#i.e. it puts all the labor back on the person who was harmed | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

comrade-meow · 3 years

Link

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.” —Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto

“It is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.” —Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto

Introduction

“[…] the question of prostitutes will give rise to many serious problems here. Take them back to productive work, bring them into the social economy. That is what we must do. But it is difficult and a complicated task to carry out in the present conditions of our economic life and in all the prevailing circumstances. There you have one aspect of the women’s problem which, after the seizure of power by the proletariat, looms large before us and demands a practical solution.” —V. I. Lenin, Conversation with Clara Zetkin, 1920

The subject is endlessly debated on the internet—and terms like “sex work” are slipped in to distract would-be Marxists from examining the matter of prostitution. But we must begin by stating that the matter of prostitution for Marxists has been resolved for approaching 200 years, and there is no ambiguity on this. It is mentioned three times in the Communist Manifesto—the most basic introductory text to Communism that all Communists unite around. To be a Marxist is to oppose prostitution. More importantly, Marxism gives us the framework to analyze exactly why Marxists have historically come to this position, and why Marxists today reject terms like “sex worker” that seek to sanitize prostitution, which we understand as sexual violence, mainly against women.

It is trendy to compare prostitution to work—without ever delving into what Marxists even mean by “worker”—and to frame the most basic Marxist positions as “backward.” Without delving too far into the individual theorists behind the sanitation of sexual violence as “sex work,” it is enough to identify this tendency as the inheritance of third-wave feminism, which has overlapped with postmodern method of analysis. Engels himself likened prostitution to slavery, and for very precise political economic reasons. What brought Marx and Engels together to begin with were Engels’s astute observations on political economy. Suffice it to say, Engels is a great authority on the subject second only to Marx. Engels wrote,

“Wage labor appears sporadically, side by side with slave labor, and at the same time, as its necessary correlate, the professional prostitution of free women side by side with the forced surrender of the slave.”

Engels viewed these as a necessary correlate, meaning a unity of opposites, where the identity of each depends on the existence of the other.

When examining the trend of “sex worker advocacy” we see two things most often. The first is to totally hollow out the term “worker” of any of its political-economic definitions. The second is to lump various classes and strata together into a single category—this means even distinct trades undertaken by distinct classes are conflated and flattened into one singular “oppressed” group. By defect of the first error, which destroys the understanding of the economic identity of the worker, we arrive at the second, that porno movie performers, exotic dancers, street prostitutes, “cam girls,” and others are all one thing. Apologists maintain this as if the exchange of money for a sex service or sexualized service somehow, in and of itself, constitutes such an ultimate commonality among these “workers” that it obliterates the profound concrete differences in each case to their actual relationships to production. One of the most critical phenomena erased in their analysis is the profound stratification, which exists even within groupings that do have a similar relationship to production. Putting their position into practice entails forcing class collaboration between management, entertainer, and slave.

A brief history

Comrade Mary Inman, one of the staunchest antirevisionists in the CPUSA of the 1930s-40’s, whose contributions will be discussed more thoroughly later, offers the following powerful passage:

“Prostitution did not start with folk customs. It did not grow out of group marriages between free people, for pre-slavery tribes had no such institution. It did not grow out of mystic rites, nor sex worship. It was always a rape institution. Even in the earliest records of prostitution, the evidence shows that the people lived in terrible degradation rising from economic slavery, and did not have the freedom to decide such matters.”

We do not have any interest in going over the earth’s recorded history of prostitution, and will use this section only to establish some relevant facts pertaining to its history in the US.

In the war for control over the colonies that some call the “American Revolution,” as well as throughout the US Civil War, women were unofficially enlisted as prostitutes to follow the soldiers to “keep morale high.”[1] At this time, the ruling class found this a necessity in order to sustain the war. It is useful to understand the shifts and changes that the ruling class makes in terms of prostitution. In wartime, their puritanical Christian opposition vanishes in favor of the cold pragmatism of whatever they think it takes to win.

Prostitution, while technically illegal in the 19th century, was widespread, and brothels were commonplace. The laws were simply not enforced. This period was not without war, considering the increase in Native genocide carried out by the settlers during westward expansion. And this colonial expansion meant the expansion of brothels as well.

In the early 1900s, the precursor to the FBI, the Bureau of Investigations, cracked down on prostitution in earnest for the first time in US history.[2] Their reason, far from having anything to do with the rights of those experiencing sexual violence, was, as they put it, “to oppose white slavery.” In practice this effort constituted a political maneuver as well as a propaganda effort. In order to enforce social segregation and further consolidate settler-colonialism, the ruling class attempted to get white women out of brothels. This campaign has had long-lasting effects: even today the majority of prostitutes are not white. This is similar to the way the US imperialist ruling class carries out the “War on Drugs,” primarily to harm the oppressed nations of its population.

What we have attempted to sketch out here is that the question of prostitution in the US cannot be separated from the US history of settler-colonialism—that these things march in step as what Engels might call “necessary correlates.” Prostitution, like chattel slavery and settler-colonialism (genocide against the indigenous North Americans), was an ingredient in the US imperialist project, and it served its master well. This argument, that prostitution and colonialism in the US are necessary correlates of each other, deserves its own paper, but here we must move on from it.

In all of these instances, economic conditions provide the impulse for prostitution.

Some basic prostitution statistics

One of the strongest examples of the unbreakable link between, on the one hand, the fact that the US is a prisonhouse of nations, built up through settler-colonialism and slavery, and prostitution on the other hand, is the fact that 40% of prostitutes in the US are Black[3] (Black people constitute only 13.4% of the overall population), while the majority of johns are white.[4] And it is commonplace that many regular johns are police.[5]

According to Havocscope, a website dedicated to researching global black markets, the average cost of a trick in many places is £14–50, with minors earning less. Due to the constant conditions of national oppression in the US, Black people tend to earn less than others. This trend cannot be forgotten when we evaluate prostitution. This is yet one further way the stratification of the trade takes shape. While prostitutes earn twice as much as the average US worker and three times as much as the average woman in the US, much of this income is withheld by pimps.

The sex-positive apologists of prostitution will without fail argue that the trade somehow is or can be “empowering.” But statistically, the majority of prostitutes are victims of child abuse (one study found 73% were physically abused as children)[6], and there is evidence that they enter the trade at an average age of 15.[7] An average starting age of 15 or anywhere close all but eliminates the myth of the consenting prostitute. Underage prostitutes—which is what the majority of them start as— face physical violence, emotional manipulation, and other forms of gendered abuse to coerce them to start.

It is economic necessity that sets the conditions for prostitution—there are no exceptions. Sex that a woman would not otherwise engage except in exchange for money is no longer “sex” but rape, as the ability to consent is removed by economic coercion—and a prostitute is always coerced economically. Prostitution is most often rape.

Some men are prostitutes as well, but 69% of those arrested are women, including arrested johns and pimps.[8]

Atlanta, one of the US cities with a majority Black population, is home to the country’s highest-grossing pimps, who reap about £23614 a week on average.[9] Some of these pimps are women who maintain hierarchy and obedience among the prostitutes, another way stratification manifests. This also makes it obvious that prostitution is caused by economic conditions and is not just (as some maintain) a result of personal sexist attitudes.

For obvious reasons, the majority of assaults experienced by prostitutes go unreported. 89% of adult prostitutes want to quit, but due to economic coercion feel that they cannot.[10] Being in thrall to a pimp, who controls everything and deploys severe psychological and sometimes physical abuse, makes the victim of prostitution far less likely to admit to wanting to quit, which itself skews statistics. Understanding that many enthralled women cannot speak up about their abuse, we would do well to understand that things are far worse than the picture painted by what makes it into official reports.

Which prostitute?

Unlike workers and more specifically proletarians, prostitutes are not engaged in productive, socially-productive, or reproductive labor. They do not receive a wage in the proletarian sense (of receiving a portion of what they produce in a value form/money, with the bulk of their labor being exploited by the owner) and are not devoid of the tools of their occupation, which in this case are the bodies of the prostitutes themselves. To return to the question of stratification, we can observe that in terms of relationship to production, a woman engaged in street-level prostitution without a pimp is distinct from those with pimps, and both are distinct from women who work for escort services or through self-promotion on websites (past examples are Backpage and Craigslist).

For the majority of women trapped in prostitution, the reality of a pimp forces them to the lower strata (this is combined in many cases with national oppression). They have no financial independence from their boss/owner, who makes all or all major decisions regarding their activity: what they do and do not engage in, what subsistence is allowed, and what accommodations are awarded or denied. But those in this most common situation do not qualify in any sense as proletarian despite the pimp behaving like a boss or even like an owner, because he does not simply “own the business”—he owns the women. These women come far closer to being slaves than to being workers. The wage of a slave is nothing except subsistence; the owner of the slave, in our instance the pimp, is the chief executive of every aspect of life. That includes housing, food, clothing, tools, and everything else—provided by the pimp to subsidize the prostitute in order for her to live and continue earning them profit. This is one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, not to mention the most inhumane. Nonetheless, the degree of oppression and brutality one faces does not determine one’s relationship to production, nor does intense oppression alone place one in the social class of the proletariat. Further distancing the enthralled woman from the worker is the fact that she cannot just quit of her own accord; like the slave, she can only organize her escape.

The only method of organization for a slave is rebellion and escape; there are no such things as reformist options for the slave. These contradictions are part of why slavery as a widespread mode of production was replaced by feudalism (in turn replaced by capitalism), which was more manageable, and why capitalism itself is more profitable than slavery in terms of the performance and capacity of the productive forces.

This highlights the position that in the women’s struggle, the only Communist approach regarding the majority of women in prostitution is to organize them out of it, and that this is accomplished mainly through People’s War and socialist revolution. At some stage of revolutionary struggle, this means the use of revolutionary violence against lumpenproletarian gangs that back up the pimps in the military sense. Short of this option, the only acceptable tactic is to secure the transition of individual women into productive work and the opportunity to gain other skills, a total change of social environment, and continuous political education and thought reform. This can improve the conditions of some prostitutes and rehabilitate them into being proletarians, but it cannot emancipate them as women or end prostitution. Furthermore, it requires a high level or organization: it needs Party committees and mass organizations to lead the effort and a Red Army and militias to defend this work and protect the ex-prostitute, securing her escape from the trade, preventing retaliatory action from pimps, and so on.

Any effort to transpose the methods used in workers struggles’ into the realm of prostitution falls hopelessly short. A struggle against a pimp cannot be carried out in the same way as a struggle against a factory owner or regular boss. Arguing that it can and must be carried out the same way—viewing prostitutes as workers and pimps as bosses to be struggled against—really lacks all Marxist understanding of why workers can be organized against bosses and so lapses into a subjective moralist approach to combating oppression. People of this persuasion attempt to implement prostitute unions; like the syndicalist, they dream of a union for everything, and are under the delusion that slaves can unionize and struggle for reforms against their slave-master.

While the so-called Maoists who promote right-opportunism will admit that prostitution cannot persist under socialism, they often make concessions, by believing in and promoting the construction of prostitute trade unions.

Being under the control of a pimp prevents a prostitute from all independent activity and independent thinking. The woman chained by the pimp cannot be organized into a trade union. A union of prostitutes who through some unknown force have ceased to be enthralled to pimps, due to the inevitable emergence of leadership and people who professionally manage such a union, will inevitably just generate its own, internal pimps. This is true because if the union bureaucracy is not completely ineffective (that is, if the union actually exists and functions), they would find themselves enforcing payment from reneging johns, securing housing in times of income shortage, bribing or negotiating with police, and sustaining their professional organizers with dues: they would in essence be pimps with a more charitable subsidiary. The use of violent reprisal and or the lack thereof is not the decisive factor in determining a pimp’s relationship to production—what is principal is the fact of reproducing prostitutes. The likelihood of successfully organizing such a union— or even making a substantial attempt at doing so—is so slim that it hardly merits mention beyond the totally hypothetical. We give it attention here only to point out the utter ridiculousness of the right-opportunist line.

In the case of prostitutes without pimps (who are not being pimped upon the point of being organized), who basically take contracts independently and have full access to their own income, these are more or less the lumpenproletarian (declassed) version of the petty bourgeoisie who own their own means of production. For them the formation of a union is impossible. After all, a “union” of those who own their own means of production (lumpen or not) is actually called a cartel. Furthermore, the existence of a cartel gives impulse to the hiring of a general staff—plus, the stratification of prostitution would allow the cartel to employ other prostitutes under its protection—this again is a return to pimping. Prostitutes who become pimps are not unheard of, and some reports show that new pimps are drawn to the trade through familial connections with prostitutes.[11]

A free market always has a trajectory that can be scientifically understood and described. A free market that sees the formation of cartels to manage the market will in turn eventually see the formation of conglomerates and monopolies. For legal and illegal trade, this inevitably leads to war. It is much more difficult for illegal businesses to establish conglomerates and monopolies due to the nature of the competition in these markets. In this case, competition is for clients (market share), for slaves (“workers”), and for other resources. The organization of competition for illegal businesses brings war faster and more often than it does for legal business. This facet restricts growth—nonetheless, these prostitution cartels would be held to the same economic laws as drug cartels and would need the same level of maintenance (the protection of the business’s interests through violence).

The existence of all sexualized business further engenders pimping, by normalizing sexual performance for money. This is made worse with the line that sex is work.

“Sex work” as a catch-all term

Rarely is the word “worker” so arbitrarily attached to any trade (or multiple trades), without any regard to class as it is with sex trades. Yet the bourgeois feminists of the “sex positivist” variety will insist that “sex worker” is a legitimate and useful category, like “service industry worker.” While it is true that sexualized professions are organized along industrial lines (including aspects of reproductive labor), prostitution, sexual entertainment, and so on do not even constitute a single industry, and this fact certainly doesn’t qualify everyone in these industries as “workers.”

Attempts to treat “sex work” as a coherent scientific category run into trouble immediately. In the case of prostitutes, a slave is not a worker, and a small business venture does not make one a worker either. A stripper is ultimately a performer. No one would assert that a professional comedian or actor is a “worker,” just as professional athletes are not “workers” and so cannot be lumped into the category of “athletic worker.” A stripper, like all performers and entertainers, has a totally different relationship to production from a worker, given the category of workers as it is understood by Marxists. Even in instances where they do not own the venue or website, these professionals still mainly own their own means of production, making them part of the petty bourgeoisie and not part of the proletariat. In the instance of those carrying out their trade in strip clubs, the stripper most often tips out the staff and pays the club a portion of her earnings. For workers, this relationship is the other way around: a hostess at a club or restaurant, like the rest of the general staff, is paid a wage by the business itself (even if she is forced to rely on tips) and thus experiences exploitation of her labor power.

Like a craftsman or small merchant who rents a booth or a stand, the “cam girl,” like the stripper, is merely paying a rent or service fee to the club or website. Furthermore, unlike workers, these people are making a brand for themselves, cultivating a clientele that follows them from outlet to outlet.

Women in pornography in some cases are coerced or trafficked and therefore have a relationship to production more like that of a pimped prostitute. In other cases, the individual has an agent and is free to take contracts, as an actress would—and no professional actress can be classified as a worker. Therefore the overwhelming majority of people engaged in pornography in the US, who occupy one of these two relationships to production, cannot be scientifically understood as workers.

It is far more apt to say that, of those whom (apologists of sexism) call “sex workers” who aren’t engaged in prostitution, the majority are small-scale sex-capitalists of the petty-bourgeois class. The term does not hold the same appeal as “sex worker” for these apologists precisely because it does not serve the purpose of sanitizing sexual exploitation, violence, and rape. While there is much discussion about rape culture, there exists a massive blind spot in its organization through the sex trades.

Sanitization of rape and sexual violence through terminology

“To describe prostitution as sex work and a prostitute as a sex worker means to give legitimacy to sexual exploitation of helpless women and children. It means ignoring the basic factors, which push women and children into prostitution such as poverty, violence and inequalities. It tries to make the profession look dignified and as a ‘job like any other job’.”

—New Vistas Publications, originally printed in People’s March, an organ of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)

The term “sex work” was coined in the 1970s by Carol Leigh, for exactly the purpose identified and criticized in the above quotation. Leigh heads an NGO called BAYSWAN (Bay Area Sex Worker Advocacy Network). A large part of the financing for this organization comes from its collaboration with law enforcement.

As with all efforts to sanitize rape and other violence against women with the term “sex work,” BAYSWAN uses the term as a catch-all to include anyone in the “adult entertainment” industries, as well as street prostitutes. Its ambiguous inclusion of “massage parlor employees” is just an obscurantist way of providing ideological legitimization to brothels, most typically attached to human trafficking and the sexual abuse of undocumented women. While BAYSWAN claims to provide social benefits and other types of help to these women, their liaison work with the police speaks the loudest to their actual class position. The police are nothing more than the strong arm of the bourgeois state. Typical of NGOs in imperialist countries, BAYSWAN serves as a managerial department delegating scraps from the master’s table to some of the most destitute. This is not undertaken in the interests of the people but in the interest of maintaining and reproducing the rule of the imperialist class at home. It is important to state that the main purpose of BAYSWAN, and other NGOs like it, is not to rehabilitate women out of prostitution but instead to normalize the abuse they face, so that their trade is seen as comparable to any normal job, and accepted like any other.

The typical liberal and postmodernist analyses of the oppression faced by prostitutes hold that its roots lie in socially imposed “stigma” rather than in the exploitive nature of capitalism—as if workers who were proud of their assembly-line jobs would be any less abused and exploited. Even proletarian jobs under capitalism that maintain some shoddy “integrity” in the social sense or at least lack “stigma” are still alienating for the worker and operate on exploitation of the workers’ labor. But again, prostitution is unlike any proletarian job, as nothing is produced or reproduced, and the “labor” itself is not socially necessary. In fact, for women as a whole and particularly for women of the proletariat, it is socially destructive.

For the Marxist, not recognizing prostitutes and entertainers as proletarians is a matter of political economy and not of any kind of outdated moralism. Marxism does not blame the victims, in this case women forced into sexual violence and exploitation due to economic hardships.

