In Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale , she argued there were two kinds of freedoms. Freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to is what we have now, well, mostly. It's the freedom to make our own decisions and the freedom to do what we will until we begin interfering with other's freedoms. Freedom of speech is a freedom to.
Freedom from is protection from other people's freedom tos. We have freedom from murder and violence.
Atwood argued that freedom to is far more important than freedom from. This is not to say freedom from is not important. Obviously we need to prevent murder, violence, and rape. But sometimes, the two freedoms come into comflict. I don't mean my freedom from conflicts with a rapist's freedom to, I mean my own freedom from conflicts with my own freedom to. Atwood's argument was when the two conflict, we should always give the adult woman freedom to before we give her freedom from, lest we wind up like the society of the republic of Gilead.
I agree with her. Walking alone at night is a freedom to; just because denying it to me increases my freedom from rape, doesn't mean I should be denied it. I think most of us can agree that when our freedom tos and freedom froms conflict, it's more important that we have freedom to.
And yet I see tons of women here claiming the opposite about certain groups of women. Women in heavily gendered relationships. Religious women. Surrogates. Stay-at-home moms. Prostitutes, strippers and porn stars. "Well, they didn't REALLY consent! They are a product of their society or their circumstances, they don't want to do it, we should protect them from it!" Well, sure, many women are forced into a bad situation. So we should always make every possible effort to give women more opportunities. Free job training for sex workers, plenty of supportive family services, etc.
But I have known women who were strippers not just because the needed the cash, but because they liked feeling sexy and performing, and of their various options, they preferred it. Even more commonly, that's the case for porn stars (who can at times have a bit more control over who the are touching). Now, they are obviously not the most common cases. But by saying "stripping should be outlawed!" we are saying that their freedom FROM stripping is more important than their freedom TO strip, if that's what they want to do. The same is true of prostitution, though admittedly fewer people go into that because they like it; but yet some do.
If a woman CHOSES to do something that we might not approve of, that we might think no one would want to do, why is our first reaction to take away her agency? Why do we then immediately take away the validity of her consent, as we do for teenagers, children, and the mentally ill? Shouldn't our first action be to provide her with as many resources as possible, help keep her healthy, but still honor her decision even if we think it was made for the wrong reasons?
Let's consider a woman who is a prostitute because she needs to feed her children. Obviously a bad situation. We can approach it one of two ways. Option one, we outlaw prostitution and prevent her from prostituting herself. Well, she's not a prostitute, but the kids are still starving and we basically told her, "no, you're wrong, that's not a good choice so we won't let you make it."
Option two, we offer free job training to prostitutes looking for better work. We train her to be an electrician or a hair stylist or whatever she wants, and help her pay the bills while she studies. We are thus saying, "Your choice is still valid, but we understand you made it due to pressing need, so we're going to give you other options you might prefer, and help you achieve them, so you don't have to make that decision any more."
Which one is more empowering to the woman? Which one helps her more and better solves her problems?
Men every day work in jobs that are unsafe and dangerous because they have no other choice. Good example? Meatpacking industry . That job is so dangerous it might as well be prostitution, what it lacks in degrading-ness it makes up in in lost limbs and permanent respiratory damage (and it is still quite degrading, overseers treat their workers terribly). Workers work primarily out of desperation. Yet I don't hear anyone saying that they should be banned from working there, or they didn't really decide to work there. Instead they focus on giving them better options and improving their work situation. Invalidation of consent is reserved for children and women in our society, and feminists are doing it just as much as everyone else. And before people say that meatpacking is more essential to society than prostitution, how about crab fishermen in the Artic ? Really dangerous and emotionally draining, most people are doing it out of dire need, and we really, really don't need crabs to survive, but there is a market for them, just like there is a market for prostitution, so it remains. And no one has tried to outlaw crab fishing yet.
The only times I hear of people's consent beign invalid because they were desperate are for children, mentally retarded people (both are probably good to remain that way, as they can't really consent at all), some minority groups, and women. White men can be desperate too! Why don't we worry about them being forced in to jobs? Because we automatically assume their consent is valid, even if it was actually coerced by their situation. Because they have agency and a voice in our society and we place their freedom to over their freedom from.
In an ideal world, we all would be protected from bad things and have all the freedom in the world, and they would never conflict. But we must remember, when they DO conflict, we must side with the side that gives women agency and power. We must honor their contracts and decisions as valid because they are valid, the woman can make the decision. We must not treat them like children just because they are women. By giving them options, we are giving them CHOICES, not forcing them to abide by what we choose for them.
There is the argument that one woman who fulfills a stereotype damages the whole women's movement and "sets us back." To which I ask, why, exactly, is that one woman responsible for the whole movement? There will always be Ann Coulters and Sarah Palins who set us back a lot more than a stay-at-home mother or a stripper. And a woman is much more likely to become a feminist if she sees feminism as an agent of positive, empowering change towards women than if feminism simply acts to protect her from herself. Even if it's actaully doing both, the woman who sees only the attacks on her generous surrogacy and claims that she is being manipulated by society that devalues her will still not veiw feminism positively. Or she sees feminism as attacking her loving relationship which happens to be along more defined gender roles for practical or personal reasons. Who would support something they saw like that?
Women may be driven by cultural forces that dictate their actions, but women are still individuals with agency. Of course if a woman SAYS she was coerced or pressured into something, we should beleive her and help her. But if she says she is not coerced, we should honor that. We should believe her. We should trust she is able to make her own decisions. And you know, just because one woman in a profession says she is coerced into it, does not mean that when another woman says she was not, we should ignore her or claim she is wrong. No one likes to feel like they have no voice, and for a long time, we have refused to give large groups of women a voice because their voice will not support what we want to beleive.
We want to beleive surrogates are coerced because we don't like the idea of women "selling" their uteruses, we don't like the idea of a uterus as a commodity. So we deny surrogates the right to say, "Wait, I am using my body to provide a service, in a more altruistic than financial way, and I find giving birth for another to be empowering." When they say it (and they do ) we claim they are just being manipulated, we ignore them, and we say they only believe that because someone tells them to. We devalue their opinions and undermine their freedom to choose their own path to self-actualization. Nothing is more disempowering than telling someone their opinions are wrong and worthless. ESPECIALLY since it is only done to women and minorities, and children, and never to white men, no matter how degrading or dangerous the job may be, how shitty the pay is, or how desperately they need it. And indeed, women are far more likely to be told they don't really want to make these choices and are just manipulated by the system than minority men.
This is exactly what Atwood warned about. In her book, women would never have been reduced to Handmaids had it not been for feminists supporting the ideas that women are simply being controlled by society, and their opinions are not neccessarily valid if they may have been pressed upon them. I don't think we're going to be Gilead, but I see the danger. Feminists cannot deny women their voices, no matter what those voices may say. We cannot deny them their freedom to, even if we think they need protection from their own decisions. In doing so we reduce them to children. And any effort to reduce women to the status of children ties in perfectly with the goals of the extreme right reactionaries who we want to be fighting.
Do not assume another woman finds the same things empowering that you do. Do not assume she is a tool of the patriarchy or manipulated by circumstance because she consents to a life you would not consent to. TALK TO HER. Listen. You may find that she has real, genuine reasons for wanting to be the way she is. You may find that she does not want the same for you, she just wants to live her life in peace and happiness. Or you may find that she does not want to be that way, but has no choice-- and then you are in the perfect position to give her REAL assistance to achieve the goals SHE wants to acheive in life. But even just by listening, you empower her. Just by believing her. Just by considering her to be the chief authority on her own life and needs.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Freedom To and Freedom From: Do We Always Make the Right Call?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10457
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Wow, your depiction of feminists is really depressing. This is a great topic, and something that feminists should pay a lot of attention to. However, your view of both human agency and of the positions taken by feminists is really oversimplified.
I believe that we can direct attention to coercive situations and work for deep systemic cultural change without passing judgement on the individual women involved or trying to intervene to prevent them from engaging in the activity in question. I think that saying "but she consented" is often misleading and incredibly naive. You can question someone's ability to consent in a coercive situation without casting doubts on their autonomy or mental capacity in general. A mature, competent, independent individual will consent to terrible things given the right situation. It's the rational thing to do. So the problem feminists have is with the situation, not the individual or her gender. And most feminists would argue that nobody, male or female, should be forced into accepting a situation that is harmful to themselves through economic or cultural coercion. Once you shift your focus from concern about whether or not women are capable of being autonomous individuals to critiquing and changing the social institutions that inevitably shape their lives and determine the choices available to them, you'll find that the whole freedom from/freedom to distinction is not central to the issue anymore, although it's still a very useful and important distinction.
