Gloria Steinem supports the Nordic model

Gloria Steinem recently gave a talk in New Delhi about prostitution and trafficking. Again defying that old trope, forever pushed by advocates for the full decriminalization and/or legalization of prostitution, that pretends abolitionists are concerned with some kind of puritan morality and “sin,” Steinem stated: “Prostitution is not inevitable, it is only about unequal distribution of power.”

That’s right folks. Feminism is about fighting inequality; there is no “moral panic” or fear of sex. In fact, prostitution and trafficking has little to do with female sexuality (aside from that fact that it is perceived and represented as something that exists only for male pleasure) – rather it is about dehumanization. Abolition is about connecting a context of poverty with racism, colonialism, and male power and working from there.

Though it appears the points made in Steinem’s lecture were very clear, there was the inevitable response, accusing Steinem of being “moralistic” and of “conflating sex-work with ‘trafficking.’” This is one of the more popular go-to responses to any feminist who dares challenge the idea that prostitution happens because of inequality or suggests that the sex industry *might* not support women’s human rights.

Another response from Kumkum Roy challenged Steinem by saying that “…voices of dissent pointed out to the need to look at issues of poverty and labour in general, and locate sex work within that context, and/ or within a larger context of violence rather than homogenise all prostitutes/ sex workers.” – a strange response considering that feminists specifically view prostitution as something that exists because of poverty and within a larger context of violence against women.

There is, again, that desperate desire, on the parts of advocates for full decriminalization/ legalization, to separate prostitution from trafficking as though there is a clear division. As though, you know, American or Canadian women are all so free and liberated that coercion couldn’t possibly exist here, whereas other women who live in far, far, away places are the only ones whose choices are limited in this particular way. The only ones who are vulnerable to violence and abuse and coercion.

There may well be differences between prostitution and trafficking, particularly when we look at class divisions and the ways in which more privileged women are able to do sex work, vs. poor women, but there are also connections, as pointed out by Steinem – in that both situations are largely determined by inequality and “both are created by the same customers who want unequal sex.”

It is argued within the response from Shohini Ghosh that “sex-work” is merely something that happens between “consenting sexual adults,” again imagining that a clear line is drawn once money is exchanged. Needing money to survive and therefore electing to exchange sex for money does not equal, simply, “consent” and that argument certainly does not address the ways in which class, race, and gender lead women to “consent” to selling sex.

Steinem couldn’t have said it better:  “I don’t think “consenting adults” is practical answer to structural inequality.”

The same argument is often applied around young women and girls who are prostituted – once they turn 18 suddenly their pasts have disappeared, they are no longer vulnerable, no longer at risk for abuse, violence and coercion. Another magical line is drawn.

In any case, please go ahead and read the article yourselves, it is an extremely intelligent, clear response to the tired attacks and misrepresentations constantly applied to abolitionist arguments.

Steinem concludes by describing a third option that goes beyond the limited divide that pretends there is only legalization or criminalization; that option being the Nordic model:

But there is good news. The old polarization into legalization and criminalization is giving way to a more practical, woman-centered and successful Third Way: De-criminalize the prostituted persons, offer them meaningful choices, prosecute traffickers, pimps and all who sell the bodies of others, and also penalize the customers who create the market while educating them about its tragic human consequences.

 

Tags: , , , ,

17 Comments on “Gloria Steinem supports the Nordic model”

  • Olene

    Steinem has been an abolitionist for years, a fact careeristing liberal bloggers conveniently choose to ignore because milking her CELEBRITY! to boost their public profiles matters more to them than honesty and integrity.

    “Thanks for the feminist baton, now you can die off with the other whorephobic prudes.”
    http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6017/5985494815_cd8ec3d997.jpg

    Abolitionist feminists with no CELEBRITY! to serve the interests of libfems will continue to be strenuously shunned in all venues and characterized as haters of prostitutes, men, sex, freedom, money, and kittens.

       8 likes

  • Hi Meghan- where is the quote “I don’t think “consenting adults” is practical answer to structural inequality.”

       0 likes

  • Olene

    ps: Hillary Clinton is also an abolitionist. All the best feminists are.

    http://prostitution.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=3477

    “I do not approve of legalized prostitution or any kind of prostitution. It is something that I personally believe is demeaning to women. I have worked against it and I have certainly taken a very strong stand against what happens in many parts of the world where young girls and women are forced into prostitution against their wills. I understand Nevada has a regulated system and it is within the authority of the state. So that is not a federal issue that we will have any role to play in when I am president. But I would obviously speak out against prostitution and try to persuade women that it is not — even in a regulated system — necessarily a good way to try to make a living. Let’s try to find other jobs that can be there for women who are looking for a good way to support themselves and their families.”

       12 likes

  • Funny, how “abolitionist” is a putdown when referring to people trying to stop the sale of women’s bodies, but it’s undiluted heroism when referring to people trying to free black bodies.

    Did the plantation owners even think of sneering at abolitionists as lazy good-for-nothings who were just against work? But now no self-justification is too off-the-wall to trot out. Progress?

       7 likes

    • Hari

      Well said, quixote. You are right–no justification for prostitution is too idiotic, or too minimally applicable to the majority of prostituted womyn, to be passed off as smart, liberal-minded and somehow liberating.

         6 likes

    • Olene

      Or worse, saying that black slavery abolitionists were wrong to shut down the public auction blocks when they should have regulated them like Craig’s List and Backpage.com apologists suggest.

         8 likes

  • WhiteTiger

    Personally, I’m against legalizing prostitution because I do think it’s morally wrong. Sex isn’t something you should sell.

    That set aside, I’m still unclear as to what you think is the best course of action? my gut feeling tells me women only choose prostitution as a last resort for making money, so if you want to abolish prostitution altogether, won’t you need some sort of program to create more jobs AND said women for those jobs?

       0 likes

    • Meghan Murphy

      Did you read the article? The Nordic model is the proposed course of action.

         4 likes

    • “Sex isn’t something you should sell.”

      Actually, sex isn’t something you should BUY.

      FYI, the nordic model does involve helping prostituted women find employment.

         11 likes

  • WhiteTiger

    ““Sex isn’t something you should sell.”

    Actually, sex isn’t something you should BUY.”

    Well, doesn’t one entail the other?

       0 likes

    • No. Buyers and sellers are two distinct groups with completely different power differentials. That’s why the Nordic model decriminalizes the sellers while criminalizing the punters/johns/sexual predators.

         8 likes

    • Meghan Murphy

      The difference is that women are selling sex because they have no other choice – i.e. they need to survive. Men have a choice to buy sex and that choice is attached to male power and privilege. The buying is the exploitative side, the selling happens because of inequality.

         7 likes

  • Ramona

    Saddened to find this article in the Grid T.O., a how-to for those looking to start a brothel, apparently.

    http://www.thegridto.com/city/sexuality/so-you-want-to-start-a-brothel/

    It’s clear from the comments how seriously confused people are on this issue. It’s just so mind-boggling how easily the cultural left is being co-opted by the sex industry. Realizing that the papers I grew up reading are actually advocating for the renting of women’s bodies.

       1 likes

  • euroreader

    Also, this.
    http://9to20.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/broken/

       2 likes

Leave a Comment

Blog Categories

RSSTwitterFacebook

Support The F Word and Vancouver's Co-op Radio

The purpose of the blog is to create dialogue and debate around current issues related to women, feminism, and social justice.
We enjoy active participation in the blog, however, we reserve the discretion to remove any comments that are threatening or promote hate speech.

Search This Blog:


Site by Anne Emberline