This essay first appeared on Cliterati on March 10th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.
In the early days of second-wave feminism, sex workers were widely recognized as having fought for women’s rights for centuries; 1970s whores marched and protested right alongside of housewives and lesbians, and for a while it looked like the cause of sex worker rights would become a mainstream one. But just as it had happened in first-wave feminism, a cabal of white, middle-class, sexually-repressed women commandeered the movement for themselves and elbowed sex workers out; once the AIDS scare began in the early 1980s their victory was complete, and sex worker rights languished as a marginal cause for a generation while gay rights advocates managed to build a powerful coalition which has not only won legal protections for gay people, but dramatically reduced bigotry toward them (especially among the young).
Finally, the sex worker rights movement began to pick up again around the turn of the 21st century; prostitution was decriminalized in some places and liberalized in others, and sex worker unions and other alliances have gained rapidly in power and prominence. Unfortunately, the prohibitionists are not stupid; they noticed that there had been a sea change in public opinion against interfering in private sexual arrangements between consenting adults, and so created the “sex trafficking” hysteria as a means of rallying the public behind criminalization again. As the “Nation Strategy” of Swanee Hunt’s Demand Abolition organization states, “Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.” In other words, “since people now recognize it’s wrong for the government to stick its nose into private bedrooms, we have to pretend this is really about something else.”
But nobody stays asleep forever, and over the past couple of years I’ve begun to see strong signs of a public awakening on this issue despite the lullabies and sleeping-draughts assiduously administered by prohibitionists both inside and outside of government. Canadian public support for criminalization has rapidly eroded in the wake of the Himel decision, and several UN agencies have come out in favor of decriminalization for both health and human rights reasons (specifically repudiating restrictive forms of “legalization” such as those in Sweden, Nevada and the Netherlands). After last summer’s “Sex Worker Freedom Festival” in Kolkata (an answer to the exclusion of sex workers from the International AIDS Conference in Washington), an article in the Guardian called Indian sex workers “a shining example of women’s empowerment”, The Lancet published a pro-decriminalization statement, and several British politicians have strongly criticized the incredible waste of money which resulted from the “trafficking” hysteria around the London Olympics.
Then in just the past few months, the stirrings have become extremely pronounced. Melissa Gira Grant’s “The War on Sex Workers” in February’s Reason magazine touched off angry denunciations from radical feminists but soul-searching and even changes of heart from moderates. On February 28th, I spoke at a symposium at Albany Law School and was not only enthusiastically received, but found several academics and a UN official whose views were not far from mine. Then on International Sex Worker Rights Day, a group of activists (including Dr. Brooke Magnanti and myself) took to Twitter to reveal some of the abuse we’ve received from prohibitionists under the hashtag #whenantisattack, opening the eyes of many to the brutality of those who wish to suppress our profession:
…Magnanti is forced to live in secrecy, her number taken to the top of any 999 summons list because of the innumerable threats she has received…Her family’s privacy has been invaded to find the “causes” of her choice and her personal appearance derided, not least within what might otherwise be called the sisterhood…[this abuse] would seem crazed were it not for MSP Rhoda Grant, who is sponsoring an “end demand for sex trafficking” bill in the Scottish parliament, declaring violence against sex workers a price worth paying to secure her proposals. As Magnanti tweeted: “Let that sink in. Politician thinks it’s OK if people die b/c of her bill. No one bats an eyelid.”
Is it not time we came to terms with prostitution? Instead, the prostitute herself…becomes the target for culture’s anxieties about sex…whore-bashing…is somehow deemed acceptable…said bashing includes a cohort of feminist critics who…[argue that]…sex workers cannot know their own minds, or be in control of their bodies, and thus consent…Hatred of prostitutes has implications for all women who desire to determine their sexual existences. These obviously stigmatised targets allow a kind of thin-end-of-the-wedge, sanctioned misogyny…
Meanwhile, across the pond, Molly Crabapple wrote about the indefensible behavior of New York police:
…The NYPD will arrest you for carrying condoms, but that depends entirely on who you are. If you’re a middle-class white girl like me, you’re probably safe. But say you’re a sex worker or a queer kid kicked out of your home. Say you’re a trans woman out for dinner with your boyfriend…Maybe some quota-filling cop thinks you look like a whore. Then you’re not safe at all. Like most laughably cruel tricks of the justice system, you probably wouldn’t know that you could be arrested for carrying condoms until it happened to you…the polite middle classes trivialize arrest…They don’t realize that the constant threat of arrest is traumatic, unless it happens to them or their kids.
