There’s a post on sex work on Feministe, and it is Teh Fail

Jill wrote a blog post titled Supporting Sex Workers’ Rights, Opposing the Buying of Sex. Reading it, I once again did that thing where I start arguing with an online article in my head, and then I realized this is blogging material. So here you go:

I am an anti-sex-trafficking feminist. I think sex work is incredibly problematic. And I also support the rights of sex workers. I think you can do all those things at once.

Sure one can. The question is really rather whether one’s actions on all these are consistent and synergistic, or whether one’s undermining one set of actions with another. Oh, and whether the actions actually are helpful, of course.

Also, sex work is “problematic” only in the same sense that manufacturing is problematic: it sits at the intersection of multiple axes of oppression and is made invisible/marginalized by the kyriarchy. And since the kyriarchy is abusive and oppressive, people who do this work are abused and oppressed (and no one cares/notices, because it’s all invisible/marginalized). But neither manufacturing nor sex work are problematic per se; their place in the matrix of oppression is problematic.

My view is basically that sex work wouldn’t exist in the feminist utopia. Why? Because sex wouldn’t be this commodified thing that some people (mostly woman) have and other people (mostly men) get. Sex would be a fun thing, a collaborative thing, always entered into freely and enthusiastically and without coercion.

That doesn’t follow. Unless Jill is a marxist feminist and wants to abolish commodities and the “selling”* of labor in addition to abolishing the patriarchy, everything that people do with other people will still be also offered as a paid service; even the fun stuff. Sure, abolishing the patriarchy would abolish the myth of sex being something women have and men want, but it would also destigmatize a lot of behaviors currently marginalized as a result of a patricular, heteronormative, patriarchal-religion-propagated view of what sex, love, relationships, etc. are. These changes would definitely shift the patterns of demand (and supply) for sex work, but it wouldn’t make it go away, any more than abolishing the class system will make the demand for mechanics go away.

As long as people in relationships have differing sex-drives, different and not-fully-compatible kinks, kinks that include sex (or watching peep-shows, or watching a stripper, or whathaveyou) with people not involved in that relationship (by yourself, or with together with your partner(s)), no-strings-attached-single-sex, etc., there will be demand for sex as a paid-for service; because amazingly enough, not everyone who wants to get laid finds social interaction pleasant enough to want to have to find a mutually interested partner in the wild, on short notice. Plus, if we got rid of the patriarchy, we’d also get rid of many stupid, shaming ideas about sex, which means the role of sex-workers could expand to workshops, counseling, private training or whatever for people interested in learning how to do different kinds of sex. Because goddamnit, sex absolutely should come with training sessions. We’d all be spared the awkward fumbling that is reinventing sex from scratch every time someone has sex for the first time.

Anyway, what I’m basically picturing here is the Licensed Sex Therapists from Beta Colony in the Vorkosigan Saga.

While that view would leave room for some types of sex work — sexually explicit performance, for example, if that performance were no longer primarily a looking-at-women’s-bodies-as-stand-ins-for-sex thing, which is what it mostly is today — it doesn’t leave room for offering money in exchange for sex

Again, unless this feminist utopia is also a marxist utopia, the service industry will still exist, and therefore the option of paying for sex still will exist too.

it doesn’t leave room for offering money in exchange for sex, especially as we see it now, with men being the primary consumers and sex being seen as something you can buy.

Well no, the primary clients might indeed not be men then. And sex wouldn’t be something one “buys”, any more than one “buys” car repair; sex is not a product, it’s a service. However, I see no reason to think that the idea of sex as a service will disappear just because the patriarchy did.

I don’t think there would be McDonalds or Wal-Mart in the feminist utopia either;

“McDonalds” and and “Wal-Mart” are not equivalents to “sex work”, or even “prostitution”. McD and Wal-Mart are specific businesses; the equivalents to “sex work” would be “food service” and “retail”. Will neither of those two types of service work exist in this feminist utopia, either? Because if so, we’re back at “marxist feminist utopia”. But if so, why single out sex work? It would be abolishing doing anything for pay, altogether.

And as a side note, the title of the post is “Supporting Sex Workers’ Rights, Opposing the Buying of Sex”, so would Jill oppose the “buying of food service” with the same methods which she’d suggest for sex work? Should we have a “swedish model” for restaurants, in which the cooks, waitstaff, etc. are not penalized, but the customers are?

Yes, of course women should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, and of course there are many sex workers who aren’t trafficked or forced into the trade. But that smacks a bit too much of “I choose my choice!” feminism, which I find to be incredibly intellectually lazy.

There’s a difference between “I’m a woman therefore all my choices are feminist choices”, and “I have the right to navigate the matrix of oppression as I see fit”. All of us make choices that aren’t feminist, or that support and aid the patriarchy in maintaining itself, because a)most of us don’t have such options available due to external social structures, and b)our mental structures are such that what we enjoy/want/need are often entwined with patriarchy and lend it support, and it’s impossible for everyone to change all their desires. We don’t have contracausal free will (i.e. the ability to change and create desires and preferences at will), we only have agency (the ability to choose between available avenues towards fulfilling our desires). Desires change only slowly, as our character changes; and no one can rid their mind of all imprints of their society.
And lastly… as I mentioned previously, sex work is problematic because of its location in the matrix of oppression. Shift the matrix, or shift sex work out of that position, and sex work no longer functions as patriarchy-supporting, problematic work.

sex worker advocates have cast a similar too-wide net — arguing that sex work is a job like any other, that every job is coercive, etc etc. Both narratives erase the vast grey area of the entire idea of “consent” when money is involved.

Marxist feminist utopia, blah blah, this is getting boring. And in any case, that argument does make other service work different from sex work only in the degree of intimacy, not in any qualitative sense.

I too often see a similarly reductive argument — that while a small number of women and girls are actually enslaved, the rest are there voluntarily and we should support their choices.

It’s only reductive because “voluntarily” is a shitty word with too many related meanings. A better phrasing is that they are where they are because of the exercise of their agency. Social structures, both those external and internal to ourselves, are present for sex workers as much as for others. Change the social structures, and agency will be exercised differently: people who chose sex work because it’s the best of a range of shitty options might choose an option they see as better than sex work, should it become available; others however might chose sex-work if it became less marginalized, or allowed for different kinds of sex services (“training” for sex-n00bs or couples wanting to learn something new, for example) than currently exist/are in demand.
Still, even changing social structures won’t change the mind of those for whom sex-work is the best means to pursue their desires (or even, their desire itself), i.e. those who do it “voluntarily” in the sense of choosing without structural pressure or limitations**

But from a birdseye feminist view — from a sex-positive view — sex work is different because it’s commodifying something that should ideally be a basic pleasure, entered into entirely freely and at will.

