Do you really believe in feminism?

[zmontreal]

I would say yes, I consider myself a feminist. I agree that there isn't as great of a need for feminism as there was 60 years ago, but to say that total equality has been achieved is a completely unfounded IMO. Even if the pay gap has narrowed dramatically, the fact that it still exists is a major problem. And no, it doesn't just exist because women make different career choices (for those in doubt read, http://business.financialpost.com/e...-same-degree-women-still-make-less-in-finance).

In my personal life I experienced a lot of gender discrimination while studying in a male-dominated field in university - so much, that I actually switched out of the field and into the humanities. Had I not gone into the field and studied something like psychology instead, I would have gone through university thinking that the problem doesn't exist. The problem definitely exists, you just have to be in the right circumstances to be able to see it. So I disagree very much with all the posters who say otherwise.

 

[Orange_Julep]

They earn less but are paid the same for the same job.

Females do NOT get more or less pay than men for being a female.

The wage gap is a myth: United States Census Bureau, 2013: Full-Time, Year-Round Workers and Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Sex and Detailed Occupation (Excel file).

The wage gap is a myth: Government of Ontario Pay Equity Commission, 2014: Gender Wage Gaps and Earning Ratios in Ontario (see Figure 3, Female-to-Male Earnings Ratio by Occupation, Ontario 2012, p.10; Table 3, Female-to-Male Earnings Ratio by Occupation and year, p.11; and Table 4, Average Hourly Wage and Female-to-Male Earnings Ration by Occupation, Ontario 2012, p.12-14).

The wage gap is a myth: Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2014: Même profession, salaires différents : les femmes professionnelles moins bien rémunérées (see Tableau 1, Salaire horaire moyen des employés à temps plein selon le groupe professionnel selon la Classification nationale des professions pour statistique (CNP-S) et le sexe, Québec, 2012, p.2; Tableau 2, Salaire horaire moyen selon le niveau de compétences et le sexe des employés réguliers à temps plein dans les entreprises de 200 employés et plus ($), Classification nationale des professions, Québec, 2012, p.3; and Tableau 4, Salaire horaire moyen des employés réguliers à temps plein selon la profession et le sexe dans les entreprises de 200 employés et plus, Classification nationale des professions, niveau de compétences A – Formation universitaire, Québec, 2012, p.5.).

Please note that all the above data (from reputable statistics agencies (the Government of Ontario data comes from Stats Can)) regards full-time employees over a full year. So no, unless we're willing to entertain conspiracy theories, the data presented here shows the wage gap is not a result of less hours worked by women but the result of workers being women.

Also, I could have provided a thousand more links on the female-to-male wage gap but I specifically restricted myself to wage gap by occupation and full-time employment statistics so as to deflect the inevitable argument that women choose jobs that pay less and are over-represented in the workforce in the area of part-time and minimum wage employment.

 

[Orange_Julep]

I said "imposing" NOT "more".

I never said you said "more". In fact, I cited you and took the time to highlight the passage I was referring to (re: differential treatment). Please read more carefully next time instead of putting words in my mouth.

 

[gugu]

zmontreal, the difficulty with the idea of equality is that, for some, society should aim for equality of outcomes. In societies where women have total equality of rights, a good basic level of material security and a real freedom of choice, they tend to choose fields in humanities and care where earning are less and they tend to work less because their priorities are not the same. It's a choice. In poorer countries like India a higher proportion of women in higher education choose higher earning profession like engineering. It's also a choice, that of economic mobility, unatainable through the institution of mariage. Th Conseil du statut de la femme is doing everything possible to encourage women to choose scientific and business careers. It's may be a good thing but I can't refrain from thinking they are women who did not choose that path for themselves. Women have the freedom to choose. Who are we really to tell them what to do.

 

[azzaro]

I never said you said "more". In fact, I cited you and took the time to highlight the passage I was referring to (re: differential treatment). Please read more carefully next time instead of putting words in my mouth.

I stand by my opinion. Feminists in the USA and most of Canada WANT differential treatment for being "feminine". There was a lot of discrimination against women in various fields of work pre-1950s, but that is NOT the case for the past few decades.

Females can choose any field and excel in it and go up the ladder without any discrimination in the past few decades, if they choose to do so. Yes, there a lot of male-dominated fields, but that should not be a hinderence if there is a true passion to study/excel in that field/s.