I'm so glad somebody said this. Lately on feministing it seems like there's a lot of shoulder shrugging and "well, that was her choice" going on, and I think it's incredibly naive too. Of course we want everyone to respect women's autonomy, but what does truly autonomous choice look like in an oppressive context?
I don't think that truly autonomous choice exists in a coercive environment. Which is why issues like prostitution deserve a lot of critical thought. No one woman makes the choice to become a prostitute in a vacuum, and because it's a choice that has always been made within the patriarchy, I think this is how feminists have to approach the issue.
I agree with you that outlawing prostitution is a simplistic solution and that we have to recognize women's agency. Assuming total coercion is treating women like children. But it'd be foolish to ever think these choices can be made in a "truly autonomous" way.
This is not indicative of ALL feminists. Most here are actually quite supportive of women who chose something that defies the norm. I'm pointing out the extremes who are causing the rest of the movement to suffer.
....
If you ask a woman and she says she was not coerced, why will you not beleive her?
If she then says she's doing it for her family or for money or because she thinks it the lesser of two evils, why does that make it coercion?
If she is being abused, or there are NO positions availiable to her but one that is unfortunate, then yeah, she's probably being coerced into it. And except for if she's emotionally abused, she probably will tell you as much.
But just because she lives in a society that may be oppressive does not mean she does not have the right to make that choice. We all have to do sucky things in our lives, jobs that are demeaning or painful. We make choices. If I consent to a job at a burger joint because the alternative is eviction, is my choice somehow invalid? Was it coerced? We can't all have the jobs of our dreams!
Let's say a woman has a choice between prostitution or minimum wage work. Prostitution will pay more, but she can survive on minimum wage. Is that still coercion if she picks prostitution?
I LIKE the idea of offering women choices, encouraging them, helping them never have to be in this situation. I do NOT like it when people write off an entire practice, profession, lifestyle, whatever as the product of coercion or oppression without acknowledging that each woman makes a choice based on her own life, her own situation, and her own needs, and while she MAY be coerced, she may also not be-- and the only person who gets to decide that is HER. Which is done here, repeatedly. The surrogate thread? All statistics show that American women who are surrogates in general are not in it for money, they are in no way coerced, and they are empowered by it. And yet, posters still said that they were most likely coerced. Not, some might be; not, there is a potential for it, just that it seemed the most logical explanation for why a woman would do that.
THAT is my objection
OK, there’s a lot to respond to here, but first I want to suggest that you read some of the literature on coercion and gender/race. You seem to have a very narrow view of coercion and of autonomy, so we may just be speaking past each other here. Coercion is not necessarily explicit, a person may not be aware of it, and given the limited choices s/he has, they may view their choices as freely chosen, because there were no other or better options available. This is kind of a tame example, but my mother grew up in a very repressive religious household, in a different time period, obviously, and she was (explicitly and implicitly) given the choice of becoming a mom or a nurse when she grew up. So if we were to ask her now why she didn’t become a rocket scientist this question wouldn’t make much sense. She had limited choices available to her and "freely" chose the lesser of the two evils, in her mind. Now two generations later my niece announces at school that she either wants to be a doctor or a kindergarten teacher, and her teachers all rave about how she’s going to be a teacher. What’s the implicit message she’s getting? Societal attitudes and institutions can be implicitly coercive. You may be in denial about this, but it’s still true.
Second, I’m not sure why to you it’s always a question of whether we believe the individual and/or want to take away her right to choose. I would rather give women the right to choose from a much broader range of meaningful careers and lifestyles where they could really excel and flourish. I don’t see how this equates to taking away their rights, but no matter how many times I point this out, you seem to be committed to the idea that anyone who defends my position wants to take away women’s rights. I obviously can’t change your view on this, so I’ll move on.
As to the choice you refer to between prostitution and minimum wage jobs: if these are really her only two choices then this is financial coercion. Once again, she would not be to blame for making the choice to be a prostitute. The sexist culture and economic framework that put her in that dilemma would be. And I don’t see why this is so offensive to you.
Finally, I’m sorry, but there are certain professions that are not really worth defending. Prostitution and stripping are examples of careers that only exist within a patriarchal framework where the male gaze is given priority, the female body is an object to be bought and sold, and female agency is severely twisted or nonexistent. Given this, I’d rather attack the patriarchal framework and work to change the underlying cultural attitudes than to champion the "choices" of women who work in these areas. And if you really believe that anyone freely chooses these jobs because they like it and it makes them feel good, ask yourself why nobody wants their daughter to grow up to do these jobs. All three women I know who have been prostitutes needed extensive therapy to learn how to have healthy and meaningful relationships again because they were so desensitized and mentally divorced from their sexuality that they could not maintain a healthy sexual relationship with the partners that they loved and were committed to. This doesn’t sound that great to me. Of course some women emulate strippers and porn stars to garner male attention. They’ve been socialized in a culture which tells them that this is what female sexuality looks like and that the most important thing women can aspire to is male attention. To quote from another thread: just because some members of the oppressed group kiss up to the oppressor doesn’t mean they’re not oppressed.
Do... do you really not see how paternalistic that is? You are basically saying, well, they may not KNOW they are coerced, maybe they are just being manipulated by society, so it's coercion, even if she will flat-out say she enjoys her role and finds it fulfilling? You are saying you know better than the women. How, exactly, is that different from the anti-choice activist who says a woman is simply being coerced into having an abortion by society? You have your idea of how women "should" act and what they "should" want, and you assume that when women violate it, it is the result of coercion.
So we don't make choices in a vacuum. But you know what? That shouldn't matter. We can provide choices without treating women like children. We can say "many women need to be provided more options" without saying, "these women are only the result of their society, and would not chose this if they knew better." Which is what you JUST SAID. That if they were not raised in this society, they would know better. Well, that's really, really insulting to women.
As a woman who has spent her entire life fighting to have her voice heard only to be silenced because someone assumed I was just being manipulated by someone, let me tell you, it does a lot more harm than a few teachers suggesting I should follow in their footsteps. It disempowers women when you devalue their choices. All my life I have been told I should be a doctor, a lawyer, a businesswoman. I was not offered the options of teacher, nurse, whatever because they were traditionally "feminine" and did not pay as well. And now that I have decided teaching might be my calling in life, how do you think I feel when friends claim that I am just doing so because society tells me I should? I feel like my choice is devalued.
You can fight for women's rights and freedoms, you can provide opportunities, while still considering them the authority on what is best for them. And even if you do not intend to treat women in this paternalistic way, you ARE. You are saying you know better than them what is best for them. You are not their parent or their doctor or therapist.
-----------
As for prostitution...
"...ask yourself why nobody wants their daughter to grow up to do these jobs."
Because we are programmed to not want to think of our children as sexual beings. My parents don't even want me having sex in a loving and committed relationship. I know I would strip for the money if I didn't think it would impact my ability to get careers later on-- something that we really SHOULD fight, since the puritanical view our culture has towards sex workers hurts their ability to leave the field.
"Of course some women emulate strippers and porn stars to garner male attention. They’ve been socialized in a culture which tells them that this is what female sexuality looks like and that the most important thing women can aspire to is male attention."
So... if I perform a strip tease for my fiance because I enjoy it and find it sexy (not because I think he does, I find stripteases sexy on my own-- mildly bi, he actually prefers other things), how am I being oppressed? And how is it bad to be aspiring to get his attention, anyway? Humans are sexual beings. Part of that involves attracting a mate. We are programmed by evolution to want sex as much as possible, it's why we exist. So yes, most humans place a very, very high value on their ability to attract a mate, just like every single other species on the planet. Humans are unique in that we value ANYTHING else, and indeed, most other things we value-- success, wealth-- are good because they can attract mates or support our offspring.
