Tuesday, August 10, 2010

"ah" on Yahoo Answers thinks it's "ha-ha" funny to insult Andrea Dworkin

image of anti-misogyny statement is from here

What follows are recent questions posted to Yahoo Answers by someone who goes by the name of "ah". I'm not impressed. Fortunately, Toto takes him on. Thank you, Toto.

Open Question

Is Andrea Dworkin the sexiest left wing woman?

  • 12 hours ago
  • - 4 days left to answer.

Additional Details:

Or WAS? This fine female specimen is dead.
12 hours ago

What intellectually gifted individuals have said about her:

When I read Andrea Dworkin's Our Blood in the early Eighties I was impressed, but it was her Right-Wing Women which convinced me that a substantial new voice had joined those of the other innovative feminists I admired. With its brilliant insights into the Right's anti-feminism, why women often choose conservative politics contrary to their specific interests, the book offered an advance in feminist political thinking almost as radical as Sexual Politics.

Just as Orwell was roundly attacked by the liberal left for daring to suggest that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, so Dworkin seems to arouse the ire of the left as thoroughly as the right! I have never seen such vitriolic reviews as those she receives. Yet her analyses of social problems -- femininist or otherwise -- are breathtaking in that you find yourself constantly saying -- Of course! That's why -- And in this she has the same effect as Tom Paine when he wrote Common Sense and The Rights of Man. Yet we live in very different times, when any form of criticism of the status quo is repressed, minimalized or mocked and Dworkin has received a barrage of heavy duty artillery.

Andrea Dworkin was a brilliant writer, philosopher, activist, and human being. She also was critical of the left as well as the right-wing.

Degrading a brilliant human rights activist is a sad act that only functions to degrade the person who does so. Your question, AH, is crass, immature, and insulting to humanity.


Open Question

How do I get over my crush on Andrea Dworkin?

I saw this woman's picture a few weeks ago and I have not been able to get her off my mind. It was love at first glance. I started looking on Google to try to find a way to get to her and court her but I learned that she passed away in April of 2005. This is heartbreaking. She is the perfect female specimen.
  • 9 hours ago
  • - 4 days left to answer.
I recommend you develop the skill of not putting down human beings and that you show respect and regard for human rights activists who care about justice and ending oppression.

Stopping the many atrocities that are happening around the world will take collective action. Things like rape, sexual trafficking and slavery, racism, and genocide.

Your action here isn't helping that effort.

Your question, as stated, comes across as very immature, actually. If you'd like to learn about her love for humanity--for women and for men--and what she cared about, fought for, and considered important, please read the interview linked to below.


Responding to Questions about Misandry: a "How To" Tutorial, from Yahoo Answers

image is from here
I'm not sure I'm up for doing it, but someone named Toto Gotawa is. Below are three examples of how to honestly and effectively answer questions about the non-problem of women disrespecting or "hating" men, which is what some men want the rest of us to believe is a significant and serious human rights issue.

You have to be pretty damned ignorant about the systematic human rights abuses and atrocities occurring across the world to believe feminists are an enemy of anyone at all! And that level of ignorance usually comes from living in a structural political location high above everyone else--a position of privilege and entitlement to make anything you endure that's painful seem, using smoke and mirrors, "far worse" that what white het men do to everyone else every day. People being raped, terrorised, and mass murdered--usually and commonly by men, are serious human rights issues. Custody of children being given to battering and incest-perpetrating men and not to the abused women is a serious human rights issue, as is courts not offering appropriate levels of protection to women terrorised by men. Man-hating ("misandry") is not. And a few quotes from a few feminists taken out of context doesn't make it a serious human rights problem, in case you weren't sure about that.

Resolved Question

What do you guys think of misandry?

Misandry is a term used to explain a hatred or prejudice of men or boys.


Its a pretty rare term to use, considering the society we live in nowadays. Let me ask you this, when was the last time you heard something positive on the news about a man? Or better yet, when have you ever heard that a man hasn't committed a crime or done something he shouldn't of?
"A man has raped...." "A man has killed...." "A man has stolen..." Is all you will here. Mostly because there's a constant media barrage saying that men are evil or chauvinistic.


