Links for October 29, 2012

Links -- October 29

Rebecca Watson “It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too” 

Rebecca Watson "Sexytime Dilemmas: Rape, Feminazis, and Grammar" 

Heidi Moore “iWant:how Apple and the gadget-makers train consumers' covetousness”

The Feminist Current “The end is nigh. And the proof lies in Breast Cancer ‘Awareness’Campaigns”

Anne Summers “Painful, impractical, and perverse:the shoes designed to bring women to heel”

Nora Loreto “Trolls and the spaces created by trolling”

Max Waltman via Feminist Current “Evidence shows that ending demand works: A response to Noy Thrupkaew and the attack on the Swedishapproach to prostitution”

Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter “Feminist Responses to the death of Amanda Todd”

Krissy Darch “Why isn’t anyone talking about themisogyny involved in Amanda Todd’s life and death?”

XLondonCallGirl “Can prostitution be empowering?”

XLondonCallGirl "The Importance of Specialist Charities and Projects to Help Women Exit Prostitution"

and because Halloween is coming soon....here are some spooky vintage photos

Post-Secondary Pimping: Strip Clubs Recruiting at Ontario High Schools Now Targeting Colleges

It appears that sleazy male strip club owners in Ontario and around Canada are angry about the conservative government’s decision to ban stripping and sex industry related visas as it limits their “supply” of migrant sex trade workers. Now don't get me wrong, the conservative party of Canada is on my shit-list and their opposition to the sexual exploitation of women is not feminist in any way, shape or form as they want to criminalize women in the sex trade and promote the patriarchal capitalist status quo. Further, their overall foreign temporary workers program is exploitative and problematic as are their policies and beliefs surrounding labour rights in this country.

from the Windsor Star

But I digress,

Rob Katzman, the 50-something male owner of the Leopard's Lounge Broil Strip Club in Windsor, Ontario casually told Global News that there is a growing “need” for local “talent” in Canadian strip clubs due to the ban on foreign stripping visas. The search, they affirm, should be conducted on campuses.

The media, being the patriarchal institution that it is, is assisting in promoting such a recruitment campaign. The news is portraying this as nothing more than a simple economic issue – a question of supply and demand. Evoking the economic-rationality argument is commonplace in media discourses around the sex industry as it allows for normalization and the invisibilization of harm. 

In the same news segment, young women are talked about as commodities, existing only to meet the sexual demands of male strangers. They are not discussed as though they are full human beings. This is yet another tactic used in normalizing the sex industry. 

Katzman's reasoning for this post-secondary recruitment includes the issue of expensive tuition in Canada, especially for those women just moving to the city for the first time. He boasts that this campaign to get young women interested in stripping is rational and sound, especially when looked at through a neo-liberal economics standpoint. The strip club even hired their own sleazy lawyer to further their cause, stating that they are willing to take the issue to court to ensure the adequate supply of sexually available young women. Previously, however, Ontario strip clubs were targetting high schools and young girls under 18, hoping they would change their future aspirations and opt for stripping after graduation. Nevertheless, preying on high school students created too much controversy, so now their focus has shifted exclusively to post-secondary students. With this, flyers and pamphlets are to begin circulating throughout Ontario campuses. 

Katzman is seemingly satisfied with his hunt for college-aged strippers, claiming that these “entertainers” will be “classier” and “smarter." Clearly, those women working through temporary foreign visas were just not meeting the qualifications of classiness. Now, Katzman and those who frequent his club represent not only blatant misogyny, but also classism and racism.

The Global News story, which focuses predominately on the pro-sex industry perspective, two female college students (the first and only ones featured in the entire segment aside from random clips of women stripping) were asked what they thought of strip-club owners coming onto campuses to recruit students. One woman responded positively, stating that she needed the money – so why not? The other woman said that the whole thing was inherently predatory as it took advantage of young women who may have just moved to the city for the first time.

It is predatory, but it also assumes that women should consider stripping, lap-dancing and other forms of “sex work” as inevitable, rational, and even liberating employment options. It normalizes the patriarchal notion that men are entitled to women’s bodies on demand and that women can and should only find power through their appearance and ability to provoke erections.

This is a feminist issue and I hope that all feminists, particularly those living in the province of Ontario can speak out about this as it is unacceptable. Educational institutions and all public spaces for that matter, should be free of predatory pimps. 

