Nathan writes:
> Call me an anti-consumerist puritan, but if your sexuality is completely
dependent on shopping, I'm just not going to grant it the same level of
human dignity status.
Okay, you're an anti-consumerist puritan. You are also a grave threat to sexual freedon and equality. Nowhere did I write that my sexuality is completely dependent on shopping. The prism of sexphobia with which you deal with this issue causes you to read things that are not there.
In order to maintain their human dignity, people must be free to obtain whatever objects they want/need in order to fulfill/express their sexuality. Whether these items are toys from a sex emporium or pervertables from Home Depot is irrelevant. What is important is that people are free to obtain these items without interference from the government or puritans.
> But in any case, I find it hard to believe that even SM relationships are
disabled by having pre-made sex toys banned, since I suspect that such were
possible in the days before prefab toys.
Yes, but people have different fetishes. They may desire a particular whip made by a particular craftsman. On what grounds do you deny them the ability to satisfy that fetish? Also, a well-crafted horsehair whip offers a completely different expereince from a pevertable from Home Depot.
> And the result has been far more states passing constitutional amendments
to make such even more impossible.
Ah yes, those legislatures which queers are supposed to rely on for help. You have proved my point, thank you.
> Even successful vanguard court decisions often create more backlash than
actual progress.
So we queers should just sit back, keep quiet, endure our oppression. Don't dare create backlash. If queers had the FULL support of progressives, things might be different, but the left is too riddled with sexphobes for that to happen.
> While progress is not true in all places, California, Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Wisconsin have state laws that prohibit such discrimination. New York City
also bans it.
So there are 14 states out of 50 where it is safe for me to live and work. Whooppee!!!! I am once again available for dancing in the streets.
Queers live in every state and should not have to move in order to be protected.
> If you think tactically, Sandra Day O'Connor is who you should depend on
for your rights, you really have given up hope.
No, I cannot depend on Sandra Day. But then neither can I rely on progressives like you who are so dense about sexual matters. You are as big an obstacle as she is.
Jenny writes:
> In practice, men generally have no clue and criticize us for not being
feminist enough in our personal conduct, which is > useless and irritating
because feminism is a political word, it's not about individual women
changing their personal behavior under the same old oppressive conditions.
What about the simple, common sense idea that criticizing sexist, racist, homophobic speech is an effective way to clean up the public sphere? Just the same as criticizing someone who is pissing in the middle of a subway car. It doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman peeing on the A train -- it shouldn't be done.
> Or men criticize our use of language to show how down they are with
feminism, but the goal is to make themselves look like good guys, not reduce
the amount of sexist bullshit in the world.
Who cares what their intentions are? If it reduces the sexist bullshit, it reduces the sexist bullshit. This purity fetish leftists have whereby the correct actions must be inspired by correct motivations is self-defeating. Let's get the bullshit to stop first, and then work on motivations.
> It would be more helpful to us women if you guys would spend this time
criticizing men when they're sexist and anti-woman, something you may find
to be more frequent and virulent if you listen closely. Ah, but it's harder
to confront men than women, isn't it?
Not a problem at all. I do it all the time. What is so hard about it?
> Stunningly, all women don't think alike on this topic.
I know. But many left women are enemies of porn and sexual diversity.
> Obscenity? To me mostly consists of assaults on women's dignity, worth
and humanity.
Women's dignity, worth and humanity have a sexual component. This component is assualted when women are proscribed from fulfilling/expressing their sexuality in ways useful to them.
Charles writes:
> I'm saying that, if a _man_ criticizes women for saying something sexist,
that act of criticism is likely sexist in itself.
What does "likely sexist" mean? When does such a criticism become "definitely sexist"?
> My position is it's not men's place to correct women's sexist talk.
I am asking why. You keep evading the question (see above).
> I'm not sure whether you are saying that women's prejudices against men
are
"sexist". I don't agree if that is what you are saying.
What I am saying is that women can utter sexist speech as well as men can. Speech is sexist when a person's dignity, worth and humanity (to use Jenny's formulation) is assualted on the basis of that person's sex. Such an assault can be male on male, female on male, female on female or male on female. It is the content of the speech itself and its consequences that define the sexist quotient of the speech.
> Women are the oppressed group. Men are the oppressor group. It's not
symetrical. That's theory and fact.
True, but that fact does not prevent women from uttering sexist speech. The theory part I find wacky is the belief that because women are oppressed they cannot utter sexist speech. That is just lunacy, contradicted by experience.
