Open letter to rabble.ca from the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution

Sineed wrote:

shartal wrote:

I do not walk in their shoes and do not feel I have the right to criticize their choice. It seems to me that a progressive approach to the quandary of the sex trade would be to work at providing realistic alternative choices for the women involved.

Yes, though I would say framing it as not wanting to disrespect the "choice" of engaging in sex work is missing the point. After all, many (most?) people who engage in sex work do so out of economic coercion rather than a free choice. Rather than cringing at the prospect of possibly disrespecting an individual's personal choices, we need to focus on eradicating those systemic injustices that lead to women ending up in sex work.

For instance, amongst women crack-addicted sex workers, the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse approaches 100%.

A suggestion that shartel made in her post for eradicating systemic injustices was the following:

shartal wrote:

I cannot see how more policing and More jail can never [sic] be good. The same is true of the drug trade. Prohibition has never worked in human history. Legalization, Regulation and unionization are about as good as it gets.

Could the empowerment of sex workers help in the eradication of the systemic injustices that lead to women ending up in sex work?  IE, could a better regulated sex work industry that allowed for the workers themselves to organize, administer, maybe unionize, etc., their own businesses lead to a higher self esteem that may promote many to access health services like addiction treatment w/ counselling (if need be) and thus may promote many to seek other work?

Sineed wrote:

left turn wrote:

I want women who choose prostitution, or to wear a niqab, or to wear spaghetti straps ect. to not face harassment for their decisions.

It isn't harassment to point out that some of women's choices are not inherently feminist. When I shave my legs, I am capitulating to our society's norms regarding body hair on women. It's not a feminist choice. Ditto for the wearing of high-heeled shoes. A woman may feel empowered by making herself look attractive according to what men like, but if I put on shoes that hobble me and prevent me from running away (and I do sometimes), I don't pretend that the affirmation I get from being beautiful somehow cancels out the male privilege that defines what constitutes female beauty in the first place.

When women "choose" prostitution as a career, is it really a free choice, or is it economic coercion? When I worked at a methadone clinic in downtown Toronto, and the crack-addicted sex workers presented themselves at my counter with eye infections from gonorrhea-infected men ejaculating onto their faces, I wonder how anybody can so blithely proclaim that sex work is just another job where some people are exploited, but otherwise the most progressive position is to consider it an option that women can explore in a world of possible choices. It's as if "choice" was a candy counter, and we are all the wide-eyed children standing before it while a benevolent parent waits for us to select whatever we like.

"Choice" feminism privileges individual preferences over any sort of contextual analysis that attempts to cast a light upon imbalances of power and the role of the patriarchy in determining what we think we want out of our own free will, but actually may be a form of subtle or not-so-subtle coercion.

And using terms like "harassment" or "violence" to describe feminist critique is another way women are silenced.

It's interesting to me that "choice feminism" is called out for critique only when the choice does not involve reproductive rights.  When the choice, as in the case of Muslim women wearing a hijab, is denied on the basis of fighting an oppressive social structure, or in the case of sex workers choice is denied on the basis of fighting sexual objectification and exploitation, choice is deemed not genuine because it is done in the context of coercion, economic or social.  Well, gains have been made in reproductive rights without overturning patriarchy or capitalism.  And the gains fought for and legitmately valued have much to do with preventing the harms, the individual harms, that denying reproductive rights have caused.  And many of those individual harms originate or are abetted by women's economic position.  It could be easily argued that abortion for a poor woman is not real choice but a matter of economic coercion.  Here is a story from France on the harassment and violence suffered by Muslim women due to the ban on hijabs, niqabs, and other forms of dress, bans that are not only supported by French secularists but by many feminists

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world/europe/muslim-frenchwomen-strugg...

It's of a pattern.  It reminds me of the sex work debate.  When confronted with the fact that some women choose to be sex workers, prostitution abolitionists will counter that they are not really choosing, they are coerced by pimps and traffickers; when confronted with evidence that the vast majority are not coerced by pimps and traffickers, they counter with the argument that economic necessity is a form of coercion; when it's pointed out that this makes sex work, in fact, like every other form of work and not distinct as the abolitionists argue, they point to how it's damaging to all women -- and here we scratch the surface of what it's all about.  It's never about the freedom of Muslim women or the freedom of sex workers -- that's just a cover -- it's really about how their stigmatizing view reflects back on themselves as women.

And why is a cover needed for the true motivations?  Because the true motivations entail denying some women choice over what to do with their lives, what to do with their bodies.  And for western feminism in which the right to reproductive choice, to abortion, was key, denying choice to other women is a bit unpalatable.  So, they go out of their way to dismiss, deny, and silence women who choose to do things they would not choose to do, and which they believe hurts the larger struggle for women's equality.  That Muslim women or sex workers are subject to increased limitations on their freedom and subject to increased levels of harassment and violence as a result of the policies they advocate is just the price "we have to pay" for the greater good.  This calling out of "choice feminism" ignores the manner in which reproductive rights have been largely won in the west (though still under attack from conservative religious groups) based on the same principles of individual choice.

The other commonality of these critiques of "choice feminism" might offer a clue. The objects of the critique of "choice feminism" are invariably religious minorities, transgender women, women of color, or economically marginalized women.  Now that middle-class white feminists have gained what is most important in their immediate private lives regarding patriarchy, gains made not through overturning the patriarchy but through making an accommodation with patriarchy and capitalism (reproductive rights are good for business), they work tirelessly to deny other forms of choice to other groups of women, because such choices "lack contextual analysis."  For many feminists, feminism has become just a form of white class privilege. 

quizzical wrote:

"slut shaming" do you people never get tired of a tired and proven wrong trope? also, there is the case of your expropriating minds and voices by saying this what is going on and what feminist abolishionists believe.

stop it!!!!

 

 

 

 

You need to rethink your use of the phrase "you people". It's an oppressive use of language and is very marginalizing.

"slut shaming" do some of the decriminalizing supporters never get tired of a tired and proven wrong trope? also, there is the case of your expropriating minds and voices by saying this what is going on and what feminist abolishionists believe.

stop it!!!!

 

 

 

 

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/we-demand-rabbleca-end-your-ass...

post 470

Pondering wrote:

Your post 140 drew parallels between abolitionists, racists and homophobes. You also stated that abolitionists don't care about "collateral damage" in another post. You also drew parallels between prostitution and marriage or other relationships that have an economic aspect to them. I don't buy your offended innocence act.

Slumberjack wrote:

If they did give a hoot about collateral damage, they'd offer suggestions instead of condemnation and the cops.  The statement about not caring is either true, or it isn't.  I happen to think it's true.  The parallels are not figments of my imagination.  They present themselves as concerns within feminist discourse itself.  It's not my fault if you are unwilling to come to terms with that.

Come to terms with what? What "collateral damage" are you referring to? The "collateral damage" and direct damage I see comes from prostitution.