses within each gender? For the narrative. Shocking figures are an excellent way to make stories like this look factual, nay scientific, when in fact they are pure commentary. By spinning the story as a patronising congratulations, it is easy to discuss, and thereby reinforce, gender roles. When we talk about a Mancession, we can talk about Men's Jobs and Women's Jobs, we can say that women aren't doing as much about the home as they used to (and men are incompetent), we can raise childbirth and the impossibility of choosing between kids and a career. Hey, we can make it 1994 again! Before you know it, we'll be back in the nice cosy 50s.
Well, that's one way you can spin the narrative anyway.
The thing about prostitution
I think I've been moralising. I was largely saying reasonable things, but I definitely went a bit Victorian.
Induction from a single case/women should be seen (for a nominal fee), but not heard
"Common sense tells us that..."
Actually, hard facts tell us that between 3/4 and 9/10 of prostitutes are beaten and raped, a prostitute is around 40 times more likely to be killed, and that almost half of people trafficked into prostitution are minors; common sense tells us that fantasies backed up by a single case are misleading, and that portraying such as informed analysis on one of the world's most pervasive media outlets is terribly irresponsible: journalistically, morally, politically and socially.
The introspection of someone who - by their own admission - is entirely ignorant of the subject is worthless (unless, perhaps, the subject is mathematics, logic, or something else purely analytic, but I suspect the reality of prostitution is not an a priori synthetic truth). If we want some understanding of this subject matter, I suspect facts may be more helpful. Research, reports, and facts, gathered from a range of expert bodies invariably show that Dr Magnanti is an exception, and Mr James is mistaken.
Actually, hard facts tell us that between 3/4 and 9/10 of prostitutes are beaten and raped, a prostitute is around 40 times more likely to be killed, and that almost half of people trafficked into prostitution are minors; common sense tells us that fantasies backed up by a single case are misleading, and that portraying such as informed analysis on one of the world's most pervasive media outlets is terribly irresponsible: journalistically, morally, politically and socially.
The introspection of someone who - by their own admission - is entirely ignorant of the subject is worthless (unless, perhaps, the subject is mathematics, logic, or something else purely analytic, but I suspect the reality of prostitution is not an a priori synthetic truth). If we want some understanding of this subject matter, I suspect facts may be more helpful. Research, reports, and facts, gathered from a range of expert bodies invariably show that Dr Magnanti is an exception, and Mr James is mistaken.
Only ignorance will allow one to speculate that the vast majority of prostitutes do not lead lives of pain, misery, exploitation, rape, assault and exploitation, because all research says they do. There are exceptions, but accounts such as Dr Magnanti's do not begin to nullify the horrifying experiences of so many who live a life of brutal, violating slavery. Mr James spins from this account a misleading global narrative that perpetuates myths which many wish to believe, but which defy the facts; by doing so, he, and by his actions Dr Maganati, contribute to this abuse.
Beyond suffering and victimhood, beyond each individual's experience, is the broader societal context in which these events take place: we live in an unequal society, where women are paid around a fifth less than their male counterparts, occupy a lot less of the top jobs, and account for more than half the politicians in only one country in the entire world. Such cold statements reflect a more pervasive, every-day problem: women are not being treated seriously as people.
Women-as-objects are still more common in our media, advertising, entertainment and, therefore, consciousnesses, than women as thinkers. In fact we are far more accepting of women as objects. Any woman ascending to power herself will quickly be savaged or ridiculed (look at all those female Labour MPs of the last ten years, who upon touching cabinet were torn to shreds by the media), but the wives of politicians may be lauded - but only for their choice of outfit, or for having a nice smile, i.e. in their capacity as eye-candy. Watch any news coverage and you'll see Michelle Obama as the beautiful, well dressed saint, while Harriet Harman is portrayed as a crazy witch with extreme, yet trivial views. For an example, see The Independent's reaction to reviewed rape laws which aimed to prevent women being convicted of murder when they kill their husbands following years of physical and psychological abuse, while making it a crime for a man to kill his wife because of infidelity; Harman the grinch; Harman interrupting the men in that silly way girls do; Harman indoctrinating children; "Harriet Harman is either thick or criminally disingenuous"; Harriet Harman's use of facts completely disguises the truth (with a wonderful link to "Prostitutes are, in effect, blackleg labour, strike breakers. They undercut middle-class women. If men can go and pay for sex with someone like Brooke Magnanti, why on earth would they bother to put up with the endless screaming demands, the controlling behaviour, the constant low-level mental abuse, the endless tears and hissy fits of the average middle-class princess?")