Marxists have never evaluated prostitution in moral terms but instead have insisted on examining it in political-economic terms and, as always, with a class analysis. This is why Lenin considered bourgeois women to be engaged in prostitution. Lenin also grasped the progressive aspect of those would-be defenders of prostitutes, but he drew the line at defending prostitution itself. In his conversations with Clara Zetkin in 1920, he explained how this moral impulse can turn into a backward idea:

“I have heard some peculiar things on this matter from Russian and German comrades. I must tell you. I was told that a talented woman communist in Hamburg is publishing a paper for prostitutes and that she wants to organize them for the revolutionary fight. Rosa acted and felt as a communist when in an article she championed the cause of the prostitutes who were imprisoned for any transgression of police regulations in carrying on their dreary trade. They are, unfortunately, doubly sacrificed by bourgeois society. First, by its accursed property system, and, secondly, by its accursed moral hypocrisy. That is obvious. Only he who is brutal or short-sighted can forget it. But still, that is not at all the same thing as considering prostitutes—how shall I put it?—to be a special revolutionary militant section, as organizing them and publishing a factory paper for them. Aren’t there really any other working women in Germany to organize, for whom a paper can be issued, who must be drawn into your struggles? The other is only a diseased excrescence. It reminds me of the literary fashion of painting every prostitute as a sweet Madonna. The origin of that was healthy, too: social sympathy, rebellion against the virtuous hypocrisy of the respectable bourgeois. But the healthy part became corrupted and degenerate.”

While addressing the means that bourgeois forces use to “combat” prostitution (or, in reality, to maintain it in whatever form they need it to take in a given historical circumstance), Lenin was equally critical: “What means of struggle were proposed by the elegant bourgeois delegates to the congress? Mainly two methods—religion and police. They are, it appears, the valid and reliable methods of combating prostitution.”

Lenin did not argue for the legal recognition of prostitution to combat social stigma, but for its end, through socialist revolution, which destroys the root economic causes of it. We must understand that even after socialist revolution, exploitation does not vanish overnight; it is done away with in the processes of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, critically, with cultural revolution. Marxists, while insisting that prostitution is not “sex work,” still stand firm against the hypocritical moralization of the bourgeoisie, who create and preserve the very conditions that force women into prostitution.

What is crucial to understand in the position of the great Lenin is that he simultaneously opposed the organizing of prostitutes as prostitutes for the revolution while at the same time condemning the bourgeois moralism that helps reproduce prostitution and deepens the oppression of prostitutes. After the revolution, Lenin and those who held the revolutionary line after his premature death worked tirelessly to abolish prostitution. We will get more into the experience of the socialist projects’ approaches to prostitution in later sections.

Arguments for legalization

Those most committed to the sanitization of rape and sexual violence are the most vocal advocates for the legalization of prostitution, which Marxists emphatically oppose. Legalization, far from securing “workers’ rights” in the instance of prostitution, only opens the floodgates for major investment of capital on the part of imperialists. With legalization, the pimp becomes protected by law—taking on a new form, and the prostitute legally owes and pays him a portion of her earnings. With legalization come legal recruitment and the widespread indoctrination of women and girls to prepare them for the trade.

Arguments that legal recognition protects the employee are based on bourgeois moralism and not Marxist political economy—and profound naiveté or ignorance of the actual workings of capitalism. Miners, factory workers, and fast food workers all have laws that are in place (usually hard-won through class struggle) that are supposed to protect them, yet as long as capitalism persists they are hounded, worked to death, and exploited without mercy. The legal recognition of these trades has not stopped the boss from stepping on our necks.

The idea that legal recognition will somehow limit the use of trafficked girls and women is also absurd. Pornography has been legal for decades, and the flow of black-market pornography and coerced women has not gone away. For that matter, many workers are hired illegally for all sorts of trades, hyper-exploited, and then discarded like old shoes. This would be magnified with legal prostitution. Countries with legal recognition of prostitution can and do see an increase in sex tourism;[12] people from all over the world can go exploit and dominate women in these countries, the only difference being that in these places the bourgeois State can tax it officially rather than unofficially through payoffs.

“Prostitution Is Sexual Violence,” first printed in People’s March, an organ of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), explains the global forces behind prostitution in this way:

“Firstly, the sex trade is now organized on a global basis just as any other multinational enterprise. It has become a transnational industry. It is one of the most developed and specialized industries [and] offers a wide range of services to the customers, and has most innovative market strategies to attract clients all over the world. The principal players and beneficiaries of the sex industry are cohesive and organized. The intricate web of actors involved in the sex trade today includes not just the prostitutes and the client, but an entire syndicate consisting of the pimps, the brothel owners, the police, the politicians and the local doctors. The principal actors connected to the sex trade are not confined by narrow national or territorial boundaries in the context of a globalized world. They operate both legally as well as clandestinely and it is believed that the profits … to the organizations of [the] sex-industry currently equal those flowing out of the global illegal trade in arms and narcotics. Moreover [it is] like any [of the] other multinational enterprises, such as the tourism industry, entertainment industry, travel and transportation industry, international media industry, underground narcotics and crime industry and so on.”

From this they draw the following conclusion:

“Thus the magnitude, expanse, organization, role of capital accumulation and range of market strategies employed to sell sexual services make the contemporary global sex industry qualitatively different from the old practice of prostitution and sex trade.”

Suffice it to say that genuine Marxists must insist that any legalization in the US would be the further bane of women in the nations oppressed by US imperialism. As “Prostitution is Sexual Violence” puts it,

“in fact this argument [for legalization] is being promoted to make it easy to legalize the import of prostitutes to the imperialist countries and other centers of tourism.”

They highlight the dialectical relationship between the sex trades of the imperialist and oppressed nations. We will quote the pamphlet at length:

“As Engels succinctly put it, it is ‘the absolute domination of the male over the female sex as the fundamental law of society.’ She is a victim of patriarchal oppression within the profession. Once a woman enters the trade, there is no way out. She is completely at the mercy of the sex-starved customer, the pimp and the police. Physical assaults and rapes are a daily occurrence. More than half of the prostituted women in the Third World countries had contracted HIV/AIDs. A 1985 Canadian report on the sex industry reported that the women in prostitution in that country suffer [a] mortality rate 40 times the national average. It could be even worse in countries like India. All this proves that the argument that once prostitution is legalized it can be more effectively regulated[,] making it safe for all those involved, that the spread of HIV can be slowed, that sex workers can have access to health and so on, are sheer fraud. The fact is that all forms of sexual commodification, whether legalized or not, lead to an increase in the level of abusive and exploitative activity.

The interest of the State in permitting legalization is not the prostitute and her rights but to check the spread of sexually transmitted deceases. It involves heavy regulation of prostitution through a whole host of zoning and licensing laws. Zoning segregates the prostitutes into a separate locality and their civil liberties are restricted outside the specified zone. Licensing means issue of licenses, registration and the disbursement of health cards to the women. Legalization makes it mandatory for the women to undergo medical check-ups regularly or face imprisonment.

Legalizing prostitution is legalizing violence.”

We must look beyond the ideological sanitizers of sexual violence, who speak loudly from academic, activist, and “harm reduction” circles and look closer at the actual economic forces behind these advocates. It is the commercial sex industry that stands to benefit the most from legalized prostitution, and so they are its biggest backers. Legalization is just a moral shield to protect and secure greater profits from the continued sexual abuse of women. With legalization, small brothels can become big chains, and whole corporations can be built up; those involved legally and illegally in the sex industry who possess the most capital are in the best position to reap the profits. The same issue exists with the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana: the small-time grower/dealer gets swallowed up by the white corporate elite, while oppressed-nations people remain incarcerated for their role in the trade. Legalization, in the final instance, benefits only the ruling class.

The Indian Maoists address the question of legalization succinctly:

“Legalization of prostitution is not a solution because legalization implies men’s self-evident right to be customers. Accepting services offered through a normal job is neither violent nor abusive. Legalizing it as a normal occupation would be an acceptance of the division of labor, which men have created, a division, where women’s real occupational choices are far narrower than men’s. Legalization will not remove the harmful effects suffered by the women. Women will still be forced to protect themselves against a massive invasion of strange men, as well as the physical violence.

Legalization means [the imposition] of regulation by the State to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of prostitution. It implies that they have to pay taxes, i.e., the prostitute needs to serve more customers to get the money needed. Legalization means that more men will become customers, and more women are needed as prostitutes, and more women, especially women in poverty, will be forced into prostitution. Legalizing prostitution will only increase the chances of exploitation. The experiences of the countries where prostitution was legalized also show how this [has] given [a] big boost to the trade and [has] increased sexual abuse. For instance, in Australia and in some states in the US where legalization was implemented, it was found that there was an alarming increase in the number of illegal brothels too along with an increase in the legal trade.”

Prostitution, through allowing the purchase of access to women’s bodies, harms all women, and not just those in the trade—legalization, far from being harm reduction, just increases social harm for all women. Recruitment is one of the cornerstones of pimping. With legalization, the horrors of recruitment and the pressure to be recruited take on dystopian proportions.

American exceptionalism: The legacies of revisionism and settler-colonialism

The women’s struggle was going strong in the Communist Party of the USA—up until Earl Browder became general secretary of the Party and began implementing his arch-revisionist line. The revisionist ideology that overtook the CPUSA—Browderism and then William Z. Foster’s continuation of it—was like a prototype of the revisionism that would take hold in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Even though the latter would completely consume the former, the former was in many ways its forerunner. Foster, like Brezhnev, would come out against his predecessor—and just as it was with Brezhnev’s condemnations, this was only superficial politicking that still carried forward, and in fact fortified, the revisionist position. This revisionism brought deep harm to the women’s movement, with a lasting stain on the US left today that extends far beyond the husk that calls itself the CPUSA.

Browderism successfully liquidated not only the program of the Party but the Party itself in 1944. It comes as no shock that Browder’s wife led the liquidation of the women’s struggle against antirevisionist women in the Party like Mary Inman. Inman wrote a great deal on the question of prostitution, devoting three chapters to it in her book In Woman’s Defense. To understand the question of prostitution today, it is important to grasp the reverberating effects of Browderism. Rightist lines that seek to either sanitize prostitution by dressing it up as “sex work” or misconstrue prostitutes as a revolutionary subject all result in part from a faith in American exceptionalism—first, in that they all seek to establish a reformist, class-collaborationist approach to prostitution; and second and more importantly, because they divorce the phenomenon from imperialism. It is important to remember that the bourgeois definition of “work” is anything you do for money. In this way they can frame owners and bosses as workers alongside those they exploit, since any job (legal or illegal) can therefore be misconstrued as work.

Many of these rightists (who are abundant in progressive struggles as well as in every revisionist organization) will concede that sex-based tourism in the Third World and human trafficking are, in principle at least, something to be opposed. They take no major issue with the writings on the subject from the Maoists in India, including the text “Prostitution Is Sexual Violence.” But when it comes to applying these universal principles at home in their imperialist country, they stir up the ghost of American exceptionalism. For reasons they cannot explain without their belief in this exceptionalism. They impose an artificial disconnect: here in the First World (not just in the US but clearly in Canada also, with the opportunists in the fake PCR-RCP), prostitutes are now workers, and furthermore an important part of the proletariat!—and to hell with actually studying nearly 200 years of Communist agitation and propaganda on the matter! They charge those who do assert the correct historical position with being outdated dogmatists. To oppose prostitution from the Marxist position, just as Marxists have always opposed it, earns one a volley of buzzwords and condemnation as a SWERF (that is, “sex worker exclusionary radical feminist”)—even while (a) “sex work” is a made-up term that runs counter to Marxist political economy and (b) Marxists explicitly reject radical feminism on a fundamental level. Without any economic analysis, the American exceptionalists have made defending prostitution a prerequisite for being a leftist, not only defending it from a moral standpoint but even going so far as to frame degradation and abuse as empowering. Revisionism still plays its part in turning a thing into its opposite.

Mary Inman described the continuum of revisionism aptly:

“Furthermore, wrecking on the Woman Question has not only continued since the ousting of Browder, but has even been accelerated under the leadership of Dennis (ably abetted by Foster, who warned against an ‘over correction of errors’ at a time when nothing had been done to stop their liquidatory practices affecting Communist work amongst women).” (13 Years of CPUSA Misleadership on the Woman Question)

The liquidation of Communist work among women today is assisted tremendously by postmodernism, which has practically been established as “common sense” for the left and occupies a near-hegemonic position in mainstream US activist movements. And of course, postmodernist cretins agree with Browder that the class struggle itself is mitigated in a country like the US, where “free women” can “freely choose” prostitution and it is backward to pass critical judgment on the trade of women.

Inman referred to this thinking as the “culture of prostitution”:

“Prostitution has been laid at women’s door, and it is said that she enters the practice from choice because it suits her nature, and is one of the attributes of Eve. Nor is this all. Prostitution has created its own degenerate philosophy, which has penetrated into circles not directly affected by it.” (In Woman’s Defense)

The contemporary apologists still maintain that prostitution is a choice, by insisting they are workers like any other who are free to choose a career (within the confines of their class and circumstance). Even though they do not resort to Scripture to justify their views, the same metaphysics finds traction.

Inman contributes valuable criticism of bourgeois culture’s portrayal of prostitutes in films as free-spirited travelers who select their own johns. Writing in the 1930s and 40s, Inman portrays this superstructural device, which has remained in currency since the time of her writing:

“Persons who acquired their opinions about prostitution from such as Mae West pictures, wherein the talented star portrayed the woman of questionable character who went freely about the country having adventures, knowing romance, wearing swell clothes and dominating the situation in which she found herself, selecting carefully her lovers and avoiding those men who did not appeal to her esthetic tastes, in fact roving, wise-cracking, free-lance, exploited by no one, will have the wrong picture of the real lives of such women.” (In Woman’s Defense)

We can cite obvious examples like the film Pretty Woman, but the message is driven home in the more up-to-date postmodern approaches in films and television shows, where the term “sex worker” has fully replaced the term “prostitute,” and “prostitute” is now viewed as nothing more than a sexist slur. The culture of prostitution still exists, finding its niche in the phony progressivism of postmodernism, which tirelessly seeks to pass off a fanciful illusion as the truth.

On the website Mel Magazine we find articles like “The Most Realistic Sex-Worker Portrayals in Pop Culture, According to Sex Workers.” In this article we find such gems as the following: “The Deuce is a sweaty buffet of debauchery calling back to the kind of heroin-soaked freedom Janis Joplin sang about.” Only the most profoundly deluded petty-bourgeois dilettante would conflate heroin with freedom, as it exists mainly as a weapon to keep the lower classes enchained, robbing them of even the most basic freedoms.

The author continues, “The protagonist is Candy, a clever veteran escort played by the excellent, but oddly cast Maggie Gyllenhaal, who walks the tracks, pimp-free. Unfazed and visibly bored, Candy works alone while her cohorts — mostly large and lovely black women — get smacked around by their white regulars and bullied by their pimps. She says to one fast-talking hopeful, ‘No one makes money off this pussy but me.’ Candy’s optimism in this regard is admirable but naïve (capitalism, for instance); still, she has more agency than most of the show’s other characters.”

The tokenization and abuse of Black women is merely unpleasant background noise for the free-spirited “Candy,” whom the author finds immediately relatable. No mention is made of the fact this devil-may-care character rises throughout the series to become a well-paid pornographer and exploiter of other women. The only real criticism of the show put forward by the article is on the basis of crude identity politics—they complain that the show was written by men and not co-written by “sex workers.” This is the best they can come up with when parroting the culture of prostitution today.

For the petty-bourgeois dilettante, “sex workers” are often imagined as struggling heroines, usually white women who choose prostitution as a clever way of bucking the system, and thus they view it as a rebellious act against capitalism itself. They are far removed from the mass tragedy and genocide that the women of the Third World face. Nor can they fathom the anguish of the people of the internal colonies in the US, where prostitution is the most prevalent.

The “sex worker” image constructed by bourgeois intellectuals has a special allure for the petty bourgeoisie: it evokes the myth of class ascension (like that of the fictional Candy mentioned above). With this myth we find a girl—most likely from a troubled background—who grinds her way toward becoming a small business proprietor. Maybe she becomes a pornographer producing the films after starring in them. For the identity politics crowd, this is thrilling because now exploited women are the ones exploiting women. They are not at all concerned that exploitation remains intact and has now simply found a better way to apologize for itself. This rags-to-riches story so often told is a powerful device in the service of ruling-class management of class relationships under capitalism. After all, their argument goes, this is just the unchained agency of free modern women.

In the following passage, Inman might as well be writing in the present day on the question of those who argue for the existence of agency in prostitution by rebranding it “sex work”:

“There is a noticeable tendency in much of the literature on prostitution to confuse a wanted sex act with prostitution, and efforts are made to show by indirection, or otherwise, that they are either the same or that the former leads into the later.” (In Woman’s Defense)

Of course, she also recognized that the phenomenon is not exclusive to women from the working class:

“The scope of prostitution is wider than the working-class women, for by no means are all the daughters of the middle-class families secure, nor, for that matter, are daughters from professional and upper-class families where fortunes were affected by economic breakdown.” (In Woman’s Defense)

Anyone “freely choosing” “sex work” without the pressure of economic conditions is not experiencing the reality of the declassed women Inman is writing about, or of the majority of women trapped in prostitution in the US for that matter.

Browderism did not limit its assaults only to the women’s struggle. It also directed attacks against the national liberation struggles of the internal colonies, and a major casualty of this time was the Communist work among the Black Nation. The work among the Black Nation was more or less eroded by the Popular Front period of the Communist International, and it was none other than Popular Frontism that gave powerful impulse to the rightists in the Party, led by Browder and then Foster.

The national question has all but gone from the program of the CPUSA and only a few of the revisionist relics of the New Communist Movement still uphold it even superficially. And even given their acknowledgment of the necessity of this work, no meaningful struggles are led to conquer the power of self-determination for the internal colonies. And it is perfectly natural for these types who insist on delinking prostitution from colonialism to be seduced into the quagmire of prostitution apologia. No honest study of colonialism can go without mentioning the settlers breaking the colonized into prostitution, through direct violent coercion as well as the violence of economic coercion, both equal in their atrocity.

