The British Tradition of Puritanism and Sleaze (and the Myth of Nancy)........

I.

I came accross a copy of a John Bunyan book yesterday in the public library. 'Puritanism' the writer on the sleeve commented, 'is undoubtedly part of the English character'. I don't know if this is an aspect of my character that I am unconscious of. But while I cannot help but agree on the whole with that statement, it is not an aspect of the national character that I take pride in by any means.

But it is alive and well in the press, in Westminster, in the pressure groups, on the web and in the homes and the streets of the United Kingdom. It can exist similtaneously in the pages of the Graun and the Torygraph. It is a big part of the heritage of both English socialism and feminism (one main reason why I don't really identify myself with either of these traditions, which are essentially as middle class as George Orwell once pointed out). It is what causes the English to be more preoccupied with the sex lives of politicians than the Latin countries. It was this Anglo heritage that almost brought down Bill Clinton.

Sexuality, when it is repressed by puritanism, becomes 'dirty'. Part of the thrill of British sex is down to the belief that something wrong is being done, that a trangression is taking place.

This came to my attention after having read an Emile Zola novel (French writer of the late 19th century). it was entitled 'The Kill' and was a depiction of the decadence of the bourgeoisie of the second empire. There were some fairly graphic sex scenes. I realised that such a novel would not have even been penned, let alone published, by any respected English Victorian author.

I remembered the scenes of 'Oliver Twist' (one of my favourite Victorian novels). I recalled the way that the fact Nancy was a prostitute had to be spelled out by Dickens in the introduction as any description of her trade would have been considered indecent in the novel. Contrast this with Zola's (Zola often being described as the 'French Dickens' for his realism) 'Nana' - an entire novel being devoted to the tragic life of a Parisian courtesan from a working class background. The sexual activities of Nana were described just as graphically as was the bourgeois sex of 'The Kill'.

Let us compare the stories of Nancy and Nana (Paris and London, a Tale of Two Cities, Nana and Nancy, a tale of two.......).
Both women come from poor working class backgrounds. Nana's upbringing is documented in Zola's earlier novel 'L'assomoir', which describes the lives of her alcoholic parents in the Goutte d'Or district of Paris. Nancy's background is only referenced briefly in her discussion with the middle class virgin 'Rose' - but is taken to be not unlike that of Nana. Here, however, is where the similarities end.






Zola does not morally endorse Nana's profession. Her tragedy stems partly from her greed. But it is made clear that Nana decided herself to embark on her profession, and is relatively in control of her work. She gets involved briefly with an abusive boyfriend but it doesn't last that long. Her downfall comes more with the corruption of one of her wealthy clients with a fetish for bondage. Like Nancy Nana has to die, but she catches typhoid).

Nancy, on the other hand, is an unwitting victim. She did not embark on her profession via her own choice but was bullied into it by Fagin and her violent partner Bill Sikes. She was 'led astray', in other words. And she is full of remorse and self pity for what she is, a trait noticably absent from the unrepentant Nana.

Nana and Nancy respectively can be seen to symbolise the British and the French attitudes towards the sex industry. Nancy remains the perpetual archetype for the downtrodden English prostitute. Every woman working the street is Nancy. Every Nancy has a Bill. The shame attached to the sex industry makes it all the sleazier.

I split this into two parts as it is long and not on a straight continuum. Please read on......

II.

The Myth of Nancy (Continued).....

We know the story of Nancy. We know that she met her death at the hands of Bill Sikes, her 'bully' (Victorian for pimp). She was a pure victim of circumstance, of poverty and of male oppression.

I'm glad in a sense that I'm not in the UK right now. The tragic murders in Ipswich will bring the puritans out with no leash, snapping their jaws and using the deaths of these poor women for their own agenda. Agenda being to attempt to prove that all sex workers are Nancy.

Despite New Zealand's law reform, this attitude has found it's way into the press here. A hack named David Harrison writes an article entitled 'Stark Truth of the Sex Trade'. He comments that the murders have shone a dismal light on the extent of prostitution in the UK. Why, I could almost be at home. I'm feeling homesick already, in fact. And guess what? The article is couresy of the good old Torygraph, given to the 'Dominion Post'. Nice one.

'Britain's dark underbelly is a seedy world of desperate, drug addicted women who sell their bodies for their, or their pimps, next fix of heroin or crack'. Harrison unquestionally cites the home office stats on the prevalence of drug addiction among the UK's streetwalkers (stats which I pointed out yesterday were unreliable).

The drugs come early, most are offered heroin by their abusers, and are forced on the streets to feed their habits and pay their pimps (bullies). Some are 'launched' as early as the ages of 12 or 13 (as was the case with Dickens's Nancy, led astray by Fagin and Sikes).






Harrison writes "The street girls (sic!!) are the most vulnerable "workers" in Britain's expanding sex trade". He puts the term workers in inverted commas.

Such an article could just as well appear today in the Graun as the language is identical, patronising while denying sex workers their rights as sex workers. I am not questioning the fact that the vulnerable women he describes exists. I am sure they do. I don't doubt that there were women like Nancy who actually existed at the time Dickens was writing either. I have no doubt that the women are predominately from poor working class backgrounds either (I don't like the term 'underclass' used on the British poor). The fact that such conditions persist is a condemnation of 21st century Britain.

But it is misleading to suggest as he does that almost all streetwalkers are as he describes. They are not. Not all of them have a pimp or bully. Not all are on drugs. Some are simply freelancers who don't want to pay a brothel keeper and do not have the means to set up themselves or work from home. But what about minders? The issue is not one of the men themselves but their behaviour, and whether or not there is coercion taking place. Buying drugs for a partner doesn't necessarily mean he is forcing you either. The options of the men are often just as limited as those of the women. It may make more sense if you are a couple of addicts for the woman to sell sex rather than for the man to do a burglary and land himself in prison. I am not condoning these conditions, simply being straight and avoiding the implication that all partners of sex workers are 'pimps'. The drugs issue will of course be partly resolved by the decriminalisation or legalisation of heroin use - but few people promote this as an option when discussing the issue of addicted sex workers.

But I'll tell you what makes me mad. It is hard for me to express how I feel about this organisation using polite language. But I'll try. Harrison quotes Diane Marshall of Britain's 'Poppy Project', the home office funded programme to provide shelter for victims of sexual trafficking. Don't get me wrong - this in itself is something I would support. I believe that women abused in such a way should be given shelter and support, and it is a good thing for the British government to provide this. But alas, they are giving the money to the wrong people for this purpose. 'Poppy' are connected to a group known as the 'Lillith Project/Eaves Housing' who have a whole other agenda.

These ladies are continuing in the notable tradition of the 'National Vigilance Association' - to stamp out vice and public immorality. They are modern Victorians. They oppose prostitution being defined as 'sex work' - insisting it should remain 'prostitution' (root - to commit an immoral act for money). Yet how do these feminists do this without condemning the fallen women they wish to save? Easy. They use the term 'prostituted women' - meaning that nobody is doing such work voluntarily. Taking their cue from the Victorian social reformers, they believe that no woman would choose to work in the sex trade, all women being forced via economic or social circumstances beyond their control.

Marshall blames the 'normalisation' of the sex trade for the murders. What utter crock. What of the women murdered by partners and men who they know, women who are not sex workers? What is to blame for that? Monogamy? Marhsall praises the 'good old days' when "it used to be taboo to go with a prostitute, something to be done furtively, something that brought shame if you were found out". Aah, the joys of English puritanism. So it is somehow not so bad if it remains a dirty secret, Ms Marshall, so as to protect the virtue of decent ladies like yourself? It is better that sex workers remain stigmatised, the lowest of the low, so as to seperate themselves from respectable women.

Please don't think that Marshall's project to rescue sex slaves is anything new or remotely radical. It isn't. Victorian groups consisting of middle class women very often indulged in such projects - providing safe houses for fallen women who wished to leave the trade. The 'female mission for the fallen' distributed tracts outside brothels protesting the exploitation of women. Dickens himself was involved in such a project.

Predictably Harrison does not interview any sex workers themselves, only police, charities, and their self appointed redeemers Ms Marshall and a group named "Women for Justice' - who claim that drug addiction, homeless rape and murder are occupational hazards of the sex trade, therefore it is hardly a career choice. Yet they don't consider the possibility that criminalisation may have something to do with this. Oh, no. If they were really worried about the safety of sex workers they would call for policy to help protect them. But they prefer they be criminalised, hence running greater risks to their safety. Nay, they and their ilk call for heavier criminalisation. Which shows their real concern is not the safety of prostitutes but rather the virtue of decent ladies like themselves.