Such drivel is easily satirised and the dubious journalistic standards held to account.
Such drivel is easily satirised and the dubious journalistic standards held to account.
Behind this lies the ever popular Madonna/whore complex (and yes, I have exhibited elements of this myself), which is so deeply ingrained into our collective moralities one wonders if it may ever be removed. Women ought be saints like Mrs Obama, or Lady Diana, and be chaste, quiet and pretty, or they ought be whores and thus give up their rights to human decency. Either way they are not people, we do not treat them as ends in themselves, but as furnishings. This is what must end. This is why a handful of 'happy hookers' will make up for the exploitation of so many: the oppression is not merely an issue for prostitutes, but for us all.
When I worked on a till in Sainsbury's, I made the most of it - I was happy as I could make myself. This does not mean I would choose to be till staff. Choosing to be happy in one's situation does not make one's situation desirable in itself. If you find someone interned in Guantanamo Bay, who's determination makes them happy, does that mean they wouldn't rather be free?
But if freedom is the issue, shouldn't Dr Magnanti be free to do as she pleases, opine as she pleases, and share this with the world? Yes, yes of course she is free to do so, and ought be. But freedom entails responsibility. I am free to step into the nearest pub and kill everyone in it, but I oughtn't.
Though I ought avoid using morality as a stick with which to beat Dr Magnanti. She released her story early as someone else was about to anyway, and it's better to have some control over the presentation. Similarly, I ought be careful about judging her for entering prostitution. PhDs are incredibly expensive (why??). Funding a PhD is a huge challenge to any wannabe academic. Those with inherited wealth needn't worry, while the tiniest minority may get funding because of their exceptional record (this number is infintessimally small), most must beg wealthy corporations to allow them to research, essentially as a slave (working to not get paid, working without employment rights), whatever may be of use to that corporation. All for three letters than give some academic credibility. Dr Magnanti's part-time job at least gave her academic freedom.
And Dr Magnanti ought not be expected to lie. If she enjoyed her work, then good for her. The issue I take is ultimately not with her, but with those who wish to use her story - which endless research reveals to be an exception - as the sole evidence upon which to base a pre-conceived narrative to mislead the public, obscure the truth and justify sex slavery, rape and assault as a 'profession'.
And Dr Magnanti ought not be expected to lie. If she enjoyed her work, then good for her. The issue I take is ultimately not with her, but with those who wish to use her story - which endless research reveals to be an exception - as the sole evidence upon which to base a pre-conceived narrative to mislead the public, obscure the truth and justify sex slavery, rape and assault as a 'profession'.
The morality of someone selling their own body, entirely of their own volition, is a divisive issue complicated by the subtlety of societal repercussions; what is indubitable is that the cases in which this question is relevant, where the paid participant can be said to have meaningful agency in the act of prostitution, are the minority.
Blog review
So it's 3am and once again I can't sleep. I refuse to compile any more stats for work, so I've been blogcasting. I thought I'd share some bits that I found interesting and some comments of my own.
So for a while now Alas, a blog has been my number one source of interesting links and cultural commentary on a broad range of issues, and their current instalment is a series of links to their favourite blogs, which opened up some interesting new territory for me.
