Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Bitch

A lot of words are collectively agreed to be off-limits to feminists, including "bitch," "cunt," "slut," and a myriad of other words that are said to be female-specific with no male equivalent. If there is no male equivalent for an insult used primarily against women, then it is rightly argued to be sexist. It's not often that we find or discuss words or labels that work in the opposite direction (i.e., a word that insults men but for which there is no female equivalent), although some people have been doing so recently. What I'd like to talk about specifically, though, is the term "bitch."

Wikipedia defines "bitch" as follows:

The term "bitch" comes from the 1150 word bicche, which was developed from the Old English word bicce. It also may have been derived from the Old Norse word bikkja for "female dog." The Oxford English Dictionary dates the term meaning "female dog" to around 1000 A.D.

As a derogatory term for women, it has been in use since the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Its earliest slang meaning mainly referred to sexual behavior, according to the English language historian Geoffrey Hughes: The early applications were to a promiscuous or sensual woman, a metaphorical extension of the behavior of a bitch in heat. Herein lies the original point of the powerful insult son of a bitch, found as biche sone ca. 1330 in Arthur and Merlin ... while in a spirited exchange in the Chester Play (ca. 1400) a character demands: “Whom callest thou queine, skabde bitch?” (“Who are you calling a whore, you miserable bitch?”).


Modern usage of the term describes someone who is "belligerent, unreasonable, rudely intrusive or aggressive." Of course, a man can easily be belligerent, unreasonable, rudely intrusive or aggressive, but when the term is applied to a man, it "is a derogatory term for a subordinate."

So, let's break this down. A female bitch is someone who acts in a traditionally masculine manner, and a male bitch is someone who acts in a traditionally feminine manner. While the history of the usage of the word clearly shows its female-specific and misogynist roots, it was later expanded as a way to apply to everyone who acted in a manner at odds with traditional gender roles.

Although I don't use the word often (I usually only use it to jokingly decribe myself during PMS or in some other humorously self-deprecating way), I prefer the de-connotative usage, summarized (by me) to describe someone who is unnecessarily rude, hostile, or critical. But when I use it, I am much less likely to call a man a bitch for the same reason. I'm also not at all likely to call a man a "bitch" and mean it in the modern context of "subordinate." In fact, I'm just wholly unlikely to ever call a man a bitch, for any reason. Why is that? I think it is because I don't want anyone I'm talking to to misunderstand and think that I am calling a man a bitch to illustrate how I think he is acting in a traditionally feminine manner, because using a pejorative against someone for not adhering to traditional gender roles is pretty much against everything I stand for. For some reason, though, I assume people will understand that if I refer to a woman as a bitch, that I'm not calling her a canine in heat.

Another interesting phenomenon that I see happening (and that I use often, myself) is eliminating the female-specific insults from our collective vocabulary and replacing them with traditionally male insults, like "asshole," or even the milder "jerk." Since, in addition to not using gender-based insults, I also actively avoid genital-related insults like "pussy" or "dick," I have been embracing "asshole" and "jerk" as general insults, as neither implies a gender and, although traditionally reserved for men, are perfectly descriptive of what I am trying to call out in the other person.

Something, though, makes me feel uncomfortable about taking a term reserved primarily for men and using it for women and men alike, and I'm not sure why. When describing a role that remains identical whether a male or female performs it that English has unnecessarily divided into genders, like actor and actress, for example, I try to default to the "male" word. So, I'm more likely to call Jennifer Connelly an actor rather than an actress, because I see no reason to differentiate. Who cares if Jennifer Connelly is male or female, when "actor" and "actress" mean exactly the same thing?

So, why eliminate "bitch" from my vocabulary? I'm not sure that I will. But in order to be consistent, it seems that I should. But... why not just call everyone who is acting like an asshole a "bitch," instead? Whether they're male or female? Maybe it seems easier to say "asshole" or other usually male-specific terms, because we all know that they mean the same thing whether applied to men or women, and even though "bitch" arguably means exactly the same thing as "asshole," people are likely to be widely misunderstood about the intent of the insult when used against a man.