Harrison concludes by saying that 'the world's oldest profession is really the oldest oppression'. With his social conservatism (writing for the Torygraph) and his questionable sources, along with his patronising attitude towards women and his failure to speak to any prostitutes themselves it is not surprising that he says this.

Many middle class (decent and respectable) women give sex in exchange for something, be it security ( often dressed as commitment) or status. The prostitute is a threat to the middle class lady as she direcly asks for money, hence blowing the cover and thus the facade of decency. This exposes the hypocrisy of conventional morality - and the morality of puritanical 'feminists' and their buddies on the right.

It is interesting the way the Torygraph has dropped it's rhetoric of traditional values, public morality, etc and adopted the Graun's rhetoric about the exploitation of women. I guess it puts a better and more modern sounding spin on what is ultimately conventional morality.

To conclude my heart goes out to the murder victims in Ipswich and their relatives - and I am sorry that their deaths are being exploited in this way by the usual suspects.

Prostitution and NZ Law Reform.....

I see a man is being held on suspicion over the Ipswich murders (see link). It is too early to assume him to be guilty, he could well just be a lonely man who is an easy suspect, having known the murdered women and being a client of sex workers. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I met yesterday with Catherine Healy of the New Zealand prostitute's collective. I had a very interesting discussion with her over the effects of the law reform. I also spoke with a couple of workers who were visiting the building.

Surprisingly the first one I spoke with said it had made little difference to her personally, she pretty much continued working from home as she had done prior to the reform. However, when pressed she stated that she no longer has to register with the police when advertising in a newspaper. Even prior to decriminalisation, NZ had a relaxed attitude in comparison with Britain, with the police not always enforcing the law. Juliette also told me that she could be more upfront when talking with clients on the phone. Another woman told me that the law reform felt like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders as the threat of being busted no longer hung over her.

Something notable about this law is that it is the result of vocal campaigning by sex workers since the late 1980s, campaigning for their right to work as sex workers. It has not been handed down from on high by some thinktank who believe they are protecting the public from a social evil or containing it. Hence the law is based upon the human rights of sex workers as sex workers. It was won in parliament by a narrow majority, and it's opponents were largely on the religious right. It has received the support of most women's groups in the country, and of the liberal left. Ambivalence was also voiced by some residents groups, who feared there would be an increase in both streetwalkers and brothels. Their fears have been unfounded as there has not been a great increase in women choosing to work in the sex industry.

One thing Catherine made clear was that we cannot expect miracles to result from a change in the law. The problems associated with the sex industry have not all dissapeared, and it is doubtful they all ever will as every profession has it's problems and hazards. But there are a few things worthy of note.

Relations between sex workers and police have improved, and violence from clients is more likely to be reported. A murderer in the Christchurch region (who killed two prostitutes) was caught quickly due to the co-operation of sex workers with the police. Being free of police harrasment provides a better environment to work from, and due to the scrap of the pimping charges some women have chosen to take their partners with them as bodyguards or minders to take the license plates of the cars they get into. As sex workers are no longer illegal there has been a slight shift in the social stigma attached to them - they are no longer criminals but are workers with rights under the law.

Something that particularly struck me was the fact that there has been a shift away from brothel work and an increase in freelancers - women working themselves from home or in collectives. Brothel keepers have in fact been complaining that they cannot find enough workers anymore as women do not want to pay the shift fees they charge - they also prefer to work their own hours and charge their own prices.

It is little wonder that the brothel keepers opposed the model of decriminalisation. They were rather in favour of the Dutch model (State licensed brothels) being imported to NZ. The self interest here is pretty obvious. Those who advocate this model for Britain would do well to bear in mind that what they are advocating is a boss's law - not one that enshrines the rights of workers. Marxists would do well to think of the struggle between capital and labour, and remember which side they are supposed to be on. In the Auckland area brothel owners with massage licenses had a rather questionable relationship with local police prior to decriminalisation - they demanded that police clamped down on unlicensed premises, which clearly was not in the interest of freelancers. As I have stated before, one should not confuse legalisation with decriminalisation. They are not the same thing. Sex worker's rights groups almost unanimously oppose the former and support the latter, as do I.

It is also a misconception that most streetwalkers are also drug addicts. Some are (as were the women murdered in Ipswich) but not all are. The stats from the British Home Office on this matter (that 90+% of streetworkers are addicted to heroin or crack) are misleading as well as self serving, as they are taken from the women who use the government's drug treatment programme. In Catherine Healy's experience with street workers some are drug users but they don't make up the majority. That tallies with my own experience with sex workers. I have known women who work on the street and not all have been drug users. It obviously depends on the area too - districts which are struck with poverty and crime in general tend to have a higher percentage of drug users. Heroin and cocaine use is not as widespread in NZ as in Britain, crystal meth seems to be more of a thing here. But there is at least a needle exchange service for intravenous drug users.

But I should also stress that I support the rights of drug users as well as sex workers. If a sex worker is also a drug user (or the other way round) she will need rights as both. Hence my support for the legalisation of all drugs, or at least their decriminalisation.

We also spoke about the misconception that most (even all) migrant sex workers are forced into the trade. This is not the case in Britain and neither is the case in NZ. The main problem facing migrant workers in the sex industry here is their illegal status (as illegal immigrants, not as sex workers). They tend to come from South East Asia rather than Eastern Europe. Some come specifically to work in the sex industry, some arrive for other reasons. But the issues are the same. While it cannot be doubted that trafficking is an issue, it is wrong to assume that all migrant sex workers are slaves. They aren't. Claiming that they are is counterproductive as inflating the numbers is not conducivr to actually formulating policy to tackle the problem. The United Nations recognises that there is no reliable data in the way of human trafficking. If there was then the problem would be closer to being tackled.

A couple more items relating to the law in NZ. A few councils have managed to create by laws restricting the sale of sexual acts from certain zones. These have been opposed by the collective as being contrary to the law, and some have been repealed. Others have remained. What complicates matters is that a brothel in this country does not have the numbers clause as with Britain. In NZ one woman working from home would be effectively keeping a brothel, whereas in Britain it must be more than one.

It is also illegal to practise unsafe sex in exchange for money in NZ. While the collective opposed this clause as it could conceivably be used against sex workers, most sex workers have reported that the law works in their favour. If a client asks for activity without protection they can simply tell him that it is illegal and he will normally drop the matter. Client insistence has usually been the reason that some sex workers admit to practising unprotected sex in many countries.

Statement from the English Collective of Prostitutes on Ipswich Murders.........

When prostitute women are not safe, no woman is safe

Gemma Adams and a woman the police believe to be Tania Nicol, have now both been found tragically murdered in Ipswich. We pass our deepest condolences to their loved ones. A number of women also working as sex workers have gone missing in the area in recent years. In order to save lives and not to repeat the horror of the Yorkshire Ripper, who was allowed to continue killing until 13 women had been murdered, the Suffolk police must not use the criminality imposed on sex workers by the prostitution laws as an excuse to deny women the protection we are all entitled to by law.

We demand:


an immediate temporary amnesty from arrest for prostitute women and clients so that anyone can come forward to give information to this inquiry without fear of criminalisation or harassment; (Previously, women with outstanding arrest warrants either couldn’t contact the police or when they did were arrested. (See Criminalisation: the price women and children pay, English Collective of Prostitutes response to the government’s review of the prostitution laws, December 2004)

an end to street sweeps, arrests and ASBOs against prostitute women and clients which have forced women into darker, more isolated areas making them more vulnerable to rape, violence and even murder. Women working under increased pressure are less able to look out for each other, have less time to check out clients and are forced to take more risks;

a change in police priorities; money and resources being used to prosecute women and clients for consenting sex must be re-directed into vigorously pursuing violent men and protection of all women

following the example of New Zealand, decriminalisation of the prostitution laws, which by criminalising sex workers signal that women’s lives are not worth much. The police and courts don’t protect women and violent men think they can get away with attacks.

Comment: Currently being in NZ I intend to find out more about how the prostitution law reform has worked out, if possible arranging to meet and interview some sex workers via the collective or union. I can say, however, that I was very upset when hearing about the murders back in Britain. Criminalising prostitutes only endangers them further, and I feel nothing but anger, contempt and scorn for those 'feminists' who insist that these women continue to be criminalised, socially stigmatised and marginalised so as to protect the virtue of 'respectable women' like themselves. I can see through their rhetoric. But they quite happily scream 'my body, my life' when abortion is the issue at stake, not seeing the contradiction and the irony. I'm kind of glad I'm not in the UK right now.

