[003]
216.99.32.44
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"What does foot binding have to do with American society?\\\"
[[http://www.pinstripeandpearls.com/wp-content/uploads/Camille-Stripe-Court-Shoes-For-The-Office-Womens-Work-Shoes.jpg It has to do with these.]] Those are what professional dress codes consider appropriate shoes for women: pointed toes, high heels, and minimal support. They force a woman to walk with unnatural posture. Among the long-term effects of wearing heels: bunions, callouses, metatarsalagia (damage to the interior bones of the toes and ball of the foot), arthritis in the knees and ankles, tendonitis, shortening of muscle fibers in the calves, lumbar spine and hip pain, sciatica, and a unique condition called \\\'pump-bump\\\', where the rigid leather in the back of the shoe rubs against the skin, eventually creating a bony deformity in the heel. And women wear them now for the same reasons women\\\'s feet were bound back in the day: to give them a more feminine, attractive walk, and to make their feet more appealing. The definition of beauty may have changed, but that\\\'s the \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' thing that\\\'s changed.
And wouldn\\\'t you know it? [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4532 It\\\'s already been addressed in the comic.]]
\\\"There is porn for everyone! And not \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of it degrades women!\\\"
Ah, this is my favorite fallacy. Because \\\'\\\'not all\\\'\\\' porn is degrading, then all porn is \\\'\\\'not degrading\\\'\\\'! Even taken at its most benevolent, the \\\'\\\'vast majority\\\'\\\' of pornography is focused on the display of female bodies for the benefit of an assumed male viewer, who is cast as the voyeur on the other side of the camera\\\'s lens. There\\\'s is a film theory term coined by Laura Mulvey, and we have it here on TVTropes: it\\\'s called the MaleGaze. And it\\\'s prevalent in \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' forms of visual media, but it gets its most extreme cases in pornography (and comic books, in part because it\\\'s not uncommon to find art of female comic book characters that have been traced or referenced from porno stills; Google the name \\\"Greg Land\\\" and \\\"Traces Porn\\\" sometime, it\\\'s pretty gross). The fact that there is a special-interest market for non-exploitative, female-friendly porno \\\'\\\'\\\'does not\\\'\\\'\\\' mean that mainstream porn and its ripple effects through more common, everyday things, such as advertising and marketing strategies, do not exist and do not cause harm.
Looks like [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4589 that one\\\'s been done, too.]]
\\\"Prostitutes, if run by a non-violent pimp, make more money than ones who do not have a pimp, and there are high-class prostitutes who make a couple hundred bucks a date and are treated as equals to the men who hired them.\\\"
Ah, my favorite fallacy again. Because \\\'\\\'not all prostitutes are exploited or abused\\\'\\\', then \\\'\\\'all prostitutes are not exploited or abused\\\'\\\'!
The scenario you\\\'re describing, where a woman willfully exchanges sexual favors for money out of a desire to perform that work, is paid well and is treated with respect by all her clients? It is \\\'\\\'extremely rare\\\'\\\', and can only happen under the most specific of circumstances, \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of which begin with the woman in question having access to a higher quality of life, including access to education, health care, and safe working conditions, that what most women \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' gain, let alone through prostitution, and she \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' runs an increased risk of being sexually assaulted by a client or contracting an STD from one. The profile of the high-class-hooker you describe, being held up as a fair and equal representation of what prostitution looks like is nothing but \\\'\\\'pure, privileged fantasy\\\'\\\'.
For some perspective: the majority of prostitutes in North America are human trafficking victims, first solicited for sex (both in prostitution and child pornography) between the ages of twelve and fourteen years old. And even under the \\\'\\\'best\\\'\\\' circumstances, the illicit sex industry preys heavily on all but it\\\'s top-tier starlets to get the best return on its investments. Google \\\"debt bondage\\\" sometime.
Tats has [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4373 covered that]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4330 issue, as]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4359 well.]]
And here we get to the bottom line. Informally, in feminist spaces, it\\\'s called the \\\"What about teh menz!?\\\" argument.
