I don't know whether or not feminist demonization of sex workers is widespread. I have heard of feminists who demonize sex work, because it can be exploitative and not everyone who engages in sex work is necessarily doing so completely of their own volition, in ways both similar and not so similar to regular work.
Was expressing thoughts on the matters raised in the article, which is primarily about the demonisation of sex workers by feminists.
Certainly demonising sex work seems compatible with demonising work generally, so long as one is cognisant that as a relatively small sector it can be very easily driven underground, which makes it considerably more hazardous for the workers.
Some other work environments are also largely concealed from public view, so though they're hidden for (somewhat) different reasons, workers in those sectors are also very vulnerable to abuse. Factory farms are one example, but there are many more.
Really I think it boils down to allowing the workers to be the ones whose voices are the most prominent with regard to their work, rather than other activists dictating over them.
Rereading the article, I honestly don't really consider SWERFs or TERFs to be feminists, and not even just in a rhetorical way. I didn't even mentally place them in the category of "people who could potentially be seen by others as feminists" when I read the article, which is why I was somewhat confused about the response. My bad.
That's fair, and tbh I don't either, which I suppose is the nub of why I find their positions counter to feminism.
If people really want to stop the exploitative nature of the work it should be out in the open and protected like any other job. It's the shame and hiding that allows this exploitative behavior
I don't know whether or not feminist demonization of sex workers is widespread. I have heard of feminists who demonize sex work, because it can be exploitative and not everyone who engages in sex work is necessarily doing so completely of their own volition, in ways both similar and not so similar to regular work.
Was expressing thoughts on the matters raised in the article, which is primarily about the demonisation of sex workers by feminists.
Certainly demonising sex work seems compatible with demonising work generally, so long as one is cognisant that as a relatively small sector it can be very easily driven underground, which makes it considerably more hazardous for the workers.
Some other work environments are also largely concealed from public view, so though they're hidden for (somewhat) different reasons, workers in those sectors are also very vulnerable to abuse. Factory farms are one example, but there are many more.
Really I think it boils down to allowing the workers to be the ones whose voices are the most prominent with regard to their work, rather than other activists dictating over them.
Rereading the article, I honestly don't really consider SWERFs or TERFs to be feminists, and not even just in a rhetorical way. I didn't even mentally place them in the category of "people who could potentially be seen by others as feminists" when I read the article, which is why I was somewhat confused about the response. My bad.
That's fair, and tbh I don't either, which I suppose is the nub of why I find their positions counter to feminism.
If people really want to stop the exploitative nature of the work it should be out in the open and protected like any other job. It's the shame and hiding that allows this exploitative behavior
Exactly.