A feminist once remarked to me that her opposition to prostition stemmed not from the effect the work has on individual prostitutes but rather from the way that the sex trade implies that ALL women's bodies are commodities. Clearly she has a lot to learn. All women, yep, respectable ladies too, have used sexuality as a bargaining chip. Respectable bourgeois women have used this bargain for marriage and security. The prostitute is a thorn in the side of the bourgeois feminist as she directly asks for money, thus exposing how fragile the mythical virginity and purity of the middle class lady actually is. All the prostitute is doing is exposing a truism about sexual relations and the organisation of society, she is not creating it.
She is simply being explicit about it, and renting her sexual services rather than selling them for life (as is the case with many bourgeois marriages). The middle class feminists who support criminalising prostitutes are in fact supporting the status quo.

I'll also add that I mean no disrespect to those sensible feminists who see through the good woman/bad woman myth and realise the harm caused by the prostitution laws, and the hypocrisy behind them. Meanwhile I hope this bastard gets caught soon so he kills no more.

Meanwhile, vulnerable women with addictions and deep emotional problems (who do make up a large number of streetwalkers) could be greatly helped by at least being given heroin on prescription (ideally an all out end to prohibition will be best but that does not seem likely in the near future). And there should be more access to psychotherapy and counselling on the NHS. The mental health system in the UK is a shambles.

Men Will be Men.....

A short note to follow on from my post on youth and sexuality.

A few years ago I bought into the myths promoted by a large section of the feminist movement. I believed my sexist and abusive father was the way he was not because of his individual character but because a system called 'patriarchy' planted the idea in his brain that women were inferior and it was the mark of a real man to be a misogynist arsehole. I did not realise that I was doing what my long suffering mother had always done throughout the course of her marriage - I was making excuses for him. If the thesis was true then all men would be like him. The fact is they are not. Sexism simply gives men like him a rationale for their behaviour. If it wasn't sexism it would be something else.

I also had other views. While I supported the rights of sex workers (as I still do), I also believed there would come a day when men would no longer feel the need for pornography. I swallowed the patronising attitude promoted towards women in the porn industry. I just failed to grasp the fact that visual stimulation is a legitimate aspect of male sexuality. I failed to recognise that men need their privacy, their fantasies, just as women do. I fell into the trap of politicising the differences between male and female sexuality, and hence demonised aspects of male sexuality I did not understand or relate to. But guess what? My male partners have found it extremely difficult to relate to aspects of my sexuality and fantasies. Sometimes they expressed boredom, other times they felt as disturbed by my theme based fantasies as I was by their visual ones.

It is true that women do often feel uncomfortable if their male partners use porn. They often complain about feeling unattractive, not good enough etc. Having had such feelings myself in relationships I can readily empathise with this. But what is at play here is our own insecurity in ourselves, which often manifests in sexual jealousy. It is not porn that is really the problem here but our own lack of self esteem. We can criticise the sex industry for promoting one standard of female beauty but that is as far as we should take it. It is wrong, so wrong, of the feminist movement to capitalise like this on women's insecurities and tell us that we must continue with the thankless task so typical of the female sex - trying to make men change. Trying, in other words, to make them more like us. It won't happen.

We can't plead with men to be 'nice'. We have to fact the fact that there is an aspect of male sexuality that is predatory, and of course it has it's mirror image in the submissive aspect of female sexuality. So how does this relate to my post on youth?

Teenage boys are walking barrels of testostorone, ruled by their hormones. So, of course, are teenage girls ruled by their hormones but it expresses itself differently. Boys will say anything to get sex. So will some full grown men who lack scruples to know any better. So rather than hopelessly dream of the day men will change we should learn to respect ourselves and not put ourselves in vulnerable situations where we may get hurt. This is what we should be telling our daughters.

In relation to the current issue of binge drinking and date rape - women do not 'get themselves raped'. We are entitled to go out drinking without fear of being molested or having our drinks spiked. On the other hand we should still be cautious and not get so out of it we don't know what the hell we are doing, drink ourselves unconscious and hence put ourselves at risk. It is foolish. But then I'd encourage nobody to drink themselves to that stage due to the great amount of other accidents caused by excessive alcohol consumption.

I hope none of this has sounded like male bashing. I simply believe that men and women are different, with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes these traits compliment each other but other times they appear to clash, leading to distrust between the sexes. Rather than seeking to change men it would be far more productive if feminists could make the effort to understand them (and asking them to understand us better of course). That would go a long way to improving relations between the sexes.

Now I'm one angry girl. My numerous posts sum up my feelings about the so called 'pro choice' lobby. But I get even sicker when men (who don't know as they are not likely to ever be in such a position) repeat that drivel and tell me I am a brainwashed reactionary.

To sum it up - I met a friend for a drink on Saturday. He's a nice enough man, but regarding certain things he does not have a clue. I have long asked him that we agree to differ about the abortion issue - but he always manages to sneak it in, somehow.

According to him having an abortion should be just like having a tooth out (note - what does he possibly know??). Any woman whose experience is somewhat deeper than this is affected by 'religious propaganda'. I have heard him sprout this garbage more than once so I'm no longer affected by it, any more than I am affected by his ludicrous assertions that a human foetus is nothing but a piece of dead matter.

But what really make me angry was his claim (which of course he could not back up) that more women are pro abortion than men, as we are 'directly affected by it'.

Exactly. We are directly affected it and this will just as likely make as anti as pro. Like the woman who cried as she told me of her good for nothing ex who emotionally blackmailed her into the procedure. She is not the only one. What of the women who become pro life when they deeply regret their abortions?

According to this gentleman women who differ from his line are brainwashed by 'Catholic propaganda' - while women who are proud of their abortions, like the obnoxious Zoe Williams, are right on. The pro choice (sic) lobby never lie, while pro lifers lie with every breathe they exhale.

Tosser.

How dare he tell me, as a woman, what I should feel? He can argue all he wants with me about legislation, but how dare he tell me my feelings are wrong and a result of brainwashing?.

He backed up his assertions about women being more numerically in favour of abortion than men by citing that more women in Westminster are pro abortion than the men. Firstly he had no data to prove this, as secondly, what made him think that the views of the political caste in Westminster are representative of the population on this issue?

Other data tells a different story (see link). So did a YouGov poll last year, where more men were in favour of unlimited abortion than women. And more women were anti.

It doesn't surprise me if more men than women are in favour of unlimited abortion. Makes sense, doesn't it? If you don't want the responsibilities of fatherhood you can easily shirk them by paying for the 'operation'. If she doesn't want it? Say you will walk out and leave the child with no father.

Men have no right to lecture me, especially when they get their facts blatantly wrong.

Note: This also shows that the feminist movement do not represent the views or feelings of most women, especially due to the way that it ignores the feelings of women who are not happy with their experiences of abortion. Rather it only seems to represent the views of a self proclaimed 'sisterhood' whose views are only representative of themselves.

I won't deny that I am sick to death of the consumerist rhetoric of 'choice'. I am sick of being labelled 'anti choice' by hypocrites who cannot stand to be labelled what is usually the descriptive term in their case of 'pro abortion'. I am sick of being told that my view on this matter is 'anti woman', with the implication that I am some kind of a self hater who doesn't know what is good for me. I am sick of being told that unrestricted foeticide is a necessary condition for the liberation of my gender. I am sick of seeing people express moral outrage over prostitution but have no problem at all with unlimited abortion. Most of all I am sick of the neglect of the feminist and 'pro choice' (face it, they are not really pro choice as they are only interested in one choice - abortion) movements over the issue of forced abortions in China, coercive family planning policies in the third world, and of course the social and economic pressure that exists in the West for women to abort. Along with the emotional blackmail by relatives and most of all the male partners who have impregnated them in the first place.

On the other hand I would like to point to the good pro choicers who do recognise the ethical dilemma regarding abortion. The ones who do recognise the issue of coercion, and who do not resort to name calling and derogatory labels. They can relax, this post is not about them. It is about the disingenous characters described above, who parrot lies as well as offend.

Pole Dancing Kit

What should I make of this 'toy'?. I was initially under the assumption that it was a doll, having recalled seeing a pole dancing doll elsewhere, and got called a 'sectarian moron' and an illiterate (sob) for my error! A careless mistake maybe but not one that warranted that kind of hostility. Anyway, enough for that for the time being.

I would tend to view the sexualisation of childhood as being wrong, and that Tesco were wrong to market the product as a toy. An item of such a description probably belongs in Anne Summers or a similiar shop.

