http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/demand.htm

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/feature/entry/abolishing-prostitution-a...

I didn't say you were puritanical about womens' roles in society. Only about their sex lives, about which you would have your own feelings and anecdotes restrict their legal behaviour. For their own good, of course. What a good patriarch you'd make.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

Can I ask you some straight questions Azdgari, if you're going to be here for a bit?

Are they relevant to your puritanical attitudes toward womens' sexuality? Or are they intended to distract from it and change the topic?

I used to have a similar attitude to yours, before my sociologist fiance, along with her feminist studies and contacts, dragged me into the 21st century.

That last post was referring to your links, not to the questions you mention here. Ask away.

A solid rebuttal:

1.Do you believe that men largely control government decisions and are over-represented as political decision makers?

2. Do you believe men largely control the business sphere in top executive positions?

3. Do you believe men largely control media and entertainment (in executive and decision making capacity, as well as modes of transmition)- do you believe this influences society?

4. Do you believe men are largely economic policy makers? Do you believe men usually earn more money? Do you see any connection between money and power?

5. What sphere do you see women having more power than men in, or where women are at least totally on par with?

6. Do you believe that any and all of these spheres also influences women's sexuality and expectations about it?

Two others...do you believe women are equally influential in high academia? Do you believe feminist academics and research to be 'credible' sources of information?

If we shifted all the other factors toward full equality- mindsets would change. And as a result, I don't believe women would 'freely choose to do so' any longer.

Especially entertainment media (and I forgot advertising) it has such a profound, probably the most subliminally profound impact on us.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, and yes.

4. Yes.  And yes, we do, in the same positions with the same qualifications, on average.

5. Locally, as in, in limited scopes?  Plenty of examples I could give.  But the overall trend is the other way, as we'd both agree.

6. Yes.  But there is feedback in the other direction as well, a fact you neglect for some reason.

Ah, but not equal feedback in the other direction. You propose, that legalizing prostitution, historically a male supported commodity, rooted in abuse, and has long been influenced by male decisions in male dominated spheres- is now all of a sudden 'equal' feedback in the other direction.

Politics, historically a male supportd commodity with negative impact to women including the lack of ability to own property ...blah...blah...blah..male...blah...blah..blah..malel

Dang, it's  a wonder women got the vote.

Sigh, Kimmio, you know that women do think for themselves, right?

I get that you struggle with this, howver, your arguments don't work.

That's what I'm doing isn't it...thinking for myself. Trying to look outside of male dominated spheres. Asking what, honestly, would equality look like? It's hard to do when male dominated spheres are all that really exists.

It's a valid argument, Pinga.

1. Not in all fields.
2. That would depend on the details, details that go beyond whether or not he or she has feminist leanings. The quality of his or her research would matter to me. Would it matter to you?

No.  Perhaps I did not communicate clearly. What I meant was that expectations regarding womens' sexuality also have an impact on attitudes and behaviour toward women - feedback in the other direction, between the items you listed in question #6. Agreed?

1. I don't either. Do you believe their views are equally valid (e.g. I notice a male bias against information that comes from 'women's centres', magazines, publications, even if it is very well studied, researched, and composed. The minute information comes from such a source it seems to me to be either dismissed or objected to)? Male dominated sites and publications are seen as credible sources.

2.Yes, it does.

Yes. Agreed. But since nearly all spheres are male dominated, even how we think is through from a male dominated pov. Then, now, always, in all areas (unless we're commuted to full equality)- because we have full equality in none. That shapes culture, ideas, attitudes, on every level of human behaviour.

Are seen by whom? Passive voice is the coward's way out of identifying the people we're really talking about, if we even know who those people are.  Surely that wasn't your intent. All other things being equal, of course the views of female academics are equally valid. The other things need to be equal, though. An academic, male or female, can discredit his or her self when his or her ideology overly biases his or her writing.

Then why did you word your original question in such a way that had I answered your yes or no question with a simple "yes" or "no", I would have been making a blanket statement about the credibility of all feminist academics? What was your motivation for doing that?

Yes, we all fall prey to that if we aren't careful, and sometimes even if we are - including those of us who are ideologically feminist, such as you and I. This is evidenced by your paternalistic attitude toward the sexuality of other women.

The idea that women must automatically be the victims, not just in practice but in principle as well, is just such a male-dominated attitude. You've embraced it thoroughly.

To ask you think about all the other spheres of life and the impact they have on sexuality. To suggest that the 'sphere' of sexuality is also male dominated. My point was to point out that every single area is male dominated, including the expression of sexuality, and how we think about it is male dominated, because all the other spheres that influence our roles and what we think about them, are male dominated. Including media and transmition of media, about those roles, and our sexuality.

Systemically, ever system that governs human social behaviour and way of looking at and learning about that system and the behaviour within that system, is male dominated. The mode by which we learn about it, is male dominated (academia, media, transmition of media). People might argue, maybe not family life- but then, when a woman is seen as a powerful matriarch, it's still considered a weakness next to the rest of the spheres. It's not my wish to be a family matriarch...just saying' the only area where I can percieve that women might have more influence is still seen as subordinate to the rest of male dominated society.