You don't have to support their choices and don't have to stop attacking the framework. Just don't attack THEM, and don't make their situations worse. Making prostitution illegal, driving strip clubs out of business-- that's making their situation worse. Giving them job opportunities and health care, that makes their lives better, and you can do that while still not saying that you know better than them what is best for them.
No, that's not what I'm saying. And for the record, paternalism is when you tell people what they can and cannot do based on your view of what's best for them. When have I ever done that? Let me say it one more time: I do not advocate telling women they cannot make these choices. I advocate for systemic changes that will give them a wider range of viable choices so that they won't have to "choose" to be prostitutes or strippers. Why is this so hard to understand? Am I not speaking English here?
I realize that you have a great argument against the straw man position that you portray my argument to be, and I would agree with that argument of yours. Obviously I'm opposed to paternalistic policies, and believe that women should be viewed as autonomous beings. The problem is, nobody who's defending my position, here on Feministing or anywhere else, has taken this paternal stance that you identify, so you're not really arguing with me. You can continue to argue with this fictitious argument you've invented all day, and that's fine. But please stop identifying it as my argument, because I have never said these things you claim.
And I think that a parents' desire to have their daughter grow up to be something other than a prostitute or stripper goes far beyond their not wanting to think of them as sexual beings. My partner and I frequently talk about how we want our daughters to have the freedom to develop a healthy sexuality outside of the virgin/slut binary that's presented by the media. We're comfortable with the fact that they'll be sexual beings, and want them to be able to freely choose their partners and how they perform their gender and sexuality. In a deeply repressive cultural environment, this is not possible.
As for you performing a strip tease for your boyfriend, I've never condemned that, although I'm sure you'll try to say that I did. I think that women are free to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms. What I object to is a cultural and economic system which socializes women to value the male gaze above all other considerations and puts them in a situation where choosing demeaning work is the best economic option they have. I highly doubt that you would voluntarily, for free, choose to spend your evenings in a strip club, with management that is more often than not verbally abusive and demeaning to you, undressing for men you don't know, allowing them to touch your body and make lewd comments about you. These are two very different scenarios, and you cannot apply what I've said about one to the other.
If you'd like to get a more accurate understanding of the arguments on both sides of these issues, I'd recommend taking a Contemporary Moral Issues or Applied Ethics class through the Philosophy department at your local university. In the Contemporary Moral Issues course I teach, we begin the section that deals with these kinds of issues by defining things like paternalism and coercion and then looking at a number of arguments on both sides of each issue. Of course, in class I never take sides, and argue both sides of each issue with the same vigor. But my role here is different. I think it's pretty hard to deny that in patriarchal cultural contexts women can be found disproportionately occupying roles and jobs that are demeaning and exploitative. It's pretty hard to explain that fact unless you allow for financial and cultural coercion. If you do deny this, which you seem to do, you portray women as irrational creatures who knowingly choose to be exploited. My view (that they generally make these decisions under economic exploitation), portrays women as being profoundly rational, since it's the best decision they could make given their choices. I respect you affection for Margaret Atwood, but think perhaps you'd benefit by reading some additional arguments on both sides of the issue.
"I advocate for systemic changes that will give them a wider range of viable choices so that they won't have to "choose" to be prostitutes or strippers."
So let me ask you-- if they then, of their own free will, with all those options, chose to be a stripper, would you not still claim they were somehow "coerced" by society?
"I highly doubt that you would voluntarily, for free, choose to spend your evenings in a strip club, with management that is more often than not verbally abusive and demeaning to you, undressing for men you don't know, allowing them to touch your body and make lewd comments about you."
Huh, and yet, I am getting into shape so I can earn money as a fetish model. Despite having many other options available to me that pay more, because I think it will be fun and give me confidence. I'd strip, but I haven't the coordination or upper body strength.
I'm not saying that women's choices are not influenced by their situation. I AM saying that EVERYONE's choices are influenced by their situation, and women are not these special flowers that should be protected from those influences. And many things you view to be exploitative, are not. Yes, a prostitute with a pimp is being exploited. A surrogate mother in the US is not. And if they enjoy it and find it fulfilling, who are you to assume automatically because YOU find it exploitative, it must be exploiting them?
You may think that as the choice between two equally paying jobs, no rational person would chose to be a fetish model. To you, it is objectifying and horrible and you dislike the idea of strangers viewing you at your most sexual. Yet I would chose the same thing because I enjoy dressing up, it seems more enjoyable than burger-flipping, and I find the particular fetish to be sexy myself, so I am getting off by doing it. And yet, I am sure you will find a way to claim society is telling me I "have" to find it sexy or "have" to be this way. Just because to you something is demeaning and exploitative, does NOT mean everyone else feels that way. And THAT is the paternalism.
Wow, I don't recall ever saying anything about being a fetish model, but I'm sure you're right, I'm dead set against it. Go on misinterpreting my arguments and attributing beliefs to me that I don't hold as much as you like. Clearly you're enjoying it, and the things I say don't even show up on your radar.
I agree with the first 4 "paragraphs" or sections.
After that, I disagree with most of your perception.
Who the hell is saying,""stripping should be outlawed!""
No one that I've seen here.
Any sex worker knows, you make more money as such than as a hair stylist or electrician AND you are not a wage slave. Strippers work when they want to, have bills to pay, etc. And it's a great work out (if you do stage and actually dance).
It's pretty obvious that you have very little real time experience with anyone in the strip industry.
in response to your last paragraphs, listing "do nots":
Do not assume you know how all feminists think and act.
Do not be so presumptious.
DO not think strippers, prostitutes, actresses, midwives, surrogates, doula's, lactation consultants, bathroom attendants, gas station attendents, hair stylists, plumbers, cops, govt. officials. secretaries and assistants, baby sitters, knitting club volunteers, pastry makers, mothers, cooks, dishwashers, school teachers, bus drivers, career home makers, mothers, ETC.A
are NOT feminists or feminists as you've described-
or
you come off sounding prejudiced.
WORD.
Look, I don't mean to say that all feminists are this way. Most here are very supportive of women's choices. But it worries me when ANYONE who calls themselves a feminist assumes that no or few women would ever be a surrogate, or a prostitute, or a stripper, or name-your-job-that-someone-doesn't-like, without being coerced or a tool of patriarchal society. And yes, I have read comments that say exactly that. The surrogate thread was disturbing to me, because the vast majority of American women who are surrogates don't need the money to survive, get a sense of empowerment from it, and enjoy it, and yet some people were sitting there saying oh, women are still coerced into it, they don't really want it, NO ONE wants to be pregnant for someone else, the class difference means they don't want it, whatever. Ignoring the individual's own statements of their desires and reasoning in exchange for their preconceived notions.
And I saw many people saying how awful and objectifying stripping is in the article about women using pole dancing as exercise. There have been pornography threads where people come in and talk about how the whole thing is awful and should be banned. Are they the majority? No. But they are the ones that people remember, and they are hurting the cause.
Women from all walks of life are feminists. But women who say they are not feminists usually describe feminism as attacking something central to who they are, like their profession, their relationship with their significant other, or their interests. That's partially because the media likes to draw attention to the most extreme views, but keep in mind those views are REAL. People really hold them, even if most feminists don't, or the media wouldn't have anything to go off of. I have seen them on this site and other feminist forums. Many women see through the bullshit and know that's not the real face of feminism, but others don't, because the good things feminism can do are clouded by the people who vocally claim that "surrogates are usually desperate and coerced" or "stripping just objectifies and exploits women."
Umm, actually nobody said that on the surrogate thread. I think part of the problem here is that people are making subtle, nuanced arguments that you are then characterizing in an extremely over-generalized way. When you're dealing with complex social issues, broad generalizations are almost never accurate and generally counterproductive. I think it's important to read each comment carefully before replying or misquoting it to others. I know this is really difficult sometimes when it's a topic that you have intense feelings about, but it's important to read carefully and not mischaracterize the other person's view in order to have constructive dialogue.
"When you're dealing with complex social issues, broad generalizations are almost never accurate and generally counterproductive."
Many people on the thread described the practice as exploitative and taking advantage of lower-class women. When I pointed out that women might enjoy it and even claim they do, someone actually had the gall to suggest that the women's quest for self-actualization was merely the result of being conditioned to think that was her only value. Despite the fact that many of the women are nurses, teachers, and mothers. People ignored the women's own cited reasons to look for the "real" reasons that they clearly "must" have. That is denying the women the right to advocate for their own needs.
