Finn Mackay has a lot to say about sex work in her book. Before we come on to that I want to tell you about her attitude to political lesbianism and celibacy. Radical Feminists often say that women should become lesbians: it doesn't mean having sex with women but it does mean definitely not having sex with men.
I've always suspected that this means that most of them don't have sex with anyone, they are celibate. They are trying to stop men and women from having sex together, and this is their main motivation in wanting to ban sex work. It's not that they are full of compassion for sex workers and wish to end their suffering.
Let us have a look at what is the clearest explanation of how political lesbianism usually means celibacy. Page 67.
"Contrary to much rumour since, the paper was not suggesting that women should simply pursue same-sex sexual activity. It was about the political choice to dedicate one's life to women. In fact, in the paper, the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group clearly reassured heterosexuals that the lesbian bit is not compulsory, and that celibacy is always an option."
The idea of heterosexual lesbians is an interesting one. Particularly as they are always telling us about reality and fiction. It is a fiction that a man can become a woman, it is not reality, so they tell us. Considering that most people are heterosexual, then most political lesbians would be celibate. Like the nuns of Ruhama they want to stop men and women fornicating. Ruhama campaigned for the Nordic model in Ireland.
The paper she is referring to is 'Political Lesbianism' by the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group which was led by Sheila Jeffreys. Jeffreys wrote "all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women."
Mackay explains that there are in fact four different types of feminist. The Radicals and the Revolutionaries, who are similar. Then there are the Liberals and the Socialists. I don't think this includes Third Wave feminists, who she doesn't have much time for.
Mackay quotes the opinion of an activist about sex work: "It is a form of exploitation, slavery: and a very specific one. I don't like the red umbrellas one bit." Page 207. Slaves don't get paid, neither do they choose their work or how they work. Sex work is the opposite of that: they are paid more than most people, and they do what they do in preference to the alternatives, having a great deal of autonomy in how they do it. Of course, there is modern slavery within sex work just as there is modern slavery within other types of work.
Mackay writes that so many feminists oppose prostitution because "they are against the presumption of a male right to sexual access to women's bodies." Page 208. I don't have a right to have sex with any sex worker, she can turn me down if I don't meet her criteria. Lots of sex work involves a masseur using her hands not just for massage but to bring her client to orgasm. Is that 'sexual access to women's bodies'? If not, then presumably she doesn't have a problem with it. Except of course she does because they always have a problem with sex between men and women, even in marriage.
She writes that under the Nordic model 'women are not criminalised'. She also writes that 'Any such legal move must go alongside a large and dedicated financial investment in both harm-minimisation and exit services ... ' (page 210). She doesn't know that women are arrested in Nordic model countries for brothel keeping just like in Britain. Women are evicted from their homes and deported. The promised exit services don't materialise and the authorities don't like anyone giving them condoms.
She doesn't distinguish between legalisation and decriminalisation. She writes that the ECP (English Collective of Prostitutes) and the IUSW (International Union of Sex Workers) advocate the New Zealand model. The ECP 'favour small owner-operated ventures over larger big business brothel chains.' Page 211. The big business chains are thriving in New Zealand though, she writes, and there was a planning application for a 15-storey brothel. Well, that's not true.
She writes that legalisation would result in a bigger demand and more women involved in prostitution. She also writes that there will be an illegal sector. Page 212. However, in New Zealand there was not an expansion of prostitution after decriminalisation.
There is no reason why exit services should not still exist under decriminalisation. If a factory worker wants to retrain to become an office worker they should be helped to do that. If a sex worker wants to retrain they should be helped too. They should be offered advice about debt, benefits and housing. For the minority who take drugs they should be offered rehab.
A sex worker is not a commodity. She is not like a bale of cotton that I can take home with me and later sell. She is offering a service, like millions of other people.
There is no reason why sex work needs to be more dangerous than other forms of work. It isn't true that 'the average age of entry into prostitution worldwide estimated at around only 14 years old.' Page 211. There is no credible evidence that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution or the number of murders of prostitutes.
She goes on to write about 'markedly gendered' and 'structural inequalities' as if these phrases mean anything. They 'cannot be overlooked' she writes, without spelling out precisely what she means.
Below I have quoted from her book and replied to what she has written:-
Page 217. "To put it bluntly, being a builder does not involve making one's body sexually available to one's employers; the same is true of journalists, academics, waiters etc."
She is trying here to say that sex work is different from any other type of work. The only thing that she can come up with is that sex work has distinguishing characteristics. All types of work have their own distinguishing characteristics though. Working in an undertakers is the only work where you have to handle dead bodies: that doesn't mean that in essence it is not work.
Page 217. "But the debate around prostitution cannot and should not be shut down by turning to the refrain that all work is like prostitution - because it patently is not; and the great majority of people understand this."
In what way is all work not like prostitution, or prostitution not like all work? People have customers, they negotiate a price for a service. They choose their form of work by looking at how much it pays, how long it takes to earn money, and what it is required for them to do. I can see how celibates will never be able to accept this.
Page 220. "No feminist I know is arguing for those in prostitution to be criminalised."
She obviously hasn't read the web site of Nordic Model Now! They say quite clearly that they do not want the repeal of the law that criminalises women for running a brothel. This is the main law used to arrest women in prostitution. That law always stays in place when a country adopts the Nordic model. There is in addition the law that gets sex workers evicted from their homes.
