Sexy feminism?

Right on.”Choice,” for all its theoretical simplicity, seems to hold about as much weight with anti-feminists, or those very new to, and skeptical of, feminism as a bucket of feathers. It seems like this is the most frequently ignored basic tenant of feminism– although, in reality, it is the single most important tenant. One thing I’d add is that in order to make a choice and have it be a good one, it needs to be informed. Dressing sexy because it feels compulsory is obviously not dressing sexy because a woman has made the choice to do so; providing women with the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to make such decisions is the best way to go.For example, I know a lot of women who feel empowered when they dress in sexually provocative ways. This is something I don’t quite understand, in terms of the reasons why some women feel this empowerment. For one thing, we’re constantly told we must, so how do we know how much of our decisions are based on a nagging, albeit minimal, sense of compulsion or socialization, and what is purely a choice that we make of our own volition?It seems to me that that’s up to the individual to decide. I only wish that more people digged a bit deeper before making these decisions to investigate exactly why they’re making them. They may not be as “free” of a choice as it initially feels like it is.

Yeah. Safety net means punishing the achievers and rewarding the “less fortunate.” At the end, you’ll drive achievers outside the country.Unions are for people who want to collect money without working hard, i.e. lazy people. When a hard working person joins a unionized work force, they will become less and less willing to work hard. As time passes, their spirit will be killed and become a lazy person, just like what happens in a communist country.

I’ll call you an arsehole if you behave like one. And you did – and carried on. Arsehole.Paul Lin, are you a libetarian?Where did I say that the treatment was free? If you are going to be offensive (and you are) at least read the fucking post.The British NHS delivers medical treatment as needed, free at the point of delivery. It’s not always fantastic but it is really not bad. For acute situations it is fantastic. So I didn’t say the treatment my son had was free: I said we didn’t pay for it. And fairly clearly I meant we didn’t pay for it directly.Are you a dick as well as an arsehole?Are you suggesting I am lying? My story is replicated every day in hospitals all over bad old Europe where we provide medicine free at the point of delivery. Which means it’s universally available.So fuck off with your ‘don’t believe the story’. When I tell a lie, you can call me on it, Troll, with evidence.And by the way: the cost to the nation is generally considered to be about 25% of what US medicine costs because it is evidence based, not insurance driven. And we provide medication on a needs basis to all – and we are deeply proud of it.And let’s look at that racism:”Whenever Americans do something, Canadians have to follow but change whatever it is in order to differentiate themselves from the Americans. If you live in Canada long enough, you’ll see this phenomenon every day. There is no such thing as a Canadian. There is no Canadian-ness. Canadians are just a bunch of people who are too similar to Americans but try really hard not to be Americans.”Offensive generalisations about a whole nation? Sounds about as good a definition of racist as you can get. What planet do you live on Paul? Is it the planet of Richandprivileged by any chance?Moving onto the stupidity of your generalisations about unions.Fuck it – why am I bothering? You are a troll. Go and educate yourself.

You obviously didn’t choose sex work as your vocation, and if you had, my guess is that your reason would not have been a preference for that kind of work over filing.If a person with a preference for sex work over filing were kidnapped and forced to file, she/he might well find it less pleasant than being kidnapped and raped. Not everyone shares your values, your fears, or your preferences.Your comparison is not a fair one anyway, as sex work need not include intercourse, nor be illegal to be chosen purely for economic reasons. If you were kidnapped and made to dance naked in front of men (filtered by bouncers for good health and respectable dress, etc.) who strongly appreciated it and respected you for it, would that really suck more than being kidnapped and made to do filing work for an abusive boss and a political cause that you disagreed with? If it would, are you really that certain that your opinion is even the majority opinion, much less one universally held by women? Even when sex work does include sexual intercourse, admittedly there are more risks involved than exist in a filing job, but as mentioned before by myself and others, there are many non-sex-related jobs that are as risky as prostitution or even more so, depending on a number of parameters. Certainly there are worst case scenarios where death or severe disability is practically 100% guaranteed, but that holds true for some “legitimate” jobs as well, when management is unconcerned about worker safety.And of course, the whole “to pay the bills and feed yourself” issue is irrelevant anyway, which is what started this whole thread. If your reasons for taking the job are purely economic, whether you like the job or not, you are not being coerced unless the law or societal pressure prohibits you from acquiring, e.g., a filing job and allows sex work, which is clearly not the case here in America (as you’ve proven) or any other place that I can think of. Even where the worst human rights violations against women exist, sex work is not societally endorsed over housework. In fact, the only places I can think of where it is societally endorsed at all are the places where women are least abused both socially and legally.Every job has its own set of risks, unpleasant tasks, and practical disadvantages. Filing is no more or less different from prostitution than it is from working in a chemical waste disposal facility, or pumping gas and breathing in the fumes all day, or working behind the counter of a 24-hour bodega in a high crime neighborhood. Filing is no more or less different from modeling nude for porn than it is from modeling nude for a class of art students, or acting fully clothed as a socially inept dad in an automobile commercial, or performing in a character costume or clown outfit at children’s parties. As for myself, I probably wouldn’t choose any form of sex work as a full-time job, but I would strongly prefer being kidnapped and forced to dance naked for appreciative women (even if they were unattractive) to being kidnapped and forced to perform my office skills for an abusive boss or a political cause I disagree with (even if the boss was an attractive female). -And if I were neutrally bisexual instead of heterosexual, the sex of the persons in the former scenario would not matter.

One can be societally coerced into something that is socially not endorsed. This is what happens in a lot of western prostitution, in fact. Prostitution is, fundamentally, something most women are ‘qualified’ to do. Men as well, to be fair. So, where there is insufficient social safety net, or people slip through it, they have to do *something* to live, and they are unable to get a legitimate, socially endorsed job quickly enough, that’s what happens. It’s a remaining feature of our sexist society that women are generally more likely to end up in that position.

But how sure can anyone be as to how much anyone else has thought about it?Also, questioning how much your own feelings are due to socialisation and comfort of subtle compliance will eventually do your head in. Trust me.

(replying to EdenBunny’s reply to me…)Points considered in no particular order…Women are more likely to end up in that position than men because they are, statistically, less employable. As to why that is, it’s a very complex question, but it is generally accepted in most discussions I’ve seen. Unskilled labour jobs go to men more readily, for example. However, I will agree that it’s bad that women who end up in that position, by choice or not, without legal protection and with legal persecution. That’s just crazy on the part of society. If prostitution is going to exist (and let’s face it, it is), then it’s better for client, provider and society as a whole for there to be safe venues, safe practices, tailored healthcare, and so on.I do think that the view that all prostitution is by choice (is any sense but sophistry) in the west is as blinkered as the idea that none is. Yes, ultimately every prostitute who hasn’t been “enslaved” has, at some point, made a decision to do that. However, the alternative is usually things that people wouldn’t consider, such as death by starvation and/or exposure. Claiming that is a choice is just sophistry.I also didn’t mean that men could all find adequate work as prostitutes, I just meant that everyone (bar strange exceptions) has the essential qualifications. Your digression in response to this seems to imply that you assume that all punters would be the opposite gender to the prostitute.I think that covered the points that most got to me…

(In response to Sam, mostly)But the first point still hasn’t been addressed – the distinction between sex-work and literally every other profession hinges on some metaphysical belief that having sex is somehow worse than, say, gutting fish. It assumes, then, that this distinction is not the product of a patriarchal, obsessively sex-negative society but rather some supernatural force for which we have no evidence – simply the convenience of not having to face our own irrational distaste for those who make money off their body IN A SEXUAL WAY.

Well, one way to be sure is to actually engage with that person in an honest, open conversation. They’ll do wonders. But, of course, we shouldn’t automatically assume that choices don’t have thought behind them. That’s why the conversation is important.And I’m going to respectfully disagree with your second point. Yes, you can over-think *anything*, but analyzing your motives is not an instant headache or mindboggle in the making. For me, thinking about why I feel the way I do has been a rewarding process that helped me come to feminism *and* atheism, actually.