I am suggesting that instead of using broad generalizations-- instead of saying an entire practice is exploitative without proof and indeed against all evidence-- we instead acknowledge that all women have unique situations, and thus read what THEY say and listen to how THEY veiw their situations.
Right, nobody said that the practice of surrogacy itself is exploitive. My claim was that, when you have women who are in a much lower class, have fewer economic options, less education, etc than their clients, you need to pay special attention to the practice in order to prevent exploitation. The fact that the client generally has a lawyer who dictates the legal terms of the contract while the surrogate is unrepresented and usually doesn't have the legal education to really understand what she's agreeing to is one aspect of this which makes it a prime opportunity for exploitation. I never said that surrogacy itself was exploitive.
That may have been what you said in your head, but that is not what you said. And you completely ignored that all the safeguards you wanted already EXIST in the US, so you CANNOT argue that US surrogacy is exploitative because of those safeguards.
Where did I say that? Why can't you produce quotes? Please stop claiming that I said things that I never said. I don't have a problem with surrogacy when there are safeguards in place and the women have options open to them. I've already said this at least 8 times, and I'm done repeating myself because you can't be bothered to carefully read people's responses to you.
I know this sounds pedantic but I don't think 'mentally retarded' is a good phrase to use. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I live with adults with learning difficulties so it's quite important to me. I also think it's important not to underestimate the choices such people are capable of making. Sorry to derail and not meaning to be a pain.
I meant those who are so severely mentally disabled that they are reduced to the level of a small child, not a functioning adult. Part of the problem with individuals who have mental disabilities is that it's such a case-by-case basis on how well they can give informed consent; obviously many are quite capable, but others are very much not. My point was that unlike an average adult woman, there are times when we can look at a severely mentally disabled individual and say, okay, yes, they can't really consent to take part in dangerous work.
I'm not sure what the negative backlash is to this post. Just because you think she's saying something too emphatically doesn't make it false. I didn't see in the comment the statement that "all of you feminists out there are thinking about this wrong!" She was probably just thinking about that topic and wrote about it strongly. It's still a good thing to keep in mind, even if you didn't need the reminder or think that most people did.
And now almost off topic. I think it would be better to completely scrap the idea of "freedom from". That will always boil down to eliminating someone else's "freedom to".
Freedom from XYZ means that whoever is currently XYZing should really stop or be forced to stop.
Well, "freedom from" is good in the context of people have "freedom from" being murdered. And yeah, whoever is murdering should really stop or be forced to stop. Freedom from is the basis of our penal code. It should, however, be restricted to when the action is violating the rights of another.
Yeah, the historical context for this is a sort of compromise that was made between libertarians, which several of the founding fathers were, and those who championed positive rights. Libertarians believe that if we just limit government intervention to merely protecting citizens from each other and providing for national defense, they will have space to flourish and work out their own destinies. Those who supported positive rights felt that you need to actually state that people have the right to life, liberty, etc in order to prevent the gov't or others from interfering with this. Remember, they were coming off of a rather unpleasant colonial experience at the time. Since the two groups couldn't reach a consensus our legal system has incorporated both kinds of rights.
I think the reactions to this post are perhaps even more interesting than the post itself (which was indeed interesting). Our own personal experiences color how we read and react to things so much, and I think this demonstrates that. Above, voiceofreason said "Lately on feministing it seems like there's a lot of shoulder shrugging and "well, that was her choice" going on, and I think it's incredibly naive too." For, me, though, I have had the exact opposite feeling lately about feministing, that many people feel that certain choices are not really choices, but just the result of brainwashing by the patriarchy.
And to hara, above, I didn't read Brianna's post in any way like you did- in fact, just the opposite. You seemed to read her as saying women like stay at home moms and strippers were NOT feminists, but heard her saying they want to be but are dismissed. Nor did I hear her saying all feminists were one way or the other.
Again, my personal experiences color my reactions, but I found some of the responses to the surrogacy thread to be rather condescending, as though the priveleged women of Western feminism automatically know what is best, and the women of India who may choose surrogacy are more like children who are not able to think for themselves. I know this is a very simplified interpretation, and I also know very clearly that these women face terribly sexist and unfair choices, but I don't think they would appreciate the implication that they don't know what they are doing. This doesn't mean it is fair that her choices are so limited, and this doesn't mean we should not do things to give her more options- that is something we SHOULD do.
These discussions always make me a bit nervous, because people get very heated and take things very personally. I don't think Brianna meant this as a personal attack on anyone. I think her point is a good one.
Suggesting that feminists want to "deny women their voices" seems kind of extreme to me. And Brianna's characterization of comments on other threads is inaccurate. Questioning the cultural and economic systems that put women in these kinds of situations where their choices are often coerced is not the same as denying women those choices or questioning their mental competence. If we can't differentiate these two very different claims then we can't get anywhere on this topic, and it's an important topic.
I guess I did not hear her saying that feminists want to deny women their voices, and even on rereading the post, I still don't. I heard her saying that she feels what some people do in the name of feminism is actually resulting in denying their voices.
I also did not read her statement as saying we cannot question the cultrual and economic systems that put women in these situations. She said we SHOULD question these situations by doing what we can to offer alternative options, so that a choice is truly a choice. I think she is able to differentiate these things, and I didn't find her position extreme.
Again, one of the things I am finding most interesting about this post, though, is the range of reactions. On lots of things, I have found myself really disagreeing with Brianna, and on lots of things, I have found myself really agreeing with you, Rachel, and glad with how you phrased something (which shows I should probably find something more to do with my time than just reading feministing). To me, this post, as part of lots of other posts, shows the range of feminism.
I interpreted this
Feminists cannot deny women their voices, no matter what those voices may say. We cannot deny them their freedom to, even if we think they need protection from their own decisions. In doing so we reduce them to children. And any effort to reduce women to the status of children ties in perfectly with the goals of the extreme right reactionaries who we want to be fighting.
as saying that.
And I think that insisting that women in these situations were not coerced based on their testimony alone relies on an oversimplified view of what coercion is. So I think the conflict here is between people who are referring to this broader, deeper kind of coercion, and those who only acknowledge explicit coercion. But I've done a lot of academic work on social justice that deals with the concept of implicit coercion, particularly in the case of minorities, so I may have a very different view of it than most.
I always struggle with the academic side of things and how it comes into practice in non-academic settings. For example, my dad and I always get into debates about work conditions and pay in third world factories. I argue that these workers are horribly mistreated, and he agrees that they are, but that the harsh reality of their situation is they can be in a factory being mistreated or their families can starve because they don't have a job. I see this is paralleled in the arguments about outsourced surrogacy, but I also see the financial rewards for the women is far greater than many of the men in their area are able to make- I watched a documentary on the issue, and I was troubled that the women had to hide what they were doing from their communities, but when they were done, they were able to send their children to school, build houses, and live in far, far better conditions than those around them. They experience great risks, but also get great rewards (obviously not always). So when I look at this situation, I see someone who could choose to do other work that pays barely subsistence wages, but has calculated for herself that she is willing to take the risks for great financial rewards. In an academic context, anyone who does anything purely for financial reasons could be argued to be subject to exploitation, as the person who pays is always in control. But in the real world, things are more complicated. That is why I have trouble suggesting that these women are purely coerced.
Sure, there is a divide between academia and the real world, but I think that the arguments being made in academia are generally more nuanced and sensitive to the lives of women than Brianna suggests. All of the academic writings I've read on sweatshop labor and surrogacy acknowledge both that the living conditions of those who choose these jobs are terrible and that wealthy westerners who exploit this desperation should be held accountable.
I don't think anyone's trying to say that poor people in developing nations should be prohibited from working in sweatshops or acting as surrogate mothers. The claim is that the practices of having sweatshops and employing surrogates without really considering their rights and well-being is problematic. So you're questioning the practice itself, rather than the individuals who are engaged in it. Naturally, along with this comes a concern for the conditions that give rise to exploitation, and research into ways to change social conditions so that nobody has to make the choice to work in a sweatshop.