I do not see "equality" in most of USA and Canada from the female side (Feminists or not) since they do not initiate social and sexual contacts. It is ALWAYS men who do that. That is why half of the males from 25-55 age range are sexually unsatisfied in NORTH America and seek escorts and PORN as an outlet. In Europe, like I said before, females initiate social and sexual contact as much as men (true equality).

Most female escorts do it for a combination of money and pleasure. Some just because of economic need..but hey that would be a completely different topic-thread.

 

[Siocnarf]

Also, I could have provided a thousand more links on the female-to-male wage gap but I specifically restricted myself to wage gap by occupation and full-time employment statistics so as to deflect the inevitable argument that women choose jobs that pay less and are over-represented in the workforce in the area of part-time and minimum wage employment.

The same ''occupation'' is not the same as the same ''job''. If you take a man and a woman in the same company, with the same level of expertise, working the same amount of hours and overtime with the same level of responsibility they earn the same for the same job.

If you look at the hourly rates in your 3rd link, (tableau 4) a lot of them are 95% and above, meaning the overall 70% ratio can be mostly explained by shorter weeks for women. Full-time doesn't mean anything, it can be anywhere between 35 and 70 hours.

Also these data do not take experience into account. In many professions, like judge or doctor, the ones that earn the most are the older ones, meaning they are mostly men. This will change as they are replaced by the younger, more female generation.

The overall point is that yes women happen to have a smaller paycheck on average, but there are many factors involved and it's not due to discrimination.

 

[zmontreal]

zmontreal, the difficulty with the idea of equality is that, for some, society should aim for equality of outcomes. In societies where women have total equality of rights, a good basic level of material security and a real freedom of choice, they tend to choose fields in humanities and care where earning are less and they tend to work less because their priorities are not the same. It's a choice. In poorer countries like India a higher proportion of women in higher education choose higher earning profession like engineering. It's also a choice, that of economic mobility, unatainable through the institution of mariage. Th Conseil du statut de la femme is doing everything possible to encourage women to choose scientific and business careers. It's may be a good thing but I can't refrain from thinking they are women who choose that path for themselves. Women have the freedom to choose. Who are we really to tell them what to do.

I'm not really sure I understand your logic here. What priorities do women have that are different from men? Earning a living, starting a family? Those are priorities both sexes have, but only one gender is forced to bear the consequences of t decision. Women are no different than men in what goals they aim to achieve and certainly care about how much they earn (otherwise we would not be having this discussion). Also, the numerous articles we posted show pertain to women being paid less than men for the same exact job. I have yet to hear of a single, reasonable explanation for this.

In regards to lack of women in the STEM fields, you're looking at things backwards. More women are in the humanities not because they are less qualified for or interested in the STEM fields, but because the current system we have in place supports that arrangement. I'm a good example of this. I started out university as a computer programming major and I was so poorly treated that after a year that I switched into philosophy and graduated in the humanities instead (in a field where I never experienced any sort of discrimination). Now that I've graduated I don't have a job - which I expected - but I knew that I could never work in a field where my work would be valued less because of my gender. If the environment had been less hostile then I could say with certainty that I would be working as a programmer instead of an escort.

 

[zmontreal]

Being feminine involves equality and I do not see it in USA and Canada from the female side (Feminists or not) since they do not initiate social and sexual contacts. It is ALWAYS men who do that. That is why half of 20 and 30 something males are sexually unsatisfied in NORTH America and seek escorts and PORN as an outlet. In Europe, like I said before, females initiate social and sexual contact as much as men (true equality).

This is absolutely ridiculous. Did you ever consider that maybe women initiate sex less in North America because they're labeled very negatively if they do so? And that maybe this is a result of gender inequality that still exists today? Last time I checked, it wasn't ok for a women to go around having sex with whoever she wants, but it IS ok for a man to do so.

And even worse - what kind of blanket statement is this? Is this even valid? Did you interview every family in North America and Europe? I'm very aware of the (negative) stereotype American women have of being easy in bed.

 

[Orange_Julep]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your thought, Sionarf. I have to be honest and say I wouldn't even know where to begin, but lets go through this point by point.

Women have the legal right to choose parenthood or not. If the woman gets pregnant, even without the men's consent, the men has no legal right to decide and will have to pay child support. Even when the child is not his, an husband can be forced to pay for it or go to jail.

