Hugo Schwyzer is a gender studies professor at a college in Southern California, a writer, and was an organizer of Slutwalk LA. Though our opinions and positions diverge significantly in some areas, in an effort to engage in civil debate and have an honest conversation, Hugo and I have asked one another 5 questions, posting our respective responses here and at hugoschwyzer.net
Hugo’s responses to my questions were posted on Monday. I look forward to hearing readers thoughts and comments on these conversations. Hugo and I will respond to one another late next week and I would like to be able to include some reader comments in my response.
Thanks to Hugo for his interest in and willingness to engage in these conversations and thank you to commenters for engaging.
The following are my answers to the questions posed by Hugo:
Hugo: 1) How do you feel about men teaching feminism or taking on other leadership roles in the fight for gender justice? More bluntly, how do you feel about the role I’ve carved out for myself within the movement, as best you understand it? Would another model (Katz, Kimmel, Jensen) be better? Should I quit my job, as some radfems have asked, so that a woman can be hired?
Meghan: You know, I have mixed feelings about this. I wouldn’t argue that a man can’t teach gender studies, but to have a man teaching feminism to women? I don’t know. Certainly a man can have expertise in gender theory, that I would not dispute. But I have to admit it feels a little strange to have a man in the position of Women’s Studies teacher, though I’m not so sure I would go so far as to tell you to quit your job. I find it a little strange that a college wouldn’t hire a woman to teach Women’s Studies. Perhaps they’re in the wrong here (if there is someone in the ‘wrong’) – why haven’t they hired a woman to teach Women’s Studies? What’s behind that decision? Why wouldn’t they choose to hire a woman to teach the one Women’s Studies class offered in a college that doesn’t even have a Women’s Studies department? I wonder how you feel about this?
So in terms of you, as an individual, teaching feminism, or taking on leadership roles in the fight for gender justice, well, there are a couple of issues here. I agree with Stephen Heath’s argument in his piece Male Feminism, wherein he points out“that this is a matter for women, that it is their voices and actions that must determine the change and redefinition. Their voices and actions, not ours.” So while I do think it is ok for men to take leadership roles in the fight for gender justice and certainly I know many feminist men who have done this and do this in a way that is respectful and has challenged male domination, rather than reinforcing it I do think it depends on the approach. It is imperitive that the voices of women are not stepped on or silenced in this process and, of course, the problem is that many men already feel a sense of entitlement around their voices and their opinions so for men to speak as experts on a subject is nothing new. While men can be strong allies and even take the lead in certain areas of the feminist movement, I’m not sure they can be ‘experts’ in feminism nor do I wish to be explained, for example, by a man, how feminism works.
Jensen, of course, speaks from a radical feminist perspective and, as you know teaches feminism within his discipline of Journalism, not as a professor of Women’s Studies. A man who approaches feminism from a foundation of radical feminism is simply more legit, as far as I’m concerned. Liberal feminism does too many favours for men, it allows too much in terms of maintaining the status quo and the systems already in place. It’s hard to hear a man defend pornography or ‘sex work’ as you call it. Or to argue that women are simply making an autonomous choice and that it is no one’s business what ‘consenting adults’ do.
Just to be clear, I don’t believe that prostitution is work, I believe it is exploitative and abusive and I believe it is a legitimized form of rape. It’s not the same as providing a service like physiotherapy, nor is it the same as cleaning a toilet, as certain decriminalization advocates have implied. What other ‘job’ is so gendered? What other ‘work’ involves being called abusive words, rape or depictions of rape, the giving over of your body to another for them to do with it what they wish? This ‘work’ is very much dependant on race, class, and gender and reinforces a perception of women (not just some women, all women) as objects, not humans. Men don’t watch pornography and see full human beings, they see things, they see something which exists to provide them with pleasure, it’s all for their eyes. Prostituted women are viewed by most in our society as less than human. It is something you do when you have no other choice. What about this is autonomous or consensual? Who is able to provide consent when they have no other choice? While there are women who do ‘choose’ this work in some sense of the word, I don’t think this is representative of most women and within a culture that teaches women that their value lies in the bodies and their sexualities and their ability to please men, well, arguing this is simply an autonomous choice or a job like any other feels insulting to me.
Calling it ‘work’ makes everyone, but especially men, especially pimps and johns, feel at ease about what they are doing. Because pornography, prostitution and strip clubs are things that exist to benefit men, at the expense of women, I find it difficult take seriously a man who claims to be feminist but does not actively fight to end these clearly sexist and oppressive industries. I mean, OF COURSE, men support strip clubs. That’s nothing new. It’s obviously not radical. For a man to actually tell the truth about male power, lose the privilege, reject the status quo – THAT’S radical. So I tend not to entirely trust men who aren’t willing to lose the privilege, to stand with women to end sexist exploitation, and to actually challenge that which is accepted in patriarchal society (i.e. the objectification of female bodies). It doesn’t mean hating on women in the industry, it means hating on the industry. Critiquing the innate sexism in the porn industry doesn’t mean attacking the women in it. I mean, in the end, it is men who profit the most.