Feministing Fail: Examining radical politics by pushing a white-imperialist-male supremacist agenda

It appears feministing.com has done it again, and by that I mean they have further perpetuated ideas that sex ‘work’ is okay and we should all just accept such an abusive and patriarchal type of ‘work.’

I will post the article and bold my response throughout.

The article states:

Today marks the 7th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.

(Yes, I support ending violence against sex workers, but I’m interested in abolishing such a horrific institution that has been raping, murdering and objectifying women as a class for centuries)

To mark this important day, we’re featuring this guest post on the impact of violent language of anti-sex work groups (but what about the pimps and johns that beat and harm women, why are we not looking into the men committing the violence?) by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie. The article was excerpted from “Research for Sex Work 12”, a journal published this month. Both the journal and the website amplify the voices of sex worker-led organizations around the world that speak out about violence from police, institutions, clients, and intimate partners, while challenging the myth that sex work is inherently violence against women. You can download the full journal, with eight more articles about sex work and violence, for free here.

Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie

When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers (Yes, abolition of exploitation; I am part of the group of women and men who think there is a fundamental problem with the idea that women should be bought and sold like merchandise for the sexual consumption of men)

Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography (“Language of war” what the hell does that mean? Groups that work against exploitation, example being radical feminists and other social justice activists do not have hatred or contempt towards women working in this industry. We believe they are fully capable of making choices and reserve our anger towards the johns that sustain such industries) Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good (The sex industry is bad because it is built on the belief that women are holes, sex toys to be used, raped, abused and beat. We stand against this industry because we do not believe that men have unlimited access to the bodies of women and children. I realize the writer is speaking of the small group of women who “chose” this lifestyle, putting the millions of others in a horrible position. How does this affect those women, or all women as a class?) Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in (We support the Swedish model which holds the johns accountable and does not use hate-speech or think of women in the sex industry as “bad” or “immoral”, we do not believe they should be forced to think the same way we do)

This Is What They Say

The sex industry:

• Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires. (Yes, it is. Please provide evidence against this, this is an institution that is racist, genocidal, gynocidal, and fundamentally male-supremacist in nature, as a radical feminist and radical social justice activist, I oppose such systems, however I do not oppose the women working in this industry)
• Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities. (No, it’s a symptom of capitalism, the idea that women are commodities, masculinity is merely affirmed in such an institution)
• Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers. (Well, if you knew ANYTHING about the extent of poor women migrating, you would not be so insensitive. Do you have any idea how many women are forced to migrate to wealthy nations because of globalization and U.S imperialism? Do you have an idea how many women have NO choice? But wait, you’re speaking about a small group of women who may think it’s empowering, this does not and will not give you a right to speak for women who are forced to migrate from their families just to survive)

Commercial sex:

• Is ‘rape that’s paid for’. (Who said this? Why are you categorizing all anti-exploitation feminists into one group? Where are your sources? How is one statement that you have blanketed over an entire group a legitimate argument for your cause?)

Sex workers:

• Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse (Who ever EVER said this? You could be very well making this up, as someone who works with radical activists and speaks to activists on a regular basis, I have NEVER heard someone say this. Please do not put such a disgusting image on radical activists – this is not how we think, this is not what we are about)
• Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children (WHAT? Again, where are you getting this information? Exploitation abolitionists are not blaming or attacking women working in the sex industry. This is offensive and absolutely untrue)
• Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that. (Women are fully capable of making choices, but this does not mean that all women made the same choices. For you to speak so broadly about an entire group of women working in the sex industry is leaving out women as a class, women living in other parts of the world who are forced to accept male domination and experience violence because of that male domination)
• Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance (Not all do, but some do, most definitely. Have you talked to many women, not just living in the West, that have post traumatic stress disorder? Have you heard from women who have experienced horrible trauma and emotion anguish? Most of them report this as this disorder is a very real and serious consequence for MANY women. You seem to think this is all a big fun show for women who choose it, assuming they did. You have made some broad assumptions that do not speak for women as a class. You are leaving out millions of women by being so classist.)
• Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant (Excuse me? Where did you hear this one? Oh, right. You don’t know because you likely just made it up or heard it from one person and made a blanket assumption about all radical activists)