Even cursory examinations of the real conditions faced by indigenous people in the US and people in the internal colonies—even studies carried out by bourgeois researchers—can highlight the way settler-colonialism manifests in prostitution, as the following passage reveals:

“Many AI/AN [American Indian and Alaskan Native] people live in adverse social and physical environments that place them at high risk of exposure to traumatic events with rates of violent victimization more than twice the national average. High rates of poverty, homelessness, and chronic health problems in AI/AN communities create vulnerability to prostitution and trafficking among AI/AN women by increasing economic stress and decreasing the ability to resist predators. AI/AN women are subject to high rates of childhood sexual assaults, domestic violence, and rape both on and off reservations. The vast majority of prostituted women were sexually assaulted as children, usually by multiple perpetrators, and were revictimized as adults in prostitution as they experienced being hunted, dominated, harassed, pimped, assaulted, battered, and sometimes murdered by sex buyers, pimps, and traffickers.” (Farley, Deer, Golding, et al., Prostitution and Trafficking of American/Indian Alaska Native Women in Minnesota; citations removed from quotation for brevity)

The argument that prostitution is a free choice, combined with the disproportionately high representation of Black and native women in prostitution, is nothing short of the thinly veiled racism of the petty bourgeoisie.

It is as absurd and cruel to divorce these facts from the US settler-colonial project as it would be to pretend that South African apartheid had nothing to do with prostitution in that country, as elaborated on here:

“Indigenous South African women are at great risk for all of the factors that increase vulnerability to prostitution: family and community violence including an epidemic of sexual violence, life-threatening poverty, lack of educational and job opportunities, lack of health services throughout their lifetimes, and lack of culturally appropriate social services that would help them escape prostitution. When alternatives to prostitution are not available—although it can appear to be a choice—prostitution is coerced by social harms such as child abuse, racism, sexism, and poverty. All of these forms of violence against women, including prostitution, are related.” (Madlala-Routledge, Farley, Barengayabo, et al., “‘I feel like I’m still living under apartheid’: Racialized Sexual Exploitation of 100 Women in South African Prostitution”)

While bourgeois feminist researchers can come up with no actual method of abolishing prostitution, they can be useful insofar as their data can be verified. Socialism, meanwhile, has direct means of both fighting and abolishing prostitution successfully.

According to Lenin, “no amount of ‘moral indignation’ (hypocritical in 99 cases out of 100) about prostitution can do anything against this trade in female flesh; so long as wage-slavery exists, inevitably prostitution too will exist. All the oppressed and exploited classes throughout the history of human societies have always been forced (and it is in this that their exploitation consists) to give up to their oppressors, first, their unpaid labor and, second, their women as concubines for the ‘masters.’”

The great socialist projects’ approaches to combating and abolishing prostitution

“We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement—prostitution.”

—Engels, Origin of the Family

“Not only have the people in the Soviet Union abolished prostitution, but wherever the people have become the dominant economic power, even in part of the country, they have abolished prostitution, for example in the districts in China controlled by the people’s movements.”

—Mary Inman, In Woman’s Defense

Engels was speaking of a hypothetical socialist revolution, but one that would inevitably take place based on a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. This social revolution would erupt in Russia in 1917 and have world-changing consequence:

“The workers’ revolution in Russia has shattered the basis of capitalism and has struck a blow at the former dependence of women upon men. All citizens are equal before the work collective. They are equally obliged to work for the common good and are equally eligible to the support of the collective when they need it. A woman provides for herself not by marriage but by the part she plays in production and the contribution she makes to the people’s wealth.” (Kollontai, “Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It”)

Kollontai—understanding that society maintained much of its old superstructure post-revolution as well as widespread conditions of economic hardship, low productive capacity, and other difficulties resulting from the still-developing economic base—firmly grasped that the revolution, while having abolished the main causes of these things (private property, etc.) still had much to do in the struggle against prostitution that persisted in these conditions.

She took up the charge to lead the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in this effort:

“Some people might say that since prostitution will have no place once the power of the workers and the basis of communism are strengthened, no special campaign is necessary. This type of argument fails to take into account the harmful and disuniting effect that prostitution has on the construction of a new communist society.”

The above quotation should be particularly salient for Maoists who grasp that revolution must continue under the dictatorship of the proletariat to align society with the new socialist base.

She further insisted that the prostitution that persisted under the proletarian dictatorship posed a great risk to social unity, to class unity, and to the economic construction of the Soviet Union. Her position was that prostitution was a private enterprise running counter to the workers’ republic and hence had to be abolished.

And great changes had indeed begun to take place in the workers’ republic, revolutionizing both the base and the superstructure. Merchants of any sort were now considered speculators, and all citizens were to be involved in productive labor. Kollontai writes,

“We do not, therefore, condemn prostitution and fight against it as a special category but as an aspect of labor desertion. To us in the workers’ republic it is not important whether a woman sells herself to one man or to many, whether she is classed as a professional prostitute selling her favors to a succession of clients or as a wife selling herself to her husband. All women who avoid work and do not take part in production or in caring for children are liable, on the same basis as prostitutes, to be forced to work.”

In the period of tsarist Russia, just prior to the revolution, prostitution was regulated but not illegal. There was punishment for procuring and pimping but not for prostitution. The revolution stepped in to shake the world and change everything. This included the lives of women in prostitution, who were now to be provided productive jobs.

Given that the conditions which give rise to prostitution were being combated, and that former prostitutes were undergoing political education and engaged in labor, prostitution could not remain the force that it had been in tsarist Russia. Women were mobilized in Soviet society, and prostitution did not come back in force until capitalist restoration post-Khrushchev.

China, having the oldest brothels in the world, surpassing even those of the Netherlands, had much to accomplish after Liberation in 1949, approaches developed in the liberated areas, where prostitution had been abolished must now be applied country wide. Pre-revolutionary China, like tsarist Russia, had only regulated prostitution rather than legally banning it. In pre-revolutionary China there were “licensed prostitutes,” who were some of the worst victims of social oppression. These were called “mist and flower maidens.” After the victory of the revolution, these women were provided lodging and education in socialist reformatories. Most crucially, these women were liberated and taught the differences between the old and new societies.

One of the first acts of the socialist State in the People’s Republic of China was the abolition of old marriage laws that treated women as the property of their husbands. The overthrow of these laws benefited the former prostitutes, many of whom were women and children sold into lives of sexual slavery by husbands or fathers trying to avoid starvation. The liberation of China from the yoke of imperialist and colonial domination reverberated through all of Chinese society (and in fact throughout the whole world), with Mao’s great declaration that “women hold up half the sky” signaling a new age where women would come to carry out half of production.

The women’s movement found its continuation and further flourished in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, when Jiang Qing helped to lead an assault on the old culture, which at best portrayed women as little more than accomplices to male revolutionaries—and at worst as property. Notably, this can be seen in the remake of the Chinese classic “The Bride with White Hair,” wherein the heroine, instead of relying on a male soldier as in the original, sees to her own liberation. And the old society’s conceptions of prostitution came under similar attack.

With the persecution of Comrade Jiang and her three comrades, who represented the Communist line against the reactionary line of Deng Xiaoping and his clique, came an assault on the women’s movement of an even greater magnitude than the one that occurred in the US.

Among many other comparable measures, Deng removed women from such jobs as factory worker and train driver and threw them into office administrator positions.[13] Gendered labor that had been combated during the Cultural Revolution found its full expression in the Deng years.[14] Sex-based advertising and prostitution made a big comeback.[15] Female stereotyping made a return even in children’s books, training a new generation for the restored capitalist mode of production.[16] The Japanese film Yearning for Home that depicted prostitutes was aired on state TV and defended by the Dengite-run Beijing Review against critics who insisted that the film harmed young women and ran counter to the revolution. The old operas that had been banned—ones like “The Drunken Beauty,” about an emperor and his concubines—were performed at the Peking Opera. Pornography and prostitution were restored with capitalism.

Of course, the existing People’s Wars in Peru, Turkey, India, and the Philippines provide living examples of how to regard prostitution, how to end it in Communist-controlled base areas, and how to organize women out of the trade and into the People’s Army. Unlike bourgeois or imperialist armies, People’s Armies have no need for prostitution in “boosting the morale” of male troops, and so bands of prostitutes do not follow the soldiers. People’s soldiers are upstanding and fortified against such low behavior.

Before becoming a full-blown revisionist, Parvati described the effect of People’s War on the women peasants of Nepal:

“People’s War has given a revolutionary alternative life to young aspiring men and women. Women’s lives, particularly in rural areas, are so monotonous, set in a repeated pattern of reproductive activities. [With] marriage being arranged at much younger age[s], they have no way of escaping from this beaten track life cycle. For aspiring women to venture out of village means almost getting trapped into prostitution or being trafficked to India (it is estimated that about 150,000 women from Nepal are trafficked to urban centers of India!) or are trapped to [low-paying] sweat shops where sexual harassment is rampant. Thus for such aspiring women, the People’s War offers them [a] challenging opportunity to work side by side with men on equal term[s] and to prove their worth mentally and physically.” (“Women’s Participation in People’s War in Nepal”)

Conclusion

Many apologists for prostitution refuse to hear analysis on the question from anyone who is not “a sex worker.” Others still will claim that they are or have been “sex workers” themselves, and are therefore beyond the need for an objective class analysis. Few have actually studied the economic forces behind prostitution, getting deeper into what is actually being bought and sold, who owns the business, what class forces are in contradiction, and so on. Many still refuse to explore prostitution as an economic phenomenon—one occurring in a world in the thrall of imperialism at that. They have (likely before even reading this article) come to the conclusion that the only possible criticisms of prostitution are moral ones, ones that intend to stigmatize the prostitute for daring to defy the chastity sometimes imposed on women. Like the bourgeois religious hypocrite, they cannot fathom prostitution beyond moral objection—morality is the only framework they can find.

As discussed above, Marxists, unlike any of the above-mentioned camps, do not view prostitution (or almost anything else) in terms of morality, but in terms of class struggle—this means we criticize on the basis of an economic analysis. It is, after all, economic conditions that provide impulse to the trade in the first place. Moral objection does not rate here.

There are those who will say they are Marxists, but that they are “not dogmatists”—thereby justifying their clean break with 200 years of analysis on the matter. They may not be dogmatic Marxists, but they are dogmatists nonetheless: dogmatists of postmodernism, of identity politics, of third-wave feminism, and other degenerate bourgeois ideology. They do not so much object to the conclusions of Marxism (at least not most of the time), and they may even have a strong dislike of capitalism. What they oppose is the Marxist method—the same method that is universal and ever-improving, which has led comrades throughout history to develop clear lines on the matter of prostitution. This method and framework for analysis has been sharpened through discovery and mainly through violent class struggle. It has made new discoveries (a scientific analysis of modern imperialism, an understanding of the necessity and forms of proletarian dictatorship, cultural revolution, etc.) along the way. None of the apologists of prostitution can offer a single development, discovery, or condition that fundamentally alters the historic Marxist analysis of prostitution.

Marxists have never understood prostitution as simply the plight of “fallen women” who were just “raised wrong” in slums or other harmful conditions. Marxism has never sought to blame women for the conditions that force them into prostitution. Yet accusing all critics of prostitution of this thinking is the knee-jerk reaction of the apologist. This is the only response they can imagine from those who do not see the trade as “empowering” or “a job like any other.” No job, legal or illegal in the capitalist system, is empowering; all jobs without exception are alienating.

So how do the sanitizers of anti-woman violence come to their distorted views? Well, when an adventurous and impulsive petty-bourgeois dilettante, like one of Mae West’s characters, willingly chooses “sex work” (as a growing number of petty-bourgeois people are claiming) and finds the “stigma” to be the only uncomfortable part, all while never experiencing the raw and inhuman degradation that is imposed on most women in these trades—her goal can only be to sanitize the whole thing. In their attempts to be seen as better than the majority, they work to rebrand any trade that has to do with sex or that has been sexualized—now framing entertainers and performers and even enslaved women as “workers,” now not only defending prostitution as a trade but even preaching its virtue to anyone they can guilt into listening. Some of them will even insist against all reason that these trades must be allowed to continue under the socialist system. But, of course, a socialist society cannot “legalize” or “nationalize” prostitution without the state becoming a pimp. These women who claim that “sex work” empowers them, at the same time, are acknowledging that regular working-class jobs are disempowering. This speaks volumes about their class stand and ambitions, and their detestation of the working class. They would rather be sexually exploited than engage in production alongside the proletariat—these can only be considered sham Marxists, and likened to compradors among women. For these it is not economic poverty or low social status or colonialism that drives them to the trade—it is the mere threat, faced by all petty bourgeoisie, of forced integration into the proletariat. They are in solidarity with the rest of their class in labor desertion.

Feminism emerged with dual aspects of progress and reaction. It has existed with these contradictions ever since and has principally become a tool of the bourgeoisie, in a buffet of bourgeois feminisms. The worst of these take facets of women’s oppression and simply re-dress them as their opposites, women’s empowerment. Now the most degrading trades imposed upon women are the most championed. The petty-bourgeois sex adventurist will brag about making more than the stupid women at work in maid service, food service, transportation, and factory work. She will say that she is smarter and has managed to get out of the rat race. She identifies her trade as labor desertion, and she is correct. But she is incorrect that this somehow makes her choice the correct one while the women of the proletariat are just sheep. It is one thing to have an incorrect idea—it is another to spread it like gospel.

The petty-bourgeois sex-capitalist has nothing in common with working women. She lives a life of bourgeois decadence and is a commercial for misogyny. She insists that it is a good and normal thing for women to be able to be rented. She gives men a fair price, so as to reproduce the idea within themselves and among men broadly, that women are a commodity. All the women who struggle against this collectively form a sort of picket line, and the petty-bourgeois sex-capitalist gleefully crosses it. She is uninhibited.

For the Communist in the women’s struggle, the line is perfectly clear: we must serve the people. Inman writes,

“The struggle against prostitution is the struggle against the capitalist class. Since prostitution has an economic basis and the woman enters it because of economic insecurity, one form of the struggle must be economic: demands for a living wage for all women who work.

And for those denied a role in industry or social production, either directly or indirectly in legitimate service, demands must be raised that they be given compensation. Social production in general must be made to bear the responsibility of their support until such a time as they can be given a part in such work.

But an effective struggle against prostitution must also attack and expose the whole cynical, decadent moral structure that supports sex-subjugation, and the role of sex vigilantes who then dog the footsteps of subject women.” (Inman, In Woman’s Defense)

Thus our aim is not to stigmatize the women forced into prostitution but to justify their liberation from slavery with a Marxist class analysis.

Article by Kavga

Notes

Sarah Handley-Cousins, “Prostitutes!” National Museum of Civil War Medicine website.

Melissa Gira Grant, “When Prostitution Wasn’t a Crime,” AlterNet.

rights4girls.org, “Racial & Gender Disparities in the Sex Trade.”

Devon D. Brewer, John J. Potterat, and Stephen Q. Muth, “Clients of Prostitute Women.”

Matthias Gafni, “Oakland Police Scandal: How Often Are Cops Having Sex with Prostitutes?” Mercury News (Bay Area).

Jo-Anne Madeleine Stoltz, Kate Shannon, Thomas Kerr, et al., “Associations between Childhood Maltreatment and Sex Work in a Cohort of Drug-Using Youth,” Social Science & Medicine 65, no. 6, 1214–21.

Janie Har, “Is the Average Age of Entry into Sex Trafficking between 12 and 14 Years Old?” PolitiFact; Emi Koyama, “The Average Age of Entry into Prostitution Is NOT 13,” eminism.com.

Howard N. Snyder, “Arrest in the United States, 1990-2010,” U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Erin Fuchs, “Atlanta’s Underground Sex Trade Is Booming,” Business Insider.

Melissa Farley, “Risks of Prostitution,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 3, no. 1, 97–108.

Meredith Dank, Bilal Khan, P. Mitchell Downey, et al. “Estimating the Size and Structure of the Underground Commercial Sex Economy in Eight Major US Cities,” Urban Institute.

Barbara Kavemann, “Findings of a Study on the Impact of the German Prostitution Act,” Social Science Women’s Research Institute at the Protestant University of Applied Sciences Freiburg.

Hong Guo, “The Impacts of Economic Reform on Women in China,” MA thesis, University of Regina, 1997.

New Vistas Publications, Women in the Chinese Revolution (1921–1950).

Elaine Jeffreys, China, Sex and Prostitution.

New Vistas Publications, Women in the Chinese Revolution.

43 notes · View notes

didanawisgi · 4 years

Link

In wake of George Floyd’s killing and the protests that followed, many colleges and universities have been rolling out new training requirements – often oriented towards reducing biases and encouraging people from high-status groups to ‘check their privilege.’ The explicit goal of these training programs is generally to help create a more positive and welcoming institutional environment for people from historically marginalized and underrepresented groups.

As I have explained elsewhere, there is a long literature on the benefits of diversity on knowledge production. However, many of the approaches to training people how to navigate and utilize diversity were implemented by corporations, non-profits and universities before their effectiveness had been tested rigorously (if at all).

Although the precursor to contemporary diversity training, sensitivity training, actually dates back to the mid 1940s, diversity training became especially important beginning in the mid-80s to early-90s. Why? Starting in the late 70s through early 80s, universities began enrolling significantly higher numbers of women, minorities, and people from middle-class and lower-income backgrounds. Soon thereafter, employers found themselves with a much more heterogenous labor pool. They had to face, often for the first time, some of the challenges that come along with the benefits of diversity — as people with increasingly divergent backgrounds and perspectives were put side by side and tasked with common goals.

Beginning in the mid-90s, however, it became increasingly clear that, due to their lack of validation, many widely-used interventions could be ineffective or harmful. An empirical literature was built up measuring the effectiveness of diversity-related training programs. The picture that has emerged is not very flattering.

The limited research suggesting diversity-related training programs as efficacious was based on things like surveys before and after the training, or testing knowledge or attitudes about various groups or policies. And to be clear, the training does help people answer survey questions in the way the training said they ‘should.’ And many people who undergo the training say they enjoyed it or found it helpful in post-training questionnaires.

