It appears feministing.com has done it again, and by that I mean they have further perpetuated ideas that sex ‘work’ is okay and we should all just accept such an abusive and patriarchal type of ‘work.’
I will post the article and bold my response throughout.
The article states:
Today marks the 7th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.
(Yes, I support ending violence against sex workers, but I’m interested in abolishing such a horrific institution that has been raping, murdering and objectifying women as a class for centuries)
To mark this important day, we’re featuring this guest post on the impact of violent language of anti-sex work groups (but what about the pimps and johns that beat and harm women, why are we not looking into the men committing the violence?) by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie. The article was excerpted from “Research for Sex Work 12”, a journal published this month. Both the journal and the website amplify the voices of sex worker-led organizations around the world that speak out about violence from police, institutions, clients, and intimate partners, while challenging the myth that sex work is inherently violence against women. You can download the full journal, with eight more articles about sex work and violence, for free here.
Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie
When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers (Yes, abolition of exploitation; I am part of the group of women and men who think there is a fundamental problem with the idea that women should be bought and sold like merchandise for the sexual consumption of men)
Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography (“Language of war” what the hell does that mean? Groups that work against exploitation, example being radical feminists and other social justice activists do not have hatred or contempt towards women working in this industry. We believe they are fully capable of making choices and reserve our anger towards the johns that sustain such industries) Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good (The sex industry is bad because it is built on the belief that women are holes, sex toys to be used, raped, abused and beat. We stand against this industry because we do not believe that men have unlimited access to the bodies of women and children. I realize the writer is speaking of the small group of women who “chose” this lifestyle, putting the millions of others in a horrible position. How does this affect those women, or all women as a class?) Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in (We support the Swedish model which holds the johns accountable and does not use hate-speech or think of women in the sex industry as “bad” or “immoral”, we do not believe they should be forced to think the same way we do)
This Is What They Say
The sex industry:
- Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires. (Yes, it is. Please provide evidence against this, this is an institution that is racist, genocidal, gynocidal, and fundamentally male-supremacist in nature, as a radical feminist and radical social justice activist, I oppose such systems, however I do not oppose the women working in this industry)
- Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities. (No, it’s a symptom of capitalism, the idea that women are commodities, masculinity is merely affirmed in such an institution)
- Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers. (Well, if you knew ANYTHING about the extent of poor women migrating, you would not be so insensitive. Do you have any idea how many women are forced to migrate to wealthy nations because of globalization and U.S imperialism? Do you have an idea how many women have NO choice? But wait, you’re speaking about a small group of women who may think it’s empowering, this does not and will not give you a right to speak for women who are forced to migrate from their families just to survive)
Commercial sex:
- Is ‘rape that’s paid for’. (Who said this? Why are you categorizing all anti-exploitation feminists into one group? Where are your sources? How is one statement that you have blanketed over an entire group a legitimate argument for your cause?)
Sex workers:
- Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse (Who ever EVER said this? You could be very well making this up, as someone who works with radical activists and speaks to activists on a regular basis, I have NEVER heard someone say this. Please do not put such a disgusting image on radical activists – this is not how we think, this is not what we are about)
- Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children (WHAT? Again, where are you getting this information? Exploitation abolitionists are not blaming or attacking women working in the sex industry. This is offensive and absolutely untrue)
- Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that. (Women are fully capable of making choices, but this does not mean that all women made the same choices. For you to speak so broadly about an entire group of women working in the sex industry is leaving out women as a class, women living in other parts of the world who are forced to accept male domination and experience violence because of that male domination)
- Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance (Not all do, but some do, most definitely. Have you talked to many women, not just living in the West, that have post traumatic stress disorder? Have you heard from women who have experienced horrible trauma and emotion anguish? Most of them report this as this disorder is a very real and serious consequence for MANY women. You seem to think this is all a big fun show for women who choose it, assuming they did. You have made some broad assumptions that do not speak for women as a class. You are leaving out millions of women by being so classist.)
- Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant (Excuse me? Where did you hear this one? Oh, right. You don’t know because you likely just made it up or heard it from one person and made a blanket assumption about all radical activists)
Harmful Consequences
There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency (Again, no one has ever suggested women are incapable of making decisions. You seem to miss the fact that many women do not have the opportunity to make such decisions, sabotaging an entire group of women), and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it (Why is there violence anyway? What is sustaining such an institution that gives men a free pass to harm women? What do you believe is the cause of such a system of oppression? Why not work against the pimps and rapists? Because you'd rather attack women! )
Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way (Yes, hatred for johns because they assume they have a right to women’s bodies because they are in a position of social and political power. I have to repeat again and again, no radical group has expressed hatred for women working in this industry) All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities (Have you ever considered communities that include women in lower socio-economic situations, intersex or other non-gender conforming people? What about them? What about the women in Thailand who can’t support their family in any other way, what about those women?) contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people (What about the violence radical lesbian feminists experience, or the complete ostracizing of radical lesbian feminists from queer spaces, not to mention intersex, gender non-comforning or asexual individuals, do they just not matter? You have a very white, privileged agenda, a very non-radical agenda.) This can be extended to sex workers as well.
Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers. (No one on my end has ever suggested that condom use shouldn’t be supported or that sex workers should be discriminated against)
Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible (Really? What about the women made invisible every day, by people like you? Oh, but wait, looking out for men is all about radical feminism and radical politics, because transgender or gay men are less oppressed than radical lesbians or any other non-hetersexual group) The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, (Have you read any of Sheila’s work or are you like every other non-radical group that read a sentence of Sheila’s work and decided it was “too radical” or “transphobic” because it questioned the privilege of gay white men?) while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human? (How about radical lesbian feminists and the hatred towards them as women and as feminist activists? But who gives a shit if they don’t fit into your white, academically privileged, class privileged queer spaces? )
Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.
Paying the Psychic Tax
Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring.
We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.
Since the rest is just more libertarian, white-supremacist, classist drivel that examines one set of prostituted women and ignores the millions of women and girls trafficked on a daily basis. This is disgusting, racist and pro-imperialist hate coming from people who want to sabotage radical politics in order to push a Westernized and incredibly harmful agenda that supports the rape, murder and co-modification of women. Feministing.com, shame on you.
Thank you so much for that take down... I wouldn't have been able to get through the article without your notes!
ReplyDeleteI'm so tired of "feminists" not placing blame for harm where it belongs - on men and male supremacy. As if critiquing an industry that necessarily does harm to women is the same as the harm men inflict upon women through prostitution. Unbelievable.
By the way, I finally got a Blogspot account so I can comment on your blog :)
I'm glad you saw it was an awful article, too. I could not believe the lack of care the author wrote with that makes millions of women around the world invisible. It makes me sad and angry that a so-called "feminist" site could be so admirable of pimps and johns and so hateful of the feminists and activists working against systematic abuse of women.
ReplyDeleteYay for blogspot :D
As you say, Owl Eyes, curiously kept just out of center view in the statement by the two authors, supported on feministing, is the population of humans who do, in fact, harass, rape, and murder, and commit war against women inside and outside systems of prostitution. (Clue: its not radical feminists.)
ReplyDeleteLet's look at this passage:
"The language *they* use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers [...] these *abolitionist groups* have adopted. *Their* language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers [...]"
Let's revise that passage and compare the version below to the pro-status quo and anti-feminist assertions of the authors above:
The language *pimps, procurers, and other patriarchs* use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, that *pro-sexxxism/pro-procurement groups* have adopted. *Pornographers, pimps, and patriarchal predators'* language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers.
Now, in the global world of sex work, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery, which statement reads as more truthful? Which group (*corporate pimps/billionaire pornographers*, or *radical feminists*--who as yet have no millionaire funders, has more power to harm and "do violence to" sex workers? Which group controls more woman-hating, sex-hating media? Do radical feminists control ANY media? Not that I know of.
Of these two populations: *Pimps/procurers/patriarchs/ sexual predators* or "radical feminists", which one is even capable of waging war?
To conclude the more dangerous population is radical feminists is to be in alliance with white nationalists, wealthy capitalist imperialists, serial rapist male supremacists, and other utterly callous men who don't give a shit about women inside or outside sexxxism industries--industries that could not function without racism and sexism, slavery and genocide, even if all the workers are not slaves.
Capitalism creates a middle class and a wealthy class, yes. And some people in those classes choose their jobs. And some who choose their jobs like them very much. But we cannot forget that capitalism REQUIRES poverty. It requires globalising exploitation and genocide to "work" at all. And so to argue in favor of those who like capitalism is to be completely shaming of anyone who is being killed by capitalism. That some people amass fortunes from capitalism is no moral ground for maintaining it as a system. The same for white supremacy. The same for patriarchal social organisation. The same for Western Civilisation.
We can note in the above post by the two authors absolutely no accountability to Ruchira Gupta and the girls and women of Apne Aap; to Anuradha Koirala and the girls and women of Maiti Nepal; to Malalai Joya and RAWA; to Yanar Mohammed of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq; or to thousands of Indigenous, Black, and Brown women activists across the Second, Third, and Fourth Worlds, who also live and die in the mis-named "First World", fighting to rid the world of the institutionalised belief-in-practice that women ought to exist for men to meet men's misogynistic wish for racist, classist, sexxxist sex-on-demand.
I hope those who promote the value of sex work will visit or contact the girls and women trafficked and enslaved and ask them "What political viewpoint and course of action would be best for you?" Because sex workers who are not directly accountable to the most vulnerable people in systems of procurement are not allies to those vulnerable women and girls, in my view.
ReplyDeleteEven if we're going to stay within North America, where is the responsible dialogue with the Aboriginal Women's Action Network in Canada?