Great comment from Independent Gay Forum about this story, cutting through the superficially persuasive argument from the hospital to expose what is a frankly sickening case of double standards. Homophobia can be understandable (though perenially lamentable) when couched in a belief set made superstitious by fear of death, but doesn't the confrontation of mortality make you want to lay aside your prejudices and merely allow people to be? I ask anyone who thinks the hospital's decision was right to consider how you would feel if the person you loved most in the world were dying just a few feet away from you and all that seperated you from their sharing their final moments was someone's unsubstantiated belief.
As an individual has to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so should an action be considered legal until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be of serious, illegitimate and consistent damage to mankind. Since whenever homosexuality is considered wrong it is on wholly metaphysical grounds, I contend that there is no justification for perpetuating any legal difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Besides which, what bearing would such concerns have over the right of someone's partner in life and parenthood (and power of attorney) being allowed to visit them in their dying moments? Would any other supposed criminal or moral deviant be forbidden visitation rights? No. A straight man who regularly rapes and beats his wife would most likely still be allowed to be at her deathbed, since the hospital staff would likely be ignorant to his crimes. But where crime is gender it's all too easy to play judge.
More gay bashing bashed at Box Turtle Bulletin, and I'd draw your attention to the comments on this one. Website comments are rarely worth reading, but these are pretty funny. Personal highlights include:
I won't bother joining in on the 'porn makes you gay' theme, since it's so very, very dumb and these guys have already demonstrated that as far as rational enquiry requires.
What I would like to discuss is the notion of masculinity, raised and barely challenged at The American Scene. Now these guys (inf. people) quite rightly undermine the suggestion that being a 'real' man is about how many girls you sleep with. I can see where the idea comes from, spreading your seed for the greatest chance of gene survival, but am amazed by how blind people can be to the counter-productivity of taking one of the fairly basic tenets of gene survival and making it a foundational belief to the detriment of the person as a whole. Ok guys, one) it makes you look and sound like a total dickhead, two) it entails a laughably simplistic understanding of human beings, three) most people extrapolate their view of humanity from their own experience, so if you think humans are superficial, simplistic humping machines with no capacity for qualitative judgement whatsoever... four) it's going to end in STDs, that's just statistical probability.
Nowhere has this dunderheaded idea been more glorified than on trashy Hollywood testostorama Entourage, where the *not-quite-but-almost* of Beverley Hills strut about like peacocks with painted tail feathers 'banging' every, *entirely* characterless, girl in town. The great part is, if a guy fucks 50 girls a day, he's a MAN, if a girl sleeps with anyone who happens to know anyone else, she's a slut. Isn't that liberating? Oo look I've come, best pout and tell someone they're an idiot ('cos that's how business works).
So what do we want a man, not a MAN, to be? Well, for my part I'd rather stay out of it thank you. Why do I have to have a gender identity? I have plenty of things from which to self-define already, and I'd rather lose them all (or at least all the ones that I was allotted by default). I don't particularly want to be defined by everyone who happens to own a pair of testicles, or for that matter anyone of my race, nationality, music taste... I understand this will happen to an extent but never understand the need for a group to assert a collective identity. It's just a fallacious concept. Men have a collective identity insofar as they share some biology, no further.
