Femen - Collected Articles

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 22, 2012 at 12:14

Let's make Marx's observation up-to-date: "people make history, but not on grounds of their own choosing".  It seems very wrong that the going rate for female prostitutes should appear (on average) to be so much less than that of male prostittutes.  There are many reasons for that, but we keep being told that across all industries, the average wage for females is less than the average wage for males.  Rather than out-lawing prostitution, I think that people should be highly paid for it. And I think they should have the same social status as footballers or models.  I would not want to work as a prostitute, but I've had friends who gave up minimum-wage dead-end jobs and became prostitutes, and found the work no more demeaning, and much better-paid.  Good luck to them.

As for hijras and trans, I'm not entirely clear what you are trying to talk about.  I'm assuming you are suggesting there is something wrong with "cross-dressing" (a man dressing as a woman or vice-versa).  Well, there is nothing wrong with cross-dressing.  Clothes that might be considered suitable for a man in one historical place and time, might be considered only suitable for a woman in another place and time.

We are born naked - not with our hair in short/long, and not with baby girls wearing high-heels, and baby boys wearing y-fronts. 

 I have two friends who let their 8 year-old-boys dress daily in "girl's" clothes.  (One friend is gay, the other straight).  The boys want to dress in those clothes and the parents refuse to repress this.  I think the parents should be easing their boys into conformity, because outside of their home they are going to be in a conformist world, with severe social and physical penalties for non-conformity.  Given my view on personal freedom, the parents were shocked and outraged that I should suggest they ease their boys to conformity.

In my opinion, most of what we see as "gender difference" is a superstructure built on top of little that is real.  And it is this artifice of gender that means that one half of the population ends up working harder, with lower social status and less money.

Indoeuropean said:

I never supported the salary of people working in the show business, footballers included.

Let's arise the salary of more decent jobs, and maybe the previously mentoned business will decrease.

That hjras and trans are very well wished and pad, I guess this deserves to be discussed, don't you thnk?

Let's imagine that many women turn into hijras (dressing and behaving like men/males) or trans, and that many other women demand to go out with them, and having sex with them:

may I ask you what do you think (think) about that (phenomena), and what would you teach to your kids about the problem or matter?

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on January 23, 2012 at 0:54

Actually Joe, I think that Indo is the opposite of what you believe. She has her views like anyone else, but is only prepared to propogate those views by encouragement and appeal to peoples intrinsic decency.

So, suppose I take a stand on the depiction of rape in videos, with all the harmful social effects I believe that causes, and I promote censorship for that. You know I will get publicly reviled and hounded from pillar to post for that.

But Indo will not even in an anonymous internet forum agree to support me on that principle of state censorship. She wants everything to be done by self control, and seems to believe that, all humans being fundamentally good, such a project is practically possible. So that makes the ides of publicly supporting such very unfashionable censorship, a very unattractive option for me!

You think her 'fundamentalism' is scary, but behind it she has reversed that famous Truman doctrine  of "Talk softly but carry a big stick",  and believes instead that the state should:
"Talk toughly but carry no stick at all"   :-)

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 6:06

Dearest Joe, this is exactely the opposite of what I am meant to say, and  I already mentioned Alice Miller, which is AGAINST Education, and notably, against dark Pedagogy,

Now, your way of "reasoning" seems very brainwashed, since you appearently refuse to get deeper into matters/problems, and to rather apply so called dark Pedagogy/Education (that you got, maybe from the Medias, maybe from somewhere else) to situations. 

Example of Education: genital Mutilation in the name of Religion/Culture/whatever. Encouraging people to reason: genital Mutilation is an obvious violation of children's integrity and Rights, and MUST be reasonably banned. /

Education: violence against weakers people is all right. (Consequences: Persecutions and Genocides). Encouraging people to reason: such a violence is wrong, it is an abuse it MUST be banned.  

Have a good and beautiful life.

Joe said:

This sounds like Orwell's 1984.  You are talking about brainwashing people into uniformity.  And then calling it "education".

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 6:20

Dearest Joe, do you censor, inside your brain, inside your heart, violence against others, weakers, women, children, and even against your fellows human beings?

