Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

OK, then, what efforts do you propose which will reduce the trafficking in girls but not in boys? And why would you prefer to implement them over strategies that target all trafficking?

I think my hypothetical example in my response to tyr answered the first question:

Say 5% of the girls are kidnapped from all girls schools while 90% of the boys are homeless orphans. If we have only so many cops, it would be best to monitor the all girl schools rather than patrol the streets.

If the facts are different, I might change my mind.

I prefer to use tactics that are efficient and save the most people. If we look at the situation and it turns out that girls can be saved more easily than boys, I'd put more effort into saving girls than boys. Sucks but has to be done.

 

[KingMerv00]

1) Rescue sex slave
2) If male, return to slaver
3) ...
4) Feminism!

3) Strawman invoked, proceed to 4.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it's not a "separate issue", nor can it be.

That's your opinion, Piggy, not fact. You are choosing to look at whatever aspects you think make the effect 'similar' and I am not. Surely the male loved ones of sex trafficked children and girls do not experience the same effects (if you are talking about any male affected indirectly or directly).

It only seems like a "separate issue" when viewed through the lens of feminism, or the particular one you're using, which filters out the interests and concerns of males.

Or the lens of attitudes and circumstances that make it happen, what happens to the women who were trafficked after they get out of the situation, the physical consequences, there are many things one can address besides the "same" issues that might affect the 2%. (Assuming you are talking about equating victims to victims.)

In the world of child sex trafficking, I think you'll find the proportion of males much higher than 2%, btw.

And even if it were only 2% (or 1 in every 50, with that 1 multiplied thousands of time to get the actual number) that would still not justify simply ignoring them, as seem to want to do in your rush to label this a "feminist" issue.

If the conditions that lead to sex trafficking are gender related that would be a reason to address females. For example, on Saipan, young women from China are lured there with the promise of US jobs. Once there they are exploited both for labor and sex including coerced abortions. Men are not recruited. The employment opportunities in China are fewer for young poor women and the desire to get ahead makes the temptation of working in the US different than for men.

You're being so PC, IMO, that you are refusing to look at any underlying causes which may indeed be gender related. The more specifically you address the underlying causes the more likely you are to be successful.

Here's an example: The Opium Brides of Afghanistan. Boys are not given in marriage to pay debts. Surely the social treatment of women as property is a specifically female gender related travesty?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What actions could be done to address sex or slave trafficking that would not help all victims? Would those actions get more value for the cost than actions that would help all victims?

I can't think of any actions that specifically help only women victims that get more value for the cost than actions that address the problem as a whole. I could be mistaken though.

The only one that could be argued that I know of is raising the status of women in places where they are oppressed, but that's not really specifically addressing human trafficking as much as one of the benefits of more equality as a whole.

Yes, raising the status of women in cultures where they are severely oppressed would make a difference.

Here are some gender related examples that addressing would decrease female sex trafficking:
Forced marriage including child marriage does not affect boys.
A family is more likely to sell a girl child than a boy child in cultures where women are not valued as much as men.
Opportunities for women in some countries don't offer a single women any chance of making a living wage. If you are not cared for by parents or husband you may starve if you don't turn to selling sex.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, then, what efforts do you propose which will reduce the trafficking in girls but not in boys? And why would you prefer to implement them over strategies that target all trafficking?

See my post above for the efforts.

Addressing the status of women in some countries has the potential to address multiple issues of human rights at one time.

 

[Piggy]

I think my hypothetical example in my response to tyr answered the first question:

What, a hypothetical that bears no resemblance to the real world?

No, that doesn't answer the question.

What would you do in the real world to save girls but not boys from trafficking, and why would you prefer that to strategies that help everyone who's a victim of trafficking?

 

[truethat]

Ahhh we're back to the lovely "potentials" again.

Dealing with the reality of oppression towards men......pooh pooh....it's the potentials regarding women that matter.

 

[Piggy]

That's your opinion, Piggy, not fact. You are choosing to look at whatever aspects you think make the effect 'similar' and I am not. Surely the male loved ones of sex trafficked children and girls do not experience the same effects (if you are talking about any male affected indirectly or directly).

Yup, it's fact. Males do suffer from human trafficking.

I never said there was "similar effect", btw. Nor does there need to be.

But in order to make this a strictly "feminist" issue, you have to ignore the male victims (too few to worry about, really, I mean what's a few thousand little boys after all?) and ignore the interests of the men who suffer from the kidnapping of their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, and granddaughters (they don't suffer enough to merit consideration) which you seem all too happy to do.

It's a bizarrely selfish and selective view of the issue, I must say.

