the eye of Nova&#39;s mind

===I am afraid this sort does that sort of thing, and shows the hypocricy of many supposed "rights" minded "activist".

===Of course, anyone that does not have complete devotion to their worldview is deluded and evil. (sad chuckle)

From:

I daresay that crosses the line from "activist" to "fanatic".

From:

===It can be a rather thin line...

===You have seen me rant about "identity-kin"? This is of the same sort of mindset/reason for behavior. They are not doing it to make the world a better place, or to understand themselves better. They are doing it because it is an identity.

===You did not feed her identity. Therefore, you are evil. Fanatics are not doing it "for deity". They are doing it for identity. Their identity can lead them into dying for a cause...but they are dying for the image.

From:

guttaperk.livejournal.com

Very, very true.

From:

guttaperk.livejournal.com

:-(

From:

vaxjedi

Hmm... after reading the thread, I'll have to revise my definition of radical feminism. I guess I'll stick to a brand of feminism that is more interested in women, rather than an self-indulgence in righteous indignation.

Apparently, 'radfem' means never having to say you're sorry.

As for the general topic, I'm not going to try to argue that prostitution and pornography don't exploit women. The fact is that they do. But I think the important point is that they don't have to. I know too many people (men and women both) for which both have actually been positive experiences and important and healthy components of their lives. Those seem to be a very small minority, yes. But I'd think that would make them important as the few examples of how both can be non-exploitive. Damaging practices need to be removed, yes. But empowering practices need to be protected and encouraged.

Of course, I'm just a man - what do I know?

Oh yes, and the posts on the thread about you 'obviously not wanting a dialogue' are pretty funny given that you've been silenced and they are still talking.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

That is a giant steaming pile of wrongness.

You are so not either of those things.

From:

I know too many people (men and women both) for which both have actually been positive experiences and important and healthy components of their lives. Those seem to be a very small minority, yes.

And, according to the vast majority of posters on that thread, because they do not conform to the idea that "porn = female degradation" model, they can be excised from the overall picture. Because this is all about generalizations, and policy can only be made from the general view of reality, you know. (I'd like to point out to them the concept of "tyranny of the majority," but as my mouth has been effectively taped closed . . . .)

Oh yes, and the posts on the thread about you 'obviously not wanting a dialogue' are pretty funny given that you've been silenced and they are still talking.

This inconvenient fact would be dismissed as "a technicality," I'm sure.

From:

It's been a fact since I was in kindergarten that I don't play nice with others. So I guess this is just a variation on that.

I certainly don't play nice with bullies.

From:

Well, I know that and you know that. So I guess it doesn't matter. Except I hate being misrepresented.

From:

===They would also not acknowledge that there are those that decided to "reclaim" themselves by walking these paths.

===But it would not matter to them...as it is all about THEIR pain, THEIR identity...and how it affects them.

===So very much like the anti-choicers, who see choice by others equalling an attack that they MUST stop.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Anyone who has come in contact with you and is smart enough to bang two rocks together can figure that out. And as for the rest, well, remember that Bush has 30% support in this country.

Many, far too many people are dumber than those hypothetical rocks.

From:

Have you considered climbing down off that cross? We need the wood.

From:

===Probably to burn someone in effigy, If not in person...(chuckles)

From:

Never said I was a martyr. I said I was being misrepresented.

I don't like people implying that I am a racist and a misogynist when I am neither of those things.

I'd like to be able to respond to the insinuators personally, but am restricted from doing so.

I have every right to make comments about what goes on in LJ-land here in my own journal.

I have not chosen to stalk you at your personal journal.

If you would like to speak to me respectfully, continue to do so. Otherwise, take flames to novapsyche at livejournal dot com. Thanks.

From:

vaxjedi

I was talking about this with

eleri this morning. In many ways, it's confusing the symptom and the problem. "porn = female degradation" isn't any more true that "knife = death by stabbing".

From:

Nah, I've no desire to burn anyone. Roast some marshmallows, perhaps.

From:

ginmar said flatly that "prostitution should not exist." Not that social parameters should be altered so that it can exist so that the workers have the greater balance of power so as to actually control their own financial destinies.

"Prostitution should not exist." As much as she and others over there would hate for me to use this analogy (and in fact would consider me calling them right-wing for doing so), this is incredibly close to the same prevention-by-fiat that goes "Abortions should never happen" or "sex education increases promiscuity, so it shouldn't take place."

Those arguments are about the restriction of choice.

From:

I don't believe you were being called racist and misogynist per se. Just that you SOUNDED LIKE people who were, at the time. It's less "you're soaking in it" and more "you're stepping in it", if you know what I mean.

I don't consider my commenting on your public post to be "stalking", either. That's a bit hyperbolic.

But really, while

ginmar may speak harshly, she wasn't wrong; you did come to her journal and post something which was obviously false: that

ginmar and other radical feminists blame the prostitutes for prostitution, rather than blaming the men who abuse them. Since correcting this...well, I have no word that fits except "slander"...on the part of sex-positive feminists was the entire point of her post, perhaps you might understand why she was frustrated?

From:

That is not what I was saying at all. That is how

ginmar interpreted what I was saying, and then when I tried to clarify what I said, she got more and more frustrated. If you will read the thread, it was when I explicitly expressed sympathy for her attack at Feministe is when she banned me for 24 hours and called me a bitch.

I really did post there to start a dialogue and find some sort of common ground--without the latter, no dialogue can even be made.

ginmar asked me to come up with specific examples of feminists who blame the prostitute; unfortunately, she didn't even give me an hour to check my decade-old references.

From:

I did read the thread; I'm afraid you lost points right off the bat by quoting Dworkin out of context and attributing to her an opinion that, in her book, she was attributing to society.

Regardless, I think if you want to try and open a dialogue, you might go into it considering that the other side could have a point.

From:

What I posted was not "obviously wrong." It was my opinion. Opinions are not facts, and I never said what I wrote was the end of the discussion. I said I stood by what I wrote, and I still do. The radical feminist standpoint is that prostitution is wrong in all respects because it's rooted in the degradation of women; I, as a sex-positive non-radical feminist say that the individual choice to enter the sex industry can be a very empowering and satisfying personal choice. Of course I believe that being pressured into the business is wrong; doing something like that against one's will is a recipe for exploitation. But is it exploitation if it's one honest decision?

I'd rather not have someone from afar make decisions for me that affect my self-identity. That goes for my choice for having abortions, for my choice for spending my money on things I want (like BDSM material), and for my decision to go into any aspect of the sex industry.

From:

She was attributing it to society, and if you read the paragraph without having the predisposition that I was quoting her out of context, you will see that I quote her honestly.

Of course I believe the other side has valid points. I don't shoot people out of the sky. I don't get any enjoyment out of that. It's what's being open-minded is all about. If I didn't believe that both my mind as well as others can be influenced by calm discussion, I would just write everyone over at

ginmar's journal off and be done with it.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I like to think I'm humble enough to admit that.

From:

I have no such predisposition. I read what you quoted and decided afterward that you were quoting her out of context.

Now, I do have a question: why must the discussion be calm?

From: