Evidence re GC women and white supremacism please?

[Froodwithatowel]

I'll quote JCJ here as I do not want to derail the other thread:

From my, and many other people's observation, over the last couple of years, the UK GC space, especially on twitter, has progressively merged with both the US MAGA/Christian nationalist space, and those of UK white nationalists.

It is not easy to make sense of that X thread, but this statement is one I want information on. I don't do parroting, I believe in critical thinking, evidence and independence of thought, and I have learned to be deeply cautious of being accidentally vaccuumed into the 'so and so smells so do what I tell you' strategies so very tediously rife at the moment to get people in line and useful to others, we live in very grotty times.

So please would some kind person provide me with evidence that women wanting rights, equality and single sex spaces are entangled with religious extremism and white nationalism? Actual evidence. Not aspersions, but evidence.

You ain't funny pal.

Not run as women, running as people. Everyone running together then at the end deciding who should get prizes. Nobody is going to bother much if there are two prizes for women. It wouldn't be 'announced that they are trans'. The prize would be for someone who has an unfair advantage, whether it is trans or chromosome abnormality or whatever. They're not going to be able to keep the fact that they are trans secret and probably wouldn't want to.

You never know, maybe one day someone intelligent might read this thread.

What are you hoping to achieve by being rude?

Hmmm

So would an employment tribunal where a staff member asked for clarification on sex in order to protect / advocate for service users who had been raped, be a good enough example?

Probably not.

You said: The fastest woman is announced and if she is trans then then the fastest non trans/non DSD woman is announced.

And there wouldn't be 'two prizes for women', there'd be one for women and one for men and one for mediocre men with special identities.

And if you genuinely think They're not going to be able to keep the fact that they are trans secret and probably wouldn't want to. you really haven't been paying attention.

And you don't think that accusing someone of lecturing is being rude? Not only lecturing, but lecturing women. So obviously I must be a pimp or a punter or a transwoman or just a man. Somehow my contribution must be invalid.

I have tried to contribute some facts, because in my mind that is what a forum should be about. If people aren't interested, that could be for two reasons. Either it's a bit too difficult for them to understand statistics, or they just don't care.

It’s also an admission of lack of intelligence, as one has to assume that SuePine69 has read the thread she has contributed to.

Here's their evidence: you reject their ideology. white supremacists reject their ideology. you are aligning with white supremacists.

You think I'm joking, I'm not.

"I have explained to you that the Nordic Model increases the amount of prostitution in society. That is what the best reports into the change in the law in Northern Ireland and Sweden tell us. Given that this is the case, who do you think is more likely to be a pimp, you or me"?

Yea, I call absolute bullshit on that.

"Prostitution hasn't been eliminated, but surveys indicate that the percentage of Swedish men who buy sex dropped to 7.4 per cent in 2014 from 13.6 per cent in 1996; only 0.8 per cent said that they had bought sexual services within the last year". Nordic model was introduced in 1999. The quoted text is from Google. Now go look at how many men buy sex in Germany or Switzerland where it's legal. But it'll be higher. Much higher.

"Prostitution hasn't been eliminated, but surveys indicate that the percentage of Swedish men who buy sex dropped to 7.4 per cent in 2014 from 13.6 per cent in 1996; only 0.8 per cent said that they had bought sexual services within the last year".

I know I'm derailing this thread even further but blimey, 13.6% in 1996! I'd naively thought it would have been a lot less common than that.

Is that SuePine69s’ arse hitting the plate you handed them?

I figure they missed this blistering response from you, as they skipped you to answer Helleofabore.

I’ve read punters feedback websites, and it’s vile.

Pretty Woman wasn’t a reality TV show for women to aspire to.

Woman, Supine has avoided answering many questions. Such as what legal measures should be in place that will protect prostitutes from harm if the Nordic Model is so sinister.

I think it is actually quite enlightening that they argue so vehemently against the Nordic Model while not then proposing something else. They then wonder why feminists question their motivation. Which seems to be to spread misinformation about all the 'happy hookers' and to discredit a model that but the criminality on the user of prostitutes rather than further harming the prostitute.

I mean, surely someone who was fully supportive of no prostitute being harmed would argue that the model doesn't go far enough and that a large effort to provide other services to prostitutes should be offered to keep them safe and to help them to not rely on prostitution as income.

Yet.... that is not what has been posted on this thread.

By someone who makes a joke out of a sexual position on a thread that has now started discussing prostitution.

For anyone interested in learning more about first-wave feminist prudery (AKA anti child sex abuse, anti prostitution, anti rape within marriage, pro lesbian, pro single women) I can recommend Sheila Jeffreys' book, 'The Spinster And Her Enemies.'

Also Jeffreys' presentation at the Sexual Liberals conference in 1987: The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism in the 1920s:

https://www.catwa.org.au/historical-rrecordings/

Be very wary of anyone who presents sexologists as experts who women should pay attention to.