The above link shows a video that focuses on daily society and the elements of misandry. Watch it, I think you'll be surprised.
  • 1 week ago

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Media doesn't have a term for the crimes men commit against each other. I think "misandry" should refer to the social problem of men degrading, beating up, raping, and murdering other men. There's not enough media attention on prison rape, for example.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for the media to report honestly on who commits the violence most often? Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime, with the exception of rape. Black men and other men of color are portrayed by the media as *the* perpetrators, not white men. See fair.org, linked to below, about racism and the mass media.

In the West, you'll find that two problems with the media is racism and anti-gay bigotry. There is no significant bigotry against straight white men in those countries, or anywhere else, really. In the media, straight white men are usually portrayed as the *victims* of other groups of people:

--of men of color, who are stereotyped as thieves and gangsters, even while we watch Tony Hayward and the rich white men of the U.S. Financial and Banking industries cause their companies to need bail-outs--but they still get their million dollar bonuses and get re-employed. In the U.K. the targeted group is Middle Eastern and Muslim men, not white or Christian men. In Australia, the bigotry is aimed at Black and Indigenous people. In the U.S. it is usually Black and Latino men who are scapegoated, with Mexican men being reported to be "stealing" jobs from white men (media's focus on white men as victims).

--of gay men trying to "destroy marriage" for example, by wanting equal rights. When white straight men in North America got a disease, called Legionnaires, it got all kinds of media attention--it was seen as a serious problem. When white gay men got AIDS in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and major news media, wouldn't even talk about it--for years. It spread and has killed 300,000 gay men in the U.S. Reagan and the media would have spoken out right away if that population impacted was straight white men, just like they did with Legionnaires. Outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease receive significant media attention. However, this disease usually occurs as single, isolated cases not associated with any recognized outbreak. (Linked to below.)

The discovery and spread of HIV and AIDS was met with governmental indifference—specifically in the United States—to what was initially perceived as a gay disease. I also link below to a website that shows exactly which populations are most impacted by HIV/AIDS: there's very little media coverage about it now, because it mostly impacts poor people of color--disproportionately women and children.

--of women, with feminism being blamed as victimizing men. It is doing things like addressing the problem of women not being paid as much as men. Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963; in 2008 they earned 77% of men's wages—an improvement of about half a penny per dollar earned every year. Feminists fighting for basic human rights that white men complain about as "man-hating" is a product of media distortion--it's always been feminists who want violence against boys to end, not men. Catholic priests are all men because they don't allow women to be priests. It would be a whole lot better for boys if the Catholic Church did.

Did the media tell you that 3000 women are killed each year in the U.S. by the men they live with or leave? And that's the same number of people killed by the Taliban on September 11, 2001. The media will tell us how many U.S. soldiers die each week in Afghanistan, because those men are seen as usually white and straight, or "boy-next-door Americans." Their deaths matter to the media.

When is the last time you saw anything in the major media about what's happening to Native American men--and women? Did you know that one in three Native American women are rape survivors--with 80% of the rapists being white men? (Link provided below.)

When white men do commit crimes the crimes against women are usually not reported. Usually such crime is blamed on the man being drunk or on the woman being "a gold digger," who was "out to get him" like with the recent Mel Gibson case. Media loves to blame women for men's violent behavior. I hope you can see now that straight white men are a very privileged and protected group in the world, and are in charge of every major social, religious, medical, media, and political institution in any country where they are a majority.

When men of color commit crimes the crimes are seen as "typical" of that group. Only white men can run a business into the ground and get paid well (and rehired) if and when they get fired from their job. What Black men does that happen to? Ask any Black man if he'd be getting a million dollars at the end of a year in which he did his job poorly, and see how much he laughs, or cries.


  • 1 week ago

These two questions can be combined:

A Top 
Contributor is someone who is knowledgeable in a particular category.
Contributing In:
Gender Studies

Should "misogyny" and "misandry" have parallel definitions? Why or why not?

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m… misogyny is "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."

That made me think. For a long time, I think I was unduly trustung of women, excessively charitable in my interpretations of female motives and intentions. Now, even in my calmer, more even-tempered moods, I certainly do not trust them. At all. "Hatred" would be too strong a word, but "mistrust"? "Dislike"? Perhaps I am a misogynist.

But then, I thought, many feminists must be misandrists even when they don't say things like Dworkin, Daly, Solanas, and such. After all, a lot of "moderate" feminists express a good deal of mistrust of men!