…How does something so egregious keep happening? Because sex workers don’t matter…to power…Horrors are acceptable when they’re not happening to the dominant class…LGBT civil rights and sex worker advocacy groups are fighting against the use of condoms as evidence. Mainstream feminism is not. A movement that rightly and vociferously fought pharmacists who refused to fill birth control prescriptions has remained largely silent about women being jailed for carrying another contraceptive. Mainstream feminism might remember that the war on women always starts with the war on whores…Until 1996, Ireland locked up unmarried moms and rape victims in Magdalene Laundries, where nuns worked them to death to cleanse their imaginary sins. The nuns built those Magdalene Laundries to imprison sex workers. Tens of thousands of women died within their walls, of every walk of life except the very wealthiest…
Sex worker advocates have been talking and writing about this (not only in New York but in many places all over the world) for years, but Molly’s article is being widely linked and “tweeted” as though it were saying something new. Please don’t take that as a complaint, because it most certainly isn’t; in fact, it’s the exact opposite. I’m extremely grateful to those outside the sex worker rights movement who are beginning to call attention to our situation and to repeat and amplify our arguments to a much wider audience; with their help, I’m hopeful that sex worker rights will once again become a mainstream feminist, health, human rights and civil liberties issue as it was starting to become in my childhood, and that the majority of the next generation of young people will view persecution of sex workers with the same distaste as most of the current one sees persecution of gay people, and most of my own generation sees race prejudice.
Provocative, passionate and well-penned as usual. Unfortunately, imho also predictably anti-feminist. I do wish you would get off that bandwagon Maggie. Then again, that would leave us with nothing to argue about, wouldn’t it? Love your writing and delighted to see your following growing exponentially <3
I’ll come to Maggie McNeill’s defense even though she doesn’t need it and can adequately defend herself better can I can defend her because the sooner someone sets you to the right ideas the better. Maggie McNeill describes herself as an anarcheo-feminist(old school feminist) or 1st wave feminist opposed to the neo-feminists(new feminists) or 2nd and later wave whatever their number feminists. One of the principles of anarcheo-feminism is do unto others as you would have done unto yourself or do not do unto others as you would not have done unto yourself. Another would be leave my sex life or any other aspect of my life to be governed only by me as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else which prostitution between consenting adults virtually never hurts anyone as an example. Don’t go looking for exceptions as if they exist are so rare as to be deemed practically not noteworthy. Another principle of anarcheo-feminism is their lack of hatred of men, boys or males and they usually like or love men, boys and males unlike neo-feminists. Right now we in the USA effectively live in a matriarchy not a patriarchy like neo-feminists would have you believe. Prostitutes constitute a threat to that order of neo-feminists and mental castrati white knight lap dogs. Too many (American or Western)men are willing to undergo any threat or humiliation just to have sex with women or have any women pretend to love them. There is no logical reason for American men to get married under the current laws and culture of misandry as an example. Women can unilaterally destroy marriage for no good reason and almost always force men via the government to pay exhorbitent alimony, child support and division of assets. Neo=feminism correctly identifies prostitutes as strike breakers where men can go get sex and not be ruled by their penises which is led by women which in turn is led by the government which in turn is led by our ruling elite, both men and women. Neo-feminism revels in degrading and humiliating men and any woman such as prostitutes who by their own actions reduce or eliminate those negative things against men, boys and males.
I think you’re confusing “anarcho-feminsm” with “archeofeminism” and the latter with 1st-wave feminism; they’re all different. An “archeofeminist” (my own coinage) is one who recognizes that men and women are different, equally important to the world and superior to men in some ways while being inferior in others. Archeofeminism was around long before the 19th century; it goes back to the dawn of civilization.
I made typos above which is my fault. I meant archeo-feminist as I have no idea what an anarcho-feminist is, although I suppose the United States government’s Department of Homeland Security has called anarcho-feminism a terrorist ideology and its followers terrorists supported by the North Korean government to kill freedom around the world and ruin the American way of life. Actually, don’t be surprised if our American government has done the same to archeo-feminism and it’s followers. LOL and LMAO!!! Seriously, I try to understand and use your definitions of things to the best I can while I’m on your site. I probably won’t do this on other sites. I agree with one of your ideas above that women are better than men in some ways and worse than men in others and that it goes back to the dawn of civilization. I think it goes back to when our ancestors became the progenitors of our species, homo sapiens. We should complement each other like archeo-feminism esposes unlike what neo-feminism promotes which causes us to compete against each other. I never considered myself a feminist mainly because I always considered neo-feminism repulsive, and I’m surprising myself by calling myself a archeo-feminist.