Harmful Consequences

There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency (Again, no one has ever suggested women are incapable of making decisions. You seem to miss the fact that many women do not have the opportunity to make such decisions, sabotaging an entire group of women), and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it (Why is there violence anyway? What is sustaining such an institution that gives men a free pass to harm women? What do you believe is the cause of such a system of oppression? Why not work against the pimps and rapists? Because you'd rather attack women! )

Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way (Yes, hatred for johns because they assume they have a right to women’s bodies because they are in a position of social and political power. I have to repeat again and again, no radical group has expressed hatred for women working in this industry) All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities (Have you ever considered communities that include women in lower socio-economic situations, intersex or other non-gender conforming people? What about them? What about the women in Thailand who can’t support their family in any other way, what about those women?) contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people (What about the violence radical lesbian feminists experience, or the complete ostracizing of radical lesbian feminists from queer spaces, not to mention intersex, gender non-comforning or asexual individuals, do they just not matter? You have a very white, privileged agenda, a very non-radical agenda.) This can be extended to sex workers as well.

Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers. (No one on my end has ever suggested that condom use shouldn’t be supported or that sex workers should be discriminated against)

Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible (Really? What about the women made invisible every day, by people like you? Oh, but wait, looking out for men is all about radical feminism and radical politics, because transgender or gay men are less oppressed than radical lesbians or any other non-hetersexual group) The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, (Have you read any of Sheila’s work or are you like every other non-radical group that read a sentence of Sheila’s work and decided it was “too radical” or “transphobic” because it questioned the privilege of gay white men?) while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human? (How about radical lesbian feminists and the hatred towards them as women and as feminist activists? But who gives a shit if they don’t fit into your white, academically privileged, class privileged queer spaces? )

Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.

Paying the Psychic Tax

Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring.

We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.

Since the rest is just more libertarian, white-supremacist, classist drivel that examines one set of prostituted women and ignores the millions of women and girls trafficked on a daily basis. This is disgusting, racist and pro-imperialist hate coming from people who want to sabotage radical politics in order to push a Westernized and incredibly harmful agenda that supports the rape, murder and co-modification of women. Feministing.com, shame on you.

Why you should toss your copy of "Howl"

Image from NAMBLA's website, Ginsberg has his own special section.

Allen Ginsberg, his poetry is loved by every 18-25 year old in the world, but why? Because “it spoke for a generation, man” Get with the fucking program.

It’s like the whole thing with Kerouac’s On the Road, reading it was supposed to make me perceive life differently or something equally ridiculous. All the book it did was bore me to tears with its redundant pretentious dude-centric ramblings.

Of course, in high school, or in the early days of college to even suggest the book is not the greatest piece of literature on earth will get you looks of disgust. Same goes for Ginsberg, and his most loved work “Howl”

I don’t buy it.

I really don’t and I wouldn’t buy it.

At first the dislike I had was of his work, just was not my thing. I thought it was pretentious, dull and self-satisfying. The works of Ginsberg is basically reading the work of a hedonistic, privileged libertarian dude with no real grasp on any radical political position. My issue with Ginsberg is beyond his writing, I have a big beef with him as he supports an ‘organization’ that promotes raping children.

Well, you all know NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association ? You have most likely heard of it if you have watched South Park before.

I thought it was fake at first…I couldn’t believe it could exist. I was even more shocked when I found out that Ginsberg thought they were a decent group of people.

NAMBLA tries to be a recognized and legitimate organization. Now, this piece (which used to be a video I made on my old Youtube account) isn’t just about Ginsberg, it looks children, porn and sex - Exploitation.

Ginsberg made a point of speaking out for NAMBLA. Let me just quote a bit from his speech,

“Time magazine, following the FBI disinformation campaign, attacked NAMBLA as a group involved in the "systematic exploitation of the weak and immature by the powerful and disturbed." That struck me as a fitting description of Time magazine itself. NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defence of free speech.”

First of all, NAMBLA does not care about children – why? Because children shouldn’t be raped by pedophiles, pedophiles should not pretend that 8 year old boys consent to being raped. That’s not free speech. That’s pedophilia, exploitation and abuse. Any decent person that cares about children’s rights over some dude’s apparent ‘right to free speech’ would be able to understand the difference.