Does the view that some poor girls and women, some girls and women of color (and some men, boys, and trans people, mostly poor and of color) ***exist to satisfy men's patriarchally constructed demands for a form of sex that is at the very least anti-sex***, challenge or support an argument that *some women* like to do sex work, choose to do it, are find it empowering?
In what ways it responsible to the political group called (in English) "women" (most of whom, let's not forget, are without class, race, education, and First World privileges) to promote an idea that *some women* exist for the purposes to which pimps put them by coercion and force? And does a very few women doing sex work outside of that direct line of coercion and force really mean that there's not a systemic problem of gross sexual exploitation and atrocity?
Do we really trust sexxxist men to distinguish between the women who choose this work and the girls and women who do not? Two friends of mine who are Black and female have been followed in cars by men who assumed they were both "sex workers"--but trust me, that's not the term the male drivers used when cursing them out for not giving them the time of day.
Isn't the point of the pornography industry to infuse into men's dick-for-brains that ALL women really like it rough? That ALL women, deep down, want to be raped? That all women love "anal"? That all women want cum on their faces?
ReplyDeleteI'd call those messages violent, and the language of gendered war. And that kind of language is not anything I've heard in the last thirty years from any radical feminists about prostitutes or sex workers.
And, yes, Owl Eyes: which radical feminist-identified woman said "Sex workers enjoy rape"? Because that's woman-hating language right there. That's the language of pimps and procurers who don't respect women. That's not the language of radical feminists--not any I've read or otherwise heard from in the last several decades, anyway.
Andrea Dworkin sold her body, mostly to young men. I was in motel rooms for three years, basically monthly, with a man who wanted sex from me and that's all. There's a really inaccurate portrait in pieces like the one you critique that the people who hold the radical critiques of patriarchal sexuality haven't experienced what procurers want from us.
Prostitution-survivor Rebecca Mott speaks truth about what pimps and procurers do, and she also speaks as a radical feminist. Are the authors above arguing that for her to be a radical feminist means she must be warring against herself? Is it possible that becoming radical feminist was part of what saved her life and keeps her alive?
What is their response to this radical feminist's statement?
http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/content/view/2391/59/
What is their response to this Aboriginal women's statement?
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/raciscm/000153.html
This is my viewpoint: I don't believe there's a class of women for whom "on-going sexual use and abuse from men" is "a good thing"--whether those women are wives, girlfriends, or prostitutes.
Those may not be experienced as words of support by some activist sex workers, but if someone thinks those are words of *violence* towards sex workers, I'd really ask them to pay closer attention to the well-paid and well-protected speech of corporate pornographers and pimps, and to remind themselves what misogynist hate speech really sounds like.
Hi! Thank you for reading this, I am glad you felt compelled to response. I still find it hard to believe a website that is so popular for so-called feminist work would publish such an article.
ReplyDeleteI actually had stopped going to their blog, but when I started using twitter again I realized I still had them on my follow list. That is where I saw the post link originally. It really sickens me that they believe they are in the right for making the article, it is so blatantly anti-feminist and ignores millions of women in the world and their struggles.
Like you said, “I know there are a lot of women who want to be prostitutes”, exactly! We never said this was not the case. However, the amount of women that did not choose, at least not in the sense that we understand free choice, are disproportionately higher than those who do. Also, even if one chooses something, it does not mean it is under criticism. Many women harm other women. This is not new.
It seems this group would rather assault radical activists, calling them “hateful” of sex workers instead of calling out the people that maintain and execute the violence on these women – the pimps and johns. They take so much energy to attack other women rather than the people causing these women to live in violence.
“The best neo-liberal viewpoints on sex work can offer us is a political platform for how to make things a bit better for women who are treated the way pimps believe all women deserve to be treated.”
EXACTLY.
Did you leave a comment? They were not publishing mine until I accused them of censoring me after they had allowed several others to post after I tried to. I really hope and want people to stand up to that crap article. I am so mad because it reaches a huge audience and they are viciously lying about radical feminists and other people who want radical changes in society.
I simply do not understand where they get this idea that all people against the sex industry are against the women working there. This is such a lie! Could they even name one radical activist that ever said “I hate sex workers!”
When I read over the changes you made in their rhetoric, it made a lot of sense. They are so set on attacking other women, it’s horrifying to me. Let’s defend the men that harm women, because that’s feminism! It protects gay men and trans folks, ignoring every other sexual orientation but especially lesbians and especially RADICAL lesbian feminists! They believe this is somehow radical and will somehow further women as a class. This is what third wave ‘feminists’ believe. They do not care about challenging power hierarchies, but rather, support them.
Hi! Thanks for being critical of that post. I submitted a critical commented too. We shall see if it is published.
ReplyDeleteI fucking hate feministing. I can't remember if my account was banned from there or not, but I made another one and I plan on commenting on that entry. It doesn't surprise me though, seeing as they like to post rape-apologist arsehole shit such as the below:
ReplyDeletehttp://community.feministing.com/2010/12/13/the-girl-who-cried-wolf-the-details-of-the-rape-accusations-against-julian-assange/
They love to twist the words of womyn who seek to improve the lives of womyn and girls worldwide. No rad fem would say prostitution is paid for rape. I call it pay-per-rape, yes, but, would the womon or girl fuck the guy if money wasn't involved? If the answer is no (which 9/10 it is) it's fucking under coercion which therefore = rape. Do these people not think shit through?