All the same though, is it any different from the constant promotion of sex that children see all the time, in teen magazines and elsewhere? I think not, so it is not something I'd make a big deal over. But I'm sure on this particular issue Scottish Socialist Voice would be in one voice with the Daily Mail.

It is also baffling as to how a group which give condoms (and information on how to obtain abortions) to schoolchildren reconcile this. Perhaps they don't mind children having sex, it's just the association of pole dancing with sex workers that they can't abide. Never mind the fact that this sex toy is not designed for commercial gain, but appears to be designed as an erotic plaything. If you don't mind children having sex then why object to them using toys with it? Say what you will about the commodification of sex etc, but there was a strong sense of moral outrage in the passage quoted on that blog. I am sure that the images children see on television of pop stars and in advertising have more of an impact on them than does any pole dancing toy. Sexualised clothing aimed at children seems to be purely a reflection of a culture they already are subjected to. It is the market finding its niche. The hyper sexualised culture in the West after the commodified sexual revolution is problematic in many ways, but save for jumping on the moral majority bandwagon and asking the State to censor media or ban the sale of items there is little one can do. The State has no right to censor material nor curb sexuality.

Capitalism makes a commodity out of everything. Sex especially perhaps because it is a primal instinct that obviously sells very well. The market works very well in this regard. Ask anyone who works in advertising. It does strike me as being more of a problem when children are targetted - but then I am not of the opinion that children under the age of 16 (or 18-19 in some cases) are really old enough to be having sex anyway. Sex ideally should not be a commodity sold to them. But it is even slightly unrealistic for me to say this, as sex is everywhere in advertising anyway. The only way you could possible keep kids away from it would be to teach them at home and never let them watch tv or read magazines. While parents will do what they can it is probably inevitable that some children will have sex, so if they do it is better they be given access to protection than not. Removing a daft toy from a supermarket will make no difference.

Most objectionable to me is the blanket assertion by the Scottish Socialist Party that all strippers have been or are being sexually abused. But with their latest resolution which advocates the continuation of criminalisation of the sex industry (on the Swedish model, albeit, targetting the 'demand' rather than the 'supply') such nonsense becomes explicable. The text of that resolution and my comments are in the next post down.

Scottish Socialist Party's Prostitution Resolution

Here is the text (note they state their position is 'radical'. It is not radical in the slightest, it is conservative. I also love their use of the patronising term 'prostituted women' - as if they are all being forced!):

Prostitution
Mhairi McAlpine of the SSP Women's Network explains the background to the debate on prostitution in the SSP


The issue of prostitution was first raised at SSP conference in 2003, in response to Margo McDonald’s proposal to establish “tolerence zones” – effectively legalising prostitution in a limited way. There were three proposals on the table – decriminalisation; support for tolerance zones, and the Swedish model of targeting the demand. The issue was remitted for further debate and discussion. The motions were remitted for further discussion, education and debate in the party.

In the three years that have passed, the issue has been debated throughout the party, in branches, at platform meetings and in the Socialist Women’s Network. Following this discussion, this proposal to follow the Swedish model, once a minority position, was brought back for ratification.

The SSP after much debate and discussion concluded that prostitution by definition was violence against women and therefore harmful to them. There can be no tolerance of it. Drug addicted women, migrant women and adult survivors of child sexual abuse make up the vast majority of prostituted women. Those women enslaved by the industry, whether by traffickers, by addiction problems, by poverty, violent partners and pimps or poor mental health must be given support to escape.

Violence towards them even if they consent? But we'll see soon their patronising dismissal of women who do choose to work in this profession as suffering from 'false consciousness' or something of the like. But then what does a 'sectarian idiot' like myself know? I note that no statistics are cited in their assertion about who makes up the majority of prostitutes, as data regarding the sex industry is notoriously unreliable. I agree that women who want to leave the profession should be given help (indeed so should workers in low paid menial jobs which they hate, or migrant workers enslaved by criminal gangs in a number of industries. All should be given benefits, help if they are in need of accomadation and access to education or training). I don't make a special case for sex work, I support help for any workers to leave jobs that they are unhappy in. Nobody should be stuck in any job that they hate. And it is naturally the case that I abhore the stigmatisation of women who have been sex workers, which can require lying on a CV.

Alongside this their position is coercive - criminalisation ensures they will have no choice but to leave. Such 'exit strategies' will possibly end up pressuring these women into taking low paid menial work. Just like the Victorians who advocated 'better employment opportunities' for women - probably in domestic service. The same Victorians whose hearts bled over women involved in prostitution but shed few tears over those exploited by the drugery of the 12 or 14 hour shift in the factory or textile mills.

However, even supposing the traditional data was reliable (and it tends not to be as it is often self serving, taken from mainly street prostitutes in bad beats). But even if almost all women in prostitution were either exploited migrants, drug addicts or survivors of child abuse would even this justify criminalisation? Would this justify infantilising them so and getting the State and it's allies to rescue them 'for their own good'? It would not, as at the end of the day it is not the State's business to regulate sexual behaviour.

The writer of this bilge may not wish to know it but not every migrant sex worker is trafficked or forced either. And many human beings are enslaved by various industries via poverty or other related problems. Asian sweatshop workers are 'enslaved by poverty' to accept work in the conditions they do. Should textile factories therefore be banned?

"Economic coercion to perform sex acts is a violation of women’s integrity and can only be understood within the context of ongoing social and economic discrimination. To criminalise prostituted women is to criminalise the victim."

Economic coercion of anybody into wage slavery is a violation of their intergrity. I don't know why these people claim to be Marxists. I dig the blanket definition of 'victims' too.

"Nonetheless decriminalisation is not the answer, for this is not a victimless crime. Those who use prostituted women are party to a system of enslavement, which brings women from poorer parts of the world to be multiply raped on a daily basis, which keeps women drug addicted to blot out the realities of their experiences, and which causes adult victims of sexual abuse trapped in a cycle of negative sexual relations."

This is true in some cases, but not all. Yet these people can only see in black and white. Sexual slavery involving rape is not even the same thing as a drug addict turning a trick or two for a fix. It's not the same for men on heroin, they tend to do other things to supply their expensive habits as they do not having this option.

The phenomena of human trafficking for sexual slavery of course needs to be addressed. But it should be done from the framework of fighting all forms of forced or debted labour that migrant workers endure, not only sex slavery. Along with this should come opposing the immigration controls that encourage criminals to transport and exploit vulnerable economic migrants. Tackling trafficking should not be used as an excuse to clamp down on all sex workers by painting them all as slaves, as is done so often. This is a classic example of where the lines are blurred between consensual sex and what is effectively rape.

This group makes little noise about the migrant workers enslaved in other industries who have zero resources and and no recourse to the authorities as they may face deportation. Such was the case with the Chinese cockle pickers who died, most of whom were working under debted labour for a gangmaster. Yet nobody is calling for a clampdown on the fishing industry.

I also note that no mention is made of gay male prostitutes or rent boys. Typical. Just like victim feminist dicussions on porn never mention gay porn, or they know their position would come flying down.

Those prostituted women who believe that they are freely “choosing” to sell sex are not criminalised by the SSP’s position but can access the resources they need to stay safe and reduce ill health. Therefore there needs to be resources in place so that all prostituted women can access the required resources they need without fear of reprisals or criminalisation.

Now this is my favourite. Those 'prostituted' (sic) women who 'believe' that they are freely "choosing" to sell sex? This in effect means that they are not really choosing freely, they only believe they are. In which case either they are stupid, mentally ill or suffering from some severe false consciousness, unlike their enlightened and liberated sisters in the Scottish Socialist Party. Women are miracously able to consent to having an abortion (not even just adult women, but also teenagers I will add), yet they cannot consent to accepting money for sex.

What bilge, and how insulting to the intelligence. If their thesis was true groups like the International Sex Workers Union or Coyote would not exist, if sex workers were really so downtrodden and/or dumb. Neither would the CIS.

This is not feminism, nor is it empowering in the slightest. It is profoundly disempowering. Those who accept the victim label will be rendered inert by self pity, and those who don't will surely risk inciting the wrath of these would be redeemers (as Claudia once stated).

Resources are already in place under the current system - they can access health services and support groups already without being prosecuted, so they are stating nothing new. All criminalisation of clients will do would be to rip the women of their livelihood, regardless of their wishes. This is why this approach is so elitist and condescending.