2) What would you say to my friend Alana Evans, a porn star and self-described feminist who does claim to enjoy her work? If you were debating her, what would you say about her experience? Would you negate it entirely, or simply claim that she’s a strange exception to a general rule? How do you respond to self-described sex-positive feminist sex workers when they talk about their experiences?
I would say, great. I am happy that she’s had such a positive experience. Unfortunately for many women this is not the case. The exception is not the rule. It does not mean that we should not acknowledge those exceptional experiences, but it also does not mean that we privilege them above all others and erase all those who have been degraded and humiliated and abused and raped either as prostituted women or simply because they are women. Simply because a woman is enjoying herself it doesn’t mean that the men watching don’t see her, and as a result, all women, as things.
Regardless of the individual experiences that some women have as ‘sex workers’ that may be construed as positive or non-violent, there are many, many women who are hurt in pornography or because of pornography. And no, I don’t believe that pornography invented misogyny or rape, but rather it is the manifestation of a sexist society, but I do believe that the perpetuation of these images plays into rape culture. How many times can a person jack off to a woman being humiliated and degraded without actually believing that women being humiliated and degraded is not only ‘ok’, but is sexy? And not only that, but that women like to be humiliated and degraded, they are turned on by violence and humiliation and degradation? Tell me that isn’t dangerous. Tell me that doesn’t hurt women.
All this focus on individual choice and empowerment that has infiltrated the feminist movement is dangerous, in my opinion. Simply because one individual feels good about their personal choice does not mean that women, collectively or globally, are any more free, any less in danger, any less oppressed. Often those women who do feel individually empowered by their own personal choice are also women who hold a certain level of privilege. The (horrible) truth is that many women around the world do not get to choose. This kind of discourse ignores all of those women, and it ignores the larger context of pornography, how it impacts women at large, how it impacts men even.
So I could care less, to be blunt, whether or not one person enjoys their work in the porn industry. I’m sure there are many men out there who ‘enjoy’ their work as heads of companies that destroy the planet or that (essentially) enslave the poor in developing countries just so they can get rich making Nikes or drilling for oil (and I am not comparing professions here, I am comparing arguments) – does this negate the larger impact of these actions? Does the fact that this makes them feel empowered on a personal level mean that we cannot critique? Or demand change? This isn’t an argument that makes sense in other contexts, particularly when it comes to social justice. The personal empowerment of a few does not equal political or social change.
So whether or not she enjoys her work is, in my opinion, irrelevant in the context of the feminist movement. I ‘choose’ to wear lipstick some days. Do I define this as a feminist act because it makes me feel good on a superficial level? No. In fact I think it’s kind of lame. But hey, I’m an imperfect being. I would never tell Alana that she cannot or does not or should not enjoy her work. But that experience does not represent all experiences, nor does it make sex work, as a whole, something that is empowering to women. In the end, sex work is about male pleasure. It has always been primarily about male pleasure. Women are, for the most part, the objects in pornography and that is dangerous. It is sexist. No bones about it.
Individual empowerment does not necessarily equal feminism. It certainly doesn’t radically challenge the roots of oppression. That’s neo-liberalism. It’s pretending that there’s no such thing as systematic oppression and injustice. It’s pretending that we can change our situations by reading self-help books, by thinking positive, by working harder, whatever. It’s the American Dream. And it’s a lie. What we need to pay attention to is context and the larger implications of the sex industry. The big picture. I just don’t think it’s relevant to say ‘I like my job’. Good for you. So what.
3) What do you like best about SlutWalks? What do you like least?
I like that this many people are talking about feminism. For me the positives pretty much end there. This so-called ‘movement’ is embarrassing. There is no cohesive message, no collective demands, and there is an unwillingness to name the problem, to address the root of violence against women. What will we gain from Slutwalk? The freedom to call ourselves sluts? The freedom to have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want? Well, we already have that. The fact that a movement which I had originally assumed to be, in the end, a protest against sexual assault and violence against women has somehow been conflated with sexual liberation is, well, confusing. Rape is not sex, it has nothing to do with sex. Rape is about power and domination, control and humiliation. The idea that we need a word to describe ‘a person who enjoys consensual sex’ is ridiculous. I don’t need to invent a word (or, in this case, redefine a misogynist word) to describe the fact that, as a woman, I deserve to be respected, that I deserve to be heard. I deserve that because I am a human being. Sex is consensual, like, by definition (unless, of course you are watching pornography, in which case there is no talk of consent because women are represented as constantly accessible and available, sexually, to men), so this should just be a given. If sex is not consensual then it’s not sex. It’s rape. Plain and simple. Ergo, if you are a person who likes sex that is consensual (which is how ‘slut’ has been redefined by several satellites) you are a human being who respects other human beings. Not a ‘slut’.If you like sex that is not consensual, then you like rape. End of story.
