[LAF] Blurbs for Bookfair
steve ash
steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Aug 3 19:25:11 UTC 2009
Need to send the blurbs for Bookfair off tommorrow, so if there's no comments by Tues evening I'll take that as an okay
--- On Mon, 3/8/09, laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org> wrote:
> From: laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: LAF Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Date: Monday, 3 August, 2009, 12:39 PM
> Send LAF mailing list submissions to
> laf at lists.aktivix.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
> laf-request at lists.aktivix.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> laf-owner at lists.aktivix.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of LAF digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FW: gender issue (Ed
> McArthur)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:38:51 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ed McArthur <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [LAF] FW: gender issue
> To: LAF EMAIL LIST <laf at lists.aktivix.org>,
> Joy Wood
> <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> Message-ID: <131604.28033.qm at web24610.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> What the IUSW? want is to "clean up" the sex industry but
> they don't want to abolish it which is what anarchist should
> want
> ?
> They want safe working conditions etc which is fair enough
> from a TU point of view
> ?
> But a Union representing workers in say the ARMS industry
> would want exactly the same
> to maximise the pay and conditions and incidentally oppose
> Job Cuts which might
> result if peace campaigners get their way
> ?
> The problem here is that workers in the arms industry? have
> the same vested? interest
> in WAR? and Repression(much of the arms trade is about
> selling weapons used to put down Civil unrest)? as the
> capitalist who employ them and the customers of the
> industry
> ?
> The same applies to the sex industry, I agree with Joy, the
> law should not target the sex workers, but I am for
> targeting of customers/pimps/employers? and I am not going
> to complain if a lap dancing club/strip joint is closed down
> by the local council
> ?
> If the sex industry is sanatised? it becomes more
> acceptable, and prostitution etc then becomes just another
> career choice-? presumably there will be sex industry stands
> at?Job Fairs- ?but the preconditions for the sex industry to
> even exist in the first place is misogynistic attitudes on
> the part of men and acceptances on the part of women,? and?
> such attitudes will never go away if sex work is considered
> normal in fact the established sex workers will have a
> vested interest in ensuring they continue
> ?
> I don't believe any man who was not a misogynist would have
> anything to?do ?with the sex industry as a customer pimp or
> employer
> ?
> Ask for the post capitalist moneyless society, if we had
> gone that far
> which would require a fundermental change in human
> psychology
> rather than some leninist style uprising why would there be
> specific sex workers
> rather than sexual liberation for all ?
> ?
> But in the present world? I would say that while like Joy I
> would not
> want to attack sex workers for being sex workers, I would
> not ether positively
> defend their rights to be sex workers , just as I would not
> have defended the
> rights of slaves to remain slaves , the problem is that sex
> workers who have reasonably good conditions? are likely to
> forget/be indifferent to the conditions for the majourity
> world wide
> ?
> Ed
> ?
> ?
>
>
> ?
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563???????????
> ?
> ?
>
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ??
> ?
> ?
>
> --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [LAF] FW: gender issue
> To: "LAF EMAIL LIST" <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 1:08 AM
>
>
>
>
> #yiv1501175619 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv1501175619 {
> font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
>
>
> ?
>
>
> From: joy_helbin at hotmail.com
> To: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [LAF] gender issue
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:07:58 +0000
>
>
>
> #yiv1501175619 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
> {padding:0px;}
> #yiv1501175619 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
> {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
>
> Steve
>
> The problem is the society we live in treats women to a
> large extent as?a resource for the benefit of men; for sex,
> cooking, cleaning, picking up after them, etc.?
> Unfortunately the anarchist movement also has this tendency
> hence expecting women to supply sexual access rather than
> engaging with women as?equal human beings.? The
> anarchist?solution I propose is to drop the hierarchies
> which exist between those who?feel entitled to purchase
> sexual satisfaction by means of using women as a commodity,
> and those who feel bound one way or another to serve these
> entitled people.? I am asking for men to stop treating women
> as a commodity and engage with them as human beings?of
> equal?worth with themselves.??For example, not?to demand
> sexual service from women but to learn how women achieve
> sexual satisfaction and step out of the way of their
> achieving it,?stop discouraging women from fulfilling their
> own sexual needs, and stop demanding women take
> time out from their own sexual desires in order?to satisfy
> privileged men's sexual demands.