However, when scientists set about to investigate whether the programs actually changed behaviors, i.e. do they reduce expressions of bias, do they reduce discrimination, do they foster greater collaboration across groups, do they help with retaining employees from historically marginalized or underrepresented groups, do they increase productivity or reduce conflicts in the workplace — for all of these behavioral metrics, the metrics that actually matter, not only is the training ineffective, it is often counterproductive.

Kalev, Alexandra w/ Frank Dobbin & Erin Kelly (2006). “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review 71(4): 589-617.

Naff, Katherine & J. Edward Kellough (2007). “Ensuring Employment Equity: Are Federal Diversity Programs Making a Difference?” International Journal of Public Administration 26(12): 1307-36.

Paluck, Elizabeth & Donald Green (2009). “Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 339-67.

Training is Generally Ineffective at Its Stated Goals

The stated goals of these training programs vary, from helping to increase hiring and retention of people from historically marginalized and underrepresented groups, to eliminating prejudicial attitudes or behaviors to members of said groups, to reducing conflict and enhancing cooperation and belonging among all employees. Irrespective of the stated goals of the programs, they are overwhelmingly ineffective with respect to those goals. Generally speaking, they do not increase diversity in the workplace, they do not reduce harassment or discrimination, they do not lead to greater intergroup cooperation and cohesion – consequently, they do not increase productivity. More striking: many of those tasked with ensuring compliance with these training programs recognize them as ineffective (see Rynes & Rosen 1995, p. 258).

Chang, Edward et al. (2019). “The Mixed Effects of Online Diversity Training.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(16): 7778-7783.

Dobbin, Frank & Alexandra Kalev (2016). “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia.” Anthropology Now 10(2): 48-55.

Dobbin, Frank w/ Daniel Schrage & Alexandra Kalev (2015). “Rage against the Iron Cage: The Varied Effects of Bureaucratic Personnel Reforms on Diversity.” American Sociological Review 80(5): 1014–44.

Dobbin, Frank w/ Alexandra Kalev & Erin Kelly (2007). “Diversity Management in Corporate America.” Contexts 6(4): 21-7.

Folz, Christina (2016). “No Evidence That Training Prevents Harassment, Finds EEOC Task Force.” Society for Human Resource Management, 19 June.

Frisby, Craig & William O’Donohue (2018). Cultural Competence in Applied Psychology: An Evaluation of Current Status and Future Directions. Cham, CH: Springer.

Magley, Vicki et al. (2016). “Changing Sexual Harassment within Organizations via Training Interventions: Suggestions and Empirical Data.” The Fulfilling Workplace: The Organization’s Role in Achieving Individual and Organizational Health. New York, NY: Routledge.

Newkirk, Pamela (2019). Diversity Inc.: The Failed Promise of a Billion-Dollar Business. New York, NY: Bold Type Books.

Training Often Reinforces Biases

Often, when people attempt to do fact-checks, they begin by underscoring the falsehood, and then proceed to try to debunk that falsehood. This can create what psychologists call an ‘illusory truth effect,’ where people end up remembering the falsehood, forgetting the correction – and then attributing their misinformation to the very source that had tried to correct it! A similar effect seems to hold with antibias training. By articulating various stereotypes associated with particular groups, emphasizing the salience of those stereotypes, and then calling for their suppression, they often end up reinforcing them in participants’ minds. Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes).

Other times, they can fail to improve negative perceptions about the target group, yet increase negative views about others. For instance, an empirical investigation of ‘white privilege’ training found that it did nothing to make participants more sympathetic to minorities – it just increased resentment towards lower-income whites.

Encouraging people to ignore racial and cultural differences often results in diminished cooperation across racial lines. Meanwhile, multicultural training — emphasizing those differences — often ends up reinforcing race essentialism among participants. It is not clear what the best position between these poles is (such that these negative side effects can be avoided), let alone how to consistently strike that balance in training.

Cooley, Erin et al. (2019). “Complex intersections of race and class: Among social liberals, learning about White privilege reduces sympathy, increases blame, and decreases external attributions for White people struggling with poverty.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148(12), 2218–28.

Heilman, Madeline & Brian Welle (2006). “Disadvantaged by Diversity? The Effects of Diversity Goals on Competence Perceptions.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36(5): 1291-1319.

Kulick, Carol w/ Elissa Perry & Anne Bourhis (2000). “Ironic evaluation processes: effects of thought suppression on evaluations of older job applicants.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 21(6): 689–711.

Macrae, Neil et al. (1994). “Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(5): 808-17.

Plaut, Victoria w/ Kecia M. Thomas and Matt J. Goren (2009). “Is Multiculturalism or Color Blindness Better for Minorities?” Psychological Science 20(4): 444-6.

Wilton, Leigh w/ Evan Apfelbaum & Jessica Good (2019). “Valuing Differences and Reinforcing Them: Multiculturalism Increases Race Essentialism.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 10(5): 681-9

Training Can Increase Biased Behavior, Minority Turnover

Many diversity-related training programs describe bias and discrimination as rampant. One unfortunate consequence of depicting these attitudes and behaviors as common is that it makes many feel more comfortable expressing biased attitudes or behaving in discriminatory ways. Insofar as it is depicted as ubiquitous, diversity-related training can actually normalize bias.

For others, the very fact that the company has diversity-related training is proof that it is a non-biased institution. This perception often reduces concerns about bias and discrimination – by oneself or others. As a consequence, people not only become more likely to act in more biased ways, but they also react with increased skepticism and hostility when colleagues claim to have been discriminated against.

Meanwhile, those who are discriminated against become more likely to rationalize mistreatment by others in the institution after undergoing diversity-related training (for the same reason, because they believe the institution must be fair in virtue of its commitment to diversity-related training; indeed, minority employees are often called upon to lead diversity reviews themselves). Consequently, they become less likely to actually report or address wrongdoing. As a result, problems persist unabated — often leading to higher turnover among the very groups the programs were ostensibly designed to render more comfortable.

Brady, Laura et al. (2015). “It’s Fair for Us: Diversity Structures Cause Women to Legitimize Discrimination.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 57: 100-10

Dobbin, Frank & Alexandra Kalev (2019). “The Promise and Peril of Sexual Harassment Programs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(25): 12255-12260.

Dobbin, Frank & Alexandra Kalev (2016). “Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review 94(7): 52-60.

Dover, Tessa w/ Brenda Major & Cheryl Kaiser (2014). “Diversity initiatives, status, and system-justifying beliefs: When and how diversity efforts de-legitimize discrimination claims.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(4): 485-93.

Duguid, Michelle & Melissa Thomas-Hunt (2015). “Condoning Stereotyping? How Awareness of Stereotyping Prevalence Impacts Expression of Stereotypes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100(2): 343-59.

Kaiser, Cheryl et al. (2013). “Presumed Fair: Ironic Effects of Organizational Diversity Structures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(3): 504-19.

Kirby, Teri w/ Cheryl Kaiser & Brenda Major (2015). “Insidious Procedures: Diversity Awards Legitimize Unfair Organizational Practices.” Social Justice Research 28: 169-186.

Leslie, Lisa (2019). “Diversity Initiative Effectiveness: A Typological Theory of Unintended Consequences.” Academy of Management Review 44(3). DOI: 10.5465/amr.2017.0087

Training Often Alienates People from High-Status Groups, Reduces Morale

Diversity-related training programs often depict people from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups as important and worthwhile, celebrating their heritage and culture, while criticizing the dominant culture as fundamentally depraved (racist, sexist, sadistic, etc.). People from minority groups are discussed in overwhelmingly positive terms, while people from majority groups are characterized as typically (and uniquely) ignorant, insensitive or outright malicious with respect to those who are different than them. Members of the majority group are told to listen to, and validate, the perspectives of people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups — even as they are instructed to submit their own feelings and perspectives to intense scrutiny.

In short, there is a clear double-standard in many of these programs with respect to how members of dominant groups (typically men, whites and/or heterosexuals) are described as compared to members of minority groups (i.e. women, ethnic/ racial minorities, LGBTQ employees). The result is that many members from the dominant group walk away from the training believing that themselves, their culture, their perspectives and interests are not valued at the institution – certainly not as much as those of minority team members — reducing their morale and productivity.

The training also leads many to believe that they have to ‘walk on eggshells’ when engaging with members of minority populations. By calling attention, not just too clear examples of harm and prejudice, but just as much (or more) to things like implicit attitudes and microaggressions, participants come to view colleagues from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups as fragile and easily offended. As a result, members of the dominant group become less likely to try to build relationships or collaborate with people from minority populations.

Anand, Rohini & Mary-Frances Winters (2008). “A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training from 1964 to the Present.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(3): 356-72.

Dover, Tessa w/ Brenda Major & Cheryl Kaiser (2016). “Members of High-Status Groups Are Threatened by Pro-Diversity Organizational Messages.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 62: 58-67.

Plaut, Victoria et al. (2011). “’What About Me?’ Perceptions of Exclusion and Whites’ Reactions to Multiculturalism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(2): 337-53.

Rios-Morrison, Kimberly w/ Victoria Plaut & Oscar Ybarra (2010). “Predicting Whether Multiculturalism Positively or Negatively Influences White Americans’ Intergroup Attitudes: The Role of Ethnic Identification.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(12): 1648-61.

Sanchez, Juan & Nohora Medkik (2005). “The Effects of Diversity Awareness Training on Differential Treatment.” Group & Organization Management 29(4): 517-36.

Focus On: Implicit Attitudes

Implicit attitudes are one of the most commonly relied-upon constructs in contemporary diversity-related training. However, there are severe problems with these constructs – as hammered home by meta-analysis after meta-analysis: it is not clear precisely what isbeing measured on implicit attitude tests; implicit attitudes do not effectively predict actual discriminatory behavior; most interventions to attempts to change implicit attitudes are ineffective (effects, when present, tend to be small and fleeting). Moreover, there is no evidence that changing implicit attitudes has any significant, let alone durable, impact on reducing biased or discriminatory behaviors. In short, the construct itself has numerous validity issues, and the training has no demonstrable benefit.

Blanton, Hart et al. (2009). “Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94(3): 567–582.

Carlsson, Richard & Jens Agerstrom (2016). “A Closer Look at Discrimination Outcomes in the IAT Literature.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 57(4): 278-87.

Forscher, Patrick et al. (2019). “A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117(3): 522–559.

Lai, Calvin et al. (2016). “Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145(8): 1001-1016.

Oswald, Frederick et al. (2013). “Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105(2): 171–192

Focus On: Microaggressions

Contemporary diversity-related training often draws significant attention to microaggressions – small, typically inadvertent, faux pas involving people from historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups. The cumulative effects of microaggressions are held to have significant and adverse impacts on the well-being of people from low-status groups. However, although the microaggressions framework goes back to 1974, there is virtually no systematic research detailing if and how microaggressions are harmful, for whom, and under what circumstances (indeed, there is not even robust conceptual clarity in the literature as to what constitutes a microaggression). There is no systematic empirical evidence that training on microaggressions has any significant or long-term effects on behavior, nor that it correlates with any other positive institutional outcomes.

In fact, when presented with canonical microaggressions, black and Hispanic respondents overwhelmingly find them to be inoffensive – and we have ample reason to believe that sensitizing people to perceive and take greater offense at these slights actually would cause harm: the evidence is clear and abundant that increased perceptions of racism have adverse mental and physical consequences for minorities. In short, not only is there no evidence that training on microaggressions is valuable for improving the well-being of people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups, there is reason to believe it could actually be counter-productive to that end.

al-Gharbi, Musa (2020). “Who Gets To Define What’s ‘Racist’?” Contexts, 15 May.

Lillienfeld, Scott (2017). “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 12(1): 138-69.

Mandatory Training Causes Additional Blowback

Although diversity-related training programs are generally ineffective, and often bring negative side-effects, they tend to work better (or at least, be less harmful) when they are opt-in. Mandatory training causes people to engage with the materials and exercises in the wrong frame of mind: adversarial and resentful. Consequently, mandatory training often leads to more negative feelings and behaviors, both towards the company and minority co-workers. This effect is especially pronounced among the people who need the training most. Yet roughly 80% of diversity-related training programs in the U.S. seem to be mandatory.

If an institution is going to include diversity-related training, it should offer it as a resource for those who want to learn more. To encourage more people to volunteer for the training, its value and purpose should be linked to specific organizational and development goals. Small incentives could be offered for those who take part, rather than the current norm of sanctioning those who do not.

Bingham, Shereen & Lisa Schrer (2001). “The Unexpected Effects of a Sexual Harassment Educational Program.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 37(2): 125-53.

Devine, Patricia et al. (2002). “The Regulation of Explicit and Implicit Race Bias: The Role of Motivations to Respond without Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(5): 835-48.

Kidder, Deborah et al. (2004). “Backlash toward Diversity Initiatives: Examining the Impact of Diversity Program Justification, Personal and Group Outcomes.” International Journal of Conflict Management 15(1): 77-102.

Kulick, Carol et al. (2007). “The Rich Get Richer: Predicting Participation in Voluntary Diversity Training.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(6): 753-69.

Legault, Lisa w/ Jennifer Gutsell & Michael Inzlicht (2011). “Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice.” Psychological Science 22(12): 1472-7.

Plant, Elizabeth & Patricia Devine (2001). “Responses to Other-Imposed Pro-Black Pressure: Acceptance or Backlash?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37(6): 486-501.

Robb, Lori & Dennis Doverspike (2001). “Self-Reported Proclivity to Harass as a Moderator of the Effectiveness of Sexual Harassment-Prevention Training.” Psychological Reports 88(1): 85-8.

Training Comes at the Expense of Other Priorities

We are in a period of educational austerity. Creating, implementing and ensuring compliance with diversity-related training programs is expensive. In a world where these training programs consistently advanced diversity and inclusion goals within an organization, or enhanced intergroup cooperation and overall productivity, then these costs could be justified – even during a time of belt-tightening. However, it’s a different dynamic when the training is typically ineffective or even counterproductive. Worse, it often crowds out much more substantial efforts that could be undertaken to actually enhance diversity and inclusion within institutions.

Why do many rely on diversity training despite its demonstrated ineffectiveness? The short answer is that, even if training is expensive and doesn’t work, it is relatively easy to implement – and it allows institutions to show (including, often, in court) that they are doing something to address prejudice, discrimination and inequalities… even if what they’re doing is, in fact, pointless.

This is sort of empty signaling is bad across the board. However, it is particularly egregious for universities – institutions that regularly claim to embody and inculcate such values as evidence-based reasoning, respect for facts, commitment to truth, etc. Schools are doing a bad job at modeling those values for students insofar as they force upon them (and upon the faculty who are supposed to be instructing them!) pedagogical materials that are demonstrably ineffective or even counterproductive.

Indeed, it seems antithetical to their pedagogical purpose to dump increasing sums of money into these programs, even as many departments are seeing hiring freezes or budget cuts, and contingent faculty are being laid off en masse (disproportionately people from historically underrepresented and disadvantaged groups).

It insults, rather than honors, the memory of George Floyd to offer empty gestures like these in his name. As Cyrus Mehri aptly put it, “When you keep choosing the options on the menu that don’t create change, you’re purposely not creating change. It’s part of the intentional discrimination.”

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University. A version of this article was originally published by Heterodox Academy.

18 notes · View notes

elbiotipo · 4 years

Note

so like not to get Too Deep or whatever but socialism and conservadurism do have this kind of similar root in its rejection of capitalism and liberal values so sometimes i feel like leftists who get too into the theory ("theory" in a very discursive sense not actual academic readings) go all the way around and end up doing the conservative thing where they idealize a past didn't really exist as the preferred future out of disillusionment with the present, and incidentally in a way that it's completely disengaged with the material reality where they live and the experiences of the people who actually have lived off the earth in sustainable way in those enviroments for hundreds of years (i.e indigenous people) so it's all the way back to agreeing with angry xix century white men who want to go back to the good old days on the countryside when they didn't have to interact with the ugliness of factories and the working class and immigration etc. like im not saying they think that im saying that without realizing it they're rehashing some very old very conservative discurse from the beggining of the past century (like that's what happened with cottagecore basically and that's not even a political view) and i do find it kind of troubling. anyway that's my two cents absolutely no one asked for thanks bye sorry to bother you

No, you have a point, and in fact it’s something I ask myself constantly... because as someone who loves nature and history I often also find myself romanticizing the past and nature and even good “traditional” or should I say “simple” ways of living, and I must ask myself how much of that comes from my upbringing and old conservative ways of thinking, and it also comes from my background... But I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with wanting to have a farm or having those interests for your own life. Liking those things doesn’t make you A Nazi or an ireedeamble person... which brings me to...

I see a LOT of puritanism-like discourse in online leftist circles lately, as if USaians just found about communism and tried to put their good ol’ extreme evangelist spin to it. Condemning huge groups of people for supposed collective offenses, hard labor and a harsh farming life is considered a desirable future and luxury and technology are bad, focus on assuming our collective Guilt rather than building a fairer society, separating different kinds of people based on their culture or other characteristics, I’ve seen some people even shaming others for liking sex or expressing their gender or identity and trying to excuse it as leftist theory... I mean, those kind of discourses reflect more of a concern about Purity rather than improving the lives of people. I think you can see what I’m talking about, it happens here and on twitter, takes that if you just switch a couple words, they become classic US evangelism or even outright fascism

And that’s very alien to me because... I’ve always thought that socialism (or whatever you call leftist thought) was about improving life? making things better? I thought that was the point???? I thought it was about doing your job with all rights guaranteed and coming home and relaxing and spending your free time in a good, comfortable home? I thought it wasn’t about creating more and more barriers between identities but about accepting them and including them and repairing the damage that colonialism and imperialism did to them? I thought it was about harnessing the power of science and technology for the benefit of mankind and the planet, not regressing to a harsher life? I thought socialism was about building a better society for everyone? I thought it was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them??? Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness???? I mean, I am a leftist because I aspire for a better society, not to oppress those who oppressed us (in fact, we could do without, you know, opressing anyone), but because... I want other people not to have hunger, not to be sick, not to be oppressed, and for them to achieve what they want.

