_16.JPG)
For me, feminism and the left have always been inextricably linked. The connections between gender oppression and global capitalism, the ties between feminism and anti-colonialism, the fight for social systems that put people first, starting from a place that views our existence as a group effort rather than a wall one climbs alone -- those connections made feminism an obviously progressive movement in my mind.
How could we make long-lasting change for women without a deep commitment towards addressing race and class oppression? How could we uproot the deep foundations of patriarchy that support all of our most powerful institutions without a profound commitment towards supporting the most marginalized?
While my love affair with the left has been plagued with anger and frustration, I remain not only convinced that progressive movements must include the dismantling of patriarchy as a key element of their analysis and action, but that a neo-liberal feminism, that is, a feminism that is disconnected from the left, is a feminism that is hardly worth fighting for.
In a time when some of our hardest fought for rights and freedoms are under threat, when unions are under attack, when American privatization is leaning heavily on our doorstep, when safe housing is treated as a privilege, not a right, when we are told that concepts like universal daycare and decent social assistance programs are inconceivable, mainstream feminism seems to be hacking away at its own knees. It's as though we are so afraid of losing everything that we've decided to fight for nothing.
Desperation, coupled with the growing influence of neo-liberal discourse, has led us to look for empowerment where there is none, twisting deeply sexist imagery and industries into a frighteningly ironic version of female liberation. In the age of Slutwalks, the neo-burlesque "movement," the mainstreaming of pornography, and of a "sex-positive" feminism that acts as an assault on decades of feminist discourse, how must we work to revitalize a feminist movement that doesn't kowtow to American neo-liberalism? That is, an ideology that wants very much for us all to believe that freedom lies in positive thinking and that we can rise above institutionalized oppression by pretending it isn't there.
Denise Thompson describes the problem of individualism as such:
"If relations of domination and subordination are interpreted as nothing but properties of individuals, they cannot be seen as relations of ruling at all. They become simply a matter of preferences and choices engaged in by discrete individuals who have no responsibilities beyond their own immediate pleasures and satisfactions." (Radical Feminism Today, 2001)
This critique of individualism demands that feminism be a progressive movement and makes arguments for individual autonomy in sex work, for example, problematic.
And yet we, we who should consider ourselves progressive, have bought into it. This is an ideology that erases systems of domination and subordination and tells us that our empowerment depends only on how we've framed our supposed oppression. It tells us that wealth is at our fingertips if only we would just work at it a little harder (and that freedom is based on our ability to make money in whatever way possible), focus our energy within, and forget about the plight of our neighbours. It tells us to work with what we've got because, hey, we've been struggling long enough and still we suffer so why not just make the best of it?
Feminism has not escaped this mindset; far from it. It would appear, rather, that much of mainstream feminism has embraced this ideology with open arms.
Now, a popular feminist position to take is one that frames the sex industry as a potentially empowering space for women so long as she "chooses" to participate.
But what is radical or progressive about women selling their bodies to men? What is progressive about the male gaze? What is revolutionary about legalizing, and, in doing so, normalizing the concept of women as sexual commodities? These concepts seem far from progressive to me, propelling us backwards into an age where sexism is not only accepted, but encouraged as a potential route towards liberation.
Visible examples of the way in which parts of the feminist movement have adopted individualism as part of their discourse and action include efforts to decriminalize prostitution and the phenomenon of Slutwalks.
Decriminalizaton of prostitution
The decriminalization or legalization of prostitution has been taken on by many Canadian progressives and self-identified feminists as a goal worth fighting for. Positioned as a way to make women safer and allow them to make "choices" about their own bodily autonomy, this argument is decidedly rooted in neo-liberal discourse.
Rather than looking at prostitution as representative of how we, as a society view and treat women, advocates argue that decriminalization will provide women with "the freedom to choose," and that we should prevent state interference in said "choice."
The connection that these arguments fail to make is that women, historically, make these "choices" when they are in poverty. They make these "choices" in order to survive. When there are no social structures in place that support women's survival and safety, when women have no real choice, they "choose" prostitution. And who benefits? Men.
A growing gap between the rich and poor ensures that women will continue to be forced to "choose" prostitution as a means of survival.
Keeping women safe from violence and abuse means that we provide women with real options, with safe and affordable housing, and with social safety nets. It does not mean that we frame exploitation as a viable career path. If the left truly desires an equitable society, we must be working to end prostitution. We must work towards freedom within the context of humanity rather than, simply, a lack of restrictions.
While certainly there are women who are privileged enough to consider their choice to do sex work to be an empowered one, the nature of the industry is one that exploits the most marginalized. The answer is not to pretend that this work is empowering, but rather to ensure that women have alternatives and that men are not able to prey on women in need. I am not an object that exists to provide pleasure for a man with more power and status than me, and neither are any of my sisters.
