It’s not all about you

Recognizing that it’s about “us”, not about “me”. That’s what makes some of us radical, and some of us liberal or libertarian. It’s not enough to slap a bit of liberal feminism on our radical leftist politics. If you’re going to be a radical, then BE a radical.

“Somewhere along the way ‘the personal is political’ became – not about the way that patriarchal society shapes the detail of women’s lives, not about the commonalities of experiences and certainly not about the social and political forces defining and constraining what it is to be a woman – but about identity, the individual, empowerment, the freedom to choose, the freedom to excel, to achieve.

“The conflation of empowerment and the personal – as an individual, not social being – as the political undermines collective action to dismantle the structures upholding inequality. Emphasising self-determination and personal achievement is conservative, it protects the status quo if it stops us from recognising or caring about the barriers that others face. Autonomy, choice, agency, empowerment are at best tools, political means not ends. If we confuse them with our goals then we might as well watch the chance to create a fairer and more just society for all slip through our fingers.”

Karen Ingala Smith

Last week, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner released a report on the impact of pornography on young people. Tweets about this report from the perspective on an organisation working with women, young people and children elicited responses including the following:

“so improve porn. Don’t ban young people from seeing it. Porn is a healthy aid to masturbation. It’s just badly done.”

“Telling women they’re debased by sex. Feminism.”

“I’m sick of people shaming porn. I’ve been watching porn since I was 11. It’s a healthy part of my life.”

Since then, the voices of so-called pro-porn, pro-sex-work and tory-feminists have started to sound increasingly similar to me. The young woman defending porn as a healthy aid to masturbation, the sex-worker celebrating her mastery of her craft or the former-tory politician describing that hard work that she had to undertake to reach the lofty heights of power, to my ears…

View original post 783 more words

Pimps Posing as “Sex Worker Activists” « My Body the City: The Secret Life of a Callgirl

Pimps Posing as “Sex Worker Activists” « My Body the City: The Secret Life of a Callgirl.

“But pimps don’t like that word. So these founders and leaders of ‘sex worker activist’ organizations say they’re sex workers. They appropriate the identity of those they exploit. It’s a bit like a plantation owner in blackface pretending to be one of the slaves they oppress. They’re trying to steal our survivor voices.
“Douglas Fox, the main ‘activist’ at the International Union of Sex Workers, claims to be a male sex worker. But he and his partner John Dottery were featured as the owners of a large UK escort agency in the British documentary ‘The Escort Agency.’ On a website he co-edits Fox states his partner owns an escort agency and argues ridiculously that pimps are ‘sex workers.’”

The piece Stella Marr links to in this post should tell you all you need to know about “sex worker unions”.  Fox claims that pimps “share equally” in the sex work business.  He whines that pimps work longer hours than any prostitute.  Hey, asshole, do you or any of your pimp buddies face rape, beatings, and dehumanization at the hands of misogynist johns?  I thought not.
 

Reblog of “Your Lies Are Part of Our Genocide”

While there are always issues with spelling and grammar in this blog (which I sympathize with–as someone with no copy editor to look over my writing), it is always the powerful voice of a formerly prostituted woman. Her words are always meaningful and touching. I find that more important than picking on grammatical issues. I hate when we try to limit those who speak based upon the way they say their words. It cuts so many people out, and it’s elitist. Anyway, if you haven’t read this blog before, I recommend it highly.

Mott’s discussion of how liberal feminists and Leftist males erase her reality hits close to home. It’s the reason I reject liberal feminists, and seek to expose the misogyny that is rife in many male-dominated Leftist movements and philosophies.

Rebecca Mott

I have to live surrounded by the lies of the sex trade, the lies of the liberal feminists, the lies of Leftist men, the lies of fundamentalist religious folks, the lies of all of the media, the lies of high and low culture about what it is to be prostituted.

These lies are never harm-free, these lies are never without an agenda, these lies are a constant remainder to all the prostituted that we have no worth, that we will never be given the right to be fully human.

Instead in this environment, it has become the only that the prostituted can gain the simple and basis right to be fully human, is to take and not to wait for others to give it to us.

For the prostituted class see with a clear eye what the lies attempt to hide – that whilst the lies play with language, whilst…

View original post 1,013 more words

The Power to Submit: A Review of "In Her Own Words…An Interview with a London Call Girl" by Ruth Jacobs

 

Note:  This piece originally appeared on The Left Side of Feminism.

