More Lies from the Labour Party

MP Debbonaire is saying Corbyn sacked her when she had cancer, and that she resigned to avoid making the party look bad.

So either;
Corbyn sacked an employee undergoing breast cancer treatment. Extremely uncharacteristic and awful if true. An MP is using her breast cancer to make another politician look bad. Extremely low and awful if true.

Neither of those scenarios are particularly edifying.

It is worth noting that the resignation is a matter of public record; she told her constituency that she was resigning to help block Article 50; and she also resigned during the mass resignations orchestrated by the Party coup. 

Interestingly there are three accounts of the LP meeting where Debbonaire announced her resignation and at which she later claimed to have been intimidated (a claim which helped certain members suspend all CLP meetings). 

This is a meeting that apparently that left writer Ruth Davies in tears. Oddly, the other two accounts of the meeting are overwhelmingly positive, and both writers stated that they had no idea why Davies felt the way she did.  

It may be important to point out that both writers were similar to Davies in age, one was a white male software developer, the other an Iranian female socialist.  

Sasha Sadjady points out that there were maybe 4 Momentum activists in the room, spread out amongst 300+ people, and she said that Debbonaire, the chair, breached party rules 7 times in order to not discuss Corbyn. Sadjady also said she felt as though she had been at a different meeting than the one described in Davies' blog post.

The other, Chris Esson, said that he heard two men being rude (out of 300 people) but that they were in a firm minority. He also stated that the meeting was in no way toxic or close to bullying.

Of course, none of that matters - because the 'pretty young white woman made to cry by evil Bolsheviks' trope trumps things like facts, accuracy, and eye witness accounts.

Just look at Johanna Baxter. I have worked in some extremely tough jobs with very unpleasant people. I confess there were times where I had to go for a walk, and cry. Once or twice I had a cry on the walk 

home.

You know what I didn't do? I didn't cry for over 4 hours on national television. 

Aggression in the workplace is utterly unacceptable. It is also not the only form of relational aggression. Tears can be just as manipulative and intimidating as yelling, and a lot harder to call a person on. 

It is simply a reality that some people will say, do and lie about the most awful things imaginable - if it gets them what they want. And worst of all, they will be mostly unaware that they are doing it. They will often sincerely believe that they are telling the truth, or that they have good reasons for their 'white lies'. That what they do and say is justifiable in the grand scheme of things. 

It might be argued that Baxter's reaction was the result of online harassment, which is entirely possible. Look at Zoe Quinn for example. She was doxxed, harassed, people spread naked pictures of her, created animated revenge porn of her, made death threats. Quinn had to involve the police and at one point the FBI.  

Baxter shared some of the 'vicious' comments made to her. One was a guy disagreeing with her. The other was a person telling her she was spineless. The other was unpleasant and sexist. 

None of them were threats. 

Asking Baxter and Channel 4 for proof of the threats saw people told that they should 'believe women' and 'wasn't C4's word enough'? Unfortunately; no, it is not enough. The media lie, all the time, with gleeful abandon and no accountability. I am not going to accept that Corbyn, a generally decent and amiable man by all appearances, is endorsing and encouraging bullying by voting for a transparent ballot, unless you actually have evidence to back that up.

Secret ballots are highly unusual, and I would argue, undemocratic when it comes to MPs and TU officials. These people are elected; knowing how they've voted is a key part of whether you are likely to elect them or not. 

Is it acceptable that being in public, especially as a woman, leads to vociferous abuse online? No.

Is the solution to subvert the democratic process, as Johanna Baxter wanted? Absolutely not.

I am deeply uncomfortable with how gendered this campaign has been. Eagle has a pink banner and keeps saying that she should be elected because she's a 'strong woman'. Debonnaire invokes the 'sexy cancer' and claims Corbyn sacked her for it, despite clear evidence to the contrary. 

NEC official Baxter and Labour Party member Ruth Davies break out the waterworks to support their claims of bullying and harassment. And because they are attractive, young, white women the public and media go gaga over it and accuse anyone who questions them, or asks for evidence, of being anti-woman and anti-feminist. 

I think they are my 'favourite' group; people who in other circumstances would use terms like 'feminazi' or 'sjw', who start using and abusing feminist rhetoric because it suits their agenda.Of course, none of this actually matters. Ruth Davies' op-ed of a Labour Meeting, where she expressed views not shared by anyone else attending the meeting, went viral because people want to believe that Momentum are a group akin to the blackshirts.