Slutwalks
Embraced by many young women around the world, and viewed by some as "the most successful feminist action of the past 20 years," this movement, surprisingly, originated in Canada. I say surprisingly because we tend to associate the kind of individualist rhetoric that has been so much a part of the Slutwalk movement from the get-go, with American neo-liberalism. The "I wear what I want" mantra chanted alongside women marching the streets in their underwear with the word "slut" written across their chests, hardly seems to address any systematic inequity or the roots of rape culture. The epitome of "MYCHOICE" feminism, Slutwalks were immediately embraced by those who argue that the sex industry is an empowering space for women as well as by those who may not have previously aligned themselves with feminism, perhaps out of fear that the movement would take away their stilettos.
While many view Slutwalks as feminist, this movement is disappointing from a progressive perspective. Missing an opportunity to present a radical challenge to the roots of oppression, they remain deeply focused on clothing and the "freedom" to identify as "sluts," making this "movement" one that places individual freedom above social change.
In a culture that has successfully mainstreamed pornography, sexualized rape and dominance, presented women's bodies consistently as things, cut up into pieces for consumption, it is troubling that these issues have been visibly left off the table in a march against rape culture. Not only that but the marches continue to play to a male gaze, featuring women on stripper poles and plenty of camera ops for the men watching from the sidelines.
If our genuine goal, as the left, is equality for all, feminism can only be a progressive movement at its core. Neo-liberal ideology that values individual "freedom" and "choice" over emancipation will not liberate the poor and the marginalized. Selling sex has never provided women with independence, safety, and long-lasting empowerment, but rather has further reinforced male power and privilege.
If we don't care about one another, if we don't look towards building a world where women's options for survival do not involve selling their bodies to men with power, then this cannot be called a progressive movement. It can't even be called a movement at all. This is not an idea that needs only to be absorbed by the feminist movement, but it is something that must be understood by the left, as a whole. An "every man for himself" ethic has never been our vision of freedom and yet, when it comes to women, we've been manipulated into believing this means liberation.
Put down your drinks, progressives, this is a movement, not a bachelor party.
Meghan Murphy is the host and producer of The F Word radio show and the editor of www.feminisms.org. She is a Master's candidate in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, & Women's Studies at Simon Fraser University and is completing a graduate degree at the UBC School of Journalism.
Read our other stories from Reinventing democracy, reclaiming the commons: A progressive dialogue on the future of Canada.
I agree with Meghan Murphy that the sex trade is not a profession that empowers women; rather it is usually a last resort choice made to try to survive. Have people learned nothing from the horrors of the Robert Pickton story?
Initially I thought that "slut walks" were to assert that women should be able to wear what they like without men accusing them of "asking for it", but I agree with Murphy that they have changed into an exhibition.
Meghan Murphy speaks of "individualism" under "neo-liberalism" as the main reason why we have no better manifestations of a feminist movement than the dubious ones she discusses.
I have a feeling that many people, including a lot of women, focus on the personal - on areas like their sexuality and their reproductive capability - because those are the only things that are really theirs in a world where we are all cogs in machines, where our votes don't count, where we are told that "greed is good" etc.
In the spirit of feminism, I must call this article out as incredibly offensive to the most marginalized sex workers. I cannot believe that rabble continues to allow non-sex workers with absolutely no experience of working in the sex trade, let alone working the streets to speak on their behalf. Nothing about us without us is for us. It is incredibly offensive and uninformed to argue that decriminalizing prostitution is elitist individualism. The VAST MAJORITY of all criminal legal attacks on sex workers--ranging from arrest to police rapes to murder--are against street-based workers. The VAST MAJORITY of those who stand to benefit from decriminalization of sex work are those women. How dare Rabble not ask an actual expert like Jamie-Lee Hamilton of Vancouver (Coast Salish Territories) to comment on this? Why not ask her to talk about the safe-house she set up that allowed women with no other economic options to work safely?And about how criminalization forced it shut? How about joining sex workers in calling for accountability from the Canadian government for creating, enforcing and defending laws that have been demonstrated to contribute to violence against sex workers?
While we're at it, why do women claiming to be feminists think that if exploitation is taking place in one part of the industry, NO ONE should be allowed to trade sex? When we compare this reasoning to any other service industry (e.g. farming), an anti-sex work bias is revealed. We would never find calls for the banning of all farming nor would any reasonable person argue that improving labour conditions for migrant farm workers is individualism!
Rabble, I demand that as a feminist organization, you remove this article and commission a sex worker with experience of the streets to write about why sex workers are demanding their rights and how real feminists can support their self-determination.
"But what is radical or progressive about women selling their bodies to men?"
Sex workers don't exclusively sell their bodies to men: a few women happen to be clients; And women are not the only ones selling their bodies, some men are proud sex-workers as welll.