 When Ruth Jacobs first sent me a copy of “In Her Own Words…Interview with a London Call Girl”, I didn’t know what to expect.  Would it be a melodramatic story that lays out the evils of prostitution, the horrors of the life?  Would it be a stereotype of the life, one meant to win converts rather than reveal the truth as Q sees it?  I knew Ruth was donating the proceeds to an organization that helps women exit prostitution, so that was where I thought it would lead.  The truth was much worse:  it’s the story of a woman who has convinced herself that her life is “fun”, even as she talks about allowing herself to be raped.  In a few short pages, Q contradicts herself repeatedly, revealing a conflicted psyche of a broken woman.  A woman trying to rationalize the hatred played out on her body.  Without editorializing, Ruth allows us to experience Q’s pain and confusion.

 Many times throughout the piece, Q speaks of the power she has over men.  In the very next sentence, she will often speak of feeling as if she is being raped when she is with a client.  Then, she will speak of feeling raped when she is with a man who doesn’t pay her.  She will talk about power and control, but her story reveals that her sole “power” is the power to submit.  The power to let men play out the “sick perversion in their head” on her body.

 To make herself feel more in control, she speaks of how she is doing a service for society—allowing herself to be abused so that other women and children won’t be.  Even if that were the case, the idea that some women should be set aside and abused so that other women can live in safety is a terrifying thought.  That a woman would wish that to be her own lot in life is heartbreaking.  That other women would wave their hands at it, declaring it all just a “choice” is infuriating.

 I could see Q’s words being very easily twisted by liberal feminists of the “it’s all a choice” variety.  She speaks of how she would not want another life now.  This is all she knows.  To accept that this is a good choice for Q, we have to say we don’t care when she talks about wanting to scream at some guy to “get off me”, but being unable to do so.  We have to say that we don’t care when she talks of how she will never have a normal relationship, because she has seen into the heads of too many men for whom she “plays out all their sick fantasies”.  We have to ignore the disconnect.  The disconnect in a woman’s head when she will say, “It’s a lot of people you’ve seen and it’s soul destroying to do it,” then follow that with, “But now, it’s just like that’s all I know and that’s all I find fun.”  Is this what we want for women in this world?

 Any woman who has worked in the sex industry will relate to what Q says about how society looks down on you, no matter what else you may do in your life.  For some people, it will be a joke.  For others, it will be something they expect you to be ashamed of, to keep quiet about.  Men who will walk into a strip club or pay a prostitute, will suddenly not find it all so funny when it’s their daughters, their girlfriends, their wives, “their” women.  The true Madonna-whore complex is writ all over your life and your body–in flesh, in breath, in blood, in memory.  It will no longer be a joke; it will be something you should hide in shame.  It will be something they do not want to face, because it might say something about the pain you felt and they didn’t see.  If you’ve spent long enough in the life, I imagine it’s easier to forge onward than to deal with the fake world outside.

 Ruth Jacobs does a fantastic job of letting this woman speak her own truth.  There is no need to craft words or ask leading questions here.  Just allowing Q to speak tells us all we need to know about the liberal doctrine we are being fed about women and their “choices”.  When a woman talks about beginning a life of prostitution at the age of 15 and crying after each time, is that what we, as feminists, are fighting for?  When she uses words like “soul destroying”, “rape, “sick” and “perversion” intertwined with “fun”, are we so blind that we can’t see through it all?  When she talks about how she can’t have a normal relationship and doesn’t think she ever will, because she has become hardened to men, is that where we want the lives of other women to lead?  When she speaks of the dangers of her life, are we happy to see other women in danger?  How can a woman say this is what she wants for other women, while still claiming to be a feminist?  I say that she can’t.

  “In Her Own Words… Interview with a London Call Girl” is available to download from Amazon UK at http://amzn.to/P992RY for £0.77 and from Amazon US at http://amzn.to/Qo3SZD for $0.99. It is also available worldwide.  Find out about Ruth’s book Soul Destruction at http://soul-destruction.com/.
 Ruth Jacobs studied prostitution in the late 1990s, which sparked her interest in the subject. Her series of Soul Destruction novels dispel the ‘happy hooker’ myth and expose the dark world and the harsh reality of life as a call girl. She draws on her research and the women she interviewed for inspiration. She also has firsthand experience of some of the topics she writes about, such as post traumatic stress disorder and drug and alcohol addiction.

Feminism, the Sex Industry and Sex Positivity

This piece was originally posted on Righteous Anger.

 

The traditional stereotype of feminist in this country is an unattractive woman who hates men and sex.  In an effort to combat this stereotype, a lot of younger feminists have latched onto the idea of “sex positivity”.  While I have no problem with the idea of being “sex positive,” this has many unfortunate results in both theory and practice.  Among them are the knee-jerk condemnations of many of our feminist elders who wrote about the negative consequences of sex in traditional heterosexual relationships, the blanket approval of prostitution and other sex work without any honest evaluation of its effects on women (and men) working in the sex industry, and the idea that any sexual activity is acceptable and beyond judgement.  While all of those positions have understandable underpinnings, they often go overboard and focus too much on apologizing for feminism and ignoring the motivation behind the original critiques.

The first thing to consider before getting into any particular issue is the idea of choice.  Choice is what feminism is about.  It’s not about prescribing or restricting choices for women (or men, for that matter), but about providing everyone with the chance to make their own choices.  That’s an admirable goal, and it’s one that I support.  The problem is that many contemporary feminists also take this to mean that the right to make a choice means that every choice is equally valid and equally “good” for the woman involved or women as a whole.  This would rightfully fall under the category of ethical relativism, which is in direct contradiction to women’s rights, in particular, and human rights, in general.  Ethical relativism can lead to insane places, such as the approval of murder, as explained by anthropologist Ruth Benedict:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)

For example, it is still a custom in many African tribes to kill so-called mingi children to protect the tribe. Ethical relativism is a dangerous, slippery slope than can be used to justify everything from infanticide to genital mutilation of both sexes to so-called “honor killings.”  Since the wider concept of human rights and the sex-specific concept of women’s rights both hold that there are certain rights that belong to all people, no matter what their culture, ethical relativism has to be rejected by anyone who truly supports these concepts.  Unfortunately, this ethical relativist stance is taken by many feminists who argue for the validity of all “choices.”

One of the main tactics taken by many of these contemporary feminists is to try to ingratiate themselves with patriarchy by condemning so-called radical feminists of the past.  Andrea Dworkin and other anti-pornography feminists are common targets.  Andrea Dworkin is a prime target because of the out-of-context quote from one of her books equating all heterosexual sex to rape.  In an effort to show themselves as “good” feminists, these women strip that quote from all context of time and explanation.  Dworkin did make such a statement, but she also explained what the statement meant.  She was describing the traditional situation in which women are expected to trade sex for economic survival, i.e. traditional marriage.  Her question was whether it was possible for a woman to give true consent if she had no choice but to give up sex in order to gain the economic means to support herself and her children, the very means of survival.  If consent is based upon having no choice but to say yes, is it really consent?  I would say that is an important question still, especially when we consider those who argue for work in the sex industry as a valid choice.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re on Facebook, in the blogosphere, or on the website of a feminist organization, you’re going to find younger feminists trying to tie the sex industry and sex positivity inextricably together.  The problem is that sex work is generally that–work–not a sexual outlet.  Some 20-plus years ago, it was work I did.  Before becoming pregnant with my oldest child, I worked in several topless bars around the city for a while.  I had many other friends who worked the clubs or worked as prostitutes on the street.  As women, we had the option of the clubs or the street.  My male friends generally just had the street.  Not one of us was there for sex or because we wanted to be there.  Every last one of us was there because of an addiction to street drugs.  Every last one.  A few of the women I met at the club were there because they were very young single moms with no skills.  Taking their clothes off for cash was the only way to put food on the table.  Again, sex was not the motivating factor here, folks.  Whether it was having some creep follow us home from the club, contracting life-threatening diseases, having clients want to do violent things to our bodies, or being strip-searched by management because some rich asshole lost the cash he was flashing around the club, every last one of us experienced frightening, humiliating, dangerous, and ultimately life-altering repercussions.  It wasn’t sexy.  It wasn’t fun.  It was soul-sucking.

A couple of years ago, I lived in a neighborhood that is home to most of the city’s street prostitutes.  Many of the women would bring their boyfriends out to keep watch over them.  The man would sit a distance away.  Not close enough to scare johns away, but close enough that they could be seen.  Why?  So the john would know someone had seen him and his vehicle, should the woman not come back safely.  Sexy?  How about life-threatening, folks.