This is so obvious for dudes like Ginsberg, free speech is paramount in their apparent oppression. Free speech, again, for who?

Ginsberg says, Youthful sexuality.

Seriously? Someone is actually assuming that children are somehow the same sexually as adults are, that they actually have the capacity to understand sex (especially sex with an old man) and fully consent to it like an adult?

I don’t think so.

Children are protected under the law for a reason. They are protected because they do not have the same capacity to consent. They are not able to make the same choices as an adults, especially those regarding intercourse with a forty-something year old man. To assume that someone actually has the right to take the still developing, prepubescent child and declare them ‘sexually prepared’ is ludicrous. To make speeches that encourage exploiting children is just sheer bullshit. If these dudes have read anything on childhood development they would know a thing or two about how the child’s brain develops and how their decision making abilities develop, too. They did not just throw the age of consent out there to oppress little kids from having sex with old men. This, like pornography, has nothing to do with free speech.

Ginsberg of course, thought anything that involved men having sex was a right of men, a freedom of speech. He was clearly for freedom, was he not? I guess we should become antagonistic towards efforts to protecting children, in order to protect pedophiles, who are obviously oppressed.

To even suggest that child-abusers are some oppressed group puts you on my shit list for life. As most liberals and libertarians do, Ginsberg goes on spouting off about ancient sculptures of naked children, as a way to justify NAMBLA’s existence. Dudes often turn to history to try and defend their views, pornographers and pimps tell us that Neanderthals drew naked women, so porn is legit. This idea that if something existed a long time ago, it is totally okay and society should embrace it.

This is what Ginsberg said,

“Most people like myself do not make carnal love to hairless boys and girls. Yet such erotic inclinations or fantasies are average”

Pedophiles are the ones who fantasise about having intercourse with children. You support a group and advocate for them to try and have some sort of legal ability to sexually abuse children. You believe you have some innate right to children’s bodies because of erotic inclinations. Sorry, Allen, this shit does not fly.

He continues in his speech,

“It is NAMBLA's mission to raise the subject, explore it, and provide a platform of debate.”

So he claims he doesn’t support raping children yet he supports a group that wants to rape children legally? Right. He goes on to say that police tie child pornography with violence (ya think?) and says that police will go snooping in people’s homes and “invading their privacy” because you know, the child who is being exploited on video for the sick pleasure of pedophiles isn’t having his or her privacy invaded.

This really speaks about the mentality of many liberal white dudes; this idea that the individuals’ satisfaction is a primary concern, whoever gets exploited on the way isn’t even a thought.

Ginsberg continues, “Often police intrusion into consensual intergenerational affections and affairs results in abuse of both parties.” Intergenerational? You mean underage children without capacity to make decisions about sexual relationships with older men? Nice attempt at science’ing up “pedophilia” with “intergenerational affections”

Also, the police intrude? I think the pedophiles intrude. Pedophiles and rapists intrude the space of others to satisfy their own selfish desires. How dare he even suggest that this type of relationship is not in anyway morbid? How can you even suggest that a child has the ability to fully consent to dominating older males?

It doesn’t end there, In Andrea Dworkin’s book Heartbreak, keep in mind this is important as Ginsberg and Dworkin used to be friends. Here is Andrea’s take,

"I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys” (Dworkin 45). This is due to not only his proclamation at their godchild’s bar mitzvah that the friends of his godson “were old enough to fuck. They were twelve and thirteen. Ginsberg said that all sex was good, including forced sex,” his writings include passages such as: “Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they’ll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape” (46, Ginsberg 108)".

that’s right from ginsberg himself, not some insane feminist scheme that I am pulling out of my ass, okay?

Her piece on Ginsberg was honest and real. This is what Ginsberg was about, his ‘freedom’ to fuck whoever he wanted, consensual or not. His idea of “taking down the establishment” is about is unique as Reagan’s approach to politics. So when some snooty literary dude raves about how brilliant and transgressive Ginsberg is, remind him of this post.

Radical Feminism vs. the Sex Industry Pt. 2: White Male Supremacy + Racism

***TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic Language and discussion of sexual exploitation, rape and racism within the sex industry. ***

Before I start my second installment on the sex industry, I want to say that I read two amazing posts today and I’d like to share them with you all. A Radical Pro-Feminist’s blog recently had a guest blogger and the posts are amazing! It examines sex work, issues with ‘trans activists’, trans and other queer politics as well as capitalism. For these posts, which are in order, click here for part one and here for part two.