Or are you free to apply violence as much as you like, in the name of Freedom? Freedom, in my opinion, means not mindlessly act whatever you like, without Decency and Ethics.

This applies to Bigots and to Pornographers (by the way: you said not to see any link between older Pornography and nowaday's one, and most recent Pedopornography. I DO encourage you to give another look into the problem, and you'll see ...).

You wonder why I participate to a site which is about Freedom? Maybe because I do apply Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Thinking, and notably, Freedom of Reasoning (which in Arabo isalmicity is clearly forbidden: what about within the Culture or Religion that you maybe follow, and that drove you to call me a Salafist?).

Feminist Mouvements, and Mouvements about human Rights must be critical about "cultural Habits", be it burking women, be it wearing them sado masochistically (now you'll tell me that it is a free choice of them. All right then, be consistent and allow Salafis to live and act their Culture ...; DO YOU SEE what I mean, where is the point?).

I rather wonder why most of you are particpating to a site about Freedom, while you seem to apply such a Freedom to yourselves, while denying it to others.

Why do you participate to a site which appearently rightously apply free critcal Thinking to Salafi Habits, while you go totally CRITICLESS when it comes to Sado masochism, Pedopornography, and worst?

Tell me.

By the way, you asked me about sexy or weird underwears within domestic walls: if the couple is happy with them, let them use them. Why not.

Hopefully, they will LOOK INSIDE THEMSELVES why do they need Fetichism in order to (appearently?) love their partner (or whom? And by the way: is that Love? Does Love matter in a couple, maybe with kids, or not at all?)

Perverted [verted from Latin (?) = directed] means (scientifically) unnatural, and insane means a behaviour which is not natural, and driven by unsolved problems (usually belonging to the PAST personal history of the person).

I send you kindest regards.

Joe said:

Indo, you seem to be a highly censorious, highly judgemental individual.  I do wonder if you are in fact a form of salafist. You are happy to call people "perverts", you want to ban things, you are happy to classify people as "insane" because they want to things to each other of which you disapprove.  These things may be harmless or may not - but it is the freedom of these people to do these things.  It is NONE of your business. I really question why you are part of a website that is fundamentally about FREEDOM.
Indoeuropean said:

Why should one spit in another's mouth, please? Isn't it simple Darkness, Ignorance, Ugliness and lack of Civilization? And there even is people (?) watching a them (these images)? Please, don't tell me that there even is people (?) paying to watch them?

It anyway consist on an abuse against human Dignity, and it violates human Rights/Duties. ...

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 6:35

For your information, I am one like goes preferably unisex, which means, I am not that who makes a great difference between feminine clothes and males one, and I think that such a difference has been made to make business, not in the interest of people, notably when clothes of the ones or of the others are VERY uncomfortable and unhealthy.

Hijras are men in India, within the Hindu culture, please have a look on Wiki. Transgenders are people who explicitly want to play the role of the other sex, and I think that there often is a misunderstanding of THE OWN SEX and of the other sex. You might think over the whole situation better. By the way, Hijras and Trans (males to females, only appearently, keeping they masculine genitalia) are very quoted by males. Appearently, Hijras and Trans know better how to sexually satisfy males. (Let's discuss about it later, now I have to go).

Good and beautiful day.

Joe said:

Let's make Marx's observation up-to-date: "people make history, but not on grounds of their own choosing".  It seems very wrong that the going rate for female prostitutes should appear (on average) to be so much less than that of male prostittutes.  There are many reasons for that, but we keep being told that across all industries, the average wage for females is less than the average wage for males.  Rather than out-lawing prostitution, I think that people should be highly paid for it. And I think they should have the same social status as footballers or models.  I would not want to work as a prostitute, but I've had friends who gave up minimum-wage dead-end jobs and became prostitutes, and found the work no more demeaning, and much better-paid.  Good luck to them.

As for hijras and trans, I'm not entirely clear what you are trying to talk about.  I'm assuming you are suggesting there is something wrong with "cross-dressing" (a man dressing as a woman or vice-versa).  Well, there is nothing wrong with cross-dressing.  Clothes that might be considered suitable for a man in one historical place and time, might be considered only suitable for a woman in another place and time. ...

