Allecto has declared she will not publish any more of my comments on her thread about my Sheila Jeffreys bag post. Her choice, of course. I have posted one more comment, which she has every right not to publish, but I'll stick it here:
Her final comment:
Yes, you are right. I should have called it woman-hatred rather than ridiculousness. No, I do not believe that standing up for the rights of a sister to speak without being attacked, is an attack.
Sheila does not speak on behalf of, or for, women in prostitution. Rebecca made it clear in her comment that she speaks for herself. Sheila speaks as a woman against the sex industry, which is an industry that ALL women have a stake in bringing to an end. From everything that I’ve read, from the conversations that I’ve had, from the speeches that I’ve heard, Sheila Jeffreys is a woman who cares deeply about the rights of women being harmed in the sex industry. She is one of the few women who has the courage to say that women’s bodies are not for sale and that message benefits all women. She believes that women have a fundamental right not to be prostituted, not to be bought by men like so much meat, not to have their Selves defined as ‘whore’, or reduced to ‘cunt’. It does not surprise me that there are many women who are not able to respect the integrity of their Selfhood, the integrity of their bodies, when so much around us tells us that we are ‘cunt’ that we are ‘whore’. It does not surprise me that there are many women who are unable to hear what feminists like Sheila have to say when being against prostitution is called “sex-negative”. When women who are bought by men as sex call themselves ’sex workers’. As if there is any logic in that. As if sex is a job. It is saddening but not surprising.
Anyway, I think we’ve both had our say. I am not interested in continuing this conversation.
And mine:
I am a sex worker. I respect the integrity of my body. Those two statements are not in opposition to each other.
I would appreciate it if you would publish one more comment, as I thought I had said this here but had actually said it in the comment thread at my own blog: I do believe that Sheila Jeffreys genuinely believes she has the best interests of women (or at least some of them) at heart.
And I'd just thanked everyone for being civil to me...
To run through it quickly:
- I certainly believe that every woman has the right not to be prostituted. I just also believe that person has the right to set the terms of any sexual contact they have, including exchanging sexual contact for money, favours, goods or services. Moreover, I believe fervently that every person has the right to not be criminalised or discriminated against because of the terms they set for consensual sexual behaviour.
- I, and many other sex workers, have a great deal of respect for the integrity of our selves. This is not compromised by engaging in sex work, or in any other kind of consensual sexual behaviour.
- I, and many other sex workers, have a great deal of respect for the integrity of our bodies. This is also not compromised by engaging in sex work, or in any other kind of consensual sexual behaviour.
- I have not said, and do not believe, that being against sex work makes one "sex negative". The fact that some people who are against sex work ARE sex negative does not change this. Correlation, maybe, not causation.
- I can hear just fine what Sheila Jeffreys has to say. I disagree with it.
- There's not much I can say to "as if sex is a job". Clearly sex can be a job (or more accurately, jobs can involve sex) because as sex workers have been saying for quite some time now, sex work is work. If people choose to continue refusing to let us define our own lives and label ourselves with our terms, there isn't really much to be added. I think there's a certain level of woman-hatred in refusing to let women define themselves and their lives because their experiences don't mesh with your politics.
For clarification. And I'm out.
Posts
55 comments:
I don't know what I think about prostitution, Hexy. As in, but I am in a state of epistemic doubt about what I think. I can see some of the force of what Allecto et al are saying, but I can also very much see the force of what you are saying. And I place huge value on what women have to say about themselves. It does seem very, very odd to ignore what sex-workers themselves say, and do, particularly in a forum like the sex workers convention where the bags were handed out. If there was ever a safe place for sex workers to speak out, to say what they thought about their work, to be gut-wrenchingly honest about it, surely that was it. And yet the commenters over at Allecto's place don't seem to appreciate the nuance of that.
Kia kaha!
Te reo Maori (Maori language), meaning roughly, stand strong. stay strong. be strong.
Hi, I've been reading both yours and Allecto's blog for a while now, (but somehow missed the linked posts, doh) and I was wondering if i could ask you about something you wrote on Allecto's comments thread.
You said you were not pro prostitution or pro the sex industry, I am confused by what you mean. I was wondering if you could explain further?
Not that you owe me or anyone else an explanation at all, I'm just intrigued and would be interested to learn more.
For the record, while I find Allecto's ideas and thoughts interesting I also find her rather dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with her. Unlike Allecto, I'm also quite fond of porn and would probably fall into the sex positive camp, (if I didn't have a beef with what i see are the implications of being sex-negative)
Anyway, I thought you might want to know where I stand, in that I am not a troll looking for a way to attack your personal beliefs.
Deborah: Safe space and peer respect doesn't seem to mean much to these women when the people in question are sex workers. That thread at Allecto's has already turned into people making incorrect and misleading assumptions about the forum where these bags were distributed: delphyne's referring to us as "sex industry activists" rather than sex workers, v is suggesting that "johns" and other non sex workers were present despite my statements that it was a sex worker only event, someone called Rachel is presenting the usual idea that the only sex workers who care about their rights are some privileged class and that our convention was held "to attack other women", and Amazon Mancrusher insists that the bags are propaganda to keep women in line... I'm not quite sure how she reaches that conclusion, or how she reconciles it with the whole "sex workers made them for themselves" aspect.
And, of course, I've been told I can't comment there anymore, so these chunks of bullshit go uncorrected. They get to convince themselves that Australian sex workers acting in a sex worker only space are still inherently disempowered, and that our preferences should not be listened to.
And yet the commenters over at Allecto's place don't seem to appreciate the nuance of that.
Exactly.
Incidentally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with being conflicted about the sex industry. It's the refusal to listen to sex workers, to place them and their wishes at the forefront of any debate involving them, and the advocating against our rights that I see as far more problematic.
Thanks for commenting.
Saranga: I don't consider myself "pro-sex-industry" for the simple reason that there are a huge number of aspects of the sex industry that I find problematic, and that I do think would be erased by empowering and supporting sex workers to organise and operate in their preferred fashion, in a world without whore stigma.
