Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!
can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.
Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.
Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.
Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.
But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.
Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.
Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
NOTE: Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?
DKM, I have a much better way to solve the rate of “out of wedlock” births (although some of them might be from couples that don’t get married, for whatever reason– just ask His Brandonness).
Condoms.
Gee, maybe that little owl is being heinously deprived of his RIGHTS to fly in the wild, to starve in the winter, to be chased and devoured by falcons or hawks, and to develop his mental faculties by being confined in a cage like a common housepet!
Owl’s Liberation!! How dare a human stroke, pet, and love a cute, fluffy little bird, and deny him his natural right to starve in the wild!
Almost as bad as the way Houses of Entertainment would treat women in a libertarian environment…
Condoms have existed for generations! Why is the problem as bad or worse than ever, especially since the government, with its immense legal and media resources, has waged a campaign for condom use nonstop since the early ’80s?
Granted, we don’t expect the government to do anything (right), but still it would be nice to see SOMETHING by way of positive results from a decades-long propaganda campaign for condoms by 2011, wouldn’t it?
One can dream, can’t one?
So, DKM, you think that forcing women into brothels (tough shit, that’s what they are, no amount of sexy musicals will change that) is doing them a favor, like how wild animals are forced into captivity?
No only do you have no idea have domestication works, you’re once again showing what you really think of women: mere animals with little intellectdesires of their own.
brb barfing
I have a brave new option for handling hypersexual floozies–how about we send them to colleges, trade schools, and employers to pursue the careers of their choice? It’s so crazy it just might work!
Why is the problem as bad or worse than ever, especially since the government, with its immense legal and media resources, has waged a campaign for condom use nonstop since the early ’80s?
Which problem? Teen pregnancy, for example, is lower than it’s ever been in the lifetime of the Baby Boomers–a decrease due to increased teen condom use. Which, in turn, suggests that children born out of wedlock are not so much a problem as the results of a shifting set of norms.
I don’t think the idea of “norms,” let alone “shifting norms,” will sit well with DKM, though.
By the way, David, do you mind being called DKM? I can use your full name/your first name/whichever nick you want if you’d prefer.
Citation sorely needed, gasbag.
Erl: You can prolly call Meller DKM or Meller or K-Mell or David K. Meller or Dunning-Kruger Man or whatever, but our host David Futrelle has requested that we not call Meller David. Too confusing for other innocent Davids who might be reading and might not want to be associated with such kooky ideas.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-N28eG2go&version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0%5D
DKM, do you think women who have had more than one sexual partner in their lives have sex all day, taking occasional breaks for food and sleep? “Oh, I sure wish I could go to Syntax today, but my raging lady hormones require me to call my boyfriend for immediate boning. Oh wait, he’s at work! I guess I’ll just find some other person with a penis because that’s all I’m looking for really.”
Not how it works.
I think it comes from the same place as NWO’s “if you have a sex blog, you can’t complain about sexual harassment”–the idea that a woman either wants none of the sex or all of the sex.
They just can’t wrap their tiny minds around the concept of a woman who wants some of the sex.
It’s almost as though women are — GASP! — actual people!!!
*faints*
I missed this earlier but, DKM, are you seriously arguing that only sluts can work in the entertainment field?
Ozy- Yes, Meller comes to us straight from 1735, and only HUSSIES would work in the THEATRE! Even the strange talking home box!
AND, DKM adds heaping doses of racism and classism to his sexism and shows even more ignorance of the historical oppressions of women by religious institutions and generally continues to completely dismiss any shred of a thought that women have rights.
Just lovely.
Should I bring up, say, even very traditional lady jobs like wedding planning, (there’ll be tons of those, right?), matchmaking (Arranged marriages galore, right?), secretarial work, catering, shop clerking, all things that existed for lovely ladies in the glory days but weren’t sex work? Will these all be handled by the Houses Of Entertainment?
Laundry services/ Dry cleaning? Or do the Houses just do dry cleaning? Can a lady with no husband who does not wish a life in a house of entertainment even toil away with a needle and thread doing alterations?
Meller – “This was even accomplished in an environment where business opportunity for females–as for males–was enormously constricted by the prevalence of government run amok and its altogether out of control taxation/regulation/ compliance costs at all levels!”
Uh, okay, but we can’t open businesses or anything, so our business opportunity was always wife or “entertainment,” and the rest was affirmative action of some sort?
Help me out here, because I keep thinking that the free market would offer women all kinds of opportunities, including sex work and the entertainment field, but also including, say, opening a damn bakery? Owning a small farm and writing history books after you retire from teaching? Why would the invisible hand take my farm away and put me in the dolly house of entertainment? I’m scared now! Do I have to go be a Democrat if I wanna have a farm, Mister Meller? But I don’t WANNNA! I like free markets! And I wanna FARRRRRM! *cries* Oh, wait, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Phew.
” I am sure that other avenues of employment would be discovered for them, and possibly also religious institutions may have some instructive and even enlightening contributions to make there (e.g. future versions of “convents”, an analog to what used to be called “settlement houses’, especially if the girls got in the family way with no visible means of support”, ”
Oh, sorry, I take some of my comments back. You don;’t want them opening a dry cleaners or anyhthing crazy like that, but you’re all for laundries –
I was an unmarried girl
I’d just turned twenty-seven
When they sent me to the sisters
For the way men looked at me
Branded as a jezebel
I knew I was not bound for Heaven
I’d be cast in shame
Into the Magdalene laundries
Most girls come here pregnant
Some by their own fathers
Bridget got that belly
By her parish priest
We’re trying to get things white as snow
All of us woe-begotten-daughters
In the steaming stains
Of the Magdalene laundries
Prostitutes and destitutes
And temptresses like me–
Fallen women–
Sentenced into dreamless drudgery …
Why do they call this heartless place
Our Lady of Charity?
