ISIS handbook for sex slaves

[MsAmerica]

www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/05/slavery-isis-rules

And once it is directed at an Individual on Twitter it ends up overshadowing the central issue, which is the problems of slavery and trafficking.

That ship has not only sailed, but I'm not sure it ever arrived on this thread!

On this thread there have been two different contexts that have been raised...

1. Slavery and Trafficking.

1. Structural issues around how language is used in this society.

I have posted about slavery and trafficking on here. If you've not had an interest in the posts about slavery and trafficking, it doesn't mean they were not on the thread.

The points about the paragraph should point towards wider ways language is used in describing gendered issues - a structural issue.

When you move it from this thread to approaching someone on Twitter it becomes personally about him and not the wider issue. Can you not see a difference between this thread and approaching someone from Human Rights Watch on Twitter?

I haven't.

I was thinking about McKinnon yesterday because LoveLace was on TV. When Linda Lovelace became an anti porn campaigner it was McKinnon she worked with.

I would like to read it and have a thread about it, but have a deadline for Tuesday and am behind, so reading it will have to wait.

I'm not suggesting that the author of this piece uses prostitutes, of course I don't know, but he might well watch porn, and if he does, there must be some corner of his mind that's aware that he might be watching a trafficked, coerced woman. That's very close to home, when writing about sexual slavery

This is what you said. You started off saying you weren't suggesting he didn't use prostitutes and went on to say " he might well watch porn" and then posited suggestions of what might be going through his head.

However if you prefer I'll amend my post.

I think the analysis of what he could possibly mean by the 10 lines in his opening paragraph stretched to include the proposition that he might well watch porn is overshadowing the meat of his article.

For anyone interested in Roth's actual stance...

Roth believes that the best way to gain rights for women is to take pre-existing human rights laws that countries apply to men and to then ask for those laws to be extended to women. Not extending them to women can then be said to be discriminatory.

So, for example, if women are being murdered in DV situations, the best response to that would be to get countries to prosecute more men who murder women and girls in their family under right to life laws.

Feminists generally disagree, and say that women need their own specific rights, and support things like CEDAW and the gendered trafficking protocols because women are more likely to be victims of some forms of violent crimes and the only victims of others.

To word an introduction to trafficking in such a way as to give an example of it happening to men, some examples without mentioning gender and then extend that out to discussing female victims of ISIS is then wholly consistent with Roth's stance on women's rights. It is not indicative of supporting gendered human rights conventions and protocols, which indeed is not his stance. It is placing the horror of ISIS slavery within his preferred political context.

His stance on non gendered ways of advancing women's rights is discussed in the book the Idea of Prostitution, by Sheila Jeffries. Many people do share that stance, and many do not (particularly on here).

You see, even by quoting me it shows that you have not understood

No of course not Buffy. Silly me. Maybe you need to use shorter words for me. It's not possible of course you might be wrong.

Your analysis of his piece seems to me far more concerned about discrediting the article because it was written by a man than anything else.

I said a while back I thought the way he framed it using a bland , generic introduction and then moving on swiftly to his main topic was a powerful and effective way of writing- but then what do I know.

ISIS sex slaves are women or young girls, so if "men" and "boys" are specifically mentioned in an opening paragraph about slavery around the world, then I'd expect "women" to be specifically mentioned too.

Maybe the author felt he needed an opening paragraph that would appeal to men; that they wouldn't be so indignant about ISIS enslavement of women unless he could say men can sometimes become slaves too.
He might have been afraid that some sensitive MRA souls would feel hurt or "got at", unless he eased into the general topic of slavery, before talking about women victims.

Well then, you have not got my point. Short words

If you say so Buffy. I bow to your superior intellect.

Funny that you had almost nothing to say about his article other than minute dissection of that one paragraph. It's ok for you to dissect his writing and prejudices but not for any similar dissection of your prejudices?.


It's like I'd feel, as a mixed race woman, about an article on UK racism written by a native white Brit:
If the article started with an overview of discrimination experienced by all races and specifically mentioned white Brits, but not people of colour until later on, I'd feel it was "off"
I'd wonder if they had some agenda to minimise.

It would still grate if the article was by a person of colour, but I'd be more likely then to put it down to poor writing, iyswim.

I should clarify that I think Roth is very much aware that certain issues are gendered and very much in favour of supporting women's rights.

But he considers it a pragmatic step to take the approach that men have X rights so X rights must be extended to women also.

Because that's an easier argument for some people to accept.

Yes, all those people who come on here and say, 'I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist.'

What on earth isthis? This is awful.

I don't think you should regret it Buffy.

I do think people understand the points made by you, BigChoc and the OP.