welcome to the fest

Fun fact: Ireland is listed as a proponent of the Nordic model, but like most of the liberal things we do it was accidental. Prostitution was never illegal just because it was overlooked really, and maybe it was seen as a way for poor Irish girls to get reparations from the old British overlords.

However, bit by bit the government started to chip away at the profits of the owners of brothels by bringing in tighter and tighter legislation. Women were never the target beneficiaries of the reforms.

The final step, criminalising johns, came because Jimmy Carter requested it and our government will do anything an American president asks, without consideration.

So Ireland basically stumbled into the right side of history.

In truth Ireland has an appalling women's rights record, with the famous Magdelene laundries scandal (there's a movie about it) and abortion only just being legalised this year (despite incredible meddling by American Christian fundamentalist groups for those glass-house dwellers throwing stones at the Russians).

Our next great referendum will be on the woman's role as householder in the family, which is written into our constitution (we've been a sovereign country for 100 years and had 3 constitutions in that time). It's a weird one, I don't know how I feel about it. It seems like all it needs is to change the wording from '...a woman's familial contribution as a householder is as valuable as a that of a working man...' to say individual instead of each specified gender, but the proposal is to delete the paragraph entirely.

I'm all for balance in these issues. I'm less a radical feminist than a radical egalitarian, but I feel the causes falls under the same umbrella. Gender doesn't matter, status also so, a human is a human, through fair or foul.

Anyway, what do people think of these points? Is it an interesting perspective for you? Do the ends justify the means? Share your thoughts.

BTW, the history I present is a gist of what happened, not a thesis, so errors and omissions excepted.

Peace.

Hey, you're better than a lot of countries where not only is abortion still illegal - still happening anyways - but johns and pimps are never caught. So yeah. count your blessings, even if they seem to be mistakes or coincidences.

For your little signature mischief, my dude, you forgot the most important thing in a statement: CONTEXT


"I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, want to pull up tough"


So, what he can NOT lie about is that he gets a hard on everytime he see a big round buttocks. Which answers your question cleary: liking big butts and getting a hard on when seeing one is not mutually exclusive, it's actually complementary.

I don't agree with the 'count your blessings' argument though. It kind of defeats the purpose of the radical part of radical feminism, don't you think?

My point is society should steer towards a brighter future together, not just hope everyone eventually bumbles into what is right. Reduce the power wielded by the few (the patriarchy in our case), and afford equal rights to the downtrodden in a proactive manner.

Is that not what you believe in, as a radical feminist?

I also don't like the idea of the Irish government being lauded as forward thinking and radical, when in reality the majority of our politicians are conservative catholics that are disappointed that abortion may become a legal reality (the referendum passed, nothing has been done yet).

And I am not trolling, in case it appears that way to some. I just want to use a bit of Socratic reasoning. Radical feminism is at a point where it can either do some real good or self-destruct. I'd really like it to be the former.

raiderblaze wrote:I don't agree with the 'count your blessings' argument though. It kind of defeats the purpose of the radical part of radical feminism, don't you think?

My point is society should steer towards a brighter future together, not just hope everyone eventually bumbles into what is right. Reduce the power wielded by the few (the patriarchy in our case), and afford equal rights to the downtrodden in a proactive manner.

Is that not what you believe in, as a radical feminist?

I also don't like the idea of the Irish government being lauded as forward thinking and radical, when in reality the majority of our politicians are conservative catholics that are disappointed that abortion may become a legal reality (the referendum passed, nothing has been done yet).

Yeah, I was kinda being the "imagine the people that have it worse" kinda person. Nah, you're right, as radfems if we wanna go to the root of patriarchy and fix the problem for good, we gotta be active, not only expect things to work out in our favor. Otherwise we ain't changing shit. It's just... a kind of dynamic equilibrium, and that doesn't give us the destruction of misogyny and the sex hierarchy that we aspire to achieve.

raiderblaze wrote:IRadical feminism is at a point where it can either do some real good or self-destruct. I'd really like it to be the former.

what? self-destruct? why? being "out-of-fashion" is not the same as self-destructing, so pardon my english but: wtf are you talking about?

what? self-destruct? why? being "out-of-fashion" is not the same as self-destructing, so pardon my english but: wtf are you talking about?

