The fucking Guardian again

As a Tory of many years’ standing (yes I know, it’s not going great right now) I got so frustrated with the delusion that the left was somehow more feminist. The left is now so flagrantly misogynistic that people now seem to be seeing the light. I’m glad. But it’s imperative they are kept out of power. That might mean holding your nose and biting tactically. I am sorry. But Corbyn and his accomplices must not ever form a government. It would be unbelievably awful for women and girls if they did.

Hello llama,

I dont agree with your political positions, but I agree with you that there is nothing inherently left wing about feminism. I've always thought that feminism appears to incorporate a mixture of different left and right opinions, and cant really be categorised as one or the other. Rather, it stands as it's own ideology. Thank you for leaving that comment.

Please take your propaganda for the Tories (genuine enemies of women) out of a conversation where the extreme male violence against prostituted women is being discussed.

Your choice, but that may open the way for some genuine enemies of women to gain power. The hard left is already spreading this poison. How much worse will it get when they are in power?

I've always known the left was misogynistic. I would never vote Tory in a million years.

Biting? Voting! But bite tactically too if you want (as long as you bite the right people).
Bite early, bite often

“The Guardian is the left’s daily mail” but of course.
As a Tory of many years’ standing (yes I know, it’s not going great right now) I got so frustrated with the delusion that the left was somehow more feminist. The left is now so flagrantly misogynistic that people now seem to be seeing the light. I’m glad. But it’s imperative they are kept out of power. That might mean holding your nose and biting tactically. I am sorry. But Corbyn and his accomplices must not ever form a government. It would be unbelievably awful for women and girls if they did.

From another thread, 51 women suspected of being prostituted or drug addicts murdered in Chicago. Killer/killers remain at large:

www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/serial-killer-in-chicago-51-women-murdered-by-strangulation-since-2001

The Guardian is the left's Daily Mail. They're just as smug and sure of their own rightness.

When you're talking about women who have been beaten, raped and killed then perhaps it's wise to choose your words more carefully. that standard woke academentia.

According to her logic the forty-nine women in prostitution Robert Pckton would be the most privileged to teach us about male violence. Except they can't. Because they're dead.

She accuses feminists of "violence" against prostituted women, but completely erases the violence of pimps and johns, the kind that actually kills and maims women, filing it under the heading "gendered". Who commits the actual violence, men do, not that you'd know from reading this article.

I thought it was bs but I also read "privileged" as meaning we should give their opinion the most weight as having lived experience.
Which I don't necessarily agree with actually, for a variety of reasons one being that there is rarely one voice and opinion from a whole group of people, but I am pretty sure that is what she meant, not that they were lucky to have experienced violence.

I’ve had several comments disappear from the Guardian despite being relevant to the thread and not being anything particularly controversial other than pointing out inconsistencies. They’re a completely corrupt rag like all other papers but at lessst the others aren’t as sanctimonious. If you want to get an idea of what is happening read multiple sources. The best free newspaper websites are the Guardian and the Mail which both write bollocks individually but give you a steer when reading both at the same time

dwarsuts Turn of phrase? Oh well, that’s ok then, you’ve sold me or maybe not so fucking much. Just stop now.

It’s chillingly tone-deaf and reductive of the actuality of these women’s lives to describe anything about it as a fucking privilege. These are not some kind of community outreach workers selflessly endangering themselves for a few dollars a time the better to inform other women about gendered violence. They have no other choice if they want to eat and pay the rent. Let’s be bloody real here.

They have NO other choice.

And maybe that’s what we should be addressing rather than turning more and more blind eyes and pretending it’s a job like any other. Is not. No one dreams of growing up to be a prostitute. No one.

Picking food out of bins is also a means of poverty survival. But suggesting that starving people do it because it's a legitimate choice, rather than because it's an example of an exploitative system that keeps people down is obvious self-serving bullshit.

That's correct. So the solution is to deal with extreme poverty so that people who don't want to work in the sex industry will never have to do so.

Farking 'ell the mansplaining is thick and heavy tonight.

ahem

I find it so very bizarre when pro-sex abuse for money apologists wax lyrical about the situations in countries where there is much prostitution because there is much poverty, that it somehow proves that prostitution is a neutral choice like any other desperate means of survival. Picking food out of bins is also a means of poverty survival. But suggesting that starving people do it because it's a legitimate choice, rather than because it's an example of an exploitative system that keeps people down is obvious self-serving bullshit.

Fuck her for using a "turn of phrase" about women's lives and women's bodies, .