Even when a woman is working in a legal operation, either a strip club or a legal brothel, she’s not likely to be treated well by the management.  They take your money in the clubs.  In the brothels, the women are forced to undergo regular medical check-ups to keep the clients safe.  I want to know who’s making sure the clients are healthy and not giving the women diseases that could threaten their lives?  After all, it is much easier for a woman to get a sexually-transmitted infection from a man than the other way around.  This is especially true when you’re talking about blood-borne infections like HIV or Hep C.  A woman’s body is more likely to end up torn, giving the pathogen an easy entrance to her bloodstream.

Of course, the club owners, like any pimps, have no concern about the women who work for them.  Do they know that the majority of their employees are addicts?  Fuck yes, they know.  The women teach each other what make-up to buy and how to properly apply it to cover up track marks.  They teach each other which articles of clothing will work for the same purpose.  Elbow-length black gloves are a favorite of junkies who work the clubs.  The owners don’t care, as long as the marks don’t show.  Track marks were treated the same as tattoos–you can have them, as long as they don’t show.

The other issues that pro-prostitution feminists try desperately to ignore are trafficking and child prostitution.  They claim those are completely separate issues.  Ummm….no, they are not.  They are not synonymous, but trafficking and child prostitution exist because prostitution itself exists.  Not all prostitutes are children nor are they all trafficked.  However, all trafficked females and child sex workers are prostitutes.  As an Arizonan, I am well aware how easy it is to exploit those who end up in the U.S. without papers.  The exploitation and victimization is a widespread and real problem without prostitution being part of the equation.  Adding the trafficking of female bodies for the sex trade makes it mind-numbing.  The men who use these women’s bodies see it as no different than going to see any other prostitute.  In fact, they may not even know that these women are any different than any other prostitute.  Simply changing the law to decriminalize is not going to fix that problem as long as the undocumented are afraid for themselves or people back home.

And therein lies the problem with many pro-prostitution feminists:  they claim that decriminalization will fix all the current problems associated with prostitution.  They claim it will eliminate the violence experienced by so many prostitutes.  They claim it will eliminate the stigma.  I just don’t know how the hell they’re arriving at that conclusion.  This is a society that hasn’t eliminated violence against women outside the ranks of prostitution.  There are many men who go to prostitutes specifically because they are looking to inflict pain and violence on a woman.  Will the law make those men disappear?  Hell, we have attitudes within law enforcement and general society that dismiss and minimize the violence against prostitutes.  The idea that a prostitute can’t be raped is still firmly entrenched.  The unwillingness to vigorously pursue those who beat, rape, or even murder prostitutes is common.  Those are deeply ingrained in our culture.  Decriminalization of prostitution will not magically fix all those problems.  Those problems are about misogyny.

So, what of the biggest money-maker in the sex industry?  What of pornography?  I’ve read and seen my share of porn, whether it was labeled as such or called “erotica”.  I can’t speak to most of the women in that industry, because I have never known anyone who worked in it.  The closest I came to knowing anyone in that part of the industry was reading Ordeal, the autobiography of Linda Boreman (a.k.a. Linda Lovelace).  It did not paint a pretty picture of her life as the star of the “revolutionary” pornographic film Deep Throat.  As much as it tried to gloss over the issues, neither did the 2005 documentary Inside Deep Throat.

Boreman talked of being beaten by Chuck Traynor throughout their relationship.  Everyone on set knew of this, as they had to cover the bruises in order to shoot the movie.  Others who worked on the film have admitted that they knew he was beating her.  They covered up and pushed on.  Of course, the movie was produced by mobsters.  The documentary Inside Deep Throat fails to mention the beatings and bruises, but they do let one thing slip:  they discuss Boreman being taken into a room full of mobsters by Traynor and told to give a couple of the mobsters blowjobs in order to get the funding.  Was everything that went wrong in Boreman’s life a result of that movie?  Of course not.  However, anyone who praises that movie without acknowledging the horrors of its production are really missing something in the way of humanity.  Unfortunately, others from the porn industry, such as Annie Sprinkle, have done just that.

Of course, no one is suggesting that every porn flick ever made was shot under the same circumstances as Deep Throat.  That would be ludicrous.  However, the actress doesn’t have to be tortured for there to be something off about the end-product.  One money shot after another is a woman on her knees having some asshole shoot his wad into her face.  The desire to degrade is obvious.  One website invites “bitches” to “gag on my cock.”  It features pictures of women with t-shirts labeling them as stupid which are linked to videos of some guy almost making them puke while calling them names and telling them that this will shut them up, like women should shut up.  It’s awful that these exist.  It’s worse that women, for whatever reason, involve themselves in this kind of verbal degradation and violent sex.  Yes, it’s a choice.  And these women are free to make it.  However, anyone who thinks that it’s not nauseating and misogynistic is a fucking idiot.