I am also not "pro prostitution", because I feel that label implies I advocate FOR prostitution, rather than for sex workers and sex worker rights. This one gets a bit trickier, as while I don't think prostitution is an overwhelmingly negative thing, I certainly don't believe it's an overwhelmingly positive thing. It's just a thing. For some people sex work can be an enjoyable, fulfilling career, but for others it's hell. I don't think this can be ignored, and I don't like pithy labels that suggest that those of us who advocate for sex workers rights don't see the negatives, don't want to eliminate them, and don't care about those women for whom prostitution is involuntary, miserable, or undesirable.
I am pro sex worker and pro sex workers rights.
Hi Hexy. Thanks for responding, I understand better now.
From what I've read in the media, on blogs, in books it seems to me that a lot of people take an absolute view of sex work - usually that it's all incredibly evil and demeaning, male punters are all demon spawn, all the women are forced into sex work, all the women hate it and they are all victims.
This quite clearly ignores, shuts out and silences a number of sex workers who don't have that experience, and also, I think, doesn't lead to any meaningful progress being made.
It's good to read a site such as yours which provides a differing view.
Yes, it's a surprisingly common perspective. There's another variation where those of us who are sex workers and who are not rabidly anti-prostitution are accused of being a super-privileged super-tiny special case who are contributing to making life hell for the obvious vast majority who hate the work. It's insidious, insulting and inaccurate.
"There's not much I can say to "as if sex is a job". Clearly sex can be a job (or more accurately, jobs can involve sex) because as sex workers have been saying for quite some time now, sex work is work. If people choose to continue refusing to let us define our own lives and label ourselves with our terms, there isn't really much to be added. I think there's a certain level of woman-hatred in refusing to let women define themselves and their lives because their experiences don't mesh with your politics."
WORD!
"v is suggesting that "johns" and other non sex workers were present despite my statements that it was a sex worker only event,"
i actually said, 'assuming that no johns or otherwise interested peoples, say partners or parents of sex workers, or anyone else politically interested in supporting the sex industy were also at the convention to buy these bags, is that right?'
i was asking for clarification, the question mark is the clue. whats up with your constant misrepresentations?
as for whether you are able to comment at allectos or not - well youve made a point of not allowing a comment of mine through here before, one that i didnt think was insulting, but it was some time ago now. my point is - bloggers comments are their own and youre happy to control who is allowed on yours, so dont hypocritically whinge when other people do the same.
i actually said, 'assuming that no johns or otherwise interested peoples, say partners or parents of sex workers, or anyone else politically interested in supporting the sex industy were also at the convention to buy these bags, is that right?'
i was asking for clarification, the question mark is the clue. Yes, that's what you said... after I'd repeatedly said the event was sex worker only, and after Allecto had clearly stated no other comments of mine would be let through. That doesn't read to me as a request for clarification, it reads as a way of casting doubt on my very clear statement that the event was sex worker only.
But now that you've made the request somewhere I can actually answer it, I'm forced to reconsider. My apologies for jumping to that conclusion, I'm a little too used to "tactics" being played in conversations on this topic.
And since you ask: No. No-one who wasn't a current or former sex worker, and business/brothel owners who are former sex workers are specifically excluded. Sex worker only means sex worker only... and even if the organisation didn't hold that value, sex worker only space and prioritising sex worker voices are very important to ME, so I wouldn't be misrepresenting non-sex-worker-only space as anything else.
as for whether you are able to comment at allectos or not - well youve made a point of not allowing a comment of mine through here before, one that i didnt think was insulting, but it was some time ago now. Can you provide a link? Every post I've made here is still up, and I'm under the impression I've approved every comment here that wasn't spam or anony trolling.
That said, I'm certainly not "whinging" about Allecto's comment policy. She has every right to tell me not to comment further, or to mod out my comments, and I said that right in the post you're frickin' commenting on.Respect for her control of her space, however, does not mean I sacrifice the right to write what I want on mine. And yes, I will address something aimed at me if I like, including posting any comments I have made there that have not been let through mod (as the comment of mine I quote her had not at time of posting) and responding to comments apparently aimed at me even though I am denied space to respond. To summarise: I'm completely fine with Allecto's moderation decisions, but that doesn't mean that her words suddenly become off limits in my own space.
If you see that as "hypocrisy", I think your definition is a bit fucked up.
(it was ages ago, i didnt save my comment or anything)
It was a request for clarification and thanks for answering it. I don't know how you control so well who attends the event - over here our 'sex worker organisations' (and therefore their events and press releases) are comprised of many who are not and no-one seems to have an idea how to deal with that.
You did catch my point over there I hope, that the group who turn up to such an event, even being self identified sex workers, are not representative of prostitutes in general, or of women in general, who are all affected by the sex industry in some way or another. Yours is a self selecting group with it's own bias. You keep saying you're not 'speaking for all sex workers' but that is what your posts and the t shirt are doing. Again you erase people by claiming that 'anti sex feminists' (itself a misogynist and anti feminist slur) and prostitutes or sex workers are mutually exclusive categories, when you know full well they are not. This is continued in posts at for eg, Carolines blog, which is full of disdain for the women who declare that Sheila IS their sister, when she has no real clue how many of those are or have been in some form of sex 'work'. yes i'm using the inverted commas, because although that is the term you accept for it, it is not universally accepted by those who fall under its banner. Which brings us back again to how both your event and the t shirt buyers are a self selecting and non-representative group.
Layers and layers of fail here hexy.
Instead of attacking women who object to prostitution as 'anti sex feminists', and making it even more personal by attacking Sheila Jeffreys by name, you could have chosen to show support for those women who object to the industry because of the way they are abused within it. When you put out this t shirt, you dont just attack Sheila, you attack everyone of them, every one of us who speaks against it, who speaks the truth of their own experience, as well as attacking all of those women who dont speak about it because of fear of attack.
The whole thing is so badly thought out and then the glee with which you post about it, like its SUCH FUN to poke the mean 'anti sex' people. I cant see these t shirts as anything except the arrogance of the privileged picking on those who are not.
(it was ages ago, i didnt save my comment or anything)A shame. If you could remember what the post was about, that would be neat... I honestly have no memory of such an occurrence, and it would be odd for me to fail to remember the only time I've baninated someone.
