Hard News: A revolting piece of shit
448 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
And yet earlier in this same thread, people are arguing - without much dispute - for a direct relationship between depictions of misogynist sexual violence, and the attitudes and possibly actions of those who watch it.
Our laws do recognise that very clearly. Porn that involves violence against women explicitly falls under the description of "objectionable" in the Act. It gets banned. Some other kinds of pornography don't; they're classified appropriately. So the law makes a clear distinction there. Bill Hastings could expound further, I'm sure.
-
Canterbury's corporate farmers were consulted about replacing the elected regional council that regulated their resource consents, if you want a topical local example.
Four of the just-sacked Ecan councillors were ruled on audit to have voted illegally because of their conflicting interests. Creech is a director of a polluting dairy company with convictions for resource violations.
Oh, and it seems at least one Minister voting on the bill currently in Parliament has an interest in affected water rights (h/t Idiot/Savant) - but then this government seems pretty relaxed about such conflicts.
Oh look, beneficiaries
-
Auckland City Council's C&R majority have just approved a policy not to reduce the number of pokie machines as is done in neighbouring Manukau and Waitakere cities. Why, you ask (my emphasis added)?
A draft released last year attracted 3853 submissions, including 3690 postcards and pro forma submissions co-ordinated by problem gambling groups against the proposal to allow transfers to new venues.
But the councillor who chaired the panel that heard submissions, Paul Goldsmith, said the proposal was supported by a majority of community groups who depend on pokie funding, including the Cancer Society, St John Ambulance, Surf Life Saving and the Auckland Theatre Company.
"They are obviously weighing up that dilemma - is this a legitimate source of funds? - and know that if you turn this tap off people will still gamble online or in other places and nothing gets back to the community.
-
Speaking of things Ecan, PAS contributor Matt Littlewood got a revealing quote out of Nick Smith in the Timaru Herald this morning. Chew on this one for a second:
Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners – rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested – was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.
(emphasis added)
-
(emphasis added)
(desk banged with head)
-
But the councillor who chaired the panel that heard submissions, Paul Goldsmith, said the proposal was supported by a majority of community groups who depend on pokie funding, including the Cancer Society, St John Ambulance, Surf Life Saving and the Auckland Theatre Company.
There are so many levels on which this is wrong, and they seem so obvious to me, I can't even be bothered articulating them. It would only be more ridiculous if one of the recipients was the Problem Gambling Foundation. Luckily they seem to understand this point;
A more honest and open way of obtaining these funds would be to be a $400 levy on the poorest families at school.
From here.
-
One or two have in the past. But surely the point is that it isn't about something neat and tidy like that?
Eh? Gambling is neat and tidy, but prostitution is not??
Both of them are age old human practices, both of them will still exist even if they are banned by law, both of them can cause demonstrable harm, both of them can be associated with crime and violence.
It strikes me a useful (if not foolproof) test of any argument about sex is whether it looks vacuous when applied to something OTHER than sex. And I think Emma's claims fail this test.
I am not disputing Emma's claim that sex workers may "know more" about the sex industry than other people.
However, statements like this: "A hundred women a year come to Iceland from overseas to work in the sex industry, and some of them may or may not be trafficked, nobody seems to know ... every single sex worker has forfeited the right to have a say when their job is taken away from them by legislation" are primarily about sex workers right to self-determination and economic autonomy, and in this sense they are in every way analogous to some sweaty publican complaining about the nanny state driving the small businessman to the wall when he has to unplug a couple of poker machines. (Although in fairness, it is Emma making the statement, and not the sweaty publican.)
Not only that, Emma seems remarkably blase about the risk of trafficking -- just what percentage of trafficked women in this hundred a year would constitute a problem for her?
Finally, Russell, you seem to assume that harm reduction strategies are always antithetical to efforts to reduce the total consumption of an illicit good. This may often be the case, but it seems like a huge leap to assert that it is always the case (although I would grant you that it might often be the case).
-
But then you have to explain why, as the availability of porn goes up, sexual violence decreases.
Thing is, I'm not actually convinced that it does, for a whole range of definitions of "sexual violence."
Purely for the sake of argument, what if a silent majority of women and girls (and men and boys) feel violated, sexually, by the visible presence of porn in a place where they're just trying to buy a chocolate fish? That's a kind of diffused rhetorical violence that's simply not accounted for in any of the studies (OK, the one study) Emma linked to.
Still, the science on cause-and-effect relationships between availability of porn and sexual violence (as we traditionally understand it), is pretty sketchy in either direction. Which is why I'd give greater weight to a more philosophical approach, but then I'm weird that way.
Sweden is a deeply perplexing example. It should be a sex-crime free utopia, according to the study Emma linked to: it has classically liberal porn laws (no age limits on possession or viewing!). But sexual violence is indeed apparently on the rise. Both sex crimes and assaults against women (and children, incidentally) -- or the reporting thereof -- have increased in the last ten years -- coincidentally or not, since prostitution was outlawed.