The SSP has taken a ground breaking step. While our internal discussions were going on, the Scottish Executive was also debating the issue through a public consultation. While all of the submissions highlighted the vulnerability of prostituted women and the dangers inherent in the industry, the premise of the final report was that the duty of the state was to manage prostitution. In contrast we believe that the paid abuse of women is intolerable and, far from being “managed”, must be eradicated.

Yes, prostitutes are so dumb. They are not only being abused without their knowlege by men they associate with but are also accepting money for this privilege (paid abuse!). Yes, it is the 'duty' of the State to keep these slags in line by criminalising the perverts who they allow to abuse them.

It has always been debated on whether or not prostitution would exist in the socialist society the SSP supposedly dream of and fight for, but to eradicate prostitution under capitalism? Give me a break. Poverty can never be eradicated under capitalism, for starters. The only way you can eradicate poverty is to eradicate capitalism. And without eradicating poverty it would be impossible to eradicate prostitution. And even if you did eradicate poverty - in a money system it is very likely that there would still be a market ofr the purchase of sex. Some men will not stop being alienated and lonely, and some women will see nothing wrong in exchanging sex acts for money. They may like the flexible hours and may not want a regular job. It would probably only be possible for prostitution to be eradicated if the total transformation of human relationships came about that is dreamt of by some socialists. I used to believe in this dream but I now think it is rather utopian.

We want to see a Scottish wide education programme to highlight the realities of the industry and of the experiences of women trapped within it and send a clear signal to anyone contemplating purchasing sex that it is unacceptable by bringing in legislation aimed at outlawing the purchase of sex.

What about the experiences of women who choose to stay within it? No chance of that, as they would demolish the theory and the sickening attitude behind it. Why don't the consult the IUSW branch in the GMB?

It is sickening. The only policy a left wing party should have is the decriminalisation of prostitutes (and support any attempt by sex workers to fight back by unionising). Anything more than that, positive or negative, is just too private a matter to have a party line on. I do not deny that there are many problems in the sex industry. But unlike these moralisers I believe that they can be lessened by decriminalisation of the industry. Criminalisation creates a situation where women are vulnerable to abuse due to the illegal nature of their work. Prostitution laws are similiar in a sense to the drug laws, an essentially victimless crime being made more dangerous by prohibitive policies. The picture drawn of sex workers by the SSP is a stereotype, encouraged by the government and it's allies in the media. Clearly the organised wing of the sex industry has much to do in challenging this stereotype.

Think what you will of the sex industry, it has been shown that criminalising women does not stop it. And what about the proposals to criminalise men for purchasing sex? For a critique of the Swedish prostitution laws go here. Demonising a whole industry where women work and writing off the women who choose to work in it as being stupid or mad if not coerced is not feminist. It is moralistic and conservative crap.

I say no to any prohibitive policies that will only continue to socially stigmatise prostitutes for the work they do and endanger them - and no the moralising politicians who propose them, be they of the left or right.

Meanwhile there are good sources here and here on the attitude of the Victorians towards prostitution. It seems little has changed in some quarters. The SSP seem to have their own ideas about building modern day Urania Cottages, shelters that will reclaim the fallen women for lives of virtue (their proposed 'safe houses' and 'exit strategies' suggested previously).
Hence anybody who reads between the lines will see there is nothing 'radical' about these ideas - they are simply a rehash of the patronising morality of the Victorians.

Pornography, Erotica and L'Histoire d'O

Laura may be right, I tend to go with the view that abusers are made, not born. But I doubt it is down to pornography.

I got thinking a little when one of the contributers to that thread on her blog differentiated porn from erotica. I pointed out that the lines are often blurred, but there also appears to be an implicit snobbery in arguments which are pro erotica but anti porn. Erotica tends to be highbrow material while what tends to be classified as porn tends to be cheaply produced and lacks artistic merit. One person's porn may well be another's erotica. Where, for instance, do Black Lace novels fit in? Are they porn for women or erotica? I wouldn't like to say really. Or what of the French movie 'Baise Moi', containing graphic scenes of sex and violence? It was not generically porn as it was not designed soley for titillation, yet you would be hard pressed to define it as 'erotica'. It's simply a violent film with images of real sex. But those who support banning pornography of any description would be inconsistent if they did not apply it to this movie. This is what makes the proposed law, banning people from holding 'extreme violent pornography' look subjective and almost impossible to impliment (leaving aside the issue of civil liberties). The fact that 'Baise Moi' was made by a woman makes no difference to it's contents.

I had to mention the Story of O as that is one particular work where the boundaries are somewhat blurred. The novel was written by a woman, yet when the author of the piece was unknown her gender was disputed, often by feminists. Part of this was obviously due to the masochism of the fantasies and the totally submissive nature of the female character, whose will ended up being totally broken by libertines of the Sadean nature. But I also suspect it was due to the prurient and Victorian view that a woman could never write such 'depravity', that such fantasies were the province of the male. The virtue of womankind dictates that she must be sexually pure.

This is obviously false as women do have submissive fantasies. Some feminists seemed to buy into the Victorian view of female nature and idealised women the same way that some Marxists (especially of the Leninist nature) idealised the working class. It was a naive and patronising view which was also elitist in nature, implicitly laying down a restrictive code of sexual conduct.

The author of the novel did write it for her partner Jean Paulhan, who was a fan of Sade's literature. This does raise a few questions about how 'in control' she was when creating the novel, but it does not mean she was under duress or suffering any kind of 'false consciousness'. Paulhan himself claimed to have felt slightly disturbed by some of the scenes. I am not easily shocked but I couldn't help but cringe a little, and it was not a comfortable read. But such literature is interesting due to what it may say about fantasy and the subconscious in relation to sexuality.

Such a novel could not have been written in English. It's surrealistic tone the whole way through, along with it's Sadean ethos, put it firmly in the French tradition of erotic literature.

Hijab and Stuff...

I know at least one reason why many young women today reject 'feminism'. Because very often it used as a veneer for liberal busybodies who wish to lay down a code of conduct on how women should behave. It says nothing about the experience of non white women. In actual fact, it can often serve as a thinly veiled (no pun intended) rationale for racism, which most often manifests itself today as Islamophobia.

This post from the aptly titled blog (which references itself to the drunken convert to neo-conservatism Christopher Hitchens) sums it up entirely.

As it made me extremely angry I thought I would vent my rage via a weekly rant.

The post begins:

"Well, everyone knows what Jack straw thinks about women wearing the veil, so I thought I'd share my thoughts.

Whilst I understand and accept that people like to wear various apparel to show an allegiance to the particular religion they subscribe to, the wearing of the veil overspills the religious and even the cultural arena. The veil demands of a woman an extreme form of modesty which both isolates and subjugates her. Anything that does this to women, be it in the name of religion, culture, or whatever else, is wrong."

If she 'understands' why people wear religious apparel then why is the veil singled out in particular? What makes her assume that women who wear a hijab are either 'isolated' or 'subjugated'? She is automatically 'othering' the Muslim woman, hence objectifying her and denying her a voice of her own. Brownfemipower has some very interesting posts and comments following on this very phenomena (i.e white middle class feminists 'othering' the woman of colour, mostly the Muslim woman, laying claim to the veil as the ultimate symbol of oppression). As she states, this is only one step removed from the mentality that was used to justify the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Nice white guys saving the helpless brown woman from those evil brown men (as remember, the brown woman is too oppressed to be able to fight back in any way). She is silenced not only by the sexism of her own culture, it seems, but by her would be 'left' redeemers. She plays pretty much the same role that the third world prostitute has often done for feminists, managing to personify and epitomise the sufferings of the category 'woman'(See link). In actual fact the efforts of Western feminists to 'rescue' these women has sometimes hampered their efforts at self organisation, as they are not always unable to fight back. Neither are Muslim women, in this country or elsewhere. It is an arrogant, elitist, and racist assumption that presumes they are not. If they were not then organisations like Rawa would not exist.

Getting back to Britain - the veil allegedly 'overspills' the cultural arena. What is implied by this? At times I admit I have myself felt discomfort in the past at the sight of a full Jilbab. I used to believe the veil to be a symbol of oppression but having come accross Muslim women who are anything BUT downtrodden I have long changed my mind. And recognised much of it was my own unconscious racism.

It subjugates because one of the many things a veil does is put the responsibility for controlling male sexual desire squarely on a woman's shoulders. She must cover-up or risk being sexually harassed or raped. But it is not woman's responsibility to control male sexual desire. How long have feminists fought the damaging idea that if a woman wears a short skirt that she is "asking for it". As a feminist, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to such a misogynistic view just because some ancient belief system is involved. And I never bought into cultural relativism even before I knew what that term meant.