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 6:36

many many many thanks. Lightful and loveful and beautiful day.

Alan Lake said:

Actually Joe, I think that Indo is the opposite of what you believe. She has her views like anyone else, but is only prepared to propogate those views by encouragement and appeal to peoples intrinsic decency. ...

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 23, 2012 at 9:56

OK, I'll take you on with this. Please represent the perspective you think Indo has.

Whether or not someone wants to work as a prostitute, or wants to make "pornographic" videos for free or for money, or even watches videos of rape (simulated or otherwise), has nothing to do with their "intrinsic decency".  They could be entirely decent and moral people (and be well above average in that regard).  If they are driven to working in cahoots with all sorts of disgusting criminal dirt-bags, then I'd expect their moral compass to wander.

The idea of intrinsic decency is an assumption.  (And one that does not fit will with an idea of original sin). It is my belief that people are fundamentally animals, and it is the process of acculturation, socialisation and civilisation which takes them from the state of being animals.  That's not to say that all animals are always incapable of some instances of kindness, but that this is the exception rather than the rule.

Rape is wrong because it violates the freedom of an other person.  The rape of a dead body is gruesome and distasteful.  But there is no morality that can be applied to that, just like there is no morality if someone was to use a piece of rotten meat for sexual gratification.  It can be comical, disgusting or disrespectful to the feelings of others.  

It is illogical to believe that watching videos of rape (real or simulated) necessarily leads to the viewer becoming a rapist.  If that was the case, then whenever the police had a case of rape where the rapist was unknown, they should head straight to the homes of the members of the British Board for Film Censorship.  These people watch many films a year depicting rape.  How come they don't become rapists?

People who like the idea of rape, will probably choose to watch (and indeed seek out) such videos.  But their liking for rape scenarios will precede the production of such videos.  How do we explain the incidence of rape amongst Viking warriors, Islamic warriors, and even servicemen in WW2?

I see more of a reason to ban the depiction of rape out of sympathy for the victims of rape.  I would put their feelings above the feelings of those who want to watch such scenarios.  But I wouldn't fool myself into thinking that such videos are the cause of the rapes.

And if it comes down to the (apparently) massive explosion of child-sex abuse (in both actuality and in the number of arrests of people who are taking and sharing representations of it), I am not sure that there are more people who are finding such narratives enticing (I think there may be - and I think that is worrying).  But what I am sure about is that the internet has facilitated the communication of such like-minded people.  And I feel the attendant media publicity about the cases might actually generate interest in those who otherwise would not find the idea conscionable. And that might lead to the circle of those being involved to increase (and that is then a snowball effect).

If such people confined themselves ONLY to watching cartoons of whatever variant of "sex with children" they found attractive, I do not think that would be so bad (should we ban crime novels where someone is murdered because it might lead to murder?).  The problem is that those who like the idea of "sex with children" then do not respect the rights (and freedom) of children not to be involved in any way in this.  The problem with sex with children is the abuse of the children.  That is what is immoral.

The imagery can be disgusting to the rest of us (just as straight people find imagery of two men having sex disgusting, but on the whole they find the image of two women having sex neutral or exciting, and gay people find the images of straight people having sex disgusting).  

Child "pornography" should be banned on the grounds of respecting the feelings of those children who have been abused.  Not because it "causes" such abuse of children - I think the reporting of such cases actually generates more.  I believe that it is more to do with the relative powerlessness of children, and the conscionability of such acts that is leading to an (apparent) increase in the number of children being abused and an increase in the number of adults involved in the production and circulation of such pornography.

But then, those are just my beliefs.  Until lots of research is done on this subject (and in an open-minded and truly scientific way), I am very suspect of all the reported "evidence".

And in terms of treating the causes rather than the symptoms, we need societies that massively emphasise respect for the freedom of others.  No-one should ever find it conscionable to think they will disrespect the freedom of others, particularly if that disrespect of the rights of others involves violence or duress.

I daresay Melanie Phillips also thinks she talks strongly but carries no stick.

Alan Lake said:

Actually Joe, I think that Indo is the opposite of what you believe. She has her views like anyone else, but is only prepared to propogate those views by encouragement and appeal to peoples intrinsic decency.