It was a request for clarification and thanks for answering it. I don't know how you control so well who attends the event - over here our 'sex worker organisations' (and therefore their events and press releases) are comprised of many who are not and no-one seems to have an idea how to deal with that.Yes, it's something that does happen with other organisations. There are arguments for and against open and blanket "sex workers only" policies for organisations; personally I feel the benefits are fairly obvious.
You did catch my point over there I hope, that the group who turn up to such an event, even being self identified sex workers, are not representative of prostitutes in general, or of women in general, who are all affected by the sex industry in some way or another. Yours is a self selecting group with it's own bias. V, put aside for a moment the bit where you know I'm a sex worker activist, or that I don't hate my job. Look at the bit where I am an Australian sex worker, working in the Australian sex industry. I don't know if you've been here or not, but we're not a highly populated country, and our sex industry compared to that of other countries is fucking TINY.
Don't you think I'm aware of selection bias, and of how well a particular event represents the Aussie sex industry in general? And that's putting aside my other very good reasons to know how well various demographics of sex worker are represented at that particular forum, which I can't really go into online. To put it simply: You're explaining this like you're talking to a child, and a not especially bright one at that.
You keep saying you're not 'speaking for all sex workers' but that is what your posts and the t shirt are doing. My posts speak for me. The bag speaks for itself, it's makers, and the many attendees who dived on them. The many vocal Australian sex workers who repeatedly object to Sheila Jeffreys' work speak for themselves.
Again you erase people by claiming that 'anti sex feminists' (itself a misogynist and anti feminist slur) See, I'm actually with you on this one. I don't think "Anti-sex feminists" is a useful term, even when it accurately applies (and I have read a LOT of Sheila Jeffreys).
yes i'm using the inverted commas, because although that is the term you accept for it, it is not universally accepted by those who fall under its banner. You're welcome to use the term "prostituted women" here to refer to those who prefer it. I do so myself, if requested. Just don't apply it to those of us who are not.
And I can't speak on behalf of another blogger. How Caroline reports on this or any other intertubes kerfuffle has nothing to do with me.
Which brings us back again to how both your event and the t shirt buyers are a self selecting and non-representative group.I'm amused at the way you keep stating this, when you haven't bothered to ask a single question about the event in question.
And again, the bags weren't sold.
You keep using the word "attack". For the last time, it is not an "attack" to reject someone's work when it actively harms you. It is not an "attack" to reject the idea of sisterhood with that person. You and the people in your slice of the internet do it all the time.
I know it's a word that internet feminists like to roll their eyes at when its uttered by us silly whores, but rejecting the attempts of someone who is NOT part of your underprivileged group to impose their values on you and dictate the terms of your life is an empowering action. You're damn right it feels good to say that Sheila Jeffreys doesn't speak for me... it probably wouldn't if she wasn't presented as an "expert" on the sex industry when actual sex workers are deemed unworthy of commenting, or if her theories weren't given more weight when debating sex work legislation than what actual sex workers say will benefit them. Or, maybe, if she'd consult with current sex workers herself when informing on sex work legislation. There is a history here, v, it's not like a random anti-sex-work feminist was selected at random.
Her writings may be of great help to ex-prostituted women, I do not deny this, and they are very welcome to them. But her work harms sex workers, and sex workers have the right to say they do not want her speaking for them.
As I said in my post, if you feel it such an attack to tell someone they do not speak for a group they are not part of... well, I wonder why you think it's so important that she do so.
I cant see these t shirts as anything except the arrogance of the privileged picking on those who are not.... are you fucking shitting me? Did you just say that a bunch of sex workers opposing the work of Sheila fucking Jeffreys is the privileged picking on the underprivileged?
That's so fucking twisted I do not know where to start. Ya know, I've never had a comment policy, but here's a rule from here on in: No accusing sex workers of being "privileged" because they don't agree with you on their victim status.
I was actually doing fine for most of your comment, but you'd better give me a while before you comment again, I'm fucking livid. I am sick to death of being told that sex workers, including non-white sex workers, queer sex workers, sex workers with disabilities, transgendered sex workers, sex workers with drug problems, mature sex workers... so on and so forth... are "privileged" simply because we don't agree on our victim status and want to speak for ourselves instead of letting some self-appointed Nice White Lady Academic do it for us.
You erase us everytime you insist we're some privileged minority that hence should not be listened to. Stop it.
"I cant see these t shirts as anything except the arrogance of the privileged picking on those who are not.... are you fucking shitting me? Did you just say that a bunch of sex workers opposing the work of Sheila fucking Jeffreys is the privileged picking on the underprivileged?
That's so fucking twisted I do not know where to start. Ya know, I've never had a comment policy, but here's a rule from here on in: No accusing sex workers of being "privileged" because they don't agree with you on their victim status."
I thought the context of my comment was obvious. The part of my comment you quote did follow this part:
"When you put out this t shirt, you dont just attack Sheila, you attack everyone of them, every one of us who speaks against it, who speaks the truth of their own experience, as well as attacking all of those women who dont speak about it because of fear of attack."
The t shirt named Sheila Jeffreys, then followed up with an attack on 'anti sex feminists'. The insinuation is that those women who broadly share the 'anti sex' view of Jeffreys that the sex industry is harmful, are all anti sex worker, that sex workers (speaking for them all, as the bag does) are, whats the word? 'cutting off' those women. That we do not count as sisters.
Yes, i'd call that scattergun attack arrogance on the part of the privileged, within the sex work field, attacking those less so. The slogan makers didnt need to even consider who else might get caught in the crossfire.
You misrepresent, again, what I said by taking it out of context, and again you erase the people I am talking about. You dont even acknowledge the people caught in the crossfire!
'I am sick to death of being told that sex workers, including non-white sex workers, queer sex workers, sex workers with disabilities, transgendered sex workers, sex workers with drug problems, mature sex workers... so on and so forth...' are all supportive of the sex worker movement; all identify positively as sex workers; all disagree or cut off sheila jeffreys or those of us who broadly share her opinion on the industry - that it is harmful.