That’s what the service industry is: commodifying things people do with other people; even the fun stuff. That’s what dance instructors do, too, for example. They take something people do together for fun (dancing) and that one ideally should only do with others who freely and voluntarily return the sentiment, and they provide that and related activities as a service one can pay for. Again, we’re really just talking about differences in the degree of intimacy, not a qualitative difference.

From a practical point of view, there are a whole lot of women in the sex trade who are technically there voluntarily insofar as they aren’t kidnapped and chained up, but who are coerced into sex work in ways that most of us would find intolerable — owing large sums of money to traffickers, psychologically and physically abused by pimps, cast out by their families and communities for doing sex work and believing there are no other options.

Emphasis mine. Because a)”no” other choice is often not true; only that the other choices are considered even shittier; and b)that’s the difference between “voluntarily” and “by exercising agency”: if sex work is the best option given the (internal and external) structural limitations, then changing the structures would change the results of exercising agency, but this makes sex work the same as other forms of labor in an intersectionally classist system: remove socioeconomic “pressures” that let people accept horrible work-conditions because the alternatives are worse, and the work conditions for that form of labor become worker-friendly (compare manufacturing in, say, Germany to sweat-shops in China, for example)

Putting them [economically oppressed sex workers, and economically privileged sex workers] all under the umbrella of sex work is helpful in advocating for recognition and certain legal changes, but ultimately it doesn’t mean that more women’s voices are heard; it means that the most privileged of the group dictate policy.

This is an intersectional problem, not a problem somehow inherent in sex work. Yes, if white, upper-class, sex- and gendernormative sex workers from countries where sex work isn’t illegal are the sole or even the dominant voices heard, that’s a problem in the same way that it is a problem when white, upper-class, sex- and gendernormative feminists are the only or the dominant voices in feminism. But how is that an argument for sex work being somehow qualitatively different?
Plus, many sex worker advocates ARE women who are affected by multiple axes of oppression. Whence the assumption that this isn’t so? Is it just because the voices of relatively privileged sex workers are the only voices that penetrate deeply enough into the mainstream feminist landscape? Because I find it extraordinarily easy to find the narratives of sex workers in India, the narratives of trans sex workers, etc.***

And while a small percentage are relatively privileged and fairly compensated, most aren’t. And most sex workers face very real barriers to basic rights like bodily autonomy, workplace safety, and freedom from violence.

This is true for most women in the world; it is also true for most work in the world; it is especially true for most work that women do. Again we’re dealing with sex work’s location in the matrix of oppression, with intersectionality, not with anything inherent to sex work.

There are some methods that can best serve most of these women — safer sex supplies, legal rights. But what serves a 14-year-old in a Cambodian brothel whose clients are mostly middle-aged white guys from Europe and the U.S. is not the same as what serves a 22-year-old in New York advertising on Craig’s List.

True, but once again an issue of intersectionality; something that sex work advocates are showing less problems with than mainstream feminism as a whole does; just sayin’.

And none of these issues of intersectionality (including the ones I didn’t quote, because how often can you point out the same mistake?) address the core of the supposed issue here: nothing here supports the argument that sex work (and prostitution specifically) shouldn’t exist. All of this is a good argument to not repeat mistakes of other social justice movements and make the most privileged members of the movement the sole or predominant voices in it; it’s a good argument to remember that intersectionality demands solutions suited to individual cases, based on the specifics of the intersections. It’s not an argument against sex work.

When you’re talking about sex for money, you can’t take money and international economics out of it.

That’s a strawman of epic proportions, given that sex work advocates talk about class-based oppression more than any other women’s rights advocates who aren’t also socialists/marxists/anarchists.

I’m troubled by the migration of sexual labor and what it says about who “deserves” sex and who provides it.

Right. Troubled by the class-based problems involved in sex work, and how they intersect with sex and gender based problems. Still not an argument against sex work, tho.

I do think it’s immoral and unethical to buy sex.

“Buying sex” is what men did when they purchased a wife. Anyway, contributing from a position of privilege to maintaining/reinforcing an axis of oppression is always “problematic”, and consequently I wish people would not shop at Wal-mart or procure sex services from exploitative sources; and maybe any kind of shopping or procuring of sex services contributes to maintenance of oppressive class structures. But the way to end exploitation is not to drive the victims of it underground by outlawing the purchase of their labor; rather, it can be done by giving them the tools they need to a)widen their choices within the social structure, and b)to change the social structure by attacking the forces that oppress them. Which aren’t always the individuals who pay them for their services; and which won’t end sex work, but rather end (or at least diminish) exploitative sex work.

I think it speaks to a view of human sexuality (and women’s bodies in particular, although of course there are men who pay for sex with men and boys) as purchasable;

“Buying sex” does, but like I said, that’s not a feature inherent in sex work, since sex work is the provision of services for pay, not the “selling” of sex (because selling something intangible like a service is only possible by selling the provider, and that’s slavery, not service work.) I keep repeating this distinction because the idea of buying sex is tightly coupled with the idea of the “unrapeable”: when you buy something, it’s yours to do with as you please, without the previous owner of it having a say in it. That was, and often still is, the attitude towards sex in patriarchal culture. But it’s not inherent to sex work, since the provision of a service always entails the possibility to cancel the deal, as well as the fact that it’s a one-time agreement, to be re-negotiated, and that the ownership of the means of providing the service never changes hands. It’s the equation of the provision of a sexual service with the buying of sex that’s the problem, and it’s one that must be solved without negatively affecting sex workers (i.e. not by curing the disease by killing the patient).

I’m personally a fan of capitalist marketplaces because I don’t think there’s a better system out there

So, no marxist feminist utopia, then? How then is the provision of services or the commodification of human interactions to disappear?

We can respond to the basics of supply and demand while not giving corporations outsized power; while building a social safety net; and while instituting physical, legal and financial protections for workers. We can critique the forces that establish patters of exploited migrant labor while advocating for the rights of migrant laborers. Can’t we?

Sure we can. But that’s what sex work advocates do, not what “end demand” does. The equivalent of “end demand” would be to insist on the end of demand for any industry**** in which workers are exploited. Which is all of them. Which is marxism.