So what's radical about this? Well, just like in the abortion debate, it is the woman, not the state, who has the last word over what she does with her own body. Maybe It's not so radical after all.
Wow, Meghan's patronizing and offensive comments about sex work is enough to delegitimize the rest of her babble. I'll know not to waste my time on F word and feminisms.org.
There are so many offensive and totally inaccurate ideas in this article, it makes my head spin. It's really disgusting to blame sex workers for being murdered, instead of the racist, capitalist, whorephobic, colonialist, sexist, ableist society we live in that creates the criminalization that makes working conditions dangerous for sex workers,. One could also, say, support the things sex workers do every day to keep them/ourselves safer. I believe in the feminism I believe in, this is the principle of centering the voices of oppressed peoples speaking for ourselves, rather than re-creating colonialism by speaking on behalf of others that one holds power over.
As a non-sex working feminist of color sex work ally and anti violence organizer, I believe that it's jacked up to allow people from outside oppressed groups to write offensive shite about them while being positioned as 'experts.' This writing reminds me deeply of white feminist writing about how those oppressed women of color and Indigenous women really feel. Murphy's article ignores generations of genius, diverse theory and activism lead by sex workers globally, from Karnataka Sexworkers Union in India to Different Avenues in DC and Women with a Vision in New Orleans, to Maggies and the Native Youth Sexual Health Network right here in Toronto- I could go on and on, but there are literally hundreds of diverse intiatives lead by many kinds of sex workers speaking for themselves everywhere.
As Maggies' just celebrated it's 25th anniversary of fierce organizing and fighting for sex worker justice, dignity and resistance yesterday, this particularly smarts. I mean, come on, Rabble- you have a groundbreaking sex work activist organization in Toronto celebrating 25 years of fighting the good fight on Sunday, October 30th. Surely you couldn't have devoted some coverage to Maggie's work and legacy and future- including the incredible Indigenous and transwoman lead organizing projects it's kicked off in the past several years- instead of to this drivel?
It's too bad Murphy made an oppressive, sexist (and racist and classist) choice to speak for sex workers instead of listening to and learning from the rich realities of activism and organizing sex workers have created and how much sex worker lead feminism (which is *not* about 'neo liberal agendas of choice'', but rather about racialized and working class sex workers speaking about survival, capitalism, power, sexuality and safety building.) It's also amazing to me that Rabble would let some non sex worker write a lot of stuff with zero evidence or research when there are hundreds of incredibly skilled, gifted sex work organizers with decades of experience in Canada. I'm deeply dissapointed to find this post on Rabble, a source for progressive news that I usually respect.
As we say in the disability rights and justice movement, "Nothing about us without us." I second CG's demand, above, that this you comission writing by one of the many amazing sex worker organizer writers in Canada on the issues Murphy purports to address in this article.
I am disgusted with this article. to equate fighting for the rights of sex workers with neo-liberalism is ignorant of the violence done to unprotected sex workers. criminalization of sex work not only leaves adults vulnerable but protects those who traffick in children by shrouding their deeds in moralistic denial. I am shocked and appalled that the author of this article was published on this site,and discouraged that she controls a site that calls itself feminist. this is feminism at its coldest and does not deserve to be promoted.
Come on Rabble.. Why not have a sex worker columnist who could speak to their experiences and the politics of sex work instead of publishing anti-sex work crap? This kind of discourse not only backs up policy packages that harm sex workers by further criminalizing people but it also nourishes stigma which very much feeds violence. And to try and paint sex workers who are organizing as 'neo liberal' and 'individualistic' to discredit their work is just a tactic to SILENCE. Thanks for the paternalistic tone Meghan Murphy. Ya, us, "self identified feminists", sex workers and allies, are so lost and suffer so much from false consciousness that we can't even realize that we are being duped into losing sight of the "real feminist way".
No one is saying that sex work happens in a vacuum where all sexism and misoginy disappear. To discuss the implications of patriarchy and capitalism is crucial to this conversation but certainly not at the expense of sex workers' voices and lives (duh). Actually, this conversation can't even happen without sex workers, period. The fight for decriminalization is about listening to sex workers' voices and experiences (it is very easy to find amazingly inspiring work if you look at sex workers' organizations in India, Mexico, South Korea or Sweden for that matter, all of them asking for the decriminalization of their work). Decriminalization is about mitigating the violence experienced by sex workers at the hands of the state, the police, some clients, predators, their communities, the media and also 'self identified feminists'. It is the first step we need to be taking to address the violence experienced by sex workers.
