I think it's very obvious that treating women as say wombs for hire by the general public or as commercial receptacles for penises are definitely specifically gendered forms of dehumanization that functionally treat women as the property of the male public at large. As much seems self-evident to me. I don't know how one can miss that. I mean when the consumer is a man and the product for sale is a woman's body, I just think it's very clear.
Except liberals don't want women to be forced into these jobs. Just that women should be allowed to make the choice to pursue that work if they want to.
And not just that women are able to pursue those jobs, but also they have absolute control over how they pursue their jobs.
Female porn stars don't have to have sex with anyone. They only have sex if they consent to doing so.
To your second point, the fact that market forces spontaneously favor the interests of men in the context of a larger, patriarchal social reality is neither surprising nor a good excuse as far as I'm concerned. (You may have noticed that I'm not the biggest fan of the free market.)
There is absolutely a patriarchal social issue where women are viewed that way, but you'll find that countries where women have more freedoms to pursue sex work have more rights for women in general.
Essentially. I'm not in favor of punishing the prostituted women or what have you for being sucked into these sorts of fields, as I really feel like that's a kind of victim-blaming, but I do think it should be a criminal offense to buy sex, that online pornography should be blocked, that no one should be allowed to hire an impoverished woman to use her as a womb, have her endure a full pregnancy and post-partum depression, and then take what is by all rights and reason her child away from her, etc. No one should be allowed to do these kinds of sick, parasitic things! There's no pay that's high enough to justify their existence.
Some of that is horrific.
But some women genuinely like making pornography. A lot of women enjoy watching pornography.
Just because you find those professions distasteful doesn't mean they aren't enjoyed by women.
And just because men tend to be the ones buying porn, ie, there's a patriarchal preference for porn, that doesn't mean there aren't women who genuinely enjoy making or watching porn.
Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.
This is more clear now as well. A liberal friend of mine would surely fall under this 'my wife is basically my property' belief. Any guy that looks at her in just the wrong way or if he even catches her flirting in the slightest, he loses his shit. So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way? Any at all, even a small minority.
Well by this logic someone could say the El Paso shooting wasn't necessarily politically motivated either. Sure they may have written a manifesto, but how does that prove anything? The individual clearly has issues, so much so they mowed down a bunch of innocent people with a gun at a store, and when they write down some stuff it's supposed to be taken seriously? Some people today have this idea that if you don't have a degree or professional title, your knowledge or opinion on certain matters is less worthy or useless altogether, so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something? How does anyone know what that lunatic was really thinking and feeling? Why would you take their word for it?
I'm not saying if a manifesto is written that it should be completely disregarded, but what exactly does it take to pin down motive to a mass shooter, who clearly isn't right in the head?
>Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.
My original sentence was "they're concerned about A or they're concerned about B". Putting "others" doesn't make sense in that sentence. "others" would make sense if the sentence was "they're concerned about A and others are concerned about B."
>So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way?
Are there some? Absolutely. But I'm actually talking about something slightly different. Some fundamentalist Christians view women as basically birthing canals that aren't allowed to get jobs. That viewpoint, you can certainly find some liberals who feel that way, but it's less common.
>so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something?
The person drove 9 hours to a major town near the border, and published a manifesto about said town minutes before shooting. There is a clear political implication there.
Just because someone is crazy doesn't mean they don't have reasons that make sense to them.
I'm not saying the second shooting definitely isn't left wing politically motivated, I am saying there is no evidence so far for that to be the case.