Again, though, there's a certain level of discomfort in reverting to historically male-centric language that does not reconcile well with my preference for egalitarianism (with the exception of actor/actress, as can be seen in the Wikipedia link's "terminology" section). I don't like male-as-default language, at all, so treating words that originally conjured up an image of a man as if they are for all of us, while treating words that originally conjured up an image of a female as off-limits feels quite misogynist to me. Society already insults men by calling them women; it feels as though avoiding using traditionally feminine terms to describe men is perpetuating the widespread (if not subconscious) belief that the worst thing a man can do is be like a woman.

Do you use the word "bitch"? How do you feel about gender-specific insults or descriptors?

Monday, January 03, 2011

Douthat abortion fail

Aside from the other critiques around the blogosphere today of Ross Douthat's head-bangingly frustrating column, I also found some glaring inconsistencies, and rather problematic themes he’s got going on. I appreciated his arguably (and rather surprisingly) compassionate response to the MTV special, but he goes on to discuss issues that are either wholly unrelated to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, or off-base in terms of quality of analysis. For example,

In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.


Leaving aside for now the point that it’s no woman’s responsibility to provide children for infertile couples, he’s forgetting that giving up a baby for adoption — after the birth mother spent at least 9 months gestating it, feeling it move, kick, bond with it, etc. — is no easy feat.

He’s also neglecting the reality that “acceptance of single parenting” is hardly a celebration of it. What else should we do to single parents? Abuse them? Deny their existence? Blame them for their situation? Also forgetting that many single parents — primarily women — who are blamed for not giving their children an ideal household are not doing so by their own choice. Their husbands can abandon the family, die, or even just leave the vast majority of involved parenting up to the other parent, without their say. Or vice versa. It’s not always about a casual decision to get married and have kids, or an equally as casual decision to not make that work out as planned.

Supporting single parents and maintaining his stance that a dual-parent household is ideal for raising and nurturing a child don’t have to be mutually exclusive. He has shown time and time again that he believes the best way to discourage behaviors that are contrary to the common idea (or his idea) of what is ideal, like two-parent households, preventing unplanned pregnancies, "traditional" marriage, and now abortion, is to alienate, criminalize, or just outright ignore the existence of the people who are engaging in, or directly affected by these issues. Clearly, the state, or society at large, acting in this manner in the past caused such joys as women dying of botched illegal abortions, forced pregnancy, poverty, marginalization... I can go on.

There is a reason why people continue to fight ideologues like Douthat. It's not because we're hostile to the ideals they set forth, but because we want to avoid the consequences of forcing such ideals on unwilling -- or unable -- participants.

(...Nearly the entirety of this blog post was originally a comment over at The Innocent Smith Journal. InnocentSmith has also responded to Jill and Amanda's critiques here.)

Friday, December 31, 2010

Cohabitation and Personal Change

I was talking with a co-worker this afternoon, and she mentioned how after so much time with her S.O. she was beginning to feel that "everything you do irritates me" feeling.  I know this feeling.  Fortunately, and thanks in no small part to my wife, I also know what it's like when that feeling is conquered and begins to fade.  While my coworker and I talked, I suggested two sort-of rudimentary ways to approach the issue.  Now that I am home and have stepped away from the conversation I thought I would toss it out into the blogoshpere and see what comes back.  The two approaches I suggested were fairly polar, and I realize that can be problematic, but a lot of relationship issues do tend to lack a wealth of approaches.  I will comment on that more later, for now I'll recap:

In my opinion, she could A) Listen to her gut (meditate, force-conclusion, ego-mirror, etc) and decide whether or not the relationship she is in is one where the pressure to become a better person is not only there, but mutual.  Or, B) Pick something she does which irritates her S.O., catch a moment when she chooses NOT to engage that irritating behavior, and remark out loud about it.