Then, we end up in the realm of BDSM.  Another choice that we’re told not to judge.  Even worse, we are told again and again that it’s actually the bottom who is in charge.  Okay, whatever.  Kind of like how Christianity isn’t about subjugating women at all.  We will even find women who say in one breath it’s empowering, then in the next admit that many female submissives have been sexually abused in the past.  Instead of admitting that this may be a way of internalizing the male violence, they suggests it’s a “healthy” way to “work it out.”  Hmmm…..I have my doubts.

If you want to believe any of that shit, feel free.  My problem with BDSM has more to do with the literature.  The latest craze, 50 Shades of Grey, has been condemned even by some BDSM devotees as a celebration of a violent relationship, found guilty of romanticizing violence.  That’s not even the biggest problem I have with BDSM literature, though, especially that purportedly written by women.  My bigger issue is that so much of it revels in the idea of women being powerless outside the bedroom.

One site, which once presented itself as “erotica for women,” has made a living off this shit.  Oysters and Chocolate is an “erotica” site started by two women.  In interviews, these women have whined that they are feminist, and how dare these mean ol’ women attack them for having an anti-feminist message.  Meanwhile, they publish series like that written by a woman named Kris Williams.  (The series has since been made into a book, so it is no longer available for reading without purchase.) In this series, the male who tortures his lover makes it clear that he hates feminists.  The author also writes that he tortures his lover because he doesn’t want her to have any power over him.  What power, you might ask?  Oh, the fact that he loves her gives her power.  So, to clear that nonsense out, he beats and humiliates her.  He revels in her fear.  That is reinforced over and over again.  Fear is key.  It’s what he gets off on.  Knowing that she is afraid of him.  The introduction of BDSM into their relationship isn’t one they have agreed on together; it’s one he enforces under threat.  That doesn’t sound like the “bottom in control” idea that the BDSM crowd is so fond of selling.  Yet, it is what the literature reveals as a driving motivation.  Tell me in what fucking way that is “feminist.”

In the end, I am firmly committed to the idea that people are free to make their own choices.  As a free speech absolutist, I will also passionately defend the rights of everyone to say and otherwise express themselves however they choose.  Holocaust denier?  Have your say.  Homophobe?  Have your say.  Woman-hating pornographer?  Have your say.  The fact that others are free to make their own choices and free to express themselves in whatever way they see fit does not, however, mean that all of these choices and expressions are worthy of praise.  It does not mean they are “sex positive.”  And it sure as hell doesn’t make these choices or expressions “feminist.”

Critiques of "Half the Sky": Ignoring the Real Problem

 Yesterday, I ran across a critique of the PBS presentation of Half the Sky called “Nicholas Kristof:  Half the Sky, All the Credit” by Anne Elizabeth Moore and Melissa Gira Grant.  I had some of my own criticisms of the PBS presentation, especially considering the underlying capitalist assumptions of Kristof.  The ones that concerned me the most were the arguments made for the education of girls.  That is, that if girls were educated, they could have “businesses” and be better mothers.  Such arguments out of capitalist and patriarchal bias would be understandable if the purpose was to persuade resistant parents to educate their daughters.  They are much less forgivable when presented to a general audience.  I also wondered why a man was front-and-center throughout the episode, while the female co-author of the book was confined to short interviews throughout.  However, this particular critique, and others I read made me more angry than Kristof ever could have.  They are chock full of shallow, knee-jerk, ethical relativist bullshit.

  After searching around, I found some other pieces written by Melissa Gira Grant.  They all run in the same vein.  Most of them conveniently tout her own book.  (Nothing like being a “media-maker” whose job it is “to talk and get talked about”, eh, Ms. Grant?)  The worst part was her insistence that the whole thing was just “white man’s burden”.  The flippant, almost dismissive way she talks of the horrors suffered by these women reveals her real aim here; the women aren’t really her concern.  She has an axe to grind with Kristof, and the women be damned.  Had the critic confined her discussion to the overbearing, shallow nature of Nicholas Kristof, I would not have a problem with her.  However, the fact that she completely ignored the indigenous women working against these practices just infuriated me.  To completely ignore and dismiss a 13-year-old rape victim, so she could beat her pro-prostitution drum, made me want to put my fist through a wall.  To make her point, she decided she’d make her own narrative.  And it was a false narrative.