Do the Swedes just need to double down on the porn?
Seriously though, if the availability of a pool of professional sex workers is the only thing standing between any given person and rape, then there's something wrong that merely tinkering with the laws won't fix.
But, in this case, if the evidence does show that [some of] your individual women are more likely to suffer violence as a result of your actions, how much "precedence" do you give that?
Well, the evidence may indeed show that; it might in some cases (small country, known pool of workers) also show the opposite. In the Iceland case, (some of) the women in question were already suffering violence, in one of the already most heavily observed, if not regulated, sex industries in the world.
What other options do you think the Icelandic parliament considered, and why do you think they might have ruled them out in favour of this one?
What kind of evidence would you be obliged to present for the benefits of your new policy, given that it involves a demonstrable cost in human lives?
Fairly persuasive evidence, of the sort likely to win a vote in parliament, I'd have thought.
-
Finally, Russell, you seem to assume that harm reduction strategies are always antithetical to efforts to reduce the total consumption of an illicit good. This may often be the case, but it seems like a huge leap to assert that it is always the case (although I would grant you that it might often be the case)
But there does seem to be evidence to consider here. And in that sense, I think it's a bit more than "a giant thought experiment" as Jolisa put it. It might have real consequences.
Anyway - gotta go and tussle with some feminists for television :-)
-
(OK, the one study)
Gnnnrgh... it's not one study, Jolisa, it's a study of a whole bunch of studies, two of which (US and Japan) I've linked to here before more than once. I know I said I wasn't going to engage (because of course I'm okay with trafficking, that's a totally fair statement to make), but that's just a straight factual error.
-
Gotta feel sorry for Ásgeir Davídsson:
Ásgeir Davídsson who runs the strip club Goldfinger in Kópavogur is looking into whether he can sue the Icelandic state for compensation.
“I have reached the age where I’m not sure whether I want to bother with this hassle anymore,” he said. “I would be relieved if they just paid me compensation and I would quit.”
Funny thing is, Iceland has already experimented with liberal prostitution laws of a kind likely to please both pragmatists (legal both to solicit sex and to sell it) and utopians (illegal for a third party to profit).
I think they're probably entitled to try something a bit different, in the quest to stamp out trafficking.
-
And in that sense, I think it's a bit more than "a giant thought experiment" as Jolisa put it. It might have real consequences.
Er... but the current situation already has real consequences; the woman who sponsored the Iceland legislation has been working in the field for fifteen years. It's so easy for us to be armchair critics from the other end of the world. If you really think their legislative decision is that terrible a step in the wrong direction, write a submission! They must be informed immediately.
Sorry, Emma, I conflated the words "study" and "article"; you linked to one article on the porn-extinguishes-rape model, and yes, that article mentioned several different studies. Is it my fault if I don't find any of them terribly convincing, and share many of the misgivings of those who commented on the article? The claims about Japan, in particular, I find risible; it doesn't match my experiences there from the late 80s to the early 90s, nor what I hear from women working against sexual violence over there, in the 90s or since. Anecdata, I know, but I'm sure we could science it up a bit and make it stick.
Even the good women at Feministing aren't totally sold on the correlation, either.
(because of course I'm okay with trafficking, that's a totally fair statement to make),
OK, sorry, what? Desperately hoping this is sarcasm or something like it.
-
Amusingly, the numbers on whether sex crimes increased in Sweden rose because of the ban on prostitution actually seem a little iffy to me.
This plot begins in 1999 (when the law passed) but this one goes back to 1998 and shows a rising trend before the passage of the law (albeit only for a year or two, and that depending on just when in 1999 the law passed.)
I have other things to do with my evening than research Swedish sex crime statistics, but it is hard to see that the claim that clamping down on prostitution is causally correlated with a rise in sexual offending passes the sniff test. (This data does not speak to claim that life got harder for prostitutes themselves, I hasten to add.)
-
Must say, the SWOP article is a really nice, and very persuasive, piece of writing.
-
Anyway - gotta go and tussle with some feminists for television :-)
Now that we've got you all good and warmed up. You're welcome :-)
-
OK, sorry, what? Desperately hoping this is sarcasm or something like it.
It was double-sarcasm-plus I think.
-
Idiot/Savant has some links for that earlier post of mine about Canterbury democracy being traded for dairy profits.
-
Canterbury democracy being traded for dairy profits.
I saw the whole Canterbury mess as a conflict of interest from the beginning. I thought Government needed to step in and put a stop to the lack of balance at Environment Canterbury and make a stand for the peoples right to water in that area. I should have known that the Sheriff's men riding in on their trusty steeds were going to side with the cattle ranchers again.
It's like Bonanza all over again.
Where's Hoss when you need him?. -
Nobody was abused in the making of Pan's Labyrinth (apart from the miserably cold location shoot), and I'm still pretty relaxed with the R16 classification that makes it a criminal offence to show the DVD to my eleven year old grand-nephew. Wonderful film, but I'm not too torn up with the idea that he can wait a few more years to see a film that contains some astoundingly graphic violence, including the abuse and eventual murder of a child.