In the first scenario, I am basically suggesting she decide whether or not the relationship is even worth the personal dissection.  If it is, then my second approach ought to be a good starting marker for how to recognize change in your partner.  This is really difficult without a plan of action because when you spend day in and day out with one person, you don't see the ways they are changing.  You may notice if you go to a party where a large number of people are your S.O.'s friends, many people that your S.O. hasn't seen in six months or a year may remark on how much your S.O. has matured, while you sit by scratching your head daring the old friend to go ahead and try dating your impossible S.O. for his or her self and see how they like.  This thought should be a red flag, because it indicates that you believe you are best suited to meet your damaged partner's needs.  Maybe you are... but the no-no is finding yourself in a place of moral or behavioral superiority in a relationship that should be built on mutual respect and appreciation.

My wife and I use the method I mention above.  Even though we had some epic fights and misunderstandings at the get-go, we always have and always will talk about the things we are or are not satisfied with in the relationship in non-blaming (as possible) language, and then try to vocally express when we have acted alternatively to the problem behavior so that the other person knows, at the very least, that you are still thinking about it and still care.  For example, my wife really hated it when I used to "help" in the kitchen, because what usually occurred, and I admit it now, was my domination of the whole project.  She loves to cook as much as I do, and I was condescending her by jumping in too enthusiastically with my own ideas rather than getting a bearing on where she was headed first.  This has changed, but it took time and the effort to point out small milestones for the change to be recognized.  Now I ask her if she wants help, and if she does, I ask her specifically what she'd like me to do.  Sometimes she will have me just chop some shit up, other times she will actually want my own input.

Over simplified?  Sure.  But nonetheless applicably sound.

Or, for a different scenario, let's say that one person in a committed relationship has a drinking "problem", and I put that in quotes because not everyone said to have one does.  That can be somewhat subjective.  So let's, for the sake of ease, say that one person drinks more than other.  The one who drinks less would like the other to do the same or at least work towards a middle ground (ok, fine, this is based on personal experience), so the one whose drinking is problematic in the context of the relationship should make it known EACH time they are intentionally curbing a desire for a given quantity or frequency of alcohol; mind you, not in a whining or punitive way.  And since I already admitted that I am just talking about my own life, I should also say that this approach has worked for my wife and I.  She has a much healthier relationship with day-to-day drinking than I do, and through communicating each effort to reduce my own drinking down to a level that was more acceptable, she began to see that, indeed, even though I still require some wine or what-have-you to get ready for bed, the amount has decreased more than significantly.  Of course, her insistence and my acceptance of the issue were key too, but there's just no reason I can think of to avoid such changes unless the change in question is a "deal breaker".

So as I savor my glass of wine over some blog writing tonight, I would encourage others in a similar spot to at least attempt this method, for even if it fails, you will have gained important knowledge either way: Possibly the knowledge that your connection wasn't that strong after all, possibly the knowledge that it can only get stronger.

Take care.

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Who needs a masculine/feminine side?

I have an experiment for you folks. More than likely you've at least heard of the Dos Equis beer ads right? Personally I'm of mixed feelings on them but there is one in particular that has had me thinking lately. Well actually its one like of one ad that has had me thinking. What I want you to do is watch at least first 10 seconds of this ad and think about what that line means you.







You hear it? I'm talking about the line, "He wouldn't be afraid to show his feminine side...if he had one."

What is your reaction to the implication that "The Most Interesting Man in the World" does not have a feminine side?

I have my answer but for the sake of discussion I'll won't put it here in the main post.

Discuss.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Disengagement.

Over the last several... weeks... months... I suppose that I am not really sure exactly how long. I have been disengaging from political and social news and discourse. My radio spends less and less time tuned into the local public radio news channel and more time on the local school district's Jazz station. I've been reading more literature and less non-fiction. I've been getting healthier... nearly 50 pounds lighter, eating nutritiously, and riding my cool new beach cruiser bicycle.