4) What legal remedies would you like to see to combat pornography? How do you propose (if you propose it) to empower the state to pursue pornographers without also empowering the state to crack down on feminist literature? How will a judicial system not famous for its sympathy to feminism use the powers that anti-pornography legislation might give it?
I’m undecided about this. On one hand, I worry, as I imagine you also do, that censorship of pornography will leak into censoring positive or subversive images or writing that actually depict real, non-sexist, non-heteronormative, non-abusive female sexuality. On the other hand, pornography is abuse. And abuse is illegal.
I feel like there is a lot of confusion coming from this supposedly ‘sex-positive’ faction of ‘feminism’. Pornography has very little to do with sex. Rather, it exists to debase, degrade, and humiliate women. We can all acknowledge, as feminists, that rape is about power, not sex. Why can’t we acknowledge this to also be true of pornography? Would anyone in their right mind argue that rape should not be illegal because it limits individual freedom or an individual’s sexuality? Of course not. Censoring pornography is not about constraining a person’s sexuality but rather is about ending misogyny, ending rape culture, and allowing space for real liberation and real, human sexuality that is not based on domination and objectification. Being ‘anti-porn’ is not about being against sex. Rather, it is the opposite. An anti-porn stance is ‘pro-sex’, if you want to call it that. Why shouldn’t we limit the commodification of women and women’s bodies?
I think what we need, and what Dworkin and MacKinnon did, was to have a definition of pornography that allows for the judicial system to impose anti-pornography legislation that does not impede, for example, feminist erotica. Interestingly, some of Catherine Breillat’s work has been censored or banned in the past, though it would certainly fit under the banner of feminist erotica rather than pornography. When so much work that simply challenges the status quo is censored, what is the big fear around censoring sexist pornography?
Professor of media studies at New York University, Chyng Sun’s analysis of mainstream porn found that “physical and verbal aggression is present in 90 percent of mainstream porn scenes”. And mainstream hetero porn is growing, not shrinking, it’s becoming ever more violent and degrading, and ever more normalized and we’re derailing the conversation into one about ‘choice’ and freedom of speech? Give me a break. Hate speech isn’t freedom of speech and misogyny isn’t a ‘choice’. It’s something that happens to women, to paraphrase Andrea Dworkin. It happens to women and to hear men argue that anti-pornography legislation impedes their freedom is just insulting. What are we protecting? Pornography isn’t about variety or choice, it’s about limiting variety and choice, it’s about limiting sexuality and freedom. Not only that but porn reinforces the idea that women are perpetually available to men, perpetually available to be penetrated in any and every orifice, that they exist purely for male pleasure. Tell me this doesn’t play into rape culture? So, while I don’t feel that I am equipped to provide an answer for you in terms of specific legal remedies at this time (precisely because of these concerns about what censorship entails) I do think that this is the context within which we should be having these conversation. Not from some kind of fake ‘this impedes my individual freedom to objectify and abuse women’. It disingenuous right from the get go. Never mind insulting and hurtful. This is the opposite of liberation. If one person’s ‘freedom’ means the oppression of others it is not real freedom.
5) Some radical feminists reject all penis-in-vagina intercourse as fundamentally oppressive (factcheckme, etc). Others like Dworkin were more nuanced. Can there be a genuinely feminist heterosexual relationship that involves PIV? That involves reproductivity?
Oh I like to think so. I’ve only recently learned about those arguments, so I can’t speak to them with any kind of expertise. What I can get behind is the critique of this assumption that PIV equals sex. It’s heteronormative crap. Many women don’t experience pleasure from penetrative sex, and to actually define ‘sex’ in those terms is, of course, oppressive and sexist. It is a male-centered definition of sex.
So I respect those arguments, for sure, but hey, I enjoy penetrative sex with men so I have no particular interest in arguing against PIV in it’s entirety. I think that Dworkin’s argument around heterosexual, penetrative sex is pretty right on. The fact that we do, as a culture, view men as the ‘actors’ and the penetrators and women as the passive receivers of penetration does speak to the way in which male power and domination plays out in the bedroom. And the fact that we have defined sex on that basis speaks to the way in which the world around us has been largely defined by men and patriarchal ideals.