- – - – - – - – - -
*”selling” is a misnomer, I recently realized. More like renting out, though the idea that labor is “sold” is what leads to a lot of abuses of workers, since the “buyers” of labor believe that they actually own the worker for the time they’re at work (and often even beyond that).
**Marx, species-being, etc. That’s an entirely separate blog-post tho.
***some examples: Don’t Talk To Me About Sewing Machines, Asia Pacific Network of Sex Workers, Barred by U.S. Restrictions, Sex Workers Hold Alternative AIDS Summit in Kolkata, India, HIV and Sex Work – The view from 2012(pdf)
****the whole industry, not just a specific business or a specific model of providing the products or services of this industry

71 comments on “There’s a post on sex work on Feministe, and it is Teh Fail

  1. Sivi says:

    Because I read most blogs through my reader, I originally thought this was Feminist Ire (if you don’t know them you ought to check them out, they write on sex work and abortion rights in Ireland, mostly).

    I guess I should add Feministe with Jezebel on my list of feminist websites that don’t seem to get it.

  2. Reggie Rock says:

    “because amazingly enough, not everyone who wants to get laid finds social interaction pleasant enough to want to have to find a mutually interested partner in the wild”

    I have agoraphobia and social anxiety which makes socializing enough to meet someone sexually interested in me incredibly difficult.

    I employ sex workers because I do have a sex drive and sexual desires that I am unable to fulfill due to my psychological handicaps. The people who say, “‘Johns’ just need to get girlfriends” constantly irks me.

    Thank you for recognizing that the people who employ sex workers are not evil oppressing perverts but human beings with needs and desires that they cannot fulfill otherwise.

  3. Jennifer says:

    That there are no sex workers in the feminist utopia kinda suggests how the contemporary ideas of the movement view sex workers in general.

  4. Wendy Lyon says:

    “Buying sex” is what men did when they purchased a wife.

    Thank you for mentioning this; it’s one of the issues that frustrates me in this debate. The idea that sex work commodifies something that wouldn’t already be commodified, whose commodification isn’t already woven into the very fabric of society in the most fundamental way, is so completely ahistorical it makes me want to scream. It also strikes me as a very modern/Western critique, assuming “our” approach to sexuality and relationships to be the natural, default approach.

    BTW Sivi, thanks for the plug for Feminist Ire. I wish we could claim credit for this post :)

  5. jemima101 says:

    I cannot thank you enough for this. I also want to say thank you for specifically mentioning the problem of most advoactes being at the privileged end of the spectrum, but hopefully doing our damdest to be aware of that.

  6. David Marjanović says:

    That’s what dance instructors do, too, for example. They take something people do together for fun (dancing)

    Hah. Dancing is something your mom tries to pressure you into for at least five years nonstop, because she thinks it’s as basic and important a skill as being able to tie your shoes. (Hey, maybe it was – 30 years ago.) Then you physically escape for five years, and then your little sister’s projected dancing partner is indisposed, but the two cheap lessons are already paid, so you have to go anyway. All the while, your brother is still being pressured to take up a dance course, even though pressure makes him very upset very easily (in contrast, sitting there and doing nothing comes naturally to me).

  7. I bookmarked this post to use every time someone makes similar arguments. Which is about three times a week minimum, so you know.

    Thanks.

  8. Spiryt says:

    The idea you suggest (sex is a service, not a commodity) has opened my eyes to a whole new viewpoint and now many, MANY of the issues around prostitution have become clear for me. Thank you for writing this.

  9. Reblogged this on Feminist Whore and commented:
    What a great post!

  10. Yeah. I want to second what Spiryt said above. Though I want to add a little shame about not thinking about it like that before, because it actually makes a hell of a lot more than seeing it as a “commodity”. As Spiryt says, it completely changes the debate and now I can more easily explain my stance as a supporter of sex workers.

    Thank you so much for that.

    Also…

    I do think it’s immoral and unethical to buy sex.

    Um… yeah? And?

    There are people who think it’s immoral to teach evolution in schools, and for a woman to marry a woman. I think it’s immoral and unethical to threaten children with Hell.

    But since morality is relative, what gives you the right to insist that your morality gets made into law, especially when there are people (like, you know, sex workers) who do not share this moral view?

    Again, Jadehawk, thank you for this post.

    One last thing… I have a radical suggestion I’d like to advance, and maybe I could get some feedback for it.

    Perhaps that the only voices the legislative bodies should be listening to when it comes to sex work and how to legislate it are sex workers, and to a lesser extent their customers (for the ones who have customers). Representatives for those sex slaves who can’t speak should also be heard, of course, and just as loudly. But outside of these three parties (sex workers, their customers, and representatives for those who can’t speak), maybe this is not a discussion for anybody else?

    I propose this because it seems that way too many voices from the peanut gallery (like that blogger behind this screed at Feministe) just don’t seem to get it at all. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I’m getting.

  11. Jupiter says:

    A thousand times yes to this post. It’s everything I couldn’t articulate myself.

  12. aspasialibertine says:

    Just in the previous paragraph you posit that non-white, non-Western, non-privileged sex worker rights activists don’t get heard in the mainstream US feminism, especially that to which Jill Filipovic belongs. And she definitely proves your point beyond a shadow of a doubt when she said this (which you also highlighted):

    There are some methods that can best serve most of these women — safer sex supplies, legal rights. But what serves a 14-year-old in a Cambodian brothel whose clients are mostly middle-aged white guys from Europe and the U.S. is not the same as what serves a 22-year-old in New York advertising on Craig’s List.

    Um, yes. Yes it does Jill. Because, Jill, if you knew about EMPOWER Foundation and NSWP and SWEAT then you would know they also agitate for those things just like SWOP and other Western orgs do. Especially the safer sex supplies in countries where US policies have created issues for how prostitutes in those countries live and work, which then becomes an issue of legality. Gee, Jill. Think it through before you spout off at the mouth.

  13. Reblogged this on Sally Strange and commented:
    Because @FeministWhore has consistently pointed out how much feminism falls on its face when it comes to the topic of sex work, I thought that Jadehawk’s amazing post deserves a wider audience. So, dear readers–all 4 or 5 of you–please take this to heart and spread it far and wide. Any feminism I’m part of will have something besides criminalization and shame to offer sex workers. “My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.”