I am really puzzled by this statement. I'm not sure how "choosing parenthood" is a "legal" right. Historically, women have always been able to do whatever they wanted once they discovered they were pregnant. I hope you do not think that abortion was Morgentaler's invention. I'm also not to sure I understand what you mean by the right not to pay child support being related to legal rights, and that particular right (assuming it were a legal right) somehow advantaging women. My understanding is that child support serves to support child rearing - hence, children's rights, not women's rights. This may be the reason women also pay men who have full care of the child/children they have produced when women are the ones who stepped out of the mutual responsibility for child-rearing. So, to sum up, in your view, a truly equal society would be one where only women had to take responsibility for children once men and women did not take the responsibility of having protected sex, or when protection aids (condoms) were ineffective? A more equal society would be one where only men got to choose whether or not they bared responsibility for the financial costs associated to rearing the creature that emerged from their half of the chromosomes necessary to produce said-creature? Makes sense.

Women gained the right to vote without the obligation of getting conscripted and killed in a war.

I have no words.

In the workplace and in college some places have gender quotas, always in favor of increasing the number of women. Plus they have some special scholarships for women.

Could you please identify a college/university in North America that has gender quotas? Because as far as I know, pretty much all Western countries have seen such a huge surge of female students over the past decades that females currently outnumber men in universities. It would seem counter-intuitive that there would currently be (gender) positive discrimination practices in any higher education institution. I was also not aware that the surge in female students might somehow be related to positive discrimination policies, but if you have a real exemple to show me, I would feel much more knowledgeable on the matter. There are currently, you are right, several field of work that specifically seek to attract more female workers, but again, I am not aware of actual positive discrimination policies. Also, none of this has any relation to legal rights. Finally, there are scholarships for TONS of specific groups of individuals, women only making up one of these groups. For instance, there are scholarships for disabled students. Is this an injustice to non-disabled students? Not to mention that these funds come from private funds... The big public scholarship givers (Social Research Council of Canada; Fonds de Recherche du Québec) do not positively discriminate in any shape or form. The only thing that gets you a grant is the strength of your application (grades, publications, quality of research proposal), which is probably better known as "equal opportunity". Also, how is this related to "legal rights" again?

In criminal law, the prosecution and sentencing of women for identical crimes is much more lenient compared to men.

I expect some form of evidence to be attached to such a sweeping generalization. If you want, I will gladly offer sources that confirm that women are currently overrepresented in prisons as compared to men for crimes related to prostitution. What crimes did you have in mind?

There are plenty of advantage and inconvenients to either sex, but the point is that you can't say women have less rights.

I don't believe I ever said women had less rights. I think women are still disadvantaged, as compared to men, in a number of areas. Namely, income for the same work. And in the area of stigma associated to area of work :lol:

In the whole of human history there has never been a group as cuddled as the present-day occidental women. My main problem with present-day feminism is that they fight for more rights, but not for the responsibilities that go with it. The end-results are laws where women are treated like children.

Examples/data. Evidence is the name of the game (at least, for me). "More rights, no responsibilities" - in this specific situation, that's called a sophism.

I'm especially interested in evidence that women have more legal rights than men, as you stated.

 

[Orange_Julep]

I don't know much about the modern feminist except that they seem to dislike men, to despise prostitution, to be convinced that I am a victim.

Thanks Tiannas. But you know, the decriminalization movement in Canada and elsewhere is said to be a feminist movement. There are many types of feminists Not all of them make moral judgements on women's occupation.

I'm now stepping out of this conversation for a bit. Sorry for not answering everyone (and thanks to everyone who's participated so far!), but at the same time this is a thread and it doesn't belong to me. I also have to eat dinner at some point

 

[gugu]

Also, I could have provided a thousand more links on the female-to-male wage gap but I specifically restricted myself to wage gap by occupation and full-time employment statistics so as to deflect the inevitable argument that women choose jobs that pay less and are over-represented in the workforce in the area of part-time and minimum wage employment.

Your first link where the famous quote from Obama comes from, is precisely what the critics are about. The numbers are earnings, not wages. Be them applied to full time earnings is meaningless.

The Ontario and Québec data are quite different because they provide much more detailed info. The Québec data show a ratio of around 90%. That's very far from 78%. The Ontario data, much more detailed, yield approximately the same results with some additional info (part time female get higher wages then men) and explanations (being part a a union helps, ratio of 96% for the 15-24 y/o group)

I'm not saying there is no gap. (edit: yes I said so. I retract!) Just saying the gap is exaggerated, particularly by the president of the USA. Also, you will notice that the researchers are not concluding, like you, that there is gender discrimination. They say they are not able to understand the residuals. Because, after all, the law forbids discrimination.