A case of projecting your own assumptions and prejudices. Perhaps some women wear the veil not because they fear assault but because they are deeply religious, as are Hasidic Jews? They wear some funny clothes, you know.

"The veil also physically restricts the woman. How does she go swimming? Or attend a gym? Or ride a bike? How many times is she denied the pleasure of feeling the sun on her skin?"

Hmm....I suggest you leave that to her.

"Or the friendly smiles of strangers, both to give and receive? How hard is interaction with other women, never mind other men, outside her social circle? How many casual conversation is she denied in waiting rooms, libraries, bus stops, or anywhere else that humanity gathers? How many jobs can't she do? How many careers can she not follow? Just how small does that small piece of cloth make her world?"

Firstly it would have been preferable had the writer clarified as to what she meant - did she mean the niqab (as Straw specifically did) or did she mean the veil per se? Even that is not fully clear, as only the niqab (which covers the face) would prevent facial contact. But if she chooses to dress this way it is her choice. While I accept that not every single veiled woman in the UK may be doing so out of pure choice, it is still not the right of white feminists to presume to speak on their behalf. Women's groups comprising of and focusing on the issues surrounding ethnic minority women exist and they can be built upon.Southall Black Sisters is a case in point. As for integrating - Muslim women are less likely to do this if they are constantly being berated and judged by white people over what they wear!

The fact that Muslim women may face discrimination is not the fault of what they wear - it is a new discrimination, an acceptable face of racism, not based on skin colour but rather on cultural differences. Why should she not be able to engage in conversation? Perhaps, partly because of the prejudice of others? Yet the sentiments above seem to blame Muslim men for the existence of this racism, casting the woman as being helpless and an object of pity. White people are not in any way to blame for this marginalisation that occurs - it is entirely the fault of the Muslims. Neither is the system, neither is racism.

Muslim women (and men) are not generally in a powerful socio economic position. It is futile to focus on the veil as the root of all evil.

"And if the above seems insignificant to you, then just imagine this being asked of men. Imagine it being asked of you."

Shock, horror, a nice English girl like me?

"And I don't for one minute assume that all women who wear the veil, in this country or elsewhere, are made to do it by men. I know the veil is increasingly becoming a thing of choice for women in this country at least. This is because there is much currency to be found in her immediate and perhaps wider community for doing so. And what is the market for this currency? It is a market that trades in the value of women as wife and mothers, and in her rejection of the world outside of this. She is rewarded for squeezing her existence into the tiniest and tidiest image of what a woman should be, and for her rejection of idependence, individualism and freedom of choice."

Funny, but many Muslim women who choose to wear the veil do not fit into this crude racial stereotype. Many of them have been quite independent, individual and make conscious choices to do what they do. They have rejected none of the above. Many have jobs and are not just wives and mothers. Perhaps the writer should get out or at least read a bit more.

"I find such a market as unpalatable as the market that trades in women's flesh and immodesty. The women who buy into this extreme form of modesty are at the opposite end of the scale to the women who get their tits out for the lads. The Page Three Girl and the Burka wearing Muslim may be at opposite ends of the scale, but they have something in common. Both rely wholly on the approval and the mercy of men for their existence. I suggest that either place is not a healthy place to be."

What bilge. Now, I'm no fan of page three either. But to suggest that the women involved 'rely wholly on the approval of men' for their existence is stretching things a tad. They have lives beyond their jobs. And the 'existence' of the shop assistant depends on the approval and 'mercy' of shoppers, the call centre worker that of customers etc in that sense. Not only are Muslim women being 'othered' but the writer also turns her ire and projects her own preconceptions on to the classic group - namely sex workers or glamour models. The sex worker has long been the 'other' of the feminist, the 'fallen woman' being ideal both as an object of pity (needing rescue) and to categorise the sufferings of the female sex as a whole. She has long symbolised the opposite of what the 'emancipated woman' (i.e the feminist) imagines herself to represent and to be. Hence the sense of mission on the part of the latter. Today it appears the Muslim woman is becoming the target - and thus being objectified and silenced in the process. Anything she may attempt to say to counteract it can be written off on account of 'false consciousness' or something similiar (in the 1970s they sometimes called it 'male identified'). I thought such stuff was over. Clearly not.

Which makes me ask why this issue was not raised by one such as Clare Short. She, and other high profile women, spoke out against the issue of soft porn in our papers and how this degrades women twenty or so years ago. Where are these voices now? Why isn't the cultural habit for woman to obliterate their form and turn themselves into non-beings on our streets, as repellent as the cultural habit for women to expose every aspect of their body and being in our newspapers? Why are we struggling to see this as a feminist
issue?

Non beings now? You say it, not I nor they.

And above all, should our media not be finding the time to talk to as many Muslims who are anti-veil as they are talking to Muslims who are pro-veil? Because coming through once again loud and clear is the voice of the regressive over the progressive.

What about those who are neither 'pro' nor 'anti' veil? Is there not room for women who believe it should be purely the choice of others as to what they should wear?

And unfortunately I'm also hearing the voice of the racist who sees this issue as yet another chance for a bit of Muslim bashing. I desperately hope I haven't come across as a Muslim basher here. It is precisely because I don't see a dividing barrier between myself and Muslim women that makes me want to speak out.

I suggest you think again. What you write is patronising to Muslims as you attempt to force on them your own cultural norms and dictate to them what they should wear. You may not see a dividing barrier but that doesn't mean it is not there. It is obvious by your writing that it is there. People are people, and they are not defined solely by their clothing. Clothing, be it religious or non religious, makes a statement.

But clothing does not say everything about a person. You reduce the Muslim woman to the sum of her clothing, which there is a BIG problem with. Accusing your opponents of racism strikes me as being a bit of projection. The whole analysis is way too simplistic.

Meanwhile there is a good story here from a Muslim woman who does not wear the veil herself but has more of an understanding of it than the author of the article I pasted, and does not berate other women for wearing it.

If feminism is to be anything for Muslim women it must come from themselves. Any oppressed group must emancipate itself, no saviour from on high can do this for them.
White feminists by all means should support and show solidarity to Muslim women in their struggles but they should not dictate in a patronising way.

A Heroine for 'Our' Age?

An eulogy from the ghastly Julie Bindel on the 19th century feminist and social purity campaigner Josephine Butler, who was one of the founders of the National Vigilance Association.

It is quite typical for a person who thinks in ahistorical categories to deem Butler's views on prostitution to be applicable to and a blueprint for all times. Likewise Bindel disingenously fails to mention that Butler's opposition to prostitution initially sprung from religious grounds, and a desire to save 'fallen women'.

However, to quote the ending paragraph (Bindel quoting the feminist historian Jane Jordan):

""Butler would find the discussions on prostitution as 'sex work', and the normalisation and expansion of the sex industry today very odd," says Jordan. "She would want to know how we could have gone backwards after the huge strides forward she achieved".

Yes, Jane, it is unlikely that Butler would have understood the concept of 'sex positive' feminism, or would have had much truck with the libertarian view on prostitution. She would no doubt be outraged by the displays of 'public immorality' so common today. But what you and your co-thinkers forget is that Butler and her contempories would have had little truck with you or your contempories either, who encourage what they viewed as infanticide. Butler believed that abortion should only be permissable in the case of rape. Be as moralising as you wish, but please don't be hypocrites on top.


Butler believed that no woman could voluntarily enter prostitution. She could only do so out of either blatant coercion or economic and social forces beyond her control. Prostitution was therefore sexual slavery, and served as a metaphor for men's cruelty to women, and a world full of economic injustice.

This metaphor may be applicable in the cases of some women, mostly the trafficked migrants forced or tricked against their will. But to apply it to all sex workers is far too much of a generalisation, and unhelpful to those who do not perceive themselves as victims.

Even in the Victorian era (when the working class lived in more appalling conditions than they do now) it is doubtful that it could have been applied universally. Prostitutes today can not be divided into neat categories of high class call girls/drug addict victims so it seems therefore unlikely that Victorian prostitutes were simply courtesans or underclass laudanam drinkers.

Besides which, if the working class prostitutes Butler tried to save were all on some level forced (economically), then why didn't all working class women enter the profession, judging from the conditions they were forced to live in? Why was there a ready army of regular factory wage slaves of the female sex?