It means women in prostitution are attacked by men more often than other women. That their "job" is unbelievably dangerous:

academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/8/778/91471

Dead women who have worked in prostitution can't really talk at all can they? When they speak to us what do we hear?

She has nothing to say about male violence against prostituted women, nothing at all. Just fucking going on about feminists who might actually do something about it.

Did she really describe experiencing the absolute worst of male violence and male sexual violence a "privilege" because it means prostituted women can teach other woman what it's like?

It's a turn of phrase. She means sex workers have a deeper understanding of gendered violence and women's work, and that others should listen to sex workers on these issues rather than talking over the top of them.

The article is jawdropping:

As the Argentinian experience shows us, sex workers have a privileged position from which to teach us about gendered violence and women’s work.

Did she really describe experiencing the absolute worst of male violence and male sexual violence a "privilege" because it means prostituted women can teach other woman what it's like? What is this woman on? How privileged, out of touch and man-serving do you have to be to limit the significance of male violence against prostituted women to it being a useful teaching tool?

She knows that prostituted women experience men's violence on a scale quite outwith that of almost any other woman, she's telling us this, yet she has zero to say about it apart from "they can teach us a thing or two". She won't even follow the logic through that women in Argentina are desperate because there are no jobs so they turn to prostitution as a last resort. It's not a choice, it's not a job, it's a means of desperate survival in men's woman-hating world. Or not even a means of survival - how many men struggling to survive in Argentina turn their wives or girlfriends out on the street? I bet it's more than a few.

Traitor is the right word for this woman. Selling the most vulnerable women out to men for their sexual use, in order to get male approval and attention.

Yet another privileged middle-class wanker that doesn’t give a shit about anything other than her own career and woke-cred.

You know, women in sex work say the exact same thing about people opposed to prostitution; that they are mostly middle class women who are restricting the ability of sex workers to make a living and forcing them into poverty.

By the way, the Guardian is neither in favour of sex work nor against it. I used to see frequent articles on the Guardian arguing against it. I am actually surprised that they have started publishing articles for the other side. If you need prove that the Guardian is not biased in favour of decriminalisation of sex work, Google the articles that Julie Bindel has written for the Guardian on the subject.

Also from the article:

You emphasise the importance of safe spaces for the traumatised. How can these be applied?
Whether we’re talking about medical treatment or psychiatric models, the context in which the treatment is delivered becomes important, because the context triggers cues in the nervous system, which will make it either defensive or available to treatment. So the first thing is to understand how bodies respond to context. A scared individual doesn’t bring into an operating arena a nervous system that is going to cooperate and collaborate with the medical procedures. We’re not machines that are detached from our thoughts and feelings. In veterinary medicine, animals like cats often drop dead within the veterinarian’s office because of the fear and uncertainty. So we’re working on ways of giving cues of safety.

I have to say this is a fantastic article from the Observer.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/02/stephen-porges-interview-survivors-are-blamed-polyvagal-theory-fight-flight-psychiatry-ace

Flight or fight? Victims should not be blamed for standing still and doing nothing.

ESRC as in TheEconomic and Social Research Council(ESRC) is part ofUK Research and Innovation(UKRI). UKRI is a non-departmental public body(NDPB)funded by the UK government. ESRC provides funding and support for research and training in thesocial sciences. It is the UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues

Why are they funding this? I didn't actually watch more than a few seconds of the video.

@LassOfFyvie - that video was illuminating. Kate Hardy says the research was funded by the ESRC. Not them again. The ESRC keep popping up - ploughing £millions into anti-women 'research'. They gave £575,435.85 to No Outsiders in 2006 to develop their "Queering the Primary School" programme, all about sexualising young children, and removal of sexual boundaries. They also funded that dreadful 'research' that is still ongoing into incorporating 'gender identity' into law with a cool £750k. I wonder how much the ESRC gave for this pro-pimp research

The Guardianis weird in its commenting policy. Yes, they aren't great on feminist posts. But they also aren't great on allowing reasonable posts that disagreed with their (supposedly?) feminist columnists. Laura Bates often had pretty reasonable comments around her empirical process, and they were almost universally deleted.
In all their social articles there seems to be a tendency to delete what criticises the article in a clear way, and their Guardian picks are almost always in line with the article's point even when the majority of the comments are not.

This is Kate Hardy speaking at a "symposium" hosted by John McDonnell in the House of Commons and organised by The English Collective in 2015.

I didn't think it was possible for me to despise McDonnell more than I already did- but hey ho, live and learn.