(In response to G.Syme)My argument, possibly stemming from my increasing identity as a social scientist, and a surprisingly qualitatively-oriented one at that, is that the source of the belief/feeling isn’t as important as the fact it exists. Just because people feel a certain way about something for reasons that might be considered “bad” doesn’t mean you should ignore them.For example, crazy Christians get upset when people write, say, plays in which Christ is homosexual. You’d be crazy not to try to do some PR to mitigate the problem. You’d be crazy to ignore the fact that Christians will be upset (even if you’re not somewhere like the US), particularly when it creates security concerns. You’d be crazy to, say, put the play on in the middle of a Christian festival in one of the more Christian-homogeneous areas of the midwest. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put on the play. You can be sensitive without pandering.Thus, we should consider whether prostitution should be allowed on the basis of verifiable things, but one of the things that is verifiable is that it makes people uncomfortable. Thus, we should be cognisant of this in handling it. Don’t make it illegal because of it, because nothing should be illegal simply because of hard-to-define discomfort felt by some part of the community. I hold to the “no victim, no crime” idea, mostly, and where consensual prostitution goes on there is certainly no victim. The fact that people feel more bad about it, particularly applied as a hypothetical to themselves, means that we *should* make stronger steps to prevent and undo coercion into sex work.Bottom line: the fact people feel differently about it shouldn’t make things criminal that aren’t, but it should be seen as a worse form of existing crimes. Coercing people into anything is usually some sort of crime; coercing them into something that most people feel is degrading and dehumanising must be seen as worse, because the harm that a reasonable person would anticipate resulting from it is greater. That said, if a victim wants their own not-being-bothered-too-much to be taken into account, I figure it could be.However, this leaves aside the idea of social coercion – you can’t prosecute society (mores the pity). However, if we take the ideas above, meant for justice between individuals, and try to apply them to society, then we can see that social coercion into prostitution should be a bigger concern than other forms of social coercion (in the abstract) because the reasonable expectation is that it causes more harm in each individual case. The description of when this coercion occurs, and the justification of it occurring at the same time as societal disapproval of prostitution, was in earlier posts.

(In response to Sam’s response to my response to Sam’s response…)(Points considered in the order in which they were given and addressed specifically so as to avoid ambiguity.)“Women are more likely to end up in that position than men because they are, statistically, less employable.” Granted. “As to why that is, it’s a very complex question…”Which is exactly why it cannot be automatically attributed to sexism. “Unskilled labour jobs go to men more readily, for example.”How many “unskilled” labor jobs include things that women are statistically less capable of for biological reasons. such as rapidly moving heavy boxes, or reaching high shelves without a stepladder? Other factors figure in as well, for both skilled and unskilled labor, such as a man’s inability to get pregnant or suffer PMS, the fact that women are statistically not as good at negotiating salary and work conditions (though this is changing; as to why this is relevant, salary of a previous job figures into employability), the fact that women are statistically far more likely to be single parents, and the fact that women are on average statistically slightly less educated than men (as of 2000 census). All of this is may be offset by the fact that women are statistically healthier than men, but if so, offset by how much? Sexism exists, but its economic role is probably dwarfed by natural conditions. As I pointed out previously, some of those natural conditions may have indeed have been caused by sexism throughout history, but that is not the subject of this thread.“However, I will agree that it’s bad that women who end up in that position, by choice or not, without legal protection and with legal persecution. That’s just crazy on the part of society.”No, it’s sexist as well. It is probably the sole clear-cut western civilization example of a situation in which an economic edict specifically directed at women still exists, with the exception of obsolete laws that are still on the books. I’m defining an obsolete law as one that is no longer enforced. They are numerous, and I’m sure plenty of them are sexist, but I’m preemptively pointing out that they are not relevant to this discussion.“…Yes, ultimately every prostitute who hasn’t been “enslaved” has, at some point, made a decision to do that. However, the alternative is usually things that people wouldn’t consider, such as death by starvation and/or exposure…”…or worse, working in some low level minimum wage job and having (ecch!) roommates, and accepting charity from soup kitchens, and applying for government help, and doing other things that are just not fun at all…or, in many cases, discontinuing the use expensive recreational drugs, which just isn’t an option when you’re addicted, and everyone knows that the usual sole cause of drug addiction in women is sexism.“I also didn’t mean that men could all find adequate work as prostitutes, I just meant that everyone (bar strange exceptions) has the essential qualifications.”The essential qualifications are a body that is a saleable commodity, and the justified confidence that there is a high demand for it. No, not everyone has that. Not even every woman.“Your digression…Digression? Well, okay, I guess, as long as you define digression as addressing an errant statement head on, explaining why it is incorrect, or as referring to evolution in that explanation when posting to this Jen’s blog…“…in response to this seems to imply that you assume that all punters would be the opposite gender to the prostitute.”Not at all. You said “men”, not “boys”, so I figured I didn’t have to pre-emptively answer this argument. I must admit here that I was wrong to think that, so here we go… Women can do, and often still do, sex work even after reaching forty. Fifty or sixty is pushing it perhaps, but twenty is pushing it for men. In addition, the customer base is much, much smaller, even when you include in that customer base the small percentage of the population that is male, non-straight, and inclined to be a “punter” as you put it. Far fewer men than women are likely to find themselves in this line of work.When they do find themselves in this line of work, they are similarly persecuted and unprotected, but the law that causes it is obviously aimed at women, not men.And yet again, the subject of this thread is not whether sexism causes economic inequalities (it does). The issue is the errant assumption that the choice of prostitution (or of sexually provocative modeling or acting) as a vocation for one purely economic consideration is less socially coerced than any other (with the obvious irrelevant exceptions that I discussed elsewhere in this thread). It is not, and at no point have you given any valid reason for claiming that it is.A thing can be unpleasant, unjust, and widespread in effect without being an example of societal injustice. Such a thing can target women only without being an example of societal sexism (e.g. uterine cancer). In fact, in the original post that Jen referenced, the author talks about how sex that is forced in any way is just not sexy, and she is correct, but that extends into private relations that have nothing to do with sexism. If I promise my girlfriend that I will go down on her tonight if she washes the dishes even though it’s my turn, and then when we go to bed, I’m too tired but I force myself to anyway, she is not being sexist, even if I objected at first and she insisted. If the roles are reversed, it doesn’t change the nature of the situation itself regardless of what social constructs may have made the latter more probable than the former.If such social constructs exist (and they do), they should be attacked directly, rather than referred to by statement of effects to which they have only partially contributed, even if such partial contribution is the major part of the effect’s cause.We can argue forever about whether sexism is usually the major cause of a woman’s desperate economic choice of sex work, and although it’s pretty obvious that this is not the case, it is irrelevant to this argument. Blame sexism instead on the things for which it is inarguably and entirely responsible, and you’ll have much stronger arguments that will include its secondary effects as well.

