scottish feminists -

[weeonion]

Dear Sister

As you may know Rhoda Grant MSP is taking forward work to reduce and prevent sexual exploitation, through introducing legislation to criminalise buying sex in prostitution.

Trish Godman MSP held a consultation on this issue in 2010 which resulted in around two thirds of the respondents supporting the proposed legislation. Rhoda is submitting her proposal to the Justice Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 19th June)and is asking that the previous consultation be regarded as sufficient. This would mean that she could then submit her Bill without further consultation. There is also a danger that the expense of a further consultation might deter the Committee from taking forward the proposed legislation at all. This suggestion is being strongly opposed by pro-sex work campaigners as they want a lengthy consultative process that they can prolong in the hope of derailing any new legislation..

I am therefore asking you to send an email to the Justice Committee, today or tomorrow morning, stating that you support proposals to criminalise buying sex, and that in your view the previous consultation was competent and sufficient. The latter is the key at this stage.

This is really urgent. Please email now if can and ask others to do so also.

You email to [email protected]

The clerk is Peter McGrath or you can address it to Christine Graham who is Convenor. If you have time you could also email individual members. All details can be found on the committee page www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/29845.aspx

Many thanks,

I've just done some research and Leithlurker is a man. I have done some further research to reveal also that MsAnnTeak has an unhealthy interest in any subject relating to misogyny.

Leithlurker's post at 17.46 confirmed he's a man, your research was not needed. And why does it matter? You haven't explained that, though you've been asked before.

How do you qualify an "unhealthy" interest in misogyny, on a FWR board? Isn't everybody interested in misogyny here?

Are you a man too OldLady?

Would it matter if I was?

Well are you?

Are you? And can you prove it?

FFS, how old are you that you consider this reasonable debate?

Yes. Search my recent threads if you like make of them what you will, but you will find I'm a real woman and definitely no impersonator, transvestite or even cross-dresser. Are you going to make me search your threads too?

Lol at the very idea that searching threads is any sort of proof, I have no interest in doing so. But if you want to search mine, feel free.

It would be so much easier if you just told me whether you were a man or a woman. Or a troll for that matter.

Why on earth would you believe me if I said, "Yes, I'm a woman" any more than you would believe me if I said, "Actually, yes, I am a man, what of it?" It's the internet, I could be anyone!

I wanted to respond to GothAnne's post, in so far as I agree broadly with what you say I would only want to establish what I and I think other posters have been saying, although the other posters can obviously correct me if I am wrong.

I am not coming at this from a decrim versus crim argument, indeed I am coming from a position that says this kind or argument is flawed and that is why the bill that was to be presented before the scottish parliament should be closely examined. My point of departure was that yes we need to reduce harm for everyone at all levels of sexwork, but the only way to stop prostitution is to have a multi layered approach as to how to get the women to see that other better choices can be made, and at the same time offer real value choices so that the money is taken out of the industry. Just saying crimanalising those paying for sex may or may not reduce the numbers engaging in that act. But it does not help the women and men who are enslaved to the money that is being made.

Another poster was sickened by my Marks and spencer v's Aldi example, well I am sorry you were sickened but the reality is that is the mindset of the pimps and the traffickers, they could not give a shit if these are women, men, or ponies, to them they are profit and loss. That kind of unemotional mindset is what is needed to counter the trade in humans, not just for the sex trade.

Notnany what a delightful person you are, I have several rubbish bins that you are free to rummage through if you so wish, perhaps you might find something that will mark me out to be even of less value than you have already decided I am.

Seriously, look at your history, the only reason you're on here is to lobby pro sex industry and its a bit rich coming from a man, on a forum for Mums, on the feminist board, on a thread addressing us as 'dear sister'.

You are actually doing men a great disservice. Now try and find the real world and let me get back to work.

Why do I have to look at my history, I know what my stance is. So having drawn attention to what you think my agenda is by calling me something and asking others to believe what you say by referencing my posting history you seek to dismiss my views and ask others to do the same.

Fine have it your way, because your way lead to the nazis!

Either grow up and learn to debate properly or go take up another contact sport, this is for grown ups, not teens who see misogynists under the bed.

I don't agree with personal insults here. But the fact that a poster is a man or a woman is important. Ultimately your sex will mean that you have different experiences in a patriarchial society and that will iunfluence your views and interpretations

I agree with you Eats, indeed that is always been one of the reasons that I think dialogue is extremely important. I studied community education at Edinburgh Uni, most of which was about the need to work with people which I interpret as trying to find grounds of common agreement and going on from there.

So yes I probably was wrong to get in to a personal slagging match, but I find it a bit rich that I am called a pro sex industry lobbyist when I have said countless times that I think prostitution is wrong, a human rights issue, abuse, and a crime.

What I have done and will continue to do is to ask people to think about the term prostitute, and how sex is for some a contested issue which adds different dimensions to how our society views sex work.

There will be no bill without a proper consultation, and given the content of the previous and conclusions drawn from it (yes, I've read it so feel able to make judgement) its a wise decision.

Pity some posters conclude because a poster is contradictory in some instances they are automatically mysogyanists, ignoring the fact many feminists do not follow their ideology. Trying to convince me all the adult women working in the sex industry are somehow victims and in need of rescuing and rehabilitating, when none radical feminist material tells me the contrary (and I have posted many links over time), ultimately leads me to being a woman hater. I'm not denying there isn't tragedy, and misery involved. However, looking at other industries I see exactly the same, domestic servitude being one. There's no outcry to stop humans renting other humans to look after their children, scrub their floors, clean crap from toilets.

I dabbled in feminism in my late teens but was put off, it was their views, and your views were dismissed. Not debate, or rationalised. Over the last couple of years I've been on the sidelines of radical feminism and I still don't like it. Any women who contradicts their beliefs, or questions them tends to be screamed down and bullied, even at a public venue. It's no different to bully men, but you expect that in a patriarchy. It's shocking when those who are meant to be championing women, fighting inequality and addressing the behaviour of men, choose to be just as aggressive and dismissive of fellow women's views.

That is disappointing!

But not unsurprising.

Dittany, most observers of this forum will see it in action. Looking at any ideologists in full sway it doesn't take long to see how blinkered they are.

Far from way off topic, Trish Godman used interesting tactics in her 'consultation'. She pushed the VAW agenda, dismissing the views of academics and others. Given the VAW groups are funded by government and have to play to a certain tune, she went initially to gain their support and views (which are all the same) to give her the answers she wanted. Quite a few were obviously going to back the bill, their funding depends on it.
She went on to harness the support of the middle class nice white ladies. One ladies view,' there was no prostition per say in her area but she was concerned at anecdotal evidence purporting one, or two females were suspected of having drinks bought for them and then having sex with said purchaser of half a stout. Possibly the start of prostitution? Carrying out a consultation you'd expect those invited to comment be at least comfortable with women having sex outside of marriage ?

Look at the OP, 'sisters' were being urged to email the Trish Godmans consultation was 'compedent and sufficient' to have the Rhoda Grant bill backed and it to sail into law. The radical fem machine in full swing. Irrelevant if you had no idea what it was about, or of consequences to prostitutes north of the border. Some not even belonging to Scotland would say Trish Godman had done a magnificent consultation process ?

Spending time growing up in the patriarchy can make you susceptable to doing as you're told, without question. Would also follow, if you're that type of person you'll automatically do what a women asks you to do without question.

I wish I knew about this proposal before, are there any other similar ones in the offing?

Yes, refreshing, isn't it?