However, look at this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m…
Unlike some dictionaries, they actually do include "misandry". But misandry requires actual "hatred" of men, not mere "dislike" or "mistrust"?

Why the difference? Is it justified?
  • 2 weeks ago


Is misandry even a word?

its not in my YA dictionary I think men just made it up
  • 1 week ago
Toto Gotawa by Toto Gotawa
Member since:
April 14, 2010
Total points:
150 (Level 1)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The question isn't only "is misandry even a word", it is also: when it is used as a term, what is it referring to by the users? Is it being used to mean something socially real, or socially imagined?

"Misandry" is a relatively new term actively promoted by predominantly racist and homophobic white men (this may be verified at the "antimisandry.com" website, which routinely uses terms like f-gg-t and b-tch and ignores the reality of white men's hatred of Black men and other men of color). The people who currently promote the word "misandry" want you to believe that straight white men are as oppressed as straight Black men, gay men of any color, and women of any color, and that's not true.

Woman-hating shows up in "men's magazines" and in "women's magazines." It is not only "a feeling" some people have and exhibit. It is much more than that. Don't confuse "a feeling" (such as "misandry") with systems of harm and oppression combined with very brutal and lethal hatred of women. (Link below detailing these abuses by men against women globally.)

Misogyny, unlike "misandry," is a term used to describe patriarchal societies where men's violence, degradation, discrimination against women is thousands of years old and crosses cultures and ethnic groups.

"Misandry", therefore, is not a parallel term for "misogyny", which is what many advocates for its use would support us believing. Misogyny is not just a feeling some men have. It is, more accurately, the interpersonal and institutionalized patriarchal hatred of women worked into every aspect of society: male dominated and controlled customs, media, religions, and laws.

There are no "parallel" societies in which women's violence against men is endemic, supported, protected, encouraged and made into "sexy" entertainment, produced for women, giving women billions of dollars annually in profits. The pornography business does make billions of dollars annually for straight white men. There are almost no societies left on Earth that are not patriarchal and male supremacist. And the more matriarchal societies that do still exist do not practice anything that can or ought to be called "misandry".

There are patriarchal/male supremacist societies that make men's hostile rape of women seem "evolutionarily necessary," or naturally inevitable. Some misogynist AND man-hating apologists for rape actually argue that "men, naturally, are rapists" as in the published book "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion", by two Australian white men, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. (Link below.)

There are no feminist books that argues men's rape of women is "natural" or "inevitable". Or that males are born to rape. Not one. Feminists believe men can stop raping women and must stop it. That's a very pro-humane view of men. There are far too many men who argue they "couldn't stop themselves" from committing rape against women. And often rapist men blame women for the rape, which is pure misogyny. That is misogyny in action, socially and legally. Even when men rape men, men do it to make men feel like they want women to feel when they rape women: degraded and terrorized, violated and made to submit to a rapist's hateful will. In prison, the raped man is called the b-tch, for a reason, and that reason isn't an example of "misandry." Once again, it is an example of misogyny, and man-hating among men.

Women who critique men's violence against women aren't man-haters. They are justice-seekers and human rights activists. Don't be fooled into believing "feminists hate men." They don't. Men hate feminists, and men hate men. Men exhibit and practice "misandry", not women. Feminists are humanity-loving people.

See, for example all of the twenty-plus books by radical feminist bell hooks, especially "All About Love" and "Salvation: Black People and Love." (Links below.) See also radical feminist Alice Walker's beautiful, loving letter to Tiger Woods when white men were condemning him. (Link below.) And please understand she was called a "man-hater" for writing The Color Purple, which is anything but that. She endured very hateful criticism from men for writing a book that was honest about relationships between men and women, and among women. Read any of her many books to see how loving of humanity she is. (Link below.)

"Misandry", meaning "man-hating, if it to be used as a term with legitimate social meaning, ought to refer to men's hatred of each other. There is currently no term for this. "Misandry" could be and should be that term.


  • 6 days ago
Another answer:
I think to answer your question we have to look at history, what's going on in the world, and reality. Because the word misogyny isn't just a word: it's a sentiment, a feeling, and an attitude that has an institutionalized ideology behind it called "male supremacy" or "patriarchy".

Forms of hatred, disdain, distrust, dislike, and disrespect are social problems when they dovetail with forms of institutional domination and social control. These dovetailed realities are acted out in the world in really horrible ways.