New Bicycle

What's the problem you ask? I don't feel guilty about being so disengaged. But some how I feel like I should? Don't get me wrong... I still hold the same values, in fact I've started doing some honest to goodness volunteering... so am I nuts? Should I be guilt stricken that I have not read the 2000 + pages of the health bill that just passed? Or that I still haven't finished another complete feminist book since the Bell Hook's Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center?

Where do you all find the balance between keeping your center and being engaged in the world? What ways do you asses these things in your life?

Monday, March 29, 2010

Can science answer moral questions?

It's about 23 minutes long, but well worth it:

[ted id=801]

I think he's on to something, but that it ends up going in circles, and there's no real answer to the questions he's asking, and he doesn't attempt to answer them.

What do you think?

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

I lack sustained motivation

I am thinking of a million different fascinating things to talk about, but lack the sustained motivation to write an entire blog post.

I am currently thinking about my Intro to Philosophy final paper. I have finally narrowed down a hesitant thesis/hypothesis: Should people be trusted to know what's best for themselves, when considering the impact of everyone's personal and individual decisions on their immediate or larger communities?

The goal, as this is an introductory class that covers just the basics of major philosophers from ancient times to contemporary, is to use a few philosophers' (Plato, John Locke, and Rousseau, for starters) writings to set a basic timeline for this ongoing discussion, and eventually (15 or so pages later) attempt to not only argue for my side, but actually choose one.

What do you think about this thesis? Should all people always be trusted to know what's best for not only themselves, but themselves in relation to their communities and the larger communities that they may not come in immediate contact with, but ultimately affect?

What else are you thinking about lately?

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Registering "family units"

I wonder what would happen if we abolished marriage and replaced it with "family units." Any 2 or more persons can enter into a single family unit. Two men, two women, a man and a woman, an adult and child, two adults and one or more children, three generations of people.

It sounds like it could get complicated quickly. What if we added tax benefits? For every person registered with a family unit, they would get a tax deduction or break or... whatever. Whatever the benefits to being married currently are. Including, of course, hospital visitation rights and other things.

If someone wanted to leave a family unit, and join another one, for example, they could "divorce" their current family unit-- leaving the stigma of what is currently known as "divorce" behind. A family unit could dissolve because everyone started to head their own family units, or a family unit could dissolve because of irreconcilable differences. Two family units could merge after a wedding, too, rather than separating.

This would resolve the issue that anti-gay marriage people have with the "meaning of marriage" being something about a family unit, anyway, because no one can deny that nowhere near all of our current families has a mom, a dad, and 3 biological children. It would automatically allow for polygamous relationships to be legally recognized.

What are some of the inherent flaws of this sort of proposal? I'm sure a lot of people would be annoyed with the idea of getting rid of the concept of marriage = man + woman, but seeing as how one man and woman can still be considered a legal unit, they aren't being prevented from anything by being "traditional." And perhaps currently married folks would be "grandfathered in" to the change and not be required to re-register or obtain a "family unit license (?)" unless they wanted to register additional people with their unit.

Hmm.


Update: Looks like this is already being considered in other forms. The difference is just how many people can be included in a "union" or "unit."

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Random Thoughts

I've been throwing around ideas for posts for a few days, but have had little motivation to complete a thorough post about any of these ideas in their potential entirety with all the holiday business (busyness? Huh?), so I thought I'd throw out some discussion-starters:

I've been thinking about the post I wrote about prostitution, and how I was so adamantly anti all sex-for-money actions. I realized that my anti position was contradictory to my pro-legalization position when I considered many women's opinion of abortion.

Many women say that they could never have an abortion, and therefore they are against it. But every woman's circumstances are different and women who have had abortions haven't done it for the same reason. It's okay to say you'll never have an abortion, but support other women's right to legal and safe access to abortion.

So, I realized that, ultimately, even though I don't see myself entering the sex industry, I support giving other women the legal option of doing so if they want or need to. And that's really all I needed to know to realize that I was supportive of sex-worker's rights, and that I didn't need to preface the argument or add a disclaimer.