Eagle's baseless assertion that her office window was bricked by a Corbyn supporter - when she works in an area with an average of 3 acts of criminal damage a day - has been largely accepted because people want to see Corbyn supporters as thugs.

Baxter's tearful ramblings are unsubstantiated and affected, but people believe them because they want to portray Corbyn's Labour as a macho, 70s style misogynistic cave. After all, it's a handy way to try to alienate Corbyn from his younger, more radical supporters.

Funnily enough, left wing MP Diane Abbot's accounts of daily harassment - which unlike Baxter's accounts, came with evidence and incurred police involvement three times - didn't get a fraction of the sympathy or hand wringing. 

I am seriously starting to think that even a leader like Jeremy Corbyn cannot redeem the cesspool that is the Labour Party - and the British Media. 

Matt Haig Vs Social Media

 I recently read "Reasons to Stay Alive" by Matthew Haig. It was beautifully written, and relatable, but it was disappointing to see yet another book about depression that stigmatises anti-depressants. Perhaps Mr. Haig's bout with the illness was mild, but for many, anti depressants are life saving. 

I felt that it was irresponsible.

The author also posted this ill advised tweet on May 30th.

Why Ill Advised?

Well for one, he quickly demonstrated he didn't know enough about the topic to comment.

For another, he didn't seem to grasp what he had actually said. He shared a Ricky Gervais quote about not being able to take criticism, implying that he was being trolled for no reason. 

I don't think he quite gets that what actually happened was - 

He insulted people.

He got insulted back.

He then got upset that people couldn't accept different points of view and opinions without getting nasty. As much as I hate to go playground - Matt, you started it. 

This only happened because he deliberately insulted people who have a different belief system to him. 

Blogger Okwonga wrote a sensitive analysis and rebuttal of the issue here. 

Student Midwives Showcase Why UK Women Don't Trust Them

A few years ago, there was a programme called "One Born Every Minute" where a midwife crowed about tricking a woman out of an epidural.

It sparked a Mumsnet discussion about labour experiences.

There were also discussions on midwifery forums. Staggeringly blinkered discussions between people with no sense of self awareness or irony.

One in particular, started off in a reassuring manner. They discussed the problems with access to anaesthetists, slashed budgets, a few bad apples. They were angry and upset at the way midwives were being portrayed, and wondering why women distrusted midwives.

All very nice, and utterly understandable.

They then proceeded to illustrate exactly why British women do not trust midwifery care.

The words "belief" and "opinion"crept in - concepts that have no place when it comes to medically proven techniques. And some really nasty views and opinions were expressed.

• 'wannabamidwife' suggested that women who wanted epidurals were "entitled", because pregnancy is 'not an illness'. 

• 'Mkunga' says "If epidurals were never invented, how many of these woman would have coped with labour because they had to??" as though that's at all relevant. People used to cope using whiskey and laudanum during surgery before anaesthesia was developed. That doesn't mean it's acceptable to do now. 

• 'Strawberry' was a particularly disturbing individual, and I hope I never have the misfortune to have that person as a midwife. They describe women who have had bad labours as "angry and exaggerating'"people who "haven't a clue". They also suggest that "epidurals are a priviledge (sic) not a right!!"

Despite their assertion that they had no agenda to push, most of them expressed a very clear agenda. One admitted she resented women who had epidurals because she didn't get the option.

They were more upset by people expressing honest experiences of objectively poor care than they were that people in their profession had provided poor care, and in some cases, left women with PTSD.

Their characterisation of birthing mothers was as angry, clueless, entitled fools who should be grateful they weren't labouring in a mud hut. They classed the desire for pain relief as entitled and privileged. They spewed vitriol, were incredibly rude about their patients, expressed hostility and jealousy toward their OBGYN colleagues, and frankly, could barely string a sentence together.


These are supposed to be university educated medical professionals.

This unprofessional, contemptuous attitude toward birthing women is not unusual.

It was disturbing, and nasty, and cemented my decision that I would rather save up and pay for a private c-section (despite the greater risk to me) than give birth in a Midwife Led Unit. 

Guardian Exploit Suicide of Teenager

The Guardian have exploited the suicide of a teenager to push propaganda against the junior doctors. I don't know what to say.

Both the publication and Steven Morris should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

Stephen Fry, Free Speech and Mental Health

The Stephen Fry thing is really interesting.

I usually love what he says, but what he said about abuse survivors is (obviously) fucking disgusting.

