links for 2007-09-07
-
“Having physical contact, sexual or not, is an important part of feeling connected to others.” Really great, succinct post.
-
“Life as a racial/gender/sexual minority creates unique and important circumstances for bloggers. Circumstances that aren’t frequently addressed by organizers of tech conferences; either you assimilate or get left out.”
-
Atlanta, GA – Summer 2008
-
Militants did this to (and I quote) “end obscenity.” Mmm-hmm. Now see the problem with that kind of shit? Oh but I thought Patriarchy totally loved sex workers. Riiiiiight.
Sep 07 2007 07:37 pm | Category: del.icio.us links
| 4 Comments »
I’m confounded that you would take the interpretation that anti-prostitution feminists have some notion that “Patriarchy totally loves sex workers.” All the anti-prostitution feminists I know are pretty blisteringly aware that women in the sex trade are utterly despised by patriarchy – that indeed, much of the sex trade is centered around/caters to that specifically patriarchal hatred. This view is particularly prevalent among those of us who’ve been directly impacted by the sex industry, although many of us are loathe to be “out” about our experiences because it gets tiresome to be constantly identified with the systematic abuse we have survived. I call this the ideological mandate to “bleed on command,” in which, on the one hand, anti-prostitution activists who haven’t been there tend to expect us to bleed anecdotal fodder for the benefit of their theories (which, even when I agree with those theories, as I generally do, absolutely sucks) – while simultaneously devaluing us as activists in our own right. Then on the other hand, those identifying with the sex workers’ rights movement per se outright dismiss us and assume we have no lived-experience basis upon which to form our own beliefs, theories, and forms of activism. (And then continue to ignore and insult us after we’ve gone through the ritual anecdotal bleeding for their benefit.) We get drained from all sides, you see?
Yes, there are indeed some who call themselves feminists and/or radical feminists who harbor notions that what women who identify as sex workers are doing is some intentional act of collusion with patriarchy, with said collusion somehow being engineered to specifically harm other women (e.g., those not impacted by and/or participating in the sex trade). When I hear that, I call bullshit really loudly. That’s utterly antithetical to feminism, and it’s offensive. (More about the “whorebaiting” problem among some self-described radical feminists some other time.)
That said, I sincerely thank you for the link to that story. What an enormous, inexcusable horror. We can agree on that, right?
You say you are “confounded that [I] would take the interpretation that anti-prostitution feminists have some notion that ‘Patriarchy totally loves sex workers’” but then you go on to acknowledge that some self-identified anti-prostitution feminists do just that:
And you say when you hear that, you call bullshit really loudly. Which is exactly what I’m doing, too.
Hello again Amber,
Thank you for commenting back. Hopefully I’ll have a coherent reply in the next day or so, at this point I’ve been awake for 44 consecutive hours. What I might dash off in my present state of exhaustion and overwhelm, might not feel right to me later on, so for now, good night.
[...] at Amber Rhea’s blog, I felt compelled to comment on what seemed to me a bizarre mischaracterization of anti-prostitution feminists. Citing a [...]