NOTE: This post may be updated in the future. And sorry if any links go dead or to the wrong article.

*

“But the voices of survivors are getting louder and louder.

Their words of the pain forced into their bodies and minds.

They speak of the rapes. The beatings. The lack of freedom. The lack of a voice.

They are saying now, and they will ignore your refusal to see.

The sex trade is afraid of survivors, for it cannot control them”

*

That is why I am so sick of hearing over and over again about how radical feminists hate prostitutes or that we’re a bunch of spoiled, over-privileged academics who just need to accept men’s use and abuse of women’s bodies. I’m told that I should “listen to prostitutes”.

Well, there are more than a few women who are or were in the sex industry and hate it, sometimes enough to become anti-prostitution activists.

I’m limiting my comment on this issue lest I appropriate or editorialize.

I think that it’s important to also recognize the voices of former and current prostitutes who hate prostitution or support abolition. Women in the sex industry are not a monolith. I am not meaning in any way to imply that they support or agree with me on feminist issues, or vice-versa, and I apologize and will correct if I’m distorting their statements.

Regardless, I don’t think it’s ok for them to be silenced or erased. I don’t think it’s ok for them to be considered less “genuine” than the pro-industry voices. And I don’t want to hear about how they must be weak, crazy, damaged, too angry, self-righteous, prudes, man-haters, liars, low-class, naive, stupid, brainwashed by radical feminists, religious fundamentalists or law enforcement, or that they “don’t count” if they’re drug addicts, underage or trafficked.

The fact that these women come from many different backgrounds - entering the sex industry as children or in middle age, from 26 different countries including both the “liberal” Netherlands and religious fundamentalist Iran, trafficked/enslaved or working as “high class” dancers and escorts - should end the lie that certain demographics of prostitutes hate or love the sex industry more than others: that prostitutes from non-Western countries are exotic, erotic noble savages who love an industry that puritanical Western women despise or that prostitutes from Western countries are too empowered to be victims, only trafficked prostitutes from third world countries are allowed to hate prostitution.

When I was doing research (ie, strategic use of google) for this post, yes, I did find a lot of sex workers’ groups and testimonials from former and current prostitutes supporting legalization and expressing their contentment with the sex industry. Their words often appear alongside the stories that I have linked to. You won’t catch me making pejorative comments about how “they don’t count” or are not “real prostitutes”, though I may be unhappy with their individual behavior in promoting the sex industry and I do believe they are in the minority.

There is a common narrative that prostitutes want to legalize prostitution, that they are down-to-earth and accept their status, and the people who oppose prostitution have never been in it and are prudish, judgmental right-wingers. That is a lie, but it is a seductive and popular one.

Erasing and silencing people - particularly when they are in a disadvantaged group - is an insidious thing to do. It is hard enough for those people to be willing to speak, especially in a public venue. Now imagine how it must be to have other people, usually though not always more privileged people, shouting over them and denying that they exist at all.

Both the lie, and the dishonest oppression of former and current prostitutes who hate prostitution, need to end now.

For the record … *TRIGGERS BELOW THE FOLD*

The title of long-time commenter Lara’s first post at her new blog.

I may criticize women for many things, but I will not criticize them for misplaced trust in men.

Little girls are socialized from the beginning to look upon the “right” kind of men as authority figures and heroes.  They are socialized into believing in patriarchy, which is after all rule by men.  It’s a hard habit to break.  I can tell you that from personal experience.  I think that only fear and paranoia are helping me to overcome it.

Feminists have made the point again and again that you can’t just pick a rapist out of the crowd.  I do not think for one second that most victims of rape and domestic violence will put themselves in harm’s way.  (Or most mothers who choose a babysitter, teacher or husband who then turns out to be a child molester.) After all, many rapists and wife batterers are the “right” kind of men, often well-respected, good looking and personable, the ones whose rule we are supposed to accept.

I’m angry at people who are saying that it is the fault of radical feminists (and many of us have never heard of this guy in the first place) and some huge flaw of radical feminism that we failed to pinpoint this guy as a rapist until it happened.  Rapists do not have one ideology.  They can be right wing or left wing, religious (of any group) or atheists, misogynists or “feminists”.  And at the same time, many men who are almost equivalent to them in ideology are not rapists.

I hate to say this, but for all that I or you or any woman knows, that our friend, boyfriend, husband, son, brother, father, uncle, grandfather, etc. could be a rapist. I wouldn’t ever crow at a woman for being betrayed by a man that she trusted.  Until it happens (if it ever does), how do you know?  You don’t.

I don’t think that we can persuade all women to stop trusting men or expect them to pick out the rapists from the nice guys.  So until then, I will not blame women for having faith or trust in men.  I will blame men for abusing their trust.