I’d like to move onto my next section on the sex industry, I want to look at matters of racism in pornography and the sex industry at large. I will start this off with two relevant and powerful quotations from Andrea Dworkin, courtesy of Nikki Craft’s website.

“Pornography uses racism and anti-Semitism to promote sexual arousal; pornography promotes racial hatred by promoting racial degradation as "sexy", pornography romanticizes the concentration camp and the plantation, the Nazi and the slaveholder; pornography exploits demeaning racial stereotypes to promote sexual arousal; pornography celebrates racist sexual obsessions.”

"Why Pornography Matters to Feminists," first published in Sojourner, Vol. 7, No. 2, October 1981. Copyright © 1981 by Andrea Dworkin. All rights reserved.

“In pornography, everything means something. I have talked to you about the skin of black women. The skin of white women has a meaning in pornography. In a white-supremacist society, the skin of white women is supposed to indicate privilege. Being white is as good as it gets. What, then, does it mean that pornography is filled with white women? It means that when one takes a woman who is at the zenith of the hierarchy in racial terms and one asks her, What do you want?, she, who supposedly has some freedom and some choices, says, I want to be used. She says, use me, hurt me, exploit me, that is what I want. The society tells us that she is a standard, a standard of beauty, a standard of womanhood and femininity. But, in fact, she is a standard of compliance. She is a standard of submission. She is a standard for oppression, its emblem; she models oppression, she incarnates it; which is to say that she does what she needs to do in order to stay alive, the configuration of her conformity predetermined by the men who like to ejaculate on her white skin. She is for sale. And so what is her white skin worth? It makes her price a little higher.”

"Pornography Happens to Women," copyright © 1993, 1994 by Andrea Dworkin. All rights reserved.

As most of you know, or hopefully you will after reading this post, that the sex industry is blatantly racist and this racism is celebrated. The racism is not hidden, it is on the cover of a film, sold in a store, next to another store, within a neighborhood, within a community.

Along with being racist, it is homophobic, sexist, misogynist, heterosexist (yes, even the gay porn is heterosexist) and ultimately abusive. Note that by “sex industry” I mean any industry where human beings are bought and sold, directly or indirectly (in the case of pornography) for sexual consumption.

Any research I have to conduct on my own time to reveal the degradation, abuse and hatred that is pornography wears on my nerves. My spirit shakes when I see such abuse, hatred and degradation. It hurts me as a woman to know that men consume this material at our expense. However, without research (not research that includes the watching of pornographic films, merely the searching of titles, viewing of pornographer’s interviews etc) this type of radical critique could not be conducted. Robert Jensen endured much abusive material when he was writing “getting off”; I can’t imagine what he has seen. But, without seeing it, could he really analyze it?

What is even harder to imagine is that people wank off to this material – this blatantly racist and hateful material. That is what is hard to imagine.

Racism is not simply a consequence or one small element of the sex industry; it’s a marketable theme within the industry that generates millions. Not in any other industry will you see such celebratory cheers for racism and bigotry than in the sex trade. No other industry sells items with titles like Ghetto Gaggers, Latina Abuse, Blackhoodrats, Oh No, There’s a Negro in My Mom, Nappy Headed Hoes, Black Dicks in White Chicks, Sweatshop, Oriental Chicks Crave Chocolate Dicks, Naughty Spanish Maids, Bollywood Bang

You get the picture. At least I hope you do.

The picture is ugly. The picture is abusive. The picture is racist. The picture describes the white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist nature of pornography and prostitution. Pornography markets off white male consumption of racist materials to affirm white male privilege. As many radical feminist writers have said in the past that pornography sexualizes oppression and racial stereotypes along with all the other problems that stem from it. In almost all interracial pornography the ideas from imperialist white supremacists saturate the material. Ideas about the corrupt sexualities of people of colour, for example, are huge money makers in the porn industry.

