Archbishops morality and abuse

The Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned. He had the opportunity to protect children from abuse but he didn't take it. There may have been other abusers but John Smyth is the most prominent. He was the barrister for Mary Whitehouse (a morality campaigner in the 1970s and 1980s). They were both Christians and Smyth ran Christian summer camps for young boys and men.

In Victoria Smith's book 'Hags' she quotes Helen Joyce and Louise Perry. She believes that older women like Mary Whitehouse protected younger women and children from predators like Jimmy Savile.

Not only did Mary Whitehouse not protect young people and children from abusers like John Smyth and Jimmy Savile (she presented Savile with an award) her type of older woman did great harm to young women. In Ireland they were insisting that pregnant teenage girls were sent to mother and baby homes or Magdalene Laundries. Unmarried pregnant girls weren't welcome in the community because they set a bad example to the others.

It wasn't that bad in England but this type of older woman smothered the happiness of young women in many different ways. They took a dim view of sex education and contraception. They were happy for young women to enter early marriage or work in a menial job as a factory worker, typist or servant.

It's interesting that Victoria Smith doesn't think that pornography causes anal pain in young women. I can't find anything in her book that states young men are demanding anal sex from young women because of pornography. Instead she goes back to the older idea that young women are forced to shave their pubic hair because young men never see it in pornography.

She doesn't state this clearly though. On page 188 there is this: "our aversion to pubic hair". On page 160 there is this: "Female pubic hair was still legal". Anyone who has looked at pornography knows that there is lots of pubic hair there. Despite its supposed ubiquity it seems that so many people haven't even looked at porn. She might not want people to think of her alongside 'conservative housewives, moral majority pearl-clutchers and no-sex-before-marriage fundamentalists'  (page 161) but they are obviously the congregation that she is preaching to.

It was Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols who tried to expose Jimmy Savile. The Punk movement might have favoured promiscuity but they didn't accept abusers. Unlike the Archbishop, Mary Whitehouse and her supporters. Here, that's an idea. Why don't we get John Lydon to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury?

sex work and the transgender issue

I've been reading a lot about trans issues recently. What got me started was I realized that there is a chapter in Shon Faye's book about prostitution. She is a trans woman and her book is The Transgender Issue. She is in favour of the decriminalization of prostitution, as am I.

This blog is about sex work so I'm not going to write much about the trans issue, except in how it relates to prostitution. I can see both sides of the debate. I have also read Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce. Both of these are authors oppose trans 'ideology'. The second of them is a Radical Feminist.

What annoys me about the Radical Feminists is how they want to reinvent themselves as the guardians of free speech. On the final page of her book Joyce writes "It will take a renewed commitment to two interests shared by everyone in a secular, liberal democracy: freedom of belief and freedom of speech".

They're only saying this now because they have been on the receiving end of treatment that they have been handing out for decades. Consider this, from Amia Srinivasan's book The Right to Sex.

"In 1993 a group of anti-porn feminists wrote a letter to the vice chancellor of the Australian National University demanding that an invitation to US pro-sex feminists, including Gayle Rubin and Carol Vance, be rescinded. One of the signatories was Sheila Jeffreys, a central figure on the 'revolutionary feminist' wing of the British women's liberation movement, which insisted - contrary to the then dominant socialist feminist position - that male sexual violence, rather than capitalism, was the foundation of women's oppression. In recent years Jeffreys has decried the 'vilification' and 'censoring' of feminists who, like her, are trans-exclusionary. Jeffreys apparently does not recognise the irony in objecting to the same tactics that she and other anti-porn feminists pioneered forty years ago." 

What goes around comes around. I suspect that in the future this will happen to them again. They might think that their scheming with the religious right has paid them dividends, but the mums who don't want a trans girl in their daughters' school toilets can just as easily say they don't want a lesbian girl there. Someone who says that a man can't become a woman, it's only politeness that has stopped us from saying it before, can just as easily say that homosexuality is a perversion and a mental illness.

Sheila Jeffreys is a lesbian, she thinks women should be lesbians. Do think that ordinary people can distinguish between a trans person and the sort of radical feminist lesbian who has short hair, no makeup and wears men's clothes? If the transgender movement is an ideology then Radical Feminism is one too: two rival ideologies fighting it out for the hearts and minds of people - and especially teenage girls.

In Chapter 7 of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Joyce writes this:

"But from the 1990s or so, liberal or 'third wave' feminism de-emphasised such structural and communal issues, instead centering choice and agency - for example arguing that some women might want to work in pornography or prostitution, and that this could be empowering. Second-wave feminists, who mostly regarded these as harmful for all women and almost always coerced, were dismissed as 'sex-negative' - or simply prudes."

I think someone who chooses to believe that women who work in pornography or prostitution are 'almost always coerced' without any evidence for that are indeed prudes. They don't like it, so they think up a reason why they should oppose it, harming women in the process. They don't like it for the same reason their religious right allies don't like it - a fear and disgust of basic human sexuality. If you choose to believe something without evidence, that is not reality it is ideology.

If you believe that prostitutes are almost always coerced then you want them to be rescued. But 'rescue' means women abducted by police and kept against their will. That is harming women.

Third wave or pro-sex feminists are termed liberal, and it is said they have no interest in 'structural and communal issues'. It was Jeffreys though who was the first to take feminism in a direction away from its socialist and anti-capitalist roots. As Amia Srinivasan wrote in her book:

"At the ninth Women's Liberation Movement Conference, this time held in London, Sheila Jeffreys gave a paper titled 'The Need for Revolutionary Feminism', in which she took socialist feminists to task for not recognising that male violence rather than capitalist exploitation lay at the foundation of women's oppression, and for making 'reformist' demands like socialised childcare."

Amia is anti-capitalist. Sheila Jeffreys doesn't represent the original feminism, from which third wave feminism departed. Feminism didn't originally have the obsession with pornography and prostitution that people like Jeffreys, MacKinnon and Dworkin introduced.

Third wave feminists have not argued that 'some women might want to work in pornography or prostitution'. They argue that large numbers of women do. How can we help them? As far as I know they have never used the word 'empowering'. Money is empowering. Sex work is well paid. So from that point of view it is empowering, although maybe the Radical Feminists mean something different by that word. Being a politician or a CEO is empowering in a different way. Sex work doesn't give you that but then neither does most work.

Harmful for all women? Joyce doesn't say why she thinks that, but it brings us back to the false research that I wrote about a couple of posts ago. They think that there is more rape when there is more pornography and prostitution. Which brings us back to Sara Pascoe's book that I reviewed even more posts ago. Pascoe states that the evidence that she has looked at does not show that pornography increases rape (page 198) or sexism (page 200); or that most porn is violent (pages 204, 224 and 226). She also says it isn't true that women in porn don't have pubic hair (ignore what Jenni Murray says). Pascoe is very fair on the subject of pornography. Not so much on the subject of prostitution.

I've just listened to Jon Ronson's radio programme about trans issues, part of a series called Things Fell Apart about the culture wars. He talked about the Michfest music festival in America for women that started in the 1970s. What he said about it is completely different from what Helen Joyce has written about it in Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (chapter 8). Joyce makes no attempt to show both sides of the debate, for example not saying that transwomen were eventually welcomed into the festival by the other women: Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality seems to me a work of propaganda.