I would like to think that it does not need to be this way and really like what one of my F Word co-hosts, Nicole Deagan, had to say about this matter in our sex show; that is: switch it up! Changing the roles of who is the penetrator and who is the penetratee (if you are, indeed, interested in including penetration as part of your sex life) can really change the dynamics of a relationship, same goes for, as she suggests, putting men in lingerie instead of women. Personally I am not interested in dressing up for sex and, of course, women do this because they are taught that they are pretty things to be looked at, that they are supposed to be on display and because, often, their male partners will ask them to. But what happens if a man puts on a sexy little dress and is penetrated by a woman instead? I think there are ways of disrupting these binaries in hetero relationships in order to create a more egalitarian, feminist one. Men taking on vulnerable roles could be a way of doing this. Or you could just lose the penetration entirely. Particularly if it’s not something that a woman enjoys.
There is much to overcome and there are no simple solutions but I think that yes, the fact that ‘real sex’ is assumed to be tied to a man penetrating a woman is very much a part of oppressive patriarchal culture. The fact that we even assume that a ‘real’ relationship must involve sex is oppressive and sexist. What about the radical act of loving? What about friendship? What about real trust? Does love not ‘count’ unless there is ‘sex’ or penetration? Just as the legitimacy of my relationship is marginalized because I don’t believe in marriage, the legitimacy of any relationship that does not involve penetrative sex is marginalized. My relationship, my version of ‘family’ (which, yes, does include my puppy dog) is marginalized also because I don’t want children. I mean, when we are realistic and honest about all these things, our society starts to look pretty conservative no? Love + penetrative sex + marriage + children. Yeesh. Let’s challenge this. That’s not to say that there are not feminists who have sex with men, reproduce, and even marry, but I think we need to work harder at challenging these norms and saying, yes! Your love/relationship/family/life is just as meaningful and legitimate as anyone’s, regardless of whether or not you and your partner have sex (in whatever form that manisfests itself), regardless of whether or not you marry (and yes, I do think that, as feminists we should be challenging the institution of marriage), regardless of whether or not you are monogamous, and regardless of whether or not you reproduce.
Tags: Hugo Schwyzer, men in feminism, Pornography, prostitution, Sex Work, Slutwalk, Violence Against Women, Women's Studies
Tweet
I love *every* word of this. Every. Word. This should be required reading for every feminist or person interested in feminism. I can’t even point out which parts are the best because they all are.
I have supported and worked closely with a lot of sex workers – those in exploitative and abusive situations that didn’t involve a lot of choice, and those in situations where even within exploitative circumstances (like poverty, a lack of resources, racism, addictions, etc.) they choose their work over other forms of work because they enjoy it and they want to do it. I’ve spoken and supported street sex workers, under age sex workers, sex workers who have been assaulted (in and/or outside their work), and sex workers of many different races, classes, nationalities and experiences.
You saying: “Just to be clear, I don’t believe that prostitution is work, I believe it is exploitative and abusive and I believe it is a legitimized form of rape.” just about made me throw my computer across the room in anger and disgust. A huge amount of sex workers across the world refer to their work as ‘work’ and a huge amount of sex worker advocates and support spaces actually SUPPORT sex workers they don’t tell them their way of making money is effectively disgusting and just “legitimized rape”. By the sounds of what you have to say about sex work, regardless of your presumable ‘good intentions’, I would guess you wouldn’t support the decriminalization of sex work. It’s feminists like you that boil my blood because you’d rather criminalize, jail, add oppression and TELL sex workers how they should feel and what they should do than listen to them and support them in having more options, more services and more safety. Ontario is dealing with a case to decriminalize sex work this week and tomorrow several ‘interveners’ can speak up to add their opinion to the case. Two of them are sex worker advocacy organizations made up of mostly previous or current sex workers. Some of the others are right-wing religious groups speaking about the dirtiness, ‘dangers’ and immorality these people (who we all know are predominantly women) and there are a couple “feminist” voices who bring the same rhetoric as you do. These feminist representatives would rather imprison, criminalize, and add huge barriers to support, services and livelihoods and continue dominant forms of oppression than work to decriminalize sex work as something that will not go away. That’s the side you want to take in “supporting women” and “fighting violence against women” (which means all women – slut, whore, sex worker or otherwise)? How many sex workers have you spoken to, supported and worked with? If sex work was decriminalized and women had more access to support and services, including police services and better governmental and health services, the hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women would have gotten far more support from police than they did, and the media would have paid more attention and respect to them.