Actually, No actually, it's not. Women being the victims of exploitation is not a male dominated attitude at all. And so we're not seen as such. I don't know many men who feel the same as me, but I do know some who'd tell me my arguments aren't worth considering. I know many men, and women who wouldn't consider feminist sites and journals, or wonen's studies, to be credible enough sources.

I have no idea which posts, let alone which points of those posts, you're addressing with yours.
.
Anyway, it sounds like you're not even open to the idea of looking at women in a non-male-dominated way, given how aggressively you object to any attempt to do so.

I think I am doing the opposite.

Sorry, the quote button didn't take, or maybe I forgot to press it before replying.

Deleted. Never mind. Not worth it.

You think you are, or you feel you are?

I have just pointed out all the areas that men dominate. All. Sir.

You've said that before. This time, I feel it's because I have a penis that I'm not worth the time of day (or night, in this case) to you, rather than because our ideas of honesty conflict.

Not even relevant to what I said.  Then again, I'm not even worth it, so that shouldn't surprise me...

Even by saying how a female feels about something is not as important as whether a man considers if she's thinking (good) or feeling (bad).

How about, I both think, and feel, and both are equally important?

Would it be too much to ask you to make this into a sentence, for clarity?

They reflect different things, and are not important in the same way. What you feel is more important to your state of being. What you think is more capable of being communicated in a coherent manner to others, that they might see reasonable cause to share your thoughts. Anyway, the reason I brought this up is that I already realize you feel that you are looking at the situation of women in a non-male-dominated way. What I didn't know is if you had any reasons for thinking that as well, reasons that might be communicated to others - like me.

'I feel' that in a man's world...how people feel about something is not as important as what we think. Thinking is seen as good, feeling is seen as bad- or irrelevant, or something. Example: stardust posted a blog of writings from sex work survivors, I pointed out the PTSD suffered by many in the 'business', the depersonalization, dissociative disorders, the early trauma that most sex workers experience before entering the trade (legal or not, having sex with multiple strangers impacts how they think, and feel). It was called 'anecdotal', 'appeal to emotion'.

Ahh, I didn't read that one pre-edit. It was the last of a series of posts, so I figured you were saying you were giving up on talking to me - and was puzzled when you continued to anyway.
.
That said, am I inherently a part of the problem for self-identifying as male, despite whatever ideology I hold or actions I take? I'm curious as to your position on that.

It isn't an "appeal to emotion" - whether it's a "man's world" or not, it doesn't fit the definition of that fallacy, unless the point of the anecdotes was akin to "this is sad, you now feel sad, therefore I am right". It is, however, anecdotal.
.
There is a reason why collections of anecdotes are not given the same weight as statistics, and it has nothing to do with feelings or patriarchy. It has to do with math. Despite what you might have been conditioned to think in our patriarchial society, math is not something men are inherently better at, nor is it ideologically biased toward men. Peoples' feelings can be, and are, measured assessed statistically. These statistics can be meaningfully evaluated. Anecdotes cannot.

Well, tonight, at this juncture, I am appreciating your fair approach to discussion, I have to say, Azdgari.

You're right about the math. But there are stories behind the statistics. Ones with real human impact. Real people, in real pain. We're that not the case, we would not be having this debate.

I feel those stories deserve empathetic consideration, and not just the numbers. The stats reflect that the numbers of people suffering from trauma before they even enter prostitution are high, rates of PTSD in the trade are high, and the stories, if we empathize, help us to learn what that experience feels like.

I cried reading those stories. I felt every single one of them, felt sick. Meanwhile, others made no comments at all about the long term impacts to people in the sex trade.

Anecdotes are a good way to remind us of what the statistics represent, yes. But the statistics are what tell us that the anecdotes are real, how prevalent they are, how widespread. Without that information, for all anyone knows, the anecdotes could have been selected specifically for their impact, to mislead an audience.
.
For example, one could find horrible anecdotes of the actions of homosexual pedophiles, which when taken together would paint a very grim picture of homosexuality. Until one realizes that no statistics were given on the prevalence of this sort of anecdote.
.
The decision to omit statistics is suspicious in these cases. It can mean that someone is trying to exaggerate their case, if they even have one. This is why stardust's anecdotes were treated dismissively. Without statistics, there is nothing to make these anecdotes mean anything in a general sense, even though they are meaningful on their own individual scale.
.
And when we're talking about general social issues and policy, that's a really big deal.

When the stats say that a high (can't remember the number, very high) number of people experience PTSD, that the majority were abused young before entering the trade, abused by men- and when you have seen it for yourself, known others who fit nearly every one of the anecdotes written by former sex trade workers in different parts of the western world, and experienced some the same sort of attitudes about women shared by the abusers- well, why are those not considered 'credible' opinions?

What else did you hope to gain by doing so, in terms of deciding what should be public policy?

Feeling something. Not just about the women in harm's way now. But the impact of legalizing the work, on the women who do it, down the road? Having feelings for them. Advocating for their well being. If I felt nothing, I wouldn't care about abolishing it.