I am sick to death of being told that all women who have experienced 'sex work' negatively are not 'sisters', are too damaged to be heard on the subject, are 'anti sex', are too stupid to have come to their own conclusions from their own experiences and can only follow 'white academics' blindly.
I am sick of people insisting that no sex worker is in a position of privilege compared to any other, as if the fact of their involvement in the industry wipes away their class etc.
Are you seriously insisting that the people who attended this conference are not in a position of privilege as compared to the majority of 'sex workers' in Australia, let alone this planet? Seriously?
Be livid at straw if you like, if thats easier than addressing the ignorance, the arrogance, the *privilege* that is behind the creation of that slogan.
And yeh, I shall refrain from posting any more here, at your request. And cos frankly, its a bit shit knowing that whatever I say, you'll misrepresent it and make it into something it was not.
Hi Hexy.
I understand your frustration but I still don't feel as though you've adequately addressed all the criticisms levelled against your post(s).
On Alecto's blog I wrote:
"Hexy: There is an implication, whenever pro-prostitution feminists mention organizations like Scarlet Alliance, that, since their membership is either comprised or claims to be comprised of prostituted women, they represent the views of all prostituted women. In other words, there is a tendency to characterize the prostitution debate in terms of a polarization between anti-prostitution feminists on the one hand and prostituted women (and their allies) on the other. This is just simply not the case. I’m not going to argue whether or not this was your intention, but I think it’s a common reaction of pro- and anti-pornography/prostitution feminists alike.
I don’t know what “silencing” entails but tagging posts “Sheila Fucking Jeffreys” doesn’t seem very sisterly to me.
Oh and Sheila is my sister."
You responded: "Bearded Lady: I am not “pro-prostitution”. Please do not label me with terms I disagree with.
Scarlet Alliance membership does consist entirely of current or former sex workers, I can vouch for that."
I am sympathetic with the objectives of the Scarlet Alliance and support a number of the initiatives they have implemented over the years, particularly with regards to HIV prevention. I am aware that their membership consists entirely of current or former sex workers and that delegates and elected office bearers are sex workers. This does not mean that management does not comprise a percentage of their membership.
The majority of posters on Allecto's blog did not object to the conference itself but to the implication that the prosititution debate is characterized by a polarization between "imperialistic" anti-prostitution feminists on the one hand and prostituted women (and their supporters) on the other. They also objected to singling out Sheila Jeffreys.
The point that I was trying to make is that while "anti-sex feminist" may not "speak on behalf of [all] sex workers", neither does the Scarlet Alliance.
Jeffreys' main objection is to "idea of prostitution": the idea that women (and "feminized" men) exist to be used and that prostitution is an appropriate way to use them. It is based on an analysis which sees prostitution as an institution (like compulsory heterosexuality) that is socially constructed out of men's dominance and women's subordination. Prostitution affects ALL members of the sex-class "woman". Radical feminists like Jefferys and myself see prostitution as incomensurable with the idea of a post-patriachal society. Activism should not focus on stigmatizing, silencing or criminalizing prostitutes but in delegitimizing the idea of prostitution itself. Radical feminists are not "anti-sex". They oppose a capitalistic, patriarchally-defined sexuality based on objectification and a dynamics of domination and submission. This does not mean that the sexual practices of radical feminists are free from these dynamics.
I did use the term "pro-prostitution" because I think that the dominant ideology of the sex workers' rights movement in Australia is not to challenge the idea of prostitution but to see the problems faced by prostituted women as arising primarlily from criminalization and social stigmatization. Radical feminists share many of these concerns but argue that the effect of legitimizing prostitution as work is to disassociate it from its patriarchal basis legitimize it as an institution. This is not to suggest that prostituted women/sex workers can't be feminists or that they're somehow "dupes" aiding and abbetting patriarchy. I won't however refer to you or your views as being "pro-prostitution" again.
I don't think it's helpful to imply that self-identified sex workers are a privileged minority, however some are clearly in positions of privilege relative to the women they claim to represent. The same is true for radical feminists.
As a lesbian feminist and woman who's never been in the sex industry (voluntarily or otherwise), who is Jeffreys to speak for women in the sex industry?
I also don't work as a sex worker (I'm in IT), but from your posts, hexy, you seem like a very empowered woman who knows what she wants and works as hard as necessary to get it. Kudos.
Let's cut the 'prostituted women' crap except when specifically referring to women forced to work in the sex industry against their will. Calling all sex workers 'prostitited women' is incredibly insulting and patronising, and does no one any credit. We are all in Hexy's space, and to do so is being utterly disrespectful.
And I'm still struggling to see how saying 'This person/persons do not speak for those in my particular sphere' constitutes a personal attack on Sheila, or a damning comment on the views of radical feminists. Anyone diametrically opposed to my beliefs and views, who does not support me and my kind, who actively seeks to take away my agency or ability to make my own decisions is not my sister. That doesnt mean they are not beloved of other people, or do not have value for someone else, and Hexy has never claimed otherwise.
This insistence that no one may question the beliefs and views of the heroes of particular movements is dangerous. We grow and learn and change by constantly reevaluating our position, by listening to the arguments and viewpoints of others, and allowing the same freedom of thought and expression that we would want for ourselves.
V - Please point out where Hex has said that women who have been hurt by the sex industry deserve to be voiceless. While you're at it, show your working for the statement '...people insisting that no sex worker is in a position of privilege compared to any other, as if the fact of their involvement of the industry wipes away their class etc'. To the contrary, I find the sex workers I know to be even more aware of the dangerous, detrimental and degrading position prostituted women (please note the correct use of the term here) are placed in, and the privilege they have in being able to work in safe environments with access to education and support within a peer network. They also tend to be more active in doing what they can to help resolve those issues both online and out in the real world.
Actually, there's a thought - what steps do you take to help resolve the problem of trafficked women? Unfortunately my activism in this sphere is limited, but I'd be interested to hear what positive steps you are taking to bring about an end to this horror, especially as you are so vocal about the issue.
And stop waving the privilege flag, seriously. No one is denying their privilege (in fact, read up; hex has actively acknowleged hers) - almost all of us experience privilege in some way or another. Hell, the very fact you're able to waltz over here and vent your entitled opinion over the blog of someone who's attempting to maintain her sense of autonomy and agency is a massive privilege in itself.