This is one of the big feminist divides – those who don’t actually support sex workers, don’t acknowledge the complexity of experience of sex work and the multiple factors at play, (especially in the Canadian context where we are) and those who do. Sex work IS real work. I really hope for all sex workers sake you go and find out how to support them and not how to continue to oppress them and tell them from your high-horse who they are.
Wow. Thanks for reinforcing exactly what I argue about decrim advocates. No, I don’t support decriminalization. I advocate for the Nordic model, which decriminalizes the women and criminalizes the pimps and johns. The fact that you have completely ignored everything that I argue, as well as any factual evidence about the arguments and activism of abolitionists and radical feminists, misrepresent and actively perpetuate lies about what ‘feminists like me’ believe, well, it makes MY blood boil. I don’t think that prostitution isn’t ‘work’ in that it isn’t labour – it is, it’s just not ONLY that. It isn’t the same as, you know, cleaning toilets or selling cheeseburgers. Representing prostitution as ‘work’ instead of abuse and violence against women paints an inaccurate picture of the realities of this ‘work’ and ignores the way in which class, race and gender factor in to this ‘work’. Of course I don’t support the decriminalization of ‘sex work’. I don’t think men should have the right to purchase women’s bodies. I think it is, by nature, a misogynist industry that perpetuates oppression. I do NOT think that prostituted women are ‘disgusting’ and there is no way in hell I have or would EVER argue that prostituted women should be ‘thrown in jail’. OH OH and thank you! For educating me about the absurd and frightening court case that is happening RIGHT NOW in my country, which feminists and abolitionists are working so hard to fight against. These interveners you speak of are my friends and allies and they do indeed care about women. Most of all they care about the lives of prostituted women. Many of them are exited sex workers and know, first-hand, what this industry is really like and what this industry does to women. Here is a copy of the Factum Of The Intervener Women’s Coalition in the Ontario Charter Challenge for your reference: https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimce%2FFactum%2520-%2520Womens%2520Coalition.pdf&h=39bdc
Because you have clearly made no effort ever, nor do you seem to have any interest in accuracy based on informed research, I assume you won’t read this, so quickly: “The Coalition members conduct and publish research informed by the experience and first-hand accounts of women in prostitution.” They take the position that “Prostitution is a deeply gendered practice. Most of the people being prostituted in Canada are women and girls. Most pimps and almost all buyers are men. The buying and selling of women’s bodies in prostitution is a global practice of sexual exploitation and male violence against women that normalizes the subordination of women in a sexualized form. It exploits and compunds the systematic inequality of women based on sex, race, poverty, age, immigration status, disability and Aboriginality.”
And I’m sorry, a ‘couple of feminist voices’??? Let me list, for you, the women’s groups involved in the Coalition: Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Native Women’s Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Action Ontarienne contre la Violence Faite aux Femmes, la Concertation des Luttes contre l’Exploitation Sexuelle, Le Regroupement Quebecois des Centre d’Aides et de Lutte contre les Agressions a Caractere Sexuel and Vancouver Rape Relief Society. This is the Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution. But hey, that’s just a ‘couple of feminist voices’ right? Just some crazy woman-haters. Just a couple of ‘right-wing religious groups’, right? You are spreading lies and you need to stop. The women and feminists in Canada, including myself, who oppose decriminalization do support women and care deeply about women’s lives. And this is exactly why we oppose the legalization of prostitution and advocate for the Nordic Model, eventually leading to an end, once and for all, to this oppressive practice. One of the reasons that people are so divided about this, in my opinion, is precisely because of people like you who refuse to educate yourselves about the issues and the arguments and instead continue to spread lies and misinformation about feminists. Keep up the good work!
I find it interesting that these people’s righteous anger only seems to show itself in the face of feminists. I mean, I’ve never seen pro-industry advocates speak with such vitriol towards men…even men who admittedly believe those women are less than human. Men who created the stigma around “sex work” and sexuality, period. And almost every single man who uses pornography or prostitution are ones that look down on the women in those industries. It’s not a secret or anything. I suspect that the reason they don’t confront men on those issues are the same reason they have such a problem with the Nordic model…it hurts business. And this business comes before women’s well being, always.
Once again, how many sex workers have you spoken to, supported and worked with? You Meghan.
You and your abolitionists are fighting against a case that could support sex workers across the board in allowing them to have greater support, access to services and safety. Their efforts, however noble, still erase the experience of hundreds and thousands of women, men and transfolk involved in sex work and continue to TELL them who they are, what they experience and how they should feel. How is that okay? You’re telling me you think that’s a righteous thing to do? To sit there as a white, able-bodied, cis-gendered, middle-class women who has access to higher education and tell ALL sex workers what and who they are and what they should do in their lives? To tell them that regardless of their experience ALL of their sex work is just rape and they’re too stupid to understand that?
