Sheila Jeffreys and accessories, again.

As brought to my attention by Anthony in comments and Caroline here, it seems that certain segments of the feminist blogosphere have objected to my post on the "Sheila Ain't My Sister" bags that were jumped on by Aussie sex workers at an Australian sex workers event last year, and my comments on Jeffreys herself. Thanks for the heads up, guys, I had no idea!

I believe Allecto started here, referring to my post as "ridiculousness" and objecting to the "silencing" of Sheila Jeffreys. I'm not quite sure what silencing she's referring to, as I certainly haven't made any attempts to shut Jeffreys down. I, and many other Aussie sex workers, would like it if she'd leave us alone and go back to speaking on behalf of people who actually want her to speak on their behalf, but I am sadly very aware of the fact that my only tactic of "relying on logic and human decency to convince her" is doomed to fail. Still, there's nothing else in my arsenal. I can't silence anyone.

In comments on that thread, v says this:

Sheila is my sister.

Did i missed hexys coronation? The one where she became the official spokesperson of all sex workers everywhere?

No? I didnt think so.

... which I found as surprising as the "silencing" accusation. Unlike Jeffreys, I haven't attempted to speak on behalf of all sex workers everywhere. If you re-read my post, you'll see I was reporting on an event, and on my observation of the excitement surrounding that bag from a group of mostly women, all of whom were sex workers. I'm certainly not surprised that this has been completely ignored by Allecto and the others who have jumped aboard, but it angers me. I'm fucking sick of sex workers being considered the least important voices in discussions about sex workers, and especially in discussions about sex workers that inform policy. Therein lies my objection to Sheila Jeffreys work on sex work.

The comment I left at Allecto's reads thus:

Hi, all. Just got pointed over here by another blogger. Didn’t realise this was going on.

I’m quite genuinely glad you’ve all gained so much from Jeffrey’s writings, and feel a bond of sisterhood with her. Seriously.

But Australian sex workers have demonstrated that we don’t. And my post, in this context, wasn’t about you lot, or about any other group of women or feminists. It was about Australian sex workers, and our anger at Jeffreys’ attempts to speak for us and inform policy that actively hurts us.

I have no objection to your show of solidarity, save for that it seems to have missed the point of the “ridiculousness” it claims to respond to.

... and I stand by that. Those who have discussed the matter with me (or, ya know, bothered to read this blog) know that my stance on feminism is that it must represent all women, and that there must be a space within it for women of all types. I don't generally buy into the "doin feminism rong" memes that fly around this online world of ours.

However, just as women must be the primary voices in feminism and women's issues, sex workers must be the primary voices in sex workers rights, and in sex worker issues and legislation. It's as simple as that. If you're promoting the words of a non-sex worker whose work is constantly objected to by sex workers across this country (indeed, around the world) over the words and preferences of those actual sex workers, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

The Anti Porn Feminists blog has gotten involved in the party, and I found Jennifer Drew's comment quite telling:

Nothing new about demonising yet another radical feminist simply because she dares to speak the truth and challenge pseudo feminists and the sex industry. For centuries women who have dared to speak the truth and challenge male supremacy have been demonised.

Remember the witch hunts – because this too was all about men and their supporters using claims that certain women and girls were witches in order to steal their few possessions, property or simply just to silence them.

Another point of view would be that because Sheila Jeffreys is widely respected – yes widely respected not disrespected – this threatens male supremacists and their followers.

Sheila Jeffreys has experienced these attacks before as did Kate Millett and not of course not forgetting the late Andrea Dworkin. Catherine MacKinnon too has been subjected to virulent women-hating attacks, but male supremacists and their supporters were not able to silence them. Additionally, there are many, many radical feminists who are routinely subjected to vicious misogynistic attacks and the reason is always because women who dare to speak the truth threaten male supremacists.

Which is why there continues to be a war on women and sustained attempts to silence our voices. Control is never 100% total because the oppressed can never be totally silenced, as soon as one voice is silenced another one appears. So the war continues.

My response to that:

Jennifer Drew: It’s really not about men, the majority of the sex workers at that sex worker only conference were women. Why do you perceive sex workers distancing themselves from someone who claims to represent them but does not to be an “attack”?

And that really sums it up. The constant refrain in these posts of "support of male supremacy", "anti-womanhood" and the "demonising" of Jeffreys once more highlights that these people simply cannot see sex workers standing up for our rights and ourselves as an inherently feminist action, as an act of rebellion by women against people who ignore our protests when they speak for us. We are again erased, presented as pawns of heterosexual men when the reality is that few if any had anything to do with the event in question, or with the construction of those bags. Sex workers expressing their views and claiming to be the authority on our own lives and occupations? Nah. Instead we're referred to as a "pro-prostitution lobby" and "supporters of male supremacy". Fucking disgusting.

Witchy, at least has the decency to acknowledge us as feminist women. It's sad that that's the only positive I can find in all of this, but thanks.

I'll summarise this post in two simple sentences: Saying "She doesn't speak for us" is not slander, or a "personal attack", or "mental violence", or anything else. If you're convinced those words ARE slanderous, then I think you need to look at why you think this woman's credibility depends on her being seen as such an authoritative voice that she SHOULD speak on behalf of a group of people she doesn't belong to.

EDITED TO ADD: And... whoa. Seems I missed one.

Sheila Jeffreys is my hero, at The Longest War.

I'm going to quote this one in its entirety. It's just too offensive to NOT quote.

Found this online today in the category of so-called sex-positive feminist women (aka sex workers and the faux sexually liberated) misusing Professor Sheila Jeffreys as their target in fighting against others who are true feminists opposed to men sexually exploiting women (image of "Sheila ain't my sister" bag)

Just like peace at any price, sex at any price cannot be good. In the longest war, pitting one group of women against another has been an effective divide-and-conquer strategy, aided by much media manipulation. The anti-Sheila blogger indicates that she keeps adjusting her medication (which would necessarily affect her consciousness). Psych-drugs and shrinks as a weapon of mass deception against women in man’s longest war, yes, oh, yes, but that would be another post.

The contrasting, true-to-freedom image is this one posted by Allecto at Gorgon Poisons (image of "Sheila is my sister" graphic)

Sex on men’s terms, devastating to women because there’s a real (if undeclared) war going on. To end man’s war against womankind may take men not just doing laundry and ending non-sexual violence, but practicing celibacy as a commitment to not exploiting women. Real celibacy, not what Catholic priests pretend to do. Unless men wise up and take better action, Mother Nature might just wipe men out and leave women with procreative parthenogenesis. Life will go on, with or without men.

I’m proposing celibacy for bi and het-sex men (any men born as men interested in sexual relations with women) as the ground of being to expand male consciousness as a pathway toward real peace. Celibacy for this group of people would mean that no woman would be sexually exploited by any xy-chromosome humanoid while a lasting peace is sought through heightened awareness for all. Peace at any price? No. But peace may come if we can see the chronic global misogyny without denial, and break free from male-dominant global culture. Sheila Jeffreys is my hero.

Jeebus. Where to start? The standard "faux feminists vs REALLY TRUE feminists" false binary is taken to a new level when the author flatly states that "sex workers" as a class fit into "so called feminists", and are of course presented as actively opposed to the REALLY TRUE feminists. I, the "anti-Sheila blogger", have accusations of false consciousness levelled at me again, this time because I take psychiatric medication. Nice little touch, that, minimising someone's words because of their disability.

That's some extremely messed up shit. Uh, those who object to my original post and want to claim sisterhood with Sheila Jeffreys? Can you please take this one as well?