From a religious/moral standpoint prostitution is really not different from casual sex. It depends to some degree on our upbringing, but people do have differing values regarding sexual mores. Some will flout the mores of their age more easily and readily than will others if they find they don't resonate that much with them. For some people sex is simply more sacred than it is for others. An act, after all, is only worth as much as a person invests in it. Difference say, between, preparing fast food for a stranger or cooking a candlelit meal for a loved one. Or, on the part of the consumer, eating it. For some people sex is always a sacred and romantic act, hence not one they would be prepared to exchange for cash. A woman who is desperate for cash via severe economic and social hardship and engages in work she at heart considers to be against her values is more likely to be damaged by the experience than somebody who considers sex to be less sacred. Women who do not enjoy casual sex and have romantic concepts of sexuality are unlikely to make good sex workers. They will not have the mentality needed for the work. But it is wrong to universalise this and make this morality binding on all women. At heart it would be no less sexist and constraining than the old virgin/whore myth. Yet this is exactly what Bindel and her allies do. Butler could not fully move beyond this, and the dictates of her time probably made it impossible for her do so. Butler was *of* her time, the Victorian era. She was not 'ahead' of it as Bindel preposterously claims.

The mentality of Bindel is no less Victorian than that of Butler. Butler believed that no decent woman would willingly engage in what she considered to be an immoral act. But her advocacy for the female sex and women's rights prohibited her from wishing to condemn women she knew to be vulnerable, shunned and outcast from polite society, as being immoral. Hence the view of prostitution as abuse was the only logical way out of this, as with the other social reformers of her age.

But times have moved on. The Victorian age is now known for it's purient sexual morality, an age when women could not even bare their ankles in public. Hence the sexual views of Butler and other middle class reformers must be seen in terms of their social background and the time they lived in. This can be recognised without dismissing all the causes they fought for, and their campaigning against misogyny and sexist double standards. Butler did the right thing in opposing the contagious diseases act with it's discriminatory nature, and the stigmatisation and despair it would have brought to many women.

There is a good article here on the panic in the late Victorian age surrounding the phenomena known as white slavery, the disputes as to whether or not it existed (or at least it's prevalance) and the formation of the National Vigilance Society prior to the publication in the Pall Mall Gazette on the alleged rape and abduction of English virgins for sale.

Butler may have been a heroine, but of the Victorian age, not for ours.

Porn, Feminism, Censorship.........

Last night I attended the end of a meeting hosted by the Alliance for Workers Liberty on the issues surrounding porn and censorship, in the wake of the government's proposed ban on 'extreme violent pornography'. Some interesting points were raised, including the vagueness of the law. What exactly would constitute the materials in question, and how would one know if they were breaking the law? Could a couple be arrested for engaging in kinky sex and videoing it purely for their own consumption? Some anti censorship feminists raised the view that the ban is not really about sex but more of an excuse to give the State more power over individuals. Sentiments which I pretty much agree with.

One of the most interesting speakers was a gay man who confessed to enjoying S&M. He questioned the common discourse of women as victims, and pointed to the pornography involving dominant females and submissive men. He also pointed to the fact that sex workers more commonly have clients who wish to be dominated rather than the reverse. It is relatively rare in comparison for a man to pay a woman to be submissive. Some of the most succesful sex workers are dominatrixes.

Freud viewed male sexual masochism to be a 'feminine' perversion (using his own language) in which the male takes the submissive position usually associated with the female. Interestingly enough some anti porn feminists have echoed this thinking. Perhaps this is true for some. But what occurs in the human psyche tends to be far more complex than to be reduced to one formula for all.

The same man told of his experience in meeting people who had been in abusive relationships who turned out in fact to be sexual submissives or masochists, they just were not aware of it at the time. His recommendation was that they discover that sexual masochism does not have to entail putting up with abuse, and find a supportive community where they could act out their desires in a consensual way. It was a very interesting observation to make, and an insight I believe to be true in many cases. I have long speculated on the sado masochistic nature of many abusive relationships, and questioned the simplistic approach taken by many feminists towards domestic violence when it comes to women. Camille Paglia mentions the sexually charged nature of many such relationships. This would also go a way to explain why many victims return to their abusers.

This is what makes radical feminist analysis such a sham. Some adherents of this school of thought were forced to recognise lesbian S&M as being a valid expression of female sexuality. But hetero S&M? May as well forget it, as not only would you be backing up norms of sexual inequality and patriarchal relations, you'd also be consenting to abuse. The unequal relations between men and women prevent this from being valid. Besides, we have often been told, masochistic fantasies on the part of straight women do not even come from us, rather they are 'induced' on the part of the patriarchy and thus not a valid form of female sexuality. How patronising and sexist to assume that women are mere receptacles, internalising male ideas and thus having no independent sexuality of their own. And who dares give themselves the arrogant right to define what can and what cannot be legitimate forms of female sexuality?

Both the State and the rad fems would do well with keeping out of people's bedrooms. The rad fems are all the more insidious as they claim to wish to liberate women - but in reality all they are doing is making a new code of conduct that is as constraining as any patriarchal ideology ever was. Female sexual masochism is still a rather taboo subject, and I do suspect this is partly the reason why some women find themselves in abusive relationships where they have little control over what happens to them. The same can be said for male submissives, to an extent. But they seem to have more outlets. Female sexuality is still a bit of a dark area, and some men would probably be embarrassed were a woman to ask him to take on the dominant role. Likewise women may be afraid or embarrassed to ask.

To get back to the starting point - pornography is not inherently oppressive of women. Some women as well as men enjoy it, a factor that is neglected in much discussion of the issue. Why shouldn't visual imagery be a legitimate expression of male (or female) sexuality? It predates capitalism by a long stretch, hence the left rhetoric of 'the commodification/objectification of women by capitalism' is empty phrasemongering most of the time. Katie Price (aka glamour model Jordan) is not groaning under the weight of her oppression/objectification. She is quite happy and doing quite well from it, thanks. The idea that she is any kind of a victim does not stand well with her own thoughts on her career. Capitalism may well market on female beauty and sexuality, but does it not do that with everything? Why should sex be singled out as being inherently different or worse? Most critiques are really a veiled form of Victorian prudity - 'obscene' images offending their taste. In which case they shouldn't look at them, quite simple really. There may be an argument for not having porn on brazen public display lest it offends some people, but let's not pretend there is anything radical about this. There is nothing inherently different about 'left' or 'right' critiques of sexual imagery, the rhetoric is simply emphasised differently. Also the right have, in recent periods, seized upon the liberal rhetoric about the exploitation of women.

Sexual objectification is something human beings all do to each other to some extent. When we see a person we find sexually attractive we initially see them as a sex object, only later do we find out more and see the other sides to them. Women do it to men too - Hollywood actors spring to mind. Yet I don't see men groaning under the weight of their oppression by the evil female gaze.

Sex positive feminism does exist - yet it is given nowhere near the media coverage or has the prominence of the dour neo puritans with their Victorian morals disguised in 'radical' sounding rhetoric. Sadly much of this rhetoric is seized upon and echoed by the political left as well - probably due to male liberal guilt and political correctness. Most notorious for this are the now broken 'Scottish Socialist Party' with their puritanical feminists and neo Calvinist morality.

It is long overdue that the left awake from this. Perhaps in opening these matters for discussion the Workers Liberty group may just be heading in the right direction, although a few male (and female) voices of conservative feminism did spring from the floor.

The issue of the exploitation of women in the sex industry should not be treated differently from the exploitation of workers in any other industry. Sex work should not be singled out for special treatment that thus stigmatises. It is disingenuous to demonise an entire industry and by implication the people who freely choose to work in it by stripping away their free will and making all of them victims. If anybody is forced or coerced the issue is one of sexual abuse, filming it being secondary to the act itself. Otherwise, workers in the sex industry should have union rights and protection given to other workers, as well as respect. Perhaps porn should come with a fair trade stamp, hence that will assuage any worries about the ethical nature of the product.

Against Seperatism...


It was a long time ago, but I used to be terrfied of nuclear war in the 1980s. I remember admiring the women at Greenham, and also my conservative mother telling me they were a bunch of extreme man hating lesbians. I thought she was caricaturising them at the time. But after seeing this piece and thefollow up I see her comments were not far from the truth. It has long been tactics such as this which has alienated opinion from otherwise progressive and liberal causes, and give the tabloids all the ammunition they need.

Yet these simple facts seem to elude the hapless Monbiot, whose male liberal guilt enables him to put a positive spin on this nonsense. As for the 'safe space for women' stuff he can cut out that patronising bilge. We are not children, and not all of us regard the world as being such a dangerous place for us poor little things we need a 'safe space' away from it. So thanks for your attempt at chilvary, George, but on second thoughts - no thanks. You can keep and shove it.