Maggie is a feminist.
Yes she is but the problem comes in the miriad of definitions of exactly what a “feminist” is. There are almost as many different types of feminists as there are churches. In fact, many of the different “orders” of feminism, just like a church, will tell you that if you don’t believe in feminism the way they do – then you aren’t a feminist.
I think it’s a silly term anyway – and probably an outdated philosophy. If “feminism” means that we have to water down our Marine combat units by “integrating” women into them – then no thanks, keep the “feminism” I say.
Feminism turns me off as much as “maleism” or whatever you want to call this constant bitching from the beta-males about how women are favored by government laws when it comes to matters such as divorce, child care, even whining about not getting sex from them. It’s just crazy and embarrassing to me as a man to hear men whine about these things. Sack up boys!
What’s the need for feminism these days? Do we need it to preserve a woman’s “right to choose” from being taken away by the 50% of her sisters who are “pro-life”? It was women who defeated the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70’s. The major opponents of feminism are … FEMALES these days. And why should the “feminist” movement be endowed with such sanctity as “the” definitive feminine movement? Is a woman who likes to wear a skirt somehow less of a woman for wearing one? Is a homemaker somehow less of a woman for not working a paying job? I know a lot of conservative women and they’ll tell you that femists don’t speak for them – so, in my eyes – they don’t. Feminists speak for themselves. They’re advancing their own interests – not the interests of many modern women today who want nothing to do with “feminism”.
It’s just like a union. The union says it speaks for me. Bullshit! I’m not a member of a union and I’d slit my wrists before ever joining one. They don’t speak for me – what right do they have in even saying it? I speak for me – and no one else.
Well, remember, this was in response to a parent post calling Maggie an anti-feminist.
Feminists come in many shapes, sizes and POV. And, although I would call myself a feminist, I don’t find labels useful. They are divisive and create conflict without cause. I believe that prostitution should be legalized. In fact I was an advocate for the legalization of prostitution in Canada more than 30 years ago. So doclove: I suggest you not make assumptions about what I do or do not stand for. And I surely don’t need you or anyone else to “set me right.” I’m as right as rain just as I am thank you very much. BTW, I believe work in the home should be as highly valued as work outside the home. I wear make-up and sexy lingerie. I also wear rubber boots and do my own home repairs. I believe in freedom of choice and freedom of speech. I also speak for myself and don’t like others to speak on my behalf. Likewise, I object to the lumping of people into broad categories and then attacking them – in the same way Maggie objects to others putting all whores and sex trafficking issues into one basket. I just don’t think either is useful . I’ve had this discussion with Maggie on several other occasions. I am not “attacking” her, so there is no need to “defend” her. Everyone has the right to an opinion. I have mine, she has hers. Debate is healthy. Sometimes people agree to disagree.
I’m failing to see how you fundamentally disagree with me or Maggie McNeill in this post. I’m also failing to see why you called this article anti-feminist in your first post unless you were being sarcastic and I failed to notice it. It is impossible to imply sarcasm with tone of voice when one is writing which is why I try to put sarcasm in parenthesis or write LOL or LMAO. I suggest writing with more clarity next time so I and no one else gets confused as to your meaning and intent. Remember that in writing, it is more difficult to correct people’s misunderstandings of what you stated than if you are talking to them. It is incumbent on every writer to try to be clear the first time and that even includes me. I made typos in my above response which Maggie McNeill caught me on. I did my best to correct myself afterwards. I try to assume nothing as to not make an ass out of you and me, and only responded to what you wrote. Finally, what did you mean that this article was anti-feminist and she should get off that bandwagon?
1) Your failings and the ways in which you interpret my words are beyond my control.
2) Maggie rarely misses an opportunity to take a pot shot at feminists; in this post: “But just as it had happened in first-wave feminism, a cabal of white, middle-class, sexually-repressed women commandeered the movement for themselves,” Well, I am a feminist and I’m white, but I’m certainly not middle-class, nor am I sexually repressed, nor have I “commandeered” anything.