 

[azzaro]

Thanks Tiannas. But you know, the decriminalization movement in Canada and elsewhere is said to be a feminist movement. There are many types of feminists Not all of them make moral judgements on women's occupation.

I'm now stepping out of this conversation for a bit. Sorry for not answering everyone (and thanks to everyone who's participated so far!), but at the same time this is a thread and it doesn't belong to me. I also have to eat dinner at some point

I am thinking hard and the only thing I can come up with is a " Bad Feminist vs Good Feminist" thread should be started. For that we will have to invite the top Bad Feminists and the top Good Feminists in North America. Cuz apparently The FEMINIST MOVEMENT is still alive after decades of new laws against discrimination. As far as being labelled a "bad girl" in USA/Canada if women were to start initiating social and sexual contact in USA/Canada (currently not the case) , nobody said a girl has to do it on the street with every Tom, DICK and Harry. It has to be done with sociable males in a social setting (the way it is done in Europe, in a true gender equality fashion).

 

[Siocnarf]

I apologise if my answer is short and may not cover all your points, but the discussion is getting bigger than I anticipated and I am running out of free time for tonight :smile:

I'm not sure how "choosing parenthood" is a "legal" right.

Right to reproduction: Legally, getting pregnant or not is 100% the decision of the woman. If a woman decides to stop taking the pill and not tell her husband, well it’s her decision. The man has no say to terminate the pregnancy or not, but he has to pay to raise the child. I’m not sure where you get that women always had the *legal right* to abortions. Isn’t that right like one of the major feminist battles?

Finally, there are scholarships for TONS of specific groups of individuals, women only making up one of these groups.

I know there are many scholarships for diverse groups, but these are usually marginalized groups. ‘’Women’’ as a whole is not a marginalized group. I also know that the vast majority of scholarships are gender blind, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are no scholarships to incite more men to go into more female-dominated fields like psychology or nursing.

What crimes did you have in mind?

Like all the other crimes (apart prostitution, which is a drop in the prosecution ocean)
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
"men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.’’

"More rights, no responsibilities" - in this specific situation, that's called a sophism.

I already gave you one (right to vote without the obligation to military service and conscription). You said you had no words. Anyway here's a piece on the subject. Like I said there's not that many, ans some may not seem important to you, but the point is they exist and there is no legal rights that apply only to men.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-legal-rights-women-have-that-men-dont/

 

[Siocnarf]

They say they are not able to understand the residuals. Because, after all, the law forbids discrimination.

This is pure speculation on my part, but the residual could be due to women, on average, not negotiating their salary as strongly as men. In many professionnal jobs, salary to a new employee is offered based on a multitude of factor, but they will always try to pay as cheap as they can get. It's up to the employee to sell his skills and try to get as much as he can. In any case, since the salaries for many jobs are negotiated between employer and employee it's impossible to say why one person might be offered less than another one.

 

[gugu]

Women are no different than men in what goals they aim to achieve and certainly care about how much they earn (otherwise we would not be having this discussion).

I understand it's hard to make generalizations and that our personal experiences may differ quite a lot. However, women are more likely to work part-time and work less hours when full-time even where they have high monetary incentive to work more in medicine and finance for instance. Of course there is an obvious explanation: giving birth and taking care, more then men, of kids. But there seems to be more then that.

 

[gugu]

This is pure speculation on my part, but the residual could be due to women, on average, not negotiating their salary as strongly as men.

Warren Farrell makes the same point. He tends not to pull these statements out of his ass. We have to check his references.

 

[CaptRenault]

When you say you respect us as escorts, would you respect us as dating prospects? Would you actually go out with an escort? Do you have any different ideas about women who are escorts compared to women who are not? (I am not really interested in your stories about dating escorts/strippers, of which this site is filled, but more your thoughts on how you deal with the idea of dating us on a moral level).

For most guys, this is a hypothetical question that very few guys ever have to answer. Most escorts, with occasional exceptions, generally don't seek boyfriends or potential dates among their clients. But if an escort ever gave me a clear signal that she wanted to go on a date with me and I liked her, sure of course I would go on a date with her. Since I don't think that prostitution is immoral, there is no issue of morality in dating an escort.

Do you believe women are the cause of women who are escorts (i.e. of prostitution demand)?

Prostitution is an institution found in almost all civilized societies no matter what the status of women in a particular society. I don't think it's true that modern feminism causes men to pay for sex more often than they otherwise would. Men have always been willing to pay for sex and some women have always been willing to sell it.