Also at that conference, Andrea Dworkin presented 'Woman Hating, Right and Left' from which comes the popular quote:

Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with any more.
It doesn't matter who the individual women are.

In the same speech she said:

Part of having a feminist resistance to male power includes expanding the base of that resistance to other women, to women you have less in common with, to women you have nothing in common with. It means active, proselytizing dialogue with women of many different political viewpoints because their lives are worth what your life is worth.

That's why.

We have to go past the conventional political barriers, the lines that the men have drawn for us. "Our girls are over there; we'll call them Democrats, we'll call them socialists, we'll call them whatever we want to call them. Those girls are over there; that's their girls. The girls on our side aren't allowed to talk to the girls on their side." Well, if the girls on either side talked to the girls on the other side, they just might find out that they're being screwed the same way by the same kinds of men.

The left will get nowhere castigating women for talking to the right.

We are not your puppets and we are not stupid.

We know the dangers of the right. We know they don't want us to have abortions or same sex relationships.

We know the dangers of the left. We know they want us to accept 'sex work' as empowering and surrogacy as a gay rights issue.

The answer is no. Get over it.

I have been wondering why my post didn’t receive an answer because I was curious to see what Sue thought (as long as it wasn’t calling me more names, that is).

Also, in keeping with the theme of this thread: women in prostitution in Europe, America and Australia/NZ have it bad (especially in countries with legalised prostitution where respect for all women in society nose dives) but what about women in the Global South, or the Middle East, or China? A lot of these societies are even more male dominated and so even less likely to try and give women a hand out of prostitution and much less likely to think prostitution is simply selling a service worth dignity and respect.

I think GC Feminism (in common with RadFems and Marxist Fems) wants to lift all women up to the level of respect that men won’t see us as bodies they can buy or force access to for purposes of sex and reproduction.

SP's dismissal of nuns when singling out Ruhama as a right wing organisation reminded me of three different elderly missionary nuns I met in the late 20th / early 21st century. From different orders, all spent their lives teaching in different African countries. All were passionate about keeping girls in school for a long as possible, seeing each extra term as increasing the power and choices the girl would have in her future. All were very aware of the difficulties of teenagers whose entire older family support structure had been lost to AIDS (no parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts) and the danger that if a girl worked as a prostitute not only would her school work suffer, she'd also be in danger of contracting AIDS herself (of course Catholic charities distributed condoms as protection against disease, but clients often refused to use them).

They made huge efforts to get the girls back into school, and to find alternative ways for them to earn a little money - sewing machines and peanut butter machines were two tactics, letting families of children earn enough money at the market to survive and learn for a few more months or years.

I've never met a missionary who was a white supremacist.

Just read your reply over my first cup of coffee and am sitting here in tears. How can there be any female cohort in 2024 that thinks this is ok?

MY DD decided she was trans in the summer of 2016: her periods started, MeToo, Weinstein and the Trump Tapes were all over the media. Is it any fucking wonder that a large number of contemporary female teens, especially those on the spectrum who already feel vulnerable navigating the a world they struggle to understand, would seek refuge in a male identity?

💐 BusyMummy, “seeking refuge in a male identity” sums up perfectly so much of what is going on.

That's interesting. So Google didn't tell you that in the next survey that figure went back up to more than 10%. This figure is NOT for 'the percentage of Swedish men who buy sex'. This figure is for the percentage of Swedish men who had bought sex at some time in their life. In 1996 it was about 13%, in 2008 it was about 8% then in 2011 it went back up to more than 10%.

Do you want to know the figure for active sex buyers? I'll tell you. In 1996 it was 1.3% and in 2008 it was 1.8%. The new law came in in 1999. So it went UP.

You might wonder how one statistic can go down and another go up, but that's all to do with prevalence and incidence statistics. If you ask people if they have ever done something, at any time in their lives, that figure will rise or fall when older generations become too old to participate (or die). So you have misleading rises or falls which are nothing to do with recent events.

The example I always give is if you asked people if they had ever, at any time in their life, used blankets on the bed and not a duvet. An older person might say 'When I was a child we used blankets' and that would go down as a yes. Then when these people become too old to participate in surveys it would look as if there was suddenly a big drop in people using blankets.

In the Swedish surveys the cut-off age was 72 years. In the 1996 survey there would have been older men participating who would have been young men in the 1940s. Sweden was neutral during WW2 but they had mass conscription. If there was a culture of paying for sex among conscripts this would account for the high figure that then dropped. These men could not have participated in the 2008 survey because they would have been to old.

That's why people should use incidence statistics to track changes. This is all explained in the Mujaj and Netscher 2015 study. You ask men what they do NOW (or at least what they have done in the past 12 months). The incidence statistics show an INCREASE either side of the 1999 law introduction.

There was a decrease after 2008, but remember that 2008 was the year of the financial crisis. Prostitution dropped in Denmark too, but Denmark has never had the Nordic model. The 0.8% figure is from a different data set. You can't just cherry pick from two different data sets. If someone tells you that the 0.8% figure is the lowest in Europe, that seems to be an outright lie.