> No it is not silly to say ahead of time that certain type of talk is
racist.
How can you characterize speech which does not yet exist?
> The context can change it, but, we can discuss the contexts "a priori" to
a large extent, and spell out the exceptions.
Okay, here comes some Buddhism. For those who are allergic: skip ahead and I will catch up with y'all.
There is a concept in Buddhism called mindful speech. In order to practice mindful speech a person must be in the moment and carefully judge the consequences of the words she is about to utter.
Your method is to set up theoretical templates before any speech occurs, discuss things "to a large extent" and spell out the exceptions. Will you be able to lay out all exceptions in all circumstances? I bet not. So what good is this theoretical template?
Better to live and react in the moment than in partially formed theory that is riddled with qualifiers such as "likely," "to a large extent," "often," "almost always."
> The gender of the speaker matters OFTEN. To take the example here, a woman
referring to a female body part, especially in slang, is NOT AS LIKELY to be
sexist as a man saying the same word; the latter is ALMOST a priori or
presumptively sexist.
Charles' words; my caps.
> The burden is on him to demonstrate it is not.
Why?
> Further, it just doesn't work for a man to criticize women for their
sexist
language. Think about it. It should be obvious why, if you understand male
supremacy, and recognize it as a general social fact, institution.
Men occupy a privileged position in society. So that forbids them from criticizing language that perpetuates this injustice? That's whacked Charles.
> Rape involves the exploitation of the generally superior male physical
strength in our species ( part of sexual dimorphism),to force a male's will
on a female, dominate her. It is palpable male supremacy. (It is the
stupidest thing a man can do, pretty much.)
Women also rape other women (unless my lesbian friends are lying to me). It is just not male on female.
> The left opposes actions, language and representations that express and
reproduce male supremacy, because a main part of our "program" is to end
male supremacy.
True. And the left (hopefully) opposes these actions, language and representations no matter who or what their source. If not, then the left is substituting one form of supremacy for another.
> I said rape is the main obscenity for the left,because left "dictionary"
definition of obscenity focusses on _male supremacism in sex_.
Maybe the reason the left dictionary definition focuses on sex was because those who framed the definition were sexphobic and wanted to tar sexuality. This definition of obscenity is like a secret handshake -- cute for intitates, but useless to the vast majority of people.
> Not all definitions of obscenity take that approach. It specifies and
differentiates
left def. of obscenity from your generalized discussion of any and all
"antagonisms" toward sex. It is _not_ a puritanical definition of obscenity
or attitude toward sex.
Yes it is, since it grounds obscenity in the sexual act. Why couldn't the definition of obscenity focus on male supremacy as it manifests itself in the world at large? Why was it narrowed down to male supremacy as exhibited in the sexual arena? Maybe because leftists wanted to smear sexuality. Only reason for focusing the definition so narrowly.
> I am no more of a puritan than you are about sex. You are mistaken when
you try to make me out a puritan compared to you.
You may not be a puritan (I do not think you are), but you employ definitions that promote puritan thinking and that is what counts. Your personal beliefs and attitudes are irrelevant. I cannot know them. All I can judge is your actions and their consequences. You use pro-puritan language. Why would someone who is NOT a puritan do that?
> The problem is not sex , but male supremacy in sex.
Huh? I should introduce you to some of my dominatrix friends. They could teach you a thing or two about male supremacy in sex and I promise -- that ain't no theory. LOL.
> My fundamental criticism of what you are saying is that you do not
acknowledge that male supremacy impinges on sex; and with respect to male
supremacy, women and men are not in the same position.
Sex for me is all about male supremacy LOL. The only things that impinge on sex are those things the couple (or trio or quintet) bring to the bed (or the dungeon) with them. You write as if human beings, especailly women, were passive, helpless puppets. Now, THAT'S sexist.
> Even though, as Kelley says, women can express sexism, participate in male
supremacy, there remains a big difference between the participation of an
oppressed group in their own oppression and the participation of the
oppressor group in that
oppression.
And that difference specifically is? I think you are just splitting theoretical hairs.
> If you are talking about women raping men, then ,yes I would say the
problem
of women raping men is like _nothing_ , zero,zip,nada ,compared to the
problem of men raping women. That's a fact, not a theory.
Rape is a problem PERIOD. No matter who is committing the violation. What compels you to create these unending, useless hierarchies?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister