March 31st, 2007

Previous Entry Next Entry
03:08 am - on strippers and singing...

(49 comments | Leave a comment)

on strippers and singing... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 31st, 2007 - 03:19 pm (Link)
exactly. I never understood the theory that it was ok for an employer to exploit my mind but not my body. It just makes no sense to me. In fact, I'd by far prefer someone exploit my body than exploit my mind. As a personal choice I mean. Who am I to tell anyone else how they should allow themselves to be exploited?
[User Picture]From: lonelocust Date: March 31st, 2007 - 05:29 pm (Link)
I think the key to what makes something "exploitation" when you're getting paid is doing something that you don't want to do because you feel it's the only way to make money, and your employer or someone else taking advantage of your weaknesses by doing that.

I think the anti-porn feminists just don't get it. Or they are just so arrogant that they don't see taking away a choice from someone as degrading to the person whose choice they are in favor of removing.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 31st, 2007 - 05:43 pm (Link)
sure... but by that logic, I've been exploited at at least some point or another in like 90% of the jobs I've ever had. Its called working.

See, that's my basic probelm with the whole Feminist Movement™. I'm not a feminist. If anything, I'm a humanist. I believe in an individuals right to civil liberty regardless of their gender (or race, or creed). The classic Feminist™ on the other hand has restrictions on what's appropriate or not that in my opinion are just as damaging as Male Chauvinist™ opinions to the contrary.

And before anyone who self-identifies as a feminist yells at me, I'm specifically using loaded language here. Hence the bold and TM symbol.
[User Picture]From: lonelocust Date: March 31st, 2007 - 07:33 pm (Link)
I think that it's quite likely that 90% of jobs are exploitative to some degree.

Technically, you and I are "egalitarian feminists". However, I am distasteful of the word "feminist" because it invokes gender. I just call myself an "egalitarian". The colloquial use of the term "feminist" has essentially lost its technical definitions which include pure egalitarianism. And in a lot of ways, I'm fine with that. If I'm an egalitarian, there is no need for me to invoke gender with the words that I use. I think I wouldn't use the term "feminist" for this reason even if common useage still generally understood egalitarianism to be included.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 2nd, 2007 - 05:47 am (Link)
I'm not much into labels or identifying with organized political agendas at all. Pretty much, I am simply "Mav." That's usually enough.
From: (Anonymous) Date: April 3rd, 2007 - 03:39 am (Link)
Not liking labels is retarded and trendy!

Words for certain things exist for the purpose of communication. So that you don't have to use a score of smaller words to explain a certain standpoint, there's a word for that. That's a label. Deal with it!
[User Picture]From: lonelocust Date: April 3rd, 2007 - 03:42 am (Link)
That was me. Didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 4th, 2007 - 04:16 am (Link)
the problem is whenever I try to identify with any particular movement, I find that I usually find one key aspect that I'm rather opposed to. That's why I'm not in a political movement for instance. I find it much easier to simply label myself "Mav"

• Go to Top