This brings me onto feminism. Now I would say I'm a feminist but one thing really grates on me, and it's something I've seen this at times on I Blame The Patriarchy and other passionate blogs: glorification of women acting like assholes in the same way men are criticised for. By this I mean things like seducing a whole load of people. In fact that was what I read about the other day, on another blog. Unfortunately I now can't find it, so I can't go into detail and this whole paragraph becomes a bit vague and unfounded, but I'd still like to make my point: guys being assholes is not good, but neither is girls being assholes. It's exactly the same as when a guy I knew once told me that he didn't see any problem in misleading the girls he slept with into thinking that he has an emotional attachment to them given that a girl once did that to him. Nevermind that each of the girls he slept with was an individual, who had different character traits and had never done him wrong. Now this may be my personality type, sexuality and prejudices bleeding into my arguments (I don't sleep with many people) but it seems to me part of a wider subtrend of feminism that I don't like. I can understand why people get angry, it's very much provoked, and it's really difficult to work out what the line ought to be now (given that it revolves around the concept of what a person should be and do, which in two millenia of serious thought we've made very little progress on), but to my mind feminism is part of a wider scheme with two aims: liberating everyone from inherent restrictive cultural frameworks and making everyone treat each other better. I don't think it's about justifying women being shitty to men on the basis of a history of oppression (in the same way black people would not be morally justified in enslaving white people, or Islamic fundamentalists are not morally justified in committing acts of terrorism, even if their motivations and their oppression can be clearly demonstrated). However, I Blame The Patriarchy is well worth reading and the sentiment which I attack here is limited.
For an uncommonly detached and empirical blog on all things oppressive, I strongly recommend Sociological Images, which does an excellent job of demonstrating the infinite array of subtleties in advertising and media which in isolation appear harmless but, as extensive reading of this blog brings home, dictate a culture in a surprisingly pervasive manner. It was this blog which really made me understand the concept of a cultural construct. If you have any serious thoughts about discrimination of any kind, read!
Ok so now it's five am and my writing has degenerated. Time for bed.
Alright, one more.
Congratulations to PJTV for excellent use of piggybacking unsound arguments onto sound arguments and putting them all under one umbrella, so either you accept both or neither, and accepting neither's dumb. Why don't us shameful liberals ever use such tactics? O yeah, cos its cheap and its tacky and it doesn't get you any nearer the truth.
So for a while now Alas, a blog has been my number one source of interesting links and cultural commentary on a broad range of issues, and their current instalment is a series of links to their favourite blogs, which opened up some interesting new territory for me.
Great comment from Independent Gay Forum about this story, cutting through the superficially persuasive argument from the hospital to expose what is a frankly sickening case of double standards. Homophobia can be understandable (though perenially lamentable) when couched in a belief set made superstitious by fear of death, but doesn't the confrontation of mortality make you want to lay aside your prejudices and merely allow people to be? I ask anyone who thinks the hospital's decision was right to consider how you would feel if the person you loved most in the world were dying just a few feet away from you and all that seperated you from their sharing their final moments was someone's unsubstantiated belief.
As an individual has to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so should an action be considered legal until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be of serious, illegitimate and consistent damage to mankind. Since whenever homosexuality is considered wrong it is on wholly metaphysical grounds, I contend that there is no justification for perpetuating any legal difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Besides which, what bearing would such concerns have over the right of someone's partner in life and parenthood (and power of attorney) being allowed to visit them in their dying moments? Would any other supposed criminal or moral deviant be forbidden visitation rights? No. A straight man who regularly rapes and beats his wife would most likely still be allowed to be at her deathbed, since the hospital staff would likely be ignorant to his crimes. But where crime is gender it's all too easy to play judge.
More gay bashing bashed at Box Turtle Bulletin, and I'd draw your attention to the comments on this one. Website comments are rarely worth reading, but these are pretty funny. Personal highlights include:
"If porn made everyone gay.. well.. then we wouldn’t have to worry about equal rights any more. We’d be the VAST majority of the population!"
"I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of the Values Voters crowd share a belief system that is largely delusional and superstitious, thereby creating a reality for themselves that is mostly fabricated from Magic Truth. So, in their world it doesn’t feel bizarre when one of their leaders asserts that all porn is gay porn. Beliefs that cannot be supported by evidence/reason/logic is perfectly normal for them. Things become true through magic."
I won't bother joining in on the 'porn makes you gay' theme, since it's so very, very dumb and these guys have already demonstrated that as far as rational enquiry requires.