So, suppose I take a stand on the depiction of rape in videos, with all the harmful social effects I believe that causes, and I promote censorship for that. You know I will get publicly reviled and hounded from pillar to post for that.

But Indo will not even in an anonymous internet forum agree to support me on that principle of state censorship. She wants everything to be done by self control, and seems to believe that, all humans being fundamentally good, such a project is practically possible. So that makes the ides of publicly supporting such very unfashionable censorship, a very unattractive option for me!

You think her 'fundamentalism' is scary, but behind it she has reversed that famous Truman doctrine (talk softly but carry a big stick) and believes the state should:
"Talk strongly but carry no stick at all".

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 12:10

Dearest Joe, that you think that Humans are Animals, this might depend on the dark Education that YOU got. Probably you got severely treated in order to drive you out of your Animality.

As Alice Miller pointed out, if Humans were fundamentally evil and or animals, is that a solution to hit them severely in order to change them and their nature? It is obviously not by torturing one that you make his/her very self changing.

I believe that Humans are wonderful Beings, and that according to a sane or unsane Education or Treatement they can become mentally perverted and twisted/wretched.

It is a Superstition to believe in (the) Devil, which should make one bad and or spare another, who will become good. [Yes, Alan, in that sense  I do believe that everyone is good, and better, not evil.

I do not support ... RACIST or ETHNICIST theories which states the genetical Inferiority of someone and the Superiority of another.

In this sense, I am certainly not a fan of the Bible, nor am I a fan of the Coran. Neither to Mein Kampf, nor to any other ideological "holy" Book,

which only contributes to twist minds, and therefore behaviours.]

Joe, there is a difference between those who watch a porno sado masochist movie enjoying it (because it is the only way they can enjoy.

By the way, this is a sign that they erotizited Violence, which probably was the condition they grew up within. Notably: they got violently treated by their parents/educators,

and they could not escape. Therefore, in order to psychologically survive, they decided to think that Violence and Love were the same),

and policemen, who watch them to understand where to get the criminal and how things run (in order to prevent them to happen).

Who enjoys Violence and Sado masochism IS NOT morally above the others, as well as Hitler was not morally above the others for enjoying the sadist killing of people.

It even becomes a very high problem when people who behave violently and/or like it, and/or value Sado masochism, think to be morally/ethically above the others. Here is Insanity. It is dreadful, it is wretched. It is sick.

Pedophiles state that their activities with children are ethically superior, since they satisfy a kid's need, while "bigots" refuse to let children enjoy Sexuality (with adults). They have wretched minds and they try to justify themselves.

Unfortunately enough kids are not strong enough to be able to escape from such abusers. And here is the problem.

While for hard pornographic movies, with sexual scenes like

a woman getting sexually abused from a gang, while some of those insult her and even smash her face on the ground,

 this is the product of a twisted, mind which take profit from the weakness of another (the girl playing the movie and even the boys who accept to do such a wretched thing),

undependantly on the fact that she seems to have "freewillingly" chosen to participate to such scenes.

This is inhuman, but of course, my opinion about Humans/Humanity is EXACTELY the opposite of yours.

About the straight (!) talking and no stick (?), I told you what I had to tell you, and that's all. I don't talk strongly to Arabo islamists only, I (try to) do so wherever it's needed (upon my opinion).

Let me tell you that I consider bigot Fundamenalism and the lack of Decency at the same level, and I am certainly not going to fight against one and let myself be eaten by the other!

I do fight against EVERY beast that there is out there, WHICH COMES FROM INSIDE OF US (after being implanted there through dark Pedagogy and/or domestic (Ab)use(s) during our Childhood).

(...)

In my opinion society must encourage Sanity, and Ethics; if your opinion about Freedom were true, then why do you fight against Arabo islamicity (supposing that you do)?

Well, now  I must go, and I wish you (all) a lightful, happy and beautiful afternoon.

Joe said:

OK, I'll take you on with this. Please represent the perspective you think Indo has.

Whether or not someone wants to work as a prostitute, or wants to make "pornographic" videos for free or for money, or even watches videos of rape (simulated or otherwise), has nothing to do with their "intrinsic decency".  They could be entirely decent and moral people (and be well above average in that regard).  If they are driven to working in cahoots with all sorts of disgusting criminal dirt-bags, then I'd expect their moral compass to wander. ...