Ideas about the savage, untamed sexuality of the black man ruining the wholesome, virginal white woman; or the submissive Asian woman being taken over by the white man, the white man is viewed asthe be all end all of sexual power; or the feisty, fiery Latina woman whose sexuality cannot be tamed or the black woman’s animalistic sexuality that needs to be contained by the white man. These are common stereotypes within the material. These are the lies that pornography embraces as universal sexual truths. The industry will use derogatory terms like “Hood Rats” or “Jewess” to express white male supremacist sexuality – to maintain the erection of the white man, who never has his power challenged, only confirmed by the similarly racist men who make the pornography.

Some pro-porn/pro-exploitation folks will claim these are merely “taboo fantasies” with no real world implications. But, let’s just pretend for a moment, that this argument holds any legitimacy in any context. It’s a bit hard to pretend isn’t it? It’s a bit hard to believe that a fantasy would be so vile and racist, so hateful. That’s because these are not fantasies, these are realities. Real women’s bodies are being abused; real women of colour are being abused in the name of white male supremacy, capitalist values and imperialism. This idea of the white man’s sexuality being the sexuality is not a fantasy, it has real life implications. The bodies of these women are not artificial, or fake as if a toy doll, they are real. The pain is real, the racism is real, and the societal effects are real. If one sexualizes such racial inequalities, becomes aroused by racist stereotypes and bigotry and ejaculates over these inequalities, you can damn well expect some societal problems.

Viewing pornography does not exist only during the time it is viewed. It lingers in the mind of the men who view it – it rubs off and leaks into their daily lives, into their perceptions of class, race, gender and sexuality. It is damaging to everyone, particularly non-white groups of people, particularly women of colour. This is racism. These videos and photographs are the markers of white supremacy, these are proof. This proof, this evidence is killing women. This proof plays an enormous role in why white supremacy remains.

Now, as a white woman, I recognize the fact that I cannot fully understand the implications. I cannot suggest that I will EVER understand. All I can suggest is that I am outraged by this sexualization of hatred. As a radical feminist, I demand an outcry by not only other feminists but by every single person in any single society who demands a world free from such hate.

This idea of all of this merely being a fantasy? Really? Lets think about a scenario, shall we?

What happens when a 12 year old boy finds “ghetto gaggers” online? What will he think when he sees a white man gagging a black woman with his penis? Or a black woman crying while a white man abuses her? What happens after he views sexualized versions of SS guards raping Jewish women?

Oh, but it’s a fantasy.

The last time I checked the holocaust happened. The last time I checked Jewish women were raped by SS guards; white men raped black women as a way to intimidate and control them during the days of slavery. How about now? White soldiers go into other countries during war; they rape the women there to scare their husbands, show conquer over an enemy, to threaten their village. These threats are carried out on women. All of these things happened, and still happen but the only difference is now you can buy it on DVD and call it a fantasy.

This isn’t just inside the pornography industry; this is in the global sex trade, too. For example, in Thailand tourism is big business. Sex tourism brings in a whole lot of money for the Thai government. Globalization has made it possible for white men to travel to “exotic” countries and buy sex from “exotic” women. These ideas of “exotic” or “animal-like” stem from years of white supremacy. These ideas are pushed forward by continuing racism. White men bring their western ideas about the rest of the world into other countries and ultimately onto the bodies of women. These supposed sexualities of every race and ethnic group were formulated by white supremacist men. These are not truths, merely racist myths created by the powerful to take control over other nations. The global sex trade is big business, there are millions of sex workers in Thailand alone, imagine the rest of the world? These white men come by for business trips; they leave their families at home and explore their “exotic” aka. racist fantasies by renting a body for the night that they can use to affirm their white male dominance.

I’m not pulling this out of thin air, there is much written on the impact of globalization and white imperialism on sex trafficking, prostitution and the like. All of these sexual stereotypes that are incredibly damaging go back to the colonial days. Why has society, particularly Western society, chosen to protect the “speech” of these racists? Why are they deemed as “fathers of sexual revolution” by promoting hate and injustice?How does this translate into our definition of 'freedom?'