This happens a lot, you are not at all the first person to jump in with the \\\"aren\\\'t you being sexist against \\\'\\\'men\\\'\\\', you hypocrites, because you\\\'re not talking about how sexism hurts men too?\\\"
The answer is no. We\\\'re not.
You, being a holder of privilege, do not get to come into a space that is set aside for the discussion of issues that are not focused on your privileged group, and then demand to be made the focus of attention anyway. We are not upholding double standards, we are not hypocrites, and we are not being sexist, just because, in \\\'\\\'a feminist\\\'\\\' space, set aside for \\\'\\\'feminist\\\'\\\' issues, men and men\\\'s interests do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' automatically get top priority.
[[http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 Click this and read it thoroughly. It will explain more completely than I ever could.]]
[[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4312 By the way]], [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4556 he did that one too.]]
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbRyay_ojY Closing statement. Peace.]]
[[http://www.pinstripeandpearls.com/wp-content/uploads/Camille-Stripe-Court-Shoes-For-The-Office-Womens-Work-Shoes.jpg It has to do with these.]] Those are what professional dress codes consider appropriate shoes for women: pointed toes, high heels, and minimal support. They force a woman to walk with unnatural posture. Among the long-term effects of wearing heels: bunions, callouses, metatarsalagia (damage to the interior bones of the toes and ball of the foot), arthritis in the knees and ankles, tendonitis, shortening of muscle fibers in the calves, lumbar spine and hip pain, sciatica, and a unique condition called \\\'pump-bump\\\', where the rigid leather in the back of the shoe rubs against the skin, eventually creating a bony deformity in the heel. And women wear them now for the same reasons women\\\'s feet were bound back in the day: to give them a more feminine, attractive walk, and to make their feet more appealing. The definition of beauty may have changed, but that\\\'s the \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' thing that\\\'s changed.
And wouldn\\\'t you know it? [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4532 It\\\'s already been addressed in the comic.]]
\\\"There is porn for everyone! And not \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of it degrades women!\\\"
Ah, this is my favorite fallacy. Because \\\'\\\'not all\\\'\\\' porn is degrading, then all porn is \\\'\\\'not degrading\\\'\\\'! Even taken at its most benevolent, the \\\'\\\'vast majority\\\'\\\' of pornography is focused on the display of female bodies for the benefit of an assumed male viewer, who is cast as the voyeur on the other side of the camera\\\'s lens. There\\\'s is a film theory term coined by Laura Mulvey, and we have it here on TVTropes: it\\\'s called the MaleGaze. And it\\\'s prevalent in \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' forms of visual media, but it gets its most extreme cases in pornography (and comic books, in part because it\\\'s not uncommon to find art of female comic book characters that have been traced or referenced from porno stills; Google the name \\\"Greg Land\\\" and \\\"Traces Porn\\\" sometime, it\\\'s pretty gross). The fact that there is a special-interest market for non-exploitative, female-friendly porno \\\'\\\'\\\'does not\\\'\\\'\\\' mean that mainstream porn and its ripple effects through more common, everyday things, such as advertising and marketing strategies, do not exist and do not cause harm.
Looks like [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4589 that one\\\'s been done, too.]]
\\\"Prostitutes, if run by a non-violent pimp, make more money than ones who do not have a pimp, and there are high-class prostitutes who make a couple hundred bucks a date and are treated as equals to the men who hired them.\\\"
Ah, my favorite fallacy again. Because \\\'\\\'not all prostitutes are exploited or abused\\\'\\\', then \\\'\\\'all prostitutes are not exploited or abused\\\'\\\'!
The scenario you\\\'re describing, where a woman willfully exchanges sexual favors for money out of a desire to perform that work, is paid well and is treated with respect by all her clients? It is \\\'\\\'extremely rare\\\'\\\', and can only happen under the most specific of circumstances, \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of which begin with the woman in question having access to a higher quality of life, including access to education, health care, and safe working conditions, that what most women \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' gain, let alone through prostitution, and she \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' runs an increased risk of being sexually assaulted by a client or contracting an STD from one. The profile of the high-class-hooker you describe, being held up as a fair and equal representation of what prostitution looks like is nothing but \\\'\\\'pure, privileged fantasy\\\'\\\'.