What I mean is most movements reach a critical point of popularity where they either bond together to accomplish their initial goals, or they self-destruct through in-fighting (e.g. arguing over what defines a 'true' proponent). When the latter happens the group does more harm than good in the eyes of the public and ends up setting the progress of the cause a step back. The group then dissolves, and the next wave may be something else entirely. The cause can be stalled by up to a decade.

Socialism is a good example of this, it often self-destructs through corruption before the true goals are reached. As an example, the next wave of feminism could be an apologist type, begging 'the man' for hand-outs.

I think this current form of radical feminism is well-balanced, so well placed to actually succeed, provided people push for change, vote intelligently, and don't just use 'radfem' as a label to define their identity.

I agree, but I think you're thinking of backlash and counter-propaganda in radfem's case, which... always been there regarding Feminism, so it's not something new no woman thought of before.

I think you mean you're worried(?) some ex-libfem/young women raised in the "identity politics" culture might like radfem for some reasons that are individualistic rather than colective, and I hear you if that's the case. But radical feminism didn't change much since it's conceptions and the basic readings keep on being the ones wrote by people like Andrea Dworkins, Audre Lorde, Sheila Jeffreys and bell hooks. I get that there's young women in need of reading more of our basic teextbooks than engaging on internet silly fights, but I guess you can't really stop that.

It's good that you are well-read and willing to suggest authors. That is very helpful to a cause.

I'm thinking beyond just backlash and counter-propaganda. Men calling out the women can be seen as an attack and strengthen resolve. Women tearing down other women though, that is far more dangerous. This is creeping into 'fourth-wave feminism'. Well, it has always been there but it is more public now with social media.

I think you mean you're worried(?) some ex-libfem/young women raised in the "identity politics" culture...

No. I meant what I said. I'm not talking about some band-wagoners jumping on and ruining things. I mean internally, long-time radfems get a big ego, want to be seen as a hero in the history books, and scupper the movement for the sake of personal glory. People who want to be seen as the next Andrea Dworkin or Audre Lorde. In the modern age of instant fame the draw of this is stronger than ever.

That's why I said 'self-destruct' earlier. If I was unclear of that, sorry, but you shouldn't try to redefine another person's side of a conversation. That's akin to some old school misogyny right there, e.g. 'what my wife means to say is...'

Please, kindly ask for clarification instead, comrade.

I would agree that the constitution's wording would be better changed to "an individual's familial contribution as a householder is as valuable as that of one who works" or maybe even "...contribution carries as much inherent value and responsibility as that..." because eliminating this line leaves open the idea that this equal importance does not exist, regardless of the genders (implied or explicit) that fill the roles.

However, it sounds like the vote is presenting this as one or the other, and clearly coloring the choices as feminist progressive and traditional regressive. Sounds like some people may have decided the words needed changed, but then to change the wording everyone needed to have their hands in the pot, and then everyone got sick of talking about it so they decided to just remove the words. But... throwing something away doesn't fix it.

I don't know that there's an easy answer for you, but it sounds like there's not enough feminist support in the government proper to hope that you'd be able to fix those words soon- and removing the line, I fear, may open the door for misogynists to say that women belong in the home, AND it's not as valuable as a man's working job.

raiderblaze wrote:Fun fact: Ireland is listed as a proponent of the Nordic model, but like most of the liberal things we do it was accidental. Prostitution was never illegal just because it was overlooked really, and maybe it was seen as a way for poor Irish girls to get reparations from the old British overlords.

However, bit by bit the government started to chip away at the profits of the owners of brothels by bringing in tighter and tighter legislation. Women were never the target beneficiaries of the reforms.

The final step, criminalising johns, came because Jimmy Carter requested it and our government will do anything an American president asks, without consideration.

So Ireland basically stumbled into the right side of history.

You're completely ignoring the work of activists and prostitution survivors who campaigned for the Nordic model in Ireland.

Women organized, demonstrated, testified at hearings, actively campaigned for it. They spoke to the media, held public talks, town hall meetings, produced research studies. They had to sway public opinion to win votes.

And there wouldn't even be a Nordic model for lawmakers to "stumble into" without the Swedish women who pioneered it.