As a parallel, "homophobia" and "heterophobia" are not comparable terms, if we take them to be reflective of what's actually going on in society. The same with this idea of "reverse racism." This is still a very patriarchal (and white-ruled) society. Misogyny is fused into society, commonly and violently, in a way that "misandry" simply isn't. Nor is "heterophobia." Nor is "Blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, or Asian Americans discriminating (or distrusting or hating) against whites."

Similarly, contempt for the poor is real and is reflected in social policy and prejudice. We see every election that the only economic groups that are ever even mentioned in campaign ads are "the struggling middle class" and "the rich." What is important to challenge is how rich people use their disdain, disrespect, and disregard for poor people to keep them invisible (and abused and neglected) in society and in the media--which is owned by rich people, not poor people, and by mostly straight people, not lesbians and gay men, and by whites, not people of color, and overwhelmingly by men, not women.

Here's the simplest way to determine what is and is not a social problem:
Who owns media?
Who is in dominant places in religious institutions?
Who enforces laws in your community?

Historically and currently in the U.S. the answer was and remains: not women, not the poor, not people of color, and not gay men and lesbians. To pretend terms like "misogyny" and "misandry" are in any way equal, in terms of the harm they do to human beings, is to be SERIOUSLY out of touch with what's going on. Women aren't taking over any time soon, nor are the other oppressed groups I mentioned.

Do some women hate men? Maybe. (I don't know any, but that's just me.) And, so what? So what if some poor people hate the rich?

The problem, regarding gender, is misogyny and male supremacy, acted out against women by men. The overwhelming problem isn't misandry and female supremacy, by any stretch of the imagination.

So I'd argue what when we talk about "misandry" we need to move beyond any one person's feelings, or the feelings of a very small group of writers, most of whom aren't even alive and who didn't even hate men, except for Solanas who is a tiny footnote and not even part of the feminist movement. Dworkin loved women and didn't hate men. Criticizing patriarchal abuses of women isn't "misandry." It's what anyone should do if they have a heart. Why would anyone want to defend rape and battery and sexual slavery? And when those social problems are acted out against males, it's usually by other males.

I do know lots of men who feels as you, and by the way, I sincerely want to thank you for your honesty in telling people what and how you feel. I wish more men did what you do here. My experience is this: men who hold onto a lot of anger at women express it against women, often in things like battery and rape. And even anger at men is acted out against the wife for example. Teen males physically abusing and controlling and dominating teen females is epidemic right now, not the reverse. I only hope you deal with your feelings in constructive, healthy ways, and don't express it at or to women. Thanks for asking this important question.

Here's a related question: what do we call the extreme distrust and hatred AMONG men, for and towards each other? It's men killing men in wars, for example. And men shooting and stabbing each other. What's the term for that? There needs to be that term before we start talking about a social problem that really is just a word more than it is a reality. The fact that we have no term for men who distrust and hate on men says something, doesn't it? If "misandry" referred to that, that'd make sense.

(Yahoo's spell-checker doesn't even recognize "misandry" or "misandrist" as words. There's a good reason for that.)


  • 1 week ago

Ross-the-Teacher Has a PROBLEM. Ross thinks THE PROBLEM is HIS FEMALE STUDENT'S BREASTS being IN HIS FACE...

image is from here

Some days my profeminist work days are easier (and more hilarious) than others. This one is in the Top Ten Most Hilarious. And it would be even more funny if men didn't actually think using the Logical Phallusy employed here by Ross-the-Teacher.

If you think, for one millionth of one second that I believe this is a serious comment sent in earnestness by Ross to my blog, well, you must think I was born late this morning.

But, just for kicks, let's pretend HETERO/SEXIST Ross's question is COMPLETELY SERIOUS, because the truth is that LOTS of het men (AN ASTOUNDING NUMBER, ACTUALLY) do talk about themselves in relation to women in precisely this way: het men blame women for men's behaviors, so men don't have to be responsible for their own behavior and actions. The comment was submitted to an A.R.P. post that makes his question somewhat spurious. Click on the title for the post. It is titled:

"When Men Are Dickheads, They REALLY are Dickheads! See the kind of thinking dickheads do: Read these comments by AllenS and Jason, for example, and "Hoosier Daddy" (get it?), "Trooper York", and "Moose"..."