  14. Reblogged this on Atheism, Music, and More… and commented:
    I have a couple readers who, I think, should read this, as well. So I hope it’s okay that I reblog it on my blog. It’s way too important not to.

  15. mfennvt says:

    Wonderful post! I think Feministe and Jill get a lot of things right, but the ball kinda got dropped on this one.

  16. Dalillama says:

    t kidnapped and chained up, but who are coerced into sex work in ways that most of us would find intolerable — owing large sums of money to traffickers,

    This is an example, but I noticed that throughout the Feministe article the author seemed to be totally ignoring the huge, huge problem with human trafficking and slavery generally,much of which has actually got nothing to do with sex. There are currently many, many people who are enslaved (de facto if not de jure) in agricutlure, manufacturing, and even long-distance customer service. This is a major problem, or course, but I feel that focusing on sex trafficking particualrly ignores the scope of the problem, and tends to lead people to pointless ‘solutions.’ ‘Solutions’ like.. well, like abolishing sex work, for instance.

  17. Jadehawk says:

    There are currently many, many people who are enslaved (de facto if not de jure) in agricutlure, manufacturing, and even long-distance customer service. This is a major problem, or course, but I feel that focusing on sex trafficking particualrly ignores the scope of the problem, and tends to lead people to pointless ‘solutions.’ ‘Solutions’ like.. well, like abolishing sex work, for instance.

    yes, very much so.

    There’s also a completely different perspective on trafficking and what it means for those being trafficked: when we talk about undocumented immigrants into the US using “traffickers” to get across the border, we talk about the abuse of these immigrants by traffickers, and the desperation of the immigrants to get to the US, but there’s no assumption that the immigrants were taken across the border against their will. OTOH, prostitutes who cross borders to make better money are a)too often simply assumed to have been trafficked, whether it’s true or not; and b) assumed to be enslaved and kept from returning home, and thus sometimes get deported by “rescuers”, only to have to try to get back to their jobs somehow, at a cost.

  18. [...] There’s a post on sex work on Feministe and it is Teh Fail -A fantastic response to  Supporting Sex Workers’ Rights, Opposing the Buying of Sex.  On a  related sidenote, I recently unsubscribed from all the collective feminist blogs such a Feministe for my own sanity. I feel like the women who are the prevalent writers on feminist culture are coming from a place of not just privilege but inexperience and I have a hard time relating to their voices much of the time. Sure, they get it “right” sometimes but more often than not, I’m irritated and annoyed. [...]

  19. giliell says:

    Well, I think I don’t agree with your idea of feminist utopia, because, right now, even within the framework of capitalism there are many fun activities people do where they don’t have to pay their partner(s) or even instructors. I think it’s one of those areas where we will only see it when we’re there.
    But you’re right that Jill fails to make her case why, if you remove the current misogyny and patrarchy, sex is so extra special and fundamentally different from other forms of work or fun. Why would people meeting for sex be so different from people meeting for a fun game of basketball or people currently paying me for language classes be so fundamentally different from people paying somebody for sex-classes?

  20. Chris H says:

    I’ve been thinking a lot about Jill’s post, because there are just so many things that piss me off about it, I feel like I could be untangling it forever. One of the things is that at its heart, her whole blog entry is nothing more than “hate the sin, love the sinner” claptrap. As much as I want the laws against prostitution to disappear, getting rid of the stigma is at least as important. And this is something that Jill and her cohorts should recognize, because they spend so much effort talking about helping women get out of sex work.

    Stigma is one of the major things that keeps people locked in sex work when they don’t want to. By definition, it’s not something that you can put on your résumé, which makes changing fields even harder than it would normally be. And Jill’s entire rant leaves the stigma intact by depicting it as something that no sane person would do voluntarily. Whether she realizes it or not, she’s enabling a virgin-whore dichotomy; sex workers can either be pathetic victims, or enablers of oppression.

    But also, I’m kind of pissed off because I take what she says about “Johns” personally. Not because I’m a client myself—I’m not—but because her depiction of clients as scumbags who feel they’re entitled to sex rests on a very narrow model of male sexual desire. She literally cannot imagine any reason that a man might want to go to an escort that’s not predatory. To me, that implies a very narrow understanding of men’s sexual desires, as though “predator” is the default setting. And that really pisses me off.

  21. [...] in a Feministe post last week. (Filipovic is also a BuzzFeed contributor.) Her statement launched a new salvo in the debate over what’s become an increasingly vexed topic in recent years: what the [...]

  22. Origami Isopod says:

    Yeah, Reggie, this shit wasn’t at all gross and entitled, was it? “Enjoy your sexual privilege.” Fuck you.

  23. i walk here, I don't work here says:

    [double post, deleted -- Jadehawk]

  24. i walk here, I don't work here says:

    I’ve never been a sex-worker. I did, however, spend several years working one block away from a sex-work district (“hourly” motels). I had to stop walking as little as one or two blocks to go to the grocery and sandwich shops, because no matter what time of day it was (i.e. noon-ish, lunch, ya know), no matter what I was wearing (oversized sweatshirts & jeans, ya know), a female Being Alive on that street at any time of day was assumed to be selling sex.

    TELL ME HOW I & EVERY FEMALE ALIVE ON THAT STREET WAS NOT AN OBJECTIFIED COMMODITY BC SEXY WORK. Please, really, please. Tell me.

    You say that as long as “people” have different sex drives from their chosen partners, the sex trade will exist. Ahem, I’m not a man. Where’s my market? There isn’t a viable one for me.

    To say that a market for sex work will exist as long as “partners” don’t meet each others’ needs, when the market for bought sex is almost entirely male, is to say that “teh poor horny menz is being hurted by teh ebil frigid wives who won’t gib dem sexy-sexy timez!!!”

    As for the English-language “buy” distinction, it’s totally non-strange to say “I’m buying a dance lesson,” or even “I’m buying a massage” in English. I’m ashamedly not fluent in enough other languages to know whether your trope holds true in any other language.

    I can totally stand in solidarity with the sex workers you dimunize as male “need” hook-ups. They, not you, are fighting the war to be acknowledged as human.

    I WAS NON-HUMAN EVERY TIME I MADE A COMMENT ON IT, FOR YEARS

  25. Actually, I walk here, Jadehawk is arguing that we LISTEN TO SEX WORKERS.

    This is what Jill failed to do in her post, and this has been the whole problem surrounding sex work for EVER.