Not to mention this crap about trans prostituted people, seeing as many male-to-constructed-females think that prostitution is the pinnacle of female experience and/or have to resort to the pay-per-rape industry to pay for their butchering operations and castrations.
Also, agree with Lishra, thank fuck for yr take down, the original article gave me a headache.
ReplyDelete"Women who are sex workers, like any other group of women, should be treated with respect and regard, with care and compassion. Unfortunately, too many procurers, and virtually all pimps, as well as many male consumers of pornography, don't view women as deserving of any of that--whether or not the women are sex workers."
Yes yes yes Julian!
I sent this to the Feministing "Comments" section over seven hours ago.
ReplyDeleteIt is still "awaiting moderation".
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I agree (with the previous, critical, commenter) that there is a problem when accounts of violence in prostitution – often first-person accounts from survivors – get presented as violence against women. Yet many purchasers of sex say these very things in interview and on their websites.
Such testimony about male hatred of women used to be spun into accusations of “man-hating”. With these charges of woman-hating, the reversal is now one turn deeper into the wound as if feminists opposed to sexual exploitation were the ones wanting and holding women down.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
It's really sad, Owl Eyes.
ReplyDeleteI doubt I'm welcome to post there, and try not to post much on women's blogs. It can come across as the dude telling women how it really is. And I try and avoid that sort of behavior even when encountering women with whom I strongly disagree.
As you mention, I think the reason that blog is popular is because it fuels misogyny and anti-feminism, but under the guise of being feminist.
Sad, sad, and more sad. I've mostly given up engaging with folks who are determined to view things they way they do. I'm at least as stubborn, really. I'm not changing my mind either.
And I try and remember that the blogosphere is not the primary venue through which antifeminism is fostered and maintained. That'd be mainstream media including corporate news, the pornography industry, and neo-liberal and neo-conservative discourse everywhere: bars, academies, courtrooms, TV studios, medical offices, churches, and beyond.
I'm just glad that a few of us can write up our critiques and not have them altered.
How come you and others here feel you have a right to have your comments published on other sites, but you (per your comment policy) do not allow the same? Why are they censoring you, but you are not censoring them? Why is your comment policy the only one that should be followed? I am a feminist, and I think you're all acting unhinged. Seriously, you're radical alright, but you're only supporting women who agree with you, but I would in no way call you feminists.
ReplyDeleteI am a sex worker and I find your words very upsetting. Stop being so self righteous and listen to the cohort of women who are telling you that they do not need your pity. Your comments are totally patronising. You know NOTHING about my situation and how I feel in my job and when I am with my clients. How about getting off your high horse and listening to real sex workers now and again? You marginalise a group of women with your words. Your words are what is oppressive to me, not my work. You are directly contributing to the stigma that makes my life more difficult. There is NOTHING wrong with me and my work. Stop judging sex workers - it is really not very feminist at all.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this take-down on this terrible piece of writing, or should I call a rag.
ReplyDeleteI hope there readers have enough sense not to believe this crap - and ask the question, when it comes to violence against prostituted women and girls, where are the johns and profiteers?
I hope you don't mind if I make a few points, some personal but hopefully from my political rage.
I find it hard how the article and your reaction to continue to make internal trafficking invisible - it seems always to the elephant in the room. It suits the pro-sex trade lobby to say that trafficking is only external, and then slice it as forced trafficking and chosen economic migration. This is usually utter nonsense, for there is rarely real choice to be in the sex trade - a few highly privileged Western European and Northern American maybe - but for me it like looking for ice in the Sahara.
But, please do not make internal trafficking invisible - for it is the most common in most countries for the sex trade to recruit.
The expression "rape that is paid for" is a common theme that many exited prostituted say - and I think that radical feminists should not run away from such like expressions. It expresses the reality of being in the middle of the sex trade. I believe to bring about abolition of the sex trade, we must listen and hear the language of exited women, and not censored it in order not to offend. Who would be offending - johns who feel entitle to rape what they consider to be sub-humans, the profiteers who named rape as leisure or their supporters who re-brand rape as work. I love the expression "rape that is paid for" - for it said in a few seconds what often feels wordless for me.
It is the same when speaking honestly about what happens to the prostituted woman's vagina - we need to allow exited women to discover some language that fits that damage. I in my writings, believe to recover my vagina I have see as it was, not how I wanted it to be. I find many other exited women write with great power and poetry of the damages forced into their vaginas. We cannot back away from it was polluted and invaded - and must have the right to express that reality in our own words. Otherwise, the vagina will always be separated from the rest of the body and mind for exited women.
Speaking the truth is what matters - with truth you expose all parts of the sex trade.