> ?
> BTW, what are the "few practical criticisms" other
> feminists have with what you have been saying, Steve?
> ?
> I will not speak at the ABF LAF workshop as a
> "prohibitionist" because I do not agree with prohibiting
> "sex workers".? I have stated clearly already that my aim is
> abolishing prostitution, not prohibiting sex workers.? In
> this society people do what they have to do to gain an
> income?and sex workers are not the problem, the problem is
> those who feel entitled to sexual satisfaction at the
> expense of others.? Secondly, I want a world where
> prostitution does not exist because it does not promote
> sexual freedom for all.
> ?
> For the avoidance of doubt, I state here clearly that I am
> not opposing your decision to arrange sex workers to speak
> at the ABF LAF workshop, I only wonder why you have done
> that.? Since I understand anarchism to mean no hierarchies I
> would welcome a workshop discussing and perhaps
> demonstrating a belief in sexual liberation for all, not
> just for those who can pay for it, and not just promoting
> the study of men's sexuality at the expense of women's, and
> honouring not just one type of sexuality but everyone's,
> including those who do not wish to participate in sex with
> others.? Sex workers, in particular prostitutes, by
> necessity make it their expertise to set aside their own
> needs and desires to fulfill instead the sexual demands of
> others.? This is what women have traditionally been trained
> to do in a patriarchal society so that is nothing new and
> feeds the gender hierarchy.? Ana Lopez in the link Ian sent
> recently, (repeated here for ease of
> reference)
> http://www.wsm.ie/story/2390
> stated that people become and remain sex workers for many
> reasons (mostly monetary) but sexual satisfaction of the sex
> worker herself was not mentioned:??"the reason all of us are
> in this industry is that we need to pay our bills at the end
> of each month."??I have no quarrel with this, it is only
> logical and necessary in the current society.? However, that
> does not change the fact that to fight for the rights of
> prostitute-users is promoting prostitution, which in turn
> condones the use by one section of society of another
> section of society in a power imbalance as only one section
> has their sexual rights recognised and fulfilled.
> ?
> Ana quite rightly spoke in terms of worker's rights and
> obtaining full worker's rights alongside all other workers
> which is only fair in the society we have at the moment but
> she made no mention of sexual liberation for the sex worker,
> because that will not happen in prostitution as sex workers
> are waiving their sexual satisfaction rights when they
> supply sexual access as a service for money.
> ?
> Another point Ana Lopez makes is:
> ?
> "So if we treat it as any other work, as a labour issue,
> then we can find solutions. And solutions are to be found in
> eliminating the exploitative conditions and not eliminating
> the industry altogether. That what you do in other
> exploitative industries also applies here. Women and
> transgender people get exploited in many other industries
> unfortunately. But the response of the feminist and trade
> union movement in relation to those other industries is to
> eliminate the exploitation and not the industry itself. We
> wanted to get in line with all other workers."
> ?
> This is incorrect.? In other occupations, dangerous
> practices certainly are eliminated; eg, when asbestos was
> found to be harmful all workers were banned from working
> with it and employers were prosecuted if they exploited
> asbestos workers.? No arguments were accepted from employers
> that their employees agreed to risk their health in order to
> stay in the industry.
> ?