Do you believe that women who are escorts - and let us limit ourselves to women, as myself, who claim some sort of validation or empowerment through escorting - are actually legit when they say they get enjoyment out of it? Do you believe that these women are generally honest or deceiving?

Yes, I take them at their word, but not all escorts claim to love their work (any more than all cooks or lawyers make such a claim). The women whom I not sure whether to believe are the ones who "get religion" after they retire and become spokeswomen for the anti-prostitution movement.

What is your definition of feminism? Expand. I am also especially curious about escorts' definition of feminism. I've seen a lot of definitions of feminism on Merb and in outside discussions on prostitution and I would be highly interested in knowing which one you've adoprted. (I will say I find it odd that there are so many definitions for such an - in my mind - simple concept). I would be interested in any argument related back to the decriminalization of prostitution. I guess I should say that I sometimes wonder if the pro-decrim men here are really supporting a feminist argument or their own interest.

I agree with Camille Paglia and Christina Sommers

An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone:fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movementatricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture. And it's so silly.It has no basis in American reality. No women have ever had more opportunities, more freedom, and more equality than contemporary American women. And at that moment the movement becomes more bitter and more angry. Why are they so angry?

How do you reconcile female emancipation with the agency side of the sex trade? I know many here have all sorts of figures as to the share that goes to agents and the share that goes to escorts.... Many of you believe the great majority of earnings goes to the escorts. When you say agencies offer a service and are deserving of their share, how do you reconcile that with your understanding of sports agents (in a male dominated world)? Could you fathom a baseball player giving 50% (hey, even a lowball 30%) of his earnings to his agent? Why is that different? How does that fit in with your notion of feminism?

it doesn't bother me at all as long as there is competition and escorts have the freedom to conduct business on their own. An escort agency is not comparable to a sports or entertainment agent who negotiates a contract. An escort agency provides lots of services including, advertising & marketing, scheduling, transportation, security, etc. Also, because the business is not fully legal, there is a high risk involved in running an agency (for example, the risk of being arrested and thrown in jail for pimping). Most of the bad things that people associate with prostitution are due to the illegal nature of the business. Making a business illegal increases risk for the business owner and drives up costs. The huge profits to be earned in selling drugs are due to the illegal nature of the business and not because drugs are inherently expensive. Cocaine and marijuana, the most popular recreational drugs, are cheap to make and sell.

What are your general feelings about when prostitution is positive and when it is negative for women? When you say that all escorts consume drugs, for instance, how do you then reconcile your activity in the trade with your idea that the majority of escorts (who would be drug users, according to some members here) are not well? If you are this sort of thinker, and believe in decriminalization, how do you reconcile these views?

I don't stereotype prostitutes as drug users.

How do you define the courtisan? Why do you call some escorts courtisans? Is it because we call ourselves that or does it fit into some romantic understanding of women as empowered that predates any debate over decrim? In other words, does feminism belong to the definition of courtisan? Why? I personally consider myself as empowered but I'm interested in your ideas as to why you also believe that's the case.

Well, "courtesan" [with an "e"] is a euphemism for "very high priced escort who prefers long encounters and wants a small number of clients." I can't afford them, so I don't give them much thought.

The thread is about feminism

It is? Based on your questions, it seems like it's about men's opinions about escorts and the escort business.

 

[Melyssa]

Thanks Tiannas. But you know, the decriminalization movement in Canada and elsewhere is said to be a feminist movement. There are many types of feminists Not all of them make moral judgements on women's occupation.

I'm now stepping out of this conversation for a bit. Sorry for not answering everyone (and thanks to everyone who's participated so far!), but at the same time this is a thread and it doesn't belong to me. I also have to eat dinner at some point

Le jugement est le sport préféré des femmes. Les femmes de ce milieu ne sont pas mieux en ce sens. On a pas à écouter la folle des énergies ben longtemps pour voir a quel point elle tire sur toutes sauf les putes.

Pour cette raison, nous sommes faibles comparé aux hommes. Sincèrement, vous, vous vous en foutez des autres gars.

 

[Orange_Julep]

I'm not saying there is no gap. (edit: yes I said so. I retract!) Just saying the gap is exaggerated, particularly by the president of the USA.