    Sex workers, their clients, and those representing the ones who can’t speak (the slaves) are the most experienced on this issue. They are teh ones who should be the go-to experts about it. Why are we ignoring them in favor of our own inexperienced assumptions?

    I’m glad Jill thinks that sex should be something that two people who enjoy each other engage in free from coercion. And I agree wholeheartedly with Jill, in fact.

    But when it comes to how sex work should be legislated, it should be sex workers that people get their information from, and no one else.

  26. Jadehawk says:

    As much as I want the laws against prostitution to disappear, getting rid of the stigma is at least as important.

    yes, very much so.

    But also, I’m kind of pissed off because I take what she says about “Johns” personally. Not because I’m a client myself—I’m not—but because her depiction of clients as scumbags who feel they’re entitled to sex rests on a very narrow model of male sexual desire. She literally cannot imagine any reason that a man might want to go to an escort that’s not predatory.

    the masculinity she imagines at work here is the Toxic Masculinity of Patriarchy, which I have to say probably still dominates today. But that’s where she makes the mistake, thinking that only toxic masculinity would lead a man to pay someone for sexual services, whereas I can imagine a whole host of other, non-toxic reasons.

    - – - –

    Yeah, Reggie, this shit wasn’t at all gross and entitled, was it? “Enjoy your sexual privilege.” Fuck you.

    there was no entitlement in that comment. I’ve seen guys who couldn’t find sexual partners “in the wild” be entitled, and it usually amounts to blaming women for refusing to get laid with them, as if women had a duty to do so. None if that is present here. Reggie made the same point I have, namely that some people aren’t into the exhausting clusterfuck of socializing, but that’s not a reason to bar them sexual expression with consensual partners. For someone to say that they have a right to consensually arrange their sex lives without stigma or criminalization is no more entitlement than what many women have already done when they claimed a right to arrange their sexual lives without being stigmatized as sluts.

    - – - – -

    TELL ME HOW I & EVERY FEMALE ALIVE ON THAT STREET WAS NOT AN OBJECTIFIED COMMODITY BC SEXY WORK. Please, really, please. Tell me.

    you don’t know what the word commodity means. As I’ve explained in this post, sex is a service, and the only way to make sex a commodity is to sell the sex worker. Pretty sure no one of those dudes was trying to buy you, rather than asking for your service.

    I can very easily believe that many of the dudes who thought you were a sex worker used toxic language and entitled behavior in propositioning. That’s the patriarchy for you. Jill’s essay and my essay however were talking about a patriarchy-free world. In such a world, customers wouldn’t have a toxic, sex-entitled, supremacist social script to use against women and/or sex workers. To be confused for a sex worker then would be as objectifying as being confused for a server or customer service representative in a respected business, which is to say not at all. I’ve been confused for someone who works at clothing stores on multiple occasions; it’s not objectifying, and it’s not treating me as a commodity.

    Aside from that, streetwalking would very likely become a lot less common with the end of Patriarchy and anti-sex-worker-stigma. And with less streetwalking, the chance of being confused for a streetwalker would be less.

    So again, I am not denying that the way the clients were approaching you and other women was often quite toxic and objectifying. That is because of the place sex work occupies in the matrix of oppression; consequently, trying to get rid of prostitution to get rid of objectification is to try to cure the disease by killing the patient.

    You say that as long as “people” have different sex drives from their chosen partners, the sex trade will exist. Ahem, I’m not a man. Where’s my market? There isn’t a viable one for me.

    did you even read my essay? I already addressed this.

    To say that a market for sex work will exist as long as “partners” don’t meet each others’ needs, when the market for bought sex is almost entirely male, is to say that “teh poor horny menz is being hurted by teh ebil frigid wives who won’t gib dem sexy-sexy timez!!!”

    no, what it’s actually saying is that with the patriarchy gone, women with higher sex drives and divergent kinks and sexual needs would no longer be ignored as a market, nor shamed by the culture (and neither would men be pressured into more sex than they desire by the need to uphold the “always wanting it” image of current masculinity

    it’s totally non-strange to say “I’m buying a dance lesson,” or even “I’m buying a massage” in English.

    it is atypical use. one pays for dance lessons and massages, one does not buy them.

  27. Here is a thought., if you were not whorephobic and didnt think being a sex worker ever was the worst thing, then perhaps you would realize there are worse things than being asked if you will exchange some of your time for money.

    But hey, so long as your life is better fuck everyone else, comments like this make me so angry.

  28. Origami Isopod says:

    “Sexual privilege” is precisely what MRAs accuse women of having… because we have the legal right to not have sex with men we don’t want to have sex with.

    In any case, plenty of disabled, plain-featured, and/or overweight men manage to find partners, with or without social anxiety. Maybe Reggie’s actual obstacle to doing so isn’t mentioned in my previous sentence.

    Fuck any “feminism” that insists I give a shit about Teh Poor Menz who can’t find women to fuck them without paying them to do so.

  29. No one’s asking you to give a shit about Teh Poor Menz. We’re asking you to listen to the sex workers.

    What is so hard about this?

  30. Origami Isopod says:

    Listening to the sex workers? Fine. I’m for decriminalization.

    Feeling sorry for Reggie’s whiny ass? Hell no.

  31. Jadehawk says:

    nobody’s asking you to feel sorry for him. but don’t get pissy if he might reject a utopia in which he’d be denied consensual sex because of the mores of that utopia; because women and LGBT folks felt exactly the same way when their consensual sex was criminalized

  32. Jadehawk says:

    In any case, plenty of disabled, plain-featured, and/or overweight men manage to find partners, with or without social anxiety. Maybe Reggie’s actual obstacle to doing so isn’t mentioned in my previous sentence.

    indeed it isn’t.you left out agoraphobic, which is rather relevant. but you know, even if I accepted your premise that he was poisoned to the core with Toxic Masculinity, it still wouldn’t change a damn thing about my point, since Toxic Masculinity wouldn’t be a thing in a patriarchy-free world, and yet sexual services still would. Kill patriarchy, and you kill the toxic customer.

    and on a related note… why should disabled people with social anxiety play by the rules the able-bodied extroverts made? I reject the notion that the extroverts’ way of getting laid is the only acceptable one.

  33. [...] in a Feministe post last week. (Filipovic is also a BuzzFeed contributor.) Her statement launched a new salvo in the debate over what’s become an increasingly vexed topic in recent years: what the [...]