Megan,
ReplyDeleteI do not censor, I simply do not usually publish "Anonoymous" commenters or people who leave random insults without any rhyme or reason to attempt to back it up.
Also, radical in feminism means "root" since we want to abolish institutions of oppressive, they are the ROOT, we want them to be challenged and critiqued.
Rebecca,
Thank you so much for sharing on my page. Your blog is inspiring and real. I wish more people would actually understand your situation and what you went through instead of making such posts like the one on feministing!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI usually do not accept comments from someone who won't leave a name or a link but since you left an actual comment, i published it.
Now, to clarify, I have no judgment on sex workers personally, i am criticizing the women at feministing.com for blaming other women instead of the pimps and johns that actually commit these awful crimes against sex workers. I, in no way condone violence against sex workers. I do not know where I stated this in my critique of the feministing.com post.
Also, I was not talking about you personally. This is what I care about - women as a class. I do not talk about individualism surrounding this industry because then i would leave out the millions of women around the world who did not choose this life. As a social justice activist concerned with the root of oppression, I must dig deep and understand the broader problem of the sex industry and what it says about male domination and violence against women.
ReplyDeleteNot all blogs are created equal. The Boner Killing blog does not claim itself the official internet gateway for all things "young feminist" like the Feministing blog does.
ReplyDeleteThe women of Feministing actively seek and reap the financial and social rewards of proclaiming themselves official spokeswomen of the feminist movement. If they're going to make that claim then they need to show some integrity and accept the populist responsibilities that come with labeling themselves unelected representatives of Feminism.
Amymay,
ReplyDeleteHa, you're right they do say that. I never really thought about it much, but they do say they are the official 'feminist' spokespeople and a lot people love it and believe it.
Owl eyes - my name is Lucy.
ReplyDeleteThank you for publishing my comment. As a sex worker I do have to remain anonymous because of the stigma attached to my work and the oppressive laws surrounding it. I hate that I have to stay closeted as I am proud to be a sex worker, but I have to protect myself from people who do not agree with what I do.
It is very important that you listen to sex workers if you are going to make comments about their lives and work. Often sex workers are silenced in these debates about their clients and business associates. Just to clarify - you are not suggesting that all clients and agents are violent? You just mean that there is a need to call attention to the actual perpetrators of violence? If so, then I agree. I have never had a violent client. The idea put over in some debates by radical feminists is that ALL clients are violent because sex work is a form of violence against women. This I feel distracts from the real violence that can occur, particularly when sex workers do not have rights to challenge these behaviors.
As a sex worker I really liked the feministing article. I was at a conference last month on women's studies and there were people there who used language when talking about sex work that I experienced as violent. Their words hurt me because they do not reflect how I experience my work. I realise that you do not agree with the article as it critiques your own perspective, but perhaps consider that it was written by people who know many sex workers, who have worked tirelessly for the rights of sex workers. As a sex worker, these are the people who I enjoy hearing from. These are the people who make me feel validated and supported. When you are having discussions about sex work, remember who you are talking about. Some of us do not agree with your ideas as you misrepresent some of our experiences.
P.S Owleyes - I realise you are not talking about me as an individual, but I think it is important to remember that no matter what, your words will be felt by some sex workers on an individual level.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to acknowledge sex workers experiences across a broad spectrum to avoid invalidating the experiences of many women. Acknowledging the experiences of one group of women should not mean silencing and invalidating another. It makes me feel very angry when I hear of other sex workers being victimised, especially when they cannot report these experiences to the police. I think that in order to call attention to the real violence, there needs to be clarity around what that is and that it does not mean 'all sex work'. All of these voices must be heard, and non-sex workers should speak WITH sex workers, not for them. I am a feminist and a sex worker. As feminists we need to highlight the diversity of women's experiences. The article that was on feministing calls attention to the fact that some sex workers experience the language of radical feminists as violent. Even if you don't agree with this, you don't have to dismiss it. Seek to understand instead of passing judgement.
Cheers,
Lucy
I think as a prostituted woman whether still in the trade or exited, it is very important to see beyond the individual.
ReplyDeleteThe wider picture is that the vast majority of women inside the trade have little or no control on how the johns treat them.
The wider picture is that most johns choose to buy a prostitute in order to own her - and however decent they behave, he still view her as a commodity and less than human. This is often shown in situations, where the prostituted woman may say no or not do things actually as he had planned it.
The wider picture is that all prostituted women are put in the way of male violence.
The wider picture is very few prostituted freely choose to be in the sex trade. And the tiny minority that do often have the privilege of having money, being white and living in the West, not been abused as children or an adult woman,not having a drug or alcohol addiction, not being pressured by the intense brainwashing of the profiteers of the sex trade, never been on the receiving end of john's violence, never been made do extras that includes risk to their safety, been able to turn johns away and of course can leave whenever they want. These prostituted have made the choice to be there -but with all that privilege they could make the choice not to be a prostitute.