In the end, online discourse doesn’t affect anything, and if you talked about shit like cottagecore to actual leftist activist or native leaders they wouldn’t know shit about it. But the fact remains that a collapse of industrial civilization like these people want, or think it’s inevitable would kill a lot of people and most people do like the comfort and wellbeing of our current society but are oppresed by it, and there are people who need food and comfort right now, while others have excess of it. We CAN make a fair, ecological society without harming the planet anymore or exploiting workers. We can have “luxuries” like the internet and, I don’t know, microwave ovens, or better yet, three full meals (with dessert!), without succumbing to capitalism. We don’t need to tear it all down and go work in medieval communes to Pay For Our Sins.

4 notes · View notes

qedavathegrey · 5 years

Text

Untangling The Witch

I have seen things and I have things to say. It’s generally not my policy to be inflammatory (even if doing so is justified), because this is the internet and I know some of y’all don’t listen, can’t read, and love to argue, but on this day I’m gonna say my piece. If you’re trying to start anything but constructive discussion, know that you are not worth my time, I’m am the manager and the customer is not always right. That being said — and in keeping with the (loose) topic of this blog — we need to talk about witchcraft, namely the term “witch” and its definition. That’s where we’re starting anyway. I’ll add that I’m not a scholar of witchcraft specifically (though I do have an applicable degree), I’m not infallible nor do I claim to be. But I do know some things. I’ve been around the proverbial block. And I’m familiar with some of modern witchcraft’s confusing nature. We’re not going to touch on all of that (it would merit a class, this is only a lesson), but we’re gonna broach the surface.

Let’s start with The Witch, uppercase.

Who is The Witch, you ask?

Historically and cross-culturally, The Witch is a scapegoat: the one who sows discord and misfortune. Your cows mysteriously stop producing milk, your garden withers and dies, your children fall ill with fever or seizures? That’s The Witch, up to their old tricks. In this capacity, The Witch is a (semi-)mythical figure, always defined by the culture which produces it. That being said, how The Witch is dealt with varies: sometimes charms or wards are remedy enough (as with most unsavory spirits), but some would seek The Witch amongst themselves, demand responsibility. They would root The Witch out, have them punished for their “imagined” transgressions, force personal responsibility and demand they face the appropriate consequences or make their reparations. That’s the most basic and encompassing breakdown, nonspecific because in this case it doesn’t need to be. I know what you’re thinking: “Wait a minute, so you’re saying The Witch doesn’t exist as a real flesh and blood person, only a mythical scapegoat?” A good, valid question. Yes and no. Yes, The Witch is mythical, but does that mean those who practiced magic did not engage in summoning up blights and misfortunes on their bastard neighbors? Unlikely. Was everyone accused of being a Witch engaging in malicious magic? Absolutely not. Did some? Almost certainly. To be clear, however, what we’re not discussing here is the Witch Trails. The Church complicates matters (shocking) and we’ll touch on that briefly later. Instead, we change course now so that I might make my most important point:

Any user of magic does not a Witch make.

In fact, the aforementioned process of rooting out a Witch usually employs magic in some capacity, be it shooting an effigy with a silver bullet or putting the victim’s urine in a jar (two methods that are culturally specific). The witchmaster — to use a specific term broadly; one whose function is to discover and undo witchcraft — is, obviously, not a Witch, despite his or her magical proficiency. Nor those who practice folk magic, folk medicine, etc. That is until the rise of the Catholic Church, undoubtedly the origin of the conflation we see today (then expounded by Gardner and his various successors). Why is this such an important fact? Besides erasing nuance and betraying a misunderstanding of the term historically, it can be offensive and often times racist. Someone who practices Hoodoo, Curanderismo, or any specific cultural practice is not a Witch (or “witch” lowercase, for that matter) and to deem them such erases the history which produced not only the practice itself, but those who have dedicated themselves to it. These practices are borne from folk magic, often allowing for the survival of those maligned and thus underserved by their oppressors. They are largely passed orally and as such are preserved from unwanted influence. That is not to suggest they are static or unchanging, but curated by the knowledgeable and shared with those who are invited and trusted to put in the labor required. Even those practices which borrow from the magics of Europe and folk Catholicism (popular during the colonial period amongst commoners and thus, transported to the New and Old World alike), are not Witchcraft. During the Inquisition, the distinction between magic and witchcraft was upheld (to an extent that was convenient for the Church). See the Sicilian trials, where the Church bitterly shrugged when they couldn’t place the Devil in their folk practice. In fact, the Church maintained a disbelief in magic and only when they could insert the Devil did they bother with formal prosecution. That, however, is not something I’m going to unpack. Do know that Witchcraft was and is often used to excuse persecution: it is invisible and convenient. Remember, not only The Witch is a scapegoat, but so too the one accused. This does not extend to modern witchcraft, but many of the aforementioned folk traditions are unjustly maligned because of their presumed association with Witchcraft. All the more reason not to include them in your discussions of witchcraft.

But this does bring me to another important point:

Religion is not Witchcraft.

Vodun is not Witchcraft, Santeria is not Witchcraft, just as Hinduism and Islam are not Witchcraft. They are religions, they have frameworks which define all that happens within and without, and without understanding that framework, what magic they produce is not for your consumption. Period. And reading half-baked internet breakdowns will not make you an expert, in the same way watching Jimmy Swaggart or Joel Osteen won’t make you a priest. Have some respect. And while I’m on the topic, please refrain from calling anything belonging to an extant religion “mythology.” The difference between religion and mythology is only one of assigned validity: “religion” is always valid while “mythology” has become coded to mean “interesting, but ultimately primitive ignorance.” Indigenous religions exist, are valid, and attempts to confine them to the past is insensitive, please be mindful. Additionally, the concept of “mythology” only works if you believe the myth (see what I did there) that we are somehow culturally superior to those foreign to us, separated by either space or time (or both). That’s ethnocentrism, baby. Check yourself. That goes for things like Greek, Kemetic and Mesopotamian “mythology,” as well. They were state religions and even if it is not as damaging to the living to refer to them as “mythology,” it does paint a misleading picture and is no less founded on ignorance. Not to mention many such religions have been reconstructed to varying degrees and are being practiced again with what information is at their disposal.

So then, if I can’t call anyone or anything I don’t understand a Witch or Witchcraft, who can I? This one is easy: Anyone who wants to be called a witch. And notice how I didn’t capitalize it this time. I’m distinguishing the modern definition from the historical one. As mentioned above, at this time “witch” has come to mean one who practices “witchcraft,” a sort of magical catchall consisting of traditional folk magic (predominately European, but not exclusively), ceremonial magic, New-Age rituals, etc. For this reason, further distinctions are often made, i.e. I call myself a Red Witch, but my definition varies from others who call themselves the same. In something as varied as modern witchcraft, even specific terms have little weight. Ultimately, “witch” is what we call ourselves because it captures our position well enough without requiring further definition. People understand it (and misunderstand it) universally enough. It’s there, and by looking back we can understand how it came to be the term used. That being said, simply because it has come to be a catchall does not give anyone permission to force the label on those who refuse it. Just because someone does magic does not mean they’re a witch, even if that’s how you’ve come to understand the term or even how the term has been fed to you. And given the reimagining of the definition as the result of ignorance and a series of misunderstandings, they have no responsibility to explain why they would choose to refuse the moniker. Instead, we — witches — have more a responsibility when it comes to outlining our use of the term and explaining ourselves. Or at least those of us who do not corrupt livestock, put blights on our neighbors, or sow inconvenience at our every turn. What justification have we other than its easy, familiar, subversive? Is that enough? You can decide for yourself and leave it at that. If you want to call yourself a witch, then do so, but recognize it is not your position to assign the term as you see fit to those who continue to be harmed by such insouciant associations.

And know that I write this because I have been guilty of all of the above. I’m sharing so that my own transgressions are ones you need not make. It’s called growth and I’m providing a foundation for you to learn the “easy” way. I have learned, I have resolved to be better, so can you. Life’s a journey, knowledge is power, yadda yadda, cliche cliche, don’t disappoint me.Be conscious, be mindful, recognize your privilege and check when your entitlement is showing. That’s what growth is about. It’s work, sometimes hard but rarely as hard as you think. So do it.

183 notes · View notes

buzzdixonwriter · 5 years

Text

The Love Of Money As The Root Of All Evil

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” -- Dwight David Eisenhower

People love their money.

They love their bargains.

They’ll rush to Wal-Mart to buy a plastic bowl for $1 rather than one at a local mom & pop shop for $1.50.

Of course, very little of that $1 they spent at Wal-Mart stays in their community -- a few pennies in the form of low wages, but then we have to add our tax money going for SNAP cards because Wal-Mart’s employees often don’t make enough to live on.

Not like the mom & pop shop, where the 50-cents extra they charged pretty much stayed in the community: They paid for their house, they bought their kids clothes, put food on their table…

Mom & pop? Working for Wal-Mart now.

Living in a cramped apartment, not that nice house they dreamed of retiring in.

The stores and businesses that depended on them spending their income in town?

Most of them have gone under, absorbed by Wal-Mart and other big box multi-national conglomerations.

As much as the moral scolds like to tell us Rome fell because they were decadent, the truth is Rome at its gladiatorial / orgy worse was Rome at the peak of its power and influence.

It fell after it split apart.

And it split apart because the Western half didn’t want to pay for the upkeep of the Eastern half, i.e., the business end of the empire.

The Eastern half needed roads and infrastructure and sound political government and armies (oh, lordie, how they needed armies) and the fat cat landed gentry in the Western -- protected by thousands of miles of terrain and sea from those who would do them harm -- refused to pay their fair share.

So Diocletian split the empire in twain, letting the greedy bastards to the west fend for themselves while he established a new empire that would eventually become known as Byzantium to the east.

The Western empire, what we think of when we refer to the Roman Empire, fell a little less than two centuries after that, overrun by Germanic tribes (we call them “barbarians” but the kneeslapper is they were Christians.

Byzantium stayed a going concern for about a millennia after that, but eventually it fell for the same reason: The people taking the most out of the society refused to pay anything into it, and a younger / tougher empire (the Ottomans) came a’knockin’.

Without Pax Romana the Mediterranean world became a far more violent / perilous place. Europe split up into a plethora of kingdoms / principalities / duchies constantly jostling with one another to take more money.

Oh, sometimes there were inventions and technological breakthroughs that added coins to the coffers, but mostly it was finding a neighbor who had something you wanted, figuring out their weakness, and taking it from them.

The Enlightenment strove for a better world, but it took money to be a philosopher in those days and since that wealth typically came from peasants / serfs / slaves doing all the grunt work while the philosophers sat around thinking noble thoughts, it didn’t take long for racism -- the belief that there are different races and some are inherently superior to others (and those deemed inferior were good for nothing but common labor in order to keep the philosophers philosophizing).

Mind you, there had been prejudice and bigotry and chauvinism before, but while Hebrews and Philistines may have hated one another, they at least recognized their common humanity.

They didn’t decree the other to be doomed to perpetual servitude due to their so-called race.

The Enlightenment and Christianity did much to poison the well in Europe and later in America, but they did have some positive points.

Both, despite the cruelties their practitioners ladled out on others, held high ideals of universal rights.

Those ideals would live on, and foster generations of thinkers and ethicists and moralists to come.

But the cruel side had its fans, too.

The colonies that would eventually become the various nations of the American continents (and let’s not forget Australia and New Zealand while we’re at it) all responded with varying degrees of success to those ideals.

They also offered plenty of opportunities for those who loved wealth above all else to flourish, inevitably at the expense of huge segments of their respective populations.

As faulty and as flawed as the American Revolution was, it ended up sowing the seeds for similar movements in other countries.

In France they took root just as the clock ran out for the aristocracy.

Just as in Rome and Byzantium, the French rulers realized they were heading towards disaster. For a century and a half before the French Revolution, the various Louis would establish a royal commission made up of the best and the brightest in the kingdom, and had them examine the problem and offer a solution.

The solution was always the same: The ones with the wealth needed to take less and put some of what they had back.

Nobody wanted to hear that (well, nobody with money) and that’s why the guillotines were dropping day and night.

Various trade and crafts guilds had sprung up at that time; al were hammered down.

Socialist movements and parties were started; they were hammered down.

Trade unions were formed; they were hammered down.

But the thing was each movement that got hammered down created a more brilliant and far tougher phoenix to replace it.

By the late 19th / early 20th century communism looked mighty good to a lot of people.

Again, the intransigence of the greedy (call them financiers or industrialists or robber barons or whatever) pushed the world into war yet again, this time bankrupting Germany, Austria, and Hungary (as well as finishing off the Ottomans, last seen sacking Constantinople).

Around the world people clamored for more input, more control in their daily lives.

Czarist Russia -- brutal, heavy handed, autocratic czarist Russia -- fell to the Bolsheviks (who proved to be no less brutal, heavy handed, and autocratic than the czars).

Germany threatened to go down the same path and the industrialists and financiers -- who sure as hell weren’t missing any meals -- backed a crazy little ex-corporal who promised to keep the labor unions and the socialists and the communists under control.

We know how well that worked out.

In the United States, the wealth made their money directly or indirectly off the back of slave and immigrant labor, and when much to their great dismay the legal form of slavery disappeared, they found new methods of enforcing the old ways, which we now refer to as jim crow.

Poor whites weren’t much better off than their African-American neighbors, but as Lyndon Johnson observed: ”If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

The United States was not that much better than German when it came to race hatred.

Indeed, the Nazis -- even while condemning US segregation for propaganda purposes -- studied jim crow carefully and applied its lesson to non-Germans in their territories.

The wealthy 1% nearly destroyed the United States with the Great Depression, but the gratitude they showed to Roosevelt for saving capitalism was to undercut and fight him every step of the way.

Because, hey, if it wasn’t making money right now for them!!! then it had to be evil, right?

Right?

And just as the plantation owners in the antebellum South used propaganda to argue slavery was actually a good thing for those enslaved (because both the Bible and Darwin -- at least according to their readings -- said so), so did their spiritual / philosophical / and too damn often direct biological heirs with their anti-communist rants via the John Birch Society and other front groups.

Fred Koch, founder of the Koch family fortune, also founded the John Birch Society.

And let the record show that when the Koch family businesses operate within the law, they do nothing illegal. They anticipate the ebb and flow of supply and demand and invest accordingly. Nothing wrong with that -- but there’s a lot wrong with what they use the money for.

For generations Americans have been told that socialism is bad, that Marxism is a failure.

And the truth is socialism works when it’s used wisely, to put the brakes on the worst excesses of capitalism.

And Marx gets a bad rap for what he didn’t do; i.e., the spurious claim that he created the blueprints for world domination.

Marx was a brilliant diagnostician but woefully lacking as a hands on practitioner.

The thing is…Marx knew this and recognized it.

Das Kapital analyzed the problem of capitalism in the 19th century.

Marx never intended it to be the final word on the matter.

He wanted those who came after him to be constantly examining and critiquing the way politics and finance work, so that both systems could be constantly tweaked and modified.

His posthumous work, Grundrisse (short for “Fundamentals of Political Economy Criticism”) were not intended for publication but rather Marx’ own personal resource / reference notebooks for his other work.

He was never satisfied with it and put it aside, possibly because he felt the topic was too great for just one writer to expound on.

Of course, once he was dead nobody cared, and it was promoted as literally the last word on the topic when in reality it was filled with what Marx himself would acknowledge as half-baked ideas, concepts he was spitballing in an attempt to find the real, underlying truth.

Imagine somebody finds some wistful half-completed bucket list you leave behind when you die and tries to live their lives according to that.

Gives you an idea of the problem, no?

But just as the hard line communists in Russia embraced Grundrisse for their purposes, so did Fred Koch and the John Birch Society for their own purposes.

Koch was a businessman who dealt with Russia in the days before WWII.

(Most international money people are whores and will go wherever they can find a buck.)

He didn’t like what he saw -- a fair enough assessment -- but what scared him was that there was something in the underlying structure of Russian society that might be appealing to non-communists.

Remember what I said about the Enlightenment and Christianity?

Add Marxism to that.

It ain’t the solution to all the world’s ills, but damn, it ain’t wrong about the causes.

Now the way the Koch clan tells it, when Fred saw Red, he realized it was a brutal, unworkable economic system and to stop it from spreading, he needed to form the John Birch Society to keep it from taking root in America.

Hold that thought.

If a system is unworkable, just let it collapse.

In fact, as a capitalist you should be interested in propping it up as long as possible both in order to rake in as much cash off them as you can in the time they have left and to make its ultimate collapse an even bigger warning to future workers.

The Koch propaganda machine has been working for literally generations to keep Americans from examining what’s wrong with our system.

They embrace racism because it enables them to keep labor costs down by pitting one group against another.

They fund the evangelical fringe, not necessarily because they believe them, but because they can deliver large swaths of the voting population.

(And of course, many white evangelicals prove themselves to be bigots, so promising to get rid of their taxes and keep “those” kids out of their schools and neighborhoods goes hand-in-hand).

They made a couple of runs at getting their agenda pushed through -- notably with Goldwater (who failed) and Reagan (who didn’t) -- but their desire to take more money by rendering all form of socially just government regulations impotent has produced an unintended consequence.

Donald Trump.

Just as the mad little corporal tapped in on simmer racial and religious resentment in Germany, Trump has done the same here.

A lot of white people are scared that their day is O.V.E.R.

At current demographic projections, come 2048 white people will drop to only 49% of the population.

The largest minority in a nation of minorities.

That means they’ve going to have to learn to cut deals with other groups.

And those groups, because they were marginalized for literally centuries, have learned to be much more self-reliant, much more imaginative, much more focused, much more innovative.

African-American culture is going to dominate the United States in the second half of the 21st century and well into the 22nd.

I want us to walk away from the precipice.

I want us to recognize there is literally no future in burning down the house to make sure the black folks don’t get in.

I want us to recognize reasonable precautions and controls on capitalism do not make people poor but rather prevent poverty from ruining lives.

But I fear for this country.

A few other empires, as they started splintering, recognized their peril and took steps to minimize the chaos and impact.