Free Speech Fetishists

It highlights what one journo called 'free speech fetishists'; i.e. free speech at any cost - a cost usually paid by other people. It's often utilised by people who would claim that they are the oppressed underdog - think Greer using her platform as a feminist to bash trans people, and thinking she's being 'edgy' when actually, she's just being an arsehole. 

She could - quite rightly - claim that she experiences oppression as a woman, and as an older woman to boot. What she doesn't seem to get is that trans people have it objectively worse than non trans people. She is kicking down, viciously, and that's one of the things that makes her (and Fry) wrong in this scenario. 

They are both using a privileged platform, built on social justice and equality, to mimic the very behaviour they claim to find loathsome.

Seeing Criticism as Censorship

These are the people who also claim they are being 'oppressed' or 'censored' if anyone reacts against them. 

Stephen Fry has left Twitter several times due to criticism; I do have some small sympathy for him, because I noted that a lot of the comments were pure trolling, or focused on his sexuality.

Greer was due to speak at Cardiff University and students there decided to protest, because they disagreed with her transphobic beliefs.

It and similar incidents sparked a wave of whinging editorials about the over-sensitivity of our youth and their inability to hear anything that conflicted with their namby pamby liberal views. This completely ignored the fact that the students had heard what Greer had to say, and they thought it was appalling.

When the Cardiff University students protested against Greer speaking at their university, they weren't stifling free speech; they were exercising it.  

 Similarly, Brunel University invited Katie Hopkins to speak at a panel debate about immigration. Katie Hopkins is a person who called immigrants cockroaches, and suggested that refugee children should be murdered by our army for the crime of fleeing their country in terror.

Students of the university attended the talk, then walked out en masse when she was due to speak. Those students weren't childish, coddled fools who couldn't bear to hear the hard truths uttered by a visionary. 

They were decent, intelligent human beings who exercised their right to protest because they believed that a tabloid journalist who advocated for the murder of infants had no place on a fucking debate panel. 

(That link is no-followed, because FUCK Katie Hopkins).

Mental Health

Stephen Fry's comments are super hypocritical given his mental health advocacy and personal struggles.

However I am also incredibly grateful that any time I've been in a very bad place, the thoughtless, horrible comments that spilled out, that I didn't even believe at the time, weren't recorded *forever* and splashed across the media.

For most people, a breakdown or episode might cost you a relationship, a friendship, a job. They won't be a matter of public record. They will be around, and public, forever. I hate Piers Morgan's views, articles and attitudes. But his patronising screed about being worried about Fry is sadly spot on.

I have already seen these comments used as an excuse to falsely brand Fry a paedophile, largely because he is also gay (a ridiculous and bizarrely persistent prejudice among the ignorant).

The guy seems to be ill, and as a general public, we are - once again, laughing at this person and making them a figure of fun, because celebrities aren't people, after all.

People who (hopefully) wouldn't trip a person with a broken leg, or make fun of someone with cancer, will cheerfully laugh at Sinead O Connor's struggle with bipolar. They'll mock Amy Winehouse's depression and substance abuse. They'll think it's utterly hilarious when Britney Spears has a breakdown, or Randy Quaid descends into paranoia. They shared videos of Sheen's 'Tiger Blood' phase, and some degenerates even sent abuse to the bereaved daughter of Robin Williams after his suicide. 

Fry's comments were appalling, utterly vile and symptomatic of his privilege and hypocrisy. They're also likely symptomatic of a manic episode, and likely to cause suicidal depression at a later date. I believe journalists, loved ones and publicists have a joint responsibility to look after people with mental health problems. It's a fine line to walk without infantilising people, but allowing them to humiliate themselves in a public sphere is not the only alternative. 

It's intensely telling that this has happened a couple of months after the BAFTA incident, and is a double warning that he should take some time and recover.

Why Comparing Abortion to the Holocaust is Offensive

I don't know why this even needs explaining. But I will, if only to straighten out my own thoughts on it, and because I am baffled that anyone thinks this is ok. 

Abortion & The Holocaust

Abortion is a common, legal medical procedure that in over 90% of cases happens in the first trimester and involves 2 tablets to dislodge a cell growth.

The Holocaust was a violent genocide of over six billion living humans. It included forced labour, imprisonment, starvation, torture and murder. It also included sexual violence and inflicting forcible sterilisation and abortion on unwilling women. 

The Nazis Removed Bodily Autonomy

The Nazis banned abortions for Aryan women (making it a capital offence) and subjected women they disapproved of to forced sterilisations and abortion.

The thing that disturbs me most about pro-life rebuttals to this argument is that they don't see that forcing a woman to have a baby she does not want and forcing a woman to have an abortion are equally bad. 

Many women during the Holocaust lacked bodily autonomy. They were subject to sexual violence, medical abuses, forced sterilisation, forced abortion (note the forced bit). Pregnancy for a woman in the ghettos or camps meant death. 

Abortion Saved Lives During the Holocaust

Pregnancy in the ghettos or the camps meant selection and death. It was a truism during the war. It is referenced in Schindler's Ark, where they touch upon Schindler's purchase of 'gynaecological instruments' to save the life of one of his women workers.

A more historic and heroic example of this hideous situation is Gisella Perl. I do not believe human life begins at conception, but Perl did. Nevertheless, she performed thousands of abortions on women - because she knew the alternative was definitely death for mother and child, possibly preceded by cruel medical experimentation. 

There are some very strange people who see Perl as a butcher. 

This is a woman who violated her own personal beliefs in order to save literally thousands of lives. It would have been easier and safer for her to let those women go to vivisection and death. She would have been murdered had she been caught. But instead, she made the hard choice and risked her life to save theirs. 

Most importantly...

The Jewish Faith is Explicitly Pro Choice

The Jewish position is that the mother's life always takes precedence over that of the foetus. Abortion is also acceptable where the pregnancy is causing physical or mental distress. Unsurprisingly, Conservative Judaism is stricter than Reform Judaism, a movement which is explicitly pro-choice. 

Co-opting the genocide of a group of people who explicitly disagree with your beliefs in order to promote your beliefs is pretty unpleasant. 

So?

I am not saying that pro-lifers are Nazis for being anti-abortion, any more than I am saying that pet owners are Nazis because Hitler owned a dog. 

I am saying that the Nazis sought to restrict bodily autonomy for all women, in several different ways. 

I am saying that that was an explicit technique of the Holocaust. 

I am saying that comparing the right to abortion to a genocide that specifically sought to take bodily autonomy and choice away from women is ludicrous. 

Stephen Fry and the BAFTAS

Stephen Fry made a rude joke about Jenny Beaven at the BAFTAS and was pilloried.

Now, I love Stephen Fry.  I think he was bantering with a friend, and that should have been taken into account. I also think his joke was  ill considered, because yeah, women do get shit for what they wear when men don't.

I don't think this is a case of egregious sexism. I also don't think that this is an example of 'social justice warriors' (how I loathe that term) bullying a great person, or about how we're all 'too politically correct'. 

I think this is an example of how we can't leave people with mental illness the fuck alone.

Stephen Fry & Bipolar

Stephen Fry is a man who has been open about his struggle with bipolar disorder. He's produced brilliant documentaries, spoken about his suicide attempts and works with fantastic organisations like Mind. He's acknowledged that his personal wealth cushions him from some of the negative effects of his illness and that in some respects he's very lucky compared to others. 

He's still a human being, struggling with mental illness, in the public sphere. And the public sphere's reaction is to mock him for it. 

Let's go over events leading up to him being excoriated on social media and the press. 

• Ill considered, slightly off remarks.
• Arguing with people online and off. 
• Expletive laden 'meltdown' in public.
• Sensitive reaction to criticism. 
• Grandiose gestures (quitting Twitter).
• Wanting to run away (the suggested move to Hollywood).

All behaviours which sound immensely familiar to anyone who has ever experienced mania.

Criticism of Fry

I've scanned social media and some comment sections and was utterly unsurprised by the reactions. Trolls and MRAs (who usually hate homosexuals) wanted to use him as some kind of poster boy, because he'd been 'mobbed by SJWs'. Some women accused him of misogyny. A subset of out and proud homophobes used the opportunity to criticise his 'lifestyle' and used words like 'hissy fit', 'flouncing' etc to convey their utter disdain for what they wrongly think gay people are like. 

Some people also mocked him for what they saw as his over the top reaction to 'a little bit of criticism'. 

This sort of reaction isn't 'a little bit of criticism'. This is literally thousands of people telling you that you are a terrible person. This is especially awful for a person suffering with bipolar. This is a man with a documented history of suicide attempts, being told he is a dreadful human being.

I applaud his decision to get off Twitter, because it's probably a good idea for his mental health right now. It shows as well that he is feeling well enough to extract himself from a situation which is making his mental health worse.

The Court of Public Opinion

There's often this bizarre perception that celebrities aren't really human, or that being a little bit different entitles other people to point and laugh (and destroy other people's lives).