This is the real choice that should made by privileged prostituted women - for they are part of wider structure that is destroying they vast majority of the goods - that is the women and girls.
That would be real feminism. Being part of saying no to an industry that create a class of disposable women and girls that are living porn-toys.
The sex trade will create the illusions that it has respect for their "girls", but however much it wrap inside being high-class - all prostitutes are considered to replaceable and disposable.
@Lucy
ReplyDeleteI find it curious that you would talk about feminists *language* as "violent" but dismiss the idea that the institution of the sex-industry as a whole could be a form of violence against women.
What specifically about feminists' language is "violent"? How are you defining "violence"? I understand that you might feel that your experience and choices are ignored by this language-- or misunderstood--but why is it a form of "violence"?
Critics of the sex industry call it a form of violence because it puts up women's bodies and sexuality for sale as commodities. Making human bodies a thing to use for another group of human's pleasure is exploitation at it most brute level--even when chosen by the one whose body is put up for sale. (I won't get into the discussion of "choice" here--but I'm saying even if women "choose" to be exploited, it doesn't make the exploitation go away. Migrant workers "choose" to survive by living in slave-labor conditions. Their "choice" doesn't take away from the system of exploitation).
Can you clarify? thanks.
KM
Thank you for taking on this trainwreck of an article. I've been fuming about if for a couple days now. It shocks me how people who are supposed to be on our side, on the side of all women, can write something so utterly classist and reactionary that ignores the experiences of such a large portion of women in the sex industry.
ReplyDelete- 17 y.o. radfem
Kathy - I am saying that I as an individual experience some of the language used by feminists violently. When I hear people refer to me as a 'prostituted woman' I am hurt by these words in the same way as people are hurt by the words of abusive partners or bullies in the school playground. Verbal abuse is a form of violence. And just because some of the terms used in the past - 'prostituted women', rentable vaginas' etc may be intended to have some sort of positive impact by those who use them, it is important to keep in mind when you use these terms that you are hurting some women. I am not a prostituted women, I am a sex worker and I resent being labelled in a way that suggests I have no agency.
ReplyDeleteIf you were really feminists then you would respect ALL women as individuals and not pass judgment. Women's experiences should be afforded equal worth - all of our voices should be heard. The silencing and invalidation of some women's experiences just because these experiences do not quite fit with your own agenda, is just another form of oppression.
Lucy
This kind of article reminds me just how male dominated our society is. I have often come across women who profess to be feminists and yet seem to be more concerned about keeping the mighty male happy. Women need to wake up and start doing what is best for women.
ReplyDeletePerhaps as feminists we should push to have women's studies introduced at school level. Young girls need to be educated from a young age about the horrors of male domination and that they do not have to be either victims of it nor do they have to accept it. Girls need to be encouraged to stand together and stop going against each other.
If women cant stand together then what chance do we stand at destroying male domination.
Hi Vluk!
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%, I think if girls were exposed to WMST they would benefit SO much. Can you imagine understanding patriarchy and power struggles before you enter adolescence. I think it would make a huge difference in their lives.
Lucy, I self-harmed this weekend because of your selfish, insensitive, hateful comments. I was so upset at you insisting that the rapes I endured while homeless and struggling should be considered "work" that I cut my arms and fingers with scissors like I learned as a child and like I sometimes do when triggered or frustrated.
ReplyDeleteI am traumatized by your hateful demand that your words for prostitution have to be my words or else I'm worse than all the men who raped me and who still frighten me sometimes on the streets. In the traumatized state you put me in with your hateful, violent words for prostitutes who won't call it "work", I yelled loudly at my daughter for a small thing and she cried.
If you were a feminist you would support my right to call my experiences what they were in WHATEVER language I choose, and support my right to reject language that I feel doesn't describe my experiences, because it wasn't "work" for me, it was rape. I always called it rape. Why do you hate prostituted women so much that you would try to silence us?
How dare you try to take away my right to name what happened to me as rape, and you wrap your manipulation in the gussied language of feminism too! I don't care if you call yourself a sex worker, but I think you're a horribly narcissistic person to try and SHAME ME into shutting up about MY RAPES just so you can feel better about yourself.
Rmott,
ReplyDelete“I think as a prostituted woman whether still in the trade or exited, it is very important to see beyond the individual.”
I agree 100%. We must look at and examine women as a class, if we do not, then millions of women’s experiences will be ignored. That is not okay.
I am glad you can see the issue with the wider picture – like you said privilege, class etc plays a huge role in the system and how one experiences it.
Thank you so much for all of your input, you are so inspiring! <3
Leesa,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am so sorry that the comments left on my blog made you feel like self-harming. I feel partly responsible for not regulating my comment section better. I should not have allowed such triggering material to be spewed on my comment section. I simply felt I was trying not to censor any one…but I realize that this is a very sensitive subject.