Ok, so I’m kind of busy this evening, but I have not been able to forget the horrible story from downthread.

This discussion thread is women-only; and I would certainly prefer that women, once invited, will not descend into a lot of anti-radical feminist blather. Like most feminists, radical feminists oppose rape and I know of several who have become radical feminists because of their experiences as rape survivors, and I don’t see *any* female radical feminist defending this guy. Let’s not start blaming feminist women for the actions of misogynist brutes, let’s start talking about men and their place in feminism.

I haven’t had time to read the complete content of this post and comment thread at Nine Deuce, which addresses a similar issue. There are probably other posts out there, but I found this one first.

So.

How can we prevent this from happening again? In other words, how can we stop ourselves from welcoming men who claim to be feminist allies but who are really sexist assholes, and sometimes dangerous sexist assholes? Or is there nothing we can do?

I’ll have some more thoughts on this later tonight.

EDITED

More thoughts on men and, specifically, radical feminism: I disagree that extremely misogynist and dominating men would be attracted to radical feminism.  Radical feminism is largely considered the most anti-male of all feminisms, the most pessimistic and harshly critical.  In patriarchy, there are plenty of other subcultures and ideologies for misogynist dominating men to adhere to, for example, fascism, militarism*, most right-wing or nationalist movements.  Even seemingly harmless subcultures like gaming are often brimming with sexists and male privilege.

As for radical feminism perpetuating male dominance, I see it as equivalent to the fact that most anti-racists will not call themselves “colorblind”.  Admitting the reality of a hierarchy or prejudice and pointing out how it pervades almost everything in our lives, is not the same as believing that hierarchy or prejudice is important or just.

Now.  Men and feminism.

I will confess that I’m very suspicious of men who are feminists.  I’m also suspicious of women who insist that certain men - usually friends, boyfriends/husbands, sons, dads, etc. - are feminists.  It’s nice that they’re respectful of the woman in question, but does their feminism extend to all women?  I’m particularly suspicious when it’s a *privileged* woman who’s saying it - maybe her wonderful male feminist likes women who are white, middle class, attractive, thin, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc., but treats women who are not like crap.  No man who treats women like crap, out of prejudice, is a feminist.

There’s also been the question of “radical feminist” men who write about male dominance.  Again, I’m generally upset and turned off by hearing men speak ugly, hateful or violent things - even if they themselves do not mean it, but purport to be speaking in terms of an ugly, hateful or violent patriarchy.  Especially if they use derogatory or obscene words for women, for women’s bodies, for sex and sometimes for gay people and people of color.  I don’t care what his rationale is, it makes me twitch to hear those words coming out of a man’s mouth.

On the other hand, many female feminists who I respect use the same ugly, hateful and violent words in similar contexts.  But it is almost always to describe what they have suffered at the hands of men.  We have so many euphemisms for rape and sexual violence - ravishment, taking advantage of, seduction, lady of the night, etc. - and patriarchy often minimizes the sheer evilness of abuses that misogynist men inflict on women.  So I can see that it is liberating and cathartic for women to call a spade a spade, to stop sanitizing violence and to express the anger and pain that they feel.

However, I am not sure what to say about men who 1.) acknowledge the existence of patriarchy and the basic domination-submissive model for male and female interactions but 2.) continue to put themselves constantly around women.  I am not telling “pro-feminist” men to divorce or separate from their wives or girlfriends, run away from home, or abandon their families.  However, this does apply to pro-feminist men  who seek out women in vulnerable contexts; for example, approaching women who speak about deeply personal and often painful experiences in their lives.**  It is particularly offensive when they demand to be included in feminist spaces and get offended when women don’t want them there.  Why do they think they are so special and that they do not do harm to women?  One does not get a certification for being a feminist and I do not believe that a man calling himself one is automatically immune to his whole life of patriarchal conditioning.  Oh, and if they think I’m a big old bitch for saying it, there is *nothing* feminist about feeling entitled to female affection, companionship and attention.  Many women - and some low-status men - are surrounded by society’s and individuals’ hate and rejection.  And we live with it.

Honestly, I think that to be a true pro-feminist, men should first of all reject patriarchal masculinity.  Yes, they may have a lot of approbation from other men, and I do not expect them to put themselves at risk of hate crimes.  However, if you claim to challenge one of the oldest hierarchies in human civilization, don’t you care enough to … well … challenge it?

Also, men should respect women.  All women, even if they are nonwhite, poor, old, ugly, fat, disabled, lesbian and on and on.  Men cannot be feminists if they evaluate women as objects, as the sum of their external (physical and social) characteristics.  I am not saying that men have to like all women - certainly many women have terrible or annoying personalities.  Though even in that case, they should ask themselves how they would feel if that woman was a man.  Would you hate your aggressive, demanding female boss as much if she were male?  Would you be as disgusted by a slovenly, unkempt woman if she were a man?