I am a guy who once called myself a “feminist”, but have recently become much more wary of using that label, since I’ve become aware of the downsides of feminist influence on many people in my generation. I am still open-minded about the “feminist” label and am very interested in dialog with self-described feminists..Most of the “Compulsive” examples offered here do not strike me as compulsive at all – they are not based on force, but rather social pressure and expectation (Sexy women being used in advertisements, what sort of women are taken seriously, pressure to wear or not wear make-up, etc). The post seems to suggest that these sorts of pressures should not exist, that people should be free of gender-based *expectations* and judgements of any kind. But without social pressures and judgements and expectations, there is no such thing as culture! The liberal sensibility that “people should be able to do whatever they want without being judged for it”, taken to it’s ultimate conclusion, results in a world where symbols have no meaning. If your choice to wear or not wear make-up will have no bearing on how people respond to you, then make-up will be irrelevant. Right now, you have the choice to conform completely to the tastes and sensibilities of those around you, and enjoy a quiet acceptance, or to shock and offend them by defying their expectations – Or choose anywhere in the range in between – perhaps you will inspire your friends to be more daring, or perhaps you will be the target of playful teasing for defying social norms. If social norms did not exist, then none of these exciting options would be open to you. It is a good thing that people respond differently to a skirt or pants – this enables individuals to express themselves, because it allows symbols to have meaning. When somebody verbalizes an expectation to you – “Hey Doll, why aincha’ smilin?” – you can choose how you want to react to that – would you like to sneer derisively and discount his expectation, warm up to his teasing flirting, or insult him back? There are infinite possibilities open to you. There is nothing compulsive in this interaction – this man’s comment provides a canvas onto which you can paint anything you want. The trouble I have with feminism is it makes this a political issue and proceeds to teach young boys that they should not have any expectations or judgements of women. I would happily teach my daughter a school of feminism that encourages her to pursue her calling in life regardless of what other people think. But I would not teach my son a school of feminism that makes him feel guilty for forming opinions of people based on their choices.

