Stay up-to-date via RSS!

This is so misunderstood in my previous prostitution thread it must be blared from the rooftops and not buried in the comments.

KH says:

I don’t wish to question your passionate helping feelings, or prevent you from proselytizing your views on feminism. I may even agree with them, as far as they go, who knows. I don’t, however, accept that they should be codified in criminal law.

Iamcuriousblue says:

I don’t believe it is the proper role of the State to start putting people in jail and censoring media to help create hegemony for any ideological or religious paradigm – feminism, socialism, christianity, or whatever.

Could someone please point me to where I argued that, if something isn’t feminist, it should be “codified in criminal law” or where I asked “the State to start putting people in jail and censoring media?” Because I don’t see it.

I believe my post included a defense of pursuing legalization (I used the qualifier “properly” b/c I wouldn’t be inclined to institutionalize pimps, I would want the possibility of unionization, etc.). I certainly didn’t argue that we should criminalize prostitution and I definitely never even remotely implied that the State should round up or shut up anyone who disagrees.

belledame222 says:

because truthfully, i don’t see why any of this matters in terms of 1) what is to be done in realpolitik terms wrt helping people who actually need/want help or 2) whether or not it’s particularly useful for an outsider to scold a prostitute for being unfeminist/participating in an unfeminist yadda (not in my book). and those are ultimately the only questions that matter to me.

There are 4 very critical points that come out of all of these accusations:

1) It’s okay to have a discussion about what one ought to do without implying there is a role for the state to play in enforcing it.
The questions I am pursuing are simply about whether a woman who believes in ending sexism and gender discrimination and chooses to work in prostitution is making a career choice that conflicts with her value set.

Right now, I don’t believe most women “choose” this work against a backdrop of other legitimate options, as I noted in my assumptions. But there are some who do, including some commenters. Thus, I feel that this is a discussion worth having.

Also, let’s say we rebuilt the sex trade to be much more fair and safe. This would be a very good thing. It would still leave open the question of whether working in it reinforces harmful attitudes.

This has nothing to do with state enforcement. At all. It’s a discussion about personal choices and what the implications of those choices are assuming you’re free to make them.

2) Discussions of the implications of a personal choice have merit.
Belledame222 doesn’t see why this matters because it doesn’t impact “realpolitik.” And that’s fine. We probably agree on what should be done in terms of policy and legislation, which I tried to make clear in my post.

That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be gained from evaluating a choice. If we agree that the industry in the abstract (meaning in any form, no matter how fair) reinforces sexism and gender discrimination, then that’s meaningful information, don’t you think? We shouldn’t block the discussion because it doesn’t immediately advance our legal interests.

Maybe questions on this topic outside the realm of what laws we should pass right now don’t matter to you. Maybe they are secondary to legislative concerns. But their answers have value.

3) You can question something without shaming.
Belledame also referenced the “scolding” of prostitutes and implied it in a few other comments, too. KH was clear that she’s suspicious of it, which I understand.

But to ask whether the industry in the abstract (meaning in any form, no matter how fair) reinforces sexism and gender discrimination doesn’t mean “shame on you, you dirty girl” — especially if there is merit behind the concern (which even KH seemed to agree there is). It’s a fair, intellectually honest question. I don’t believe any choice is above being examined for sexism and gender discrimination.

I understand there’s a massive amount of shaming going on in the world at large, and we must be vigilant against it. But it’s important that, amongst other progressives (to which this site caters exclusively), we are able to ask the toughest questions on even the most sensitive of topics, yes?

4) Don’t read more than what’s written in the post.
Iamcuriousblue lumped me in with “radfems.” He and KH seemed to think my post left open the prospect of criminalization, despite my obvious endorsement of the opposite. Belledame’s shaming accusations seem like a built-in reflex. Honestly, though, based on what I wrote, I don’t understand where those claims came from.

Topics like prostitution are loaded, to say the least, but we should all do our best to try and stick to what a specific person has said and not assume they are toting around the baggage of other people with whom you disagree. That’s why I tried to break it down at my most basic assumptions, so there would be no misunderstanding. But it didn’t take too long for people to start glomming on other random assumptions and, on occasion, argue that I claimed the opposite of what was stated in my post.

Here’s to another round of it below.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 21st, 2006 at 7:35 am and is filed under Feminism, Sex. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.