To say that keeping the sex trade criminalized (there is no such thing as 'partial criminalization') will deter women from selling sexual services, men from purchasing these services and then generally prevent bad shit from happening to women is, not only victim-blaming ("if it weren't for the sex trade, women would be better off. The sex trade is a concept that would have no substance without actual people selling sexual services. Connect dots), it is also pretty much the same rhetoric Stephen Harper uses to justify his Omnibus Crime Bill. We need to be 'Tough on crime' to deter people from committing crimes because if not, it means we condone crimes and criminals and then more crimes will happen. Most lefties understand how this is bullshit and how it actually harms people and communities. Anti-sex work 'feminism' could also be called carceral feminism as its champions basically push for the use of law enforcement to 'enforce' social justice. This is harming sex workers and all of our communities.
This article is offensive and I hope Rabble will address this.
For some completely different, amazing views, check this statement by No One Is Illegal http://toronto.nooneisillegal.org/node/638 and this incredible statement by Indigenous sex workers on INCITE! Women and GenderNonConforming People of Color Against Violence's blog: http://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/indigenous-peoples-in-the-sex...
this article is absolutely offensive. i feel so infuriated that this kind of anti-sex worker bullshit is being spouted in the name of feminism! decriminalization of sex work saves women's lives. what is anti-feminist about that, exactly? i second brownstargirl's comments above, and i second the demand for a PAID response from a sex worker or sex workers' organization who can actually speak to the reality of their experience. unbelievable. rabble, i'm so disappointed in the decision to publish this article.
Wow. I am amazed at how readily so many of you are willing to erase abolitionist arguments and organizations that come from marginalized women. Have none of you heard of The Nordic Model? Decriminalization only serves to legitimize prostitution in our culture and affects not only women who are prostituted but ALL women. The fact that so many of you are absolutely unwilling to acknowlege other perspectives and arguments, to the point that you demand these perspectives be removed entirely from the discussion, just goes to show how weak the decrim argument is. Your belief that alternative perspectives should not even be published is far from progressive. You cannot simply silence those who you don't agree with. Prostitution hurts all women. It particularly hurts the prostituted, but it impacts all of our lives in an extremely negative and dangerous way.
Meghan
I would also like to point you towards this statement from the Aboriginal Women's Action Network (AWAN), in the hope that decriminalization advocates will cease the erasure of Indigenous women's voices from this conversation:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/racism/000153.html
I'd like to also point you all to a statement from the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) which questions whether or not decriminalization will increase safety in prostitution:
http://www.nwac.ca/media/release/30-09-10
I also urge you to read the following statement from AWAN, The Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostituion and the South Asian Women Against Male Violence which argues that decriminalization abandons Aboriginal women and women of colour:
http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article3671
Prostitution is deeply racialized and exploits the most poor and the most marginalized. There are other alternatives to legalization or decriminalization, which has been shown not to end violence against women but instead to further silence and erase the most marginalized women.
In the following post, by Laura Johnston, the author points out the various myths argued by decriminalization advocates and shows the way in which decriminalization or legalization does not, in fact, make women safer:
http://www.feminisms.org/3265/the-myths-of-bedford-v-canada-why-decrimin...
And finally, this letter, which I think is of particular relevance in terms of the ways in which so many of you have opted for silencing, attacking, and bullying, rather than engaging, is written by LaCles, a feminist, abolitionist organization out of Quebec. In this letter they address the "series of targeted attacks–sometimes subtle, other times blatant–aimed at abolitionist feminists."
While this behaviour is nothing new, it continues to be the most popular tactic on the parts of many decriminalization advocates and it continues to be disappointing and frustrating. That said, we will not be bullied into silence.
http://www.feminisms.org/3607/letter-to-the-feminist-movement/
-Meghan
Wonderful article. It's depressing to read the comments. I have yet to see a decriminalization argument that fully, or even partially, addresses the actual arguments put forward in pieces such as this. Why are the "sex workers" and pr-decrim groups so easily "offended" if they are so "empowered"? It's just not possible to engage in intelligent debate on these terms. Or is that the point?
Much support and respect to Meghan Murphy, one of the best feminist revolutionaries out there, and who has consistently raised issues of race and class into her on-point perspectives on gender. It's great to see truly radical and feminist vision put forward!
The deflection tactics used in some comments (language isn't nice; her words are oppressing me, et al.) feel familiar. People of color bringing up racism experience this a lot. Is the dividing line issue of creating a progressive feminist vision seriously one of who's really a sex worker (or at least claims such on the Internet) and therefore has a right to speak? Of course not. Murphy raises some valuable points, and backs up these assertions in comments.
As Murphy correctly remarks in this piece, capitalism creates the conditions that give authenicity (which isn't authentic at all) to ideas of choice. These matters indubitably impact women of color disproportionately. The record of organizations of women of color speaking out against prostitution is long. Thank you for making the issues women of color face key in this discussion. Refreshing!
Doesn't rabble monitor trolling?