I have been seeing many ways in which feminism and environmentalism et al mirror religions, namely the evangelical Christian movement. I allow the "tenants" of feminism and anti-oppression ideology to frame my behavior and filter my actions in many of the ways a person might make decisions within the framework of the teachings of Christ. This creeps me out quite a bit, but I don't really know what to think about that. Do all passions or schools of thought have the power to become evangelical? Is it inherently bad to be evangelical, or am I just feeling this way because of the associations with evangelicalism and anti-progressive legislation and rhetoric? I don't appreciate being evangelized at, so I'd hate to be associated with the same behavior. What does this say about claims that all humans naturally seek out an idea of a higher power or purpose? If we don't follow a mainstream belief system like Christianity or Judaism, do we replace it with something else, like astrology or feminism or yoga? Or is spiritual belief a learned trait?

I'm personally conflicted about the "tone argument." It's apparent that tone is important when attempting to educate people and pass legislation, but is one ever required to mind their tone when addressing or engaging with a group of people about the ways in which they suffer oppression? Is it ever appropriate to require "good manners" or the dreaded reasonable, logical approach when having a discussion with someone about (a) ways(s) in which they experience oppression, especially if you can identify with the oppressor in question (i.e. black woman discussing racism with white woman)?

Monday, December 21, 2009

Mulligan: What fundamental value(s) informs progressive politics and ethic?

Not long ago I wrote a post entitled What fundamental values informs progressive politics and ethic?, and it spawned lots of responses primarily deconstructing my questions. Most of these comments were valid and some were insightful. However, I feel like the idea that I was trying to convey was not articulated very well. So here I go again...

Why are you a feminist (or anti-racist or socialist)? Is it because you are a woman and you want equality? Well, that is a pretty self-serving reason. Is it because you believe all human beings should be treated equally? Why? I suspect that most people break down to the idea that all human beings, or perhaps life, has an inherent and equal worth. How do we make a case for that idea without accepting it as an axiom, a obvious truth?

Desconstruct your convictions... I'd like to hear what everyone has to say.

Monday, December 14, 2009

3 Options

http://www.truthout.org/12110911

Reading the very interesting linked article reminded me of a line of thinking I was pursuing with some fellow arm chair philosophers. It adds a degree of poignance that was lacking in my case to the others.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Bush administration is everything my most lefty friends might have characterized them as... imperialist, fascist torturing [insert your favorite disparging noun here] who demolished any semblence of civil rights we enjoyed in the States. I don't want to get tangled up in the validity of that, we're just accepting that as a hypothetical.

That would lead me to belive one of the three must be true about the Obama administration:

1. They are complicit in the numerous acts of villainy. Now in full possession of all knowledge of the former administrations dark deeds, they do nothing. Perhaps even continuing the deplorable acts.

2. They are powerless against the [insert favorite secret society or other shadow government here]. The reason the current administration cannot pursue the crimes of the former administration is that whoever really possesses power is preventing them from doing so.

3.  It is not politically expedient to pursue those issues. There is an economy to fix and that is the first and foremost issue. It wouldn't be possible to succeed so why diminish the chance of a second term? There are plenty of reasons why it may not be politically expedient. But if we're hypothetically talking about fascist, imperialist war criminals doesn't morality demand that action be taken regardless of what's convenient?

Granted this is a substantial over simplification, but that iss exactly what this is... a hypothetical model simplified to get to the core of the idea: How do we characterized the current administration's action relative to its rhetoric?

I'm always the "Socratic Agnostic", so don't look for me for any answers. What do you think?

N

Sunday, December 06, 2009

What fundamental value(s) informs progressive politics and ethic?