For some perspective: the majority of prostitutes in North America are human trafficking victims, first solicited for sex (both in prostitution and child pornography) between the ages of twelve and fourteen years old. And even under the \\\'\\\'best\\\'\\\' circumstances, the illicit sex industry preys heavily on all but it\\\'s top-tier starlets to get the best return on its investments. Google \\\"debt bondage\\\" sometime.
Tats has [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4373 covered that]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4330 issue, as]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4359 well.]]
And here we get to the bottom line. Informally, in feminist spaces, it\\\'s called the \\\"What about teh menz!?\\\" argument.
This happens a lot, you are not at all the first person to jump in with the \\\"aren\\\'t you being sexist against \\\'\\\'men\\\'\\\', you hypocrites, because you\\\'re not talking about how sexism hurts men too?\\\"
The answer is no. We\\\'re not.
You, being a holder of privilege, do not get to come into a space that is set aside for the discussion of issues that are not focused on your privileged group, and then demand to be made the focus of attention anyway. We are not upholding double standards, we are not hypocrites, and we are not being sexist, just because, in \\\'\\\'a feminist\\\'\\\' space, set aside for \\\'\\\'feminist\\\'\\\' issues, men and men\\\'s interests do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' automatically get top priority.
[[http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 Click this and read it thoroughly. It will explain more completely than I ever could.]]
[[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4312 By the way]], [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4556 he did that one too.]]
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbRyay_ojY Closing statement. Peace.]]
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"What does foot binding have to do with American society?\\\"
[[http://www.pinstripeandpearls.com/wp-content/uploads/Camille-Stripe-Court-Shoes-For-The-Office-Womens-Work-Shoes.jpg It has to do with these.]] Those are what professional dress codes consider appropriate shoes for women: pointed toes, high heels, and minimal support. They force a woman to walk with unnatural posture. Among the long-term effects of wearing heels: bunions, callouses, metatarsalagia (damage to the interior bones of the toes and ball of the foot), arthritis in the knees and ankles, tendonitis, shortening of muscle fibers in the calves, lumbar spine and hip pain, sciatica, and a unique condition called \\\'pump-bump\\\', where the rigid leather in the back of the shoe rubs against the skin, eventually creating a bony deformity in the heel. And women wear them now for the same reasons women\\\'s feet were bound back in the day: to give them a more feminine, attractive walk, and to make their feet more appealing. The definition of beauty may have changed, but that\\\'s the \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' thing that\\\'s changed.
And wouldn\\\'t you know it? [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4532 It\\\'s already been addressed in the comic.]]
\\\"There is porn for everyone! And not \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of it degrades women!\\\"
Ah, this is my favorite fallacy. Because \\\'\\\'not all\\\'\\\' porn is degrading, then all porn is \\\'\\\'not degrading\\\'\\\'! Even taken at its most benevolent, the \\\'\\\'vast majority\\\'\\\' of pornography is focused on the display of female bodies for the benefit of an assumed male viewer, who is cast as the voyeur on the other side of the camera\\\'s lens. There\\\'s is a film theory term coined by Laura Mulvey, and we have it here on TVTropes: it\\\'s called the MaleGaze. And it\\\'s prevalent in \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' forms of visual media, but it gets its most extreme cases in pornography (and comic books, in part because it\\\'s not uncommon to find art of female comic book characters that have been traced or referenced from porno stills; Google the name \\\"Greg Land\\\" and \\\"Traces Porn\\\" sometime, it\\\'s pretty gross). The fact that there is a special-interest market for non-exploitative, female-friendly porno \\\'\\\'\\\'does not\\\'\\\'\\\' mean that mainstream porn and its ripple effects through more common, everyday things, such as advertising and marketing strategies, do not exist and do not cause harm.