I want you to know that I do not view this rape as “work” and I never will. I do not speak for all women in this industry, but I know that the word “work” is ridiculous to use in this context. There are groups of women that claim to have chosen this lifestyle, but the majority did not, at least not in the way that we understand choice. Choice is affected by tons of things – our socioeconomic status, our access to basic needs, and so on.
You are clearly very brave and strong. I appreciate the fact that you shared your feelings. Again, I apologize that the comments caused you to feel awful. I totally 100% agree with you and the fact that you can call it anything you damn well want, and I totally believe what you call it, which is rape, to be truthful. I do not see this as “work” like any other job because it’s not!
Hi Leesa,
ReplyDeleteI am really sorry you were upset my my comments. I was only talking about my own experience and your experience sounds as though it was very different to mine. You should not have had to go through that.
I am a feminist and as such, my point was that no one should be labeled and judged. We all have the right to define our own experiences as women. I have a right to talk about my experiences and I will not be silenced by anyone, sorry. In the same way neither should you - I respect your right to define your own experience.
Cheers,
Lucy
Thanks Owl Eyes. You don't need to apologize for what assholes say and do.
ReplyDeleteAsshole, your bullshit apology is not accepted.
We all have the right to define our own experiences as women.
Except you want to take that away from me. You get that, right? You get that when you say my use of the phrase "prostituted women" is an ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST YOU that are telling me to shut the fuck up about my experiences or be labeled MORE OPPRESSIVE and WORSE THAN RAPISTS.
Your crap about not wanting to label and judge while you cheer on Feministing's rape minimizing, rape disappearing lies about anti-prostitution women? You're either very stupid or braindamaged to think you can both cheer on that misogynistic garbage and respect me.
I hate that I have to stay closeted as I am proud to be a sex worker, but I have to protect myself from people who do not agree with what I do.
You better fear me. I'm gonna put your ass (and pussy and mouth) out of business by taking away all your "clients." After that you can whine all you want about how VIOLENT, OPPRESSIVE and WORSE THAN RAPISTS I am and I'll accept every word with a smile.
Being offended by the use of a term (in this case 'prostituted women') is NOT the same as being on the receiving end of physical or verbal violence.
ReplyDeleteTelling a survivor of the 'sex' industry that she may not use the term that offends you to describe her rapes and sufferings is disgusting and cruel.
Those who have suffered violence as prostituted women have prior rights to space in a discourse about sexual violence and the 'sex' industry. If you're happy as larry in your 'work', why do you feel the need to talk over survivors?
Also people not approving of your work is NOT the same as being raped, abused, beaten, tortured and then suffering trauma as a result of people's ignorance. There is no compare.
'Experiences' are not all neutral, equal events that have equal space in discourse about human rights and dignity. The parallel to this in the non-prostitution world, as far as I can see, is if someone were to tell me that they had been raped, and then for me to respond that that offended me because I like sex.
I take my stand with Leesa.
I think my response was pretty reasonable. There is no need to be abusive towards me. Leesa,I don't think I deserved those comments. Read my comments again. I said I respect your right to define your own experience. I do not think our experiences were even slightly similar. I am not saying that you have to name your experiences in the same way as me. I think we all have the right to name our own experiences - no one should name these for us. This is my point. I was trying to offer support in my response. I am sorry if it did not come across that way.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to talk over anyone. But I feel from some of the comments above that some people are very keen to talk over me.
Lucy
You're masochistic. Go play with your friends at Punternet who respect and protect you from the likes of me.
ReplyDelete1. Censorship is a powerful group oppressing and disallowing the open publication of writings from an oppressed group. As far as I am aware, radical feminists are not a dominant or powerful social group, so take that censorship shit and shove it.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, as most of Feministings writers are readers seem to be middle-class white girls and womyn who support the status quo with their femininity loving, pay-per-rape supporting, male-to-constructed-female loving shit, seem to be in more of a position of power than us craaaazy angry rad fems. I don't think I've ever seen an article there defending and supporting Butch womyn and girls, only saying that they need to transition or some bullshit like that.
2. "You marginalise a group of women with your words. Your words are what is oppressive to me, not my work. You are directly contributing to the stigma that makes my life more difficult. There is NOTHING wrong with me and my work. Stop judging sex workers - it is really not very feminist at all."
So us critising the men who choose to use and abuse you is "stigma"? Listen, dearie, there is no stigma about being a wife, and wives are beaten, raped and murdered at epidemic proportions internationally. I would have thought that would have made your life more difficult were the rules and laws made by men, for men, to keep prostituted womyn as a sub-class of the sub-classes. Oh and, I've seen and done shit in the pay-per-rape, oh, I mean "sex" industry.
No, you're right, there's nothing with you or the means that you have to chose to support yourself, but there is something seriously fucking wrong with your "clients" if they think they have the right to pay for access to another human beings body (which, last time, I checked, is actually slavery.) Would you fuck any of them if there was no money involved?