What I would like to discuss is the notion of masculinity, raised and barely challenged at The American Scene. Now these guys (inf. people) quite rightly undermine the suggestion that being a 'real' man is about how many girls you sleep with. I can see where the idea comes from, spreading your seed for the greatest chance of gene survival, but am amazed by how blind people can be to the counter-productivity of taking one of the fairly basic tenets of gene survival and making it a foundational belief to the detriment of the person as a whole. Ok guys, one) it makes you look and sound like a total dickhead, two) it entails a laughably simplistic understanding of human beings, three) most people extrapolate their view of humanity from their own experience, so if you think humans are superficial, simplistic humping machines with no capacity for qualitative judgement whatsoever... four) it's going to end in STDs, that's just statistical probability.
Nowhere has this dunderheaded idea been more glorified than on trashy Hollywood testostorama Entourage, where the *not-quite-but-almost* of Beverley Hills strut about like peacocks with painted tail feathers 'banging' every, *entirely* characterless, girl in town. The great part is, if a guy fucks 50 girls a day, he's a MAN, if a girl sleeps with anyone who happens to know anyone else, she's a slut. Isn't that liberating? Oo look I've come, best pout and tell someone they're an idiot ('cos that's how business works).
So what do we want a man, not a MAN, to be? Well, for my part I'd rather stay out of it thank you. Why do I have to have a gender identity? I have plenty of things from which to self-define already, and I'd rather lose them all (or at least all the ones that I was allotted by default). I don't particularly want to be defined by everyone who happens to own a pair of testicles, or for that matter anyone of my race, nationality, music taste... I understand this will happen to an extent but never understand the need for a group to assert a collective identity. It's just a fallacious concept. Men have a collective identity insofar as they share some biology, no further.
This brings me onto feminism. Now I would say I'm a feminist but one thing really grates on me, and it's something I've seen this at times on I Blame The Patriarchy and other passionate blogs: glorification of women acting like assholes in the same way men are criticised for. By this I mean things like seducing a whole load of people. In fact that was what I read about the other day, on another blog. Unfortunately I now can't find it, so I can't go into detail and this whole paragraph becomes a bit vague and unfounded, but I'd still like to make my point: guys being assholes is not good, but neither is girls being assholes. It's exactly the same as when a guy I knew once told me that he didn't see any problem in misleading the girls he slept with into thinking that he has an emotional attachment to them given that a girl once did that to him. Nevermind that each of the girls he slept with was an individual, who had different character traits and had never done him wrong. Now this may be my personality type, sexuality and prejudices bleeding into my arguments (I don't sleep with many people) but it seems to me part of a wider subtrend of feminism that I don't like. I can understand why people get angry, it's very much provoked, and it's really difficult to work out what the line ought to be now (given that it revolves around the concept of what a person should be and do, which in two millenia of serious thought we've made very little progress on), but to my mind feminism is part of a wider scheme with two aims: liberating everyone from inherent restrictive cultural frameworks and making everyone treat each other better. I don't think it's about justifying women being shitty to men on the basis of a history of oppression (in the same way black people would not be morally justified in enslaving white people, or Islamic fundamentalists are not morally justified in committing acts of terrorism, even if their motivations and their oppression can be clearly demonstrated). However, I Blame The Patriarchy is well worth reading and the sentiment which I attack here is limited.
For an uncommonly detached and empirical blog on all things oppressive, I strongly recommend Sociological Images, which does an excellent job of demonstrating the infinite array of subtleties in advertising and media which in isolation appear harmless but, as extensive reading of this blog brings home, dictate a culture in a surprisingly pervasive manner. It was this blog which really made me understand the concept of a cultural construct. If you have any serious thoughts about discrimination of any kind, read!
Ok so now it's five am and my writing has degenerated. Time for bed.
Alright, one more.
Congratulations to PJTV for excellent use of piggybacking unsound arguments onto sound arguments and putting them all under one umbrella, so either you accept both or neither, and accepting neither's dumb. Why don't us shameful liberals ever use such tactics? O yeah, cos its cheap and its tacky and it doesn't get you any nearer the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)