Looks like [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4589 that one\\\'s been done, too.]]
\\\"Prostitutes, if run by a non-violent pimp, make more money than ones who do not have a pimp, and there are high-class prostitutes who make a couple hundred bucks a date and are treated as equals to the men who hired them.\\\"
Ah, my favorite fallacy again. Because \\\'\\\'not all prostitutes are exploited or abused\\\'\\\', then \\\'\\\'all prostitutes are not exploited or abused\\\'\\\'!
The scenario you\\\'re describing, where a woman willfully exchanges sexual favors for money out of a desire to perform that work, is paid well and is treated with respect by all her clients? It is \\\'\\\'extremely rare\\\'\\\', and can only happen under the most specific of circumstances, \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of which begin with the woman in question having access to a higher quality of life, including access to education, health care, and safe working conditions, that what most women \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' gain, let alone through prostitution, and she \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' runs an increased risk of being sexually assaulted by a client or contracting an STD from one. The profile of the high-class-hooker you describe, being held up as a fair and equal representation of what prostitution looks like is nothing but \\\'\\\'pure, privileged fantasy\\\'\\\'.
For some perspective: the majority of prostitutes in North America are human trafficking victims, first solicited for sex (both in prostitution and child pornography) between the ages of twelve and fourteen years old. And even under the \\\'\\\'best\\\'\\\' circumstances, the illicit sex industry preys heavily on all but it\\\'s top-tier starlets to get the best return on its investments. Google \\\"debt bondage\\\" sometime.
Tats has [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4373 covered that]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4330 issue, as] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4359 well.]]
And here we get to the bottom line. Informally, in feminist spaces, it\\\'s called the \\\"What about teh menz!?\\\" argument.
This happens a lot, you are not at all the first person to jump in with the \\\"aren\\\'t you being sexist against \\\'\\\'men\\\'\\\', you hypocrites, because you\\\'re not talking about how sexism hurts men too?\\\"
The answer is no. We\\\'re not.
You, being a holder of privilege, do not get to come into a space that is set aside for the discussion of issues that are not focused on your privileged group, and then demand to be made the focus of attention anyway. We are not upholding double standards, we are not hypocrites, and we are not being sexist, just because, in \\\'\\\'a feminist\\\'\\\' space, set aside for \\\'\\\'feminist\\\'\\\' issues, men and men\\\'s interests do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' automatically get top priority.
[[http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 Click this and read it thoroughly. It will explain more completely than I ever could.]]
[[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4312 By the way]], [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4556 he did that one too.]]
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbRyay_ojY Closing statement. Peace.]]
[[http://www.pinstripeandpearls.com/wp-content/uploads/Camille-Stripe-Court-Shoes-For-The-Office-Womens-Work-Shoes.jpg It has to do with these.]] Those are what professional dress codes consider appropriate shoes for women: pointed toes, high heels, and minimal support. They force a woman to walk with unnatural posture. Among the long-term effects of wearing heels: bunions, callouses, metatarsalagia (damage to the interior bones of the toes and ball of the foot), arthritis in the knees and ankles, tendonitis, shortening of muscle fibers in the calves, lumbar spine and hip pain, sciatica, and a unique condition called \\\'pump-bump\\\', where the rigid leather in the back of the shoe rubs against the skin, eventually creating a bony deformity in the heel. And women wear them now for the same reasons women\\\'s feet were bound back in the day: to give them a more feminine, attractive walk, and to make their feet more appealing. The definition of beauty may have changed, but that\\\'s the \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' thing that\\\'s changed.
And wouldn\\\'t you know it? [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4532 It\\\'s already been addressed in the comic.]]