Another issue that is often ignored is that poor surrogate mothers almost never have a lawyer representing their interests, but are asked to sign papers drawn up by the client's lawyer. Since they probably haven't attended law school, it seems doubtful that they could fully understand the terms of the contract and all of its implications, so this doesn't seem like informed consent to me. Maybe having legal advocates who work on behalf of surrogate mothers to explain to them the details of the contract would help level the playing field, and this is a service that established NGOs or charities could provide. In my experience these are the kinds of suggestions that academics are presenting rather than walking around condemning women who are surrogates or work in sweathshops.
So, if you talked to one of those women and told her all your theories and had her read all the literature on the subject that you've read, and she still disagreed with you, would her choice be valid? Would you accept her reasons?
Or would you just tell her that she's brainwashed by the patriarchy and she's being exploited, and she's just too dumb to know any better?
Once again, this is not about me approving of or disapproving of women's choices. I'm not all about shaming people for the choices they make or the situations they find themselves in. I'm interested in the cultural and economic changes that could give them more options.
Look, I'm opposed to sweatshop labor and try to avoid purchasing items that were made in sweatshops. I suppose to you this means I despise sweatshop workers and think they ought to feel ashamed of themselves, but this is just not the case. I think that the corporations who exploit the laborers, customers in wealthy western nations who support the practice by knowingly buying the items, and international trade agreements that allow for and encourage such practices are the problem here. So in this case, I would argue and work for (and in some cases protest and get arrested for) deep systemic changes that would allow for the kind of economic development that would make sweatshop labor unnecessary and a living wage possible for everyone. This is not paternalistic in any way, because I am not trying to tell the workers themselves what to do with their lives. I'm not condemning the sweatshop worker for choosing to work there rather than starve to death. I'm pointing out a real problem in the system that forces them to make this choice. Of course, those who enjoy the benefits of exploitation will argue that this is unnecessary interference. Why wouldn't they?
I'm not questioning the workers. I'm questioning the system, and I'm not sure how many more times I'm going to have to say this. It seems pretty clear to me.
So would a sex worker working under good conditions NOT be exploited? Because if that's what you're saying, then maybe we're on the same page.
Anyone working in really bad working conditions -- particularly ones that could be very easily improved -- is being exploited. Sex work is no different.
Sex work is a labor issue. If brothels treated their workers fairly and pornographers weren't abusive towards their actresses and pimps didn't beat up their girls, there wouldn't be a problem.
Sex work is both a labor issue and a deeper cultural issue. Of course I have a problem with sex workers enduring bad working environments and mistreatment from their management and clients. I've never disagreed with you about this. I think these kinds of things should be addressed directly and immediately. I also think this kind of treatment is more likely to occur in sex work because the industry itself is based on a view of women as objects to be bought and sold. Commodifying someone dehumanizes them to some extent, and the more they are dehumanized, the more their clients can feel justified in mistreating them. So I think that basic protections and safeguards can be put in place to protect sex workers.
But I would also hope that long term cultural shifts would bring about deeper changes in the industries and in some cases eliminate the demand for the industry altogether. I'm not talking about porn that is tastefully done (ie which assumes that the woman is also a sexual agent with desires and preferences of her own, etc) for example, and I'm not naive enough to think that prostitution would ever cease to exist. But I do think that as a culture comes to accept women as equals, stops viewing them as passive objects to be used and discarded at the whim of males, starts viewing sexual relations as occurring between two parties of equal worth and social standing, and stops privileging the male gaze and male preferences and desires, many types of sex work will become irrelevant. This would be a natural result of changes in societal attitudes because these practices as they stand right now are based on deeply sexist conceptions of human sexuality, gender roles, and the relative worth of individuals. So in this view, putting protections for sex workers in place is a short term solution, while working to change cultural views is the long term goal.
If you want your porn "tastefully done" you are missing the fucking point.
Pun completely intended.
I think I already explained what I meant by "tastefully done." Most porn assumes that the male is the only sexual agent, that his desires and his perspective are the only important thing, that the woman is just there to service him and make the right noises at the right time. This is a sexist view of sexuality and models a mode of interacting in the bedroom that is harmful to women.
Ok, yes, I see what you are saying. I still struggle, obviously, but I do see your points. Did you read that blog that was linked to a while back, Muslimnista, that was an open letter to white feminists? She was frustrated that Western feminists focused on certain issues of Muslim culture, while they wanted to work on other, more limited issues, sort of a pick your battles kind of thing. She felt Western feminists were condescending about telling Muslim feminists what should be important to them. That blog really had an impact on my perceptions, and it is part of what colors my views of the surrogacy issue, too- sort of a "how dare we dismiss their judgement in a hard situation" kind of thing.
Hmm. I will be thinking about this for a while, I imagine.
"She felt Western feminists were condescending about telling Muslim feminists what should be important to them."
That is exactly my concerns about some people who post on this site-- they feel they are more qualified than the women themselves to decide what is best for them.
I think that asking whether the "choice" (if there is a legitimate one) to become a sex worker, surrogate, etc. should be respected is actually barking up the wrong tree in many cases. Can I truly empathize with the desperate situation of many women? No, unfortunately not; sometimes I feel like I can only wish women in bad situations had more opportunity to advocate for themselves. Realistically, all I can do is try to support efforts to make that possible.
But all that leaves out the other side of the equation. What about the wealthy, probably white, Westerners who decide to go to India for a cheap womb rental? (That is, contract to control an impoverished woman's body for nine months, then swoop in to take the baby she might have become attached to during pregnancy, with no real regard for her health?) What about the wealthy businessman who wants to take a sex tour of Thailand (or even a down-on-its-luck portion of his hometown), and pay impoverished women a relative pittance to be exposed to his diseases and possible mistreatment? Those are not legitimate or acceptable choices, and no one should have the freedom to make them.
Those are not legitimate or acceptable choices, and no one should have the freedom to make them.
That is the point of freedom from-- where it needs to come in. We need protection from other people's freedom, at least until the protection interferes with our own freedom.
Exactly! Your right to swing your fist ends at your neighbor's face, as it were.
OK, now I'm confused. This sounds like a paternalistic policy you're advocating, but I thought you were opposed to paternalism. If the wealthy childless couple or the wealthy businessman is prevented from being able to make the choice to exploit poor women, then you're effectively removing the choice to allow themselves to be exploited from the women themselves. How dare you tell them what's best for them?
Being poor and offering money to someone is not exploitation, at least not in the sense you are using it. If it were, then all jobs are exploitation, because otherwise, you are poor. The fact that that particular woman is being hired to grow a baby is not exploitation, and more than selling eggs or sperm are. It's selling reproductive capability. Yes, her other choices may suck, but that doesn't make it exploitation.
They have the choice to "allow themselves to be exploited" (in quotes because I don't necessarily think it's exploitation). They could say no. It's just a lot of money to walk away from. They are the ones being offered the money because that's how capitalism works. They will do it the cheapest. Kinda like how poor uneducated people often flip burgers and stock shelves, because people with doctorates expect more pay.
And just for reference, the definition of exploit, and coerce, which you used above:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit%5B2%5D
(yes, I agree they are being exploited by the first definition, it's the second I disagree with.)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coerce
Just trying to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
Right, I feel like we need to take a step back here and clarify what was said in the earlier post Brianna has been referring to. In that thread I argued that in some cases surrogacy can be exploitive when the client is very wealthy and the mother is in a desperate financial situation and has no legal advocate. I have never suggested that the practice itself is exploitive.
My claim is that you have to pay special attention to a situation where there's such a disparity in power between the two parties to the contract. If the clients' lawyer writes up the terms of the contract, and the surrogate, who probably has no legal training or means of accessing legal council, agrees to it, can you really call this informed consent? So I'm not trying to challenge the practice itself, or say that those who are desperately poor must choose to starve rather than be surrogates or sweatshop workers. But I think that the economic and cultural context in which these things occur do merit special attention, critique, and reform. That's what I'm interested in.
And I don't think that only women are exploited, and this really is a valid point for you to make. People of all genders and races can be exploited. But in a patriarchal culture it's more likely that women will be, and when the use of their bodies and reproductive capacities are involved, this merits special attention from feminists. Of course, we can also do a Marxist critique that examines the ways in which all laborers are open to exploitation when those who own the means of production have a lot more power and bargaining leverage than the workers. But I think that's a different (but very interesting) post.