It took ‘em a while, but England managed to learn to let go of its vast empire in peaceful / democratic / diplomatic ways that enabled them to maintain good relations with former colonies around the globe.

The Koch mentality can’t do that, I’m afraid.

It can’t abide the thought that somebody else has a say in how they do business for the simple reason that those people’s lives are adversely affected by choices the Koch empire makes.

But we as a nation need to also recognize we slit our own throats every time we place price first and foremost in our shopping.

The Trump supporters who bemoan the demise of their single industry towns never seem to realize the decline started when they began saving a few pennies by shopping at big box stores and franchise fast food restaurants.

In their desire to save a few pennies, they threw away family fortunes.

History offers some grim warnings about empires that slide into this level of oligarchy.

Rome fell.

So did Constantinople.

The guillotine blade fell again and again and again until finally people were willing to accept Napoleon in order to regain stability.

And Napoleon started wars that led to World War One…

…and World War One allowed Hitler to rise thanks to the industrialists and the financiers.

The 1% of their generation.

We have to be more informed and more insightful in our daily choices.

What profit a person if they save a few pennies, yet lose their soul?

#capitalism #Marxism #socialism #morals #ethics #politics

3 notes · View notes

bimboficationblues · 6 years

Text

(Originally an addition to a different post, but I decided to make my own and hit it with a do-not-rebloggeth cause that’s what I’m feeling will be more personally productive. Critical replies/asks/messages are obviously welcome.)

The slogan “sex work is work like any other” is not glossing over the potential risks that sex work may carry as a result of clientele; I think it’s communicating something far more complex than “sex work and retail work is the same.”

On one end of the spectrum, sex work is work in the sense that its participants deserve respect, fair treatment, labor protections, etc., and in an ideal world would be made obsolete in the same sense as various other kinds of work (or all work, depending where you land on the definitional and strategic questions) - i.e., a baseline socialist-feminist position.

At the other end, sex work is work insofar as there’s nothing wholly unique about the kinds of domination that come with sex work compared to “normal” work. Like, harassment, coercion, abuse, assault, and degradation may take unique forms or amplified risks within sex work (emphasis on may, since these things are contingent on what sub-industry of sex work we’re talking about). But the sphere of sex work and the spheres of not-sex-work are often marked by similar patterns of workplace violence, especially with a global scope in mind, even if the rates are going to differ (because, surprise surprise, work that is criminalized e.g. undocumented farm work, puts you in a position of increased vulnerability). To reiterate - work under capitalism is impersonal domination, and that impersonal domination puts people in various situations of direct, personal domination (by customers, management, etc.) This is not by any means unique to one single occupation.

What unique forms of degradation there are to sex work strike me as originating from a whole number of interconnecting vectors that determine who is at a higher probability of going into sex work (racialization, womanhood, sexuality, migration status, general economic precarity - all of which also reverberate through every other sphere of work and its particular manifestations of violence and abuse), rather than proceeding from anything inherent to the specific mode of labor and exchange. But even if it does proceed from the specific mode of labor, this is precisely what the decrim position seeks to mitigate and a broader socialist-feminist politics seeks to eliminate.

Ultimately I think the benefits of pushing back against small-c conservative arguments that imply “selling sex is WRONG because you’re selling YOUR BODY” (to which I respond “read Capital”) outweigh whatever costs are at play in not taking an (already fairly mainstream) negatively moralistic attitude towards johns/tricks/whatever. And it definitely isn’t beneficial to use the term “exploitation” in a moralistic way, where if the more unpleasant or dangerous the work is the more exploitative it is.* And if we are advocates for decrim, there is no need to self-flagellate about that by gawking at the “horror stories” that emerge out of sex work. This sort of rhetoric is already plentiful and already harmful. Like, whatever way you slice it, a rhetoric that centers the importance of sex workers’ dignity and respect is going to be better than one that voyeuristically fixates on degradation.

*Ordinarily I wouldn’t care for this kind of pedantry, but like, we’re talking about forms of labor here - being precise with the term “exploitation” is kind of significant

#DO NOT REBLOGGETH #under penalty of divine violence

11 notes · View notes

necessaryveganism · 7 years

Text

Non-veganism and workers’ rights are incompatible

Non-vegans often bring up the exploited farm workers who pick fruits and vegetables are concerned about workers’ rights. Vegans usually dismiss it as just another excuse (since that is usually the only reason they bring it up), but agriculture workers definitely are one of the most exploited and marginalized people in the world (and there is over 1 billion of them). More than half of them live in poverty.

We can help by supporting worker advocacy organizations and labor unions (for example: the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is a coalition of farmworkers working low-wage jobs in the state of Florida and is responsible for advocating farmworker rights), by buying from known local farms, buying fair trade and by helping educate others about this.

Of course this includes slaughterhouse workers. There is over half a million of them in the US alone. More than 38% of the workers were born outside the US. Most workers are “at-will” employees, meaning they can be easily fired at a supervisor’s discretion. The threat of termination discourages workers from reporting safety concerns, injuries, or other serious issues.

And obviously, these conditions can be improved, and we can help as described above.

Below are some excerpts from the RSPCA welfare standards. And this time I’m not asking you to put yourself in the position of the non-human animal. Rather put yourself in the position of the worker and try to imagine what it is like to do this type of thing day after day. This is a work day for a slaughterhouse worker when everything is up to code and going smoothly.

Slaughter of dairy cattle

Cattle must be stuck using a sharp knife at least 12cm/5 inches long. An incision must be made in the jugular furrow at the base of the neck, directing the knife towards the entrance to the chest to sever the major blood vessels. Blood loss from the cattle must be rapid and profuse.

Two knives must be used; the first to open the skin and the second to sever the arteries. After incision of the blood vessels, there must be no further dressing procedure performed on the animal for at least 30 seconds, and in any case until all brain-stem reflexes have ceased. Where one person is responsible for the stunning, shackling, hoisting and bleeding of cattle, they must complete all these operations on each individual animal in turn.

Slaughter of pregnant cattle

Any foetus in the last third of gestation, or suspected of being in the last third of gestation, must not be removed from the maternal carcase until at least 5 minutes after maternal sticking, but preferably between 20-30 minutes after the dam is dead in order to ensure that the foetus does not gasp and start to breathe air. If, for any reason, a foetus is found to be showing signs of life upon removal from the uterus (i.e. a foetus that has gasped and is now conscious), it must be immediately killed with an appropriate captive bolt or by a blow to the head with a suitable blunt instrument.

Hatcheries

Where a bird should be culled immediately, e.g. where suffering would be prolonged if left until disposed of by the normal method, it must be: killed by dislocation of the neck using a procedure that ensures severance of all the major blood vessels and spinal cord and then placed in a macerator immediately.

Here are a few things former slaughterhouse workers have said:

“Working at the slaughterhouse is a big regret but being homeless was my only incentive to work there. The conditions were awful, the smell was awful, I couldn’t tell people where I worked, it was an awful job.”

“You might not be killing each animal, but you are sending them to their death, or handling their corpses shortly after.”

“The pigs were the worst, they knew what was happening. They would arrive at the slaughterhouse and the noise was terrible, they would squeal constantly and try at every step to escape. [...] The pigs, they were the ones that made you feel the worst, they knew.”

“The fear has its own scent. It's not something I could put into words, but even now, I would recognize it.”

“I was desperate and needed this job, it’s a job that although I was there just under a year has always bothered me. I have been in the military and had other jobs but this one stays with you. I was offered the job back while at college and rejected it. I think some of my co-workers were borderline psychopaths. They would bully the new staff and pick them up and throw them in the blood bath as an initiation? I was assaulted by two different slaughter men during my time there.”

"I don't even see an argument about it being violent any more. By definition, violence [is] a physical action with intent to harm, injure or kill something or someone. There's no argument there. It's exactly violence. I and others have justified that or minimized that for a very long time."

My question for non-vegans: how can you ever improve slaughterhouse work conditions so much that you’re able to justify forcing a fellow human being to do this kind of (unnecessary) work for you?

#vegan #veganism #workers rights #slaughterhouse workers

49 notes · View notes

comrade-meow · 4 years

Link

The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:

1. Transwomen are women.

2. Sex work is work.

3. Feminism is bourgeois.

Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.

The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:

“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”[1]

Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[2] That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.

So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3] Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.

But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”[4] Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors. Intersex people, which form a distinct material category, are also lumped into this community of “exiles” because they too are unable to fulfill the goals of the patriarchal sexual hierarchy. Such communities of exiles have existed throughout history, and continue to exist to this day in all parts of the world, from the hijra in India to the two-spirited people of the Native Americans to the contemporary shunning and violence directed at gender non-conforming individuals. But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society.

While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.

While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.

By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism.

Opportunism and the “fear” of being on the “wrong side of history” are also driving forces behind this embrace of revisionism. The Anglophone left, especially in the United States, given its weakness in the overall political arena, has long sought to be seen as “acceptable” and “polite”, and is often eager to jump on any bandwagon it believes can advance it. This desire to be accepted also drives the fear. It is true that communists have made serious errors in judgment in the past, but that is not an excuse to rebel against core philosophies and hastily embrace ideas and movements without fully analyzing their beliefs and goals. This is not to say that communists should not be on the forefront in defending gender non-conforming individuals. A thoroughgoing socialist revolution requires that these existing oppressive structures be cast aside. But it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.

Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.

In the next part, we will examine the second big lie plaguing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”.

#Anglo.txt

18 notes · View notes

perkwunos · 7 years

Text

Georg Lukács wrote in his essay "The Marxism of Rosa Luxembourg", “Bourgeois thought concerns itself with objects that arise either from the process of studying phenomena in isolation, or from the division of labour and specialisation in the different disciplines. It holds abstractions to be 'real' if it is naively realistic, and 'autonomous' if it is critical." The intellectual currents of our age are most well defined by their inability to be grasped coherently, all together. One can discuss the implications of one's aesthetic or moral experience, or talk about the world of physics. It is felt, however, that you can not discuss both together as if they were one world, without recourse to some fundamental dualism.

Lukács of course meant for his approach of understanding the "totality" to represent a resolution of this intellectual problem, but he was not primarily focusing on the kind of metaphysical/cosmological problems which I have just centered in my bringing up mind-body dualism and its related issues. There were other contemporaries who were focusing on this, however. One person, in particular, I would argue made more advances at going beyond the bourgeois division in thought than anyone else: the mathematician, physicist, and metaphysical philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.

Whitehead defined his speculative philosophy as "the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted." Every element of our experience, i.e., everything we ever come into contact with and can know anything about. So it's a grand project, and he makes sure to remind the reader he sees it as one of constant experimental reconstruction that would never reach a perfected conclusion; it's an ever-ongoing project.

So why undergo the project at all? Because it allows for a confrontation with the division of fields and topics of discussion that we saw Lukács diagnose as symptomatic of bourgeois thought. Contemporary Whiteheadian Matthew Segall puts it thus, at the beginning of his short book "Physics of the World-Soul": "The importance of philosophy in our age, according to Whitehead, is primarily to serve as the critic of the abstractions of the specialized sciences ... the philosopher must always be at work attempting to harmonize the abstract sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology), both internally among themselves, and more generally with our deep moral intuitions and aesthetic feelings". This is the attempt to get at a mode of thought that sees physics and our experience of value as existing in the same plane of being.

Whitehead's view is one of relationality; everything can only be fully explained by its relations to other things. One must understand the environment to understand the thing, for the thing is an expression of the environment. This puts him directly in confrontation with the assumptions of specialization, which allow people to feel they’ve fully grasped something when it is in reality only viewed in abstraction from concrete totality. When you entertain a variety of such abstractions without understanding their entire concreteness, you face dislocated incoherence. He wrote in Adventures of Ideas, "We habitually speak of stones, and planets, and animals, as though each individual thing could exist, even for a passing moment, in separation from an environment which is in truth a necessary factor in its own nature. Such an abstraction is a necessity of thought, and the requisite background of systematic environment can be presupposed. That is true. But it also follows that, in the absence of some understanding of the final nature of things, and thus of the sorts of backgrounds presupposed in such abstract statements, all science suffers from the vice that it may be combining various propositions which tacitly presuppose inconsistent backgrounds." Some thinkers of Marxist dialectics have likewise continued through the 20th century into today in the explicit attempt to so comprehensively understand things in terms of their internal relations. I would argue, however, that when it comes to a fully cosmological and experiential model, Whitehead has been far more comprehensive and direct in the issues he faced. I don't necessarily expect this to be contended by many people; after all, Marxism is primarily a methodology for understanding social sciences. My argument, however, would be that Whitehead's system not only generalizes from and thus encompasses the subjects of physics, biology, psychology, aesthetics, but also just as well sociology, economics and anthropology. Society, its conditions and relations, certainly play a role in supplying the concrete facts which Whitehead knows he must not explain-away but rather locate in a wider system.

In fact there is an argument for the study of social interactions and its presuppositions playing one of the most vital roles for Whitehead. He was fond of citing sociological facts to show the reality of aims and self-decisions. I believe Victor Lowe described this as Whitehead's "humanistic" side, but I'd rather call it his anthropological side. Now, what is ultimately really concrete for Whitehead are occasions of experience seen as composed of relations to other occasions of experience. He generalizes that every process is an experiential process, because the only actuality we know of is, of course, that of our own experiential processes. However, this does not mean he appeals to only a crude psychological empiricism for his data as to what experience is like. He knows that our consciousness when put under the conditions of self-investigation will become such as to only emphasize certain kinds of experience. Rather his methodology puts forward that we should catch experience “in the rush of immediate transition.” One of the best ways to see evidence for what that’s like, actually, is not by documenting experience directly, but rather systematically studying the documentation of all of the actions that people do, and the perspectives they take on - for these are, ultimately, the effects of certain experiences. In Adventures of Ideas, Whitehead states, "The main sources of evidence respecting this width of human experience are language, social institutions, and action, including thereby the fusion of the three which is language interpreting action and social institutions." So some of the most intimate evidence for Whitehead's basic metaphysical entity, the occasion of relational experience, is thus derived from the social sciences!

I've often lamented before that I did not study physics more, so as to be able to attempt my own direct integration of its most recent findings with Whitehead's generalizations. Now, however, I realize that more important than that is to integrate the most recent findings of social studies with his thought. Whitehead himself was a highly sophisticated physicist, around for the cutting edges of relativity and quantum theories. His philosophizing shows that. He never dedicated quite so much time to the social sciences, nor was he as ensconced in the most revolutionary theoretical turns; he had an ethnocentric understanding of history and anthropology, and was still essentially a liberal gentleman in his confrontation with economic problems. Here is where the best possible sophistication is still to be brought.

There is of course the criticism that this philosophizing, as it does not confront the material conditions of capitalism which allowed for this incoherence of consciousness, does not focus upon the direct, material condition of alienated labor that leads to consciousness of an alienated ego, but instead stays as a purely ideological critique, cannot really help in doing away with the reality of these mental tendencies. I think this is a valid criticism against many liberal Whiteheadians. The integrated ecological metaphysics of Whitehead will not be at the forefront of abolishing the harmful conditions of today, except insofar as they are in the minds of those who will attack and abolish the relations of labor which produce the society we live in. However, Whitehead’s worldview can include the knowledge that our current consciousness arises from the conditions of our producing our material environment; indeed, his philosophy may explain better than any other how our experience comes out of the conditions of prior activity. This intellectual, or ideological, activity does play its role, and I do believe Whitehead above all others will serve the specifically philosophical purpose of integrating the slivered knowledge of the world into a true consciousness of totality. This totality is that of each subjective experience as it contains in its relations the entirety of the world. If nothing else this philosophy is a system of poetry which is truly a glimmer of the post-modern, i.e. post-bourgeois, and declares the pleasure principle, the Eros, of such. This experience of desire does not remain a private solipsism, but returns back upon the environment so as to affect it, and it is this affect existing within social relations that is the true object of desire. Whitehead's philosophy shows this.

I believe that when we make it beyond the capitalist organization of our global society, if there are still any organized intellectual efforts such as there are today, they will grasp upon the work of Whiteheadians to achieve a comprehensive framework for understanding our world. This will arguably advance the specific knowledge of physical sciences; more importantly, it would certainly advance the integrated knowledge of our interactions with an inherently aesthetic, desirous world. The pondering teenager confused by the existential separation they feel between their ego and the material world is an incoherent product of bourgeois-dominated culture, and will disappear in turn once those conditions of bourgeois domination are systematically abolished and replaced by the freedom of truly democratic, socialist control over production. For the time being, Whitehead's thought is a weapon against this kind of alienated consciousness we develop inside of capitalist society. It will not fully destroy this sickness, but it can be part of the healing process.

#alfred north whitehead

19 notes · View notes

we-bodybuildingmotivation · 5 years

Text

10 Best Once more Exercise routines For Setting up Muscle Energy and Measurement

Finest Again Workout routines How exhausting and the way usually do you practice your again? If the reply is “not very,” you may be undermining your physique, in addition to your efficiency. You might even be rising your threat of harm. If you wish to construct a again that you would be able to be pleased with, rising your power and athleticism within the course of, it’s time to begin taking again coaching extra significantly. On this information, we reveal why and how you can construct your finest again ever. Finest Again Workout routines cover Who Must Prepare Their Again? Bodybuilders Powerlifters, Strongman opponents, and Weightlifters Athletes Individuals with guide labor jobs Individuals with sedentary jobs or existence Individuals with again ache Again Anatomy 101 Erector Spinae Latissimus dorsi Trapezius Rhomboids Warming up earlier than again coaching The 10 Finest Again Workout routines 1- Deadlifts 2- 45 Diploma Again Extensions 3- Reverse Hypers 4- Chest-supported Rows 5- Inverted Rows 6- Bent Over Barbell Rows 7-Lat Pulldowns 8- Pull-ups and Chin-ups 9- Band Pull Aparts 10- Face Pulls

Who Must Prepare Their Again?

The brief reply to this query is everybody! Again coaching is so necessary that everybody ought to embody again workouts of their exercises. Nevertheless, for the sake of readability, let’s check out some particular person teams that actually want to coach their backs exhausting and sometimes. Bodybuilders Bodybuilders are judged on their complete physiques, and never simply their chests, biceps, or quads. Properly-developed again muscle tissues make you look extra highly effective and provides your higher physique width and thickness. An enormous, muscular again is seen from the entrance and the facet, in addition to the rear.