The Daily Mail mocked Katie Price's disabled son. Richard Littlejohn conducted a media harassment campaign against a trans teacher until she killed herself.

A food columnist called Jack Monroe, who writes entertaining books and articles about how to feed yourself on next to nothing, was bullied relentlessly for being a lesbian and later coming out as non binary. She was also criticised for being 'middle class' although why that matters, especially when it's not true, is a mystery. She had bizarre lies levelled at her - Katie Hopkins accused her of vandalising war memorials - as the child of a veteran British soldier, Monroe said she would sue. Julie Bindel accused her of promoting animal cruelty with cheap meat, even though Monroe only uses free range, organic meat, and explained that that is why she doesn't eat it very often.

In terms of mental illness, you only need look at Britney Spears and Sinead O Connor. The public sphere treats celebrities with mental illness as hilarious. They talk about them as having made bad choices, and not as being unwell.

Anger as Self Help Mechanism

Years ago, I was ranting about low pay in this country and how everyone deserved a living wage. The person I was with asked what my salary was (they were close enough to ask the question and already had misgivings about my job at the time). I told her, and she said, "Hmmmm. No wonder you're so angry about wages."

It gave me pause, and it was true.

I still believe a living wage is a right, and that a lot of welfare that is supposedly paid to 'feckless individuals' is actually a form of corporate subsidy - that wages are artificially low and rents artificially high because corporations & landlords know the government will top up criminally low salaries.

But my excessive, unproductive anger was a result of it being a very personal. I was being underpaid for my skill level, and my response should have been to move on (and I did, soon after).

Self Care & Martyrdom

Pictured: Delicious Smoothie. Does not prevent cysts.

Recently I got pretty het up about this article.

I've had a similar health scare lately, although luckily it didn't require surgery.

I don't think the lady who wrote this and I would get along.

She felt betrayed and let down when she got an ovarian cyst, because she had, "spent most of my life eating a balanced diet and exercising regularly, and strongly believed in a preventive, holistic approach to disease."

Oh fuck off. So what, that means that women who don't follow your particular brand of woo deserve ovarian cysts? At least it's consistent with the 'holistic approach to disease / I don't understand how medicine works' attitude. She also 'balks at even mild painkillers' and gets upset about the anaesthetic - I mean, would she prefer open surgery without it?

Later, she demands a metaphorical cookie for not using the morphine she is supplied with, putting it down to a 'strong constitution'. Apart from the patronising, ableist, bullshit implication that people who need pain relief are weak (as opposed to strong), there is nothing edifying or worthy about putting yourself through unnecessary pain.

Self Help

Then I realised why I was so angry about this. I do exactly the same thing.

Cysts are super common and often develop for no reason.

Yet, when I had my health scare, I convinced myself it was my fault for having a (mildly) wild youth. I had bought into the kind of bullshit the writer peddles just as much, just from the opposite direction. That kind of self blame is magical thinking, just as much as thinking vegetables & exercise will prevent cysts.

As for the pain relief - well I frequently try to endure pain when I shouldn't. I'll lie awake in agony several nights of every month, rather than take an ibouprofen, because I have the bullshit idea that NSAIDs will extend my period. I'll ignore a headache because I feel like I 'should' be able to - and other pain will simply be ignored. I'll tell myself that masking the pain will stop me from fixing the actual problem. Whereas, in reality, sometimes I have a headache because I'm tired. A paracetamol and a good night's sleep will fix the problem far more effectively than simply enduring pain, pointlessly.

Takeaway

Anger can be justified and straightforward. It can also be your brain's way of telling you something. Consider how the subject of your anger relates to your everyday life, and go from there.

Radical Choices and Myopia in Politics

By Hirsute2008 (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0), GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Our society's attitude to body hair is really weird. It was really difficult to find a image of a woman's body hair that wasn't politicised, sexualised or an object of mockery.

Body hair is hot topic in both choice and radical feminism, where regular women who need an income are often caught in the middle between the irritating and unfair amount of money and time they are expected to spend on grooming for work, and unworldly rad fems who work in academia, or for non profits, and think intact body hair is the only correct or laudable choice. The latter seem to lack the ability to see that if you work in the non academic private sector, or in the retail / service industry, refusing to remove your body hair could actually cost you your job. It might be couched in terms of 'appropriate grooming' or 'dress code' or veiled feedback. But the pushback and consequences are real. And if the 'choice' is between employment or body hair, most women will shave their damn legs. 

Fair? No. But even less fair is the inability of supposedly clued up and intelligent women to recognise that the idea of choice can be a laughable concept in a world with a historical and current atmosphere of oppression.

The Problem With Radical Feminism

TDLR? Radical feminists decry the evils of choice feminism while making the same mistakes.

For example; one patronising and irritating rad fem article "It allows them to earn the benefits society gives women who don’t challenge male supremacy while comforting themselves with the idea that their behavior... is feminist." It doesn't explore or recognise the very real costs of challenging male supremacy, or why a woman might not want to fight every single battle she encounters. It fails to even examine situations where the choice is simply not there. In my experience, when I have engaged in even mild pushback on 'male supremacy' there have been real, unpleasant, and sometimes dangerous consequences. 

Sometimes it's been worth it. Sometimes it was pointless. Sometimes it would have been better - for me - if I had I kept my head down and my mouth shut.

Every single radical feminist I have met has been white, immensely privileged and has criticised other women for working and participating in 'patriarchal structures'. They can inexplicably manage to work part time or not at all, which is usually the result of inherited wealth, government assistance or financial dependence on another person. Consequently, they have more freedom, time, energy and disposable income than most women who work for wages.

The Twin Pincers of Radical Feminism and Patriarchy

I grew up in a patriarchal, religious household and I work in a male dominated field. As a result, I hate being told what to do, or how to act. I hate conformity of all stripes, and hate the idea that there is one 'right' way of doing things. I hate people telling me what to do with my body, whether it's a teacher telling me to dress more modestly or a peer telling me to dress more sexily or a rad fem telling me that the makeup that sometimes makes me feel good - and that I have to wear to (in reality) keep my job makes me anti-feminist. I hate when people tell me how women should be. 

As a result, I can see why women are drawn to the seeming warmth and comfort of 'choice feminism'. Because guess what - if you are a rad fem, you aren't helping. You aren't going to provide me with an alternative skill set or job so I can pay my bills. You aren't doing anything practical to replace patriarchal structures. You apparently don't have to work for a living, or else you work in jobs where you can say or do or wear anything you like and think it's the same for everyone else. 

Radical feminism is no better, or even very different, from patriarchy or kyriarchy or organised religion or any other group attempting to impose their arbitrary and wearying views on me. You are nothing more than yet another person telling me how to live my life and patronisingly informing me why I'm not measuring up.
While choice feminism argues that every choice is feminist (not true), radical feminism fails to acknowledge that not all choices are possible.

And that's not good enough.

Choice and the Sex Trade

To me, choice feminism is a fucking curse.

It ignores societal limitations on women's freedoms and elevates choices that are not even remotely feminist to a virtuous level - simply because they are being made by someone who identifies as female. Sexual choices are a particularly controversial part of the mix.
For example, a female choosing to cosplay as a Gorean sex slave is a choice. It is not one I feel any obligation to approve of or respect. The Gor books were written by a man called John Norman who explicitly stated that he feels female submission is the 'natural order of things'. His works decry consent as unnecessary and unnatural. His works are so egregiously offensive that fellow fantasy author Michael Moorcock has said, "I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten."

This is distinct from BDSM as a lifestyle, as BDSM is consensual, and also features male slaves and female dominants. It is also distinct from a woman who 'chooses' to be in the sex trade. It's a choice where a female is endorsing and participating in a subjugation that is still very real problem for many women across the world - as a hobby. 

Choice and the Sex Trade

Rachel Moran

Brooke Magnanti (better known as Belle du Jour) chose to be a £300 an hour prostitute in London, in order to help fund her doctoral studies. In Rupert Everett's documentary, 'Love for Sale', both she and Everett belittled dismissed a woman called Rachel Moran, who had been forced into prostitution as a child - because Moran had inconveniently pointed out that not all sex work was empowering and glitzy.

It could successfully be argued that both women should have had the choice of another (better?) source of income, and that Magnanti had choices the other woman did not. 

Magnanti is intelligent, accomplished and in some ways very admirable. She also lacks empathy, is solipsistic, and like many of the 3rd wave feminists she hates, doesn't understand the intricacies of choice and agency. 

For example, she maintains that if your job doesn't give you enough maternity leave, you can choose to find another job. Something that would work as a philosophy if it were a problem with one or two employers and not an endemic issue. And is probably an option for her, as she's a highly educated research scientist and published author who has won numerous awards. 
The failure to recognise that other people have different or fewer choices than you do is immensely damaging.

Intro

This is a place for me to vent, so I don't irritate other humans more than I have to.