I've added a bit to my response since posting it to Ross on that other blog page.


Ross said...
Well I’m teaching a class of adult students and one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work. I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl. I want her to get her exams so she can get into university. I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:40:00 AM EDT

Julian Real said...
Hi Ross, I'll take it slow and sure here in responding to you.

I'd like you to examine your own language in what you wrote to me, because, as a teacher I'm sure you realise how important accurate communication is. So, let's have a look at what you attribute to her and to you--what you see as "her actions" and "your actions" and from there, what are "your responsibilities" and what are "her responsibilities", okay?

Your action/responsibility:
I’m teaching a class of adult students

You are the teacher, the most responsible person in your classroom regarding class conduct. Presumably, if you are teaching young people, you are also the most "mature" person in the room.

Your action/responsibility:  
one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. 

This is about YOU determining the value of a female person's body who is a student, and your response to it. You are not owning that however. Instead you are describing what's going on as if she's "doing something to you"--arousing you, distracting you, making it difficult for you to concentrate, etc.

Ross, you're a big boy--in fact, a grown man. You can control your responses to other human beings and behave responsibly, can't you? If you cannot, you have no business being a teacher. Right?

You go on:
Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work.

So there you explicitly state YOUR action--being distracted--as HER full responsibility, not yours. That's a pretty serious error of judgment for a teacher to make. That's what we call "blaming the innocent party".

Your distractions are YOURS. You know there is meditation that can teach you how to be less distracted, right? Are you engaging in that practice? If not, why not?

Do you look at internet pornography off-hours? If so, do you realise how much more prone that makes you to sexistly objectifying women's bodies, regardless of what they are wearing? This has been demonstrated "scientifically" but all you need to do is stop looking at pornography for two weeks and you'll notice how much less prone you are to being "distracted" by women regardless of what they wear.

You then write:
I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl.

So now your making value judgments about her character based on her attire? That's called blatant sexism, sir. That, again, is your action and your responsibility to deal with, not hers. You wrote: I want her to get her exams so she can get into university.

Nothing you've described tells me she isn't an excellent student. In fact, you've curiously neglected to tell me anything about her except what you are inappropriately preoccupied by.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:44:00 PM EDT

Julian Real said...

Part two of two, Ross.

You wrote:
I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. 

Ross, she isn't putting her breasts in your face, by your own account.

She comes into class, sits, listens, takes notes, and leaves. Right?

So at no point does she rise up out of her seat, walk over to you, and place your face into her chest, right? So, she's not "putting" her "boobs" anywhere they don't belong, is she? (I mean, they stay in the vicinity of her own chest at all times, right?) I hope you can see how you, once again, are not holding yourself accountable for YOUR actions, and are trying to put responsibility on her for things she isn't doing, that you describe her to be doing.

You wrote:  
I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do? 

Ross, I really don't think you're being particularly serious here. But just because other people will read this, I'm going to pretend you are asking a sincere question, based on your misperception of there even being a problem here.

There's no problem here other than your unchallenged objectification of a female students' body, and your proclivity to discuss what's happening in VERY irresponsible and sexist ways.

What are you to do? Don't stare at her breasts, stop using pornography and other media that fuse into your brain that women's bodies exist for your eyes and "enjoyment", because that's not what women's bodies exist to do: they exist as the physical part of women's beings. Just like your body doesn't exist FOR women to objectify, be distracted by, etc.

You are speaking in a predatory way, Ross, as if you really don't have control over your own actions. You are using the "logical phallusies" of work-place sexual harassers and serial rapists. As if you "cannot concentrate" enough to teach properly because there's a woman in your class who you choose to objectify in ways that are distracting for you. YOUR behavior, not hers, is inappropriate.

Please do speak to your supervisor about YOUR problem, and also the school or university counselor, immediately and I guarantee, if they are responsible adults, they will be clear with you that this is YOUR problem to resolve without involving your student AT ALL.

And I hope you know that if you approached the student and asked her to dress differently because "your boobs are distracting me too much in my classroom" that YOU would or should be served up a charge of sexual harassment, because that, too, would be inappropriate and irresponsible of YOU to do.