"has no legal advocate"
Whoa, you NEVER mentioned that in that thread. You talked a lot about desperation but not about people not having legal advocates. US surrogates have advocates through the surrogacy agency, or the client's lawyer works to make sure their needs are met too, since the woman could easily go to court and say "oh, I didn't understand it, now I want my baby" and would win. The ONLY places surrogates DON'T have those protections are in states where surrogacy is outlawed.
I don't think the sex trade in Thailand is comparable to surrogacy in India. The women in Thailand's sex trade are in situations equivalent to slavery, often kidnapped, often children. This is not even close to the case for the women in India.
And yes, the Westerners that use Indian surrogates are wealthier than the women they hire, but the women who become surrogates can become wealthy as a result of the arrangement, relative to India's economy, enough to buy a house after one pregnancy. You seriously don't think this could be a legitimate decision for a woman?
You last statement, "Those are not legitimate or acceptable choices, and no one should have the freedom to make them." is flabbergastingly condescending.
You seriously don't think this could be a legitimate decision for a woman?
I don't know - I've never been in such a situation. But if the rich Westerns were remotely interested in the woman's welfare, renting her womb is not the way to help. Contributing to education projects and the like is. The fact that people can sometimes use horrible exploitation for gain doesn't make horrible exploitation okay.
There's another issue with surrogacy that I don't think has been addressed here. When a john pays a prostitute (using a heterosexual example), the product he expects from her service is an orgasm. When a woman/couple pays a surrogate, the product they expect from her service is a baby. It isn't only the surrogate and the couple involved; the resulting child is necessarily a subject of the transaction.
I don't think the sex trade in Thailand is comparable to surrogacy in India. The women in Thailand's sex trade are in situations equivalent to slavery, often kidnapped, often children.
It was my understanding that it's India (and to a lesser extent Cambodia) that has more of a problem with kidnapping/coercion victims, sometimes from Nepal, in brothels, and that in Thailand the coercion is generally economic. In both cases the situation is horrific.
You last statement, "Those are not legitimate or acceptable choices, and no one should have the freedom to make them." is flabbergastingly condescending.
Condescending, yes. But is it so flabbergasting to have no respect for the people who drive demand for, say, the sex trade in dubiously consenting and desperate women and children?
I was pretty clear when I said the sex trade was not comparable to surrogacy- I was not comparing the sex trade in Thailand to the one in India. I have not heard of women and children kidnapped to become surrogates. The sex trade in India and Cambodia is as bad as Thailand, I agree most definitely. Let's be fair here by not implying I was suggesting otherwise.
And when I called your last statement condescending and flabbergasting, it was only in reference to surrogacy. When I said very specifically that the Asian sex trade was not comparable to surrogacy, I was taking it out of the discussion. I think it was clear when I called the sex trade there equivilent to slavery, I was saying it did not involve consent. So yes, your statement, in my eyes, as it relates to surrogacy, is still both condescending and flabbergasting. I obviously don't have respect for people who participate in the enslavement of women and children. I don't appreciate that implication.
Thank you so much.
Every time sex work comes up, people in the comments start talking about how it's not really the woman's choice because she was molested, or because she's poor. That's bullshit and it's very condescending. Don't take away my right to choose. My decisions may not always fit in with someone's idea of feminism but they still need to be mine.
You stop being a feminist when you stop standing up for women's choices.
Sex work should be a labor issue. You can talk all you like about how it's "renting out women's bodies" but in the end that's what all jobs come down to. You rent out your body for a certain amount of time during which you flip burgers or teach a class or do math. You probably wouldn't do it if you weren't getting paid.
Wow, it took a little longer than usual for someone to whip out the "bad feminist" card. And the winner is...
Yeah, this is one aspect of Feministing that's pretty depressing to me. I think that feminists can disagree and still both be feminists, and allowing for this would actually help our public image.
How fast did we all run to throw the "bad feminist" card at Sarah Palin?
I don't know how many people here called her a bad feminist, but I think that's different in a couple of ways. Palin herself rejected the "label" of feminist, since, as a hockey mom, she's so opposed to labels in general. On one thread I referred to her political record and noted that she is not an advocate for women. But she is not a self-identified feminist who is engaging in a blogging community of people who are generally committed to bringing about change in the world.
Feministing is supposed to be a safe place for feminists to debate political issues, critique pop culture, build awareness of cultural issues, etc. As such, dissent and debate are constructive and useful. Going around and labeling others as "bad feminists" or "anti-feminist" is counterproductive. If you don't like what I said, then argue with me on the issue. I'm a philosophy geek who loves a good argument and doesn't take it personally. But immediately resorting to the name calling makes me suspect that you're not all that mature and that your position must not be very strong, since you can't defend it without resorting to ad hominems.
I know these are highly-charged issues that can invoke strong emotions. I think it's great that so many of us are so passionate about our position. I'm just not sure why we can't stick to the argument itself instead of resorting to name-calling. Look, I can talk shit with the best of them, but I'd really rather not go there.
She hung onto the "feminist" label for a while, though. And there was a whole lot of calling her out for being a bad feminist. The general opinion was that you can't support banning abortion and be a feminist at the same time. I don't know which side of this you personally were on, but I wrote a post on it and most of the commenters agreed on that.
Which is similar logic to what I used here, actually. You're not a feminist if you don't believe women can make their own choices.
And who said that women can't make their own choices? As far as I can tell that's a straw man argument that Brianna drummed up to argue with. I don't remember anyone on this thread, or on the surrogacy thread saying anything like that. I'd like to see some specific quotes, please.
"And I think that insisting that women in these situations were not coerced based on their testimony alone relies on an oversimplified view of what coercion is."
"Finally, I’m sorry, but there are certain professions that are not really worth defending. Prostitution and stripping are examples of careers that only exist within a patriarchal framework where the male gaze is given priority, the female body is an object to be bought and sold, and female agency is severely twisted or nonexistent."
"I don't think that truly autonomous choice exists in a coercive environment. "
And from elsewhere:
"As others have noted here, the choice to do pornography is not clean-cut. Choice is extremely complex and should not be treated as one act/decision that did not have any other factors involved. It can’t just be said, “Well, she signed this consent form”. Even if you could somehow prove that a particular woman in a particular movie was making the choice in a meaningfully free manner, the consumption of that “non-harmful” product necessarily creates demand for other material that will be harmful."
"Freedom of choice for most people is an illusion; at its best, freedom of choice means making the best of a situation, at its worst, freedom of choice means simply surviving another day."
"Your choices are tainted by patriarchy."
---
And some of this actually makes a certain amount of sense, but it still comes dangerously close to undermining women's ability to make decisions. I understand what Brianna is saying, and unfortunately the idea she's arguing against isn't a strawman. It may not be the opinion held by the majority of feminists, but it's definitely there, and it needs to be condemned by the larger community.
OK, so that first quote (one of mine) doesn't say that women in general can't make decisions. You can be in a coercive situation and make a choice that is deeply rational - it's the best thing you could do in that situation. Similarly, questioning whether truly autonomous choice exists in a coercive situation is not a statement about the incapacity of women. You can discuss coercive situations in which men, or a particular racial or class group, are incapable of being fully autonomous. In other words, people who make this argument think that anyone who is repressed will most likely not be able to develop a robust autonomy.
Second, noting that some careers are driven solely by patriarchal attitudes does not imply that women are incapable of making decisions. I don't really get why you included that quote.
Several of these quotes are talking about people in general, men and women, making decisions within a cultural context. Saying that your choices are tainted by patriarchy doesn't mean that women are all fading flowers that need to be protected, as Brianna suggests. But denying the influence of your culture and acting as if you make your decisions in a vacuum is hopelessly, hopelessly naive.
First, you claim that prostitution exists only in a patriarchal society. What then, does that say about the (admittedly much rarer) gigolo? They are selling their sexuality, but can hardly be said to be pressured into it by society. A patriarchal society should have every job open to them. However, that is their choice to make, isn't it? So why can't women do it?