Also in the Mujaj and Netscher study (they are women by the way, just in case you don't want to believe what a man tells you) is the figure for women who have been paid for sex at sometime in their life. That showed a substantial increase between 1996 and 2008. It also have other figures for women and teenage girls that show an increase.

Can you post links to your sources @SuePine69?

I can't tell you about Switzerland, but I can tell you about the Netherlands. About the same time that Sweden introduced the Nordic model, the Netherlands introduced legalization. I'm not a fan of legalization, I prefer decriminalisation, but it is interesting to see what happened in these two countries after the change in law.

I have shown you the evidence that the amount of prostitution increased in Sweden. I have found no such evidence for the Netherlands. If you say that there is more prostitution in the Netherlands than in Sweden, that is true, but that has always been true. It isn't true that Sweden had as high an amount before the Nordic model which then dropped after its introduction. You have to see what happened before and after law changes.

Rachel Moran went onto Woman's Hour and said that 227 prostitutes had been murdered in the Netherlands and 1 prostitute murdered in Sweden in the same time period. However, there there were no murders in Sweden in the whole of the 1990s, the most recent murder before 1999 was in the early 1980s. Now there has been another murder (although she was trans so I suppose that doesn't count for you).

If you look at these 227 women in the Netherlands, most of them were murdered before legalisation. So Moran got that wrong. Looking at the figures it seems that the murder rate of prostitutes in the Netherlands has dropped - unlike in Sweden.

Where did Moran get this false statistic from? She got it from Jim Wells the DUP politician who is not only Evangelical but Creationist. He literally believes that the world was made about 6,000 years ago. He told this lie in the NI Assembly, this is part of the reason that the Nordic model was adopted in Northern Ireland.
Feminists use the same false statistics as Christian Evangelicals and they can't even be bothered to check their facts.

There are different places on the web where you can find an English language version of the Endrit Mujaj and Amanda Netscher 2015 paper like below
2015__81 (lansstyrelsen.se)

Page 12 (Table 3) has the most important figures.

I can believe German brothels advertising gang bangs with heavily pregnant women. I've known for a long time that the situation in Germany is deeply disturbing. I find that difficult to believe about New Zealand though, especially because there are now many fewer brothels in NZ than before, most of them have closed down since decriminalisation.

I wonder if you have read 'Paid For' by Rachel Moran. It is an account of her life in prostitution in Ireland, together with opinions and false statistics. If you look at the facts of her life, they are very interesting.

For the first two years of her involvement in prostitution she didn't have any form of penetrative sex, either vaginal or anal. She didn't ever have anal sex. Only after a change in the law in Ireland in 1993 which made life incredibly difficult for prostitutes did she start having penetrative sex, and even then she did it 'sporadically'.

She much preferred to get her money from being a dominatrix, as well as selling cocaine. Oh yes, I've just remembered the other way she preferred to make money. She had a flat and a mobile phone and she used both to take money off women who had neither. That's called pimping. Pimps don't use their fists, they don't have too. If you read one of Ann Marie O'Connor's reports, the prostitutes had a word for these people.

All oral sex was with condoms. This is what she wrote in her book, although she might be saying something different now. In fact I know she is. She was on TV in a documentary about prostitution and Rupert Everett asked her isn't that like working in a factory to which her reply was you don't have a factory where the boss puts his penis in you anus and the janitor puts it in your mouth.

Why is she trying to imply that anal sex is a necessary part of prostitution? Or that oral sex isn't a question of negotiation between prostitute and client? So if you want to believe that men can do just what they want to a prostitute then you can do so. There isn't one reality to prostitution. There are different realities.

You create their reality by the laws that you support. The 1993 law in Ireland was a disaster. The Nordic model is too. Women are still getting arrested and there is no government money to help them exit. Their freedom of choice is now less than before and it is liars like Ruhama and Jim Wells that have brought this about.

You might have found a couple of missionaries who were good but if you want to know what Evangelical missionaries get up to in poor countries then read what is says here The Crusade Against Sex Trafficking | The Nation

In case you can't be bothered I have quoted one paragraph below

"President Bush then released anti-trafficking funds to feminist anti-prostitution groups and to faith-based organizations like IJM. The funding decision outraged HIV-education NGOs and sex workers’ unions, a number of which were cut out of HIV-outreach and countertrafficking funding or refused it in protest. Human rights advocates, meanwhile, raised concerns that IJM’s criminal justice approach would cause “collateral damage”–putting women and girls on a collision course with police brutality, detention and deportation, and disrupting HIV services while failing to address the economic inequities that would replace one rescued girl with another victim."

This bring us back to the whole issue of this thread and that is (some) feminists helping right wing social conservatives. I'm not saying they can't have good ideas, but their views are distorted and you end up with always worse that before.