White men have a voice. They write the rape, they package the rape, the rape gets viewed by consumers and it continues to be shared between racist rape-culture enthusiasts. There’s a big problem here. The problem affects everyone in that it promotes the hatred and misogyny of not only women as a class, but women of colour everywhere. These pornographers, pimps and rapists have no concept of freedom outside of their privileged lives. Freedom for them is getting to 'write' their speech; their formulated Constitution for the rape culture they have created. They wake up every day with money they made from the bodies of women, the racism they spread and the abuse they hand out on a daily basis. The pornographers should not be protected. We should not defend the racist, sexist, misogynistic pornographers in hopes that ‘free speech’ will prevail.

I have asked it before, and I’ll ask it again, who has ‘freedom of speech?’

What does this mean for women as a class? For the entire world? What does this ‘free speech’ mean?

Free speech is not so free, and rarely, in the hand's of the pimps, is it ever merely just 'speech.'

Radical Feminism vs. the Sex Industry Pt. 1: The Realities

photo found here

As most of you know, radical feminists who stand against exploitation often get a lot of grief from anti-feminist groups like MRAs and others as well as so-called ‘sex-positive feminists.’ Radical feminists are often attacked and called “anti-sex” or “prudes” or “feminazis” because we take a stance that examines the roots of women's oppression. These roots lie inside institutions of oppression like religion, capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy. Many liberal folks consider the sex industry and other such corrupt and exploitative industries to be “engines of free speech” and endlessly protect the rights of exploiters.

I shall address common misconceptions and questions regarding the sex industry as I have received a lot of grief from various anti-radical feminists and pro-exploitation groups. This desire for clarification came after I received comments (ones that I did not publish) about how “awesome” and “empowering” pornography is for both men and women. Other comments were using “choice” as a way to defend the mega-exploiters in the sex industry.

The points that I will be looking at are from my own thoughts as well as inspiration from prominent anti-exploitative radical feminist activists and writers like Robert Jensen, Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys. I also have gained inspiration from many other radical feminist bloggers who have taken on the task of rebutting common pro-sex industry/pro-exploitation arguments like One Angry girl, A Radical Pro Feminist and Twisty.

I will make several posts, all part of an on-going series that I would like to work on. This first post will examine the realities of the pornography industry, including important statistics.

The purpose of this is series is to raise awareness and educate others on the harms of the business of sexual exploitation and slavery. I want to look at the porn industry and the resulting pornification of society.

Many people wonder why I am so concerned with the sex industry; the industry that markets off the bodies and sexualities of mostly women. I acknowledge that the sex industry affects men too, but the numbers of women affected are dramatically higher.

These groups and individuals claim that the sex industry should not be an area of concern for feminists and that there are far more important things to focus on.

My answer as to why I care is simple: I believe in equality. Equality in every aspect of our lives is something I fight for every day. The sex industry treats men and women as non-equals; men are seen as dominant, in the public and the private. The sex industry markets off masculinity. As a radical feminist, I care about the private just as much as the public. The sex industry and sexuality in general are considered private matters by many non-feminist groups and anti-feminist groups. These people believe that since these topics are considered “private” they should not be available for feminist critique.

The private, radical feminists argue, is directly related to the public. Women are traditionally expected to remain in the home or the private sphere while men take on roles outside of the home, in the public sphere. Radical feminists want the private to be made public. We offer critiques for both spheres in order to liberate women as a class.

So, what are we trying to liberate women from? Women and men are equal, aren’t they? They argue that the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s gave women ‘sexual agency’ and thus women have been liberated. I'll get to the 'sexual revolution' aka 'the time when dudes accessed women's bodies as much as they wanted via pornography magazines'

We are trying to liberate women from patriarchy, the system of male supremacy that continues to stand in the way of women’s emancipation. Patriarchy is male supremacy. Male supremacy creates and sustains institutions of oppression such as the sex industry. The sex industry is based on the principles of woman-hating, the construct of masculinity and capitalism. This industry needs to be critiqued, it needs to be challenged. The status quo maintains this industry based around myths of “free speech” and men defend the industry based on the same principles. The term free speech in America seems to translate into “white dudes saying what they want and writing their ‘speech’ using the bodies of women and children”. Women are unable to exercise such ‘freedoms’ in society, simply because they are women. This free speech is defended by liberal white males and anti-feminist groups because it allows them to exploit and use women as sexual accessories, mere décor to aid them in their masturbation.