3. Amy May - Fuckin' WORD.
4. The term "prostituted womon" is *not* a violent or abusive language. You know what is though? Having men through their semen at you and laugh and call you a dirty good for nothing whore. Having men try and rape you. Having men call you a slut while they are paying you to pretend to enjoy it. Feminists have never been for prostitution. I think you may be confusing Feminism with liberatian harm reduction with a psedo-pro-womon edge. There is nothing feminist about the buying of human beings.
5. Vluk, also, FUCKIN' WORD.
6. Leesa, you are incredibly brave and couragous for every thing you have been made to live through. I am sorry that self-harming has been your coping method, mine was self-harming for many years as well (although, I haven't in over a year now huzzuh!) and fuckin' word for having the ovaries (high balls!) to stand up to those who think that critising the men who pay to rape womyn is some how violence against them.
"When I hear people refer to me as a 'prostituted woman' I am hurt by these words in the same way as people are hurt by the words of abusive partners or bullies in the school playground. Verbal abuse is a form of violence. And just because some of the terms used in the past - 'prostituted women', rentable vaginas' etc may be intended to have some sort of positive impact by those who use them, it is important to keep in mind when you use these terms that you are hurting some women. I am not a prostituted women, I am a sex worker and I resent being labelled in a way that suggests I have no agency."
That seems like a really queer way of "not trying to talk over someone."
Boner Killer, thank you again for this thread. I love your blog and I love your writing.
People need to learn the difference between violence and force. If I feel strongly about a subject, you better bet your ass I'm going to use forceful language about it. (See?) That is NOT the same thing as being violent.
ReplyDeleteStarhawk defines violence as "the imposition of power-over." If anti-prostitution activists had any power-over sex workers at all, do you think we'd still have prostitution in the world?
I'm waiting for the pro-sex-work crowd to point out to me ANY evidence whatsoever of lesbian demand for sex worker services. Oddly, and I've never been able to figure out why, lesbian women just don't seem to think they are entitled to buy a piece of ass.
So how being anti-prostitution can be construed as "anti-sex", I just do not know...
Does feministing have any kind of oversight on what is posted or do contributors just post whenever they want to? I mean, maybe they just picked a bad contributor. I have had IRL moments where people I thought I knew shocked me with their racism or misogyny... other people referenced other problems on feministing that I am not aware of.
ReplyDeleteI was so pissed when I read that article that I ended up blogging right until I had to go to work. I forgot to eat. It felt like watching Daria, with the classist ignorant shit that people say without any self awareness.
Owl Eyes, you are amazing! I just LOVE that you wrote this incredibly detailed take-down and simply left the link over at feministing. You do incredible work and you are awesomely prolific. Thank you, from the bottom of my feminist heart.
ReplyDeleteSUPPORT THE TROOPS, END THE WAR.
That's all we should have to say to them. It's that BASIC.
Language INCITING violence = a DIRECT CALL TO ACTION (there are complex court cases about this issue). Criticizing the SYSTEM is quite different than calling for PHYSICAL violence against individuals. The only motivation for claiming otherwise MUST be to *further* discredit radical feminism.
Hi, I discovered this post in the midst of 48 hours of arguing on facebook with a male friend who is spewing pro-prostitution pro-john talking points in regards to the recent Vanity Fair piece on slave trafficking in the US. He mentioned the name Ronald Weitzer, whom I hadn't heard of, but now appears to be the go-to guy for libertarian talking points to discredit any criticism of the so-called sex industry. My googling on him led me to your post. Yeah, Feministing can basically bite me for posting that atrocious article full of pimp lobby talking points.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which: I'm going to take Anonymous at her word that she's a sex worker and not a pimp lobby troll. That said, I find it remarkable that she seems to feel that her right to be shielded from words that hurt her feelings trumps the right of other women and children in prostitution to be free from physical violence, torture, and terror. Because that's what she's saying.
I first came across Callum Bennachie reading his complaint about Dr. Melissa Farley (http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/complaint-to-apa-re-melissa-farley.pdf), a complaint that got such widespread coverage and won such widespread admiration I thought there must have been something in what he was saying.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up not just to point out something equally awful he's written (a highlight: Farley should have found the time to conduct multiple lengthy in-depth interviews with the over 800 'sex workers' she tested for PTSD, rather than using a questionnaire; because she did the latter, the results are entirely invalid) but because he complained so very loudly about a supposed series of incidents where Dr. Farley is 'disingenuous' and 'misrepresents' points that are 'deliberately taken out of context.' These complaints boil down, at worst, to a different emphasis to the source documents she quotes and neatly references.
Which leads to the obvious question. How can a man so concerned about accurately representing the views of others - to the point of petitioning the APA to have Dr. Farley's membership revoked - make the unsupported claim that abolitionists such as Farley claim that prostitutes "enjoy rape and domination", "contribute to rape and battery" and "Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant", thereby "actively encourag[ing] violence against sex workers"? That is, without (at best) "taking points out of context" and acting "disingenuously"?
To paraphrase Bennachie, I believe his own work is unethical, unbecoming of a human being, and in breach of any code of ethics work a damn thing.
Fuck.