Would sex work still involve abuse and exploitation if it was decriminalized? Absolutely. Unfortunately, so does a lot of work women do in this country. How about looking at migrant work and illegal work? Working for some corporations involves terrible labour practices and lacking accountability. I’ve worked with sex workers who’ve left other types of work when they’ve been sexually harassed by their bosses and colleagues and have returned to sex work because they feel it’s actually safer from their experience. Do I understand all this? No. And neither do you. And once again, while acknowledging what desperately needs to be acknowledged – the exploitation, lack of resources, intersecting problems and oppressions, and violence of large parts of sex work – positions like yours continue to place women in sex work on a hierarchy of who is ‘good’ and ‘right’ in only ever wanting to get out of sex work and seeing it as abusive and “legitimized rape”, and who is ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ in choosing sex work over other options, possibly enjoying it and seeing it as a fucked up system but one in which they can still make money through consensual sex.
I’m asking you to stop telling these marginalized women how to feel and what to do. You can fight against the abuses in sex work and support sex workers in a lot of different ways. If several sex workers tell you it’s oppressive, abusive and needs to stop, you can support them without excluding the others who will tell you a different story. I’m asking you to acknowledge the different experiences of women and all sex workers and not categorize them all as a homogeneous group. Without doing that, you’re continuing to oppress them (because please, check your privilege) and essentially telling them to STFU.
Hmm good. More of this. Clearly you know everything about me! I’m not engaging in contests here over who is more qualified to speak about what. Nor will I publish any more of your comments if you continue to misconstrue my words, beliefs, and arguments.
It’s really not appropriate to tell Meghan to check her privilege when you’re posting so anonymously, we can’t even be sure you’re a woman. Are you white, able bodied, etc? Because if so, are you not oppressing them with those privileges as much as Meghan? They don’t cancel out just because you are a sex worker advocate. Although you don’t seem to have a firm grasp on what comprises oppression. Hint: radical feminists can’t oppress you.
Oh, and also I’d like to introduce you to Trisha Baptie: http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article3290
Her writing and work can, I hope provide you with an accurate picture of the abolitionist argument, who is making that argument and why, as well as why prostitution should not be referred to as ‘work’. Enjoy!
You sound like more of a pimp than a feminist. There is no such thing as an underage sex worker. That is child trafficking. If “support” means you didn’t take any measures to get her out of the trade, you are complicit in rape.
Hello, red flag anyone? This is incredibly disturbing. There are no such circumstances where underage prostitution is okay. Ever.
You clearly have no idea what it can be like to work around homeless and poverty stricken youth. You’re right, ‘underage sex work’ is illegal, is disturbing and can be child trafficking. I’ve worked with some of these youth. They have told me about what they do, sometimes connected with a variety of other factors like poverty and addiction, but I will not report them to agencies that will inevitably report them to the police to be violently dealt with and charged for a variety of things police charge these kids with. When I and so many others offer support to get them out of this and they don’t want it they often don’t want to talk to you about it anymore and we don’t have enough information to do anything with. And sometimes, they’re selling their bodies with other youth not far off in age so aside from the illegality of exchanging sex for money these are consensual youth. Have you even spoken to youth like this? Do you have any of this experience?
So clearly criminalizing the assholes who abuse children is a terrible idea. What is your point?
I think we can agree that it is a damn good thing when the people abusing and exploiting children are criminalized and the people abusing and exploiting anyone. The point is that children, youth, women and marginalized people are being criminalized. They are criminalized by our systems, they are denigrated and oppressed by our systems and they are shut out.
So wouldn’t it make sense then to decriminalize the women and criminalize the men who buy them? Rather then simply legalizing it all and normalizing this kind of exploitation?
Except Meghan, nor any other radical feminists, argue for criminalization of women and children in the trade. What is your point? What does this have to do with criminalization of johns?
Women are still being criminalized. Women are forced into this work for a variety of reasons and they are also forced into dangerous situations because of existing laws. Sex workers cannot hire bodyguards or drivers because they will be charged with living off of the avails, as will members of their family that they live with or partners. Women who attempt to negotiate safer exchanges with johns can be criminalized. Women who attempt to take work into their homes because it is safer than the street or a car are criminalized for having a common bawdy-house. During the time of Pickton many aboriginal sex workers got together to rent a house to try to work under safer conditions but the house was raided by police and several were charged. These laws may criminalize those who use women but they also criminalize the women who apparently shouldn’t be criminalized. That is what I hope you can acknowledge.