3) I think Maggie is guilty (despite her coined phrases and labels) is guilty of lumping people together with labels just like the very people she skewers are guilty of lumping all sex workers together. No matter how fine the distinction she makes in her categorizations, it’s not useful in my opinion to ascribe to groups broad-brush beliefs which may or may not reflect the views and opinions of those who are members of said groups.
4) Those are my thoughts. You are free to agree or disagree as you wish. There is no right and wrong when it comes to opinions; sometimes not even when it comes to so-called “facts” and “truths.” Just because Maggie says or writes something, doesn’t make it truth. Pedestals are dangerous places on which to put oneself and others. #justsaying
5) Apparently you missed this part of my comment: “Provocative, passionate and well-penned as usual;” and “Love your writing and delighted to see your following growing exponentially.” Presumably, you would agree with those parts. So, on some things we would agree, on others we would not. I don’t have a problem with that. I can’t help it if you do.
I wasn’t so much defending as stating fact: Maggie is a feminist.
It’s not really something to argue about. It’s like “the sun rises in the East.”
I was responding to doclove. I haven’t heard Maggie describe herself as a feminist – maybe I missed that post 🙂 I would be delighted if she were to identify herself as such 🙂
Oh, a quest! I will find it for you!
Hmm… I’ll admit, it is harder than I thought. The closest I can find are some of her articles where she mentions that at the beginnings of feminism were pro-sex worker rights:
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/traitors-to-their-sex/
She also uses the term neofeminism to describe the modern anti-sex variant.
😉 yes, I know she has coined her own term. perhaps what she would call a neo feminist, I wouldn’t call a feminist at all… but this is the problem with labels…
1) Your failings and ways in which you communicate your words are beyond my control.
2) Maggie rarely misses an opportunity to take potshots at NEO-FEMINISTS. She says positive things about ARCHEO-FEMINISTS like herself. I believe you when you say that you are White, not middleclass and that you never commandeered anything. I never accused you being White, middleclass, and commandeering.
3) You may or may not be right in your assertions about labels. However, labels are catching and many but not all find them useful. She and others shoot back when shot at. Maggie defines her terms and definitions of her labels better than most too. There’s no sense in playing nice when others won’t abide by the same standards you have. As an example would you let someone repeatedly punch you in the face with extraordinary ferocity without striking back in the most effective way possible to save yourself from harm? Would you not at some point do the same if someone was attacking you verbally or in writing? Most people wouldn’t and all have their individual limits. It’s up to you how to defend yourself and it’s up to others to decide how to defend themselves.
4)Put Maggie or anyone else on a pedestal? Are you kidding me? Maggie McNeill have had our disagreements on this site although it’s been awhile. Everyone has a right to his opinion. Concerning facts and truths, would you believe me if I told you that I really am former President Bill Clinton? May I ask you to define what sex is and finally what the meaning of “IS” is?
5) I liked your positive comments and did not miss them. I have no problems whether agreeing or disagreeing with you. Here’s a mental hamsterbation moment just for you. Instead of Amazing Susan, may I call you Auntie Giggles?
No, you may not.
I can’t speak for Maggie, but as long as self-proclaimed “feminists” believe that ending prostitution is more important than the safety of women, I see no reason for her to get her bandwagon.
I am a feminist who has long (i.e. 30+ years) been an advocate for the legalization of prostitution. I agree with Maggie on many issues. I disagree with Maggie on many others. I have a mind of my own, as does she.
See … I think that was an “illusion”.
I don’t think you could put me in a room with a UN official and find that any of my opinions were close to his – unless he lied about his true opinions. These guys (and gals) are the epitome of swine and no less demonic than our own U.S. Congress. However, they are politicians – they rape you when they can and smile and agree with you when they can’t. They bide their time – they chip away – they hide their true feelings on the issues until they are ready to complete their devious plans.
Don’t trust those bitches for a single second, girl.
Point of order: what grand evil scheme might supporting sex-worker rights advance?
I don’t see what it might be, and I’ve considered sinister agendas from the neofems (obviously not) to the Lizard men, to the commie mutant traitors against Friend Computer, to the people who programmed skeumorphism into OSX.
Nice Paranoia reference, Greg Costikyan would be proud.
Frankly, I’m surprised by the fact that members of the UN are on the right side of this, since the European Union and the United States are on the wrong side of it (two organizations with a lot of clout in the UN).