And lastly, never, ever assume that you are perfect and incapable of misogyny and abuse.  You may be worse than you think.  And accept it.

*I do not mean people in the military are misogynists and sociopathic, but I am writing of the worship and glorification of war and violence

**Yes, I realize that these women may not bar men from the venue, but I am asking why “pro-feminist” men, who apparently understand the power dynamics between men and women, and the potential for exploitation and abuse, want to be around vulnerable women.

Male feminist blogger pleads guilty to videotaping himself sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.

I’m holding back on commenting further, lest I become incoherently angry and accusatory.

My heart and sympathies go out to the woman in this case.  Though in this patriarchal world it is not likely, but I hope that this man is punished for his despicable abuse of power and trust.

Women are born into and may identify with a culture or ethnic group, which shapes their lives and experiences.  However, because every culture exists in the context of a patriarchy (either it is a patriarchy or it is usually under the umbrella of a dominant patriarchal culture), women are never seen as full members of their culture.

A few examples:

A Muslim woman from Morocco sued for a speedy divorce from her abusive husband in Germany, but the German judge refused, saying that Islam and “Moroccan culture” excuse domestic violence.*

A Hmong woman in California was raped and kidnapped by a Hmong man, who said that marriage by abduction was an acceptable part of his culture.*  The American court gave him a reduced sentence.

The thing that stands out to me in these cases: aren’t the women also full members of minority groups?  Aren’t they - respectively - Moroccan and Hmong, but at the same time saying no to male sexual violence?  I think that it’s partially the racist views of minority cultures that led the German and American courts to condone male sexual violence as the cultural practices of “primitive” people.  On the other hand, their denial of agency to women of minority cultures is also tinged with pernicious, racist-sexist but popular idea that “other” women enjoy being oppressed.

Race aside, there’s also a greater denial of women’s ability to interpret and adapt their own cultures.

This article is about the declining birthrates in Europe.  (Interestingly, there is also mention of declining birth rates in wealthier Asian nations like Japan, South Korea and Thailand, but I guess that most Westerners are not upset by declining numbers of Asian people.  In fact, it’s probably easier to appropriate Asian culture without so many damn Asians around, no?) On page three, the author bemoans the loss of European culture.  But on page four and five, he brings up the argument the European nations with the lowest birthrates also have more conservative ideas about gender roles and women are rejecting a role they see as subordinate and restrictive by electing not to have children.

To Western-centric men, perhaps, the cultures of European nations are defined in terms of their achievements in the arts and sciences.  (And to be honest, I do find some art by European men to be aesthetically pleasing.)  But to many women in Europe, perhaps that culture is not only about glory and genius, but also about subjugation of women, an aspect that they have begun to reject in record numbers.

So, in short, women in minority cultures are not even allowed to object to male-created cultural norms, but women in Western cultures, if they choose to object to patriarchal norms, are a bunch of selfish bitches. :/

*I would also say that these points are debatable.  Since I’m neither Moroccan nor Hmong, I can’t offer an informed judgment on the matter.

Rebecca Mott is interested in starting a self-help group for survivors of prostitution.

I left a few links that I’ve heard of, but I’m sure that the UK feminists know more about these groups and how they work than I do.  So if you can help, please leave a comment at Rebecca’s blog.

*

Joan Kelly tagged me with the seven songs meme.

List seven songs you are into right now. No matter what the genre, whether they have words, or even if they’re not any good, but they must be songs you’re really enjoying now, shaping your spring summer. Post these instructions in your blog along with your seven songs. Then tag seven other people to see what they’re listening to.

Uhhh - my CD collection is self-perpetuating.  I never really buy anything new, because the moment that I feel like I need new music, I’ll rediscover something I haven’t listened to for years.  So yeah.

“Just a Girl” No Doubt

“Happy Home” Garbage

“The Trick is to Keep Breathing” Garbage

“Silence” Sarah McLachlan

“This Love” Elizabeth Fraser/Craig Armstrong

“After Dark” Le Tigre

“Not Ready to Make Nice” The Dixie Chicks

I tag Polly Styrene, Mary Tracy 9, Laurelin, Witchy Woo, Cellycel, Rebecca Mott and The Essentia Sphere.

Um, alright, I’m back (for now) from my unannounced hiatus.

The lovely story at the bottom of Richie’s post has got me thinking - aren’t most of the “bad men” who do awful things to women just taking acceptable male behaviors to an extreme?

It may be newsworthy for a man to kidnap his ex-girlfriend and force her to do housework for him, but it is not unusual for women to have to do all the housework.

It may be newsworthy for a man to shoot a woman for refusing his advances, but women are told time and again just to accept street harassment.