  34. Origami Isopod says:

    LOL, what a crock of shit. I can’t believe I’m being asked in the name of “feminism” to give a fuck about teh poor menz getting their dicks wet. Or in the name of “introversion.” I’m an introvert, too. But because I’m a woman, nobody is wringing their hands over my “right” to get some cock.

  35. Origami Isopod says:

    And in the name of “disabled” people, too. And the premise of “ableism” was already stretched pretty fucking thin, with the cries that words like “stupid” were off-limits…

  36. Jadehawk says:

    I can’t believe I’m being asked in the name of “feminism” to give a fuck about teh poor menz getting their dicks wet.

    you aren’t

    I’m an introvert, too. But because I’m a woman, nobody is wringing their hands over my “right” to get some cock.

    in other words you’ve paid no attention to the parts of my essay that address this point.

  37. Jadehawk says:

    I really don’t understand how people who come up with the “prostitution is for men, therefore you want us to give a fuck about dudes getting their dicks wet” argument aren’t even realizing that they’re perpetuating essentialist, patriarchal tropes that end up being self-fulfilling prophecies: as long as everyone only ever hears “prostitution is for men”, that’s what it’ll remain, and the sexual needs of women that could be addressed via paid sexual services will continue going underserved.

    Because trust me, there’ve been times in my life where having the option to just pay for a nice, thorough fucking would have been much appreciated.
    So would have been the option for a few “sex lessons”, with or without a partner. Would have made my learning years much more fun.

  38. jemima101 says:

    And of course any number of women do visit female sex workers, either alone or as part of a couple, there existence seems to be erased from the antis narrative thought

  39. Origami Isopod/Ms. Daisy Cutter says:

    Women who visit sex workers are a minority. They’re about as relevant to an overall conversation about sex work as female rapists are to an overall conversation about rape. And, no, I’m not comparing the one to the other.

  40. Origami Isopod/Ms. Daisy Cutter says:

    My main point here, however, which seems to have been erased, is that Reggie whined at women about our “sexual privilege.” Which is a misogynist trope meaning “the ‘privilege’ to decline sex.” Something that men have and exercise all the time. It also implies that all women have to do in order to get some cock is to show up at the local bar… which erases all the women who are disabled, conventionally unattractive, of the “wrong” ethnicity, etc.

    I agree with the bulk of your post. I am certainly not an “anti.” I am pro-decriminalization because I would like to see sex workers harmed as little as possible. That said, I’ve read the opinions of many “punters” in their own words, and I’ve seen sex workers past and present describe many of their clients, and that is a group of men whose patriarchal attitudes disgust me.

  41. Jadehawk says:

    Women who visit sex workers are a minority.

    irrelevant to my point, insofar as I’ve already noted that removing patriarchy and stigmatization from prostitution would shift that imbalance.

    They’re about as relevant to an overall conversation about sex work as female rapists are to an overall conversation about rape.

    except fo rthe part where rape is caused by patriarchy, whereas prostitution isn’t.

    My main point here, however, which seems to have been erased, is that Reggie whined at women about our “sexual privilege.”

    not being disputed is not the same as being erased. I agree that “sexual privilege” in the sense of “right to decline” is a toxic MRA meme

    I’ve seen sex workers past and present describe many of their clients, and that is a group of men whose patriarchal attitudes disgust me.

    this has also already been addressed. I would add though that of course plenty of clients are toxic douchecakes; because at the moment, most men are toxic douchecakes due to patriarchy, and display this toxicity most when faced with the most marginalized women. But not all dudes are toxic all the time, and the same applies to sex work clients; and would apply even more so if decent folks weren’t told that it’s immoral to go to a prostitute, because then sex workers would have a client base made of more decent dudes, and (in combination with decrim) would be able to screen out the really toxic customers.

  42. David Marjanović says:

    I’m an introvert, too.

    That doesn’t tell us much – it’s a very wide category.

  43. Nick Gotts says:

    Excellent post.

    I wonder if Ms. Daisy Cutter would make an exception for a one-time acquaintance of mine, now dead. John Williams (he appeared in a TV programme about this issue, so I feel I can use his name) was severely physically disabled: he had limited control over his head, and nothing more. He managed an amazingly full life, as a “green left” political writer and activist, but effectively every physical activity required skilled help. When his relationship broke down, he hired the services of prostitutes when he could afford to – his helpers, of course, negotiating for him.

  44. Tam says:

    @Jemima101

    Actually, asking a non-sex worker to exchange their body/time for money is EXTREMELY insulting to me. I would feel harassed if someone did so. It’s not something I’m advertising and it’s none of that person’s fucking business to assume I’m a commodity unless I’m specifically advertising it.

    That being said, I’m not against prostitution. We should at least decriminalize it and give sex workers (and johns/janes) a safe space with less stigma.

  45. Jadehawk says:

    to assume I’m a commodity

    sex workers are commodities, are they. way to be supportive and not at all contributing to their marginalization.

  46. [...] 5. Jadehark explains why a recent piece on sex work from Feministe is wrong. Also impossible to pull a quote from since it’s a point-by-point rebuttal. [...]

  47. Maud says:

    Good post.

    One detail struck me:
    The part where the Feministe article deplores the lack of voice of underprivileged/marginalized sex workers appears to suggest that they would not advocate for more johns.
    As a person who has known a lot more street prostitutes than fancy escorts (which does not make me an expert), I get the feeling the “lower class” ones would be the *most* against restricting clientele.
    The escort can meet clients in beautiful discreet apartments while the other is on the street. Who’s gonna really be penalized for limiting sex buyers?

    Oppression still exist in prostitution, and the current state of affairs does make workers vulnerable. However, it seems to me that a lot of people still have the “pimp/ho” model we see in movies, and not much else. It’s just not useful.

  48. figleaf says:

    The fact that full-service sex work has declined nearly 90% since the beginning of the post-modern, feminist, “sex-positive” era suggests that Jill has a point about the likely role of sex work in a feminist future: while it won’t go away any more than ballroom dance instruction has gone away, it will no longer be considered the necessity (literally the “necessary evil”) it once was. The reason being, according to economists, that as legal, social, and economic barriers to women’s equality have fallen women have been more able to choose to have sex when they want to, without worrying about ruining their “chances.”

    That tends to reinforce Jill’s point that after feminism sex work as we know it will all but disappear. It already has! It already is! I’ll go a step further here and say that for all our tolerance and/or advocacy of sex work (and while I’m a curmudgeon about it I’m still an advocate) I’m… pretty sure nobody thinks we should go back to, say, the 1940s when between one in three and one in four men regularly went to brothels or otherwise hired sex workers.