I would hypothesize that most human beings I interact with on a daily basis, particularly the progressively minded ones, accept certain fundamental values as truisms, i.e. self-evident and obvious truths. One example of these might be the ethic of reciprocity, a.k.a. the "golden rule". Out for a stroll in the toasty 20 degree weather I was playing a little "Descartes" and thought of this blog. Consequently, I am posting these questions to the blogosphere regarding fundamental values much of progessive ethics and politics seem to be based. I am pretty familiar with the religious answers to these questions, vaguely familiar with the ethicist's answers, and feel ok about my own but I'd really like to hear all of yours.

1. Is it wrong treat one category of human being as lesser or greater? Why?
2. Is it wrong to kill another human being for any reason? Why?
3. Are the any intrinsic differences between categories of people? Are there any implications of this?
4. Is it possible to use power justly? How is it derived justly? Why?

Anxious to hear from you all.

N

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

...hello?

It would seem that I have been thrust into the blogosphere by my good friend April. I thought that I should write a little introductory post. I'm N... a white guy in my mid-late twenties who works in a reasonably successful (whatever that means) career, taking some night classes in pursuit of an undergraduate degree (Hopefully to also learn something?), and trying to be a conscientious human being.

In the context of this blog, a feminist blog focusing on ethics and ecological responsibility, I hope to have conversations with many of you regarding practical ways to subvert unjust, particularly sexist, institutions and related prejudice. I’m pretty good at the armchair philosophy, the theory, and the abstract. It is the application of those lofty ideals I have a hard time with.

I'm sure my various English teachers would cringe at that run-on sentence so I am going to stop before I do further disservice to the English language. I hope you all enjoy what I write and that we learn from each other.

Till next,
N

Monday, November 02, 2009

Privilege + Power = "-ism"

Let's say that Andy is a white male. He's 23, has a low-paying, unskilled job, and no education beyond 11th grade high school. Not a privileged individual by any means. Andy is also what most people would consider to be sexist. Andy truly believes that women are less intelligent than males and should submit to their male spouses. Andy also shares similarly discriminatory views against people of color, homosexuals, and people with disabilities, to name only a few. Andy is clearly a bigot and holds prejudiced views.

Now, let's step back for a moment and consider the model of oppression where an -ist action is defined by "privilege + power." With this model, a person of privilege cannot be the victim of an -ism, only a victim of prejudice. With this theory, I cannot be guilty of sexism because I am a female and do not have power to add to my prejudice. Andy, similarly, cannot be the victim of sexism, even if Jill from Accounting doesn't like him strictly because he is a male.

The question that I have, though, is what power does Andy have to add to his privilege? He's economically disadvantaged and under-educated. The lack of pigment in his skin doesn't do anything for him, nor does his sex; he isn't a respected member of his society and is given no power to use against anyone.

Am I capable of being a racist if I have no power to add to my prejudice (this is hypothetical)? I'm white, but I'm not in a position to oppress anyone in a way that isn't entirely circumstantial; therefore, no power exists. Right? Or not?

I'm not trying to get out of being called out on unintentional racism or other -isms I'm not aware of (who intentionally acts in an -ist manner, anyway?). I'm just curious about what seems like a "loophole" or potential flaw of sorts in this particular argument.

...And, furthermore, is President Obama capable of racism? If he is prejudiced against white people or any other race or ethnicity, does the ultimate power of President of the United States remove his exemption as a person of color from being racist?

I'm not standing on one side or another here, just asking what people think about this.

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Sex Industry: Prostitution, and "Whore-ism"

This is Part I of a two-part series about The Sex Industry. Stay tuned for Part II: Pornography.

Photobucket

This is a really controversial topic in general, and I want to make a few things clear before going into it:

What I am discussing in this post are philosophical ideas about the sex industry, theories about why the sex industry exists, what it means for US culture, for women and men, and as a result, whether or not it should, theoretically or ideally, continue.

What I am not discussing are legal consequences for sex workers; protection for sex workers if they are harassed, abused, or otherwise violated; or the legality of sex work of any kind.

First, I wanted to raise a general question:

What, exactly, is "whoreism"?