Page 220. "It would be nonsensical to suggest that all those people - women, young people, men - earning an income through prostitution are forced or coerced in the bluntest sense. However, the fact that there are probably some people successfully navigating the 'sex industry' without any negative experiences, for both the love and the money of it, should not negate the fact that research suggests this is far from the experience of the majority."
There is no evidence that most sex workers are coerced, either in Britain or around the world. Some sex workers have had a negative experience. That is the same as in other types of work. Sex workers can minimise these experiences by working together. Another way is to end up with a limited number of regular clients. Some sex workers only see men that they have seen before, they don't have to advertise and they can refuse to see a man they don't like. When police raid a flat they arrest women who work together and confiscate their phones thus disrupting safe activity.
Page 221. "It is usually acceptable to say that one is against trafficking, although some sex-industry lobby groups do try to suggest that it is extremely rare and they prefer to talk about 'migration for sex work'. Indeed reliable statistics are hard to find when dealing with an illegal trade where people are hidden or hiding and I do not deny that some government attempts at statistics can never be anything else than guesses."
There is a reason why experts on the subject of trafficking say it is rare and instead talk about 'migration for sex work'. Before George W Bush became president the word 'trafficking' had to by definition mean coercion or deception. He put Evangelical Christians in positions of authority and they decided to change the definition. They didn't want to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary sex work.
The UK decided to do the same. The rest of the world didn't. So it's not surprising that experts don't use the US and UK definition and instead stick to the Geneva Protocol. Below I quote two paragraphs from a recent Daily Mail article by Julie Bindel:-
"A few years ago, I attended a conference in Vienna about prostitution. I was one of only four delegates out of 185 who sat on a panel declaring we were troubled by the vile trade at all. The others held the view that all aspects of the sex industry should be decriminalised."
"Progress on the issue has been slow in recent years, however — at least in part because the language around prostitution has been unhelpfully sanitised. The trade in women has been cleaned up as ‘sex work'. Pimps are often described as ‘managers' and, especially within academia, the trafficking of women into prostitution has been rewritten as ‘migration for sex work'."
We should listen to what the academics say, not Radical/Revolutionary Feminists such as Finn Mackay or Julie Bindel.
Page 222. "it is not surprising then that global research finds that around 90 per cent of those in it would leave if they had the economic freedom to do so (Farley et al 2003)."
The 'global research' she mentions is not lots of researchers around the world. It all comes from Melissa Farley who is a Radical Feminist. I have dealt with this particular piece of research here.
Page 223. "It is time to envision a society, and a world, without prostitution. This may sound idealistic, but the theory matters, the direction of travel matters, the aspiration matters, because if we can't envision such a society, then we cannot even begin to build it."
Page 224. "This is not natural, it is not inevitable, and it can be reduced, maybe ended; at the very least it can be challenged, rather than glamourised, normalised and condoned.
The real question about prostitution is the question of men's rights and, whether we as a society believe that men have the right to buy and sell women's bodies or whether they do not."
Page 224. "Imagine if every country stood up and said that this is not acceptable, as Sweden has done, stood up and said that every woman is worth more than what some man will pay for her and that we will criminalise rather than condone men who assume the right to buy the body of another human being."
There is no reason to believe that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution. They have manipulated the statistics to make it appear so. The official report into the Northern Ireland law says that there has been an increase. The statistics from Sweden show an increase in the proportion of Swedish men who are active sex buyers and an increase in the proportion of Swedish women who have sold sex at some time in their life. They also show a decrease in the proportion of Swedish men who have bought sex at some time in their life, the widely reported drop from 13% to 8%, followed by an increase.
If it were possible to end prostitution, that would be one thing. But to burden sex workers and make their lives more difficult with no end in sight is not something we should contemplate.
I have never bought a woman's body. Trying to link it to slavery doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that women are only good for sex - only worth 'what some man will pay for her'. This explains more about why punters are hated - people are being told that we buy women and that we think that women have no value apart from sex. This kind of hatred can only come from a repressed sexuality.
If I go to see a doctor, and it turns out to be a female doctor, do you think that I would say 'I don't want to see you, you're a woman, you're only good for sex'? Of course not. I have respect for women, and I have respect for sex workers.
Page 225. "This is despite the changes in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 under the last Labour government, which were indeed a step forward, for the first time directing the eyes of the law onto those who fuel prostitution - punters. This victory was a result of the tireless campaigning by women's groups, led by the feminist, abolitionist 'Demand Change' campaign."
She must be referring to the law that can criminalise a man if he pays for sex with a woman who has been coerced or deceived, even if he didn't know. In some parts of the country no man has been convicted. The law was based on a false idea that most women in prostitution are coerced or deceived. It's not surprising that celibates like Finn Mackay believe that.
According to this study "section 14 had not been used by the majority (81%) of police forces across England and Wales". According to MP Fiona Mactaggart "In the first year of that being law there were 49 prosecutions—I was a bit disappointed because I did not think that was very many—with the men being found guilty in 43 cases. The following year there were 17 prosecutions, with 12 guilty verdicts, and the year after there were nine prosecutions, with six guilty verdicts".
So it's hardly some kind of great victory for the prohibitionists. They obviously thought that it was going to be their foot in the door. However, they are just wasting everybody's time. We would have to be mad to introduce the Nordic model in Britain.
No comments:
Post a Comment