Stranger things have happened though.
I’m most disappointed with the EU… but then what isn’t disappointing about the EU lately?
Do you think gay rights activists care that dozens of politicians suddenly support same-sex marriage now because it is no longer political suicide, but becoming vice-versa? No, they don’t, nor should they. And I don’t care why politicians support more individual rights, as long as they do. More individual rights can only help the world in the long run, even if a politician makes political coin out of them to accomplish petty evil in the short run. If you’re waiting for politicians to support ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER for pure and moral reasons, you’re going to have an awfully long wait.
I think you missed my point. I’m telling you that politicians pick and choose their battles – and when facing a beautiful and articulate woman … they very well often opt to pass on the battle for that particular day.
Tomorrow those guys will be in another forum spewing their “control philosophy”. In fact, I’m sure some of the “trafficking in persons” curriculum I have to go through each year is authored by these same guys.
But to answer your question about politicians “supporting” causes. I’d like to make it irrelevant whether they support it or not. Case in point … I don’t give a damn if a pol supports gun rights – because the founders authored and ratified the second amendment to keep that issue OUT of the politicians hands.
Gay marriage? Why is that in the hands of politicians? Well of course it’s in their hands because we allowed it to move into their hands – we invited their participation in the issue of marriage long ago when the religionists insisted that the state also “ratify” their spritual unions. Do I support gay marriage? No more than I support hetero marriage. The issue for me is for the government to get totally out of the marriage business and then let everyone do whatever they wish. Marry a roller-coaster if you will – or several women – it’s all cool then.
To me, it’s obvious that any laws against prostitution are ultimately dangerous to all women. I don’t like to make this argument, though, because I would prefer that people saw that it’s wrong to harm prostitutes or treat them as sub-human by itself without the qualifier, “if it happens to her today, it could happen to you tomorrow.”
(Unfortunately, most of us who care about the right of prostitutes to make a living unmolested by the police feel that way for personal reasons. I’m no different in this case, I have my own personal reasons for my political views. On the other hand I’d be surprised if most people who don’t think prostitution is morally wrong don’t ever get involved with it from some angle.)
Still, for practical reasons, it’s better to get as broad a coalition opposing bad laws as possible. So the fact that any random woman can be arrested for carrying condoms in NYC is good information to get out there. The reality is, there is no “type” of woman who becomes a prostitute, other than that she is comfortable with sexual promiscuity. Take the case of poor Brandy Britton ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900654.html ). She was a sociology professor but she worked on the side as a prostitute to make ends meet. So, they destroyed her.
Now, supposing some cop knows about Brandy Britton, or other famous upper middle class prostitutes, or just happens to believe that birth control is morally wrong. Suddenly, they get promoted to “religious police” ala Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Today they can arrest you for carrying condoms, and being a prostitute (too bad for you if your partner has HIV or something), tomorrow, other forms of birth control can be added to the suspicious list….
How is this feminism?
How is this feminism?
It isn’t.
Feminism = my body, my choice.
Neofeminism = your body, our choice.
There are so many versions of “feminism” that I’m totally confused. This is by Emo Philips, and although it’s about religion, it would work just as well for feminism:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
+1 🙂
I’m keeping this one.
You know, you can talk about kinds of feminism, or kinds of religion, or whatever…but in the end it’s all about power and/or control of people’s lives.
Personal freedom is important. If a woman wants to sell admission to her body, why should that be a problem? It all depends on what you want, really. A man can get (consensual) sex for free, but it’ll usually cost you money and/or time, or you can pay up front. Your choice. As far as violence against prostitutes, that doesn’t require extra laws. Just enforce the laws about rape, assault, battery, etc. that we already have.
(Slight derail) I personally think statutory rape is stupid. Obviously if she’s too young, then it’s child molestation, but, I don’t see putting a 16 year old in jail for having consensual sex with a 14 year old, either. I mean, a century or so ago, girls were married off around 14 and had babies with boys not much older than themselves fairly often, but now she’s not old enough to even play?
Of course, don’t get me started on the sorry state of sex education in this country. It’s amazing to me how good the public school’s program here is, actually, as deep in the Bible belt as I am. My wife and I made sure our girls had all the info, though. I think making sure they had all the info they wanted and maybe more than they wanted actually had the effect that the teachers of abstinence would like to have!
All the rest is just a smokescreen for people who want control and power over you.
The arc continues to bend.