Phil Warmth and Kai Greene Powerlifters, Strongman opponents, and Weightlifters Lifting heavy weights requires a powerful again. Again power is significant for stability, posture, and producing power. In case your again is weak, you gained’t be capable to elevate as a lot weight. You may additionally be extra liable to harm. Athletes All sportsmen and girls want sturdy backs. Decrease again accidents are all too frequent in sports activities, and lots of are brought on by weak point. Sturdy again muscle tissues may also help injury-proof your physique. That is particularly necessary for athletes concerned in touch sports activities, similar to MMA, soccer, rugby, and hockey. Individuals with guide labor jobs Most guide labor jobs contain numerous bending, twisting, and lifting. All of those actions are exhausting in your again. A stronger again will make these actions simpler, so that you end your working day feeling a lot much less drained. It’ll additionally scale back your probabilities of struggling a work-related harm. Individuals with sedentary jobs or existence Lengthy durations of sitting can result in again muscle atrophy and weak point. Smaller, weaker again muscle tissues may cause poor posture, again ache, and accidents resulting from over-exertion. Again coaching may also help reverse the atrophy generally related to sedentary jobs and existence. Individuals with again ache Offering your physician says it’s okay to take action, again strengthening workouts may also help relieve and stop again ache. Again ache is usually brought on by weak point and poor posture. Lots of people with again ache are tempted to keep away from coaching their decrease backs as a result of they concern it would make issues worse. However, in actuality, constructing again power is without doubt one of the finest methods to alleviate many frequent again issues (1).

Again Anatomy 101

Your again is made up of a number of necessary muscle tissues. In workouts like deadlifts, all of those muscle tissues work collectively. Nevertheless, additionally it is doable to focus on every one with particular actions. That is helpful if you wish to change the form of your again or handle any areas of weaknesses. The primary muscle tissues that make up your again are: Erector Spinae Often known as your decrease again muscle tissues, the principle job of the erector spinae is spinal extension. The erector spinae, which run up both facet of your backbone, can be important for maintaining your again steady throughout workouts like bent-over rows and squats. Lengthy durations of sitting will weaken and stretch these muscle tissues. Latissimus dorsi Relating to again coaching, these are the muscle tissues that most individuals have a tendency to consider. Positioned on the facet of your higher again, when well-developed, the lats appear like wings as they unfold out from beneath your armpits. Their capabilities embody shoulder extension, shoulder adduction, and shoulder medial rotation. Trapezius This huge kite-shaped muscle covers most of your higher again and controls the motion of your shoulder girdle. The higher fibers of the traps elevate your shoulder girdle. In distinction, the center fibers pull your shoulders again and collectively. The decrease traps pull your shoulders down. Rhomboids Positioned between your shoulder blades, the rhomboids work with the center fibers of your trapezius to tug your shoulders again. Whereas the rhomboids don’t add quite a bit to your physique, they're important for posture, and in addition for sustaining shoulder girdle stability throughout urgent and pulling workouts.

Again Anatomy Muscle tissues

Warming up earlier than again coaching

Heat-ups are necessary no matter what physique half you're about to coach, however they're particularly essential earlier than again coaching. Why? As a result of lengthy durations of sitting can go away your again muscle tissues stretched and weakened and, in the event you soar into your exercise too shortly, this might result in harm. A decrease again harm is not any laughing matter. Again accidents can take a very long time to heal and pack ache can have an effect on virtually each facet of your life, together with sitting, standing, strolling, and even sleeping. Put together your again to your exercise by performing some gentle cardio to lift your core temperature and improve circulation. Then, if you end up heat, mobilize your higher and decrease backbone with actions like mild facet bends and waist twists. Lastly, do a couple of units of your chosen again workouts utilizing very gentle weights – similar to an empty barbell. Regularly improve the load over a number of units till you're feeling prepared to begin your exercise.

The 10 Finest Again Workout routines

No matter your back-building aspirations are, these are the ten finest workouts to attain it. Don’t try to do all of those workouts in your subsequent again exercise; that’s overkill. As an alternative, simply select 2-4, ensuring you're employed all the elements of your again, i.e., decrease, center, and higher. For power, do units of 1-5 reps utilizing heavy weights, resting 3-5 minutes between units. For hypertrophy, do units of 6-12 reps with reasonable weights, resting 60-90 seconds between units. For endurance, do units of 13-20 reps with gentle weights, resting 30-60 seconds between units. 1- Deadlifts No train works as many again muscle tissues as deadlifts. It’s a good way to strengthen your legs, forearms, and core too. Deadlifts additionally train you how you can elevate heavy objects off the ground safely. If you happen to solely do one again train, deadlifts needs to be it. The best way to do it: Place a loaded barbell on the ground. It needs to be about 8-10 inches off the bottom. Stand together with your toes hip to shoulder-width aside, toes below the bar. Lean ahead and maintain the bar with an overhand grip. You can too use a combined grip. Learn extra about grip variations for bodybuilding in this text. Straighten your arms, drop your hips, and elevate your chest. Be certain your decrease again is barely arched. Brace your core. That is your beginning place. Drive your toes into the ground and, with out bending your arms or rounding your decrease again, get up straight. Don't lean again as doing so places numerous undesirable stress in your decrease again. Push your hips to the again, bend your knees, and decrease the bar below management right down to the ground. Let the load settle, reset your place, and do one other rep.

Arnold Deadlifting 2- 45 Diploma Again Extensions The place deadlifts work your entire again muscle tissues on the similar time, this train solely includes your erector spinae or decrease again. As a body weight train, this train is right for newbies, however extra superior exercisers could make it more durable by holding a weight to their chests or behind their heads. The best way to do it: Regulate the 45-degree again extension bench, in order that the sting of the pad is degree with the highest of your hips. Climb onto the machine and place your toes flat on the footrests. Relaxation your pelvis towards the hip pad. Bend your knees barely and maintain them bent all through. Hinge ahead and decrease your higher physique down towards the ground with out rounding your again an excessive amount of. Raise your torso again up, stopping earlier than you overextend your backbone. Watch how you can do 45 Diploma Again Extensions appropriately: 3- Reverse Hypers Most decrease again workouts contain fixing your toes in place and shifting your higher physique. Reverse hypers use the alternative motion to work your decrease again, glutes, and hamstrings in a really spine-friendly method. No reverse hyper machine at your gymnasium? Don’t fear – there are a number of different methods you are able to do this train. The best way to do it: Lie face down on the reverse hyper machine in order that your hips are on the sting of the bench. Maintain the handles firmly. Contract your glutes and decrease again and elevate your legs up and out behind you. Don't elevate them increased than your butt; hyperextending your decrease again might result in harm. Decrease your legs and repeat. Watch how you can Reverse Hypers: 4- Chest-supported Rows Chest supported rows are a good way to work your lats, rhomboids, and center trapezius with out stressing your decrease again. If you wish to keep away from working your decrease again, perhaps due to harm or since you’ve simply completed deadlifting, this train is an effective selection. The best way to do it: Set an adjustable bench to 30-45 levels. Lie face down on it with a dumbbell in every hand. Whereas you need to use a barbell, it would hit the bench and scale back your vary of movement. Dumbbells are a better option. Holding your chest on the bench, bend your arms, and row the weights up and into your ribs. Think about main together with your elbows, maintaining your wrists straight, and pulling your shoulders down and again. Lengthen your arms and repeat. Watch Chest-supported Rows demo: 5- Inverted Rows This lats, rhomboid, and mid-trap train additionally includes your erector spinae, which should work to maintain your physique straight and steady. Nevertheless, the stress on these muscle tissues is minimal. Which means it is a good train for newbies and people with weak decrease again muscle tissues. The best way to do it: Regulate the bar on a Smith machine to about hip-height. Lock it in place. Sit on the ground beneath the bar. Attain up and maintain it with a shoulder-width, overhand grip. Lean again and straighten your arms. Holding your legs straight, elevate your hips off the ground so your weight is supported by your arms and toes solely. Be certain your physique kinds a superbly straight line. Bend your arms and pull your chest as much as contact the bar. Lengthen your arms and repeat. You can also make this train simpler by elevating the bar. Make it more durable by elevating your toes or resting a weight plate in your stomach. Inverted Row 6- Bent Over Barbell Rows Bent over barbell rows work your complete again, from high to backside, and facet to facet. That is a sophisticated lat train so solely try it in case you have a powerful, wholesome decrease again. Additionally, keep away from utilizing your legs that will help you jerk the load up as doing so places much more stress in your decrease again and backbone. Strive too maintain your torso stationary. That method your lats, rhomboids, and traps will do the majority of the work. The best way to do it: Maintain a barbell with a shoulder-width underhand grip, or a barely wider overhand grip. The underhand grip emphasizes your lats, whereas the overhand grip includes extra mid-traps and rhomboids. Bend your knees barely and lean ahead out of your hips. Don't spherical your decrease again. Your torso needs to be between 45-90 levels to the ground. Beginning together with your arms straight, bend your elbows and pull the bar up and into your physique. In case you are utilizing an underhand grip, pull the bar to your abdomen. Pull it to your chest in case you are utilizing an overhand grip. Lengthen your arms and repeat. Watch The best way to Bent Over Barbell Row: 7-Lat Pulldowns The beauty of lat pulldowns is that you need to use completely different handles and hand positions so as to add selection to your exercises. All choices work your lats, in addition to your decrease trapezius, center trapezius, and rhomboids. The best way to do it: Seize your chosen bar and sit down, so your legs are firmly below the thigh pads. Plant your toes flat on the ground for stability. Lean again barely and elevate your chest. Pull your shoulders down and again. Bend your arms and, main together with your elbows, pull the bar right down to the highest of your chest. Lengthen your arms and repeat.

8- Pull-ups and Chin-ups Pull-ups and chin-ups are largely interchangeable. Whereas they use completely different grips and arm actions, each of those workouts work your lats. Pull-ups function a pronated or overhand grip, and chin-ups use a supinated or underhand grip. You can too do that train with a parallel or impartial grip. The best way to do it: Grasp from the bar together with your arms straight. Bend your legs and cross your toes behind you. Arch your again barely and elevate your chest up towards the bar. With out kicking your legs, bend your arms and pull your chest as much as the bar. Decrease your self down below management and repeat.

9- Band Pull Aparts This train primarily works your mid-traps and rhomboids. Utilizing nothing greater than a resistance band, it's ultimate for individuals who spend numerous time sitting at a desk and must work on their higher again posture. Break up lengthy durations of sitting with a set or two of this nice train. The best way to do it: Maintain an train band in entrance of you utilizing an overhand grip. Increase your arms ahead and as much as shoulder-height. Together with your arms barely bent however inflexible, open your arms and stretch the band out throughout your chest. Return to the beginning place and repeat. Watch how you can do Band Pull-Aparts: 10- Face Pulls Like band pull-aparts, this train emphasizes your rhomboids and center traps. Nevertheless, you’ll want an adjustable pulley machine to do it, so it’s finest included into your gym-based again coaching exercise. The best way to do it: Connect a rope deal with to an adjustable cable machine. Set the pulley to round head-height. Seize the deal with, straighten your arms, and step again right into a staggered stance for steadiness. Bend your arms and pull your arms again to both facet of your face. Think about you are attempting to place your thumbs in your ears. Pull your shoulders down and again. Lengthen your arms and repeat.

Face Pull Train Wrap-up Lots of exercisers spend most of their coaching time on the muscle tissues they'll see within the mirror, specifically their pecs, biceps, quads, and abs. Whereas these areas of the physique are undeniably necessary, so too are the again muscle tissues. Again coaching is essential for creating a well-balanced physique, rising power and efficiency, and averting harm. Get and maintain your again in nice form by coaching it as exhausting and as usually as the remainder of your physique. Read the full article

0 notes

eiael-thinks · 7 years

Text

IT: some thoughts by me

I just saw IT and I loved it even though I had some quibble with it. I just want to type my thoughts out really quickly. There will be spoilers for both the book and the movie, so I’ll throw it under a cut.

As I said, I loved it. They movie really captured the terror, humor, and pathos of the book. Over the course of the movie, I laughed out loud MANY times, I got choked up And even shed a tear, and I also hid my eyes at a couple of really fucking scary moments.

As someone who was 11 years old in 1989, I can definitely say they nailed what it was like to be a preteen at that time. the weird freedom to go where ever, roam all over town on your bike, get into it with other kids, sneak a cigarette, curse like a sailor, and be subject to pretty fucked up cruelties from other kids as well as adults. (As an aside, I read the book for the first time when I was 13 fwiw)

The actors who played the Losers Club were phenomenal, and Skaarsgard was freaking off the charts scary as Pennywise. The adults all hit that sweet spot of either menacing or so emotionally distant as to be negligible forces in the lives of the kids. The movie does an excellent job of capturing the sense of “Derry below.” The part of the town of Derry that’s only accessible to kids, and completely under the radar of adults. Some of this is shown to be bc of IT’s influence, but some of it really is just the way adults overlook groups of kids.

Henry Bowers was also very well portrayed, but a lot of the character development that happens in the book with him (i.e.: him slowly going from a vicious bully to someone who tried to kill the Losers to someone who does kill his father) is pretty compressed bc of they constraints of the story. Also oddly, they made his father a cop rather than a racist drunk, for really no reason I can discern other than that it will play into part 2 when they come back as adults.

The thing I missed the most was the ways the kids fought Pennywise, and the different solutions they try before finally going down into the tunnels. In the books, Bill steals his dad’s gun and he and Richie try to shoot it at the Neibolt Street house. IT attacks them as a werewolf, the gun does bubkes, but Richie (forever the joker) has itching powder, his bad impressions, and his jokes... and those DO harm IT. Of course, they focus on the werewolf thing and make silver slugs for Bev to shoot IT with a slingshot (FYI, they change up the kids’ strengths... I’ll come back to that), and the silver does hurt IT bc IT does have some of the weaknesses of whatever form IT’s in, but once again, it’s Richie’s jokes, Eddie shooting it with his inhaler, and (iirc) Bill yelling at IT without his stutter that make the big difference. To me, this part of the book is so important bc it fit’s in with that famous Neil Gaiman quote on the importance of fairy tales. It’s not that monsters exist, it’s that we can beat them... and the theme of these kids, these “Losers,” beating this primordial evil with the weapons forged from their “weaknesses” and the pure beliefs of childhood, which both make them such tasty prey for IT but also the most dangerous weapon to wield against IT, has always meant a lot to me.

In the movie, they jump straight into a physical confrontation with IT at the Neibolt Street house. There is no prep beforehand, no silver slugs, and the entire encounter is very different from the book. However, the whole sequence is scary as shit and the kids all get their moments to shine.