    So if those particular bad old days are gone and if perfectly credible free-agency sex workers are able to advocate for themselves and their professions what’s the problem?

    The sticking point, I think, with sex work as it continues to be constructed in popular culture (and consequently in much of feminist culture) is that it’s seen as one end of a continuum of heterosexual sex as transactional sex where there are women (only women sex workers count in pop culture) who men can marry for sex, and other women men can pay cash for sex, and maybe somewhere in the middle there are women who will or at least are expected to trade sex for dinner and a movie.

    Oh, and inside the paradigm of transactional sex there are the reviled-by-pop-culture “sluts” who screw everything up by “giving it away.” Them and assault victims who are eternally scrutinized and blamed for somehow “asking for it.” Them, and assault victims, and men who “resort to” all those demeaning, deprecating euphemisms for masturbation all screw thing up “for the rest of us.” And finally inside that paradigm it’s almost impossible to imagine women (it’s always women in the popular imagination, remember) doing it of their own free will, without being enslaved, induced, degraded, addicted, abused, broken, or otherwise appearing to themselves and the public as “damaged goods.”

    Inside the dominant paradigm wherein men are only interested in sex and women are only interested in what they can get for sex, no matter how interesting, intentional, or freely chosen sex workers and their customers are still going to be part of the problem. In other words, like a lot of the rest of patriarchy the problem isn’t individuals, it’s the system.

    It doesn’t have to be that way. And obviously for a lot of individual participants it’s nothing like that at all! But for too much of the rest of contemporary civilization (let’s not even start talking about “traditional” civilization!) it’s still not like that at all!

    So here’s the metric I’ve used to think about sex work for about the last five years: sex work will stop being problematic from a feminist/gender-consciousness perspective when as many women hire sex workers as men… and when men’s motivation to hire sex workers are the same as women’s. To the extent that metric seems impractical, idealistic, outrageous, or ridiculous sex work will continue to be problematic. And further, until we get there I don’t necessarily agree that Jill’s right… but those who disagree with her won’t be right either.

    figleaf

  49. jose says:

    “if those particular bad old days are gone and if perfectly credible free-agency sex workers are able to advocate for themselves and their professions what’s the problem?”

    The problem is that 9 out of 10 prostitutes want out and can’t.

    How about instead fantasizing and predicting so much about what would happen in some utopia or other, we end human trafficking, put pimps in prison and reduce the prostitutes’ homelessness rate from 70% to something tolerable, and then we just wait and see what they decide to do?

  50. Jadehawk says:

    The fact that full-service sex work has declined nearly 90%

    citation?

    So if those particular bad old days are gone and if perfectly credible free-agency sex workers are able to advocate for themselves and their professions what’s the problem?

    wut. sex-work is plenty illegal and plenty stigmatized, so the “bad old days” are most certainly not over in any meaningful sense.

    The sticking point, I think, with sex work as it continues to be constructed in popular culture

    yes. I already addressed this.

    And further, until we get there I don’t necessarily agree that Jill’s right… but those who disagree with her won’t be right either.

    considering that most of that was pretty much what I said, that would mean that you’re wrong, too. Or that I’m right.

  51. Wendy Lyon says:

    The problem is that 9 out of 10 prostitutes want out and can’t

    I addressed that statistic
    here. The “70% homeless” claim comes from the same study, so is equally unreliable.

  52. David Marjanović says:

    the 1940s when between one in three and one in four men regularly went to brothels or otherwise hired sex workers

    …Wow. Also, citation needed.

  53. David Marjanović says:

    Off topic: seeing this in your twitter feed, and wanting you to see the following ASAP:

    why won’t my notes explain the difference between diagenesis, petrification, and permineralization?!

    Diagenesis = cover term for anything that happens to the remains of organisms between embedding and discovery. (Not always the same things happen.)
    Permineralization = minerals crystallize out of groundwater and fill hollow spaces in hard parts of organisms. At least sometimes helped by bacteria that eat the remains of soft tissues.
    Petrification = turning to stone. I’ve never seen that term used in modern science.

    Diagenesis includes permineralization and recrystallization: often the tiny crystals that hard parts consist of dissolve, but then the same minerals precipitate again on the spot and form larger crystals. When that happens, it obliterates the original isotope composition.

  54. figleaf says:

    Hi Jadehawk,

    citation?

    Actually looks like it’s an 80% drop, not 90%. I wrote about it back in 2009 in a post dumping on the authors of Freakonomics for missing the point in their own breathy reporting. http://www.realadultsex.com/archives/2009/11/real-lesson-dumb-chapter-superfeakonomics

    My source links — one to a pdf at the University of Chicago and another to a column in the London Times — have gone dark, but if I can find them again I’ll update the links.

    wut. sex-work is plenty illegal and plenty stigmatized, so the “bad old days”

    I didn’t mean anything about full-contact sex work being legal. (Can’t remember the last time I heard of non-contact strippers or phone-sex workers being arrested though.) I meant that contrary to pop-culture perceptions it’s actually pretty easy to find sex workers who communicate persuasively about their own agency and intentionality. As they do here, for instance.

    Speaking of illegal and stigmatized though, another item from the Freakonomics freaks, that they naturally overlook because despite their hard data they’re nearly clueless, is that in their studies female street sex workers were more likely to be forced to give a cop free sex than to be arrested by one. This a) speaks volumes about why all and not just some sex work should be legal but also b) points directly to the issues that trouble Jill. Where she’s mistaken, I’m pretty sure we’d agree, is that saying sex work should remain illegal till the problem of coercion is eliminated is putting the cart almost squarely in front of the horse.

    considering that most of that was pretty much what I said

    Yup. I shouldn’t have run on so long. My apologies.

    figleaf

  55. dauphinb says:

    (I’ve apparently forgotten how to operate a blog comment; forgive me if this is a duplicate post)

    Great post, Jadehawk!

    I won’t presume to go over the same ground that you and (the majority of) your commenters have so authoritatively covered, but there’s one aspect of this conversation that always strikes me, that I don’t think anyone has mentioned: When I see people (like Jill, but this is hardly a unique position) struggle to make the case that sex work is somehow fundamentally, categorically different from other kinds of work… even from other kinds of personal-service labor — such as food service, dance instruction, personal grooming, (nonsexual) massage, etc. — that also parallel “real life” interactions that can be extremely intimate… I can’t escape the thought that there’s some sacralizing of human sexuality going on.