Second, a choice can suck without being coercion. I work for minimum wage. I have supported two people off of one minimum wage job for months now. No, it's not fun. No, you don't get all the great stuff, like a new car, or restaurant food. But it's doable. You can get by on it. Women who choose prostitution because it pays a lot better are NOT necessarily being coerced. They have something valuable, and are willing to sell it. Some of them may even enjoy the work. Then again, maybe not. I certainly don't enjoy mine, but off I go, every day.
And minimum wage jobs aren't always the only choice because of gender. Sometimes, it's a matter of being poor. It happens, and as a poor person, I can tell you that them being placed in a bad position does NOT mean it was the patriarchy at work.
Now, I'll agree, prostitution may do some horrible things to the women's mind in some cases. But that's why they get paid so well. Sort of like how we pay people in some factories really well. That's back breaking, hot, dangerous, and sometimes painful work. People leave there miserable, and sometimes crippled. Should they not be able to do that work? Granted, they have OSHA. But prostitution is illegal, so OSHA can't help them. Except in Nevada, where they actually have a safe, legal way to work. So maybe if it were legalized, it would be better.
(Note: I'm not actually defending the prostitution itself. I certainly wouldn't want my fiance doing it. But I do think it should be their choice to make. I believe each person's body is theirs to do with what they want, for the most part. So, as with abortion, the right to have the choice can be good, even if some of the outcomes or reasons for it are bad.)
sorry, should have been a reply to Rachel_in_WY's post up there ^
"First, you claim that prostitution exists only in a patriarchal society. What then, does that say about the (admittedly much rarer) gigolo? They are selling their sexuality, but can hardly be said to be pressured into it by society. A patriarchal society should have every job open to them. However, that is their choice to make, isn't it? So why can't women do it?"
Hmm. I see most folks arguing that SHITTY prostitution exists only in a patriarchal society. And for whatever reason SHITTY prostitution seems to affect the female sex worker disproportionately.
Shitty prostitution is when you don't have enough people who actually want to do the job for the going rate to meet the demand, so you depend on underage recruitment, coercion and false pretenses to capture a significant portion of your labor. (Not a situation unique to prostitution).
Shitty prostitution is when there is the need to place several layers of security and screening between you and your client.
Shitty prostitution is where countries see it necessary to place almost absurd restrictions on the movement and activities of it's sex workers or would-be workers. (Absurd in the sense that with most services rendered, the bulk of laws and regulations are in place to protect the consumer. Sex work seems to be different. Why?)
Maybe sex work simply isn't like other most other jobs. Could we be missing something? And how does one best regulate a market (including demand) for something that too many people feel entitled to simply because they can or believe they can get it for free (or almost free)?
"Shitty prostitution is when you don't have enough people who actually want to do the job for the going rate to meet the demand, so you depend on underage recruitment, coercion and false pretenses to capture a significant portion of your labor. (Not a situation unique to prostitution)."
Sounds to me like the problem you see is a LACK of enough prostitutes. I agree, underage prostitution is bad, and they honestly aren't capable of making that choice. Then again, sex with minors is bad, so I think we can just ignore that part as not in dispute.
As for coercion and false pretenses, again, bad. I just don't think that being poor and working for the rich is necessarily coercion, or else things like maids and personal cooks would probably be coerced.
In any case, if the problem is that the demand is causing a need for more people, then wouldn't the best way to keep an eye on business practices be to bring it out into the light, rather than keeping it in shadows and back alleys? Look at what happened when abortion was legalized. Far fewer accidents and failed procedures. Or when prohibition was repealed, the crime surrounding the alcohol bootlegging business nosedived.
And the layers of protection for the service provider, as opposed to the customer, it's actually not that strange if you look at it as an entertainment field. Ever been to a concert? Who do you think the layer after layer of security is there for: you, or the performer? How about security guards in a museum. Are they protecting you, or the art?
And assuming things are safe for everyone, who cares about regulating it? If prices go too high, then either no one will go, or it better be REALLY mindblowing.
I think that last paragraph may have been responding to something I misunderstood, though.
Interesting. Let's run with your analogies then.
Art (or at least fine art) is protected by security because it not only has a monetary and cultural value, but it has an intrinsic social value in that it is considered to belong to no one and to everyone. Is this really a good analogy for a prostitute?
Entertaining in of itself does not require one to have security or screening of guests. Rather, it's the presence of large crowds +/- alcohol. In fact, the vast majority of non-sex related entertainment happens with almost no security and no regulations other than fire codes, et.al. In essence, book readings, indy bands, spoken word, dance shows, poetry jams, comedy, plays...
I think more of us are trying to frame "shitty prostitution" within a frame of gender inequality or the 'patriarchy' if you will, because that's the only way some of this crazy stuff makes any sense.
Ok, art was a bad example, I suppose. Go with the other, instead (I gotta think more before I post. When I type this much at once, I'm gonna say something stupid.)
I'm going to say that book readings and most spoken word do not have the same type of intensity as sex does. And alcohol is GOING to be a concern for prostitution. I'm willing to bet a common reason to visit one is "striking out" at the bar.
And I'm willing to bet that indy shows have some sort of security there, even if it's just the bouncer (assuming these indy shows are at bars. If not, there's someone taking money, and they are usually picked because they are a little intimidating). I honestly don't know. I usually go to punk and metal shows, where the band themselves are tough enough to count as security, and could probably kill someone. On the rare occasion they aren't scary, they have scary friends around. Prostitutes can't keep up that kind of aggression and do decent business (Well, most of them. There are niches...).
Either way, it's not just sex related entertainment. People are crazy. And prostitutes are placing themselves in a vulnerable position. That's not necessarily bad, but you DO need protection and security.
And I'm going to bet that even presented with a reasonable alternate explanation, patriarchy is going to be a popular answer here. It may sometimes be right, but other explanations should be looked at too.
"Either way, it's not just sex related entertainment. People are crazy. And prostitutes are placing themselves in a vulnerable position. That's not necessarily bad, but you DO need protection and security.
Let's break it down again.
1. First you say 'people are crazy'. Which people? I just broke down the fact that most people in general are apparently sane enough and well behaved enough to be respectful toward a person providing them a service or providing entertainment. Barring large crowds and alcohol security is a non-issue.
2. Then up above you say something to the effect that sex adds an intensity to the encounter.
Yet we in our society have gotten beyond women accepting gentlemen callers in their home or going out chaperoned on dates. How did we do that? Why should paid sex be any more vulnerable than unpaid sex?
Curiously, male prostitutes seem to fair somewhat better in this "intense environment" as they don't seem to be murdered in the same numbers as female and transgendered prostitutes are.
3. Then you claim that alcohol is a factor in the vulnerability of the worker. But the reasonable and fairest solution would be that drunk clients should be turned away...
which leads me to my point.
Too many people seem perfectly comfortable with a vision of prostitution where it is acceptable for a woman to be needlessly subjected to unsafe and vulnerable situations, thus requiring excessive restrictions and safety precautions on her part. Of course basic safety is always a good idea but that's generally not what is being talking about.
And instead of pinning the responsibility on the the enabling beliefs and practices that make the job unsafe people expect the worker to suck it up and expect that the government will clean up the mess. Which is certainly better than the prostitutes having no protection, but then doesn't that absolve someone of responsibility?
You say that "prostitutes are putting themselves in a vulnerable position" without stopping to think about what dynamics created that position or even considering if the position is changeable.
Do you see the inherent unfairness of this? Does this reflect a just and civil society of gender equality?
And it is cause for concern because at best the sex industry even when legal and regulated tends to under regulated and poorly enforced (with the exception of the STD testing). Thus the best hope for a good situation for sex workers all around is inextricably tied to all women's experiences and our continuous challenge of that P word.
I think the patriarchal context is important here because Brianna is talking about practices that intimately effect women's bodies. In these practices female bodies are being used as a means to some end, and there's usually a big disparity between the socio-economic background of client and worker. The fact that males can also be exploited is relevant, but this kind of exploitation effects women disproportionally, so it's something that feminists pay special attention to.
The most current debate centered on surrogacy, and some of the commenters on that thread were saying that when it's outsourced you have a special risk of exploitation because women in developing nations often find themselves in desperate circumstances. I would add to that the fact that there are few or no legal protections in place.
