Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[ymu]

relativist crap I'm afraid.

How on earth is it oppressive to say someone is oppressed/exploited even if the individual doesn't think they are?

The irony being that a man who lives off the exploitation of sex workers would not be oppressive by agreeing with a woman who says she doesn't feel exploited or oppressed but a man who argues it is exploitative is actually the oppressor?

The stupidity of such relativist identity politics crap should be all too obvious in such a situation.

If people want to think that I oppress women and the working class in general for arguing that sex work and work in general is exploitative, regardless of what particular workers believe, they can go for it.

You appear to have read some book that told you what to disagree with. Try reading the thread.

 

[revol68]

You appear to have read some book that told you what to disagree with. Try reading the thread.

I've read the thread, more importantly I read your post that made the ridiculous assertion that a man telling a women she is oppressed is oppressive itself, which like I said is relativist crap.

 

[ymu]

I didn't say that. I was one of those who pointed out the internalisation of oppression to Edie.

Which is why it's obvious that you haven't read the thread, you've just matched up some key words with a book you read once. When you grow up a bit, you'll learn how to formulate your own arguments.

I was pointing out the irony that so many posters can point out (correctly) to Edie that she doesn't have to be aware of her own oppression to experience it, yet Blagsta is being defended on the grounds that he is not a misogynist therefore his comment cannot have been oppressive.

But things always seem to get a bit touchy around here whenever we touch on male responsibility for oppression.

 

[revol68]

I didn't say that. I was one of those who pointed out the internalisation of oppression to Edie.

Which is why it's obvious that you haven't read the thread, you've just matched up some key words with a book you read once. When you grow up a bit, you'll learn how to formulate your own arguments.

I was pointing out the irony that so many posters can point out (correctly) to Edie that she doesn't have to be aware of her own oppression to experience it, yet Blagsta is being defended on the grounds that he is not a misogynist therefore his comment cannot have been oppressive.

But things always seem to get a bit touchy around here whenever we touch on male responsibility for oppression.

It was this I was taking issue with.

The final paragraph is pointing out the irony. This started because Edie objected to being told she was oppressed and this led to a discussion about internalisation of oppression. Yet when a bloke makes a comment that several posters interpreted as oppressive, they're simply wrong because he's not like that. Women internalise oppression but men don't internalise oppressiveness? I'd love to see a thread on that ...

This is my point it doesn't prove shit that some people think it's oppressive, likewise it doesn't matter that some people think sex work and wage labour in general aren't exploitative. You have to make an argument and frankly I can't see one that suggests Blagsta has internalised oppressiveness.

And whilst I'm pretty certain I have many flaws formulating my own arguments isn't one so please find another angle.

 

[revol68]

Things get touchy when people reduce oppression to a stupid subjective individualist level, yes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Things get touchy when people reduce oppression to a stupid subjective individualist level, yes.

A lot of oppression is experienced at that level, though, is it not? In particular, sexist oppression is experienced on a day-to-day level by women in their individual dealings with the world. Yes, some oppression, such as that often experienced in jobs, is systemic and impersonal in nature, but some isn't.

 

[revol68]

A lot of oppression is experienced at that level, though, is it not? In particular, sexist oppression is experienced on a day-to-day level by women in their individual dealings with the world. Yes, some oppression, such as that often experienced in jobs, is systemic and impersonal in nature, but some isn't.

of course but I haven't seen any evidence of this from Blagsta whose only sin seems to be for arguing that sex work is exploitative.

 

[Blagsta]

I am fairly sure that context in this case, though, is that blagsta was referring back to the last thread around prostitution (one where you were, iirc, away from the boards and didn't post) rather than to other threads that have gone before where Edie has talked about her experiences when working. That last thread did very much deal with the "normality" of prostitution and whether it was normal/acceptable/ok for blokes to use prostitutes.

Yes.

 

[Blagsta]

No - he used what she said in a discussion about prostitution, specifically in respect of whether it was "normal" for blokes to use prostitutes/pay for sex. She very specifically argued that point. That doesn't really have a great deal to do with her history (someone who had never worked could have argued the same point).

