So it would appear this topic is the Millwall of Mumsnet

[GothAnneGeddes]

Nobody likes us and we don't care.

I have to admit I lurk more then I post here, but to me, it's great being able to have everyday things discussed through a feminist lens, especially as most feminist websites are so US-centric.

It's just such a shame that so many women don't think that feminism is relevant to them. I just don't understand it.

Dittany, did you miss my question re the proposed legislation that would allow a woman hurt by pornography to sue pornographers?

I genuinely am curious to know what that means.

Is it specific legislation to allow women who have been in the porn industry to sue pornographers in civil court for harm that has come to them from taking part?

Or something else?

Thanks Dittany.

Interesting.

I don't think anyone is 'comfortable' with that sort of job - it must be soul destroying at times - but I respect women who do it.

It's not radical to debate with someone about the ethics of her work from a feminist perspective. I think it's rather fascinating.

It is radical to suggest a woman cannot do it and be a feminist. It is radical to suggest women shouldn't do it at all.

'I'm not talking about things like earwicga or fosh, those clearly belong firmly in lunacy corner.'

LOL! I agree with your comment at Tue 17-Aug-10 03:10:03 TheBossOfMe, but you clearly don't.

Sakura - The F-Word filters out the sexist crap which leaves it a free forum for feminism to be discussed.

'I don't think anyone is 'comfortable' with that sort of job'

That's not radical. That is saying no woman has free agency. No woman can make free choices. That is rubbish.

I should have been more specific that I was referring to the police threat thread rather than you as a person, earwigca, apologies if that sounded like a personal attack on you. I personally think that such threads/threats do belong in the lunacy corner of this board, but appreciate you may not feel the same way. I think we will just have to agree to differ on that one, however much we might agree on other issues. That's the beauty of MN.

I don't think most Mners hate the basic concept feminism, or hate you lot who hang out here. It's just that we feel that the battle (for us in the West at least) is largely over, and you lot are the only ones who haven't noticed!

It can get a bit like listening to old people who still crow on about Germans and the war.

'"The female lawyer who defends a rapist or wife beater is actively standing in the way of a female victim getting justice." '

So to a radical feminist, to be accused of rape or wife-beating is the same as being guilty of it, and any attempt at defence is hypocritical whitewash that no woman should be involved in?

Goblin - I agree that one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that one is presumed innocent until found guilty, regardless of the crime. The alternative seems too horrendous to contemplate - the hideous potential for abuse is rife.

I have a son, and a partner and a brother and nephews. You get idea.
This sort of statement, with its level of unthink worries me.

A barrister can't just defend criminals whose crimes they have no moral objection to. Where would the justice system be then?

Thank you for your response Dittany.
I suppose I was influenced by growing up in an era where women were deemed to have invited assault by being inappropriately dressed, leading men on and seeing that used as a defence by men, with male lawyers. And campaigning against that and other very misogynistic attitudes in the '70s.
I misunderstood your post to mean that men accused of sex crimes were not entitled to be defended by a woman, even though she might be the best choice, because she might be defending someone who was guilty and thus permit him to get away with it if she won the case.
Honest question, do you think that a woman should always have a female lawyer whenever possible?

just a thought-
supposing that there was no women doing this
[being defense for a man that has been accused] and it was only men doing this?
do you think that outcome would be diffrent?
like-a court full of men-so do you think the verdict could be diffrent?
a bit like old boys club.[more like old boys club]
sorry-finding this hard to put across-but can you see what i mean?

That's it SwallowedAFly, alternatively your socialist principles have to go if you're defending a crime against property, your environmentalist principles have to go if you defend someone breaking pollution laws.
If every defence lawyer was as principled to the point of refusing all cases that they object to, there'd be no justice system left. It'd be flaming pitchforks all the way. Much worse for everybody.

Yes, SAF, about the vandalism of course, but the point is people hold different priorities, environmentalism/feminism/rights for the elderly/you name it.
On a personal level refusing to defend a (guilty) woman-beater is a solution, on a societal level it's not.

SwallowedAFly Thankyou.
this is something ive never thought about before[women who repersent men in court]
and ive always seen it as-a woman with a good job-good on her.
so im finding this very interesting-but not fully understanding this yet.

if a woman defending a man in court and this is meaning that she is being anti women-
because of the man commiting violence against woman-
what about when a woman represents a woman who has been accused of things like child murder?
she s representing a woman so cant really be being anti woman[?]
man accused of violence-woman reperesentitive-
woman accused of murder-woman reperesentitive-
both heinious crimes-
if one would be anti woman-what would the other one be?