Free speech has traditionally been used to uphold white male supremacy in America, defending such lunatics as Larry Flynt, creator of Hustler Magazine. Flynt has been protected over and over again by so-called “freedom” fighters in the USA while radical activists such as Nikki Craft are censored to the point of absurdity (I shall cover this in another post).

So, who has the freedom? It sure as hell isn’t the women of the world, who are disproportionately affected by rape, battering, HIV/AIDS, poverty and war atrocities. Freedom lies in the hands of white men and freedom of women is a lie. Women are not free when they are forced to live in poverty. Women are not free when they are being penetrated by two men, bleeding and crying in pain on video tape for other men to watch. Women are not free when they are raped in war, assaulted on the street and killed for staining family ‘honour’

But, what if a woman uses the pornography and/or bodies of women for masturbation, what if a woman gets off on women being harmed?

I can nearly hear someone shouting that in my ear.

All I can say is this: women hurt women, too. The majority of pornography users, however, are men. Why? Pornography is an affirmation of masculinity, dominance and control for male viewers. Pornography embraces power struggles and inequality. Yes, this is still relevant within critiques of non-mainstream and non-heterosexual pornography. I'll get there, too.

Pornography allows capitalism and patriarchy to market, package and sell a sexuality to men. This sexuality is immersed in gender roles, power struggles, sadomaschism and lies about women. They sell a sexuality that is anti-egalitarian and pro-male supremacy, this marketed sexuality leaks into mainstream media and marketing and affects society as a whole.

So, let us take a look into the statistics regarding pornography as a global capital business:

Every second - $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography.

Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States.

The internet is the preferred route for pornography users, according to statistics. Video sales and rentals made up $3.62 billion dollars in 2006. Internet pornography, usually where you can find “hardcore” or “gonzo” pornography took in $2.84 billion dollars in the US. Magazine popularity has decreased substantially.

In 2006

13,982,729 searches were conducted using the search term “teen sex”

13,484,769 searches were conducted using the search term “free sex”

12% of total websites are pornography websites

In 2006, statistics show that 420 million pornography pages were online. 100,000 pages contained child pornography.

The first age of exposure to pornography is 11 years old.

The largest age group to access pornography is between 35 - 49

40 million US adults regularly visit online pornography sites

2006 male and female statistics of logging onto pornography websites: 72% male - 28% female

In the United States 405 million videos were sold or rented in 1992. That number rose to 957 million in 2006.

statistics found here

Now we know the size of this industry, an important factor in any critique or analysis. What sustains an industry this size? Capitalism sustains an industry that blatantly exploits human beings for the sexual gratification of other human beings.

Many will tell me that “all work is exploitative, so why is the sex industry any different?”

The answer to this question is multi-faceted, but I will attempt to make it simple. All work is essentially exploitative because the work is usually underpaid and undervalued, especially if you are a woman. Also, many workers experience a lot of on-the-job problems regarding wages, harassment, poor working conditions and so on. The list can go on forever.

The sex industry is a different kind of exploitative work and to be honest; calling it work does not sit well with me. So, how is it different? I will list the aspects of this industry that separates it from other work.

1) This is one of the only 'jobs' where women can start with higher wages than their male counterparts.

*keep in mind that this is not always the case; some women earn little in pornography

2) Since the job allows women to earn more than they usually would illustrates just how intertwined this job is within patriarchy. The idea that ‘we’ll only pay women well if they are sexually servicing men and performing their gendered role as a submissive woman’ is what separates this ‘work’ from others.

3) This is a job where you can contract HIV/AIDS and various other STIs on any given day because of being told to have unprotected sex with various different people. The condom usage rate in pornography is incredibly low, a mere 17% actually. Condoms are not “sexy” according to dude viewers, so they are usually kept out of mainstream pornography leading to illness and death.

4) Women are used and disposed of in this industry much faster than others. If a woman hits a certain age the porn industry deems her “too old”. Before this, the bodies of women in pornography usually go through alterations such as breast implants, labiaplasty and other forms of misogynistic mutilation.

There are a million other reasons that I could list that separate the sex industry from other industry jobs, but I can’t take that kind of time and space on my blog. Feel free to leave any more reasons on my comment section.

I hope my next post will be a bit more organized in terms of what I talk about. I hope to speak about the specific issues within pornography such as racism, sexism and the effects on society at large.

If you would like to add anything, please let me know!!