I first encountered the term on a blog. I think it was the Feminism 101 blog, but I haven't been able to find the reference when I sought it out. Googling has not helped. I've tried several different combinations of words and phrases, but have yet to find anything that explains in greater detail what I wonder about.

From what I can reasonably assume based on whatever it was that I read is that "whoreism" means the institutional and social oppression of women (or men, but not nearly as often) who receive money in exchange for sexual favors of any kind. The general vibe is that someone who could be described as a "whoreist" is someone who discriminates against someone because of their status as a sex worker. Sex worker could mean prostitute, stripper, phone sex operator, porn actor, etc.

What I don't understand is how, or why, this behavior or belief system would even have a name. Now, this is my understanding based on limited education on the matter, but I don't understand the concept. I will attempt to explain why I am unconvinced that this is an issue I should glance twice at:

For one thing, to decide that there is an oppressive discrimination that occurs against sex workers that is deserving of a movement would be comparable, to me, to saying that the male guy with glasses who loves video games is oppressed because people call him a "nerd."

I feel that this is different and, yes, less important, than issues such as sexism, homophobia, racism, to name only a few. If you are a black lesbian, for example, you are likely to be discriminated against because of several personal identifiers that are beyond your control. There is the chance for racism, sexism, and homophobia. You, as a black lesbian, have no control over the color of your skin, your sexual orientation, or your sex. Those three things all occurred naturally. For me to declare your race, sexual orientation, or your sex to be negative in any way would be legitimate oppressive discrimination.

Receiving money in exchange for sex is a decision. You are not born a prostitute, or come out of the womb doing sex work; you aren't forced to do it, and if you are, that is obviously a fucking terrible crime and punishable by law. But we're not talking about people who are born into sexual slavery. Point being, profiting monetarily from engaging in, or performing, sex acts is a choice that one makes.

While I believe that prostitution should be legal (for safety of everyone involved, and because it will happen regardless of what laws are in place, as we can obviously observe), I do not understand why I should pay any kind of attention to how positively I see this particular job, or care how a sex worker feels about my opinion of their job.

I work for a national bank that is run by rich, old white men who got Michele Bachmann in office. When I consider my ideal workplace, I do not think of my present employer, because our philosophies so greatly differ. I know that there are plenty of other people who would not choose to work for a national bank on principle and think less of me for choosing to do so. However, I need a paycheck, and this is what comes easiest to me now. I ignore the opinions of the people who think I shouldn't work at this bank, or at a bank at all, and I choose to continue working at the bank. I chose to apply there, I choose to continue my employment there. I like it well enough. I do not believe that there needs to be a shift in the way that our culture views my job. People are entitled to their opinions, and any one choice I make will never, ever please everyone who observes it. I was not born a check card fraud investigator; I made the decision to take a job as a fraud investigator and I continue to choose to keep that job. Meanwhile, some people like my haircut (the one that I chose to get) and some people don't. No one told me that my natural hair color (which I was born with and cannot choose or change) was inferior to the natural hair color of another person; they told me they're not really a fan of my new haircut.

Everyone's choices are open to being criticized. It's not only a fact of life; it's the natural order of things. There would be no need for choices if we were all programmed with code that allowed us to operate in the most highly efficient and pleasurable ways possible at all times.

So, why should I have sympathy for sex workers who are annoyed at being viewed as "slutty" or perpetuating an industry that's negative for all women and the way that all women are perceived? It's only my opinion of a job that someone chose to have, not a negative view of the person based on something that she cannot choose or change.

Whenever the sex industry, prostitution, pornography, etc. is brought to my attention, I tend to just shake my head and think something to the effect of, "to each their own." I figure, usually, that if people get off on something, if people want to do something, then why not? If it harms no one, then by all means, do what makes you happy. But I am having a hard time standing by that these days, and only when it comes to this particular topic.