We clearly will not agree, as many won’t. I respect what a lot of abolitionists are trying to do and that they speak from experience in a trade that can often be violent and exploitative. What I don’t agree with is that they are ready to dismiss thousands of other womens experiences, hopes and concerns. Abolitionists say the “realities” aren’t being portrayed yet they are ready to dismiss and reject the realities of many other women and men. I wouldn’t support those who wanted to do this in the other direction. I wouldn’t support those for decriminalization that did not acknowledge the violence and trafficking that happens. To support the safety of sex workers they should not be dismissed because they don’t fit one side’s mold.
Abolitionists don’t dismiss their realities. You exist. We get it. They just don’t understand why a few thousand people’s choices should prevent action that helps millions of women in the trade, and hundreds of millions more that will be less likely to be sucked into the trafficking industry against their will.
You’re still arguing against a strawman. All of those examples you listed happened because *selling* sex is criminalized. Radical feminists advocate decriminalization of selling sex. Under the Swedish model, a prostitute can negotiate any sort of “exchange” with a john and will not be penalized for it. The only one at risk is the john, if she decides to report him. So who are you really fighting for?
Women, children and margarinalized people. You?
I’m trying to fight for ALL of them, and not saying to thousands of women, most of whom are marginalized, “You exist. We get it.” I’m trying to hear them all and fight for better and safer for all of them.
Still avoiding the question about the johns and how your arguments don’t hold weight against the Swedish Model, I see…You are a woman, right?
‘underage sex work’ is illegal, is disturbing and can be child trafficking.’ you also forgot to mention its RAPE, not just illegal, its a human rights violation.
When the demand for prostitution is for youths though, what can really be expected? Remember, most johns are just normal married men, you know, who want to be able to freely pay to stick their dicks into teens.
I wonder what will become of these youth “sex workers” if this law passes in Canada. I mean, it will have to be regulated to some degree if the government is gonna allow this form of commerce to happen. Isn’t that just gonna drive their “work” further underground? Won’t someone think of the sex workers?!
I know! Lets do away with those pesky age of consent laws while we’re at it. Who are we to judge? Plenty of people have wonderful inter-generational romances.
And I’m yet again, not surprised and of course disgusted with the pay-to-rape agenda.
Sorry, but how Anti-Feminist of you than stating someone isn’t a “real” feminist because they don’t believe in the same things you do.
While I may not agree with Hugo’s personal relationship with the sex industry, it’s his relationship to it.
I do very much respect that he listens and represents other people’s complex relationship to sex work. The fact that he voices statements other than his own in the response to the questions poised ( stating the good and the bad) seems to me that he is taking in what people choose to share with him. Good for him for listening to the voices and good for those people for speaking up.
This back and forth that his voice isn’t important because he’s a
-man,
-white,
-college professor,
- etc
are the same sorry excuses that have been handed to other marginalized individuals over history.
I enjoy the back and forth conversation and the fact that the two of you are willing to engage in fruitful conversation, it’s the only way to reach a middle ground.
And really, someone had to talk about the “children?” Can we ever have a conversation about sex work without bringing in trafficking issues? Ever? Intelligent conversations understand that these issues are related but not always tied to one another. I don’t see how we can move forward if we always bring in the worst case situation.
Because they are connected, whether you’d like them to be or not. Human trafficking exists for the same reason consensual prostitution exists – a demand for bodies for men to use. I think it’s ignorant, cruel, and plain old anti-feminist to try to push trafficking out of the conversation. Surely you’d agree combating trafficking is more important than promoting a better model of prostitution?
No Sugarcoating,
I live in a world that exists in more than just black and white, I can combat, educate and promote all at the same time. I understand that they sex work can be connected to sex trafficking, do you understand that they are not always connected?
And surely you are not proposing that they only reason consensual prostitution exists is due to men demanding bodies? Again, you seem to only be looking at one very small section of this discussion.
Respectfully,
Megan
From my perspective, yes, prostitution only exists because of demand from male buyers. What other possible reason could there be? If men didn’t want to purchase women’s bodies / think that it is perfectly acceptable to purchase women’s bodies then there would be no such thing as prostitution. What am I missing here?
You compare Hugo to “other marginalized individuals” in history but he’s not marginalized at all. He is white, he is a man, he is a professor. Those are all privileged places to be in. In the long run his voics is more important overall than ours- even if we think it’s not important.
“Can we ever have a conversation about sex work without bringing in trafficking issues? Ever?…I don’t see how we can move forward if we always bring in the worst case situation.” Can we ever have a conversation about class without bringing up poverty? Can we ever have a conversation about race without bringing in all that disenfranchisement stuff? Can we ever have a discussion about feminism without raising issues of misogyny? Ever?? Sure we could. Its called Privilege and it does jack to actually help those in serious need. I’m glad for a feminism that stays in the trenches. You and I can thank countless women for their interest in the worst cases–our rights are inextricably linked to their work.