    I remember being told (Long, Long Ago, On a Blog Far, Far Away©) that of course sex was different from other personal services, and my correspondent refused to believe I didn’t think so… yet she couldn’t explain why she thought that without resorting to thinly veiled supernaturalism (despite her being a thoroughgoing atheist).

    When restaurant workers or hairdressers are abused in the workplace, we call for justice for them, not against them, and we don’t shame them on the grounds that feeding or grooming another person “naturally” ought to be a free gift of love. But we (too often, even the most rational of us) persist in thinking of sex as magic… and, if it’s not sanctified in a narrow range of specific ways, as dark magic. The notion of sin is almost impossible to escape, like a kind of cosmic background radiation of religious moralism: 3 Kelvin of it, no matter what direction we look in, and damned hard to filter out.

    If we could filter it out, we’d be much better able to focus on issues of social and economic justice, and of agency and personal autonomy, without our “film” getting fogged.

    ****
    PS: Not for nothin’, but…

    goddamnit, sex absolutely should come with training sessions

    ^^^^^^^
    THIS!!!

  56. [...] in a Feministe post last week. (Filipovic is also a BuzzFeed contributor.) Her statement launched a new salvo in the debate over what’s become an increasingly vexed topic in recent years: what the [...]

  57. David says:

    I largely agree with Jadehawk. I’ve long argued that sex work should be decriminalized, and should not be stigmatized. All too often, I fear that government efforts to abolish sex work have just made it worse, more exploitative and more dangerous for the sex workers concerned. There is evidence to support this: see the research of Aziza Ahmed, for instance, on how policies, like the “anti-prostitution pledge” which the US government imposes on all recipients of federal HIV-prevention funds, can actually make things worse for vulnerable sex workers. (Her work is very interesting – last year she was a guest speaker in one of my classes.)

    Likewise, both Ahmed and Noy Thrupkaew have written about how the work of groups like “International Justice Mission” (supported by Nicholas Kristof), which goes around coordinating raids on brothels to “rescue” sex workers in the developing world, can do much more harm than good. Often, the people supposedly “rescued” end up being jailed, abused by cops, and deported as undocumented immigrants.

    And there are lots of problems in the political discourse about this issue. The rhetorical conflation of all sex work with sex trafficking, ignoring the wide variety of sex workers’ experiences; the rhetorical conflation of trafficking with sex work, erasing the experiences of the millions of people worldwide trafficked into agricultural, industrial and domestic servitude; the assumption that more border controls are the way to address trafficking, when in reality border controls and the stigmatization of undocumented migrants have partly created the problem in the first place; and so on. And the fact that most of the people speaking about it are not themselves sex workers and are speaking from a position of privilege

    In some ways I feel uncomfortable wading into this kind of debate, because I’m conscious that I’m a middle-class Western guy and that I’m speaking from a position of privilege: it certainly isn’t up to me to take sides in debates within feminism, or to tell feminists that they’re “doing feminism wrong”. But when it comes to prohibitionist policies, I’m inclined to be sceptical.

  58. HeatherD says:

    Oh god I’m so glad I found this. I just finished reading the feministe article and felt frustrated by the fact she closed her comments. It drove me crazy how one can say its ok to sell and not to buy. One who sells needs a buyer and if it is ones choice to produce sex service for pay it would be a bummer to not have anyone legally able to hire the service.

    You have effectively argued against all her moral assumptions in a reasoned logical way clarifying the difference between oppression and an industries place in the matrix of opression. The sweat shop vs. german factory was an appropriate analogy, as was the dance teacher analogy. I will remember these and use them in future philosophical debates about this issue.

  59. Sofia says:

    Why pay for sex when you can get it for free? Wouldn’t it be easier to go to a sleazy bar and ask a woman if she wants to have sex with you?

  60. Sofia says:

    Also, “kinks” are socially and culturally learned behaviors. It is not instinctual. It is also a myth and another culturally learned behavior that men want and need sex all the time. Men and women are so much more evolved than that.

  61. David Marjanović says:

    Also, “kinks” are socially and culturally learned behaviors. It is not instinctual.

    Some are outright orientations. For instance, if you like pain, that’s because you’re wired that way – literally wired as in “the nerve cells grew that way and connect that way”.

    It is also a myth and another culturally learned behavior that men want and need sex all the time.

    On this you’re right: among men just as well as women, you can find the whole spectrum from sex addicts to asexual people.

    Men and women are so much more evolved than that.

    I’m a biologist, and I don’t understand what you mean by “more evolved”.

  62. Jadehawk says:

    Why pay for sex when you can get it for free?

    for the same reason I’d pay for dance lessons instead of just talking up someone in a nightclub: better chances of learning something, and higher quality guaranteed.

    Also, “kinks” are socially and culturally learned behaviors. It is not instinctual.

    and so? as long as we have society and culture, there will be kinks that will have been learned from that, and in some instances they will be incompatible between otherwise compatible partners.

    It is also a myth and another culturally learned behavior that men want and need sex all the time.

    how is that even relevant to my post?

    Men and women are so much more evolved than that.

    that’s not how evolution works.

  63. This is my first comment here on Jade blog so shall keep it brief
    till I have a look around and get a feel for it : I just want to say that
    prostitution should be legalised for all the usual reasons and so
    not doing so is unacceptable : I shall post more if Jade has any
    thing of interest to respond to : But so far nearly every thing what
    she says I basically agree on so debate may be a tad stifling but
    I shall see how it goes : Any way that is all I have to say right now

  64. Bro says:

    A person necessarily help to make significantly posts I would state. This is the first time I frequented your web page and thus far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this particular put up amazing. Wonderful activity!

  65. David Marjanović says:

    Penis reduction. That’s a new one.

  66. […] For a really good example, check out Jadehawk’s rebuttal. ↩ […]

  67. […] “in my feminist utopia, there wouldn’t be any sex work” piece which I took apart here. I noticed today that there was a new pingback to that post. It turned out to be this piece that […]

  68. […] For those of you who like things in a more academic jargon, it is, as Jade Hawk put it, “you have the right to navigate your matrix of oppression as you see fit.” It is the same basic idea as the “pro-woman line” of the early radical feminist years […]

  69. Sex Prekes says:

    Yeah… Jill is a real feminist..

  70. […] Jadehawk, 2013, drawing on work by Patricia Hill […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s