The biggest change the movie makes plot-wise is that the kids decide that IT’s lair is underneath that house, and they are right. This cuts out the whole sequence of them being chased into the sewers by Henry, as well as a lot of the parts of the story where they’re hanging out in the Barrens which are personal favs of mine. But here’s the BIGGEST spoiler (be warned)

~~~~~spoiler space~~~

Rather than gathering together and going off to fight the monster as a group for their own reasons, the movie has Pennywise kidnap Bev to get them down into the sewers. I assume this is to provide a narrative mirror to the adult plot, when Bill’s wife Audra gets kidnapped by Henry and brought to IT... BUT I was not happy with that decision. Bevvie is not a damsel in distress. OTOH, having her have a one on one with Pennywise gave the audience a hint of how they might handle the Deadlights and what IT really is, and that was really cool and well done. It also reinterpreted how “We all float down here” might look, and again, really fucking cool. Bringing Bevvie back from from the Deadlights is done very sweetly, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

For those wondering, the infamous escape sequence (aka tween orgy thing) DOES NOT happen THANK GOD (not that I was too worried it would, but still...)

Now to the thing that bugs me the most: the way they switched up the kids’ strengths. Bevvie is never the dead-eye gunslinger, and she never gets to run point on an attack (she does however save Bill and get in a great hit on IT). Stan’s neat-freakness is never really touched upon, and the scene where he helps Bevvie clean up the bathroom and directs the other kids how to create order from chaos is given to Bill. They also really downplay the amount of antisemitism he faces, which I think is a shame bc so much of the book parallels the mundane human evil that lurks in Derry alongside the more flamboyant supernatural stuff.

Speaking of not addressing social issues, the vast majority of the racism that Mike Hanlon and his family face, the hate crime that burned around 100 black people alive in the nightclub The Black Spot, and the constant torture of Mike by Henry bc of his race is almost completely absent. Again, I think the movie missed a chance to make the points about the evil humans do that King addresses so well in the novel. Also w/r/t Mike... he is no longer the historian of the group. Mike was always my fav character, bc as a kid he’s into history, and then as an adult becomes the librarian. The movie takes that away from him, and that pisses me off to no end. The black character is basically reduced to the muscle in a lot of the scenes, and that’s not cool.

Because the movie mostly does away with the Barrens as the main hang-out, Ben never gets to show his engineering prowess. Rather, he is the kid who knows the history bc he’s new in town and hangs out in the library where he puts together Derry’s fucked up history. Again, I’m disappointed they took the history nerdery away from the black character, and the building/physical labor away from the fat kid.

Oh and FYI, even though they downplayed the racism and antisemitism and ableism the boys faced, boy howdy do they lean into the slut-shaming Bevvie faces.

All that being said, the movie does an excellent job with each of the kids. They all have compelling stories and set-pieces dedicated to their encounters with IT and how that reflects their individual fears and strengths. While I might have made different choices with how to condense the story, I was still very impressed.

This review might read more negative than I mean it to. I really enjoyed it, I will almost definitely see it again, and I am super excited for the adult’s chapter. But I also needed to get some of this off my chest... so I hope you enjoyed the word vomit.

TL;DR: the movie is AWESOME. it dropped the ball in a couple of ways, but it’s still well worth the price of admission.

#it 2017 #stephen king's it #review #horror #my two cents

3 notes · View notes

steamishot · 6 years

Text

Not homeless

I’m pretty burnt out at work at this point ~4pm. I felt sick this week, I think due to having a lot going on and the weather changes. I also think I’m pmsing so I’m more tired than usual. It’ll be interesting to see when my period will come this month and if I will return to having a regular cycle.

It was match week last week. On Monday Matt found out that for the second time, he did not match. During this period, I spent the most time with him- saw him like 10 days in the last 12/13 days. Which now that I’m typing it out, is a LOT and the most I’ve ever seen him. I think because he was so vulnerable, he confided in me a lot. During that week, there was a soap process/scramble where unmatched candidates can try to find an open slot. He told me that only his family and I know that he was doing that and he didn’t tell his friends about it. He felt the chances of getting into a program through soap was so low that he pretty much gave up/didn’t try his hardest. Which is a shame because he got one in person interview and one phone interview. Anyway, I did my best to be supportive. On the day he didn’t match, I sent him lunch through uber eats. I bought him a stuffed animal the weekend prior for good luck and in case he got bad news. I hung out with him and provided comfort. I enjoyed doing all that with him but it was also pretty draining in retrospect lol. Now he’s bouncing back and I hope he can do better this time around.

Last Saturday, my uncle came to pick my grandma up to take her out to eat breakfast and bring her to his place for dinner. My mom and dad had plans to go to a party that day and therefore my grandma traveled alone with my uncle. Normally my grandma clings onto my mom. My dad hates that and wishes my grandma would rotate around her other 6 six kids places instead of staying at our home all the time. When my grandma left, my dad was so happy to not have to be responsible for her for a few hours and allow my mom the freedom of not having my grandma to babysit. I think my mom was happy to have some space as well. She ended up going to yoga with me and my friend for the first time. Afterwards, I took her to thread eyebrows (for myself, but eventually she was curious and I pushed her to do it). She was always afraid of eyebrow hair falling out or becoming too thin, so she never allowed people to wax or thread her brows, but she actually really liked how it turned out. We also had lunch together in Monterey park with my friend before I brought her home. She was really grateful for me taking her out and had a joyous time. This makes me think that I should spend more time with my family and less with my partner during the weekends lol.

Last night I saw matt again spontaneously. His parents had just bought a new car for him. He called me while I was driving home from work and then asked me to hang out when I was approaching downtown. I said no it’s okay let’s just stay home, but he resisted (to try to be cute) and I don’t understand these cues so I’m just like okay make it happen then. The biggest stressor about being with him is our differences in time management and planning. He’s more free flowing, spontaneous and relaxed. I’m normally very punctual and considerate of other people’s times and pretty good at judging how much time so and so takes. He said he would go get dressed and head out to my house to pick me up. I was a little annoyed already because I knew that he’s kinda slow in getting ready and I’ll probably have to wait like 20 min for him. In hindsight it’s really not a big deal. I could have gone home and relaxed for a bit. But I think I’m just more anxious overall because he’s a secret from my family and I get stressed out anytime he comes to my house. I want to avoid my mom asking me where I’m going/who I’m going with. And avoid them finding out about him. So instead of going home, I told him we can meet up somewhere along the way. We ended up doing that and because I was annoyed and hangry and possibly PMSing, I started scolding him for not respecting my time. Last week, we had agreed to meet for dinner at 5:45, and he didn’t show up til 6:15. Over the weekend he got a phone call related to his career while we were having lunch and I ended up just waiting alone for like 45 minutes. Also, we stayed at an Airbnb a mile away from his house. He forgot to bring his hair product so I offered to take him home to do his hair. I waited in the car for like 10 min for him to do that. I guess on the surface I try to appear supportive, but the selfish part of me does not like waiting around and these incidents plus others added up.

I scolded him more through text in the morning as well, saying that he comes off as not very reliable. That if he shows up on time 4/5 times that’s still 1/5 times that he’s late. I told him that he gives himself too much credit for doing the minimum and he gets complacent easily. And I connected it to how he acts in his career, which is why I think he didn’t match. I was pretty emotional in sending the texts (I think I’m PMSing) but I felt his response was direct and comforting. I like that he doesn’t give in to the emotional turmoil (because I don’t think he has the capacity to) lol which is good because in my last relationship, both of us would be emotional during these “fights” and it would take longer to move on from it. Honestly, it’s not a big deal. Because if this is the biggest problem between us then I think that’s okay. I won’t expect him to change, but I hope that we can work together to make our shared experiences better and more fair.

Anyway, over the weekend he said that I make him happy and that he wants to make me happy too. And he told me to choose a restaurant for dinner. I first said hot pot, but he’s like is there anything new you want to try? So I hit him with SUGARFISH LOL. We ended up going and the bill was like $96.

During one of our talks a few weeks ago about him not matching and going to have a $20/hr job… he said he will save some money for applications and spend the rest on hanging out with me. I think he was joking but he said that’s around $400 a week we can spend on fun. When he asked me how much I’d put into this “fun pool” I said that he can pay and I’ll do the labor i.e. planning, bookkeeping, etc. I don’t know if I’m shooting myself in the foot but I do feel that I do more of the “laborious” activities and he just pays which is a simple act that doesn’t require much thought- and that I’m technically working harder for our relationship.

However, I don’t think I should think about it in that sense. Naturally, women are more nurturing and care more about their relationships. Men are dependent on these relationships but don’t necessarily understand what the women need (in hetero relationships) from them. He is working hard in his career to provide for me and his future family. So i’ll try to think of it as we’re using our strengths as a team. I’m good at and enjoy planning, and should plan for our enjoyment, not to expect him to mirror me. The last time I saw my indian mama, she gave me some relationship advice - i told her how my sister in law was complaining to me about my brother being spoiled and lazy. she said it takes asian men like 8 years to learn how to do things/clean up around the house because they just don’t know!! she noted how asian men, compared to western men, have lower EQs and she repeated this a lot- they just don’t know. and she said it’s okay that they don’t know because it means they don’t have bad intentions. however, she said if they do know and they continue causing harm, then that’s bad. and i totally agree with that.

0 notes

wewithus · 8 years

Link

The Five Minutes for Freedom series is a collection of small, step-by-step walkthroughs designed to help you take concrete political action in support of the principles of We With Us. The articles in the series are designed to be read and their steps followed in order, as later posts frequently build on earlier ones. A chronological index of all posts in the series can be found here. While this information is targeted primarily at US readers, we welcome readers from all countries and encourage you to adapt these strategies as necessary for your jurisdiction.

5M4F 12: Update Your Rolodex (Round 2) and Protest by Phone (Round 3) [Trump, Carson, Puzder, Perry, and the abortion ban] Dependencies: 5M4F10.

Much like last week, most of your 5M4F tasks this week will be to script, and then make, calls to your representatives to ask them to rigorously vet and ultimately reject the confirmation of Trump’s most dangerous cabinet and White House appointments, to protest those appointments after the fact, and/or to object to top-level legislative priorities of the incoming administration. But first, add this line to the other contact information for your representatives in your 5M4F document:

Donald Trump is now your president. That means that he is now answerable to you. You can very quickly start making him answerable to you by signing this WeThePeople petition to divest of his business interests or put them in a blind trust; and this WeThePeople petition to release his tax returns and any other information necessary to confirm that he is not in violation of the emoluments of the Constitution.

Once that’s done...

All three of the appointments you’ll be protesting this week are cabinet appointments and require Senate approval: Ben Carson, Andy Puzder, and Rick Perry (nominated for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Energy, respectively). Your voice is also urgently needed to halt the enactment of a draconian abortion ban that threatens the rights and lives of womb-possessing people throughout the country.

Like last week: write yourself a script that you can use to walk you through your calls to your representatives (there is an in-depth breakdown of this process in 5M4F5, which is also excerpted behind the cut), then give your local field offices a series of calls to protest these appointments. To be most effective, you want to only call your representatives about one issue at a time, so you will need to make multiple calls throughout the week to best keep your calls focused and to the point.

I also strongly urge you to share this information with your friends and family offline and encourage them to join you in making calls with you. Our goal should be to keep the phones ringing at every field office in the country, all week long, demanding that our elected representatives do their jobs, i.e., represent us.

If you want to do this all in one go: unfortunately, these can’t be completely finished all in one go, because of the issue of keeping individual calls focused on a single issue. But what you can do is script all your calls together (that you can do today, and it’s basically a copy-paste job, so it shouldn’t be too onerous), then make your three calls about Carson in one block on Monday, your three calls about Puzder in one block on Tuesday, et cetera.

If you want to do this five minutes at a time: easier! Your three scripts for a single appointee will probably only take you about five minutes to assemble, and one call will probably take about five minutes to make. You can sprinkle your scripting throughout the day today, and sprinkle your calls throughout your field offices’ business hours during the week; or script your calls about Carson today, then call about Carson and script for Puzder Tuesday; whatever.

There is some starter info on each of the four nominees/appointees/issues, with reasons to call about them, behind the cut; as well as a template for your scripts, and some info about what to do if you can’t make calls. Shortcut links:

Ben Carson.

Andy Puzder.

Rick Perry.

Abortion rights.

A note on how to protest amid breaking news.

How to write your scripts.

What to do if you can’t make calls.

Once you've made your calls, check in on this week's poll to let your fellow humans know you've got their backs!

Ben Carson (nominated for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development): The most fundamental reason to oppose Ben Carson as Secretary of HUD is that he opposes efforts to end housing segregation. Housing segregation remains rampant in the US in large part due to racist governmental actions that themselves have ended, but the lasting effects of formal governmental racism in the past today mean that people of color are more likely than whites to live in areas without easy access to fresh, healthy food, are often more vulnerable to housing market instability and were on the whole hit harder by the crash, are more likely than whites to be zoned into de facto (previously de jure) segregated and underperforming schools, are set up for more frequent and more-likely-to-be-violent encounters with the police, and are harmed and held back on countless more metrics:

"[On] every measure of well-being and opportunity, the foundation is where you live," Nikole Hannah-Jones, the ProPublica reporter on whose reporting much of the episode was based, told TAL's Nancy Updike. "Cancer rates, asthma rates, infant mortality, unemployment, education, access to fresh food, access to parks, whether or not the city repairs the roads in your neighborhood."

[source]

Housing discrimination and the end of urban segregation needs to be at the top of HUD’s priority list. Ben Carson thinks that’s a bad idea.

Andy Puzder (nominated for Secretary of Labor): Puzder is an anti-regulation fast food executive whose employees face wage theft and a bananas 2 in 3 rate of sexual harassment, if they’re women; who opposes the new overtime rule and thinks robust worker protections constitute a “nanny state.” He is, just in case you’re curious, anti-abortion and anti-bathroom protections for trans people, but he does find it in his heart to support scantily clad women sexily eating burgers on TV. He is being nominated to run the department in charge of penalizing companies for breaking minimum wage laws and defending worker rights and safety. He thinks all of that is a bad idea.

Rick Perry (nominated for Secretary of Energy): There’s a misconception out there that the Department of Energy is responsible for handling things like the power grid; for the most part, it isn’t (it does do some stuff related to the grid, including securing it against cyberattacks, but a lot of the power-related stuff falls under the purview of the Department of the Interior). However, the Department of Energy is responsible for managing the US’s nuclear weapons and the security thereof, which I, personally, think is pretty fucking important. Rick Perry doesn’t know what the Department of Energy is called, but he is on record pledging to abolish it.

Oops.

Abortion Rights: A bill has been introduced in the house to make abortion illegal as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as 6 weeks, when many women do not yet know they are pregnant. I want to be really clear about this: what I am about to say here in this post is an argument for abortion rights that specifically approaches this issue from a human rights perspective; it’s very, very far from the only reason why abortion should remain legal. However, this is the reason why if you want to defend the rights of your fellow humans, you must protest anti-choice legislation, no matter how you feel about abortion on a personal level: if abortion is made illegal, rich people facing an unwanted pregnancy will go to Canada or the UK or Japan or any other country where they can still get safe, legal abortions, and they will live. Poor people facing an unwanted pregnancy will have dangerous, illegal, unsupervised abortions, and they will die. Want proof? OKAY:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year . . . . By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher . . . . Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted . . . . Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way . . . . A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women . . . . In the late 1960s, an alternative to obtaining committee approval emerged for women seeking a legal abortion, but once again, only for those with considerable financial resources. In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone; by 1970, package deals (including round-trip airfare, passports, vaccination, transportation to and from the airport and lodging and meals for four days, in addition to the procedure itself) were advertised in the popular media.

[source]

You cannot force someone to carry a fetus to term inside their bodies. I’m not saying you shouldn’t; I’m saying you can’t:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

[source, same as above]

I’m telling you, it was really an awful situation. It touched me because I’d see young, [otherwise] healthy women in their 20s die from the consequences of an infected nonsterile abortion. Women would do anything to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. They’d risk their lives. It was a different world, I’ll tell you.

[source]

Women came to me mostly from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, but also from all parts of the country. It very quickly became apparent that there were too many women — I could not possibly see all of them. My primary care practice disappeared, and I ended up providing abortions full-time. And there was no way there were enough hours in the day.

[source]

The decades before Roe v. Wade were the bad ol’ days. It was horrible carnage — and every one of those deaths was preventable. These women weren’t dying of exotic diseases. They were dying of simple things like hemorrhage and infection, and any third-year medical student with adequate equipment could’ve easily handled it. But the reason those women were dying is because the country had not yet made the decision that these women’s lives are worth saving.

[source, same as above]

Abortion access is a human rights issue. Make sure your legislators know that.

A note on protesting amid breaking news: Because I’m drafting most of this several days before it’ll go live, and because I can’t know when, precisely, you’ll actually make your individual calls, the exact nature of how you protest these appointments and laws may need to change a little bit based on how far the confirmation/legislative process has got by the time you’re calling.

So. If the nominee you’re calling about is still undergoing confirmation hearings, then encourage your senators to rigorously question the nominee on issues critical to protecting the rights of your fellow humans. If the confirmation hearings for that nominee are finished, focus instead on encouraging your senators to vote against the nominee’s confirmation. If the confirmation has already gone through, either thank or criticize your senator’s vote, depending on which way they voted; and in any case make it clear to them that you continue to watch their voting behavior to see whether or not they will have your vote in 2018 (or 2020, or 2022--again, it’s worth also taking a second to check when your particular senators will next come up for re-election. Senators up for re-election in 2018 are listed here. Senators up for re-election in 2020 are listed here. Senators up for re-election in 2022 are listed here.).

Similarly, when you’re calling about legislative priorities, depending on what has happened around that legislative issue since this post went live, you will either be urging your representatives to vote a particular way; or be thanking or criticizing their vote, depending on which way they voted, and making it clear to them that you continue to watch their voting behavior to see whether or not they will have your vote in 2018 (or 2020, or 2022).

Also, when you call your congressperson in the House about Cabinet appointments, since the House doesn’t vote on Cabinet appointments, just encourage your House representative to go on-record as opposing the nomination. The goal here is to make a lot of noise, and also to try and muster the political left to come together and resist the incoming administration with full-throated determination and conviction.

Anyway, to handle how fast this is moving, I recommend that you plan on searching a reputable news source, like The Guardian, shortly before you make your calls, for any breaking-news updates on the confirmation process that may require you to tweak your scripts.

How to Write Your Scripts (excerpted from 5M4F-5):

The basic phone script for calling your representatives goes something like so:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} [Jot their name down.] Hi, <their name>. My name is <your name> and I’m one of <your representative’s name>’s constituents in <where you live>. I wanted to let <your representative’s name> know that I strongly <support | oppose> <the thing you’re calling about>, because <succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is <your representative’s name> planning to <do the thing you want>?

Then you have to plan for a few different responses:

They’re with you: Thank you. Could you please let <appropriate pronoun> know that <expression of gratitude> and <indication that you will continue to watch your representative’s behavior and hold them accountable>?

They’re neutral: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. I would very much appreciate it if you could let <your representative’s name> know that I feel very strongly about this and would really encourage <appropriate pronoun> to <do the thing you want>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

They oppose you: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. Can I ask why <your representative’s name> is <not doing the thing you want>? [Let them give you a reason, and write it down.] Okay, thank you. I understand <appropriate pronoun> concerns, but as one of <your representative’s name>’s voting constituents, I would really appreciate it if <appropriate pronoun> revisited <appropriate pronoun> decision because <alternate succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

<expression of gratitude>! <polite send-off>!

I want to point out that you probably don’t actually really need to plan for all of these responses. You can probably make a pretty good guess where your representative stands based on their party affiliation. However, especially if your representatives are moderates and often vote across the aisle, it’s not a bad idea to spend a little time planning for all three cases, because then your behind is covered, and you can recycle this language over and over on later calls, to different representatives. And yes: we will be calling other representatives.

This is the sample script that I wrote back in November, on a different issue and to Barbara Boxer, who has been replaced by Kamala Harris, but it gives you an idea how the Mad-Libs-filling process works:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} [Jot their name down.] Hi, <their name>. My name is <Ginny Washington>, and I’m one of <Senator Boxer>’s constituents in <West Hollywood>. I wanted to let <Senator Boxer> know that I strongly <support> <her resolution to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College>, because <I think every American’s vote should count equally>. {I just wanted to thank her for all her hard work on behalf of the principles of equal representation and equal protection under the law.}

<Thank you so much for your time>! <Have a nice day>!

If you can’t make calls: I recommended before that if you can’t make calls, you copy down snail mail addresses so you can send snail mail letters, and that you grab an email address or online contact link no matter what. Calls are the most effective, if you can make them, but please, do send snail mail letters if you can’t, or an email if you also can’t swing a stamp or get to a post office. You can use the script above as a template for your letter, but you’re probably going to want to default to assuming that your representative opposes you, and you’ll have to of course make it sound like a letter and not a phone convo.

If you care about correct forms of address: weirdly, because these things are super arcane, technically the correct way to address your senator or representative is still “The Honorable <whoever>”, as in, “The Honorable Barbara Boxer.” That goes on the envelope. You can then write “Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. <whoever>” as your salutation.

#we with us #5m4f #five minutes for freedom #oppose ben carson #oppose andy puzder #oppose rick perry #save abortion rights

2 notes · View notes