Again, yes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

of course but I haven't seen any evidence of this from Blagsta whose only sin seems to be for arguing that sex work is exploitative.

Ah ok.

As a more general point, to go back to something kabbes said earlier, I think there's a danger in over-extending the definition of oppression. If it ends up that we're all oppressed in some way, that's not too useful, imo. If we're all oppressed, that's kind of the same as saying that none of us is oppressed. Shouldn't there be a point where we distinguish between the compromises we choose or are forced to make in order to function in a society and oppression. There's a value judgement to oppression, isn't there - restrictions enforced upon us that are unnecessary and bad.

I'm not so sure the problem here isn't with the fact that different people are defining the word differently. It's a hard one to define, I think, because the same societal restriction may be interpreted by one person as oppression, and by another as simply 'how things are', or even 'how I like things to be'.

 

[Blagsta]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

Take care

 

[ymu]

This is my point it doesn't prove shit that some people think it's oppressive, likewise it doesn't matter that some people think sex work and wage labour in general aren't exploitative. You have to make an argument and frankly I can't see one that suggests Blagsta has internalised oppressiveness.

Do you know what internalising means?

Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?

 

[Blagsta]

I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.

Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring. That was stella and ymu. As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes. Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done. In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it. You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.

 

[PlaidDragon]

Edie wants people to stop talking about it, so people continue to go on about it. Makes sense. Can't we get back to the topic at hand?

 

[Red Cat]

I was pointing out the irony that so many posters can point out (correctly) to Edie that she doesn't have to be aware of her own oppression to experience it, yet Blagsta is being defended on the grounds that he is not a misogynist therefore his comment cannot have been oppressive.

Well, I think I was the only one who made anything approaching that defence in that mine was based on knowing him and his thoughts about edie rather than discussing his argument. But I didn't say anything like you've suggested.

 

[Red Cat]

Do you know what internalising means?

Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?

No, nobody understands anything ymu. Nothing at all.

 

[ymu]

Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring. That was stella and ymu. As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes. Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done. In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it. You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.

What did your post add? Why did it have to dismiss Edie's views as worthless in order to make whatever obscure point it was making about the semantic definition of 'normal'?

You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

alright, i was trying to dance around it - but the shitty bit's got quite a bit to do with you and your posts since three.

I quite understand, I don't know why, but simpletons like Blagsta seem to get riled by my presence and get all unnecessary.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring. That was stella and ymu. As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes. Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done. In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it. You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.

lamest.wiggle.evah

 

[PlaidDragon]

Ffs

 

[ymu]

No, nobody understands anything ymu. Nothing at all.

Was the point being made too difficult to address then?

 

[Red Cat]

You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.

After you repeatedly called him a cunt?

 

[Red Cat]

Was the point being made too difficult to address then?

For all other than you oh most intelligent being *bows down*

 

[revol68]

Do you know what internalising means?

Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?

No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.

I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.

Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.

 

[ymu]

After you repeatedly called him a cunt?

Every time he self-justified instead of making a simple apology, yes.

For all other than you most intelligent being *bows down*

There are plenty of people who understand the point perfectly well. There are others who are studiously ignoring it, for reasons they probably can't explain, it being internalised and all.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.

I only have one issue with your post, ymu: Aren't you the person who was bellyaching about the trotting out of stereotypes, yesterday? If so, do you really think it's wise to deploy stereotypes to back up your argument?

 

[ymu]

No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.

I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.

Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.

Edie has explained exactly what she found oppressive about it. Do you need a bloke to explain it before you take it seriously?

I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.

 

[Red Cat]

I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.

Indeed. Which is why I jumped in. Really fucking nasty.

Now jumping out again.

 

[ymu]

I only have one issue with your post, ymu: Aren't you the person who was bellyaching about the trotting out of stereotypes, yesterday? If so, do you really think it's wise to deploy stereotypes to back up your argument?

What stereotypes am I deploying?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What stereotypes am I deploying?

You said "a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read...".[/quote]
Man as all-powerful. That's a stereotype.

"...I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types...".

Woman as weak-minded is a stereotype.

...If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing."

Last verse, same as the first. A stereotype.

And yes, everyone knows you're deploying these stereotypes ironically.