Personally, I can see the appeal in being a sex worker. The money is good, and in the end, it's just another job, right? There are unenjoyable aspects of it, but they could be compared to being the one to clean the bathrooms of the gas station you work in instead of mopping the floors. Ultimately, there are things you hate and there are things you could do without. Everyone who works for a living can agree with that. People who don't work for a living could say the same thing, have the same benefits vs. drawbacks conversation.

Ultimately, when you look at the sex industry from the ant-farm perspective, one has to wonder why there are so vastly many more women and other oppressed minorities working in the industry than any other. How many straight white guys (who we can all reasonably agree are the most privileged class, generally speaking) do you know that regularly, for a living, engage in or perform sex acts on/with straight women in exchange for money?

Not many, if any at all, I'd venture to guess.

What's with the disparity? Why are more women the sex performers and not men? How come white, heterosexual, middle-class men not engaging in the lucrative world of sex work, specifically with hetero female clients? Engaging in sex acts for money is obviously a good decision if you want to make money. After all, people are willing to pay top dollar for discreet, anonymous sex.

Right?

Oh, right, because there is no demand for them. Heterosexual women, in a very general sense, are not collectively concerned with having sex to a great enough degree that we'd be willing to pay men for it in droves. Chippendales is practically a joke; hetero women only see male strippers for laughs. Hetero men, relative to hetero women, go to strip clubs constantly and maybe some laugh, but most experience a form a sexual gratification, and that the intent when the decision to go to a strip club is made.

I'm not a scientist, so this is just a general theory based on nearly-educated guesses and the joint I just smoked, so don't get too jumpy with me just yet.

We know that men and women have some biological differences, namely their naturally occurring hormone balance. Men generally have more testosterone than estrogen, women typically have more estrogen than testosterone. We also know that the two hormones have vastly different effects on bodies that they exist in, and on the sexual nature of these bodies. A very enlightening book to read on the differences between testosterone and estrogen is The Testosterone Files, by Max Wolf Velario, who wrote this memoir about the hormonal changes that occurred in his transition from female to male.

So we can reasonably agree that testosterone makes most men more interested in sex and more sexual beings than women, whose predominance of estrogen tends to lessen her sex drive or slows her desire for sex to a more gradual level, as opposed to the immediacy of male arousal and climax. These facts make it easy to agree that the lack of heterosexual male sex workers and the lack of demand for them, and the abundance of female sex workers and the constant demand for them are naturally occurring.

There is also evidence to suggest that testosterone makes a person more aggressive, physically and otherwise, which manifests in men more than women because men generally have higher levels of testosterone in their body than women

The only problem with this "natural occurrence" is that it put the sex worker at a disadvantage in all situations. The man is more powerful and in a position where he feels control over another's body. It isn't an iPod purchased for his pleasure, it's the use of a human being's body. Even if this isn't the way that the male client treats the sex worker, the potential for the power disparity is there, at all times.

I am going to make some vast assumptions now, and even knowing that they are vast and not to be representative of the entirety of sex workers, I am still going to say it, because I think it's a decent theory, if anything:

I would bet a great deal that no sex worker can honestly say that all her life, she's wanted to be a sex worker. Or that now that she's in the sex industry, she feels personally fulfilled. That she really and truly "loves her job." There are certainly people who do it because they see it as a great source of quick cash and even long-term income and the sex part isn't really such a big deal. But, I am highly suspect of any sex worker who would actually say that sex work is the only line of work that they would enjoy, and that there is no other job that they would like more.

Ultimately, here it is: I hate the idea of the sex industry. I hate what it does, what it looks like, and what it implies. I don't, however, think that sex work should be illegal or criminalized in any way. The reason for this is because real people are sex workers, and all real people deserve good health and need protection. Prostitution will not ever go away, and because it won't, sex workers need protection under the law the same way that construction workers are protected under the law. But? I wish it wasn't that way. I wish there wasn't a demand for sex work. It's idealistic, I know, but I don't see a positive in sex work that outweighs any negative, at all.

And, ultimately, sex work is still a choice, and therefore up for criticism, and not something that needs it's own social justice movement. That's just ridiculous.