V:
"When you put out this t shirt, you dont just attack Sheila, you attack everyone of them, every one of us who speaks against it, who speaks the truth of their own experience, as well as attacking all of those women who dont speak about it because of fear of attack."
Bullshit. You can declare that to be the case all you want, it doesn't make it so.
The t shirt named Sheila Jeffreys, then followed up with an attack on 'anti sex feminists'. The insinuation is that those women who broadly share the 'anti sex' view of Jeffreys that the sex industry is harmful, are all anti sex worker, that sex workers (speaking for them all, as the bag does) are, whats the word? 'cutting off' those women.
Nope. The bag says anti-sex feminists don't speak for sex workers. That's all. There's no indication of anything else you're reading into it.
I am sick to death of being told that all women who have experienced 'sex work' negatively are not 'sisters',
No-one has said that. The bag is really quite specific... in fact, until your comments, that specification is what was being criticised. So should we have been more specific or less specific in our objections? Make up your mind.
are too damaged to be heard on the subject,
Bull. Shit. If you're hearing that (which I'm sure you are, I cop it all the time) it's certainly not coming from me, or from any of the sex worker and sex workers rights networks I'm a part of. I usually hear it from those who think only damaged women would ever be whores, and it's generally not other sex workers promoting that idea.
are too stupid to have come to their own conclusions from their own experiences and can only follow 'white academics' blindly.
Oh, THAT one is rich.
NOTHING in the bag, the event, the statements made at the event, or the views of those involved as far as my awareness of that can possibly extend, criticises women who are or have been involved in the sex industry.
I am sick of people insisting that no sex worker is in a position of privilege compared to any other, as if the fact of their involvement in the industry wipes away their class etc.
Who on earth are you talking to?? I have never said that no sex worker is in a position of privilege. I objected to your classification of all sex workers attending that conference as "privileged" simply by virtue of their attendance; personally, I'm not a fan of erasing women's experiencing like that. The experiences shared in that sex worker safe space by sex workers from a HUGE variety of backgrounds and histories were exceptionally powerful. We're a diverse group.
I also really get the shits with this persistent idea amongst anti-sex-work feminists that any sex worker using the term "sex worker" is, again, automatically part of a privileged elite who can't possibly understand the lives of those who deal with the REALLY REAL REALITIES of the sex industry. Please. It's bullshit.
Are you seriously insisting that the people who attended this conference are not in a position of privilege as compared to the majority of 'sex workers' in Australia, let alone this planet? Seriously?
Compared to the planet? Well, we're all privileged there. Compared to Australian society and sex workers across Australia? No, actually, not as a group. Sex workers from all echelons of the industry, from private workers to brothel workers to street workers, and with a huge variety of backgrounds and categories of privilege and underprivilege, attended.
You've just decided this isn't the case... because, in your mind, organising and fighting for their industrial and human rights is something only the most privileged manage? That doesn't even make sense! Stop erasing the women involved.
I understand your frustration but I still don't feel as though you've adequately addressed all the criticisms levelled against your post(s).
Hi, Bearded Lady. Thanks for stopping by.
Let's be clear on one thing. I am under exactly no obligation to address ANY of the "criticisms" of my posts. I am choosing to do so.
I am sympathetic with the objectives of the Scarlet Alliance [...] I am aware that their membership consists entirely of current or former sex workers and that delegates and elected office bearers are sex workers. This does not mean that management does not comprise a percentage of their membership.
It does, actually. If you're familiar with the organisation's sex worker only involvement policies, you should be aware that management are specifically excluded, even if they have personal sex work experience.
The majority of posters on Allecto's blog did not object to the conference itself but to the implication that the prosititution debate is characterized by a polarization between "imperialistic" anti-prostitution feminists on the one hand and prostituted women (and their supporters) on the other.
Did we read the same comment thread?
They also objected to singling out Sheila Jeffreys.
As I said to v, Sheila Jeffreys was hardly selected at random. She actively works against the Australian sex workers rights movement, and her work actively hurts sex workers.
Perhaps the bag didn't reference anyone other than Sheila Jeffreys because it wasn't aimed at anyone other than Sheila Jeffreys?
The point that I was trying to make is that while "anti-sex feminist" may not "speak on behalf of [all] sex workers", neither does the Scarlet Alliance.
Nope. It doesn't claim to. It does, however, emphasise that its membership, executive, staff and volunteers are exclusively sex workers. Something said by the organisation is something said by sex workers and no one else.
Jeffreys' main objection is to "idea of prostitution"
As I've said, I'm quite familiar with Jeffreys' work. Disagreement is not necessarily a sign of ignorance.
Activism should not focus on stigmatizing, silencing or criminalizing prostitutes but in delegitimizing the idea of prostitution itself.
Delegitimizing our work and OUR activism. Sex work is work. The illegitimacy attached to sex work contributes to stigma and discrimination.
Radical feminists are not "anti-sex".
Not all of them, no. I know some amazing, woman-centered, radical feminists who are absolute powerhouses of activism and genuine respect for women and their choices.
Some, though? Absolutely.
I did use the term "pro-prostitution" [...] the dominant ideology of the sex workers' rights movement in Australia is not to challenge the idea of prostitution but to see the problems faced by prostituted women as arising primarlily from criminalization and social stigmatization.
I'd say that's an accurate estimation, but it doesn't summarise accurately as "pro-prostitution"... and even if it did, I don't.
This is not to suggest that prostituted women/sex workers can't be feminists or that they're somehow "dupes" aiding and abbetting patriarchy.
I'm glad you've specified this. Others who class themselves as "radical feminists", however, disagree. One of the joys of the internet is the people one gets lumped in with.
I won't however refer to you or your views as being "pro-prostitution" again.
Cheers, I appreciate it.
I don't think it's helpful to imply that self-identified sex workers are a privileged minority, however some are clearly in positions of privilege relative to the women they claim to represent.
I would say some are clearly in positions of privilege compared to others, yes. As you point out, this applies in all groups of humans/women.