Permalink Reply by Kinana on January 23, 2012 at 13:58

Thanks to all who have commented so far.  Not sure if I understand all your efforts though!  But for what it is worth I will say, without further elaboration, details, references to books and academic research and other innumerable facts (!), that I am opposed to pornography.  Also that consent is not the only criterion for decent behaviour, that the human body is to be treated with respect at all times, that the human person is of higher value than all other animals; that parents and society have a duty of care to children so that they grow to maturity and become fulfilled human beings who treat other people decently and make a contribution to society.

As to the femen group I disagree with their way of doing things.  The increased/further sexualisation of society does not help anyone.

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on January 23, 2012 at 17:17

Hey, steady on tiger!

I was trying to clarify a point of view, but one principle I have is that I won't fight other people's battles for them, they have to come out fighting and I'll join in.  This applies to Christians, Tibetans and Women.  So, unless a woman here comes to support the position I described on examples (1) and (2), its not my fight and its not my problem, sorry.

Another reason why I can't get involved is, its not at all clear what I'm getting involved with.  For example, you use the word 'decency', but I never went anywhere near that concept, its not part of my modus operandi.  This position is not one for me to elaborate, clarify and defend.

Joe said:

OK, I'll take you on with this. Please represent the perspective you think Indo has.

Whether or not someone wants to work as a prostitute, or wants to make "pornographic" videos for free or for money, or even watches videos of rape (simulated or otherwise), has nothing to do with their "intrinsic decency".  They could be entirely decent and moral people (and be well above average in that regard).  If they are driven to working in cahoots with all sorts of disgusting criminal dirt-bags, then I'd expect their moral compass to wander.

The idea of intrinsic decency is an assumption.  (And one that does not fit will with an idea of original sin). It is my belief that people are fundamentally animals, and it is the process of acculturation, socialisation and civilisation which takes them from the state of being animals.  That's not to say that all animals are always incapable of some instances of kindness, but that this is the exception rather than the rule. ...

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 17:36

Dear Alan, I used the word decency and I thnk that Joe was critczing me (let's represent the perspectve ... Indo has), while writing to you.

When you say that you don't fight other people's battle, one must say that most often women get sexually treated bad by men, therefore fighting against hard pornography and Sado masochism is not only a problem of theirs (women), this is a matter concerning yourself (as a male) as well.

Same goes for anything which is not promoted by us (human beings belonging to a certain group, country, whatever), but in which we more or less directly play a role.

Either we stand with the victim(s) or we stand with the perpetrator(s), or we keep neutral (which is the most unpopular position, simply because we are living on this Earth together with everyone else, and keeping neutral is, eventually, almost impossible - and maybe not possible for a very long period of time. Unless we go for Anchoritism -).

@all: I also wanted to add that I often used the word "insane", often in its scientific meaning, something in a wrong way, which means, I had to use the word "unhealthy" (I did a translation's mistake). Starry night to everyone.

@Kinana: thank you for your contribution, I must admit that this point of view of yours made me feel better! Many thanks.

Alan Lake said:

Hey, steady on tiger!

I was trying to clarify a point of view, but one principle I have is that I won't fight other people's battles for them, they have to come out fighting and I'll join in.  This applies to Christians, Tibetans and Women.  So, unless a woman here comes to support the position I described on examples (1) and (2), its not my fight and its not my problem, sorry.

Another reason why I can't get involved is, its not at all clear what I'm getting involved with.  For example, you use the word 'decency', but I never went anywhere near that concept, its not part of my modus operandi.  This position is not one for me to elaborate, clarify and defend.

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 23, 2012 at 18:04

@Joe: I just wanted to add something about your favourite Femen's picture (which is somehow lovely indeed); a woman who plays boxe CANNOT go for it like the Femen in the picture, BECAUSE woman's chest is too much delicate. In fact, feminine boxeurs usually wear a protection: http://store.titleboxing.com/womens-chest-protectors.html . It is very delicate. Thank you for reading and starry night(s).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page