a sex "worker" is a great model of a commodity, not of a worker. idiots who fail to read marxist or feminist theory fail to even guess at where it misses.pic.twitter.com/DC56eLfKT8
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Ontologically, there is no real difference. But to say that is to spew a trivial dictum. No, we live in a world where sex and gender are being exploited to their cores. But this shouldn't lead to either valorization or inferiorization of sex workers. The matrix should be changed.
Oh certainly. I don't think that women's position as a commodity is a justification for any continuing state of affairs. But there's also the worrying ignorance to this within sex work discourse--positing sex work as 'just another job' with 'just another laborer' is just untrue.
Maybe. Doesn't make the the initial point less ridiculous.
My point is that we are not having a good take on exploitation meaning we either see it everywhere as a metaphysical paradigm or we we treat it extremely arbitrarily.
Potentially, and I don't doubt the possibility of such a scenario--but it doesn't seem that reflects the overwhelming majority of cases. Even with massive gains with women in the workforce, role-differentiation continues. Even marriage continues to be roughly a trade between men.
Yes, absolutely. I'm not one of those real subsumption guys but I think a lot of what we think about gender and sex are informed by the pathological frameworks in which we live in and unfortunately can't be changed overnight. We are stuck in much more hellish vicious circle.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.