Thank you pisaquari. Exactly.
Thanks so much for writing these replys out and or having some patience with the sex work lobbyists, who make out lies and use language to hurt and silence all women who dare fight for the Nordic approach, and framed those who viewed the sex trade as a structure that abuse women’s and girl’s basis human rights as deluded and “anti-sex”.
What really hurts is the assumption, well propaganda, that abolitionist know little or nothing about the realities of the sex trade – when most abolition are lead by women who have exited the sex trade. They fight so hard, and with such compassion and determination, because they know in their bodies and minds the conditions that most of the prostituted have to endure. That is why they strive for a world without the sex trade.
I think it very important to have some understanding about “choice” for most women and girls embedded in the sex trade.
I believe that most women and girls that are inside the sex trade, and are in an environment where there is little hope of an alternative, where you made to feel or told constantly it is your role in life is to sexually available to any and all punters, that that is empowering and liberating – many learn to adapt to the unacceptable by making themselves believe it was their choice. Believing that is a huge way to survive – to see the conditions of being nothing but an object to be used and thrown away, is too unbearable to know and keep some sanity.
I think most prostituted women and girls will say they choose it – but it does not mean that it makes it ok to make the prostituted in nothing but sexual goods, and that it is ok for the sex trade to make most of it profits through access to sadistic sex. It doesn’t make it ok that the prostituted are made sub-humans.
But the focus should be on the punters and profiteers of the sex trade. That is what most sex work lobbyists want to make invisible.
If we attack demand and criminalise thoroughly the profiteers, that would do more than anything else to help the prostitutes re-gain their full humanity and dignity.
Ok, I see that we are approaching things from very different viewpoints. While I enjoyed the dialogue, it seems further conversation will be fruitless, there are too many variations that are not being acknowledged. If you really do believe “prostitution only exists because of demand from male buyers” there is no where else to go with this. Not listening to the women who engage in sex work consensually shuts down all avenues of further discussion.
Ok, Megan. I respect that you don’t wish to engage in dialogue. I have to admit I am more than a little confused about your reasoning. There would be no prostitution industry without male buyers…It simply woudn’t exist. If you know something I don’t, please do feel free to enlighten me. If you simply don’t want to dialogue, fine, but your reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me.
Hey Meghan,
I appreciate the extension, so let me explain one of my points. I know women who purchase sexual services from other women. What about them? Don’t they count? It has nothing to do with male buyers at that point and yet it still exists. What are your thoughts on this?
Megan
There is absolutely no way that those few women who purchase sexual services from other women would support the industry. This is a teeny tiny sliver of the entire industry and is not at all representative of the reality or majority of consumers. These women are an absolute exception to the rule and are irrelevant to this conversation. The reason that prostitution exists in the first place is because of male buyers. These are the buyers who are violent who are abusive and who feel they are entitled to access female bodies. A few women buying sexual services are a drop in the bucket and have nothing to do with the existence of the industry nor do they have anything to do with the gendered nature of ‘sex work’. Those women who are most marginalized, who are abused and raped and murdered and trafficked and objectified are not abused or raped or murdered or objectified by women, but by men.
I’m sorry, but i refuse to discount anyone, I KNOW it is reality and I’m not going to discount their voices (and others) because we can keep making excuses for why “this” group doesn’t count or “that” group doesn’t count and eventually, it does add up. No one, in my opinion, is ever irrelevant.
Thanks for responding to me though, I disagree with your final result, but I can see the point you are attempting to make.
Cheers!
Megan
Hi Meghan,
This is a great blog. I enjoyed reading this post and I only disagree with your opinions about the slutwalk protests.
A ‘slut’ is not defined as a woman who enjoys consensual sex; it means a woman who has sex with many men. And a woman who does not limit having sex to only her partner violates the cultural rules of patriarchy which require women to be sexually repressed while allow men to be promiscuous. And this is why the word ‘slut’ is considered to be offensive under the patriarchal culture while its male equivalent phrase, ‘stud’ is not.
So for me, reclaiming the word slut does not mean changing its meaning to “a woman who enjoys sex that is consensual” but re-appropriating the phrase so it wouldn’t sound offensive anymore.
When I was a kid, my brother called me a whore every time we got into a fight. In my first job working at fast-food, male customers called me a bitch whenever there was something wrong with their food. And believe me, I am really tired of being called names by men (& sometimes women) and having to feel inferior because of my gender. And I seriously think something needs to be done to make these words sound so lame. Otherwise, men will be using such phrases as weapons against women to make them feel inferior.