If you look at contract law in our country, there are certain things that will make a contract invalid. You can't become an indentured servant to someone, promise never to engage in some legal business practice for the rest of your life, or sell an organ, for example. This is because our legal code recognizes that at times people may be pressured into doing things that will really hurt them in the long run when they're in a desperate situation. A person in such a situation will sell a kidney to a wealthy individual with kidney failure. They do it in other countries all the time. But just because the person agreed to it and signed a contract doesn't mean it was freely chosen. The evidence of this is that nobody sells an organ unless they really, really need some cash. These are examples of economic coercion that have nothing to do with gender.
"The evidence of this is that nobody sells an organ unless they really, really need some cash."
That's because they will never return to a reasonable state of recovery for it. If you donate a kidney you will never return to normal. This is also true of pregnancy. But it is NOT true of a second, third, fifteenth pregnancy, which many surrogates are on. That's part of why they are required to have children already, so they know what to expect, and so the pregnancy will have less overall effect on their body.
Right, that's kind of off topic. My point was that there are certain things that you can't agree to in a contract in our country, and for good reason. This is also why I think that outsourced surrogacy should involve some kind of legal advocate representing the mother, who speaks her language and can explain the contract to her in detail before she agrees. It's called informed consent.
And each additional pregnancy does impact your body. My great-grandma had 15 kids (13 survived infancy) and she said the last 5 were the hardest, and taxed her abdominal and back muscles far more than the first 10. She thought the last two were responsible for the recurring back pain that lasted the rest of her life, but maybe all the plowing, cultivating, bread baking, child bathing and dressing, hoeing, pruning, canning and pickling, clothing mending, fire tending, and horse saddling had something to do with it as well. =D
What I don't get is why people think that free training for sex workers would decrease the number of sex workers. People clearly aren't thinking this all the way through. Marketable training is a form of benefit, and so such a program would be effectively increasing the wages of sex work, which would increase the number of people doing sex work as the price of such labor went up, and/or allow direct wages to go down, reducing the price of sex labor and encouraging additional development of industries which rely on it.
This should be common-sense stuff. Nobody believes that the education benefits provided by the US military have reduced the number of people who become soldiers.
It seems that Rachel_in_WY and Brianna are talking past each other, and this seems to happen a lot on this type of issue. Rachel seems to be using the terminology in the kind of way it would be defined in anthropology or sociology (my areas), while Brianna is working with a much narrower definition of words like coercion and paternalism. My impression is that Rachel has a background in philosophy, and so will tend to be more interested in systemic issues and bringing about broad cultural changes in order to allow for a deeper autonomy, whereas Brianna is concerned with the immediate choices of women right now. But I don't see why these are incompatible. Rachel has said that she's not condemning the choices of individual women or trying to intervene and remove those choices from them, and Brianna has agreed that the deeper social changes that Rachel advocates would be helpful. So it seems like these view are compatible, and that there are just some basic misunderstandings going on here.
I think that's a very accurate description. Much of my research has focused on Feminist theory and social justice, and it's true that as the literature becomes more specialized on a particular topic, the vocabulary takes on deeper, broader, or in some cases narrower definitions. So that does seem to be part of the problem. I recognize that coercion is generally thought of as making explicit threats directly to a person in order to influence their behavior, but I think in this case it's really helpful to talk about a more general, systemic kind of coercion.
My problem is only how you are perceived by women. Academics may read it, understand it, and know you do not mean to tell women they are being coerced and thus, their choices are not their own. Non-academics will read what you write and think, wow, she reminds me of my mother telling me I didn't really like that boy, he's just manipulating me, so I shouldn't go and marry him. You may have noble intentions but you SOUND like you are telling women that they are gullible and easily manipulated by society, and that they wouldn't make their choices if they "knew better" or if someone just "saved" them from their situation. You may not MEAN it this way, but it is PERCEIVED as telling women their consent is invalid or they are incapable of their own choices.
You can still do what you believe is right and needed without causing women to believe that you are devaluing them, and causing them to associate that, consciously or subconsciously, with the entire feminist movement.
Again, where are the quotes where I said this stuff? Can you find a quote where anyone said this stuff? What specifically are you reading? If you could even just name the author and title I'd be interested to read it. When you just kind of come out of nowhere and claim that all those other feminists are saying these horribly offensive things it makes me both doubt that what you're saying is true and feel defensive of feminism in general. How is this constructive?
When I write on these issues and when I teach classes on them, I'm very clear that the women in these cases are not to blame. I emphasize that the goal is to bring about cultural changes such that the conditions of autonomy for everyone, male and female, from every ethnic and socio-economic background are firmly in place in our culture. To me this is not just a feminist issue, but an issue that's central to democracy. Having autonomous citizens who can think critically and have many viable options open to them is good for a democracy. But nobody develops or lives in a vacuum. All of this is occurring within a cultural context which has deep formative impact on who they become and what choices they can make. Even the people who believe most fervently that biology is destiny don't try to deny this.
I guess my recommendation would be that if you hear people making claims that sound like this to you, instead of jumping to conclusions and making a bunch of extreme claims about them, ask them to clarify their position. Ask them about their sources or their research, and explain to them why you have this concern about the implicit messages they may be sending. And then be willing to really listen to them and apply some basic critical thinking to what they say. This approach advances constructive dialogue and prevents a lot of in-fighting that can be very harmful to a movement like feminism. OK, this is starting to sound really preachy and that's not my intention. I really do enjoy these kinds of exchanges, and don't want you to feel like I'm trying to discourage you from thinking about and discussing this stuff!
That was an amazing post, Brianna. I'll link to it from my blog on wordpress.
Rachel commented: "Suggesting that feminists want to "deny women their voices" seems kind of extreme to me. And Brianna's characterization of comments on other threads is inaccurate. Questioning the cultural and economic systems that put women in these kinds of situations where their choices are often coerced is not the same as denying women those choices or questioning their mental competence. If we can't differentiate these two very different claims then we can't get anywhere on this topic, and it's an important topic."
Fact is that some declared feminists are trying to silence other women. Perhaps not on Feministing, but it certainly happens elsewhere in the blogosphere. Seek out Debi Crow on Don't Stray From the Path or Renegade Evolution and read as the two of them refute rad-fem Maggie's continuous insults and assaults directed at Ren. Maggie's commenters (mostly) all agree with her - not surprisingly, because Renegade Evolution who is often under attack is never allowed to comment on the posts in which she's attacked - and some of those commenters say directly that they will disregard all statements from sex workers who openly enjoy the work that these rad-fems have deemed anti-feminist. They have decided that Ren is fucked in the head, and warped by the patriarchy and therefore she's not worth listening to. She must be silenced and she can't even be linked to when she is demonized in yet another post.
And yes, these ladies call themselves feminists, and consider the rest of us anti-feminist if we don't agree with them. To them there is only one right way to be a feminist - theirs.
So I see where Brianna is coming from. See it clearly even. And I see the point of her post very clearly too, and I agree with most of it.
And for reference: Ren can be found here: http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/
Debi here: http://dontstray.wordpress.com/
And Maggie's place reserved for women she approves of here: http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/
Enjoy... some of it at least.
Yes, I objected to the practice of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as a bad feminist or an anti-feminist in my comments above. I don't think it's appropriate.
But in this post Brianna was referring to a couple of other posts here on Feministing, and to feminist literature which posits that women often have to choose demeaning or exploitative work due to cultural coercion, and inferring from that this claim that feminists don't respect women's choices or think of them as autonomous. That is a gross misinterpretation of the claim. You can both advocate for women who are being exploited and work for deeper cultural changes that will end the kind of deep coercion that I was referring to.
So my comment that you quote is not referring to bloggers who actively try to silence people who don't agree with them. Brianna was talking about feminists who make claims about environmental coercion, and that's a much broader set of people than the ones to whom you refer.
SO bloggers don't count as feminists?
Where did I say that? Jesus.
I was explaining that the feminists that Brianna is talking about who allegedly want to "deny women their voices" are not the bloggers to whom you refer, and that this is a very different scenario than that one. She's claiming that feminists indirectly deny all women their voices by refusing to believe that they could ever make a free choice or be autonomous, which is quite different from blocking someone from your blog or refusing to allow them to make comments. I agree that this behavior can be problematic as well, and the situation you describe sounds pretty vicious, but I was pointing out that this is a completely different kind of scenario.