Thank you for at least acknowledging it now. I never threw around any 78% number and don't know which Obama quote you are referring to. A few of you are like "wage gap is a myth". This wasn't even part of the original discussion, but I show you the data and there's still some people claiming it's a myth. Well, sorry but the empirical reality does not support that myth. I actually took the time to not post comparative figures based on just full-time employment because these mask vast differences in salary (among some factors), women being overrepresented in minimum wage jobs. I believe the 78% figure you may be referring to comes from this type of uncontrolled analysis.

This site provided another tangible argument that should normally put to rest the idea of no wage gap: http://faculty-salaries.startclass.com/.

We are talking about university faculty here. Select "effective male-to-female salary difference" in the "sorted by" drop down menu. Then click on the university of your choice while ensuring you've selected the single category "professor" in the side menu. Then explain away the average annual salary difference. You can also just scroll through the results without clicking on any individual university (if you click, you will see the number of professors and full salary details). The first 40K numbers (if you don't click on individual universities) aren't salaries - they are wage gaps. The universities are presented in order of large to small wage gap. You can also search by university. If you do a search for the top American universities and ivy league schools, you will see that the gap, if I eyeball it, looks to be around 20K. Meanwhile, we would expect the most reputable institutions to be those least likely to still offer lower salaries to female profs. Geographical position of the "good school" appears to have no bearing on the wage gap, so the "backward South" argument would not seem to apply.

These sorts of reactions (denying them - no longer referring to you, Gugu) to claims that are supported by evidence is one of the reasons there are what many men call feminazis. I don't even understand the point of denying reality unless it's to undermine women. So, women feel undermined and find more stuff to pin on you to continue to illustrate their point. How can you have a discussion on feminism when someone brings up factors that aren't even factors, like "legal right". Or when they start comparing "feminisms" on different continents when they clearly have no idea what they are referring to when they refer to feminism? It gets annoying. You reply to it and get more of the same. I am not a feminazi but as you may be able to tell, I'm not someone who just shuts up when I'm told something is a figment of my imagination.

All this said, I'll stand with Tiannas and say that I don't personally experience what I feel are serious disadvantages linked to my gender (except where sexual harassment is concerned, but that's a whole other thread). I've pursued and achieved every dream that I've wanted. HOWEVER, I raised the issue of feminism here because, as stated from the outset, I feel a discordance between the strong support for decriminalization and the general attitude exhibited toward women on this site. This has led me to wonder whether support for decriminalization isn't in fact self-interested rather than based on empowering women (the decrim movement's argument). In fact, I feel that if there is one area of life where women are systematically objectified, insulted, patronized, accused of all sorts of social ills or unfairly treating males (who are somehow disadvantaged by life because they can't just "open the door" and have crowds of women gather in front of them wanting to have sex, as some men seem to think is the case when the roles are reversed), it is certainly the sex trade. I can't compute these two opposing attitudes except to conclude that support for decriminalization tends to be (on the male side) about protecting their access to sex services rather than ensuring the safety of sex workers.

This site appears to be quite liberal, and at times quite liberating from a female stand-point. But lurking underneath all the support I sense some inconsistencies. I wanted to open up a discussion on that. If I'm being honest, I will say that two things in particular irk me: 1) the grading system that looks like something off of Yelp. Women being graded like food. 2) The overwhelming majority of clients who use agencies. I'm glad to see that a lot of you take issue with the earnings distribution. I will never agree with what appears to be the consensus though, that agents somehow do work that is deserving of, in some cases, up to 100$ an hour per girl. I don't know if any of you have ever calculated what an agent's hourly salary is (say, from the big 10 agencies here) as compared to the women that work for them, but I have to laugh at the argument that there is a relationship between that salary and the amount of work that goes into the job or the costs associated to it. Large agency owners, even if they just took a 10% cut of the earnings, would still be making more a year than the salaries presented on the website above. For NO (at least related) education investment. Not to mention that while many of you here have often commented on escorts not paying the taxes they should, I don't hear the same tune being applied to agency owners. So this sizable annual income (again, sticking to large agencies) is basically double what they are actually making in terms of actual cash in their hands as they (big agency owners) certainly make enough in a year to be in the +45% tax bracket.

Out for now. Thanks again for all the contributions. It is very interesting to read.

 

[Orange_Julep]

I should reiterate that I don't think the statements above apply to all male members here. I'm not trying to say all of you are assholes. At all. I don't believe that. I can certainly vouch for the fact that there are countless men in this business who respect us as their equals. But I've also taken control of my business model, so I'm not sure my sample is representative.