You fail to credit the women for bringing the legislation into being.

raiderblaze wrote:What I mean is most movements reach a critical point of popularity where they either bond together to accomplish their initial goals, or they self-destruct through in-fighting (e.g. arguing over what defines a 'true' proponent). When the latter happens the group does more harm than good in the eyes of the public and ends up setting the progress of the cause a step back. The group then dissolves, and the next wave may be something else entirely. The cause can be stalled by up to a decade.

None of this is helpful. It's just vague pontificating.

raiderblaze wrote:It's good that you are well-read and willing to suggest authors. That is very helpful to a cause.

Very condescending. You keep talking down to radical feminists. You keep telling them what's wrong with their movement. You keep lecturing them on how to run it.

You're a troll. Bye.

raiderblaze wrote:No. I meant what I said. I'm not talking about some band-wagoners jumping on and ruining things. I mean internally, long-time radfems get a big ego, want to be seen as a hero in the history books, and scupper the movement for the sake of personal glory. People who want to be seen as the next Andrea Dworkin or Audre Lorde. In the modern age of instant fame the draw of this is stronger than ever.

Yeah, that's not happening. That's why I assumed you meant otherwise. Cause... that's not a thing. I know more than you regarding that at least, don't get offended. You got it wrong.

Tatsuya Ishida wrote:

raiderblaze wrote:Fun fact: Ireland is listed as a proponent of the Nordic model, but like most of the liberal things we do it was accidental. Prostitution was never illegal just because it was overlooked really, and maybe it was seen as a way for poor Irish girls to get reparations from the old British overlords.

However, bit by bit the government started to chip away at the profits of the owners of brothels by bringing in tighter and tighter legislation. Women were never the target beneficiaries of the reforms.

The final step, criminalising johns, came because Jimmy Carter requested it and our government will do anything an American president asks, without consideration.

So Ireland basically stumbled into the right side of history.

You're completely ignoring the work of activists and prostitution survivors who campaigned for the Nordic model in Ireland.

Women organized, demonstrated, testified at hearings, actively campaigned for it. They spoke to the media, held public talks, town hall meetings, produced research studies. They had to sway public opinion to win votes.

And there wouldn't even be a Nordic model for lawmakers to "stumble into" without the Swedish women who pioneered it.

You fail to credit the women for bringing the legislation into being.

raiderblaze wrote:What I mean is most movements reach a critical point of popularity where they either bond together to accomplish their initial goals, or they self-destruct through in-fighting (e.g. arguing over what defines a 'true' proponent). When the latter happens the group does more harm than good in the eyes of the public and ends up setting the progress of the cause a step back. The group then dissolves, and the next wave may be something else entirely. The cause can be stalled by up to a decade.

None of this is helpful. It's just vague pontificating.

raiderblaze wrote:It's good that you are well-read and willing to suggest authors. That is very helpful to a cause.

Very condescending. You keep talking down to radical feminists. You keep telling them what's wrong with their movement. You keep lecturing them on how to run it.

You're a troll. Bye.

Thanks for bringing in some info, Tat! That clears things up.

Ackapus wrote:I would agree that the constitution's wording would be better changed to "an individual's familial contribution as a householder is as valuable as that of one who works"

It is probably an improvement, but making it gender- or sex-neutral hides the social and financial pressures that women face to keep house and not have an outside career.

Newfish wrote:

Ackapus wrote:I would agree that the constitution's wording would be better changed to "an individual's familial contribution as a householder is as valuable as that of one who works"

It is probably an improvement, but making it gender- or sex-neutral hides the social and financial pressures that women face to keep house and not have an outside career.

newfish's right

tbm: remember when OP outted himself as a troll by claiming he wasn't one althought no one accused him of so, got fully called out by tat, not only for being wrong but for being the absolute king of condescention?

raiderblade wrote:It's good that you are well-read and willing to suggest authors. That is very helpful to a cause.

ah... good times.

In my country prostituition is legal but the act of profit from someone's else prostitution is a crime, so the exploitation of Prostitution is a crime not the act it self.

So pimps are almost non-existant and there are many ways and laws a sex-worker can go after to protect herself.

So the majority of sex workers are self-employed.

What you guys think of this model?