I've edited some of your comments down so this would fit in one comment. Please let me know if I've changed the meaning of anything or forgotten the [...]
Thank you, Sonja. I appreciate it.
Hexy- Once again, you are my shero!
Aw, shucks.
Hexy- Truthfully, I think this has hit a level of overblowndramatica that I can't fathom. What, the whole world is supposed to love Shelia, and stawberry ice cream, and enya, and the color green, and if for some reason, you don' think all those things are fantastic, OMG, you suck!
Do Shelia's sisters honestly think a section of sex workers not claiming her as a sister is going to STOP her? Wooo, Silence her? She'll just pack up her academic bags, book sales, speaking dates, take her ball and go home because someone said something on a bag about her? For real? I seriously doubt Shelia is crying in her beer over it. Yet half of bloglandia is swooning with disgust?
Jesusfuckingchristonalongboat!
Hey Hexy, YOU don't like (insert pop singer x here), you suck and you smell, she totally sings how I feel, and since you don't agree, U R WRONG, so are all the people who agree with you! So there!
What grade are we in again????
And sorry, but V-
Hey, I know you could probably care less what I say, me being a violent scary person and all, but guess what? Sure enough, a lot of sex workers rights types know there are ex prostituted people in the radical feminist movement. However, you know, that does not make what those people think or say any more valid or worthy than what the sex workers think and say. Sorry, just doesn't. And you sure have some nerve on ya. In fact, a great many of your lot even talking about sisterhood considering how some of your ex sisters have been treated is fucking laughable. In a pathetic kind of way.
Ren: I'm a wee bit astounded at the size of the melodrama as well. Especially coming so late after the post. But I think I'm figuring it out.
WE'RE not allowed to reject sisterhood with anyone. Us, sex workers? Nah. We're supposed to take what we're fucking given, even if it doesn't fit, or even hurts. But when anti-sex-work feminists reject sisterhood with sex workers, or sex positive feminists, or anyone else... superempowering declaration of autonomy. Yeah.
Do Shelia's sisters honestly think a section of sex workers not claiming her as a sister is going to STOP her? Wooo, Silence her?
She certainly hasn't given a damn what sex workers think of her work and her advocacy until now. She quite blatantly refuses to consult with us. I really, really doubt our admittedly futile little gesture of defiance is going to succeed in either A: getting her to listen, or B: getting those who prioritise her voice above that of sex workers to listen.
"Until now" should read "prior to now". Nothing there has changed.
"WE'RE not allowed to reject sisterhood with anyone. Us, sex workers? Nah. We're supposed to take what we're fucking given, even if it doesn't fit, or even hurts. But when anti-sex-work feminists reject sisterhood with sex workers, or sex positive feminists, or anyone else... superempowering declaration of autonomy. Yeah."
Nail, head, sledgehammer. It's that whole double standard thing I have been bitching about for eons now. Two sets of rules, two codes of acceptable behavior, people who matter, and people who don't. It would make me sick if I just did not find it so damn pathetic and blind.
There is something I have never understood: why do the views of someone who doesn't work in the sex industry, who has never worked in the sex industry, hold more weight than sex workers when it comes to the sex industry?
I can kind of understand where they are coming from saying that prostitution affects women as a class (but I am far too unknowlegeable about this issue to say more than that). But legislation regarding sex workers in Victoria doesn't affect women as a class, it affects sex workers in Victoria. (I mention Victoria because you said in the other thread that legislation was under review)
Surely you have a right to say who speaks for you and who doesn't about matters which directly affect you.
And now I'll be quiet, because I really don't know enough about this issue to say any more.
Maybe it's my heritage speaking, but to me "sister" is an active role. It's something you earn, a part you consciously play. And it comes with some pretty serious responsibilities.
There is something I have never understood: why do the views of someone who doesn't work in the sex industry, who has never worked in the sex industry, hold more weight than sex workers when it comes to the sex industry?
Stigma, discrimination, devaluing of sex worker experience as legitimate, and the active work by some non sex workers to promote themselves as "experts". Oh, sorry, was that a rhetorical question? :)
But legislation regarding sex workers in Victoria doesn't affect women as a class, it affects sex workers in Victoria.
Exactly. If these people want a utopian future where people like me don't exist... well, I can't really change that. But since we aren't there, it would be neat if people would listen to us when we said we wanted our work decriminalised, our rights respected, and the stigma and discrimination that affects us eliminated. Hell, even consider it a "for now" until we get to that wacky future where there are no whores.
Surely you have a right to say who speaks for you and who doesn't about matters which directly affect you.
You'd think so.
And now I'll be quiet, because I really don't know enough about this issue to say any more.
You did fine. Thanks for commenting.
Pharaoh,
"But legislation regarding sex workers in Victoria doesn't affect women as a class, it affects sex workers in Victoria. (I mention Victoria because you said in the other thread that legislation was under review)"
You're WRONG, of course, because select Sheila Jeffreys's fans are in fact Every Woman. It's all in the Them.
When a butterfly beats its wings in Hexy's boudoir, they are silenced and excluded. It's cruel and demeaning, and Hexy ought to know better.
Seriously now, I completely missed this debacle. Hmmm, maybe I'll go satirize it.
You do it so well :)
*wink*
This may or may not be related, but it seems that those claiming this is an attack on Sheila Jeffreys (and not her work, apparently?) are really interested in this idea of women as a class. Which I'm going to assume gender as an axis of oppression. Which to me pretty much ignores all the other axes of oppression like class, race, sexuality, ability, etc. To claim that sex work is bad based only on a gendered analysis of oppression is really one-dimensional.
Sorry, but Sheila ain't my sister, and not just because of her work on sex work. She has some really upsetting (to me) views on body modification and self-injury.
What Pharaoh Katt said. What the hell in presuming that sex workers have less legitimacy in talking about sex work than non-sex workers? It does seem that the way this is explained away is by talking about "privilege". And I can see Hexy, that being talked to as if a child is also a way of maintaining this cognitive dissonance - hey, if it's not that you're too isolated in your ivory tower to know what's good for your lot, then it's that ya naive or stupid!