Are you seriously telling me that in the era of the early seventies when males wore VERY tight pants, that heterosexual female teachers should have all complained to administrators that they couldn't teach due to being so distracted? Seriously? Yes, her breasts are above the desk, not below. But she's one student among at least a dozen, yes? So how about this:

Look at her face, and look at the faces of your other students too. That's the only part of them you should be looking at anyway.

If you can't control your own eyes, and where they look, that's a self-control problem that YOU need to get help with.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:46:00 PM EDT

Craigslist founder Craig Newmark Left SPEECHLESS by brilliantly direct questioning from CNN reporter Amber Lyon about His Company Supporting and Promoting Girls Being Pimped and Raped by Adult Men

image of pimp and rape promoter Craig Newmark is from here
It is rare that men's endorsement, promotion, complicity, and financial investment in the rape of girls by men is seen nakedly on the face of a wealthy white het man from the U.S. who is confronted about his crimes against girls. Mass media is usually not so direct on this issue. And the pimps, the rich white male pimps, are usually able to throw their attorneys out to deal with the media so they can avoid being asked what they need to be asked: why are you promoting the pimping and rape of girls? But when Amber Lyon met up with Craig Newmark, she put the questions to him as sharply and quickly as I've ever seen on CNN, as he tries to shift the focus by asking her, "Have you reported this to us?" This is what criminal men usually do: get evasive and argumentative. And, consider the interview her reporting it to you, and us.

Why so, evasive, Craig? You ARE profiting off of the trafficking and rape of girls, after all. Why not just admit it, you PIMP and promoter of CHILD RAPE. I hope you are indicted on felony charges--as many charges as there are ads on your self-monitored website, allowing men access to pimped and trafficked girls. A woman who offered prostitution on Craigslist share her opinion below the article. While it is the case that there are plenty of websites that are run by callous pimps and pro-rape profiteers, their CEOs or web-hosts aren't claiming such things aren't going on under their careful watch.

So, SHAME ON YOU, Craig! And do humanity a favor by turning yourself in and going directly to jail, where you belong. For the rest of your life, or as long as it takes ALL the girls raped under your watch to recover fully from the trauma, the degradation, and the gross violation of their bodies and their human rights.

A writer for the Washington Post, here, accuses Lyon of "ambushing" him. Funny how that word is unlikely to be used when male reporters go after women and men who are participating in criminal activities against children. (Sadly, the author is female.) But let's be clear: Lyon confronted him with the truth of what his company was doing that he said it isn't doing, immediately following a speech he gave in Washington, DC, on, get this: trust. There's a term for men like Craig--not Jewish men, but men of any faith, ethnicity, color, or culture who commit such despicable acts against humanity: a schmuck.

What follows is from *here*.
Craigslist founder rendered speechless by CNN’s sex-trafficking questions 

By Liz Goodwin – Wed Aug 4, 11:50 am ET

The popular online classified ad site Craigslist is set to make about a third of its total revenue from its "adult services" ads section this year. But police and groups working to prevent human trafficking tell CNN the company is lining its pockets with money paid by prostitutes and pimps selling sex.

According to anti-trafficking advocates, some of the women featured on the site are underage and are being forced into prostitution against their will.

When CNN reporter Amber Lyon confronted Craigslist founder Craig Newmark with these accusations in an unplanned interview, the Internet magnate said his company was doing "more than anyone" to combat prostitution ads, before falling silent and eventually walking away from her questions.You can watch a clip of the interview here:

Lyon showed Newmark Craigslist ads that clearly involved women soliciting money for sex. Newmark asked, "Have you reported this to us?"

"Why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your website? You're the one posting this online," she said.

Lyon also told Newmark that anti-trafficking advocates say his site is the "Wal-Mart of sex trafficking." Soon after, Newmark walked away.

"Of the thousands of U.S. venues that carry adult-service ads, including venues operated by some of the largest and best-known companies in the U.S., Craigslist has done the best and most responsible job of combating child exploitation and human trafficking," Craigslist CEO James Buckmaster told the New York Times in April. The company says it is not legally liable for what users post under the Communications Decency Act.

[The first comment under this post is this, at the website linked to above:]

I worked as a prostitute when I was 22. The primary source of my clients was Craigslist. This is a complicated issue, but I feel that it would be best for Craigslist to remove the adult services section off their site - not shut down their entire website. But like someone else said on here, the crime would still continue on; the business would just move to other websites.