Oh charity!
These bloodless brides of Jesus
If they had just once glimpsed their groom
Then they’d know, and they’d drop the stones
Concealed behind their rosaries
They wilt the grass they walk upon
They leech the light out of a room
They’d like to drive us down the drain
At the Magdalene laundries
Peg O’Connell died today
She was a cheeky girl
A flirt
They just stuffed her in a hole!
Surely to God you’d think at least some bells should ring!
One day I’m going to die here too
And they’ll plant me in the dirt
Like some lame bulb
That never blooms come any spring
Not any spring
No, not any spring
Not any spring”
(…Well, Joni’s a slutty entertainer, so she’s biased. )
zhinxi (and the rest of the sisterhood)–Dec.8
I thought that I was speaking for the superiority of free market arrangements when I suggested that youall were mistaken, that women were NOT forced in any way to participate in Houses of Entertainment, that these centers may include what were once known as brothels, but went far beyond them in their activities, and that the opportunities offered to women there were much greater than anything available in our society precisely because of free markets.
I also EXPLICITLY provided for the availability of other sources of education and employment for women, including those having no sexual entertainment basis. I even allowed for the possibility of “non-traditional” education and work, although there would be no nutty Justice , Labor, or HHS Department regs, or even nuttier Supreme Court decisions,supporting them, so while it is ALLOWED to exist, the actual opportunity for women in men’s occupations and professions would probably be nominal at best!
A free market DOES offer women all sorts of opportunities, but it involves buyers and sellers! you can farm, but it requires people to buy the products produced on your farm, food, medicines, textiles, or whatever. You can run a bakery, but it requires a customer base to buy your baked goods. It also requires other things like record-keeping, up-to-date accounts payable and accounts receivable, advertising, insurance (premises, employee safety, customer safety, fire and theft insurance–Okay, these would be much rarer in a free market environment than today, but it means that rates would probably be lower,even for women’s bakeries or farms, not that risk abatement need no longer exist–Writing history books requires customers who would read them, and perhaps who would encourage or induce others to read them, and so on.
You would of course have all of this in the free market, and no, you wouldn’t have to be a laundress if you didn’t want to. I just mentioned this so I wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the usual “what would you do about the poor under laissez-faire?” for the 451,894 time that question was asked!
No, zhinxi, (re: December 8, 2011, @1:01pm), the “other traditional lady jobs” don’t have to be, arranged by entertainment centers. these Houses have a pretty full plate as it is, with almost everything under the sun being offered to their clientele, both sexual and otherwise. While a great many aptitudes, skills, and talents have to be cultivated to be a successful entertainer or hostess even as a bed playmate, much less an escort, a conversationalist, a masseuse/meditation guide, or even a companion/date for an evening, the women, and their managers/ instructors won’t have time to attend to the provision of other services some of their clients (and their girlfriends, fiancees, or lovers) will need and want. That would be where your suggestions of “wedding planners”, matchmakers, etc. would probably come in.
See! Lots and lots of opportunity for women who don’t want to be entertainers/geishas/courtesans… Happy Now?
“A free market DOES offer women all sorts of opportunities, but it involves buyers and sellers! you can farm, but it requires people to buy the products produced on your farm, food, medicines, textiles, or whatever. ”
It does? HOLY SHIT WOW! Tell me more about this! Uh, seriously, Meller, do you think I’m unaware of this idea? Is it new to you, or something, and you’re just sharing? Or… Something?
“ut it means that rates would probably be lower,even for women’s bakeries or farms, not that risk abatement need no longer exist–”
Uh, did I say risk abatement would no longer exist? Also, is there something more… Dangerous about a woman’s bakery??
In a free market, customers could tell the difference between an inferior female produced cupcake and a superior MAN CUPCAKE, and insurers would note that the cupcake shop was run by a woman, thus… Step 3, no profit?
EXTRA CREDIT —- And in a free market, the fact that apparently 95 + percent of all unmarried women are in entertainment houses wouldn’t drive the prices they could demand and opportunities for them in those houses down why?
“In all of the controversy over my “Houses” for sex-addicted women, especially if underage(?), or otherwise lack the judgement for permanent relationships, I forgot that this was supposed to be a description of women, their employers (or guardians) and the larger libertarian society.”
Now you want to offer your hypothetical customers totally-not-prostitutes who are underage? Wow, you just get creepier and more loathsome by the minute.
LESSONS FOR THE YOUNG ECONOMIST, BY Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/resources/5706/Lessons-for-the-Young-Economist
It’s a nice properly-libertarian-free-market-totally-biased book for children!
You can LITERALLY go back to libertarian grade school! It’s awesome! And free!
“As these girls are already shall we say, “receptive to male attention”, it is hard to feel sorry for them. It is even harder to imagine, on closer attention, that any kind of force, coercion, or intimidation would be necessary to either hire them or to keep them. IF any girls were, well, stupid enough to reject such opportunities for glamour, upward mobility (both in and out of marriage), and their considerable prospects for a stratospheric income–look at the incomes of, e.g. XXth cenury movie stars, singers (after they became famous), fashion supermodels, and female TV personalities. Not all, or even most, lady entertainers there will become millionairesses, of course, but it will do better by them than almost any other avenue of female employment!”
So you really do think that if a woman is willing to have casual sex she’s totally indiscriminating and willing to fuck any man who shows up. Do you actually know any women, Meller? Because your imaginary soon to be entertainers bear very little resemblence to actual women.
Also, re the weaseling, you actually are doing that. Don’t think we don’t notice that what you said before was that floozies would be “given” to the Houses, possibly by their families. A person accepting an offer of employment is not being “given” to their employer. The term “giving” implies ownership.