It may be newsworthy for a man to coerce his wife into signing a marriage contract that reads like a porno fantasy anthology (this is an extremely sick, potentially *triggering* link, BTW) but if you have heard about pole-dancing classes or vaginal “rejuvenation” surgery, or even checked out the latest headlines on women’s magazines at the grocery store, it is not unusual for men to pressure their wives or girlfriends to go along with their porn fantasies.

And yeah, you can say that kidnapping, murder and coercion are illegal, but the “common” activities I have listed are not.  However, the seemingly “harmless” activities exist because of the idea that men are entitled to sex and labor servitude from women.  I have a hard time believing any of these crimes would have happened without patriarchy and male entitlement, and without the foot-in-the-door of misogyny that is considered ok.

Mary Tracy wasn’t kidding.

Via msn.com:

Bird poo facial

A good feminist friend of mine alerted me to this article and did a much better rant about it than I will.

In the past, I have made criticisms of white women, including white feminists, who have held onto their white privilege. I stand by those criticisms, but that does not mean that I approve of open season on white women, particularly by white men.

“Your Whiteness is Showing:An Open Letter to Certain White Women who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November”

So, the only progressive women who don’t want to vote for Obama are white? That’s news to me.

“If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama”

Um, I think there are a lot of black and “brown” (and how much do I hate the word brown when used by white people in a non-sarcastic way?) women who are not going to be voting for Obama. I’m sure there are some who are offended and angry by the stuff that has gone on during the primary. (Including me.) Whenever I’ve watched Clinton rallies on TV, there are always quite a few nonwhite people, including nonwhite women in the audience. There are also some who are Republicans - do you think that Condoleeza Rice and Michelle Malkin will be voting for Obama? Or does not supporting Obama erase our nonwhiteness?

“Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman”

Funny, but this nonwhite woman was damn offended by the misogynist garbage of the primary, and a good deal of the sexism cuts across race. I’ve also been offended by sexist slurs on Clinton, like calling her a “white bitch”, that dress themselves up in progressivism as attacks on her whiteness. (And funny that no white man would ever have to put up with that.) I’m not fooled.

For the record, I do feel just as much anger about sexism as I do about racism.

“You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she’s progressive, and she’s a feminist“

Ta-da!!

“See, I told you your whiteness was showing“

WTF? This is creepy and juvenile - it’s like “I see Paris, I see France, I can see your underpants.”

“How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate–Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line–and yet, apparently can’t bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal–this sudden line in the proverbial sand–other than as a racist slap at a black man?“

Maybe because none of them were running against serious female candidates (I know that Carol Mosely Braun ran in 2004, but she dropped out pretty quickly and did not poll well IIRC), and had the opportunity to sling sexist mud at one? And some feminists were angry at John Edwards, who is white, for his early comments on Clinton’s ambiguously emotional statement. But he dropped out before the media sexism went into full swing.

A good deal of the anger that women and feminists have about this campaign is not necessarily about Obama, but about the progressive male silence on and participation in this horrible misogyny. They’ve not held back on attacking the exclusively white male Clinton bashers on MSNBC.

I’m not denying that racism may play a role in men’s and women’s decisions to vote for Obama. But on the other hand, I will not deny that sexism plays a role in their decision to vote for Clinton.

“black folks would have sucked it up, like they’ve had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that“

And how do you know? What, are black people more virtuous as a group than white women? (Never mind that both groups are, uh, human - which means they are “good” and “bad”, selfish and compassionate.) Maybe some of them would have been angry, felt that Obama had faced too much racism in his bid, felt that Clinton had not challenged the racism enough or had even taken advantage of it, and would have been like, I don’t want to support her if she’s the nominee.

Funny, too, that nonwhite has morphed into black and brown has morphed into black.

*

And hell, this isn’t about the primary. (As an aside, I will not accept derailing comments about the primary.)

I am so sick and tired of “progressive”, “antiracist”, “feminist” white men who knowingly or unknowingly silence nonwhite women. Our femaleness is erased, for it is assumed that we feel more solidarity with nonwhite men than we do with white women. Maybe some of us do, but it’s damned offensive to make that assumption, particularly if you are looking down from white and male privilege.

They stand for nonwhite women as virtuous victims, not as the individuals, good and bad, that we actually are. Even if they are “progressive” and “feminist” and “anti-racist”, they still feel ok with making gross generalizations about us and using us as props and proxies so that they look more enlightened. They still feel ok with erasing the many, many nonwhite women who do not fit their beloved stereotypes. Or maybe, from the position of their privilege, they do not see that we exist at all.

Furthermore, white women’s views may be colored (no pun intended) by resentments about sexism and men that white men will never understand. Nor do they seem interested in it.

As a feminist, I do not consider sexist attacks on white women an acceptable “defense” against racism.