Some men like to imply that they're more "objective" than women when talking about feminist type stuff, you know, because we are "biased", and can't see the forest for the trees. That's one thing I'm reminded of when I see what's going on here.
I am a great believer in the validity of autonomous organising, by the way.
I cannot just sit by and let Natalia coronate herself Queen of Literature without a response.
V is making fucked up assumptions about more marginalized people in the sex industry and implying some fucked up shit about what they can and can't do.
And Shiela Jeffries bullshit is an insult to queer women and a boot on the neck of women who are trans.
I missed the news. When did Jeffries become the Pope?
I'm extremely impressed with your responses, Hexy.
All kinds of sins have sprung from convincing ourselves that we know what's better for you than you do. Thanks for making it so clear!
And Ironically apparently I am her sister. She made some bad assumptions about my trans female ass. THougght she was sheperding me back into the flock. Fool.
Whoa, comment flood overnight!
Jane:
This may or may not be related, but it seems that those claiming this is an attack on Sheila Jeffreys (and not her work, apparently?) are really interested in this idea of women as a class. Which I'm going to assume gender as an axis of oppression. Which to me pretty much ignores all the other axes of oppression like class, race, sexuality, ability, etc.
Indeed. No woman can oppress another... oh, except for the sex workers, who are somehow MORE privileged than other members of class woman. WTF?
Sorry, but Sheila ain't my sister, and not just because of her work on sex work. She has some really upsetting (to me) views on body modification and self-injury.
Amen to that. The woman's work has ostracised me on repeated levels.
Goatsfoot:
hey, if it's not that you're too isolated in your ivory tower to know what's good for your lot, then it's that ya naive or stupid!
Pretty much. And, sadly, a common attitude sex workers encounter when we try to speak up.
Lynn:
V is making fucked up assumptions about more marginalized people in the sex industry and implying some fucked up shit about what they can and can't do.
Absolutely.
She's also making some fucked up assumptions about how things work in a country she doesn't live in. I've noticed that remarkably few of the people chiming in to tell me how things REALLY are and SHOULD be addressed are actually Australian. FFS.
And Shiela Jeffries bullshit is an insult to queer women and a boot on the neck of women who are trans.
Couldn't agree more. The comments about sex workers probably not even knowing who she is are doubly offensive to sex workers who are also queer and/or trans.
Raven: Thank you. :)
Lynn: Oh, really?
And around and around it goes.
And I'm again left with the feeling that the major reason prostitution is a concern for women-in-general is that so long as there are women the system finds acceptable to treat as unpersons, all women have to live with the risk of being assigned to the nonentity category.
Personally, I'm in favor of removing that risk, which means I'm in favor of destigmatising, legalising, and otherwise treating prostitution like work, and prostitutes and other sex workers like people.
And one of the things that people get to do is tell assholes like Jeffries to fuck off.
*applause*
This is my latest favorite:
"The next thing we shall see here in UK is that prostitution will be offered by schools to girls as a ‘career choice’, already pole dancing is seen as a legitimate way to earn a living!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I mean, god, why don;t those stupid whores get REAL jobs!
and delphyne? (rolls eyes)...yeah, if the sex workers (who you supposedly care about) HATE you its a good sign.
Stupidity abounds, along with classism and other nifty stuff.
I mean, god, why don;t those stupid whores get REAL jobs!
"As if sex is a job".
*head desk*
and delphyne? (rolls eyes)...yeah, if the sex workers (who you supposedly care about) HATE you its a good sign.
I gotta say, at least Delphyne just puts it out there. No hedging around the issue for her, no... if sex workers speak out against your work that's allegedly for their benefit, you're on the right path.
*head, desk, repeat*
"And I'm again left with the feeling that the major reason prostitution is a concern for women-in-general is that so long as there are women the system finds acceptable to treat as unpersons, all women have to live with the risk of being assigned to the nonentity category.
Personally, I'm in favor of removing that risk, which means I'm in favor of destigmatising, legalising, and otherwise treating prostitution like work, and prostitutes and other sex workers like people."
Yes, yes, yes! 100 times yes!
O delphyne. What she lacks in intellectual subtlety she makes up for in spiritual generosity and warmth and personal charm. Or vice versa.
Yeah she thought I was one of those internalized misogyny made me hate being a woman/ my body and now i'm ending lesbian by shooting T type of trans people. But actually i'm one of those want to steal cis women's bodies and eat their brains kinds of trans people.
Lynn: Ahhhh, I see. Whoa, what a faux pas!
Thank you. Great post
Oh hell, hexy if you don't want to include this comment that would be very understandable..I saw this this from v and want to reply if i may.
The V comment:
"Yes, i'd call that scattergun attack arrogance on the part of the privileged, within the sex work field, attacking those less so. The slogan makers didnt need to even consider who else might get caught in the crossfire."
What about your own arrogance V? Do YOU consider, really, who gets caught in Sheilas crossfire?
I did sex work in a more poverty survival wouldn't have done it by choice way. And you Sheila lot ALWAYS claim to speak for women like me, always invoke the silence of women like me, to slam women like Hexy.
Bullshit to that. I am SICK of being bullied and spoken for by you lot. I dont agree with a few sex worker advocates who gloss over explotation of women totally but that is not all of them it is not Hexy and it DOESNT make the bullying of Sheila lot OK!
Just once I wish you lot would admit that YOU bully and silence some women who are exploited too, with your own zeal and competing to be the "real" voice of exploitation.
Like it is a competition to see who suffered most then tell others they are just privileged whores and shut the whole debate up.
Does it ever occur to you that knowing what a pile on you lot bring is also silencing? That not everyone fits between 'sides' and ANY side piling on and telling us what we "really" think and feel is intimidating and manipulative?
I speak for me, when I can.
Both 'sides' have supporters who are former workers who've been exploited. There is more than one way to be exploited and to act against it.
Sheila is not my sister. She cares a lot so long as no one answers back. There are rad fems who arent whore slandering or transphobic so it is a pity that ones like Sheila who are undermine your own cause.