 

[Piggy]

You're being so PC, IMO, that you are refusing to look at any underlying causes which may indeed be gender related.

First, nothing I'm saying is "PC".

Second, I've never claimed that sex trafficking is free of gender issues. That would be absurd.

 

[Piggy]

See my post above for the efforts.

Addressing the status of women in some countries has the potential to address multiple issues of human rights at one time.

But not the boys, because hey, it's just a few thousand boys, right? Nobody'll miss 'em.

 

[truethat]

I think what Skeptic Ginger is trying to say is that raping a boy has "less" of an impact on them than raping a girl.

I mean what else does

Surely the male loved ones of sex trafficked children and girls do not experience the same effects (if you are talking about any male affected indirectly or directly).

And so this sort of sums up the answer to the title of the thread.


Feminists want to treat women as "different" or "special" but when men or anyone else does the same thing it's "Sexist."

 

[bookitty]

OK, then, what efforts do you propose which will reduce the trafficking in girls but not in boys? And why would you prefer to implement them over strategies that target all trafficking?

Prefer to implement them? Anyone with a human heart would like to see all trafficking stopped. Period. At this point there are limited resources and options. The goal is to save as many people as possible.

The best way to do this is to identify why people are being exploited (Lack of economic options, social attitudes) or which can be reached (forced prostitutes, child slave labor) and address that. In countries where social attitudes contribute to trafficking, outside help is incredibly difficult to offer and at best helps only the tiny percentage who can ask for help. In countries where economic necessity contributes, there are a few, limited, largely ineffectual options. Name brand distributors and industries have taken some smalls steps to better the lives of workers when public outrage has affected the bottom line. Organizations which offer education have made a difference for a few.

Overall, it is a far-reaching problem with no immediate solution. None of the strategies currently implemented have done very much. A few things have proven to work on a small scale. One of those is improving the lives of girls through education and investment which has been shown to work in both patriarchal and impoverished areas.

The trafficking of human beings is not a feminist issue. Some feminists prefer to focus on the plight of women in these countries because feminism is humanism with a focus on women. Focusing on aspect of a huge problem does not mean that you don't care about the rest. It only means that with a problem this large, it is impossible to focus on all aspects all the time while still being effective.

 

[KingMerv00]

What, a hypothetical that bears no resemblance to the real world?

No, that doesn't answer the question.

What would you do in the real world to save girls but not boys from trafficking, and why would you prefer that to strategies that help everyone who's a victim of trafficking?

I said to Tyr:

I know basically nothing about the issue so I'm not much help.

I honestly don't know what steps I'd take. I don't have enough information. If the situation shows that focusing on one gender would not be helpful I wouldn't do it. If focusing on boys would be a more efficient use of resources, I'd do that.

I used a hypothetical because I'm ignorant, not to prove a point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think what Skeptic Ginger is trying to say is that raping a boy has "less" of an impact on them than raping a girl.

And as usual because you make up straw men on a regular basis, you would be wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But not the boys, because hey, it's just a few thousand boys, right? Nobody'll miss 'em.

It's not like you to be this irrational, Piggy. You chose not to address what I said and went with the straw man. Perhaps if I use bold and highlights ....

Yes, raising the status of women in cultures where they are severely oppressed would make a difference.

Here are some gender related examples that addressing would decrease female sex trafficking:
Forced marriage including child marriage does not affect boys.
A family is more likely to sell a girl child than a boy child in cultures where women are not valued as much as men.
Opportunities for women in some countries don't offer a single women any chance of making a living wage. If you are not cared for by parents or husband you may starve if you don't turn to selling sex.

Addressing the status of women in some countries has the potential to address multiple issues of human rights at one time.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Naturally. Off topic though. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't change the fact some things are bad here. I feel it's sort of dishonest to make the comparison. It seems like a rhetorical tactic to tell people to stop complaining.

I don't get why you feel like this. It seems to me that women have come extremely far in the last century and that MOST of any kind of equality gap has already been narrowed in the western world. It seems that from a bang for buck perspective that working on other regions would be incredibly more likely to increase the overall quality of life for women. I say get the rest of the world up to the western world and then close that last bit.

It's not an assumption, it is a conclusion. Look at the evidence. Women had more experience but made less money. What choice could have caused that?

A conclusion would have some sort of analysis explaining it. To me it's simply an assumption. There is zero proof that anyone was treated differently based on class. If you have analysis that shows this I would be interested in seeing it.

As for what could cause it? The choices of the employees working there. How hard they work. How available they are. How dedicated they are. How good they are at social networking within the company. Compensation isn't directly tied to role, it's based on what each individual brings to the party.