> I want a sociey where there is sexual liberation for all,
> and recognition for that liberation.? This will not happen
> whilst prostitution persists because by definition the payer
> is choosing the people they will 'have sex with,' choosing
> the time when they themselves feel like it, and choosing the
> act(s) they will perform or require the paid person/people
> to perform; the only real choice the sex worker has is the
> opportunity to turn down the job if it appears too onerous,
> but then they lose income if they do that.? The point
> of?prostitute-users paying is that they feel entitled, by
> paying, not to have to consider the human sexual needs of
> the person they are paying at all.? This is not
> anarchistic.? For this reason I personally would not stand
> in a debate on prostitution with sex workers because I am
> not interested in prolonging, let alone promoting, the
> hierarchies (there is a hierarchy when one group has their
> sexual demands met whilst the other
> group not merely goes without, but is expected to satisfy
> the entitled group without claiming satisfaction for
> themselves).? This is inequality and in the present?society
> it is inequality on the basis of gender moreover.
> ?
> One thing Ana Lopez pointed out was that fashion models are
> given respect by society but not sex workers and she thinks
> it is because society views sex workers as immoral.? I
> didn't understand that because I have never thought
> of?prostitutes as being immoral, that seems very strange to
> me, and if society think that prostitutes are sexually
> immoral I wonder why, because they are not expecting to
> receive sexual satisfaction.??I always wondered why women
> get blamed but not the men who demand their sexual
> services.? Ana explains, "And I told my mother [who worked
> as a child minder, organising a small group of others] you
> are the equivalent of a brothel mother, you are organising
> groups of women to do something that in our ideal society
> would be done for love and not for money."? It appears to
> boil down to the idea that women are on the earth to service
> men for love so, if they demand money for granting men
> sexual access to their bodies, then they are
> immoral because they should do it for love, ie for free
> but I admit I'm not clear on this 'moral' argument against
> prostitution, certainly not any moral accusation against
> women.
> ?
> So another important reason I would not discuss
> prostitution with pro-prostitution sex workers is that they
> have made it their profession to find out how to sexually
> satisfy other people.? I would have thought a more
> appropriate speaker for an anarchist bookfair would be
> someone who is practised in pleasing themselves, who has
> spent time consistently and conscientiously critiquing
> society's demands that women always put others' needs before
> their own and, in the context of sexual liberation, someone
> who has particularly spent time putting their sexual needs
> or desires before others' sexual demands.? The kind of talk
> you appear to be proposing, Steve, would I think be more in
> line with workers' rights or law reform or something, which
> would shore up men's privilege in the current society, not
> liberation because promoting prostitution would not
> liberate?anyone except those with money to buy sexual access
> to other human beings in lieu of engaging in
> reciprocity.
> ?
> Joy
> ?
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:12:34 +0000
> > From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> > To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> > Subject: [LAF] gender issue
> >
> >
> > I really dont understand what the problems are here,
> you haven't even begun to give an anarchist solution to the
> 'issues' you raise and really have no idea what either of
> you are talking about. If you like you can say what you
> oppose in clear English and how you propose rectifying the
> problem.
> >
> > All you've done is denounce porn but given no examples
> of how you would tackle the problems apart from 'banning
> it', which is impossible.
> >
> > While I've given many examples of how women can free
> themselves from the exploitation, patriarchy and gender
> stereotypes of commercial porn and sex work and explore
> their own sexuality within anarchist or voluntary porn and
> sex work. I've no interest in how they do that, an
> individuals sexuality and lifestyle is there own private
> business as long as it doesnt harm anyone (which voluntary
> sex work doesnt do) and thats it, there is no 'women's
> sexuality' btw everyone's sexuality is unique. I've tried to
> find other feminists that agree with what your saying but I
> can't, they mostly agree with what I've been saying with
> only a few practical criticisms.
> >
> >
> > I've arranged some sex worker speakers to talk on this
> at the anarchist bookfair, it would be nice if Joy spoke for
> the prohibitionist side or however you want to argue it.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LAF mailing list
> > LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
>
>
>
>
> Share your memories online with anyone you want. Learn
> more.
>
>
> Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary?get free
> winks and emoticons. Get Them Now
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090803/77039a2f/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
>
>
> End of LAF Digest, Vol 54, Issue 5
> **********************************
>
More information about the LAF
mailing list