I use Sheila Jeffries as a kind of litmus test. If I meet a feminist who says she's a fan when asked, I immediately know that we're on opposite sides of the feminist divide. It's perfectly legitimate to publicise opposition to her ideas when she's so publically and influentially destructive. Good grief - she still has access to young women's minds as a uni lecturer in Melbourne as far as I know - apart from her writing of books and articles.
Hexy - I'm hoping the change of state government in WA (where I live although I'm a kiwi) won't lead to the over-turning of Jim Mcginty's prostitution law reform of last year. And hoping always that more and more places follow the New Zealand model of decriminalisation. Here's an interesting and inspiring excerpt from Wiki - under the heading 'Prostitution in New Zealand'
"The decriminalisation of prostitution and substitution of a minimal regulatory model created worldwide interest, as this reversed centuries of attempts to suppress prostitution through criminal law. In 2008 prostitution law reform in Western Australia was based on the New Zealand model.
During the parliamentary debates and committees (in NZ), support came from women's rights, human rights and public health groups. Opposition came from some feminists, although the police were neutral. Christian groups were divided, and fundamentalist religious groups, including Right to Life were opposed... The Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) passed third reading on 25 June 2003. This bill passed narrowly; of 120 MPs, 60 voted for it, 59 against, and one politician, Labour's Ashraf Choudhary, the country's only Muslim MP, abstained. The result was a surprise as most commentators had expected the bill to narrowly fail. An impassioned speech to parliament by Georgina Beyer, a transsexual and former sex worker, was believed by many observers to have persuaded several wavering MP's, possibly including Mr. Choudhary, to change their votes at the last minute."
(For those who don't yet know - Georgina Beyer was the world's first trans woman to be voted the Mayor of a city, and subsequently the world's first openly transexual Member of Parliament.)
That's what I call true representation!
Anonymous: Thank you for your comment.
Cicely:
I use Sheila Jeffries as a kind of litmus test. If I meet a feminist who says she's a fan when asked, I immediately know that we're on opposite sides of the feminist divide.
Indeed!
Hexy - I'm hoping the change of state government in WA (where I live although I'm a kiwi) won't lead to the over-turning of Jim Mcginty's prostitution law reform of last year.
Unfortunately, the Liberal platform was pretty much "We'll undo the prostitution law reform and fight decriminalisation of sex work and marijuana". It's not looking good... and many years of work by passionate sex workers and sex worker advocates may well go down the drain.
I haven't read anything by Sheila Jeffreys, but the title of one of her books, "The Industrial Vagina", is incredibly dehumanizing.
Excuse me, but Hexy, Ren, Caroline, and all the other sex workers in the blogosphere are not "vaginas", industrial or otherwise. They are human beings.
Furthermore, those women trafficked into the sex industry against their wills are not "industrial vaginas" either.
The phrase "The Industrial Vagina" is a hate-term, and should be treated as such.
So no, Sheila Jeffreys, who reduces women to their sexual organ, is not any woman's sister, and definitely not mine.
I do suspect it was meant to be shocking and attention grabbing, but you make a good point, Susan.
And wow... I can't believe this didn't click before. I doubt she'll check back, but...
v said:
as for whether you are able to comment at allectos or not - well youve made a point of not allowing a comment of mine through here before, one that i didnt think was insulting, but it was some time ago now.
... uh, v? I've only had comment moderation enabled on this blog for the last couple of months. Prior to that it was unmoderated.
Yes, it's a surprisingly common perspective. There's another variation where those of us who are sex workers and who are not rabidly anti-prostitution are accused of being a super-privileged super-tiny special case who are contributing to making life hell for the obvious vast majority who hate the work. It's insidious, insulting and inaccurate.
So we at SWOP-NYC and SWANK held a (really awesome) potluck for International Sex Workers Rights Day, and there was a reporter there. She was from the UK, and wrote about the potluck in a UK newspaper (as part of a column about UK issues, she opposed a law somebody in the UK was trying to pass to criminalize johns, or "punters" I guess). So we wound up having an internationally celebrated potluck, which I found kind of bizarre and funny. Anyway she quoted a woman me and my partner know somewhat who I will call V (my partner and V had met each other before unrelated to sex work events and have a couple mutual friends, but she didn't know V would be there). So V is a trans woman and a street worker (if not now then in the recent past). She lives in the South Bronx. She was pretty recently arrested 22 times in the space of like two months and went through a lot of police abuses in the process (the awesome Sex Workers Project at the UJC helped her bring a lawsuit because of all the shit she went through at the hands of the cops). And then she was quoted in that article saying that she was *proud* to do the work, that she prefers being a call girl (which she has also done) to working on the street because of police harassment on the street, and that she thinks the cops are more of a danger than the "punters" are (which is not to say that she thinks the "punters" are not ever a danger, just not as much of one). And then in comments someone pulls that "privileged elite" bit, about her. I thought...really? I think they mostly say that when people are making arguments they don't like, no matter who is making them.
At the same time, there's a lot of super-privilege and blindness, classism and other isms, thoughtlessness, etc., in the sex workers rights movement, *ESPECIALLY* what is represented online. So I see where people get that idea. I avoid most of it most of the time because I know where to not read now if I don't want to run into that (even some of the content of BNG I only take in small doses, and related to that I think I will always be at least suspicious of anyone associated with one US city SWOP chapter, not my own of course). I really appreciated your comment on one of my recent posts on my blog a lot, and I am gonna reply to you or do a separate post with just a few more things that have stuck with me from the past year, I think my blog is small enough that it won't stir up too much drama. I didn't respond to any of them at the time because I was just too angry, insulted, upset, etc., and didn't need more of it.
Oh, I forgot I was gonna say something about "industrial vagina" too. Basically it just cracked me up, I thought of like a VAGINA OF STEEL, industrial-strength. I searched for it since I had not read the book and I guess they mean industrial as in, sex industry. But that is not how it sounded to me, at all.
Heh. "The Industrial Vagina" makes me think of something steampunk and full of cogs and gears.
I think they mostly say that when people are making arguments they don't like, no matter who is making them.
Absolutely. The assumption is that only someone "privileged" WOULD say such a thing, and anyone else MUST agree with the antis.
I look forward to reading your post!
I like that image!
Post a Comment