There is a complete lack of analysis about the actual cause of the problem from what I can tell.

I don't think it is impossible, I just think it isn't likely the best explanation. Besides I can't prove a negative. I can't prove it couldn't be the result of choice any more than you could prove it couldn't be discrimination. You look at the evidence and balance probabilities. You don't start with an assumption on either side. If Wal-Mart came back with reasonable counter evidence and I just haven't seen it, I'd gladly reconsider.

I'm totally fine with not assuming anything and trying to come up with an analysis that makes sense. That doesn't seem to have occurred though...
I freely admit walmart could be sexist and that could explain some of the gap, but I seriously doubt it's the whole story.

Nothing comes to mind at the moment unfortunately. All I can think of is the analogy of forced school integration. Sometimes you have to force an equal outcome today so that future generations get equal treatment tomorrow.

Yes the analogy is very loaded...just couldn't think of something less emotional is all.

You have no evidence that any kind of "forced outcome" is even possible or that it would fix the problem long term. You might simply be trading one type of discrimination for another.

Bottom line I've seen zero evidence that walmart doesn't provide equality of opportunity.

 

[NewtonTrino]

It's not like you to be this irrational, Piggy. You chose not to address what I said and went with the straw man. Perhaps if I use bold and highlights ....

Yes, raising the status of women in cultures where they are severely oppressed would make a difference.

Here are some gender related examples that addressing would decrease female sex trafficking:
Forced marriage including child marriage does not affect boys.
A family is more likely to sell a girl child than a boy child in cultures where women are not valued as much as men.
Opportunities for women in some countries don't offer a single women any chance of making a living wage. If you are not cared for by parents or husband you may starve if you don't turn to selling sex.

Addressing the status of women in some countries has the potential to address multiple issues of human rights at one time.

Almost every single one of these issues comes down to the economic freedom for women to earn their own keep and make their own decisions.
The one things almost all societies that are super oppressive to women have is lack of economic freedom, especially for women.

 

[Captain Obvious]

If there's anything worse than the dog with fur not caring about the geko it's got to be entitled gekos that have fur coats and have always had fur coats pretending they understand the struggles of women just because they watched them from the sidelines or watched them on Oprah.

That's exactly what I was just about to post.

 

[Piggy]

Prefer to implement them? Anyone with a human heart would like to see all trafficking stopped. Period. At this point there are limited resources and options. The goal is to save as many people as possible.

The best way to do this is to identify why people are being exploited (Lack of economic options, social attitudes) or which can be reached (forced prostitutes, child slave labor) and address that. In countries where social attitudes contribute to trafficking, outside help is incredibly difficult to offer and at best helps only the tiny percentage who can ask for help. In countries where economic necessity contributes, there are a few, limited, largely ineffectual options. Name brand distributors and industries have taken some smalls steps to better the lives of workers when public outrage has affected the bottom line. Organizations which offer education have made a difference for a few.

Overall, it is a far-reaching problem with no immediate solution. None of the strategies currently implemented have done very much. A few things have proven to work on a small scale. One of those is improving the lives of girls through education and investment which has been shown to work in both patriarchal and impoverished areas.

The trafficking of human beings is not a feminist issue. Some feminists prefer to focus on the plight of women in these countries because feminism is humanism with a focus on women. Focusing on aspect of a huge problem does not mean that you don't care about the rest. It only means that with a problem this large, it is impossible to focus on all aspects all the time while still being effective.

Now that is a sensible view.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, raising the status of women in cultures where they are severely oppressed would make a difference.

Here are some gender related examples that addressing would decrease female sex trafficking:
Forced marriage including child marriage does not affect boys.
A family is more likely to sell a girl child than a boy child in cultures where women are not valued as much as men.
Opportunities for women in some countries don't offer a single women any chance of making a living wage. If you are not cared for by parents or husband you may starve if you don't turn to selling sex.

Addressing the status of women in some countries has the potential to address multiple issues of human rights at one time.

But I'm not disagreeing with you on any of that.

Nor does any of that make trafficking a stricly feminist issue rather than an issue of human rights, as it is more properly viewed.

Women's suffrage, on the other hand, is a feminist issue, but even that cannot be defended on strictly feminist grounds, because the strongest argument for allowing women to vote has nothing to do with any qualities of women (e.g. "they're smart enough to vote") but is based instead on the broader argument that all people should have a say in government.

If you did want to argue women's suffrage on purely feminist grounds, you'd be forced to argue why women belong in the group of people who merit the right to vote, which may or may not continue to exclude other groups of people.