Thanks for your reply, Sam, and for clarifying the point about gender-based symbolism.I would argue that even sexual symbols are valuable and should not be thrown out. Fashion is one of the most powerful languages we have, and sexuality is one of the most important aspects of our identity. So the two tend to come together. I believe this is a good thing.”people (male or female) should be able to wear skirts, trousers, makeup, and so forth without it causing judgements and assumptions about their gender identity, sexuality, promiscuity, and so on. They should be able to express what they want to express.”If the people were to stop making assumptions about identity, sexuality, and promiscuity based on clothing choices, then the wearer would no longer be able to express any of these things via clothing. Clothing would cease to be a language for these things, which I think would be unfortunate because these are things that we need to communicate to each other somehow, and clothing is a much more elegant way to communicate with strangers than verbal language.I think your point about gang colours is a great example of the fact that symbols can have multiple, confusing, overlapping meanings. I agree completely, but that’s a reality of cultural life that we all must navigate. If we as individuals want to express ourselves through symbols, then we are interested in communicating with other people. In which case, we need to have some understanding of how other people will interpret our symbols. This comes only from sharing the same culture. Because communication is a social phenomenon, we have to be willing to accept the meanings that exist in the culture and use them to our liking. Eg:”people should be able to choose their attire for the meanings they see, and they choose, not be forced into a situation where they have no control over the meanings”Consider the equivalent of this statement for verbal language:people should be able to choose the sounds that come out of their mouth for the meanings they see, and they choose, not be forced into a situation where they have no control over the meanings.Well, people are allowed to make up their own language if they want, but if nobody else can interpret the meanings, then it won’t be very useful for communication. Personally, I accept that society has attributed meanings to words – this is a wonderful thing because it allows me to have a social life and the opportunities for personaly expression are very rich because I can choose which words I used based on what thoughts/ emotions I want to invoke in others. The same is true of fashion. If society did not have built-in interpretations for styles of dress, then fashion would cease to be a language and would be boring. Sexuality is a very important part of our existence, so it should be part of that language.As a guy, if I am in a sexy mood and I want to communicate my eligibility to women, I can go out wear tight clothing that shows a bit of muscle and alluring cologne. It’s great that this will cause women to make assumptions about my sexuality and intentions, because this allows me to communicate with them on a deeper level without having to use awkward verbal language. Of course, if I choose to communicate with people, I will also be risking negative judgement – people may think “Pffft! What a loser, he’s trying to be a player.” or “That’s hardly the appropriate dress for this occasion”. So be it. If I choose to express myself, I cannot prevent people from having an opinion of my expression. I, in turn, can respond to it however I like. Some people may even misinterpret my dress to think that I’m out for whatever I can get, and think they can get a free ride. Or they may interpret my hetero/homosexuality. So be it. Such is the risk of symbols. When the time comes, I will simply inform them otherwise.

Interesting.. As a man, I do have the option of advertising various forms of sexuality, or dressing more “generically” and revealing less about my self.I would love to hear female opinions on this. It appears to me that women have a similar range of options. They can advertise different forms of sexuality or they can reveal less about themselves. Most women at my office dress in a casual-office style that reveals little about their sexuality. I can’t tell who is straight or gay from their clothing, who is monogamous and who’s a swinger.As another example, looking at Jen’s picture at the top of this page, I would consider that she’s wearing a fun, intelligent style. But I can’t tell anything about her sexual orientation or tendencies. So perhaps she have achieved the impossible?

I agree with you that clothing has more meaning for girls than for boys, but to say that women have no neutral clothing is an exaggeration. There are plenty of t-shirts and pants that don’t obviously suggest one way or the other.

The last word of jimmyboy99’s post should read “anti-racist”. That’s what caused the confusion here.

Why does being an empowered woman have to be synonymous with conventionally sexy? That kind of crap is anti feminsit and serves only the sexual patriarchy, a woman (a person in general) should just wear what they feel comfortable with, not whether or not their “ass looks tight”

Holy shit there are a lot of comments on this post. I did warp-speed down-scrolling and it still took a while.I really enjoyed reading this, nice work, I think that what you wrote building off of the other blog post is awesome.

American cheese might be based on cheddar cheese, but it’s nasty “polyester” version of cheese. I actually welcome the distinction. As an American and not really a fan of cheese to begin with, I know EXACTLY what to avoid when I feel like cheddar cheese.Seriously, American cheese sucks hard.