Monday, April 20, 2020
Make Prostitution Legal Essays - Feminism, Human Sexuality
  Make Prostitution Legal    Prostitution Theory 101  by Yvonne Abraham with Sarah McNaught  Few things have divided feminists as much as the sex industry. Theorists  who agree on a vast swath of issues -- economic equality, affirmative  action, even sexual liberation -- often find themselves bitterly opposed over  pornography and prostitution.   Most 19th-century feminists opposed prostitution and considered prostitutes  to be victims of male exploitation. But just as the suffragette and  temperance movements were bound together at the turn of the century, so  too were feminist and contemporary moral objections to prostitution.  Women, the argument went, were repositories of moral virtue, and  prostitution tainted their purity: the sale of sex was, like alcohol, both cause  and symptom of the decadence into which society had sunk.   By the 1960s and '70s, when Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer asserted  that sexual liberation was integral to women's liberation, feminists were  reluctant to oppose prostitution on moral grounds. Traditional morality, Greer  argued, had helped to repress women sexually, had made their needs  secondary to men's. That sexual subordination compounded women's  economic and political subordination.   Today, some feminists see hooking as a form of sexual slavery; others, as a  route to sexual self-determination. And in between are those who see  prostitution as a form of work that, like it or not, is here to stay.   Radical feminists such as lawyer Catharine MacKinnon and  antipornography theorist Andrea Dworkin oppose sex work in any form.  They argue that it exploits women and reinforces their status as sexual  objects, undoing many of the gains women have made over the past century.  Others detect in this attitude a strain of neo-Victorianism, a condescending  belief that prostitutes don't know what they're doing and need somebody  with more education to protect them. Some women, these dissenters point  out, actually choose the profession.   Feminists who question the antiprostitution radicals also point out that  Dworkin and MacKinnon sometimes sound eerily like their nemeses on the  religious right. Phyllis Schlafly, a rabid family-values crusader, has even  cited Dworkin in her antipornography promotional materials. This kind of  thing has not improved the radicals' image among feminists.   At the other extreme from Dworkin and MacKinnon are sex-radical  feminists like Susie Bright and Pat Califia. They argue that sex work can be  a good thing: a bold form of liberation for women, a way for some to take  control of their lives. The problem there, though, is that the life of a  prostitute is often more Leaving Las Vegas than Pretty Woman (see Pop  Tarts).  Many feminists fall somewhere in between the rad-fem and sex-radical  poles. Wendy Chapkis, professor of sociology and women's studies at the  University of Southern Maine and the author of the Live Sex Acts: Women  Performing Erotic Labor (Routledge, 1997), is one of them. For nine years,  Chapkis studied prostitution in California and the Netherlands, as well as in  Britain and Finland, and conducted interviews with 50 sex workers. Chapkis  says she sees the profession as it is: many of her interviews confirmed much  of the ugliness that radical feminists abhor, as well as the empowerment that  sex radicals perceive.   I don't think prostitution is the ultimate in women's liberation, she says.  But I think it's better understood as work than as inevitably a form of  sexual violence. What prostitutes need, she argues, is not a bunch of  goody-goodies looking down on them, but decent working conditions.  Chapkis believes prostitution should be decriminalized. Just because it can  be lousy work doesn't mean it should be stamped out, she argues. After all,  she says, there are lots of jobs in which women are underpaid,  underappreciated, and exploited. Criminalizing the profession just  exacerbates prostitutes' problems by isolating them from the law and leaving  them vulnerable to abusive pimps and johns. In a profession where women  traditionally are not treated well, aren't empowered, and should be able to go  to the police for protection and assistance, she says, we make the police  an extra obstacle, another threat.  In the Netherlands, by contrast, where prostitution is decriminalized, police  and prostitutes are on the same side: hookers speak at police academies to  educate the officers about their work, and Chapkis says the communication  pays off in safer working conditions for the women.  But what of the radical feminists' claim that prostitution is too patriarchal to  be tolerated? Chapkis points out that many things in modern life began as  patriarchal institutions -- marriage, for example. Problems within marriage,  she says, can be addressed without resorting to abolition: these days, marital  property is distributed more fairly, and abused wives have places to go for  help. Even Catharine MacKinnon    
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.