\\\"There is porn for everyone! And not \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of it degrades women!\\\"
Ah, this is my favorite fallacy. Because \\\'\\\'not all\\\'\\\' porn is degrading, then all porn is \\\'\\\'not degrading\\\'\\\'! Even taken at its most benevolent, the \\\'\\\'vast majority\\\'\\\' of pornography is focused on the display of female bodies for the benefit of an assumed male viewer, who is cast as the voyeur on the other side of the camera\\\'s lens. There\\\'s is a film theory term coined by Laura Mulvey, and we have it here on TVTropes: it\\\'s called the MaleGaze. And it\\\'s prevalent in \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' forms of visual media, but it gets its most extreme cases in pornography (and comic books, in part because it\\\'s not uncommon to find art of female comic book characters that have been traced or referenced from porno stills; Google the name \\\"Greg Land\\\" and \\\"Traces Porn\\\" sometime, it\\\'s pretty gross). The fact that there is a special-interest market for non-exploitative, female-friendly porno \\\'\\\'\\\'does not\\\'\\\'\\\' mean that mainstream porn and its ripple effects through more common, everyday things, such as advertising and marketing strategies, do not exist and do not cause harm.
Looks like [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4589 that one\\\'s been done, too.]]
\\\"Prostitutes, if run by a non-violent pimp, make more money than ones who do not have a pimp, and there are high-class prostitutes who make a couple hundred bucks a date and are treated as equals to the men who hired them.\\\"
Ah, my favorite fallacy again. Because \\\'\\\'not all prostitutes are exploited or abused\\\'\\\', then \\\'\\\'all prostitutes are not exploited or abused\\\'\\\'!
The scenario you\\\'re describing, where a woman willfully exchanges sexual favors for money out of a desire to perform that work, is paid well and is treated with respect by all her clients? It is \\\'\\\'extremely rare\\\'\\\', and can only happen under the most specific of circumstances, \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of which begin with the woman in question having access to a higher quality of life, including access to education, health care, and safe working conditions, that what most women \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' gain, let alone through prostitution, and she \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' runs an increased risk of being sexually assaulted by a client or contracting an STD from one. The profile of the high-class-hooker you describe, being held up as a fair and equal representation of what prostitution looks like is nothing but \\\'\\\'pure, privileged fantasy\\\'\\\'.
For some perspective: the majority of prostitutes in North America are human trafficking victims, first solicited for sex (both in prostitution and child pornography) between the ages of twelve and fourteen years old. And even under the \\\'\\\'best\\\'\\\' circumstances, the illicit sex industry preys heavily on all but it\\\'s top-tier starlets to get the best return on its investments. Google \\\"debt bondage\\\" sometime.
Tats has [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4373 covered that]] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4330 issue, as] [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4359 well.]]
And here we get to the bottom line. Informally, in feminist spaces, it\\\'s called the \\\"What about teh menz!?\\\" argument.
This happens a lot, you are not at all the first person to jump in with the \\\"aren\\\'t you being sexist against \\\'\\\'men\\\'\\\', you hypocrites, because you\\\'re not talking about how sexism hurts men too?\\\"
The answer is no. We\\\'re not.
You, being a holder of privilege, do not get to come into a space that is set aside for the discussion of issues that are not focused on your privileged group, and then demand to be made the focus of attention anyway. We are not upholding double standards, we are not hypocrites, and we are not being sexist, just because, in \\\'\\\'a feminist\\\'\\\' space, set aside for \\\'\\\'feminist\\\'\\\' issues, men and men\\\'s interests do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' automatically get top priority.
[[http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 Click this and read it thoroughly. It will explain more completely than I ever could.]]
[[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4312 By the way]], [[http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4556 he did that one too.]]
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbRyay_ojY Closing statement. Peace.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I really don\'t like when people write under the examples \
to:
I really don\\\'t like when people write under the examples:
Blah-and-blah show is notorious for this. And then give no actual specific examples, not even 1. This is a problem, right? People shouldn\\\'t be doing that?
So if anyone knows any Desperate Housewives examples, could they add them in?
Blah-and-blah show is notorious for this. And then give no actual specific examples, not even 1. This is a problem, right? People shouldn\\\'t be doing that?
So if anyone knows any Desperate Housewives examples, could they add them in?