As long as He Needs.......


Reading this story the other day, I was reminded of the fictitious archetype in Dicken's 'Oliver Twist' - the relationship between the murderous Bill Sykes and his abused girlfriend Nancy, which culminated in Nancy's death via a brutal beating by his hand.
It was a similiar scenario in many respects - one of which being an older man taking advantage of a vulnerable young girl.

My initial feeling when I read of Ms Bryl going back to her abuser was one of exasperation. Why would anyone go back to a man who had persistenty beaten and psychologically abused her for so long, especially when she had such a caring mother?

Then I recalled Nancy expressing in the novel the foresight that Sykes would eventually kill her. Yet she still stayed with him. It is curious that somebody expressed the view that victims of trafficking (forced prostitution) bear a similiarity to victims of domestic violence, that they often go back to their abusers. Although it seems far from unlikely, there is as yet no concrete evidence that Beata had worked as a prostitute for the man she was involved with, as was the case with Nancy. But whether she did or not is incidental to the ultimate dynamics of the relationship, although it certainly would have played a large part. I have seen it happen myself - young women returning to abusive relationships seemingly against all common sense, and against the best efforts of family and friends. Not all these women are sex workers, although the illegality of this particular profession leaves women more open to abuse than they otherwise would be.

These relationships often have their own dynamic and they are more complex than a simplistic analysis akin to that of 'Stockholm Syndrome' will allow for. They are more complex than many feminist analysis will allow for, in which suggesting that women like Nancy or Beata played some part in their ultimate fate is akin to blaming the victim. Such an analysis is often crude and indeed unhelpful in understanding the psychology. It is far more than fear that keeps the victim in a relationship like this. The dynamics between the victim and the abuser often have a sado masochistic quality, and they are very intense relationships. In the musical adaptation, after a beating from Sykes Nancy croons 'As long as he needs me'. Who knows, perhaps Beata felt the same way about whoever it was she met her end at the hands of. Perhaps this was why she returned to him.

And in a perverse way men like this do ultimately 'need' the women who are at least on some level 'willing' to be their victims - be it through naivety, loneliness or whatever other factor. A friend of mine, a sex worker, shared with many of her co-workers a crush on a local pimp. I'm certain she even knew he was a brute, he had even told her of what would become of his 'girls' if they crossed the line too far. But love that is young and obsessive doesn't see in terms of common sense, as men likely to take advantage of it will no doubt know. The laws of attraction don't work how we would always like them to. It's quite plausible that many such men will mistake what is adolescent loneliness or neediness on the part of their potential victims as admiration for their superficial and stereotypical virility, as was the case with the cheap hood 'Vinnie' in his estimation of the desperate drag queen 'Georgette's' hopeless crush on him in 'Last Exit to Brooklyn', the Hubert Selby Junior novel.

There will always be some manifestations of the human psyche and sexuality that will be beyond the reach of any amount of feminism or philanthropy, or familial concern.

Male feminists and Bullying......


I've noticed something about male feminists - that when it comes to treatment of actual women, rather than their abstractions and the feminist women they see it to be their chilvarous duty to protect against the big world both of other men and women who may question their ideas, they tend to be quite nasty little bullies. I was threatened with violence by one, and stalked online by another when I dared to question the premises of his feminist wife. Both these events were due to my position on abortion. I have had tons of sexist (and yes, even sexual) online abuse dished out at me by right on males on the web. The women whose honour they were outraged about and who they were 'protecting' did not care about sexism when it came to me, either.


There is a great pamphlet I would recommend. A few enlightening words of experience on male feminists in there too. A pity it is not online, you'll have to order it. Many women who embrace ortho-feminism often have had a bit of a shit time with men in their lives. Perhaps it is inevitable that they attract creeps like these, if it is true that history repeats.

Victim based ideologies attract these men because of the pyschological need they have to step in on a white horse of fake chilvary, and take up this mantra as a reason to feel self righteous and justified in their compulsive bullying of other people, women included. And of course the mantra that 'women are oppressed' (ie victims in need of protection) suits them down to a tee. If this was not the case the need for them and their chilvary would, of course, be redundant. They have their stake in female victimhood so they are unlikely to let the premise be challenged (God forbid by a woman!) without a big fight. Even if these means stepping down off their horse and throwing a few blows at 'non pc' or 'male identified' women who neither want nor need their 'protection' - and even worse dare question their own victimhood!

Ultimately is suits men of this character that women remain victimised. A woman who revels in her own 'victim' and 'oppressed' status and bases her politics upon it is vulnerable to attracting a man who will display the characteristics of a brute - as self proclaimed victims will inevitably attract potential abusers or bullies. He will, of course, claim sympathy with her politics.

Bullies often put on a veneer of chilvary and protectiveness to attract a mate who may be unconsciously looking for such a thing or at least susceptible to it. In the current climate what better veneer to put on than that of a right on male feminist, who is ready to apologise for the crimes of his gender while insisting he is on the side of the woman against the evil patriarchy? It is a middle class, educated and sophisticated version of the brutish Stanley Kowalski depicted by Marlon Brando. And all the more insidious for that reason, as at least the Kowalskis' of this world are open about it.

Lillith 'Howard', Neo Puritanism and Censorship (We're Laydees, You Know!......

One of my fellow bloggers Louise posted on this item today. Save for arguing against censorship and commenting on stereotypes of sex workers (either a drug addict victim or the 'happy hooker' evidently portrayed by this sitcom) she seems not to see beneath the rhetoric of this organisation.

'Eaves' and 'Lillith' are of the strand of feminism I despise and have no respect for - the anti sex puritanical wing, who claim that women cannot consent to sex work yet by some miraculous stretch can consent to an abortion. Yet it seems criticism by those who define themselves as feminists is often done in a friendly, sisterly manner, a critique from within if you will.

I will not be so polite. These people are like a sketch from Little Britain or Catherine Tate.

I shall quote them:

"We, the undersigned, believe that Channel 5’s new sitcom, 'Respectable', due to be screened in August 2006, about women selling sex in a brothel as subject of humour is a gross misrepresentation of the lives of women involved in prostitution. The reality for most women involved in prostitution is coercion, extreme violence, drug dependency, homelessness, criminal records, rapes and beatings - not shoe collections and student loans."

Criminal records? Hang on - these same ladies support the criminalisation of prostitution and oppose the definition of it being 'sex work'. The label, for them, should remain 'prostitution' - the origins of the term being 'engaging in an immoral act in exchange for money. The negative stereoptype which they portray about sex workers may be true in some cases, yet they don't want to see that it is the criminalisation they support and the social stigmatisation with it that leads to these problems. It doesn't matter whether women continue to prosecuted or men, as is the case in Sweden and which they wish to be the case in this country. The result is the same.

"In July 2006, two women in Shropshire were beaten to death in a brothel. By broadcasting a sitcom that makes selling sex in brothels appear funny,
Channel 5 is glamorising an industry that exploits, degrades and ultimately kills women. This sitcom should be withdrawn immediately from schedules and shelved, never to be shown."

Hang on, comdedy can make almost anything seem funny (including the Nazis!). Why is sex so sacred and serious to these precious ladies?

The Mary Whitehouse brigade is out again, with a slightly different tone of rhetoric. Not only this but their Victorian mentality makes them stereotype an entire industry and by definition the people who work in it as being hapless victims, if not on a death wish then degraded and exploited by what they believe to be doing consensually. They are disingenous to use murder victims as a political tool. If the sex industry was decriminalised then it would be far safer. In Germany, where it is legal, the women have alarm buttons by their beds. If pressed a security guard is on call. Yet our charming laydees from the innappropriately titled 'Lillith' would object to this as the security guards are nothing but 'pimps' and exploiters. Never mind the safety of the women, the safety of whom these hypocrites have the audacity to invoke! The safety of whom the values of these modern Victorians constantly endanger by their own tired morality.

What is boils down to is this - they object to any definition of the female on television that offends their middle class, genteel Victorian sense of 'decency, just like Mary Whitehouse and the appropriately named 'National Vigilance Association' of the late 19th century. Why don't they take it to it's logical conclusion and bar all representations of sacred protestant womanhood from our media? By their standards no representation can ever be what they deem as politically correct.

Watch this space, as I intend to write some more articles exposing these people. Or look at their websites and they will speak for themselves pretty much. How such sub 19th century puritan garbage can pass for 'feminism' these days is beyond my grasp.

Because, face it, question them hard enough and all their objections and protestations will amount to will be a cry of 'we are laydees, you know!'