r/actuallesbians are super paranoid right now about making sure "No terfs get in here." It's kind of funny

submitted by [deleted] from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It's only a matter of time before they start banning people since we all know there's no such thing as free speech on reddit anymore.

I'm confused; don't feminists also not believe in free speech? Don't feminists of all stripes pretty much ban anyone who disagrees with them?

I'm certain that Mackinnon and Dworkin wrote that censorship was required to protect women's speech, and an informed authority was required to intervene and correct for a social power imbalance. Which only leaves the question of who gets to select the authentic representatives of the marginalized and decide what must be censored in their interests?

[–]Maeven 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes, you're clearly confused about feminism.

If you'll do us the courtesy of sharing the relevant passages from Mackinnon and Dworkin, I will explain what you are missing and elaborate further for you.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Here ya go!

And one more

Privately consuming material offensive to feminists is a violation of women's civil rights. This is so obvious and non-controversial that several cities passed it into law.

[–]Maeven 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

LOL. That's not a free speech issue. Pornography is paid rape and women are against rape. Go figure.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Do you understand how your "everything is rape" position might be controversial? Pornography is paid rape? WTF? I thought it was an expression of women's free choice, normalizing porn was good for women because they can exploit men to make money, etc.

[–]Maeven 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Sure I can understand that not everyone sees it that way. But the abuses happening in the industry are undeniable and we already outlaw prostitution. I don't see any difference between prostitution and pornography. Both situations involve women who get groomed into performing sex, who are frequently misled about what they will actually be doing/drugged/and prevented from leaving the industry.

I suggest reading Pornland if you want a complete explanation of why radical feminists believe that the coercion in the industry amounts to rape. I'm just offering some highlights.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ah, but should people be censored from speaking their heterodox opinions on the subject? That's what Dworkin et al were arguing. Heck, they made it illegal. With jail time and everything.

[–]Maeven 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's not what I see in the links you provided.

Actually what I do see is feminists focusing on material remedies for physical harms caused by the porn industry, instead.

"the ordinance sought civil remedies that would enable women who are harmed in the making of pornography, or as a result of its consumption, to sue for a future ban on sexually explicit material demonstrated to be harmful and to collect damages from pornographers for provable harm done by that material"

Interesting that this was not a ban at all. It's actually a lot more powerful, because it is an attempt to hold an abusive industry responsible for the repercussions of their actions.

Where is this ban on speech? Where is this ban on contrary opinions?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Where is this ban on speech?

These unconstitutional laws were overturned on the grounds they violated free speech. Go argue with the judge.

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/02/24/The-Supreme-Court-handing-feminists-and-religious-conservatives-a/7440509605200/

Do you realize that this was something that Christians agreed with? Eww. That could have given everyone a clue that it was the wrong thing to do. When you got a table with a nazi and 10 people talking to her, you got a table with 11 nazis.

Where is this ban on contrary opinions?

the Ordinance rests on the "frightening principle that considerations of equality require that some people not be free to express their tastes or convictions or preferences anywhere."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/10/21/women-and-pornography/

[–]Maeven 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nah, man. None of that supports your conclusion. You are Hella stretching here.

Those judges were biased for sure. Male judges have made a lot of decisions that directly caused or allowed harm to happen, historically.

Shit happens, mistakes are made. Whatever.

I'm not talking to these judges, I'm talking to you. And you have yet to show me how holding an industry accountable for proven damage to performers and women is violating anyone's freedom.

Since I do not have a law degree or know legal jargon, you'll have to address it in your own words if you want to make your point.