  In all the segments, there are indigenous women involved in spearheading the efforts.  The only organization that seemed to operate without the considerable involvement of indigenous women was the organization in Vietnam, which was run by a white, Western male.  These educated Western women take the dismissive approach that these indigenous women aren’t doing anything to solve the problems, so they can be ignored.  These educated Western women hail the “local” and “grassroots”, then ignore the local women in favor of grinding their axe against Kristof.  Of course, these educated Western women are of the “prostitution is awesome, y’all” sort, too, so what do you expect?

  In fact, Melissa Gira Grant has actually written the following:  “The messaging of anti-sex trade campaigners casts sex workers as enslaved victims. In reality, it’s a service industry job.”  A “service industry job” populated by women who overwhelmingly began “working” as young teenagers.  A “service industry job” overwhelmingly done by the very poor, the very uneducated, and the very addicted.  A “service industry job” that puts these women at grave risk of rape, torture and murder.  She claims that the only reason prostitutes are the most common targets of serial killers is that they are “marginalised”.  No, they are the targets because there are misogynist pieces of shit out there who wish to rape and to murder women.  Prostitution puts women in the position of going with random men they don’t know, making them more likely to run into one of the many woman-torturers in this world.  The marginalization only comes in when we talk about prosecution and apprehension of these men.  Goddamn, but this woman is a fucking idiot.

  Gira Grant claims that the causes of all these issues are poverty.  In some sense, yes.  That is an incomplete, shallow argument, though.  To argue that sex work is just a “service industry job” ignores an entire discussion about the very nature of work and the desperation of subsistence–a discussion that lies outside capitalist claptrap.  She’s buying into the capitalist bullshit, in other words.  But it’s even more than that:  it’s ignoring and excusing misogyny and patriarchy.  She might argue that poverty exacerbates the issues and puts women in the position of going into said “service industry job”, but she ignores the underlying patriarchal realities of misogyny.  Why does a man who is stressed due to poverty or war or whatever turn to rape, which she seems to argue is the case?  Why is a woman a “legitimate” target for his aggression and his frustration?  Because of misogyny and patriarchy, dumbass.  Why does an impoverished family sell and torture its daughters, but not its sons?  Because of misogyny and patriarchy, dumbass.  Why does an impoverished woman make the “choice” to support herself through prostitution?  Because of misogynistic and patriarchal assumptions that say women’s bodies are their only real commodity, dumbass.  Gira Grant ignores that, stopping at the surface, as per usual.

  Gira Grant and Moore have claimed that the response to their critique has been “overwhelmingly positive”.  So?  There are lots of really, incredibly stupid people in the world–men and women.  I’ve also had difficulty commenting on any of their pieces.  The blog /PostWHOREAmerica (yes, “/POSTWHOREAMERICA”–emphasis theirs–is the name of it) uses Disqus for commenting, which is a broken commenting system that I’ve always had trouble using.  I don’t know how many others have similar issues.  Also, saying the response on your blog was “overwhelmingly positive” means little, since most people who read a blog are people who agree with the author.  As for pieces on other sites, every one I have found has been in a “comments are now closed” state.

  Women like Gira Grant and Moore are the handmaidens of patriarchy.  This is not the first time Melissa Gira Grant has argued for women to be degraded in the name of “choice” and capitalism.  A search for her name will reveal a slew of the general “yay! prostitution” nonsense that has become so prominent among Third Wave “feminists”.  This type of woman is worse than any right-wing woman, because we all know we can disregard the ravings of that segment.  No, this type of woman makes claims to feminism, while selling women out.  This type of woman will look at a film featuring a 13-year-old girl who was stabbed through the goddamned eye by a pimp, but instead focus on problems with presentation.  This type of woman will hear the story of a 13-year-old girl who was raped, then thrown out of her home because of it, and rant about the man who is presenting the story instead of the man who raped the child.  This type of woman will ignore the indigenous women who give shelter to a young mother whose family threatens to murder her newborn, claiming that the whole thing is just “white man’s burden”.  This type of woman is the enemy of women everywhere.

NOTE:  If you are in the U.S., you can watch Half the Sky online.  Part One will be available until Monday, 8 October 2012.  Part Two will be available until Tuesday, 9 October 2012.