As was pointed out earlier, classification isn’t the same as censorship. But anyways, I’d be pretty relaxed with the idea that parents/guardians could choose to let their eleven year olds watch Pan’s Labyrinth without being considered criminals.
Something genuinely beautiful & creepy, for the feminists & those not partial to Lady Gaga.
I’m partial to Lady Gaga, but I still quite liked that.
So in the case of American Psycho, Christian Bale isn't really a psychopath and nor is Bret Easton Ellis.
With musicians, there is a vague tradition that you sing about your actual life, or a poetic variation it. So when a rapper comes across as a misogynist psychopath, there's an expectation that they really *are* such a person,I believe Bono made a similar point in regard to criticism of Eminem. It’s a fair point, too, except that no one here seems to be saying they think King is a misogynist psychopath.
"My whole thing is to push the limit ... People in the hip-hop community [are saying] this is the best New Zealand hip-hop video to date."
Uh.
-
Both of them are age old human practices, both of them will still exist even if they are banned by law, both of them can cause demonstrable harm, both of them can be associated with crime and violence.
Gambling and sport?
It strikes me a useful (if not foolproof) test of any argument about sex is whether it looks vacuous when applied to something OTHER than sex.
In principle, it should be okay to exchange sex for money. Compare: It should be okay to play sport for money, to write stories for money, and to blog for money.
Anecdata, I know, but I'm sure we could science it up a bit and make it stick.
Well, as long as you’re sure.
-
For keen trainspotters, Pundit has a detailed and even-handed discussion of the Canterbury situation, including illuminating posts from ex-staff.
-
Well, as long as you’re sure.
But that was exactly my point: the data is so inherently fungible that you can take it and prove entirely opposite (and equally well-made and sincere and socialist and/or feminist) cases with it. There many paths to the same goal, some of which likely work better than others for given locations and given subsets of the population (e.g. NZ-style decriminalisation hasn't diminished the rate of child prostitution yet, but maybe we should give it another 7 years?).
So Iceland has tried one approach (partial decriminalisation); now (consequent on a particular case, I think) they're trying another way. They wouldn't be the first small municipality to attempt an outright ban on industrialised sex within its borders, altho certainly one of the first where women are more or less equally represented at all levels of power. The least we can do, if it is a general principle to Take Women Seriously, is to assume that this also applies to women who actually have majority legislative power and dare to use it.
And if/when the new Icelandic policy doesn't work, then we can print out this thread and send it over with a friendly told-you-so note and a copy of our own legislation, and everyone will be happy.
and to blog for money.
Aw, bless. No, clearly we're the sort who'd do it even if we didn't get paid. Plus, we really like you.
-
to assume that this also applies to women who actually have majority legislative power and dare to use it.
(Paula Bennett aside, of course... there's an exception to every rule and as always I'm perfectly happy to rebut myself and save others the trouble).
-
As was pointed out earlier, classification isn’t the same as censorship. But anyways, I’d be pretty relaxed with the idea that parents/guardians could choose to let their eleven year olds watch Pan’s Labyrinth without being considered criminals.
Classification is censorship, if (where New Zealand is concerned) relatively benign, light-handed and rational. But, as so often happens on PAS, I think there's room for honest people to disagree.
Here's the interesting thing for me: I love horror movies (re-watch Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Dawn of the Dead, Candyman etc. regularly) but loathe and despise the Saw/Hostel school of torture porn. (For that matter, I loathe misogynistic rap but love grand opera, which is itself problematic on the feminist tip.)
Am I a horror old fogey, or a slasher hypocrite? Perhaps, but I think it's also a matter of tone and characterisation. You certainly can criticise Halloween on feminist grounds, and deplore what it spawned, but Laurie Strode and her friends weren't just no-dimensional sluts to be carved up in excruciating detail. I ended up caring about them.
-
I wasn't going to get into this either because like Emma says, I feel like we've had this conversation over and over again. However.
OK, sorry, what? Desperately hoping this is sarcasm or something like it.
I believe she was responding to this statement of Richard's:
Not only that, Emma seems remarkably blase about the risk of trafficking -- just what percentage of trafficked women in this hundred a year would constitute a problem for her?
Which does seem a little unfair.
Here's what it boils down to to me. It's just possible there are women in Iceland who enjoy stripping. Who like doing it, for whom the hours are convenient, and the money is good. And who don't want to do it in some seedy room in the back of a bar, or in even more dangerous situations.
Banning it forces those women underground, and into potential harm. AND it does nothing to help the women who weren't happy in their jobs.
The least we can do, if it is a general principle to Take Women Seriously, is to assume that this also applies to women who actually have majority legislative power and dare to use it.
But we can think they're wrong, right? And be annoyed when what they do is held up as a Big feminist Triumph?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.