Third wave feminism

[Tiredeyes89]

Long time lurker here, this is my first post so please excuse if I'm not very coherent just wondering what the general consensus on third wave/intersectional feminists are? I ask because today I saw a post on a feminist Facebook page about the situation in Aleppo, and a woman had commented asking what kind of freedom did the civilians want,which was a bizarre question I though. When someone suggested she might want to do some research about the conflict in Syria she replied to the poster that as a black woman she didn't need to educate herself, and that people only care about the Syrian conflict and the staggering number of civilian deaths because they are white and she wanted to know if the Syrian civilians wanted freedom for " the black folk trans folk and genderqueer folk ". If not, then she wasn't particularly bothered. I was astounded by it all and anyone who disagreed with her was racist, and transphobic. I have this awful feeling third wave feminism is dragging us backwards, almost like it's come about to keep us busy fighting amongst ourselves rather than the patriarchy...any thoughts? (Sorry if I've ranted on abit!)

So that would mean prostitutes would wear the same level of protective clothing as any other worker who comes into contact with body fluids

You say you are in favour of protective regulations - so that includes face masks, latex gloves, scrubs etc when dealing with punters?

Enid once again, my comment was regarding the terminology. I certainly acknowledge that the industry is absolutely riddled with vile and corrupt individuals (generally men if I'm not mistaken). Progress towards protection and equality is slow. Changing the wider public's perception with seemingly pointless use of different terms might not change things overnight but I don't see how it can be a flat out negative.
I think we all want the same thing here.

The problem is, Fruit, that enhancing the protection of the law, ie legalising all aspects of prostitution/exchange of sex for money has the unintended effect of legitimising it. The more legitimate it is, the more it happens. We've seen the results of that in the mega-brothels in Germany. So I can't in all conscience support that. Nordic model all the way for me.

I'm not an abolitionist as such. I just want the legitimacy of the sexual exploitation of women and girls to wither away into nothing as we evolve away from the idea that consent can be bought. It's a concept that seems very resistant to change, but it's in no way an inevitable fact of life that some people seem to believe. They used to say that about slavery, too.

You say you are in favour of protective regulations - so that includes face masks, latex gloves, scrubs etc when dealing with punters?

I deal with bodily fluids every day. I have never worn scrubs. However gloves and a face mask seem sensible. It would mean purchasing sex is much less desirable, and may kill the market for it altogether! Now THAT would be nice.

Aren't the women in the German brothels treated as self employed as they rent the rooms from the owner? So no "workers' rights"

Well lass the owners of the brothel are clearly employers. So German law seems to be at fault there.

I can't speak for German employment law but the model used in the German brothels but you may well not understand the differences between employed and self-employed. The German brothel owners are providing premises which prostitutes hire.

Changing the wider public's perception with seemingly pointless use of different terms might not change things overnight but I don't see how it can be a flat out negative
I think we all want the same thing here

Are we ? I don't want a society where punters are treated with anything other than contempt. You seem to want one where it will be easier for them to buy sex and no one uses nasty words about them.

Fruit, you say you're not in favour of criminalising men who buy sex as it pushes prostitution underground and it's more dangerous. Don't you think the same would happen if prostitution was legalised but PPE had to be worn, which you say you would approve of? I think you are well aware that will never happen, otherwise surely you'd have a problem with it for the same reason?

Sorry ,meant the structure where the owner of premises provides facilities for hire is not an employer/ employee structure. Many hairdressing and beautician salons legitimately work on that basis

So all this talk of "employees' rights" is nonsense.